tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62464446624928681632024-03-27T10:54:09.741-05:00Ciceronianus; causidicusA CICERONIAN LAWYER'S MUSINGS ON LAW, PHILOSOPHY, CURRENT AFFAIRS, LITERATURE, HISTORY AND LIVING LIFE SECUNDUM NATURAMciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.comBlogger593125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-63855170046897315912024-03-26T15:47:00.016-05:002024-03-27T10:53:31.762-05:00Politics and Zugzwang<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAzJIhm0A0HbPS8gu1gBMN36V9EB__yMWyPjo8ToJYp1FhFZVcyh_tpjcoNpRLLv2BllbzNgi0nV5san5gFgB0qh1aAL4SVFiyzuNfFtk_-yXkfYunX9ZI2RRH63ZgNdS6_gtCAjFGIKI8L4EWP2HwsF4yjdw9MPYLjsFde23vBhiJEzvjyHDcI0PYOg/s535/Zugzwang_in_chess.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="535" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAzJIhm0A0HbPS8gu1gBMN36V9EB__yMWyPjo8ToJYp1FhFZVcyh_tpjcoNpRLLv2BllbzNgi0nV5san5gFgB0qh1aAL4SVFiyzuNfFtk_-yXkfYunX9ZI2RRH63ZgNdS6_gtCAjFGIKI8L4EWP2HwsF4yjdw9MPYLjsFde23vBhiJEzvjyHDcI0PYOg/s320/Zugzwang_in_chess.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />As I've noted in the past, zugzwang in chess refers to a position in which the player obligated to make a move cannot do so without being placed at a disadvantage, which may be serious or even "fatal." An example of zugzwang appears above.<p></p><p>I've also opined in the past that a particular presidential election was similar to zugzwang in chess, as any vote--at least for a candidate likely to win--placed the voter at a disadvantage. Are we in a similar situation as to the presidential election coming in November? Probably, though I think the disadvantages which will result if one of the candidates is elected will far exceed those which will result from the election of the other. But I begin to wonder whether zugzwang has come to characterize or will characterize most if not all elections in our Glorious Union. In other words, I begin to wonder whether any choice to be made in any election will necessarily be disadvantageous.</p><p>That's a rather broad and gloomy statement, I know. But our politics and politicians have become so debased I fear it is or will be true.</p><p>I think we have to acknowledge that there is less and less about our politics which makes worthy people interested in participating in it. In fact, it has become so divisive, rancorous and corrupt that anyone with morals or intelligence will want to avoid any involvement in what is becoming to seem a cesspool. We see even veteran members of Congress, who should be hardened souls, eager to escape the circus it's become.</p><p>The proceedings in Congress are already largely futile on important issues, as there is little urge to compromise or, it seems, even to govern if that means reasonably accommodating conflicting interests and positions, which is to be expected in any functioning democracy or republic. Those who've noticed the anti-democratic leanings of many politicians on the right and fear their prominence may be prescient. Those who think they know and serve the will of God, or what is truly good and right, have no patience with doubt or questions and won't compromise. The simple-mindedness which underlies such intolerance is spreading. People want to be told what to do. Most of all, I believe, people don't want to think unless they must do so--it's better if others do the thinking for them.</p><p>As Congress fails to govern, people will look for other ways to "get things done." They'll find someone who will at least appear to "make the trains run on time."</p><p>If the worthy among us refuse to participate actively in the politics of our Great Republic, the unworthy will quickly take their place. The venal, the fanatic, the ignorant, the stupid will run for office or determine who will or will not be candidates for them, or obtain them. Elections and the governmental bodies which those elected will grace with their presence will become freak shows of sorts. The performers in the shows will be the scraps and leavings of our population, thralls to the rich or corporations, or grim and stunted followers of intolerant ideologies or political "leaders."</p><p>It's an old story. We've seen it all before. Though we know the past, we may still be doomed to repeat it, as we don't change or refuse to do so.</p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-39230416301087096922024-03-19T10:48:00.003-05:002024-03-19T10:48:47.023-05:00About the Great American Novel<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVaRpV7oUhBVZD5V33jIz_2GwjT4V6HRCiUBrrZlgtgqBeoHaZv58dk3PGvNMtr-NScfB-Yj_HBi1oARUgV2CQCcRIB1xYVO4jRZ-DPHgM2U7gnq_5DB2CdfWFmqRw4NW31okiHj_4tLLv8UAKO0pT4yoXdvzIIidB927TpuT8T03e-2p-ITWkCLJvzg/s1600/90625-Ernest-Hemingway-Quote-All-modern-American-literature-comes-from.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVaRpV7oUhBVZD5V33jIz_2GwjT4V6HRCiUBrrZlgtgqBeoHaZv58dk3PGvNMtr-NScfB-Yj_HBi1oARUgV2CQCcRIB1xYVO4jRZ-DPHgM2U7gnq_5DB2CdfWFmqRw4NW31okiHj_4tLLv8UAKO0pT4yoXdvzIIidB927TpuT8T03e-2p-ITWkCLJvzg/s320/90625-Ernest-Hemingway-Quote-All-modern-American-literature-comes-from.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p><i>The Atlantic </i>recently published a list of 136 books under the title <i>The Great American Novels: 136 books that made America think. </i>It focused on books published in the last 100 years. I thought it somewhat disappointing. I thought it puzzling. </p><p>I'm disappointed by the fact that I must admit that I've only read 7 of the 136 "Great American Novels." It's true that as I've grown older, I've become less inclined to read novels, except as a means of escape from these dark times. A novel need not be great to provide such escape. I'm puzzled because it seems that these "Great American Novels" according to the magazine itself are not Great American Novels as I conceive them to be. </p><p>Clearly, as I haven't read most of the novels on the list, I may be unqualified to opine on whether they're great, or American, or either or both. But the problem I have arises from the way in which they're characterized by <i>The Atlantic</i> as "Great American Novels." They're described as novels <i>that made America think.</i> In what sense does that make them "Great American Novels"?</p><p>I think it's probable that there are and have been novels that "made America think" that aren't about America or Americans, and were not written by Americans. Shouldn't they be "Great American Novels" as well, given such a definition? Is <i>War and Peace</i> a Great American Novel? Something by Proust? If not, why not?</p><p>Wouldn't the definition of a "Great American Novel" make more sense if it comported more directly with the qualifying word "American"? Obviously, a novel may be great and have nothing to do with America or Americans or be written by an American. </p><p>I assume that the authors of the books on the list are all Americans. Is the fact that a great novel is written by an American sufficient to make it a "Great American Novel"? Why wouldn't it be instead a great novel written by an American? In what sense are <i>A Wizard of Earthsea </i>and <i>The Dispossessed</i> Great <i>American </i>Novels, if not for the fact that they were written by Ursula Le Guin and Octavia Butler, both Americans? The stories told in each don't even take place on Earth. Is it claimed that they deal with themes that are uniquely American? How do we determine what those are in the first place?</p><p><i>Huckleberry Finn, </i>referred to by Hemingway as the source of modern American fiction in the quote above, is easily identifiable as an American novel. It was written by an American, the story told takes place in America and it deals with what is unquestionably a uniquely American subject matter. The same can be said of John Steinbeck's <i>The Grapes of Wrath </i>and other novels, each arguably "great."</p><p>If we are to speak of Great <i>American</i> Novels, it would seem to make far more sense to define them as those involving America, which take place in America, deal with themes identifiably if not exclusively American and are written by Americans. To define them as those novels which made America think seems not to define them at all in any useful sense, unless Americans think differently than others do and about things others don't think of, which strikes me as a difficult claim to make.</p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-66406582484922871722024-03-12T15:10:00.003-05:002024-03-13T09:57:27.778-05:00The Great, Global Video Landfill<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZm3DnfQNqUwaxFqiehEhVSbKQYqEg2F7xigxjlFZOQX7UiAKMWyo4MrfJZmejNYRbt3Kzkd9TV7XpfLxcaqSW7T0yWbzFze3i-TohVG0k9cbHvWyTNrTafoQ6nvrC1CkKiUIHY4VwmD4wedKe8DzHIL0YzTsgV4-qC7wg38Tj9Fvu7Au4b7FwW5wejw/s648/Landfill.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="486" data-original-width="648" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZm3DnfQNqUwaxFqiehEhVSbKQYqEg2F7xigxjlFZOQX7UiAKMWyo4MrfJZmejNYRbt3Kzkd9TV7XpfLxcaqSW7T0yWbzFze3i-TohVG0k9cbHvWyTNrTafoQ6nvrC1CkKiUIHY4VwmD4wedKe8DzHIL0YzTsgV4-qC7wg38Tj9Fvu7Au4b7FwW5wejw/s320/Landfill.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">What better way is there to describe the phenomenon known as YouTube? A vast dumping ground used by the human race as a place to put <i>everything. </i>Not just garbage, though there is no doubt garbage aplenty, but everything that we take the trouble to commit to video and then install there, probably forever or as near to forever we can achieve.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Garbage itself need not be worthless. Sometimes, items of value are put in landfills, on purpose or by error. Most items found in them at least <i>were</i> valued at one time, or contained what was valued by someone and then used or broken, or aged or became beyond repair. In time it like other landfills will be the delight of archaeologists and anthropologists, or perhaps even extraterrestrials eager to learn about us after we've killed each other or are wiped out by natural disasters.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There's no denying its fascination. It's similar to the Internet or the Web or whatever it's appropriately called, in that you will find what you search for, no matter how trivial or exotic it may be (well, within certain limits). I've found much related to history and my other interests, and I've hardly explored it. But matters of historical interest must make up only a small portion of what's been dumped there and may be viewed at our pleasure at any time. Episodes or portions of episodes of series available through other media are there; performances of all kinds; commentary on films, politics and other things by anyone who knows how to post to it....in fact, <i>anything </i>by anyone who knows how to post to it, regardless of its content or quality. Videos regarding aircraft, ships, cars, cats, aliens, created by people who may or may not know something about what it is they upload. Or is it download?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">That is a concern, or should be. The extent of the expertise of those who purport to be experts on what they put in the landfill, verification of what is claimed, what's motivated them, the veracity of what you see, are not delved into or expressed, in most cases. If such things matter to you, they're your concern. You must make the effort to determine the quality and truthfulness of what you see. I suspect few are inclined to make that effort.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Some of what you see clearly constitute opinion. There are several devoted to reviews of TV series and movies, which are amusing though generally negative. The ones I've seen are especially critical of productions deemed "woke" or which appear to go out of their way to feature characters which are of all races and sexual preferences, at the same time damning traditional masculine characteristics. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I've written before of my distaste for those I consider media missionaries; those who seem to feel a need to teach or show the less enlightened among us what is proper, regardless of the content of the works they seek to dramatize. Regardless of the Lore, as it's called in the case of the sometimes obsessively liked books like <i>Lord of the Rings</i>, for example. I feel a certain sympathy for critics who complain of gratuitous modification of great stories for missionary purposes of this kind.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But there's nothing I've seen to indicate that these critics are particularly knowledgeable, or that they should be watched or listened to, beyond perhaps the number of views they've accumulated. Why shouldn't that be enough to qualify them for what it is that they do, which I would say is entertain, nothing more, nothing less?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As to such things I'm inclined not to take them very seriously. What interests me about them is not their content, but what it is that motivates people to make them and put them on YouTube and to watch them. I think it gives the creators, rather than the watchers, a feeling that they attain a certain fame, or perhaps even immortality given the fact that as far as I'm aware, once you're there on the Web you can never be completely deleted. I don't think this conceit is disgraceful. I'm aware of the fact that this blog may be considered my own effort to attain something similar, though I know that the number of views it's had is exceedingly small in comparison with those of any given cat video, which makes that most unlikely.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As to other things we see in the landfill, or on the Web, or in social media, they're to be taken seriously to the extent they influence others. Those who make them are known now as "Influencers" apparently. And those who watch or read or hear them are so easily influenced, that what they seek to influence and the reasons why they do so must be of concern. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We as a species are so likely to make mistakes that the more of us there are, and the more that we're able to influence others, the more the mistakes we'll make in number and in severity. It's curious that information and knowledge are so easily and widely available through technology, and yet we seem the worse for it. It was once thought that the better educated and informed we become, the better we will be. We seem to be determined to establish that is not the case, however. Disinformation is as or even more likely to be accessed on YouTube or other sources, of course. But information itself can be dangerous if unfiltered and unrestricted.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><br /> <p></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-52800237491549864122024-03-04T16:25:00.022-06:002024-03-05T14:52:42.700-06:00Dicta and Dictatorship<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_l97wb4-o_cvAccwKAx4Eg6g9LpxIyf93Y6ysLlNXQjXcVAJK4tWmpfDzasrHq7scVJuK4hCoeZ3Ty1BocuXvQEFv20mFnmSPNLcDIW8KTD4J6JpmMQtnb_AcATaAmevH6dFwp8095osU72x1m_gLA1y1pBZY7orkBdMWRexZlqsoDr8BI4iP7_CppA/s1200/1200x1200bb.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_l97wb4-o_cvAccwKAx4Eg6g9LpxIyf93Y6ysLlNXQjXcVAJK4tWmpfDzasrHq7scVJuK4hCoeZ3Ty1BocuXvQEFv20mFnmSPNLcDIW8KTD4J6JpmMQtnb_AcATaAmevH6dFwp8095osU72x1m_gLA1y1pBZY7orkBdMWRexZlqsoDr8BI4iP7_CppA/s320/1200x1200bb.