During his visit to London last week, Australian PM John Howard field the (tiresome) question about whether the Coalition's presence in Iraq is what has triggered the latest round of terror bombings. He responded with this very clear analysis:
"The first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it has given the game away, to use the venacular, and no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen. Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq? And can I remind you that the 11th of September occured before the operation in Iraq? Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor? Are people by implication suggesting that we shouldn't have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan? When Sergio DeMillo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplmat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that DeMillo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations adminsitrator in East Timor. Now I don't know the minds of the terrorist. By definition you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts. And the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective fact is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq and indeed all the evidence as distinct from the suppositions suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion, that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder."
Could not have said it better.
From: http://www.hughhewitt.com
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Supreme Court Conversation
(As usual, Peg and Al, teachers.)
(Ubiquitous name-brand coffee shop; mid-summer, mid-week, mid-afternoon. Peg walks through with a friend, notices Al reading newspapers and sipping his usual.)
Peg: Hey, Al, don't you think it's warm enough without all that hot coffee?
Al: Coffee is the elixir of life, Peg, hot or not. Besides, I need it to keep me calm while I read this news. Why don't you sit a while. Can I treat?
Peg: That's O.K., we just stopped in for some water. I'll get it. By the way, this is C.J., my neighbor.
CJ: Hi, Al; Peg mentions you regularly.
Al: Really? I'd better behave, then.
Peg: (Returning with bottled water.) So what are you reading those papers for?
Al: I'm trying to get a scope on this Supreme Court nominee. This political stuff just makes me crazy.
Peg: Good grief, CJ's been ranting about it, too.
CJ: No kidding. And the papers have it all wrong, as usual.
Al: I'm glad you said that--I was beginning to think the problem was mine. They really don't understand, do they?
CJ: Nope, not a clue.
Peg: Wait a minute, what am I missing here? I know Justice O'Connor has retired and the President is nominating a judge named Roberts to replace her. The President is picking someone who thinks like he does, and the liberals are going to be upset. What's the problem? It sounds like business as usual.
Al: It's not.
CJ: Al's right. The nomination of a Supreme Court justice has never been the subject of this sort of ideological line-drawing--at least, not until a few years ago.
Al: CJ, you're a retired attorney--is that right? I think that's what Peg told me.
CJ: Well, I guess I'll admit that much.
Al: So why the problems with this nomination?
CJ: That works on a couple of levels. What everyone sees, of course, is the political battle. No one likes being in second place. There's a pretty radical element in the Congress that's unhappy because the voting public seems to be rejecting key points of their message at the polls.
Al: There has been a real shift--I think everyone admits that much.
Peg: But we don't vote for Supreme Court justices.
CJ: That's true, Peg, but over the last 30 years or more, as voters have chosen lots of conservative candidates on the national level, the Supreme Court has kept to a pretty consistent pattern of support for a doctrine of social engineering--I guess, since the early 1960's.
Al: That's a pretty stiff way to put it, but the pattern is there, isn't it?
CJ: You bet. There have been several landmark cases where you can trace the development of a very distinct judicial philosophy. Some of the attorneys I know say that the Court has made itself a sort of "super-legislature".
Peg: Don't justices do what they've always done? When an existing law is challenged on Constitutional grounds, doesn't the Supreme Court just look at the rights given in the Constitution and decide whether that law is consistent with those rights--or not?
CJ: Sorry to burst your balloon on this one, Peg. In the first place, the Constitution is not a document that spells out or anticipates every possible situation that can arise. The founders did create the institutions of a representative republic that served the interests of a government under which the citizens of the states had certain rights and duties. These rights and duties of citizenship were held equally by all citizens but the design was to be rather minimalist in terms of how intrusive that government was allowed to become.
Peg: But of course not every person had access to these rights--the black slaves and women were left out.
CJ: You're right. There's plenty of good historical evidence why they left the slave question out--the fact is that they would not have had a republic at all if they had pursued this question in the 1780's. The new nation would have collapsed over the differences regarding abolition. It nearly did 80 years later, but America was strong enough to survive the Civil War.
Peg: But the children and grandchildren of the slaves didn't get their rights in any general sense until a hundred years later.
CJ: That's a tragedy from which the country still suffers. The courts and the government stepped in several times from the 1940's to the 1960's--the Civil Rights era--to make sure that the political rights of minorities were protected as a matter of federal law.
Al: The women's questions was solved differently, wasn't it?
CJ: That was settled by amending the Constitution; in other words, by a popular vote in the states specifically extending the rights of citizenship to women. It took two generations, but happened in the most definitive way possible.
Al: I think I see what you're getting at. The Constitution allows for its own amendment--its own alteration and adjustment over the years, but this is to happen through the people.
CJ: That's right--and the people can change their minds, as they did with Prohibition.
