Natural Rights, Civil Rights and States' Rights

The philosophy of rights is deeply entrenched in the American political system, and has even older roots in Western political philosophy. Most Americans, I would venture, believe in natural rights, namely, that each person has a natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property according to the original sense). More recently, other natural rights have been asserted: women's rights, animal rights, etc. Civil Rights, especially when regarding the individual, also remain at the forefront of the American consciousness: right to attorney, right to remain silent, right of habeas corpus, right to vote, and so on. What is interesting about the philosophy of rights is the presuppositions that it seems to make. It would seem that for a person to claim a certain right as "natural," there would have to exist an objective, universal order. Unless a person can point me otherwise, I cannot see how any philosophy of natural rights can be undergirded by any system that makes moral and societal norms relative. Civil rights are granted by the state, but these rights also seem to be rooted in an evaluation of justice. Civil rights are granted because it is just and right to grant them, not because it benefits that state or the people of the state.

States' Rights, still touted by many (especially amongst Southerners) as the true issue at stake for the South in the American Civil War (AKA the War of Northern Aggression), no longer has any relevance in the minds of most Americans. Many Americans want to reduce the size of the federal government, but the question of the states taking on many functions themselves without the interference of the federal government often is not heard. The libertarians focus on the individual in his self-autonomy, with very little involvement from the government, primarily the federal government. But, so far as I am aware, there is no significant platform at present in the United States that pushes for state's rights. This is interesting considering historical precedent. The Founding Fathers first attempted a very loose Confederation of States (the Articles of Confederation). This did not work out--if I remember, Virginia and Pennsylvania declared war on each other. But I think this is important in that it shows what the Fathers looked for in a national government. The Constitution provided for a stronger government, but sadly, even early in America's history, abuses at the federal level arose. In the face of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions was created, an early assertion of the rights of individual states against abuse of the federal government.

Anglican Church Ok's Women Bishops

A major moment for the Anglican Church: the decision to ok the consecration of women as bishops. As I understand it, several women have already been consecrated in Canada, but this decision means that in England women in the future may be consecrated. No concessions were made to traditional-minded Anglican bishops who oppose female bishops. And this all comes a little over a week before the Lambeth Conference, a world-wide conference of Anglican bishops held once every 10 years and which numerous traditional Anglican bishops have vowed to boycott due to the homosexual issue.

Keep your eyes on this one. It will be big.

Divorce and Remarriage in the EOC

As a Catholic I took it as an axiomatic truth that divorce and remarriage is not sanctioned by divine law and in fact is condemned by God. However, over time, my views on the subject have changed. I believed then as I do now that there is a certain validity to creating some regulations on divorce and remarriage. The two are both very grave, and as New Testament Scripture does not speak highly of either, they must not be dealt with lightly. I'm familiar with both the Latin Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox position

Neither the Latin Catholics nor the Orthodox have a quick and easy solution to the problem of marital difficulties. The Latin Catholics argue that once two people marry, neither car marry another person while the original other spouse still lives. To their support, the Latin Catholics bring forth several quotes from the early Church Fathers, many but not all from the Latin Fathers, which argue to the effect that no remarriage is allowed. Also, Latin Catholics bring forward Paul's words against a woman who departs from her husband from remarrying.

The Orthodox, on the other hand, point out that in many divorces there is an innocent party. For example, the husband may violently beat his wife, who becomes the innocent party. In the Catholic approach, a woman in such a case must either reconcile with her deranged husband or remain alone the rest of her life, or at least until her husband dies. As Archbishop Elias Zoghby (a Melkite Catholic bishop who sympathizes with the Orthodox understanding) describes, heroic virtue is expected of the woman. She is expected to be that which she never truly felt called for in the first place. The salvation of the innocent party's soul is at stake.