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><br /></p>It seems to me that the majority of the current Justices of our Supreme Court are inclined to transcend, to put it kindly, the cases before them. That is to say, they aren't afraid to do more than is required of them from the standpoint of the law, strictly speaking, but rather tend in addition to do and say what they nonetheless deem it appropriate for them to do and say. This kind of conduct is something former, liberal, Justices were accused of by conservative commentators. <p></p><p>Consider the recent decision regarding the action of the Colorado Supreme Court in disqualifying a candidate for the presidency from appearing on the ballot in that State under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That Section states that those who engage in an insurrection contrary to the oaths of office they took to the Federal and State constitutions are disqualified from running from such an office in the future. SCOTUS struck the Colorado decision down. All nine of the Justices thought it appropriate to do so, but some of them thought that the opinion could do so by simply holding that the States cannot enforce Section 3 except with respect to disqualification from State offices. The opinion does much more than that. It contains language indicating that Section 3 can be enforced only if Congress passes legislation providing for its enforcement. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress passed legislation providing for the disqualification of non-legislative office holders and members of Congress. No legislation has been passed regarding disqualification when it comes to the office of president, however. The majority of the Justices apparently think such legislation is needed before such disqualification may be enforced.</p><p>Four of the Justices thought this additional language regarding the need for legislation to enforce Section 3 is the result of the court indulging in rendering an opinion, or commenting, on matters not necessary to the decision of the court.</p><p>In the wide, wonderful world of the law in our Great Republic, a distinction is made between language in caselaw which constitutes the holding of a court, and what is called <i>dicta. </i>Generally speaking, <i> dicta </i>is language in an opinion which isn't necessary to resolve the case before the court. It may be a comment, an observation, a suggestion, or mere declamation. <i> </i>Because it isn't necessary to the holding of the court, and thus the resolution of the case, <i>dicta </i>need not be followed by other courts. It doesn't create precedent. It's merely persuasive, if anything. What is precedent is the holding itself, and the reasoning needed to arrive at it. To give that reasoning its lovely Latin name, the <i>ratio decidendi.</i></p><p>It's important to determine whether statements in the opinion that Congressional legislation is required before there can be disqualification from the office of president is <i>dicta</i> or binding precedent. Five of the Justices claim, in responses to the concurring opinions, that the statements are part of the reasoning required to strike down the action of the Colorado Supreme Court. This doesn't mean it isn't <i>dicta,</i> however.</p><p>If it isn't <i>dicta</i>, then it appears that it's not yet possible for someone to be disqualified from the presidency. There must be Congressional legislation before that can be done. In the interim, Section 3 doesn't apply. </p><p>It would seem the language of Section 3 is sufficiently clear that additional legislation, saying essentially the same thing, isn't needed for it to apply. In fact, in taking the position that more legislation in effect parroting Section 3 is necessary the five Justices render Section 3 superfluous, contrary to rules of construction of statutory law.</p><p>More significant, though, is the fact that the Congressional legislation supposedly required may never be adopted. So, nobody running for president may ever be disqualified from doing so by Section 3. A candidate for president may engage in insurrection and not be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment, for now.</p><p>By requiring further legislation specific to the office of president, SCOTUS runs the risk of making the application of Section 3 to the presidency a political decision. In the decadent state of our government, it's easy enough to envision members of Congress fearful of adopting such legislation because it may be used against their party's presidential candidates.</p><p> In the decadent state of the law, a candidate for president, or one who wins the presidency, isn't disqualified by engaging in insurrection despite the clear language of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decadent state of our society, a candidate's supporters may engage in insurrection and it won't prevent the candidate from being president, even if the candidate encouraged it.</p><p> </p><p><i><br /> </i></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-33659165264760109142024-02-21T16:26:00.044-06:002024-02-23T10:04:19.388-06:00Oh, He Comes From Alabama With A Bible On His Knee<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNQg5zf46RRBo1iQ_5qB4m1evANEyXT0RgxLWV_fWui7KH76gj_hV0bVmMDUhKmjCkbWL9zro1tL3rvD-bVVfPQ5Liz38sKFJK79bEI1mrgOwr2RfFjFTaSFNaOc05qxQRV5x07k4FGLmzfKEts3yDdit3I816-KVlndxon7EHZh3bzxB8LQ9d7ANQGQ/s760/Blastocyst-Hero.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="446" data-original-width="760" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNQg5zf46RRBo1iQ_5qB4m1evANEyXT0RgxLWV_fWui7KH76gj_hV0bVmMDUhKmjCkbWL9zro1tL3rvD-bVVfPQ5Liz38sKFJK79bEI1mrgOwr2RfFjFTaSFNaOc05qxQRV5x07k4FGLmzfKEts3yDdit3I816-KVlndxon7EHZh3bzxB8LQ9d7ANQGQ/s320/Blastocyst-Hero.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Once again, I'm unable to resist giving a silly title to a post.<div><br /></div><div>A great deal is being written and said about the recent decision of the Alabama Supreme Court in the case of <i>Burdick-Aysenne et al v. The Center for Reproductive Medicine, et al</i>, involving frozen human embryos. This post relates to the opinion in that case, but not in any significant respect to the majority opinion, concurring opinion or that of the dissent. Far more interesting to me is the "special concurrence" of the Chief Justice of that court. <p></p><p>It's always fascinating to read court decisions which manage to "grab the headlines" for one reason or another (can we still use that phrase or is it too dated?). Generally, the decisions themselves are different from the summaries or interpretations of them which appear in the major and social media. This case was one for wrongful death and for negligence regarding the destruction of certain frozen embryos, or the killing of them as the court puts it.</p><p>Alabama law provides a cause of action for wrongful death including the death of children, born and unborn. The primary legal issue addressed by the court was whether "unborn children" include frozen human embryos for purposes of the wrongful death law of the state. The majority found that they are included among "unborn children." And that was, or at least should have been, that.</p><p>Where I practice, there is no such thing as a "special concurrence." For good reasons, I think. A search reveals that it is an opinion of a member of the court which concurs with the decision of the majority, for entirely different reasons than those relied on by the majority. Indeed, it need not really relate to the case itself. It need not address any of the issues raised or addressed by the litigants or the lower courts from which appeal was made.</p><p>Simply put, it may be entirely gratuitous. Normally, appellate judges refrain from addressing issues and arguments never raised in the courts below. Part of the reason for refraining from doing so is that the parties and the lower courts never had the opportunity to consider and speak to them. But this concern, it seems, need be of no concern to authors of special concurrences, and clearly was not a concern of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama in this case, who authored an opinion regarding which "gratuitous" may be too mild a description.</p><p>An amendment to the Alabama Constitution adopted in 2018 provides that Alabama, as a matter of public policy, supports "the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life." This provision is briefly noted in the majority opinion but isn't relied on it to any significant extent. Notwithstanding that fact, however, the Chief Justice decides to "take this opportunity" to address its meaning and legal effect, with particular focus on the proper interpretation of "the sanctity of unborn life."</p><p>There follows a discourse by the Chief Justice 22 pages in length, in which God is referred to 41 times. That's a little less than twice on each page. God isn't referred to except by the Chief Justice. The other opinions and Justices manage to address the case without invoking God or the fear of God, which as we'll see is called on if not summoned in support of the opinion of the Chief. He also refers to the Book of Genesis, the Book of Jeremiah, the Book of Exodus, portions of the works of Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, John Calvin and Jonathon Edwards, as well as several commenters on the Bible. I feel a certain compassion for the Chief Justice's clerk, who may have thought the research and writing involved in that position wouldn't address religious and theological works in such detail.<br /></p><p>Rendered to its essence, the special concurrence amounts to an argument, or perhaps more properly a declaration, that the 2018 amendment to the Alabama Constitution must be considered, and followed, as a religious injunction.</p><p>This is made apparent from the concurrence's conclusion. The Chief Justice concludes his opinion with language of a kind I've never seen included in a legal opinion of any court during nearly 45 years of practicing law. It's so remarkable I must quote it:</p><p><i>"The People of Alabama have declared the public policy of this State to be that unborn human life is sacred. We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness. It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you." Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV 1982). All three branches of government are subject to a constitutional mandate to treat each unborn human life with reverence. Carving out an exception for the people in this case, small as they were, would be unacceptable to the People of this State, who have required us to treat every human being in accordance with the fear of a holy God who made them in His image."</i></p><p>The language is pontifical; thus the "We believe"--he purports to speak for the people of Alabama, much as a pope may purport to speak for Catholics everywhere in a certain capacity. More than that, he makes what is essentially a religious claim, and maintains that all three branches of the State of Alabama are required to follow it "in accordance with fear of a holy God..." Those who disagree with the Chief Justice, it appears, run the risk of being the subject of God's wrath. It seems that there are still those who conflate religion and the law. History tells us this is dangerous.</p><p>I wonder, I must admit, how he defines "likeness." But I wonder about that generally when it's claimed that God made us in his likeness. I can't understand how anyone would want God to be like us, or would worship God if he was.</p><p>I don't know if special concurrences are accorded any weight in Alabama, Concurrences generally are not binding precedent. I hope that this particular one would be considered, at most, persuasive. If it is the majority decision alone that's precedential, I don't think a theocracy has been established by it. One may well disagree with the Alabama Supreme Court's decision regarding the unborn, but it arguably follows from the law of that state and avoids the spectacular excesses indulged in by its Chief Justice. It must be hoped it will continue to do so.</p><p><br /></p></div>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-11288713994260615792024-02-19T15:12:00.010-06:002024-02-20T09:55:46.929-06:00The President as Shill<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYb-D4IMTAlyc9-ugQ37nZwsRc2_MPpcwstE45LGt_kvl2ILSfjVE4nOKh8f2f4nDTecWK4vN62tZem5oCOhRR52Uh-4BgtX90P_3gmuJRg9P_FBwpuCmzLHKCv9nZChUXJ7d1nZroo9-C6GLvXv3ViG2B5LotPqDyBoaHmF6dMVwStT62DbSIlscMUA/s354/Aureus_Didius_Iulianus_(obverse).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="354" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYb-D4IMTAlyc9-ugQ37nZwsRc2_MPpcwstE45LGt_kvl2ILSfjVE4nOKh8f2f4nDTecWK4vN62tZem5oCOhRR52Uh-4BgtX90P_3gmuJRg9P_FBwpuCmzLHKCv9nZChUXJ7d1nZroo9-C6GLvXv3ViG2B5LotPqDyBoaHmF6dMVwStT62DbSIlscMUA/s320/Aureus_Didius_Iulianus_(obverse).jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Shown above is coinage of the Roman Emperor Marcus Didius Severus Julianus, who reigned for all of nine weeks in 193 C.E. That was long enough, apparently, for coins to be minted.<p></p><p>That may be all that transpired during his rule. He's famous, or rather infamous, because he was the winner in an "auction" the Praetorian Guard held to determine who would be the successor to Commodus, an emperor also well described as infamous. Later, he was assassinated by the Praetorians.</p><p>The auction is shown in a scene in the movie <i>The Fall of the Roman Empire,</i> starring Sophia Loren, Alec Guinness, Christopher Plummer, Omar Sharif, James Mason and Mel Ferrer. Guinness played Marcus Aurelius, and Plummer played Commodus, making him appear a lunatic, which he may have been. It was quite a cast, worthy of a picture nominally depicting the fall of Rome. But the Empire didn't fall in the West for about another three hundred years, and in the East survived for a thousand years or so after the West. So, the movie wasn't historically accurate in that respect, at least. I think historical accuracy wasn't all that important to the creators of the film; they probably meant that the auction, being so absurd and contemptible, was a sign of the decay of the Empire and perhaps even hastened its fall.</p><p>H. L. Mencken, the Sage of Baltimore, is credited with saying regarding American elections that "[e]very election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." He would have revelled in the election now taking place in our Great Republic. </p><p>It's a truism that our elections involve the selling of a candidate in remarkably the same manner in which product is sold, and it may be said that the eventual winner of an election has been bought as a result, the accumulation and expenditure of money being essential to our politics. But as far as I'm aware a candidate for high office here hasn't been personally involved in selling products as part of an election campaign.</p><p>Until now, of course. Absurdly priced golden sneakers, cologne, wine, silly cards depicting him as a superhero and God knows what else, all emblazoned with his name, are being promoted by a candidate for the nation's highest office. It's difficult to conceive of conduct which would do more to cheapen not just the office of President but the nation itself. Not even the Praetorian auction can rival the debasing effect of these activities.</p><p>The spectacle of a candidate (a former president) selling self-promoting products of this kind makes him appear shabby. Not that he has ever seemed more than shabby, but this makes him look peculiarly shabby. One understands he has large legal and other bills, and now has sizable judgments and fines to pay, and his unusually gullible supporters are willing to do what they can to pay them for him. But being a shill for the purpose of making money from the sale of gaudy and tasteless momentos is a step too far, or too low, for a President of the United States. He may as well work as a carnival barker or traveling salesman of testosterone pills. It's typical of the man himself, who it seems is devoted to scamming people and lacks any honorable and worthy virtues; this is true. And it seems to have become typical to many citizens as well in that they welcome and applaud his crassness. I suspect beer or some other beverage will soon be sold as well.</p><p>Used cars are a possibility as well, of course.