Peg: Or they can get smarter, as they did with the suffrage question and with the civil rights process. But that doesn't solve our problems with the Supreme Court, does it?
CJ: No, it doesn't. In the Griswold case, around 1965, the Court concurred with Justice Douglas describing something called "a penumbra issuing from an emanation" of the rights in the Bill of Rights. In other words, it suggested setting up a whole new standard for describing the rights of citizens. A lot of people said "What?"
Peg: What does the Constitution say about the job of the Judicial Branch?
CJ: Not much.
Al: You're right--I've got a copy here in my pocket.
Peg: What kind of a nerd keeps the Constitution in his pocket?
Al: The kind who knows his rights--and limitations. Here, read Section Three.
Peg: Well, that's short: only about 10 sentences.
CJ: The Judiciary was created as a third branch of government, but apparently not intended to be the dominant branch--more of a limiter and correcter, whose jurisdiction could, and can still, be limited and specified by the Congress and so by the People.
Peg: Wow, I hadn't really considered it that way. I'm stunned.
Al: The founders may have been wise. The Supreme Court has made some great decisions in its history, but it has also been dreadfully wrong at times, necessitating the reversal of its own decisions. That shift of emphasis that CJ talked about is real. The Court's main direction was to rule on the rights related to citizenship itself. Now, it seems that the justices want to protect and expand all kinds of cultural and behavioral privileges. It seems to me that these sorts of things are better off left to votes of the people through their legislatures.
CJ: The more I study, the more I marvel at how wise the founders were. They certainly didn't avoid the basic questions of government itself, but their ideal was that the citizens should not be tyrannized by any branch of government that reaches for a level of social control beyond the necessary minimum, especially on the Federal level.
Peg: But just the other day, some senator was on the news talking about the Constitution being a living tradition, not just a document.
CJ: I know who you're talking about. She was right and she was wrong.
Peg: What do you mean?
CJ: She was right in two ways. First, the people can amend the Constitution at will, since the whole point of our government's existence is the ability and importance of voting. Even the great Court decisions of the Civil Rights era were centered around protecting the ability of citizens to vote and the direct supports for that right. America is all about voting, especially on major issues--which means political process, campaigns, rhetoric, and so on.
Al: Messy, but effective.
CJ: The second way the senator was right was that the whole judicial branch, federal and state, builds on a body of case law that goes back even before the country's founding. But, it's a very careful and subtle process of interpretation, not open to whims and fads--or "penumbras issuing from emanations".
Peg: So the senator was wrong about the role of the Supreme Court, because she implied that it had a kind of legislating job to do.
CJ: Right.
Peg: But it seems unnecessary to be so strict about the role of the Constitution. Why can't the government grow and evolve with the times?
Al: The government can grow, alright, and it has in order to serve the needs, complexities and emergencies of the world. It's up to the Congress and the Executive to do this part, though, and the Constitution provides plenty of freedom to allow that to happen. But it's that word "evolve" that scares me.
Peg: Now you really sound like a conservative.
Al: That's no insult. To me, "evolve" means that the ideals and principles change, and I'm not sure that's a good thing at all, even if I am occasionally inconvenienced by the limitations.
Peg: How do you mean that?
Al: CJ, you can correct me on this. America, as it was envisioned by the founders, meant a pretty specific set of ideals clustered around the basics of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Basic to these were political liberties and political equality--the rights of citizenship. To me, guaranteeing these goods is what is most important. Anything else may well be up to the people, but not necessarily for the courts to dictate.
Peg: But the people wouldn't necessarily vote for things like fewer restrictions on publishing and broadcasting obscene matter, the ability to choose abortion, and so on.
CJ: You're right, Peg, they wouldn't, without some case being made that would convince them these things were right. Realize also, that these are behavioral freedoms, not political rights as such. It's a stretch to include them in the area of political rights. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is where ideology takes over.
Al: Ideology is fine for the Congress--it's what they're about. It's not what the Supreme Court is about.
Peg: Well, we certainly haven't heard it put that way in the news.
Al: I'm hoping that as Judge Roberts is interviewed by the Judiciary Committee, he'll be able to remind the nation of that. It does look as if that seems to be his position: looking at the objective fact of the Constitution, rather than some 20th-century social ideal, as the source of legal interpretation.
CJ: I agree--but we'll have to listen to the ideologues during that process as well.
Peg: Hmm... I'm going to have to sit and think about all of this when I get home.
CJ: (Checking his watch.) Speaking of which, Peg, we ought to hike on out of here. Good talking with you, Al.
Al: Sure, guys. So long...
(Ubiquitous name-brand coffee shop; mid-summer, mid-week, mid-afternoon. Peg walks through with a friend, notices Al reading newspapers and sipping his usual.)
Peg: Hey, Al, don't you think it's warm enough without all that hot coffee?
