House of Eratosthenes

Most of the time, when I finish writing a monster-sized post, I came up with the title before I’ve even jotted off a single word. I used to think it was better to go backwards — cover everything I wanted to cover, and then come up with something snappy that captures it all. But the posts that get the most positive feedback, I notice, are the ones where I came up with a title first, rambled on for a couple thousand words, and then somewhere near the end declared unambiguously how the title fits the content.

I’m not sure why that is. I think it’s because the reader is given some reason for plowing all the way through. They get an understanding of what’s being said, that would have eluded them had they done what comes naturally, and given up halfway through. It may also have to do with definition-of-scope: By writing down the title first, I’m given a narrow range of topics to discuss, when my own natural inclination would be to probe and prod every little thing under the sun. One way or the other, though, the goal has to be to make the title consistent with the content.

Well I think Neal Boortz failed to do that this morning.

SUE? SUE FOR WHAT?

As we get closer to the release of The Da Vinci Code in theatres worldwide we are beginning to see more and more reasons why we need to make sure a firm line between government and religion is drawn .. and stays drawn.

Catholic Cardinal Francis Arinze was considered to be a leading candidate for pope in last year’s papal election. Now Cardinal Arinze is making waves in another way … he’s suggesting that Catholics around the world file lawsuits against the movie. And just what does Cardinal Arinze see as the basis for a cause of action? Why, he is offended by the movie! Cardinal Arinze is taking the position that other religions (Islam?) won’t stand still for any offenses against their faith, and neither should Christians. It’s time, he says, for Christians go get tough. Get tough and file lawsuits.

Well … so much for the concept of freedom … especially freedom of expression. Here we have a book that has sold 40 million copies worldwide, and is now ready to debut on the silver screen, and we have this leading Roman Catholic talking about lawsuits … lawsuits because he is and other Catholics should be (gasp!) offended!

Bear in mind, now, that for me to say one single negative word about Cardinal Arinze and his call for lawsuits by easily-offended Catholics is nothing less than “Christian bashing” and is all the proof the world needs that Neal Boortz is a godless atheist.

Well .. I hate to disappoint, but an atheist I am not. I am also not a theocrat. I acknowledge and fear the huge numbers of people, both abroad and here at home, who are driven by a desire to gain control of the government’s exclusivity on the use of force in order to promote their own religious ideals. These are people who are not merely satisfied to live their lives in accordance with their deeply held beliefs; they feel compelled to see that you live your life as a testament to their religious viewpoints as well. It was these very people Ambrose Bierce had in mind when he defined a Christian as: “Someone who believes that the Bible is a divinely inspired book, admirably suited for the needs of his neighbor.”

The very act of a highly respected Cardinal suggesting that people attempt to use legal processes to prevent the distribution of a move that he finds offensive has placed a stain on the Catholic church. Let’s all watch carefully now to see if anyone in the Vatican actually steps forward to praise the concept of freedom and to defend our rights to express ourselves in our words and our writing.

I, for one, am not holding my breath.

Before we move on …. let’s acknowledge the fact that Cardinal Arinze’s words have the effect of giving aid and comfort to the world’s Islamic terrorists. The Muslim riots around Europe and the world over those silly Mohammed cartoons in a Danish newspaper have now been somewhat legitimized by Cardinal Arinze’s words. Hey .. if Muslims can get upset and attack the principles of free speech and free expression, then why can’t Catholics? Today … lawsuits. Tomorrow …… ?

In this case, although the title of his piece says I should be perplexedly wondering on what grounds Christians can sue the movie, there is no residual question about such grounds, nor has Neal managed to create any question. Sue for what? Intentional infliction of emotional distress, of course! It’s been going on for generations now.

This is the problem with sentiments such as “we need to make sure a firm line between government and religion is drawn .. and stays drawn.” Sounds pretty easy, doesn’t it? Well, how would you enforce that line here? The most logical inference I can draw, is that we need to stop any religious institution from filing lawsuits; and, further, we need to stop private, individual entities from filing lawsuits when they are motivated to do so by the ravings of some religious institution that happens to claim the plaintiff’s membership and fidelity.