</p><p>Does this example (his and his followers) represent what Americans seem to be to others around the world? Loud, ignorant, bombastic, self-pitying, resentful, crass, out to make a quick buck by any means, pushy, loutish cretins? Or is this how we've always been viewed, and portrayed? If the latter, are we now proud of living up to the caricature?</p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-1802858259437543392024-02-12T11:51:00.061-06:002024-02-13T09:42:38.527-06:00The Agony of the Feet<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfy4aBuFUtQcj7NqM9ixf9kFb_l0E-jFAdp_N8izzgcb7aunaiJMqmbCXbqkpsroEzEG0bHRJqLzM_9RECVTx4ApbD0lw4F7ibjolNPeG3yCaVIZItgA5ko5mwWQ6dfLBh00mQt827_OX8LD5w1ipVqAanO0twOX1GIrgHAkN9l-AY9-Lj_m-bBm4vkg/s1169/Feet_washing_(Nea_Moni).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1169" data-original-width="793" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfy4aBuFUtQcj7NqM9ixf9kFb_l0E-jFAdp_N8izzgcb7aunaiJMqmbCXbqkpsroEzEG0bHRJqLzM_9RECVTx4ApbD0lw4F7ibjolNPeG3yCaVIZItgA5ko5mwWQ6dfLBh00mQt827_OX8LD5w1ipVqAanO0twOX1GIrgHAkN9l-AY9-Lj_m-bBm4vkg/s320/Feet_washing_(Nea_Moni).jpg" width="217" /></a></div><p><br /></p>I apologize. I couldn't resist using the title to this post. It, and this post, is a reaction to the remarkable and disturbing commercial shown during last night's Super Bowl courtesy of the entity known as "He GetsUs."<div><br /></div><div>Commercials for religions are, I suppose, to be expected in our Great Republic, where religion is itself commercial more than anything else. I'm not a fan of them, but think it interesting to consider their merits as commercials, if not as religious.<p> How explain it? For that matter, how describe it? One can see it in all its creepy glory easily enough, of course. It's there and presumably will be forever, thanks to the Internet. Perhaps its should be seen at least once, as a kind of penance, appropriately maybe, though that may not have been the intent of its creators.</p><p>Just what was the intent? According to the Gospels, or at least some of them, Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. It is, or at least was, something the Catholic Church made its priests do on Holy Thursday. I remember it being done, in any case. Not by me or to me, happily. It's not something I would do, I admit, nor would I want it done to me. Leave my feet alone, please, I would respond to anyone offering to cleanse them.</p><p>I imagine that the intent was to make us all reflect on the fact that we're no better than anyone else, as the foot washers depicted engaged in the solemn vignettes were generally stereotypical opposites of those depicted having their feet washed. We are thus all equally worthy of having our feet washed and washing those of others. It's a humbling observation, no doubt. It's also a peculiar one. Communal washing of feet isn't something normally done, these days, especially if it's done by some to others. One would think there would be a less odd way of making the point. HeGetsOurFeet? Why? Feet washing isn't what it used to be, it can safely be said. Didn't people wash their own feet in the 1st century C.E., in Palestine or Judea?</p><p>My guess is that they typically do so now, most everywhere, at least where the Super Bowl is shown.</p><p>It seems not to have occurred to those who foisted the commercial on the millions watching the game that displays of feet washing, particularly lingering, loving washes, aren't attractive to most of us. They may be very attractive to some, but I daresay those who find them so are in the minority. That appears clear from the reactions to the commercial I've seen. Sometimes people are appalled by it, sometimes they're amused by it. Inevitably, the fetish associated with feet is mentioned by some commentators, with a kind of leer or giggle. All these reactions should have been predictable.</p><p>This Super Bowl was in many respects unremarkable, even dull, but for the overtime portion of the game. For someone like me, not a fan of either team and not particularly interested in the much talked about romance which was played up so extensively, the outcome wasn't welcomed; we've seen far too much of the winners already. As to the half-time show, it was very Vegas, but in Vegas that isn't extraordinary. </p><p>But it was remarkable in the sense that it's now apparent that one must be very rich to attend this spectacle. It has become like so much in our society a pastime of the only very well off. That couldn't be said even of the Roman spectacles, which gave the best seats to the rich and powerful but allowed room for those less fortunate. The very rich are very different from the rest of us; Scott Fitzgerald's comment is more telling now than it was then. This is the common state of our social affairs. </p><p>It's is also remarkable, though, because of this commercial. This Super Bowl will be remembered as the one featuring wet, glistening, and very clean feet.</p></div>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-13888959783099811452024-02-07T12:21:00.003-06:002024-02-08T09:21:42.858-06:00Blessings in Disguise<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAC8ZkAAHrzaiO8_1Uy5L71i5aVBrixIw_KduKzowCtPi8EJK1qj5sDTxeRKML3ADoc9GqU5Thg0H7OEnu1_PPcJQz2TJXs2JX6-RgI0D370grU8PFPlZVK68TISpFqD4BrAYQm39moG-UYQr26QZKjC-wi_RrY-L0o5IVUC1YfzvU21oEe1xuKYkm8A/s4181/Overlooking_the_Vatican_City_(5940864021).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2787" data-original-width="4181" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAC8ZkAAHrzaiO8_1Uy5L71i5aVBrixIw_KduKzowCtPi8EJK1qj5sDTxeRKML3ADoc9GqU5Thg0H7OEnu1_PPcJQz2TJXs2JX6-RgI0D370grU8PFPlZVK68TISpFqD4BrAYQm39moG-UYQr26QZKjC-wi_RrY-L0o5IVUC1YfzvU21oEe1xuKYkm8A/s320/Overlooking_the_Vatican_City_(5940864021).jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>Every now and then, I comment in this blog on news related to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ("OHCAC") that took up much of my time in my increasingly distant youth, though it now does so only sporadically. At the moment, I'm interested in the controversy surrounding <i>Fiducia Supplicans, </i>which it seems is a declaration on Catholic doctrine issued with the support of the <i>Pontifex Maximus </i>allowing priests to bless...well, I'm not sure what, frankly. It seems, though, to allow blessings of a sort to be made to couples engaged in an irregular or same-sex relationship. This sort of blessing doesn't constitute a validation of the relationship, however, which remains forbidden.</p><p>I admit to some confusion. I'm a lawyer, and so am not phased by distinctions which may baffle normal people. I can accept that a relationship may be recognized without being validated, or sanctioned. I can also accept that those involved in a relationship may be blessed though the relationship itself may be forbidden (well, for religious purposes in any case--religions forbid so much after all). Sinners may be blessed by my understanding, so I suppose that, if OHCAC determines being in a same-sex relationship is sinful, the sinning participant may yet be blessed by a priest. The problem, if any, arises when the relationship itself is blessed, it seems. That at least is the position being taken by those functionaries of the Church who object to the declaration.</p><p>Let me be clear. I have no dog in this race. I don't think such relationships are sinful. Priest may and do bless pets, which I find charming. They bless things, and places. So be it. I can't recall whether the Gospels or any part of what's considered the New Testament condemns these relationships. I'd be surprised if Jesus ever directly addressed them, as I think sexual relationships and sex in general weren't matters of great concern to him. That they are to Catholic clergy is, alas, all too obvious. This particular kind of sexual relationship is in any case thought to be contrary to doctrine or even Scripture by those who oppose Francis in this matter. </p><p>I think there's a problem with this position, if it is the fact that one is involved in such a relationship that constitutes the sin. If persons A and B are sinners because they're involved in a same-sex relationship, but nevertheless may be blessed individually, what is it that forbids their relationship from being blessed? That a relationship exists must be taken as given; that's why those involved in it are sinners (though they are no doubt sinners for other reasons as well; this is assumed by OHCAC, of course). Is it believed that the relationship is distinct in some sense from those participating in it? But how can that be the case? Without them, there would be no relationship to be condemned.</p><p>I've seen it claimed that blessing the forbidden union would be like blessing an abortion clinic. Although, according to some, a woman who has an abortion may be blessed as a sinner in some circumstances, an abortion clinic may not be blessed; such is the argument as I understand it.</p><p>The analogy strikes me as less than perfect, however. A relationship is not a clinic. If it is a sin to have an abortion, it must be a sin for a doctor to be involved in the abortion as well it is a sin for a woman to obtain one. There's a doctor-patient relationship involved; both are sinners if having an abortion is a sin. Yet it seems both, as sinners, may be blessed. Is it the doctor-patient relationship that is condemned rather than the clinic?</p><p>Well, it's an interesting dispute, but happily one which need not concern us, or at least me, except perhaps as part of the history of an ancient and still in some ways fascinating institution. It's unfortunate that sex is so much a part of it and its concerns, and for that matter its own sins, both of omission and commission. </p><p> </p><p></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-16408127439142277752024-01-31T14:49:00.007-06:002024-02-01T10:07:00.381-06:00Punishing the Dead<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil8ygYkajm_ABlSQshfNnV3HzFo1j4LiJMgzXWgJtmXLSZU1rSLEjyhKa0Ui-KhoFo_wOHwERQ5_eSlodePALnPRjYhJdgXSqBsIgqnI1Mj211qMqL-V8T4iU5xTdsDnhh3BRhdx3OzfBrDClv-3QZCQqONh4sW6p5PHHBp5tk9iTRjvsgTPG4bWZRqg/s640/Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_et_Etienne_VI_1870.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="425" data-original-width="640" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil8ygYkajm_ABlSQshfNnV3HzFo1j4LiJMgzXWgJtmXLSZU1rSLEjyhKa0Ui-KhoFo_wOHwERQ5_eSlodePALnPRjYhJdgXSqBsIgqnI1Mj211qMqL-V8T4iU5xTdsDnhh3BRhdx3OzfBrDClv-3QZCQqONh4sW6p5PHHBp5tk9iTRjvsgTPG4bWZRqg/s320/Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_et_Etienne_VI_1870.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Above we see the corpse of Pope Formosus, put on trial by his successor, Pope Stephen VI, in the year 897. Formosus' body was exhumed at the command of Stephen and tried for several reasons at a Church Synod which has come to be called, for obvious reasons, "The Cadaver Synod."</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">To the surprise of no one, Formosus was found guilty. It seems that an unfortunate Deacon was selected either to represent the corpse or speak for it. I wonder what kind of defense was offered by the deceased. I like to think of the corpse and its lawyer/advocate/representative huddling together regarding strategy or how to respond to questions asked. I suspect their conferences were either very short or very long. I'm ashamed to admit that I've also pictured the Deacon manipulating the corpse as a ventriloquist's doll, <i>a la</i> Charlie McCarthy or Senor Wences, while responding to the prosecutor's examination.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The corpse was duly punished. Three fingers of its right hand were chopped off (they were used for blessing the unworthy). All of the Formosus' acts were annulled, and the body was ultimately thrown in the Tiber, something of a Roman tradition in pagan and Christian times.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This wasn't the only time we exhumed and punished corpses. There are more than a few famous or infamous instances of posthumous execution. That of Oliver Cromwell is equally notorious. After the Restoration his body was dug up, hung in chains in public, and beheaded, in vengeance it seems for regicide in connection with Charles I.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Desecration of the dead is far more common. If what has been alleged is true, then members of the Israeli Defense Force have done this in cemeteries in Gaza. The body-snatching done to supply corpses to medical schools is referenced fairly often in the media, and this would seem to me to constitute desecration regardless of whatever advancement in medical care took place as a result, if any. And of course it isn't unreasonable to claim that archaeologists desecrate the bodies of those they dig up, routinely it seems, despite the fact that it is especially clear in some if not all cases that those who once lived did not want their remains disturbed. Desecration in the name of knowledge has been excused, for one reason or another.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Why punish the dead, though? Why "execute" them? In the case of Formosus it can be said that Stephen VI had practical, political goals in mind in staging the macabre trial. The trial resulted in the annulment of the acts of Formosus as Pope, something which could have been quite useful to Stephen and his friends. But it's unclear why it was thought that putting his corpse on trial was needed to accomplish the nullification. Are the dead entitled to due process?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In Cromwell's case, however (or rather in the case of his corpse) it would seem that vengeance was the primary if not the only reason for the posthumous execution. It's possible also that it was thought that the effort involved in the show was justified as it might serve to convince all of the danger of regicide--Behold, Charles II may be saying, if you kill a king even your mortal remains won't be safe from vengeance!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's hard to believe that it was thought that the dead would be harmed in some way by what was done to their corpses, but this was apparently true in some cases. Native Americans (if that appellation is still appropriate) are said to have mutilated the dead bodies of their enemies so they wouldn't have the use of whatever part of their bodies was mutilated in the afterlife. In ancient Greece, the failure to grant funeral rights and treat dead bodies with respect seemingly doomed their souls to a piteous afterlife. Achilles refused to agree to Hector's suggestion that they each promise that the victor won't dishonor the corpse of the loser. He roped Hector's body to his chariot and dragged him around the city of Troy in full sight of his mother and father.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There appears to be no question that defiling a corpse is considered taboo in most cultures. It must require a good deal of hate to violate that taboo. And a kind of need as well. When the object of your hate is dead, what would prompt you to violate his corpse except the feeling that mere death isn't enough to satisfy you? Death is not enough in some cases, for some of us at least.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I suppose this is another way in which we humans are distinct from other living organisms. We're not content that our enemies die, we wish to punish those we hate even beyond death and have pursued that goal in ways which are highly imaginative. This must be why some take comfort in the belief that others are writhing in Hell, for all eternity. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">What a piece of work is man, as Hamlet would say.