Al: Coffee is the elixir of life, Peg, hot or not. Besides, I need it to keep me calm while I read this news. Why don't you sit a while. Can I treat?
Peg: That's O.K., we just stopped in for some water. I'll get it. By the way, this is C.J., my neighbor.
CJ: Hi, Al; Peg mentions you regularly.
Al: Really? I'd better behave, then.
Peg: (Returning with bottled water.) So what are you reading those papers for?
Al: I'm trying to get a scope on this Supreme Court nominee. This political stuff just makes me crazy.
Peg: Good grief, CJ's been ranting about it, too.
CJ: No kidding. And the papers have it all wrong, as usual.
Al: I'm glad you said that--I was beginning to think the problem was mine. They really don't understand, do they?
CJ: Nope, not a clue.
Peg: Wait a minute, what am I missing here? I know Justice O'Connor has retired and the President is nominating a judge named Roberts to replace her. The President is picking someone who thinks like he does, and the liberals are going to be upset. What's the problem? It sounds like business as usual.
Al: It's not.
CJ: Al's right. The nomination of a Supreme Court justice has never been the subject of this sort of ideological line-drawing--at least, not until a few years ago.
Al: CJ, you're a retired attorney--is that right? I think that's what Peg told me.
CJ: Well, I guess I'll admit that much.
Al: So why the problems with this nomination?
CJ: That works on a couple of levels. What everyone sees, of course, is the political battle. No one likes being in second place. There's a pretty radical element in the Congress that's unhappy because the voting public seems to be rejecting key points of their message at the polls.
Al: There has been a real shift--I think everyone admits that much.
Peg: But we don't vote for Supreme Court justices.
CJ: That's true, Peg, but over the last 30 years or more, as voters have chosen lots of conservative candidates on the national level, the Supreme Court has kept to a pretty consistent pattern of support for a doctrine of social engineering--I guess, since the early 1960's.
Al: That's a pretty stiff way to put it, but the pattern is there, isn't it?
CJ: You bet. There have been several landmark cases where you can trace the development of a very distinct judicial philosophy. Some of the attorneys I know say that the Court has made itself a sort of "super-legislature".
Peg: Don't justices do what they've always done? When an existing law is challenged on Constitutional grounds, doesn't the Supreme Court just look at the rights given in the Constitution and decide whether that law is consistent with those rights--or not?
CJ: Sorry to burst your balloon on this one, Peg. In the first place, the Constitution is not a document that spells out or anticipates every possible situation that can arise. The founders did create the institutions of a representative republic that served the interests of a government under which the citizens of the states had certain rights and duties. These rights and duties of citizenship were held equally by all citizens but the design was to be rather minimalist in terms of how intrusive that government was allowed to become.
Peg: But of course not every person had access to these rights--the black slaves and women were left out.
CJ: You're right. There's plenty of good historical evidence why they left the slave question out--the fact is that they would not have had a republic at all if they had pursued this question in the 1780's. The new nation would have collapsed over the differences regarding abolition. It nearly did 80 years later, but America was strong enough to survive the Civil War.
Peg: But the children and grandchildren of the slaves didn't get their rights in any general sense until a hundred years later.
CJ: That's a tragedy from which the country still suffers. The courts and the government stepped in several times from the 1940's to the 1960's--the Civil Rights era--to make sure that the political rights of minorities were protected as a matter of federal law.
Al: The women's questions was solved differently, wasn't it?
CJ: That was settled by amending the Constitution; in other words, by a popular vote in the states specifically extending the rights of citizenship to women. It took two generations, but happened in the most definitive way possible.
Al: I think I see what you're getting at. The Constitution allows for its own amendment--its own alteration and adjustment over the years, but this is to happen through the people.
CJ: That's right--and the people can change their minds, as they did with Prohibition.
Peg: Or they can get smarter, as they did with the suffrage question and with the civil rights process. But that doesn't solve our problems with the Supreme Court, does it?
CJ: No, it doesn't. In the Griswold case, around 1965, the Court concurred with Justice Douglas describing something called "a penumbra issuing from an emanation" of the rights in the Bill of Rights. In other words, it suggested setting up a whole new standard for describing the rights of citizens. A lot of people said "What?"
Peg: What does the Constitution say about the job of the Judicial Branch?
CJ: Not much.
Al: You're right--I've got a copy here in my pocket.
Peg: What kind of a nerd keeps the Constitution in his pocket?
Al: The kind who knows his rights--and limitations. Here, read Section Three.
Peg: Well, that's short: only about 10 sentences.
CJ: The Judiciary was created as a third branch of government, but apparently not intended to be the dominant branch--more of a limiter and correcter, whose jurisdiction could, and can still, be limited and specified by the Congress and so by the People.