Now, how do we do that? By throwing out the lawsuits? I guess so; that’s the only way you could enforce such a rule. But waitaminnit! That would be transcending the line between church and state, if nothing else would be…wouldn’t it?

Let’s get one thing straight. Position-wise, I agree with Boortz a hundred percent about the “freedom of expression” concerns, and also on the issue of legitimizing the Muslim weirdos who are protesting the Danish cartoons. The point where I part company with him, has to do not with inferences, but with the thing-to-do. He’s insisting that the barn door be slammed shut decades after the last whiff of horse dross wafted through the barn. It’s too late, Neal. People have been litigating over having their private sensibilities somehow aggravated, and if “freedom of expression” was ever to be defended, the right time to defend it would have been the very first time a lawsuit like that was ever filed. In the name of the First Amendment, throw the sucker out right then and there. In the name of grave concerns about where such a precedent might take us. I’d be all for that. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge this was not done.

And now, heck ya, Christians can sue The Davinci Code because their Catholic overlord told them they’re offended. Women can sue Neal Boortz for the content of his newsletter, because their seniors in whatever feminist cabal they belong to, told them to litigate. And people can read my blog, and sue me, because the guy they sell Amway with, told them to.

We live in a culture where people are “offended” by something only because someone else told them they’re offended — very seldom does anyone make their mind up, independently, “hey, that offends me.” Those few movers-and-shakers who make the decision that something is offensive, like Cardinal Arinze, decide such things based on a desire to inflict change and accumulate power…something that has very, very little to do with taking personal offense to something.

And, of course, nobody ever gets “offended” and makes the decision it’s their own cross to bear in silence. Heck no. Wherever there are ten offended people, you can guarantee nine lawsuits, maybe more. Were I to travel back in time five decades and tell people this is where things are headed, they’d think this encapsulation of future events far more harebrained and worthy of the straightjacket, than the story of time-travel itself.

But look around. Read the news. That’s the way things work now. Dictatorship via lawsuit via “hey I’m offended.” The Catholic Church simply wants a chunk of power, the same chunk of power everybody else has. Oh sure, they’ve been powerful in many other ways, for thousands of years now; but they want power on this playing field, too. And why shouldn’t they have it? If one is to presume we have a right to not-be-offended, then that has to be a basic human right, as basic and all-encompassing as the right not to get punched in the nose. These are rights we all enjoy, or else none of us do.

Separation of Church and State? It’s too late for that, too. Islam is a church, after all. Three months ago Islamic protesters let their angst be known, often violently, over the nonsensical issue of Danish cartoons. They were offended because their Mullahs told them to be offended. Now, I would be on thin ice to accuse Boortz himself of being inconsistent here, of course. I could go on a search for things he said, sticking up for common-sense and freedom-of-expression for the cartoonists, and I’d bring back all kinds of fresh meat. But where was everybody else? No, the prevailing wisdom was that “freedom of expression” was such a peripheral concern, it was deplorable to even utter the three words in commentary about the issue at hand — unless, in context, you were talking about the “freedom of expression” of the arsonists, not the cartoonists. As far as the God-given right of the cartoonists to draw whatever they want and to express whatever ideas they wanted to, this was simply a red herring. It was too offeeeeeeeeeeeensive to certain classes of people, or so those classes of people said.

The precedent has been set. The Cardinal is calling for lawsuits, not arson. I wish the precedent was not there, like Neal. But I’m not going to pretend it doesn’t exist, just because I dislike it. We’ve danced to the tune by not speaking up when we should have, and now we have to pay the piper: Everyone can be an activist, anytime, anyplace. What a wonderful thing when you’re trying to stop something; what a pain in the ass when you just want to watch a movie.

It’s a good lesson about paying attention when people grab power. Pay attention not only to who is getting the power, but why they’re getting it. Think long and hard, right there and then — not later — about who else could grab power the same way.

The older I get, the more I notice the reasons people get power, stay fairly consistent, subject to change only through an occasional mini-revolution that you have to wait a generation to see happen…maybe even longer than that. The classes of people who grab that power according to those reasons, on the other hand, change like the seasons.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Too Late, Neal; Too LateMonday, May 8th, 2006

Too Late, Neal; Too Late
Monday, May 8th, 2006