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-72007057541660222122024-01-08T16:29:00.001-06:002024-01-08T16:29:39.020-06:00Collective Lunacy<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQKNVFjQIDXmVoA1no4uXgQOp7XKf_W38ncFConCklbG9u4kn4vazh2h25L3gl8wGagjEIB7vLdBhRR3WJt_bBsIQyGx5dhTQC3FHVJXWbxJ-mSmTrav42kVp36e0DAYdWfxrk88_1SdD_hA97Ri7uVZiRZVVrr__gNNhFUvWM34cCvScNSe2oA66Fdg/s316/download%20(12).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="160" data-original-width="316" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQKNVFjQIDXmVoA1no4uXgQOp7XKf_W38ncFConCklbG9u4kn4vazh2h25L3gl8wGagjEIB7vLdBhRR3WJt_bBsIQyGx5dhTQC3FHVJXWbxJ-mSmTrav42kVp36e0DAYdWfxrk88_1SdD_hA97Ri7uVZiRZVVrr__gNNhFUvWM34cCvScNSe2oA66Fdg/s1600/download%20(12).jpg" width="316" /></a><a href="#"></a><br /> </div>There's something about our times that brings to (my) mind the phenomenon known as mass hysteria as well as other names. It's appeared now and then in our history. Most examples known began to take place in the medieval period and have continued since then. It's interesting that we don't hear much about similar events taking place in ancient times. That fact is worthy of study, but not here, not now.<p></p><p>Above is a painting by Pieter Brueghel the Younger of an example of Dancing Plague which took place in the 16th century in Belgium. There were earlier manifestation of that plague, such as the one which took place in the 14th century in Aachen, Germany. A woman left her home in that case, and began dancing in the street (or what passed for one at that time) for no apparent reason and to no purpose. She kept dancing for days. Others began to dance as well. They also kept dancing. It's said that thousands did the same eventually. They stopped dancing eventually, also for no apparent reason.<br /></p><p>Sources tell us that efforts were made to stop the dancing, with no effect. Among the efforts was hiring musicians and (normal) dancers in the hope that when they stopped playing and dancing the (abnormal) dancers would stop as well. This makes a certain sense, if anything does. It didn't work.</p><p>I wonder if that's what's going on in the painting by Brueghel, given the presence in it of men depicted playing bagpipes. Men are shown trying to restrain the dancers as well; but it's possible that grabbing the arms was a part of whatever dance was taking place.</p><p>My favorite historical example of mass hysteria is the case of the Meowing Nuns of France. One of the nuns in a particular convent began to meow like a cat one day. Others began to meow. Eventually, all the nuns would gather together to meow at particular times of day, as they normally would to pray together, one would think. The association of cats with Satan was thought significant. Soldiers were brought in, and they whipped and tortured the nuns until they agreed to stop meowing. I wonder if they continued to meow when the soldiers left, but in secret.</p><p>Then there are the Biting Nuns of Germany. A nun in a convent in the 15th began to bite her sisters, They began to bite each other. This biting behavior spread to other convents, not only in Germany but in Holland, and even to Rome. The Biting Plague continued, it seems, for some centuries. </p><p>Outbreaks of mass hysteria took place later than the Middle Ages. The Salem Witch Trials are considered to be an example of it. In the 1960s, a laughing epidemic broke out in Tanganyika, at a mission school. The students began laughing, and continued to laugh for up to 16 days. The laughing spread to other schools and the surrounding area, up to a radius of 100 miles from the school at which it began. Subsequently, the laughing stopped. The cause of the laughter is not definitely known. I know I laugh whenever I think of nuns meowing together, but stop when I'm distracted from the thought of them.</p><p>These kind of outbreaks of hysteria are no longer attributed to demons. Instead, anxiety, stress, psychosis and such are said to be causes. Perhaps there's some kind of herd instinct involved. We live in anxious and stressful times. The hysteria, or whatever it may be, that spread centuries ago, whether by contagion or some other means, spread in a sense by contact or encounter with other people inexplicably dancing, meowing or biting. The technology of those times limited exposure. There's no limit now to exposure to the irrational.</p><p>So we have copycat killers or terrorists, who may find the details of the crimes of others easily. All of us may witness the disturbing conduct of others, their speech and writing, instantly and directly, no matter how mad, unsupported, malicious, deceitful or harmful it may be. Each of us is our own censor and guide to the lunacy on display, and how will we react to it if we haven't learned to make intelligent judgments?</p><p>To put it simply, we'll dance when others dance, bite when others bite, meow when others meow merely because others are doing it as well. There is safety in numbers, and safety from the world when there are many we can join in disregarding it by denying it and pretending it to be otherwise. Those who engaged in mass hysteria in the past were for the most part poorer and less educated than we are. Their lives were shorter due to lack of good medical care and hygiene; they had much to fear, and there was much to cause anxiety.</p><p>That's not the case now, but judging from what we see and hear and do there's much to be afraid of in these times. Perhaps that which drives people to see conspiracies everywhere regardless of evidence, consider convicted criminals as hostages for no good reason, classify slavery as something which could have been negotiated, and believe whatever it is certain people tell them to believe, is similar to what made them dance, bite, meow and do other ridiculous things. Maybe it's a reaction in response to fear and anxiety which defies reason, and is a kind of escape.</p><p>How will artists depict the collective lunacy of our times? </p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-18311381856769650722024-01-02T16:55:00.002-06:002024-01-02T16:55:50.089-06:00Homage to Cagliostro<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjK2eirQTHbUJILkwnDNHuWBifDhH-8gB4FHiRqO7pmc2WTpSm33H945mhVSrpE-uTBg_bvx9hYDbww9dYWLCGGcisU8CSP81-NKXw7dGfdCeyF4y51R4Mc2s_ZITdNoqo7enl35rm3YtX7ME1RGNVa2G56RyLtY_Cs3uBa5OrkvNrakffj5irCQxgXA/s225/download%20(11).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="224" data-original-width="225" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjK2eirQTHbUJILkwnDNHuWBifDhH-8gB4FHiRqO7pmc2WTpSm33H945mhVSrpE-uTBg_bvx9hYDbww9dYWLCGGcisU8CSP81-NKXw7dGfdCeyF4y51R4Mc2s_ZITdNoqo7enl35rm3YtX7ME1RGNVa2G56RyLtY_Cs3uBa5OrkvNrakffj5irCQxgXA/s1600/download%20(11).jpg" width="225" /></a></div><br />Alessandro di Cagliostro, self-styled Count (and other things), f/k/a Giuseppe Balsamo, 18th century Freemason (of sorts), alchemist, magician, adventurer, con-man, forger, imposter and adventurer. spent his life defrauding the great and not-so-great of the Age of Enlightenment with remarkable success. In a way he makes a mockery of that time, supposedly one featuring the triumph of reason over superstition. As far as demonstrating its lack of reason, he's far better at it than the many Romantics of the 19th century and the postmoderns of the 20th, and their successors of the 21st, who try deny that Age's achievements. They decried the limits and misapplication of reason; he made great gaping fools of the those who thought themselves reasonable.<p></p><p>He's generally depicted as above, either staring up at the heavens to his right or our left, like Mithras slaying the bull, or to his left our right. There are many such drawings, paintings and busts of the Count. Not a bad, or at least not a small, legacy for a relatively poor Sicilian who made good, or bad. He purported to see a great deal up there, but also everywhere else; spirits, ghosts, treasures revealed to him through his own efforts or through those of his guides, generally angels or fellow mages, though deceased. Many believed he did, and it seems he managed to live quite well for the most part together with his wife and partner in crime, Serafina, who it seems was quite as adept as he was in making fools of the rich and noble, though perhaps in different ways. And so, despite being imprisoned now and then, most famously in the Bastille under suspicion of being involved in the Affair of the Diamond Necklace, he made his mark on history.</p><p>He died in 1795, while imprisoned. It seems to me he would have managed to show up as a subsidiary player in the French Revolution had he been free, enchanting Robespierre with his discussions with the Supreme Being.</p><p>It's interesting how much those he fooled so completely wanted so much to believe that he had occult powers and that there was a vast world of spirits and djinns, angelic and demonic, infesting our lives in the here and now and the afterlife. And what a success he was in leading them on all sorts of wild goose chases. Money, jewels, riches of all sorts were his, willingly donated, as it were, by his admirers. He earned the respect and jealousy even of Casanova, no mean scoundrel himself, who knew him fairly well. Aleister Crowley thought he was a reincarnation of the Count, and his misdeeds enthrall us even now. </p><p>His great enemy was the Church, of course. The Inquisition and the Jesuits pursued him and all Freemasons at that time, some even posing to be mystics and magicians themselves in order to learn what was needed to denounce him and others of his ilk. Casanova himself was a kind of double agent for the Venetian Inquisition after he had fallen on hard times.</p><p>Is it possible we owe the agents of the Inquisition thanks for pursuing such con artists, preying on the foolish and hopeful, longing for meaning and <i>gnosis--</i>hidden knowledge known only to initiates? Or were they merely hoping to do away with a rival encroaching on their territory?</p><p>We can't really claim to be more knowing and sophisticated than those he befuddled centuries ago, though. Crowley managed much the same in bedazzling the gullible in the early 20th century, along with Madame Blavatsky and others. The Rosicrucians and Freemasons who delved into alchemy, magic and Egyptian and Hermetic lore in Cagliostro's time are with us still, though perhaps not quite as preposterous in this as they once were.</p><p>Perhaps now we're merely more inclined to fall for other scams, those more secular and political, but still practiced by enchanters though of another kind. Which kind of scam will prove more catastrophic for us and the world?</p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-419515993274539522023-12-26T11:37:00.020-06:002023-12-26T14:44:31.470-06:00The Diminishment of Christmas<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjLXZ1H0pdpaQ1NYPspaZRk89Al3Yjve_994VGIm1CTdlhWjGkbf2MptDxgZ3ApgCQErE3fAxyVHyARb9_r9mYzxDONUU5HL2K8KwCMnGWCf9SoG4mTmYrplC89UN-92ze-Vs_vnEmrE_kepeS88LOLKOO8a-wJxwiN3RH0pGjYerjkM6OCRfFjzI0ng/s600/68454.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjLXZ1H0pdpaQ1NYPspaZRk89Al3Yjve_994VGIm1CTdlhWjGkbf2MptDxgZ3ApgCQErE3fAxyVHyARb9_r9mYzxDONUU5HL2K8KwCMnGWCf9SoG4mTmYrplC89UN-92ze-Vs_vnEmrE_kepeS88LOLKOO8a-wJxwiN3RH0pGjYerjkM6OCRfFjzI0ng/s320/68454.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /> As I gaze on the scene depicted above, presumably a painting of Victoria and Albert and a gaggle of children arrayed around what seems to be a large Norfolk Island Pine festooned (my word of the day) with ornaments, I find myself inclined to wonder whether Christmas has, or should, become unimportant.<p></p><p>Soon Albert would be dead, and the children parented, if one can call it that, by the grim Queen who it seems wasn't at all fond of them or of children generally. Some or for all I know all of the children shown or their cousins would soon enough hurl the world into a horrific war. And each year they would gather around some other tree to celebrate Christmas, as we do still, wars or no wars. Usually wars, as they've been fairly constant since the First World War, which was supposed to end them.</p><p>If this post is noted by anyone Christian and conservative in the vulgar sense the word now has in our Great Republic, they would likely consider it part of the fabled "War on Christmas." But it isn't. The celebration of Christmas is perfectly fine with me. Nor do I have any problem with those who wish to do so keeping Christ in it. It's interesting that Christians themselves may have waged war on Christmas more effectively than non-Christians. I refer to the Puritans, or Roundheads, who banned the celebration of Christmas (along with other things) during Oliver Cromwell's reign as Lord Protector of England, and the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who made celebrating Christmas punishable by fine.</p><p>Of course, Christmas as celebrated has little to do with Jesus. But for the manger scenes one sees in homes or rather ostentatiously in public, there's nothing in the appearance of Christmas celebrations which evokes him. The Christmas tree, the Yule log, the laurels, all are pagan in origin. There's nothing whatsoever even suggesting Jesus was born on December 25th, though we know that date was associated with pagan deities who were said to be born at that time or around the winter solstice, and born by a virgin mother. The date was selected as his birthday several centuries after he is said to have lived, to coincide with pagan celebrations of the birth of Sol Invictus, to name one such god, and the season of celebrations connected with the winter solstice by pagans, such as the Roman Saturnalia to name one of them.</p><p>There's also nothing of substance supporting the claim he was born in Bethlehem. Two of the canonical Gospels say nothing regarding his birth. The claim that that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem for purposes of a census ordered by Augustus also lacks credibility. There's no record of such a census, and the Romans were prodigious record-keepers. And why the Imperial government would have required people to travel to their birthplaces to be counted, with the resulting chaos in travel, housing and administration, is unexplained. Though it may be explained because Bethlehem is where David was born, and it was necessary for Joseph to be among the House of David.</p><p>All this is well-known, though not very often noted. Perhaps then, following Aristotelian or Thomist metaphysics, the claim is that keeping Christ in Christmas refers to the substance of Christmas rather than its appearances. </p><p>But in what sense are the teachings of Jesus followed or celebrated, even on Christmas day or during the holiday season, let alone the rest of the year? There's a good amount of lip service to that affect, but even that seems to be declining. Maudlin Christmas movies, TV shows or stories continue to be shown or read, but this seems to be due to a sense of obligation rather than due to any popularity, and those seem to be declining as well. It may be because of the fact Christmas this year fell on a Sunday, but I saw far more football than I did dramatisations of Dickens and even of Capra's work we all know far too well.</p><p>The fact that families are more widespread than in the past has led to a decline in familial celebrations; traveling home for Christmas seems onerous in many respects, now more than ever.</p><p>Finally, let me put my (Christmas?) cards on the table. I suggest that there is less Christmas cheer or spirit than there has been in the past because people have become less and less likable. Our public figures in politics, the media, entertainment (name them) are craven and selfish, crabbed, mean, angry, rude, boorish, hypocritical, self-righteous...one runs out of derogatory words when trying to describe them. So are most of us if social media is any guide. There is less and less good will being given. There's less and less comfort and joy available. </p><p>One has to wonder whether there will come a time when Christmas will seem surreal to most of us. Perhaps Christmas in time will seem so different from our reality that we'll be unable to accept it anymore.