Peg: Wow, I hadn't really considered it that way. I'm stunned.
Al: The founders may have been wise. The Supreme Court has made some great decisions in its history, but it has also been dreadfully wrong at times, necessitating the reversal of its own decisions. That shift of emphasis that CJ talked about is real. The Court's main direction was to rule on the rights related to citizenship itself. Now, it seems that the justices want to protect and expand all kinds of cultural and behavioral privileges. It seems to me that these sorts of things are better off left to votes of the people through their legislatures.
CJ: The more I study, the more I marvel at how wise the founders were. They certainly didn't avoid the basic questions of government itself, but their ideal was that the citizens should not be tyrannized by any branch of government that reaches for a level of social control beyond the necessary minimum, especially on the Federal level.
Peg: But just the other day, some senator was on the news talking about the Constitution being a living tradition, not just a document.
CJ: I know who you're talking about. She was right and she was wrong.
Peg: What do you mean?
CJ: She was right in two ways. First, the people can amend the Constitution at will, since the whole point of our government's existence is the ability and importance of voting. Even the great Court decisions of the Civil Rights era were centered around protecting the ability of citizens to vote and the direct supports for that right. America is all about voting, especially on major issues--which means political process, campaigns, rhetoric, and so on.
Al: Messy, but effective.
CJ: The second way the senator was right was that the whole judicial branch, federal and state, builds on a body of case law that goes back even before the country's founding. But, it's a very careful and subtle process of interpretation, not open to whims and fads--or "penumbras issuing from emanations".
Peg: So the senator was wrong about the role of the Supreme Court, because she implied that it had a kind of legislating job to do.
CJ: Right.
Peg: But it seems unnecessary to be so strict about the role of the Constitution. Why can't the government grow and evolve with the times?
Al: The government can grow, alright, and it has in order to serve the needs, complexities and emergencies of the world. It's up to the Congress and the Executive to do this part, though, and the Constitution provides plenty of freedom to allow that to happen. But it's that word "evolve" that scares me.
Peg: Now you really sound like a conservative.
Al: That's no insult. To me, "evolve" means that the ideals and principles change, and I'm not sure that's a good thing at all, even if I am occasionally inconvenienced by the limitations.
Peg: How do you mean that?
Al: CJ, you can correct me on this. America, as it was envisioned by the founders, meant a pretty specific set of ideals clustered around the basics of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Basic to these were political liberties and political equality--the rights of citizenship. To me, guaranteeing these goods is what is most important. Anything else may well be up to the people, but not necessarily for the courts to dictate.
Peg: But the people wouldn't necessarily vote for things like fewer restrictions on publishing and broadcasting obscene matter, the ability to choose abortion, and so on.
CJ: You're right, Peg, they wouldn't, without some case being made that would convince them these things were right. Realize also, that these are behavioral freedoms, not political rights as such. It's a stretch to include them in the area of political rights. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is where ideology takes over.
Al: Ideology is fine for the Congress--it's what they're about. It's not what the Supreme Court is about.
Peg: Well, we certainly haven't heard it put that way in the news.
Al: I'm hoping that as Judge Roberts is interviewed by the Judiciary Committee, he'll be able to remind the nation of that. It does look as if that seems to be his position: looking at the objective fact of the Constitution, rather than some 20th-century social ideal, as the source of legal interpretation.
CJ: I agree--but we'll have to listen to the ideologues during that process as well.
Peg: Hmm... I'm going to have to sit and think about all of this when I get home.
CJ: (Checking his watch.) Speaking of which, Peg, we ought to hike on out of here. Good talking with you, Al.
Al: Sure, guys. So long...
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Wisdom and Myth
Philosophy and its stepchildren, the sciences, are not "post-mythic" steps in human understanding pertaining to the metaphysical, except chronologically. Mythos, sacred story, and metaphysics are different, but share a critical object--the ability to say something meaningful about humanity's "ultimate concern."
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Vitamin B16
Aha!
Pope Benedict's last "Ratzinger" book (see title link) is now available: The Europe of Benedict, in the Crisis of Cultures. The rationale of the essay is the ongoing transformation of European culture--not a brand new thing, by the way--from an intrinsic if not always successful Christianity to a brittle and anomic secularity.
That's why he's "Benedict," as some observed upon his accession. He sees the confrontation with secular nihilism as the great campaign for the future of civilization, one that must be advanced in the place where the rebellion against an integral and spiritual worldview is rooted: continental Europe. Some quotes featured in the article:
**He speaks of the "cynicism of a secularized culture that negates its own roots."
**"It's not the mention of God that offends the followers of other religions, but rather the attempt to build a human community absolutely without God."
**Society is "becoming virtually insensitive to abortion. ... Maybe because in abortion you don't see the face of who will be condemned and never see the light. ... You become blind to the right of life of another, the youngest and weakest who doesn't have a voice."
AND BY THE WAY:
Again, this annoying mantra from the Chronicle's article: "ideological watchdog." This is now trite, folks. Get rid of it and describe the Pope's former position accurately. Facts are never trite; ideology is.
More irrelevance from the fishwrap: "His first weeks as new leader of the Roman Catholic Church have been closely watched for signs of potential doctrinal change." DUH....
Pope Benedict's last "Ratzinger" book (see title link) is now available: The Europe of Benedict, in the Crisis of Cultures. The rationale of the essay is the ongoing transformation of European culture--not a brand new thing, by the way--from an intrinsic if not always successful Christianity to a brittle and anomic secularity.
That's why he's "Benedict," as some observed upon his accession. He sees the confrontation with secular nihilism as the great campaign for the future of civilization, one that must be advanced in the place where the rebellion against an integral and spiritual worldview is rooted: continental Europe. Some quotes featured in the article:
**He speaks of the "cynicism of a secularized culture that negates its own roots."
**"It's not the mention of God that offends the followers of other religions, but rather the attempt to build a human community absolutely without God."
**Society is "becoming virtually insensitive to abortion. ... Maybe because in abortion you don't see the face of who will be condemned and never see the light. ... You become blind to the right of life of another, the youngest and weakest who doesn't have a voice."
AND BY THE WAY:
Again, this annoying mantra from the Chronicle's article: "ideological watchdog." This is now trite, folks. Get rid of it and describe the Pope's former position accurately. Facts are never trite; ideology is.
More irrelevance from the fishwrap: "His first weeks as new leader of the Roman Catholic Church have been closely watched for signs of potential doctrinal change." DUH....
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Two stories
From my recent reading. Scholar of religions Jacob Needleman's The Heart of Philosophy describes his attempt to be a teacher of philosophy in a more Socratic sense, by leaving the ivory tower and conducting experimental classes with high school students and with their parents. His reflections lead him to a much more "rooted" interpretation of the "heart" of philosophic activity. At any rate, here are two stories that he relates to his students during this trial.
The Tiger Cub--a story from Hinduism.
A female tiger, late in her pregnancy, spies a herd of goats and, charging after them in her awkward condition, she stumbles against a jagged rock. She strikes her head and is killed, but the cub is born.
With the danger passed, the goats return and, seeing the tiny cub, they raise him as their own. The cub begins to grow up, contentedly, as though he were a goat. He feeds on grass and even automatically imitates the bleating sound that the goats make. He is quite happy.
All is well until one day another tiger, a great and fierce male tiger, spies the herd. He, too, charges after the herd and the goats flee in panic. The cub, however, does not move. He sees this enormous, awesome being bearing down upon them and he sees all his brothers and sisters running past him, their eyes wild with terror. For some reason that the cub does not understand, he feels no fear whatever, not even when the great tiger passes right next to him.
Seeing the cub there amidst the goats, the tiger is startled and stops in his tracks. "What are you doing here!" he angrily roars. The cub blinks his eyes and gives out a pathetic, gravelly bleating sound. The tiger cannot believe what he sees and hears, and he roars again in utter disgust. Forgetting about his hunt, he snatches the cub by the scruff of his neck and carries him off into the jungle in his huge jaws. There, by the side of a reflecting pool, he dangles the cub over the water so that he can see his own relfection. "Look at yourself!" growls the tiger. "You see! You are one of our tribe!" In fact the cub is astonished to see that he has the same kind of face as this awesome creature who is holding him. But all he can do is give out another bleating, goatlike cry.
Infuriated beyond measure, the great tiger carries the cub to its lair where, in the corner of the cave, there lies an antelope, a fresh kill. The tiger sets the cub down next to the bloody meat and orders him: "Eat!" But the cub, who has never eaten anything but grasses and leaves, the fare of goats, is repelled and refuses with yet another bleating sound. The tiger insists, but the cub is nauseated by the very sight and smell of the raw meat in front of him. Finally, his patience exhausted, the great tiger snatches up the in one gigantic paw and forces the meat down the cub's throat. The poor little cub gags and chokes as he involuntarily swallows the new food. Then, suddenly, something remarkable happens. The cub begins to feel a strange and wondrous warmth surging through him, a sensation like nothing he has ever known before. Suffused with this warmth, he cries out in joy and the sound that comes from him is the same roar of the tiger, the sound which every other beast of the jungle trembles to hear.
The great tiger smiles with satisfaction. "Now," he says to the cub, "you know what you are! Come, let us go together to the hunt!"
Second story: An "eastern story" Needleman quotes from Tolstoy's My Confession.