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-46642727538738919562023-12-19T16:42:00.003-06:002023-12-20T14:10:10.924-06:00One Little Hitler<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgthXisjIGODKCR0YGsrv62744vKeG2DL6BOnpxbkvvM8YnqvN4AcGH7RSfFRaQ6m1g9WHLBYl9dgQ5HWrpYHXD_eUAZfAS0blMsO15G4R-RAE5wWh8IbnQn14H1ghi00NAZrqcbKX71dXRp7iBO7Om6Ycgu0J062odO5yjqCmVHQWUADVxSC4MkOwm1A/s246/download%20(11).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="205" data-original-width="246" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgthXisjIGODKCR0YGsrv62744vKeG2DL6BOnpxbkvvM8YnqvN4AcGH7RSfFRaQ6m1g9WHLBYl9dgQ5HWrpYHXD_eUAZfAS0blMsO15G4R-RAE5wWh8IbnQn14H1ghi00NAZrqcbKX71dXRp7iBO7Om6Ycgu0J062odO5yjqCmVHQWUADVxSC4MkOwm1A/s1600/download%20(11).jpg" width="246" /></a></div><br />I haven't been able to determine who drew the editorial cartoon gracing this post, but it was apparently made in 1942. I think we're safe in believing that it isn't, in fact, a self-portrait.<p></p><p>It presents an interesting take on Hitler's popularity with the German people at that time. The slavish figure genuflecting to <i>Der Fuhrer </i>gives thanks that Hitler has saved him from democracy, which is called a scourge.</p><p>The belief that democracy is if not a scourge then a decadent failure as a form of government which should be discarded was a popular one among the intelligentsia of the time, including that disgusting Nazi toady, Heidegger. It continues to be the belief of various right-wing intellectuals in Europe currently, for much the same reasons. Those reasons seem to have their bases in nationalism, the preservation of cultural if not biological purity, resentment and the desire to be safe and secure followers of a national or cultural hero-figure. Democracy is seen as chaotic and too favorable to opposing and unusual views and people.</p><p>One can't help but wonder if that's how many feel about it here and now. Not that our Great Republic has ever been a democracy, properly speaking. But such as it is, it may be that we have come to a point where a significant number of us are not comfortable with it, for reasons similar to those supporters of fascism in the past. </p><p>Others have already wondered whether our Glorious Union is becoming similar to the version of America in Sinclair Lewis' <i>It Can't Happen Here, </i>published in 1936. Comparisons have been made between current political figures (one in particular) and Buzz Windrip, the American dictator in the novel. Buzz was probably modeled on Huey Long, but his personality traits are similar to those of other men better known now than the Kingfish, a Louisiana populist. Buzz incarcerated political opponents, denigrated women and minorities, was anti-immigrant; he was vulgar, vain, outlandish, and a prolific liar, and very popular. The American fascism described in the novel was a great friend to big business. It had more in common with Mussolini's version of corporate fascism than with Hitler's Nazis. Hitler wasn't all that well known in America at that time.</p><p>In these times when political figures declaim, to acclaim, that immigrants are poisoning our blood and are vermin, as are political opponents, the assertion that what took place a hundred years or so ago in Europe can't take place here is less than credible. It's apparent that elections and the rule of law mean nothing to many here in God's Favorite Country. What's next?</p><p>It's interesting that in Lewis' novel, the opponents of Windrip and his regime took refuge in Canada. We hear Canada being praised often in these dark times, for a number of reasons. Was Lewis prescient in that respect as well?</p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-73026008273109643292023-12-12T11:10:00.000-06:002023-12-12T11:10:23.647-06:00The Dangers of Free Expression<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyd_2HUienJRCOOKG-bkZ0nMJiVlC4X2La238SETpf_KjFEkPd5zRDBFxYYRYLlM0my7J7cQYug2SwKf6SvFpqIBm9S-XztB9823Ca5utTUEmrDRydiogzH-jCxKUB7DoRm_iO8xUF1H-ON76WZs22vKKPAcwCA6B_HuGmtM-fOwulx1OgwywWgvY-jw/s655/joseph-mccarthy-at-huac-hearing-bettmann.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="588" data-original-width="655" height="287" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyd_2HUienJRCOOKG-bkZ0nMJiVlC4X2La238SETpf_KjFEkPd5zRDBFxYYRYLlM0my7J7cQYug2SwKf6SvFpqIBm9S-XztB9823Ca5utTUEmrDRydiogzH-jCxKUB7DoRm_iO8xUF1H-ON76WZs22vKKPAcwCA6B_HuGmtM-fOwulx1OgwywWgvY-jw/s320/joseph-mccarthy-at-huac-hearing-bettmann.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Ah, the halcyon days of the House Un-American Activities Committee ("HUAC"). See the giants of HUAC above, Senator Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn, hard at work. Have those days returned, or are they returning?<p></p><p>The People's House, as it is called by some without apparent irony, or at least certain of its members, recently took the opportunity to posture for us by interrogating high officials of certain Ivy League schools regarding anti-semitic speech and conduct if not in the halls of academia then on campus. As a result, certain of them have resigned or are on the cusp of doing so, and the professionally outraged and great donating individuals and corporations are gunning for their jobs.</p><p>It's always amusing when politicians strike attitudes for the cameras and exercise their relatively limited powers of expression on most any topic. But this is particularly the case when self-righteousness is what is on display. To be frank, the very idea of members of Congress inquiring into free expression isn't merely amusing; it's alarming. Their tendency is to regulate, as regulation involves the exercise of powers that, unfortunately, are given them, and except for the acquisition of money it is the exercise of power which gives them the most joy.</p><p>So, any meeting of a committee of Congress for the purpose of exploring issues which may be impacted by First Amendment concerns, or questions of morals, is <i>prima facie </i>disturbing. What seems to be motivating the head hunting now taking place, though, is itself disturbing, as it seems that the sad recipients of Congressional attention had difficulty affirming that advocating the extermination of the Jewish people would violate the codes of their institutions relating to bullying and harassment. </p><p>Calling for genocide would seem objectionable <i>per se</i>. Ambivalence on whether it is in the case of Jews in particular is especially objectionable at this time, given increasing instances of anti-semitism, which is what evidently led to this latest salle by Congress into higher education. One would think that it would only make sense to confirm that calling for genocide of a people is bullying and harassment even in Ivy League schools.</p><p>Just what caused the hesitance and equivocation isn't entirely clear, but it seems to be motivated by the belief that, at least in the academy, there should be few if any limits on expression. Just why this would be believed is also unclear, to me at least. To a certain extent, I tend to blame John Stuart Mill, the author of <i>On Liberty</i>. On the question of freedom of speech, he remains something of an idol. Mill is thought by today's version of conservatives to be a liberal, and therefore evil, but the truth is he was very much a Classical Liberal, which is what conservatives were in many instances in the days when conservatism was a legitimate point of view. He is perhaps more accurately called a Libertarian.</p><p>Regardless, though, when it comes to free expression Mill was unfortunately something of an absolutist. Thus, according to him--"if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."</p><p>There is danger in absolutism. In the case of free expression, claiming that all expression must be free requires the suspension of intelligent judgment. It requires that we accept the view that all speech be treated as equal in value and merit. That simply is not the case, and no appeal to a mythical "marketplace of ideas" justifies such an irresponsible position. In fact, as we should know to an increasingly reasonable degree of certainty, people will believe anything, no matter how stupid, no matter how insensible, no matter how irrational, and once believing won't be persuaded not to believe.</p><p>This is not to say that there's anything seemly or worthy in the histrionics being engaged in by certain politicians and the wealthy as they seek to outdo each other in their self-righteous demands for academic blood. But it is to say that free expression can be dangerous, and isn't always to be allowed.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-84441563992335453542023-12-06T11:48:00.012-06:002023-12-07T10:02:21.673-06:00The "Me" Century<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghjpfSp4PVOboLv9xCVfI242jT2SwLXHAZ9Zso2ZlYqx7hEeHILBldE53VtRn2TI35zqHL4KwkeX4t08ovx4TfWqpIPl5ZxD0ek3NPyGy5gGiLipLFqPLTT47okY3IxV8ENc25nn25RiNRN2sNUaD6kgfNQjgZzqf4RSEqp03ccWKzFVi9YrSmwFqcEg/s310/images.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="163" data-original-width="310" height="163" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghjpfSp4PVOboLv9xCVfI242jT2SwLXHAZ9Zso2ZlYqx7hEeHILBldE53VtRn2TI35zqHL4KwkeX4t08ovx4TfWqpIPl5ZxD0ek3NPyGy5gGiLipLFqPLTT47okY3IxV8ENc25nn25RiNRN2sNUaD6kgfNQjgZzqf4RSEqp03ccWKzFVi9YrSmwFqcEg/s1600/images.png" width="310" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>The late, great and (by me at least) lamented Tom Wolfe wrote a book, or perhaps more properly an essay, called <i>The "Me" Decade and the Third Great Awakening</i>. The decade he referred to was that of the 1970s. The "Third Great Awakening" he proclaimed was a jest he was making based on the (first) Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening, sadly real episodes in American history of Christian revivals led by Protestant Evangelical leaders. Besides the preaching of hellfire and brimstone, our sinful nature and the need for redemption, the fear of divine retribution and protestations of piety, the Awakenings resulted in the creation of new sects and denominations and social movements and, in the case of the second one, the YMCA, later to be lauded so vigorously by the Village People.</p><p>As the quote at the head of this post reveals, Wolfe claimed that in the Third Great Awakening "Me" took the place of Jesus, and we became fervent in the worship our ourselves. He provided various examples of our religious self-love. </p><p>The argument can be made that we continue to worship ourselves, and in fact that we've always done so. Since the 1970s, though, our ability to engage in self-worship has increased spectacularly. Even more importantly, we now each possess the means to serve as our own missionaries, proclaiming our godhood and spreading our good news throughout the world. We may expect that our technology will allow us to do these things more and more effectively. </p><p>Each of us may transmit our thoughts, and expose our bodies and even souls to the view of all, and many of us do so. Such is our self-regard that there is no practical limit to what we're willing to do or say, though we know in the back of our minds that all can be seen regardless of the fact that we seem alone in our room. And it appears we don't care. We feel neither shame nor concern; we have no responsibility, we're not answerable to anyone or anything when it comes to our opinions or our actions which we incessantly broadcast--or at least that seems to be the case. There's no one to question our conclusions or rebut our claims unless we allow them to do so, except in the relatively few cases where law enforcement or those interested in shaming have reason to take notice of us. The number of those of us interested in shaming is no doubt increasing, however. It will be interesting to see whether this will lessen our exhibitionism.</p><p>That this is the result of our self-love, and even self-imposed godly status, is established by the fact that our unfailing efforts to expose and expound our every thought, opinion or feeling on any subject to everyone and anyone can only be explained by our sense of our own importance. What reasonable person would assume that these must be made available to the world at large? A god might do so; also a lunatic, or egomaniac. </p><p>Or can this be explained by another kind of religious or quasi-religious feeling? Might we sons and daughters (or whatever we might think ourselves to be) of Adam and Eve, knowing that we're tainted by Original Sin, aware of our sinfulness, wretchedness and insignificance, be desperately seeking validation and redemption through use of the vast confessional of the Internet? Are we Tommies, like the hero of The Who's rock opera, crying "See me, feel me, touch me, heal me" in the World-Wide Web? Our PCs become pin-ball machines. Do we think ourselves saviors of ourselves or others?</p><p>If we're not gods, we possess the tools to act as gods. We're capable of making proclamations and expressing opinions on every subject, regardless of our abilities, education, experience and knowledge. In a very real sense it doesn't matter whether our beliefs have been critiqued, verified, or made subject to peer review in order for them to be made available (so much more efficaciously than through publication) by use of a keyboard or camera. We don't need such review of or limitations on our expression to be read, seen or heard, and therefore believe them unneeded. </p><p>We can appear to be all-knowing, and act as if we're omniscient, always and with ease. One doesn't have to be a god in order to act like one.</p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-51376785894956507712023-11-15T15:53:00.009-06:002023-11-15T20:40:30.767-06:00The Curious Conflict of the Church and Masonry<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaDDdcZsmHBXNe1sUcqCj7sr_LJ8NWLJNtDa6iuLx8DEVBlYs5PNkd4lf9_Y-zoJ0lzaMWGziXZVxLhr8qZYUo_FjNL70v5aq01StXUatwoVRVswZbYuk887OHLPKDLWm9rZrJXGTYILuGUfxySZi_nG7TKCvrQL1dm5R9KVJarKEqYoZ8U9s7_lYoTg/s1428/Two_of_a_Kind_by_Joesph_Keppler.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="874" data-original-width="1428" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaDDdcZsmHBXNe1sUcqCj7sr_LJ8NWLJNtDa6iuLx8DEVBlYs5PNkd4lf9_Y-zoJ0lzaMWGziXZVxLhr8qZYUo_FjNL70v5aq01StXUatwoVRVswZbYuk887OHLPKDLWm9rZrJXGTYILuGUfxySZi_nG7TKCvrQL1dm5R9KVJarKEqYoZ8U9s7_lYoTg/s320/Two_of_a_Kind_by_Joesph_Keppler.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> We're told the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has now reaffirmed that the Church forbids its members from joining the Freemasons, and that for them to become Masons is a "grave sin." This has been the Church's position regarding Freemasonry for centuries, since Freemasonry was founded in the 18th century. The reaffirmation was approved by the <i>Pontifex Maximus </i>himself. Interestingly, this continued condemnation of Freemasonry was issued contemporaneously with a determination by the Dicastery that transgender people may be baptized, may be godparents and may serve as witnesses at a wedding. Better transgender than Mason, it seems.<div><br /></div><div>Why does the Church persist in forbidding joining the Masons, while seemingly becoming more inclusive of those once thought sinful or unnatural?<br /><p></p><p>The Church's prohibition of membership in the Masons is interesting in several respects. Because both institutions prominently feature men (for the most part) dressed up in silly costumes, uttering pretentious phrases and performing peculiar rituals, one would think that they would have much in common. It appears that this was the opinion of Joseph Keppler, who drew the cartoon gracing the top of this post for <i>Puck</i> magazine in 1884. The cartoon is called "Two of the Same Kind" and features absurdly dressed Catholic clergy, one of whom seems to be a bishop or perhaps a pope, in battle with absurdly dressed Freemasons.