Long ago has been told the Easter story about the traveller who in the steppe is overtaken by an infuriated beast. Trying to save himself from the animal, the traveller jumps into a waterless well, but at its bottom he sees a dragon who opens his jaws in order to swallow him. And the unfortunate man does not dare climb out, lest he perish from the infuriated beast, and does not dare jump down to the bottom of the well, lest he be devoured by the dragon, and so clutches the twig of a wild bush growing in a cleft of the well and holds on to it. His hands grow weak and he feels that soon he shall have to surrender to the peril which awaits him on either side; but he still holds on and sees two mice, one white, theother black, even in measure making a circle around the main trunk of the bush to which he is clinging, and nibbling at it on all sides. Now, at any moment, the bush will break and tear off, and he will fall into the dragon's jaws. The traveller sees that and knows that he will inevitably perish; but while he is still clinging, he sees some drops of honey hanging on the leaves of the bush, and so reaches out for them with his tongue and licks the leaves.
The Tiger Cub--a story from Hinduism.
A female tiger, late in her pregnancy, spies a herd of goats and, charging after them in her awkward condition, she stumbles against a jagged rock. She strikes her head and is killed, but the cub is born.
With the danger passed, the goats return and, seeing the tiny cub, they raise him as their own. The cub begins to grow up, contentedly, as though he were a goat. He feeds on grass and even automatically imitates the bleating sound that the goats make. He is quite happy.
All is well until one day another tiger, a great and fierce male tiger, spies the herd. He, too, charges after the herd and the goats flee in panic. The cub, however, does not move. He sees this enormous, awesome being bearing down upon them and he sees all his brothers and sisters running past him, their eyes wild with terror. For some reason that the cub does not understand, he feels no fear whatever, not even when the great tiger passes right next to him.
Seeing the cub there amidst the goats, the tiger is startled and stops in his tracks. "What are you doing here!" he angrily roars. The cub blinks his eyes and gives out a pathetic, gravelly bleating sound. The tiger cannot believe what he sees and hears, and he roars again in utter disgust. Forgetting about his hunt, he snatches the cub by the scruff of his neck and carries him off into the jungle in his huge jaws. There, by the side of a reflecting pool, he dangles the cub over the water so that he can see his own relfection. "Look at yourself!" growls the tiger. "You see! You are one of our tribe!" In fact the cub is astonished to see that he has the same kind of face as this awesome creature who is holding him. But all he can do is give out another bleating, goatlike cry.
Infuriated beyond measure, the great tiger carries the cub to its lair where, in the corner of the cave, there lies an antelope, a fresh kill. The tiger sets the cub down next to the bloody meat and orders him: "Eat!" But the cub, who has never eaten anything but grasses and leaves, the fare of goats, is repelled and refuses with yet another bleating sound. The tiger insists, but the cub is nauseated by the very sight and smell of the raw meat in front of him. Finally, his patience exhausted, the great tiger snatches up the in one gigantic paw and forces the meat down the cub's throat. The poor little cub gags and chokes as he involuntarily swallows the new food. Then, suddenly, something remarkable happens. The cub begins to feel a strange and wondrous warmth surging through him, a sensation like nothing he has ever known before. Suffused with this warmth, he cries out in joy and the sound that comes from him is the same roar of the tiger, the sound which every other beast of the jungle trembles to hear.
The great tiger smiles with satisfaction. "Now," he says to the cub, "you know what you are! Come, let us go together to the hunt!"
Second story: An "eastern story" Needleman quotes from Tolstoy's My Confession.
Long ago has been told the Easter story about the traveller who in the steppe is overtaken by an infuriated beast. Trying to save himself from the animal, the traveller jumps into a waterless well, but at its bottom he sees a dragon who opens his jaws in order to swallow him. And the unfortunate man does not dare climb out, lest he perish from the infuriated beast, and does not dare jump down to the bottom of the well, lest he be devoured by the dragon, and so clutches the twig of a wild bush growing in a cleft of the well and holds on to it. His hands grow weak and he feels that soon he shall have to surrender to the peril which awaits him on either side; but he still holds on and sees two mice, one white, theother black, even in measure making a circle around the main trunk of the bush to which he is clinging, and nibbling at it on all sides. Now, at any moment, the bush will break and tear off, and he will fall into the dragon's jaws. The traveller sees that and knows that he will inevitably perish; but while he is still clinging, he sees some drops of honey hanging on the leaves of the bush, and so reaches out for them with his tongue and licks the leaves.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Checking in
I haven't posted regularly due to a death in the family and the usual end-of-semester pressures. Back soon.
Meanwhile, click the title for some good links and reading.
Meanwhile, click the title for some good links and reading.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Thesis: Philosophy and Religion
Thesis: Philosophy was religion prior to "religion" the way we understand religion today, especially among the intentional, rational and justified sorts of religions that exist now. It's not natural in the sense of the primal religions, but reflected through a certain level (we might say more or less) of participation in intellectual construction and justification. No, I don't mean this in an elitist sense. It's manifest today that the philosophical schools of antiquity were philosophic ways taught by masters who handed on traditions of knowledge and praxis for many generations. The roots of such institutions, while at a certain point attributable to particular individuals, also depend upon the exposure of those individuals to certain experiences and travels that enabled them to become conscious of more ancient, if less intellectual (in the broad sense), ways of living. Hadot contends that philosophy in the Christian world was separated from these roots because the Christian way appropriated, co-opted, the existing philosophical disciplines because these supplied a ready-made channel for dialogue with the people of their world. Eventually, Christians on the popular level began to forget their philosophic way, in the explicit sense, while retaining its public forms, the creeds.. The case might also be made that after the Reformation, the rejection of philosophy was explicit in the reformed traditions. (That doesn't mean it the philosophic strand no longer existed. Rejection is subjective.) In the "Catholic" traditions, where did the philosophic disciplines go? To the monasteries, certainly; less consistently, to certain university traditions.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Personal note
Despite lots to say, I haven't posted in a week because we have been very busy attending to a serious illness in the family. Back to business soon, I hope.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Benedict XVI
Well, the Electors may not have surprised anyone else, but they surprised me. I had thought that one of the Europeans would be a compromise choice later on in the balloting--third or fourth day, and either Schoenborn or one of the Italians. The best shot seemed to me one of the very promising third-worlders. I wonder what they had in mind?
--They elected the smartest man in the room: a formidable theologian, who would have left his mark, no matter what.
--They elected the oldest man in the room, or pretty close. We saw with John XXIII that the man with little to lose is not necessarily the most cautious.
--They elected a peer of John Paul II. Benedict was one of two cardinals at the conclave who had been among the electors in 1978.
--They elected a consummate European, of a very sophisticated, even subtle, cast of mind. Benedict seems to be a very highly "cultured" person in the most formal sense of that word. I heard this evening that he is a musician, an accomplished classical pianist who loves Mozart.
--Continuing that thought, they probably could not have elected a Pope with a personality that contrasted more with that of his predecessor. Not shy, but very "academic," a grandfatherly type. He seems to be the type who may have "mentored" other members of the hierarchy with discretion and a certain warmth.
--In intellectual style, also very different. A neo-scholastic theologian as opposed to a phenomenological philosopher. Read anything by either man: the difference in approach is immediately apparent.
--Did they Electors choose St. Benedict or Benedict XV? The former was the bold founder of monasteries, the great medieval foundations that rescued not only the faith but also civilization itself from Europe's bearded invaders. The latter was, according to one historian, "a frail, reserved aristocrat" who inherited a Church inspired by a strong Pope Pius X but somewhat angered by the Modernist controversies. Yet Benedict XV also engaged his world by writing what would become the pioneering missionary charter of his century, and by suffering with the Church through World War I. He spent himself in charitable efforts to ease the plight of a huge refugee problem and to bring the nations to the negotiating table, unsuccessfully. He was a fascinating and complex character.
We can only wait, watch and learn what prompting of the Spirit moved the Cardinals in Cardinal Ratzinger's direction.
--They elected the smartest man in the room: a formidable theologian, who would have left his mark, no matter what.
--They elected the oldest man in the room, or pretty close. We saw with John XXIII that the man with little to lose is not necessarily the most cautious.
--They elected a peer of John Paul II. Benedict was one of two cardinals at the conclave who had been among the electors in 1978.
--They elected a consummate European, of a very sophisticated, even subtle, cast of mind. Benedict seems to be a very highly "cultured" person in the most formal sense of that word. I heard this evening that he is a musician, an accomplished classical pianist who loves Mozart.
--Continuing that thought, they probably could not have elected a Pope with a personality that contrasted more with that of his predecessor. Not shy, but very "academic," a grandfatherly type. He seems to be the type who may have "mentored" other members of the hierarchy with discretion and a certain warmth.
--In intellectual style, also very different. A neo-scholastic theologian as opposed to a phenomenological philosopher. Read anything by either man: the difference in approach is immediately apparent.
--Did they Electors choose St. Benedict or Benedict XV? The former was the bold founder of monasteries, the great medieval foundations that rescued not only the faith but also civilization itself from Europe's bearded invaders. The latter was, according to one historian, "a frail, reserved aristocrat" who inherited a Church inspired by a strong Pope Pius X but somewhat angered by the Modernist controversies. Yet Benedict XV also engaged his world by writing what would become the pioneering missionary charter of his century, and by suffering with the Church through World War I. He spent himself in charitable efforts to ease the plight of a huge refugee problem and to bring the nations to the negotiating table, unsuccessfully. He was a fascinating and complex character.