</p><p>Perhaps their similarity is the basis for the conflict. They're rivals, in a sense. We humans have a taste for gaudy, garish costumes and impressive ritual, particularly in matters of religion. The Church's condemnation of Masonry appears founded on the belief that Masonry is a religion. There's some basis for this belief, according to the sometimes invaluable Internet. I know very little about the Freemasons, but it seems that they extol a supreme being they call the "Divine Architect" (they're supposed to be the successors of medieval masons, after all), and see themselves as servants of that being in the pursuit of a divine plan of sorts, or at least are pleased to say they are in their rituals. One of the reason past popes have condemned it is that they've considered it to espouse a religion of "naturalism" as opposed, it seems to "supernaturalism." That would be a point in its favor to some.</p><p>They have a fairly complicated system of initiation into several levels of Masonry, regarding which they're sworn to secrecy. This is similar to the practice of the ancient mystery cults, from which some say they're also derived or intend to mimic. </p><p>What distinguishes Freemasonry from modern religions, particularly those of the Abrahamic tradition, is the fact that it welcomes members of any other religion into its fold. This may make it particularly dangerous from the perspective of the Church. At least according to Freemasonry, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others are free to become Masons. There's no need for an initiate to disavow the religion in which they were born or have practiced in order to be a Mason. Thus the need for the Church to affirmatively forbid Catholics from joining the Masons.</p><p>The Church may also see danger in the fact that membership in the Freemasons is said to be beneficial to its members in various secular ways. It <i>may satisfy</i> the religious yearnings of those who are deists and others, but by all accounts <i>does satisfy</i> the ambition of those hoping to make their way in business or become wealthy. Masons are said to take care of each other, to grant each other favor or favors in life. A religion which isn't at all unworldly, then. Masons <i>may have </i>a reward in heaven because of their beliefs, but in the meantime <i>will be</i> rewarded in this life by other Masons. </p><p>It's not all that surprising, then, that the Church persists in condemning such an attractive religion.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p></div>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-28051533802559015662023-11-14T11:07:00.004-06:002023-11-14T11:07:43.388-06:00Zombie Apocalypse: Coming November, 2024<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYkOGykD5QVlUFC8TWbzkgWWsZ1mBWLmOxrafZmOrhOiXESZHiKUe73BoBFXO8Mh5Y_gdQgE_Y9NStEqDE6p0KTvauaeMDI7u6XiQqyrH8C_7_Pz0GMiep15V_IGqcI4GY67CI25vRDmGcLvOtt_ej7d7cc2doeYxlNt40CS4m9wlJ8njBohmuD5dWGw/s300/download%20(7).jfif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYkOGykD5QVlUFC8TWbzkgWWsZ1mBWLmOxrafZmOrhOiXESZHiKUe73BoBFXO8Mh5Y_gdQgE_Y9NStEqDE6p0KTvauaeMDI7u6XiQqyrH8C_7_Pz0GMiep15V_IGqcI4GY67CI25vRDmGcLvOtt_ej7d7cc2doeYxlNt40CS4m9wlJ8njBohmuD5dWGw/s1600/download%20(7).jfif" width="300" /></a></div><br />Perhaps it won't happen, but we should be prepared for the possibility. There are political and social zombies. It seems they have no will, nor it seems do they have much in the way of brains, being hungry for them and resentful of those that possess them. They seem incapable of reason, are easily led, and have no thought of the consequences of their fantastically limited view of reality, of the world, of the universe for that matter, being eager to consume the source of intelligence itself. They stagger towards the future, voracious and fierce in the pursuit of sameness. <p></p><p>The Walking Dead aren't creatures of fiction. They walk among us. They haven't died physically, but spiritually and mentally, to be regenerated in the service of dark magic. They vote. They run for office. They're elected. They have no agenda to speak of; they don't like agendas, thinking them to be what they're pleased to call "liberal." They merely wish to be zombies, answering to the voodoo that created them, unquestioning, unthinking, remorseless, relentless. It's not surprising that the Nazis were associated with zombies, even during WWII. They are of a type, just following orders embedded in them by something, a leader for political zombies, aliens or some kind of plague for others.</p><p>They've shown that they pay no attention to what has been said or done in the past, especially if it's contrary to and critical of what and who they are zombies for. While they may be lacking in brains, those they possess have been thoroughly washed. What they believe they believe without question. What they are willing to do they will do without conscience. They're true believers in what is demonstrably untrue, the worst kind of fanatics.</p><p>Does their existence have anything to do with the popularity of zombie movies, books, graphic novels and TV? It's an interesting question. But generally, the zombies are the enemy in those media. They're fought against, and they must be killed. One of my favorite zombie movies is an older one--<i>The Last Man on Earth</i>, starring Vincent Price. It might be argued that those raised from the dead by a plague in that movie were more vampires than zombies, loving blood and coming out at night, but I think they have most of the characteristics of fictional zombies so many, it seems, know and love. Vincent Price as Dr. Morgan travels about the city in the day, gathering corpses while they're inert and burning them. At night they assail him in his house while he drinks and plays records. The zombies I write of are deplored by some, enjoyed and exploited by others.</p><p>Those who deplore them are amazed, as they should be, by their dull wits and gullibility but have no plan to combat them. There is something novel about them. Our Great Republic has always had its share of suckers and snake oil salesmen gracing its elections. But in general the salesmen have been merely venal. Now it seems they have something more dire in mind than the acquisition of money needed to retain power; at least their chief spokesman does.</p><p>Let's hope Sinclair Lewis wasn't prescient.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-20397602541090104532023-11-03T16:09:00.004-05:002023-11-04T12:24:17.234-05:00Ecclesiastes and (Holy?) War<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXjNuCVkwJ3imYu5DbZ7ka8z2zaMZFDs9-K67VGrcTSZBWYxM7Z-phUKpk6JVoKICfFMGcoR8O7VsQQrBzpc3vFUpsRKxRwN0j2032CvlilwFzyCwCRiZAUmEa-ERsZyhDQAe5-mMf7jDqv4QwolBd9QxcGnEKa9MKbTaOsLCSCM3COn0eDgTk-P640A/s1000/1000_F_182998613_cMclSJNUzNbhD85QVRObKHKUrY0vqTZI.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="1000" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXjNuCVkwJ3imYu5DbZ7ka8z2zaMZFDs9-K67VGrcTSZBWYxM7Z-phUKpk6JVoKICfFMGcoR8O7VsQQrBzpc3vFUpsRKxRwN0j2032CvlilwFzyCwCRiZAUmEa-ERsZyhDQAe5-mMf7jDqv4QwolBd9QxcGnEKa9MKbTaOsLCSCM3COn0eDgTk-P640A/s320/1000_F_182998613_cMclSJNUzNbhD85QVRObKHKUrY0vqTZI.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p>I'm not one to indulge in interpreting the Bible or any other sacred book or scripture. But I've always thought Ecclesiastes 3:7-8, made memorable for those growing up in the 1960s by The Byrds, to be almost Stoic in its expression, recognition and acceptance of life in the world. There's no question that there are times in life when there is love or hate, peace or war, and whether appropriate or inappropriate they take place and in the pursuit of virtue and tranquility we must deal with them according to Nature.</p><p>Until very recently I haven't thought to interpret this passage as a justification for war or the continuance of a war. The Israeli Prime Minister has done so, however. It seems a strange thing to do, and certainly would be unexpected coming from a leader of a modern state. A modern state, though, is primarily a secular one, and it may be that Israel is not perceived as such by its current leadership, or others. </p><p>If that's the case, there's reason to be extremely concerned. Sadly, the Bible and God have been referred to as justifying war with some frequency by those nations and peoples who have followed the Abrahamic religious tradition. The Crusades were launched by the cry <i>"Deus Vult!" (</i>"God wills it!"). Wars have been launched against heretics, heathens and infidels. That Bible the Israeli Prime Minister mentioned, or at least a portion of it, is relatively replete with the conquest and even the massacre of non-believers who inhabited Palestine before it became a kingdom of the Jews. The slaying of men, women, children, infants and livestock is described with seeming zest at times, because they are unbelievers and stand in the way.</p><p>It's nonetheless curious for the Bible to be used in this fashion and for this purpose. Perhaps it seems disturbing because the claim the Bible says this is a time of war was made in response to a call for a ceasefire. The deplorable nature of the attacks by Hamas were mentioned as calling for war, or perhaps more properly retribution, even though it may result in the death of civilians. </p><p>Significantly, the Israeli Prime Minister seemed outraged that a ceasefire was proposed, let along championed. It appeared as though he believes that the horrible nature of the attacks justifies a response as severe as possible, and that he feels all should accept that position.</p><p>From a purely political and practical standpoint, I doubt this rhetoric will serve to lessen the criticism being made against Israel for its military operations in Gaza. I suspect that criticism to increase, in fact. Over the years, for reasons not entirely clear to me, Israel has begun to be seen as an aggressor in the region, and by rejecting a ceasefire, especially in such terms, it adds to the perception that it believes it has a quasi-religious right to continue to punish Hamas. That others may be harmed is unfortunate, but Israel's mission to crush Hamas is of greater importance, and we should know it--that's what it seems is being said.</p><p>Outrage and outrages permeate the media, professional and social. Outrage generates outrage. Outrage at the barbaric attacks is being replaced by outrage against the military response. Outrage at the treatment of Palestinians is matched by outrage against a rising anti-semitism. What other outrages await us? Religious outrage is dangerous in the extreme. The more religiously motivated this conflict becomes the more danger we face.</p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-23882968371251065162023-10-26T16:53:00.006-05:002023-10-26T17:16:20.211-05:00From Their Cold, Dead Hands<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQLb6ufn5XUSEDsziwCjSeYB2HUe7NHdWvDKB52qmHiSbJRAcJh5ZRl5pQb0-2lXU-i2TVFFePoG9XPRhxlB2lZOEWg39gdzk3PYbvmARIz85-xggPxmuL6ScMHcGSSoJ7cgMyU7e5VNx2FCiRYDLRiSqaJ1Ak3Ut4HbGt2OChU0IdCnpN-5KKCeRtPg/s700/1-from-my-cold-dead-hands-tom-mc-nemar.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="700" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQLb6ufn5XUSEDsziwCjSeYB2HUe7NHdWvDKB52qmHiSbJRAcJh5ZRl5pQb0-2lXU-i2TVFFePoG9XPRhxlB2lZOEWg39gdzk3PYbvmARIz85-xggPxmuL6ScMHcGSSoJ7cgMyU7e5VNx2FCiRYDLRiSqaJ1Ak3Ut4HbGt2OChU0IdCnpN-5KKCeRtPg/s320/1-from-my-cold-dead-hands-tom-mc-nemar.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />I have a fondness for Charlton Heston, the actor. Not because of the parts he played in epic, blockbuster films like <i>Ben Hur</i> and <i>The Greatest Story Ever Told, </i>but because of his roles in "smaller" films. I particularly enjoyed his portrayal of Cardinal Richelieu in Richard Lester's Musketeer movies. I'm a fan of his work in <i>Soylent Green</i>. I like what he did in <i>Touch of Evil.</i><p></p><div>I've never been impressed by the statement he made at a meeting of the NRA in 2000, from which the title to this post is derived. to the effect that "the government" (Al Gore was mentioned specifically) could take his gun, but only "from his cold, dead hands." </div><div><br /></div><div>The gun-taking government that certain of us gun owners fear so viscerally does not exist, and it isn't likely it ever will in our Great Republic. It is in the nature of a boogeyman. Realistically speaking the most the government may do, depending on who makes the law, is restrict the sale of certain guns and amounts of ammunition, at least to certain persons. If we want to reasonably assess the claims of those who fear the Second Amendment is at risk, then, it's more appropriate that we acknowledge that guns will not be taken away. Guns won't be confiscated. There's no reason to think that is threatened.</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't think that's even suggested by anyone likely to exercise any kind of political influence or power. What is actually feared, and what may actually be possible if not probable, is that "the government" will prevent people from acquiring certain guns (assault rifles, AR-15s) and magazines which allow one to shoot those guns many times without reloading. That is hardly a ban on firearms.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is what should be considered as the latest mass shooting/killing in our Glorious Union, which took place in Lewiston, Maine, brings the issue of gun control, however briefly, to mind once more (then to be ignored until the next one). Apparently, the shooter used the mass shooter's weapon of choice, the AR-15. Regulating such weapons doesn't entail the wholesale confiscation of firearms, and wouldn't impose significant limitations on who may own and acquire guns, but would amount only to the regulation of the sale of firearms which were made to inflict death and harm on a large scale and are being used for that purpose on people who pose no threat as they go about their lives.</div><div><br /></div><div>The "cold, dead hands" we should be concerned about aren't those of a hypothetical gun owner whose gun is being taken away by the government, but the hands of those men, women and children who are killed by guns. It's clear enough that the cold, dead hands of those killed by people wielding guns outnumber the hands of those, dead or alive, who are not criminals and have suffered the confiscation of their guns by government. The argument that honoring the Second Amendment means guns cannot be regulated perpetuates a false dichotomy, and presumes that the right to bear arms is absolute, which no sensible person can maintain.</div><div><br /></div><div>What we must decide is how willing we are to tolerate the violence, harm and death which takes place when the acquisition of such weapons is allowed.</div><div><br /></div>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-19321453651119987102023-10-20T15:33:00.000-05:002023-10-20T15:33:34.776-05:00Caveat Scriptor: The Harvard Student Statement and the Backlash<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtOad9eyWwxmiuSMnj2h4UyU7niarDeq-4DeQ7IetCGMwyaVHHxzm8IKVTb25JSn9_QecUGhY9EggmdyJ4RLXqVb-wV3mkI3pNtkzDmabvHiw9Vm1WurSJ92UFs2mHeXs7PuC795e4-pD1DgaQNPikd4X6LME5v2dfDdlUN1jeefS4ju2gAI0gip2QOA/s343/download.jfif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="147" data-original-width="343" height="137" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtOad9eyWwxmiuSMnj2h4UyU7niarDeq-4DeQ7IetCGMwyaVHHxzm8IKVTb25JSn9_QecUGhY9EggmdyJ4RLXqVb-wV3mkI3pNtkzDmabvHiw9Vm1WurSJ92UFs2mHeXs7PuC795e4-pD1DgaQNPikd4X6LME5v2dfDdlUN1jeefS4ju2gAI0gip2QOA/s320/download.jfif" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p> "Let the writer beware." That, I think and hope, is the English translation of <i>Caveat Scriptor. </i>I have a disturbing feeling that it may mean "Beware of the Writer" which isn't what I intend to say in this case, though I might in other cases.</p><p>"The Statement" being referred to is, as you might suspect, that issued, jointly we're told, by certain Harvard students and student organizations in response to the attacks made by Hamas earlier this month against Israel, targeting civilians primarily if not exclusively. </p><p>That statement is relatively short, or at least versions of it I've seen which purport to be accurate are short. It doesn't refer to Hamas. It does, however, assert that Israel is solely responsible for the violence perpetrated by Hamas, refers to the government of Israel as an apartheid regime, and claims that the Palestinians have been repressed by Israel and compelled to live in an open-air prison for two decades. It states that the violence Israel will perpetuate in responding to the attacks will be the responsibility of Israel alone.</p><p>Some of Harvard's corporate donors have responded to the statement and what they consider the insufficiently outraged response to it by its administrators by demanding that the names of those students making or joining in the statements and, presumably, what lawyers may call their personal identifying information, be disclosed. The donors are concerned that unless they are disclosed they may, inadvertently, hire them. Presumably, they'll refuse to do so if they learn who they are and may be inclined to vilify them as well. Given the virulence of their response to the statement, they may hope that others will also refuse to hire them as well and join in blacklisting them. Not surprisingly, some students have expressed regret at their temerity.</p><p>The Statement is clearly wrong, and even reprehensibly so, in ascribing sole responsibility for the attacks by Hamas on Israel and attributing no responsibility to Hamas. One may sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people without supporting the murderous and brutal actions of a terrorist organization, which is all Hamas appears to be. As far as I'm aware, Hamas itself has taken no action to benefit the Palestinians; it has merely committed itself to the destruction of Israel--which is not likely to ever take place. While it's true The Statement makes no mention of Hamas, it's clearly intended to refer to the recent attacks by Hamas, and absolves it of any guilt for its atrocities, which is deplorable.</p><p>Nevertheless, I have to admit I find the reactions of the donors in question to be rather surprising, for a number of reasons. Let me note, first, that many people of my age and slightly older than me said and did things while college students not all that different from what those who wrote or joined in The Statement have said and done. It happens that at that time, the U.S. itself was being blamed for violence perpetrated by others, some of whom were student activists, some of whom were from North Vietnam, some of whom were black, some of whom were South African, some of whom were communists--I could go on.</p><p>We Boomers while in college and (for a time) afterwards were rabid political and social critics and protesters, and quite ready to blame those we perceived as the oppressors for the violence of those we thought were oppressed by them. Some of us were violent in the cause of the oppressed, or so we thought. The Statement considered in that context isn't unique or uniquely reprehensible. I wonder whether those who now condemn The Statement are Boomers who regret or have forgotten their own youthful conduct.</p><p>Let me note also that college students are often naive, foolish, immature, thoughtless, subject to peer-pressure and privileged, and may act stupidly and irresponsibly. I, personally, do not think or have reason to believe that students at Harvard are more intelligent, sophisticated, reasonable and discerning than students at other colleges. I think they can be just as stupid and callous as their less favored brothers and sisters.</p><p>It therefore isn't apparent to me that condemning Harvard for failing to condemn the students in question with sufficient ferocity, ceasing donations to that institution, and seeking to expose and blacklist the students in question in a way which may negatively impact their careers and future lives, is appropriate or even sensible. It serves to call attention to The Statement, in fact. When the financially High and Mighty among us begin to throw their weight around to get their way and seek vengeance against those who disturb them, particularly insignificants like undergraduates, it isn't a pretty or inspiring sight. </p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-71240763109251045632023-10-11T15:32:00.006-05:002023-10-12T10:51:54.932-05:00The Never-Ending (Horror) Story<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVYPzbNgujIPVSsR3x7-VSY01RhXucNMOgf8SBGLHSifCWjR-1yGYCT4nHn6TYugGF0aT2YFKCM4IKyx0gx07i__7aRkvVEsMfAPLd9F-7ygy_Qs3tTsOqJGvkrxTy61wBR1HFKGtre6YUEL1X_uCridRKTK599tI-akaOi-1HL3jFQ5e3MEF3mMnjzw/s300/download%20(11).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVYPzbNgujIPVSsR3x7-VSY01RhXucNMOgf8SBGLHSifCWjR-1yGYCT4nHn6TYugGF0aT2YFKCM4IKyx0gx07i__7aRkvVEsMfAPLd9F-7ygy_Qs3tTsOqJGvkrxTy61wBR1HFKGtre6YUEL1X_uCridRKTK599tI-akaOi-1HL3jFQ5e3MEF3mMnjzw/s1600/download%20(11).jpg" width="300" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>I've noted previously in this blog that I don't think Israel has a religious or historical "right" to the territory it governs, or occupies, or would like to govern. Not only are there difficulties in asserting that a "right" of such a nature exists in the first place, for any nation, but--for me at least--the thought of God decreeing that anyone is entitled to real estate seems absurd. Also, I question whether the area of land in question can be described as a "homeland" of the Jewish people since it has been ruled, for the most part, by others since Babylon occupied it and the Jewish people, in large numbers, left it long ago.<div><br /></div><div>Babylon was of course succeeded by the Persians, who were succeeded by Alexander and his successors, who were succeeded by Rome, which was succeeded by Arabs and the Ottomans and so on until 1948. That's a very long time. At least from the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the second temple, most Jews lived elsewhere. Thus the Jewish Diaspora, which some maintain commenced with the Babylonian Captivity.</div><div><br /></div><div>The creation of Israel, it must be recognized, virtually guaranteed conflict with those who lived where it is now located. That conflict has continued since its creation. It seems likely to continue <i>ad infinitum</i>. It may therefore be claimed, reasonably I think, by those who don't believe in the Jewish homeland or that God gifted it to the Jews, that its creation was unfortunate. </div><div><br /></div><div>That said, Israel exists and is a sovereign nation. It should be treated as such. A sovereign nation may defend itself. It cannot be erased from the world. It will continue to exist, unless perhaps the entire region or the world itself is destroyed. </div><div><br /></div><div>Claims that Israel should be dissolved or destroyed and efforts to achieve those claims are, therefore, futile and unreasonable. When those efforts amount to brutal, ruthless terrorism of the kind being perpetrated now by Hamas, they should be denounced and deplored. </div><div><br /></div><div>The fact that Israel is a sovereign nation does not mean that it has any right to, or should, expand its borders particularly if it results in the additional displacement of those already displaced by its creation. Itsexpansion in the form of new "settlements" beyond its borders isn't justified by the claims of zealots who think the land is theirs because God gave it to the Jews, which are absurd. It's expansion to the harm of others is unjustifiable.</div><div><br /></div><div>What should take place in any reasonable world is a resolution which wouldn't include either the destruction of Israel or its expansion, and the recognition of the fact that Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs should be accorded the same treatment, and have the same rights. However, the effective leaders of the conflicting peoples have no interest in such a resolution. One side wants Israel destroyed, the others want the Palestinians to be removed or rendered harmless.</div><div><br /></div><div>Can reason be imposed, can peace be imposed, when those fighting one another have no interest in either? It's doubtful. Perhaps the only option is to act in such a way as to restrict or contain the harm which will be caused by the intransigent on both sides. That will be difficult enough to do, but may be more achievable than any peace.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /> <p></p></div></div>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-62935980954807040392023-10-02T16:16:00.003-05:002023-10-02T16:16:55.429-05:00Social Media and the Roman Empire<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF7WAfp23qeRBbhqiO24XDRTIiGBqosASdaP5O6ymJCBbkLXSliM0MvhrKOD1TULQ2DIpPycBkVz7T5TnFENd_LfiJbmNNX1z8dwo_IZq4SC9-5aM_kmDVV18iuSgxNTAf22yzvsu2qSsWq_aTwfzSW1A8hy5sLJA0R768xaexMuAU1wX3BY0HChAXAQ/s660/Pompeii_family_feast_painting_Naples.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="589" data-original-width="660" height="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF7WAfp23qeRBbhqiO24XDRTIiGBqosASdaP5O6ymJCBbkLXSliM0MvhrKOD1TULQ2DIpPycBkVz7T5TnFENd_LfiJbmNNX1z8dwo_IZq4SC9-5aM_kmDVV18iuSgxNTAf22yzvsu2qSsWq_aTwfzSW1A8hy5sLJA0R768xaexMuAU1wX3BY0HChAXAQ/s320/Pompeii_family_feast_painting_Naples.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p>It seems there is a trend, fostered for God knows what reasons by Social Media such as TikTok, by which women ask men how often they think of the Roman Empire. Supposedly, the men have responded that they think of it quite often. Just what these men consider the Roman Empire to be, or what it is about the Roman Empire they think about (there was a lot involved in it, after all) isn't clear.</p><p>Nor is it clear whether this trend actually exists, or how it arose if it exists, or the extent to which it exists. These days, it seems possible that a woman may have asked a man about the Roman Empire one day and posted the response on Social Media, whereupon women all over the world having read of it began asking men about it or at least claimed they had done so. Such things are possible in these unfortunate times, where it seems anyone may be an "influencer" or can claim to be one. I can only say that I see the trend mentioned in posts and headlines.</p><p>The fact that there is a "trend" having been noted somewhere, sometime, somehow by someone, various and sundry pundits and pontificators have pondered why there is such a trend and, of course, what it means. What it means to some is that men are vulnerable and confused about themselves, and apparently long for the good old days of Rome, where it is said the patriarchy reigned free and undisturbed, and women kept in their place. Alternatively, men may just want to repress and dominate women and think fondly of an era and place where that took place with greater ease than it does now.</p><p>Our current fascination with sex and gender issues makes it unsurprising that speculations and conclusions of this nature abound. But explanation of the fascination with Rome and its empire is found easily enough because its memory is everywhere, and in some respects and forms it still exists. The Catholic Church is in many respects a ghost of the Empire. Portions of Latin are used in discourse, and in the law, medicine and science, and of course the Romance languages are derivations of it. Roman Ruins, still spectacular in many ways, lie throughout Europe, the U.K., North Africa, and large parts of Asia.</p><p>Its impact on law and government is immense in the West., and not merely in the continent of Europe. The government of the U.S. was inspired by it and mimicked it. Christianity was born and developed in the Empire, and its history and that of the Christian religion are intermixed.</p><p>Movies and books based on Roman history have been made and written for many years. Roman architecture can be seen in many public buildings. Nations are compared to it. Its authors are still read and studied. There's really no getting away from it, in the West.</p><p>This is not to mention the fact that, in the history of the West, there has been no other nation or form of government which ruled over so many diverse peoples and regions so successfully and for so long in all of history.</p><p>It seems unlikely, then, that the popularity of the Roman Empire is due to feelings of sexual inadequacy or insecurity or urge to dominate being experienced by modern men. It seems rather peculiar that there are those who come to this conclusion; it may say more about them than anything else.</p><p>Rome was a patriarchal society, no doubt. It was military and imperialistic, cruel and hierarchical. It can be maintained, though, that this is the case regarding its successors as well, and it's unclear it was any worse than other empires and nations that came after it, even relative to the rights of women, who could not vote until recently, could not freely divorce until recently, and whose legal rights were minimal until recently. Women were, in fact, less free and had less rights in many respects after the dissolution of the Empire than they had during the Empire.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-62160610107418394022023-09-27T16:54:00.016-05:002023-09-28T09:59:28.538-05:00Philosophy as Affectation<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcM2TmyJImHQaM4OR4hidbfzmVeDixRpeH8SByBH7G9bG8sIqZEz7WQ1GWqTRfofvgEDOuSzCdleNWwqpTUvUg9w8AIZhyphenhyphenFTnMPIHpiwuEK0Bg_BWq8PQE-MtoiqPp1lyjVJMaGMP7867DC-1CDMaUbfUZCLI_xQmZioCcrAB1WUebuDd6S-5Lm_oGdQ/s259/download%20(10).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="259" data-original-width="194" height="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcM2TmyJImHQaM4OR4hidbfzmVeDixRpeH8SByBH7G9bG8sIqZEz7WQ1GWqTRfofvgEDOuSzCdleNWwqpTUvUg9w8AIZhyphenhyphenFTnMPIHpiwuEK0Bg_BWq8PQE-MtoiqPp1lyjVJMaGMP7867DC-1CDMaUbfUZCLI_xQmZioCcrAB1WUebuDd6S-5Lm_oGdQ/s1600/download%20(10).jpg" width="194" /></a></div><br />Gertrude Stein made the remark shown at the head of this post in connection with the death of the dancer/choreographer Isadora Duncan. Duncan loved to wear long, flowing scarves. She was wearing one while driving on September 14, 1927. The scarf became entangled in one of the wheel wells of the car she was in (the wheels were open-spoked), pulling her from the car and breaking her neck (even, it seems, decapitating her or nearly doing so). Gertrude Stein could be sardonic.<p></p><p>According to the <i>Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary</i>, "affectation" is "a. speech or conduct not natural to oneself: an unnatural form of behavior meant especially to impress others" or "b. the act of taking on or displaying an attitude or mode of behavior not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt."</p><p>It isn't clear to me that wearing long scarves is an affectation according to that definition. It may be conduct intended to impress others, but I don't think it may properly be called "unnatural." Still, we can infer what Gertrude meant in making her rather gruesome witticism without concluding wearing scarves of any sort is somehow an unnatural form of behavior.</p><p>I've remarked before in this blog that I'm annoyed by the metaphysical and epistemological efforts of some philosophers to question what is "real" and what we can "know." Perhaps it would be kinder to describe those efforts as attempts to ascertain how or whether we can determine what is "real" and what can be "known." It may be kinder to do so, but I think those efforts would in that case be no less annoying.