We can only wait, watch and learn what prompting of the Spirit moved the Cardinals in Cardinal Ratzinger's direction.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
#6
The Conclave: Why so much ritual? Why all the secrecy?
Secrecy first: Think back to last fall's presidential campaign and election. It got ugly at times. In a community of religion, one as broad and deep as the Catholic Church, there is danger that a process similar to the raucous American election season, where parties, interest groups, and the media apply all kinds of healthy and unhealthy pressures, would be chaotic and unintelligible. And the outcome, intended to reflect inspired, prayerful consideration, would be terrible uncertainty and partisanship. In its long adventure, the Catholic Church has learned lessons from its own story and from secular history. While the deliberations of the Cardinal-electors will be secret for now, and probably should be, everyone who wants to know the steps of the process and the specific procedures that will take place can do so. There is an abundance of information available about this "secret" ceremony. Eventually, more about the actual events of this conclave will be known, and the electors are certainly aware of that. Further, many facts about these electors and their personal roads to Rome are broadcast and printed daily.
The process now in place for the modern Church to choose its next worldly shepherd is one that respects its long tradition and the spirit of the ancient Church as well. The New Testament shows the apostles deliberating together over important questions and reaching consensus. This is what the electors will do. They need the time and space to do it well and to listen to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit. It won't be long before the rest of the story is investigated. There is a "healthy confidentiality" that needs to be preserved.
This brings us to the general point of ritual. Ritual is two things: symbol and tradition. The rituals accompanying the papal transition remind us that Catholicism is sacramental and universal. Where human language creates differences, distinctions, ambiguities and misunderstanding, the incorporation of public ritual returns the Church to the signification of its fundamental truths. What we believe is made alive, acted out. Liturgy is drama.
At Pope John Paul's funeral, the Mass came to its conclusion and different voices were heard to offer a short series of blessings and committals. In this series was a blessing chanted by a delegation from the Eastern rites of the Church. It was chanted in Greek, echoing the most ancient of the Church's common languages. Hearing the prayers of these ancestral communities gave us a glimpse into the prayer and heart of the first generations of Christians. It was a reminder of the continuity of today's Church with the first-century apostolic community.
G. K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy, "Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death." Especially in the Church, our tradition has an enormous amount to teach us. Liturgy and ritual teach us through powerful symbols and actions. We believe, pray, and hand on the living Scriptures, the words and and acts of the apostles and the many services--in both the liturgical and moral senses--that mark the timeless character of the Christian vocation and identity. Ritual is not only important, but of the essence.
Secrecy first: Think back to last fall's presidential campaign and election. It got ugly at times. In a community of religion, one as broad and deep as the Catholic Church, there is danger that a process similar to the raucous American election season, where parties, interest groups, and the media apply all kinds of healthy and unhealthy pressures, would be chaotic and unintelligible. And the outcome, intended to reflect inspired, prayerful consideration, would be terrible uncertainty and partisanship. In its long adventure, the Catholic Church has learned lessons from its own story and from secular history. While the deliberations of the Cardinal-electors will be secret for now, and probably should be, everyone who wants to know the steps of the process and the specific procedures that will take place can do so. There is an abundance of information available about this "secret" ceremony. Eventually, more about the actual events of this conclave will be known, and the electors are certainly aware of that. Further, many facts about these electors and their personal roads to Rome are broadcast and printed daily.
The process now in place for the modern Church to choose its next worldly shepherd is one that respects its long tradition and the spirit of the ancient Church as well. The New Testament shows the apostles deliberating together over important questions and reaching consensus. This is what the electors will do. They need the time and space to do it well and to listen to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit. It won't be long before the rest of the story is investigated. There is a "healthy confidentiality" that needs to be preserved.
This brings us to the general point of ritual. Ritual is two things: symbol and tradition. The rituals accompanying the papal transition remind us that Catholicism is sacramental and universal. Where human language creates differences, distinctions, ambiguities and misunderstanding, the incorporation of public ritual returns the Church to the signification of its fundamental truths. What we believe is made alive, acted out. Liturgy is drama.
At Pope John Paul's funeral, the Mass came to its conclusion and different voices were heard to offer a short series of blessings and committals. In this series was a blessing chanted by a delegation from the Eastern rites of the Church. It was chanted in Greek, echoing the most ancient of the Church's common languages. Hearing the prayers of these ancestral communities gave us a glimpse into the prayer and heart of the first generations of Christians. It was a reminder of the continuity of today's Church with the first-century apostolic community.
G. K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy, "Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death." Especially in the Church, our tradition has an enormous amount to teach us. Liturgy and ritual teach us through powerful symbols and actions. We believe, pray, and hand on the living Scriptures, the words and and acts of the apostles and the many services--in both the liturgical and moral senses--that mark the timeless character of the Christian vocation and identity. Ritual is not only important, but of the essence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)