</p><p>I think the fact that the claims of these philosophers are without merit has been shown by other philosophers, such as Wittgenstein and J.L. Austin. But here I address the annoying nature to those claims; I propose that we may, reasonably, characterize their thought as irksome affectations. </p><p>The source of my annoyance arises from a simple fact. These philosophers, while spending their time and that of others foolish enough to read their works debating what is real and what can be known, and in creating and entertaining arguments in support of the position that we can't know anything, and in particular can't know if anything is real, blithely conduct themselves and interact with others and things in the world, treating them just as they would if they were, in fact, real and known by them. Their conduct belies their claims, in other words.</p><p>I've always thought them to be in some sense disingenuous or dishonest as a result. "I don't know if this chair exists" I imagine them saying "but I'm sitting on it and sit on it every day, just as I would if I knew it exists. But I don't. And in fact can't." It seems rather harsh to call them brazen hypocrites, though. We usually reserve that term for those who claim certain conduct is wrong and nonetheless engage in it all the time. The philosophers I refer to probably aren't acting dishonestly or immorally. </p><p>But, I think it's clear that they're saying, and behaving, in an unnatural manner. "Unnatural" because the claims they make are plainly at odds with what they do, think and say naturally, as human beings, in the course of their lives. For the same reason, their speech and conduct is not genuine.</p><p>I think it's also clear that their speech and conduct in this respect are intended to impress others. After all, they purport to tell us all that we can't know what's real, or can't really know anything. They seek to encourage doubt of things with which we interact at every moment. They maintain, in other words, that we're foolish to think and act as we do, and we would understand that if only we were as intelligent as they are.</p><p>This kind of philosophy, which purports to doubt what is real and what can be known, is therefore an affectation. And would be dangerous, if anyone actually took it seriously.</p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-46343193025997499732023-09-25T11:58:00.018-05:002023-09-26T11:06:31.388-05:00God Save us from Proselytizers<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR2rYMxnSVCbPlbO8rVqeCKuV7JQ0OkYNH59tewsDMCplYKEGpuoEdZdhfnE2R8B6IuI-iSHsetIgE03l8ozvLzYGnR2ucmRZBLzQ7eOlWjHviwHJTMuoVnkSPSH4AD-ExLfa7Vy9Ajw0cvsbv2ZUYNoKVuQiCZNlC-jgfFyqE7uRXUwovl0OZiWLIxA/s327/images%20(2).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="154" data-original-width="327" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR2rYMxnSVCbPlbO8rVqeCKuV7JQ0OkYNH59tewsDMCplYKEGpuoEdZdhfnE2R8B6IuI-iSHsetIgE03l8ozvLzYGnR2ucmRZBLzQ7eOlWjHviwHJTMuoVnkSPSH4AD-ExLfa7Vy9Ajw0cvsbv2ZUYNoKVuQiCZNlC-jgfFyqE7uRXUwovl0OZiWLIxA/s320/images%20(2).jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><div>Something there is that motivates many of us to expound on our views, on a number of subjects, to others without being asked to do so. Thomas Carlyle, as one can see in the quote above, thought that it is not merely a part of our nature but emphatically so. Unsolicited pontification one might call it (or in any case I call it that, now).</div><div><br /></div><div>This seems especially the case when it comes to God and religion. An interesting question is whether this tendency has always been part of our nature, or became common at some point in our very talkative, chattering history.</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't think it was a part of our nature until relatively recently in our history, at least as far as God and religion are concerned. We don't see the ancient, polytheistic pagan West filled with adherents of a particular god urging people to worship that god only. Worshippers of Dionysus didn't seek to convert worshippers of Isis; worshippers of Cybele didn't bother to convert initiates of other gods. The Romans didn't insist that those they conquered worship Roman gods. They generally would treat the gods of the barbarians as aspects of the gods they accepted; different versions of gods like Jupiter, Mars, and others, worshipped under different names. Not even Christians were persecuted because they worshipped a particular god and not pagan gods, nor were the Jews. They were persecuted, instead, when they refused to participate in the reverence owed the Roman state and its emperors, which they believed to be worship rather than a prayer or offering for their welfare.</div><div><br /></div><div>I've come to the conclusion that proselytizing, which in most cases refers to religious hectoring, lecturing, sermonizing, and communication in general, wasn't indulged in to any great extent until some of us came to be monotheists who not only insisted there was one God only, but that worshipping that God--and no other god--was right and necessary. That view naturally caused other views to arise, e.g. worshipping any other God was wrong, and that it was right and good that others worship the one true God in the manner appropriate according to those who worshipped that God already. And so many unworthy, awful and horrible events began taking place and take place still.</div><div><br /></div><div>Why else would someone want to tell others their beliefs regarding God, and what they consider the reasons for them? The fact that one believes in God isn't enough to explain the urge to tell, and to explain, and to persuade (sometimes forcibly) others who don't, or who favor another, or perhaps to repress them for doing so. Even the belief that the God one believes in is the one, true God isn't quite enough. It isn't necessary that the believer in God X preach that X is God, rather than Y or Z. That believer could merely believe and be silent.</div><div><br /></div><div>For the preaching to begin, it's necessary that the believer in X feel somehow bound to preach that X is the one, true God. What would engender such a feeling? The belief that X wants the believer to do so, or the believer has a duty to do so (which may amount to the same thing). </div><div><br /></div><div>A God who wants everyone to believe in him/her/they/it has always struck me as peculiar, though. Why would God be so needy, so intent on being worshipped? Perhaps it may be argued that God wants all to believe merely because it's good for us, however, not good for God or desirable to God. If that's the case, one is prompted to wonder why that's good for us. Then it's required that we find explanations for that claim. Is it good for us because it's evil not to believe? If that's so, why is it evil? Because we'll be prompted to do evil things? Saying it's good for us to do so because only in that case will be believe in what is True, or Good, or really is God simply begs the question. If it's good for us to believe in God X as opposed to God Y or Z or no God at all because if we don't we'll be punished, perhaps for all eternity, raises yet another question--why would God mandate punishment of unbelievers?</div><div><br /></div><div>The claim that God wants to be worshipped by all, or should be worshipped by all, raise questions for which there are no final, satisfactory answers. </div><div><br /></div><div>Proselytizing seems to have been "built into" Christianity from fairly early in its history. That's what Pentecost is about, after all. The Holy Spirit or Ghost descended upon the apostles and the race was on, so to speak, to convert all, and there's no question that the race was run successfully. Sometimes by force, of course, as a host of pagans, Jews, Moslems, and indigenous people throughout the world can attest. Islam played the conversion game as well, of course, though at times it authorities were content merely to require payment from infidels. It's interesting that among the Abrahamic religions Judaism was and it seems still is not particularly interested in converting all the world. While intolerant and exclusive, Judaism has been content in continuing, nurturing and cherishing its uniqueness rather than diminishing it by pursuing new believers.</div><div><br /></div><div>The great days of Christian proselytizing are over as best as can be told. The Crusades, the excesses of the Reformation, the Inquisition, conversion through conquest and imperialism are all in the past. It seems the Mormons still have the missionary spirit and their zeal is such that they baptize even the dead, thus carrying their efforts to convert to a remarkable extreme. There's no need to persecute the unfaithful when their consent is neither sought nor possible.</div><div><br /></div><div>The urge to compel acceptance of one's beliefs has become less severe in these times, it's true, but seems to remain a part of our nature. We see it among those who insist on proving God's existence or justifying it even when not solicited, who ostentatiously practice their religion and seek legal support for it, who believe they know what's right for all, politically and socially, and seek to impose their views on others. It's far easier to proselytize now than it was not all that long ago, and it seems to be more successful as the physical imposition of belief is no longer required. One may simply spew whatever view or theory one seeks to promote onto the Web, and there are always those who accept it and spread it.</div><div><br /></div><div>I repeat myself I'm afraid, but it's the nature of our technology and means of communication, including media, to discourage thought, particularly rational thought, which takes time and effort, and encourage emotional, irrational, and above all instantaneous reaction to claims being made constantly which are ubiquitous and repeated endlessly. We'll be lucky if there are any left who are inclined and able to reflect on what's being touted within 10 years.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-47965810924053889612023-09-15T16:46:00.002-05:002023-09-16T12:30:25.255-05:00Kneeling, Standing and the Law<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-hzuYQca1HMjYO5nc112XwFZNyzgBhaXAstMd1CxSd3_jHz2unACjyJvDyTxyST-cCva-CAMyuEQoFHVjyGkOjYhAEyZTneCQkZa25R-a5YMQTKgoO3Qh2cla1ouofNAk8OIys6aiiB8feXZ09A4Ve5j2fkMAVwP2UGm0P0Sf5gvVnpGBl_UKSnC8KA/s300/images%20(2).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-hzuYQca1HMjYO5nc112XwFZNyzgBhaXAstMd1CxSd3_jHz2unACjyJvDyTxyST-cCva-CAMyuEQoFHVjyGkOjYhAEyZTneCQkZa25R-a5YMQTKgoO3Qh2cla1ouofNAk8OIys6aiiB8feXZ09A4Ve5j2fkMAVwP2UGm0P0Sf5gvVnpGBl_UKSnC8KA/s1600/images%20(2).jpg" width="300" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p>I've commented before in this blog regarding the Supreme Court's decision in the Great Pray for Football case, <i>Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. </i>That was<i> </i>the case in which an assistant high school football coach claimed his right to freely exercise his religion was violated by a school district because it sought to restrict his ostentatious prayer-sessions after games, which took place at the 50 yard line (see the above copy of an exhibit in the case). His religion, it seems, provides that such prayers be made.</p><p>After attempts to accommodate his desire to pray alone and silently, while in public and with others (as shown above), he was terminated. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with him that his First Amendment rights were violated.</p><p>As a result, he got his job back. He has been residing in Florida for three years, however, quite a distance from Bremerton, which is in the State of Washington. Having been reinstated, he resigned the position after a single game. He made some vague claims in connection with the resignation regarding his feeling he was not getting from the school district what was justly due him given his status and his victory at the Supreme Court. It apparently only took a single game for him to believe that to be the case. He also acknowledged, though, that he's been living in Florida and has some sick relations there, and wanted to be there with his family. His coaching position was only part-time, and he quit a full-time job at a Bremerton shipyard to go to Florida.</p><p>Since his employment with the school district, he has been photographed in various places, including before the Supreme Court building in D.C., usually kneeling. He apparently kneels, and presumably prays when doing so, with considerable frequency and in the presence of photographers. He's appeared in various media and talk shows, and is something of a celebrity. He's summoned to speak at various conservative and religious events. He's written a book. A movie about him is said to be in the works. He has his own Website. </p><p>I think it's understandable, then, that some suspect his desire to regain his position as assistant high school football coach was never the reason for his sojourn in the legal system, and indeed that he was never interested in doing so. One even might suspect that he conducted himself in such a manner that the school district felt it had no option but to terminate him, as his prayers became more and more of a spectacle. In other words, that the school district was goaded into action. In even more other words, that there was a deliberate attempt to obtain a Supreme Court holding on the issue.</p><p>One might also suspect that the Great No-Gay Wedding Website case, <i>303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, </i>was similarly brought to solve what wasn't actually experienced as a problem given the fact that the person who supposedly sought to have a website devoted to a gay wedding denies having done so. The tendency of the Supreme Court, or of any court, to decide questions which do not actually arise is troubling.</p><p>It's been the rule for a long time that a person who brings a legal action must have what's called "standing" to do so. Generally speaking, a person has standing when the person has sustained or in the circumstances very likely will sustain an injury for which a legal remedy is available. Legal action commenced merely to prove a point or address issues which may or may not arise, but haven't yet arisen, are to be disregarded by courts, which presumably have other things to do for people who are actually involved in existing disputes and have sustained actual damages.</p><p>The poet Wallace Stevens wrote that the imagination loses vitality as it ceases to adhere to the real. It's the same with the law. Where there is no real dispute to be resolved, no real circumstances to be addressed, legal decisions become detached from real disputes and real people. They're mere abstractions. They seek to address imagined realities. They lack context. They're speculations on what might or should be the case. They're subjective declarations on what should be the case should something actually be the case. Because they don't "adhere to the real" they're more likely to reflect the individual desires and preferences of those who make the decisions. Also, it makes it difficult to assess when a legal decision would apply in the case of an actual injury or dispute, which can be very fact-dependent and specific.</p><p>It's to be hoped that the Supreme Court Justices will curb their apparent desire to proclaim what the law should be at least enough to require that a real controversy exist before doing so. Otherwise, they may become political agents, and even unelected legislators, rather than judges. There was a time when conservatives feared that was taking place. Perhaps no longer.</p><p><br /></p>ciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.com0