When I mull over in my mind these issues, I am reminded of Jesus' words to the Pharisees. I reproduce the words and situation here:

1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one^[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,'^[b] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012&version=31)

The above is from Matthew 12. The Pharisees claim Jesus is doing something unlawful on the Sabbath. Jesus points to David, who even Jesus says did something unlawful on the Sabbath (Jesus does not here claim that what David did was "lawful") The last two verses deserve repeated: If you had known what these words mean, I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

There is, I think, a difficulty in Latin Catholicism when it comes to reading passages in Scripture on divorce and remarriage. When Latin Catholics read injunctions of Jesus and Peter regarding divorce and remarriage, they take these injunctions in a very strict, no qualifications, sense. Yet, when Latin Catholics read other passages of Jesus and Peter regarding a bishop being a husband of one wife, "those who live by the sword die by the sword," etc. there is an attitude of "well, they said that for this or that reason due to the culture of the times, but the essence of what they were saying..." No bishop in the Latin Catholic Church (or any Eastern Church for that matter) is allowed married. The Crusades, violent expertises against Muslims and Albigensians, among others, received papal blessings, and even came with indulgences. There are explanations for these in relation to the Scriptural texts that literally appear in opposition to these occurrences.

The error, I think, is in falling into legalism: replacing the laws of the Old Testament with the laws of the New Testament, but without the Hesed, the mercy, by which all laws of God are to be understood. According to a strict interpretation of their laws, the Pharisees were right in pointing out Jesus' transgression. Yet, the Pharisees did not understand the true meaning of the laws given them. They forgot the two great commandments. They relegated mercy and love below the strict observance of rites and regulations. Sadly, I believe something similiar has occurred in the Latin Catholic Church, where Christ's words have become fixed laws that serve to condemn any and all who trespass them, no matter the circumstances or personal situation, or exception.

City of Djinns by Willilam Dalrymple

The past several weeks have proved very busy for me. I have not had many opportunities to sit down and cogitate. I have, however, as is even in the case with the busiest times, set forth to read several news books I have recently purchased. One book (of the at least ten) that I am reading is City of Djinns, a travelogue/social history of the city Delhi in India. I would not have come across this book were it not for having previously read Dalrymple's other well-written work, From the Holy Mountain, which largely concerns Christians in the Middle East.

The City of Djinns is surprisingly a very interesting read. I say surprisingly, not because of Dalrymple's writing style, which remains superb, but because I came to the book without any previous fascination with India, the Moghul Empire, British colonialism. William Dalrymple does excellent work of weaving events of the past with the present and making the past relevant to the customs and every-day living of Indians today. One of many examples is the eunuchs of Delhi. Originally court eunuchs under the Moghul Dynasty, the eunuchs now serve the general populace in blessing marriages and weddings, and as dance entertainers. Dalrymple shows how the beliefs and traditions of the collapsed Moghul empire have merged with the traditions of Hinduism. As Dalrymple explains, eunuchs were highly regarded in Muslim countries because they often guarded important religious tombs and relics. In Hinduism, on the other hand, eunuchs were viewed as worse than the lowest of classes. Dalrymple, with a keen wit, portrays how the very same people who throw rubbish at the eunuchs are the ones who invite them to bless the family during marriages and births. Dalrymple does this throughout the book. He never suggests these paradoxes are anything but that (I never receive the impression of judgment from Dalrymple). When Dalrymple comes down hard, it usually is on those who as individuals probably deserve the criticism. Dalrymple details some of the atrocities the British committed on the native population in 1847, and Dalrymple evinces little sympathy for those responsible for the horrible crimes of violence, committed by the British or otherwise.

Dalrymple's book's addictive, and I look forward to reading White Mughals next (I in fact already own a copy, just haven't had the time lately to get into it.

St. Photios on the Filioque

I'm reading The Mystagogy, the well-known work of St. Photios of Constantinople (9th century) on the error of the filioque. It is quite excellent. The first half of the book, for about 7o pages, is background and introduction from the editor, which provides very helpful information. Although aware of the Neo-Platonism in St. Augustine's thought, even Trinitarian thought, I never connected that with St. Augustine's proposition of the filioque.

One thing that especially surprised me were some words that St. Photios writes quite early in his Mystagogy and which I myself had come to the logical conclusion several days ago: namely, that one could just as easily (indeed it would be necessary) to argue that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit. I don't say this in zest, but I am glad because it at least shows I'm thinking along the same lines as St. Photios and the other Church Fathers, at least in this one regard.

There have been some ecumenical dialogues with the Latin Catholics on the filioque. Some have reduced it to a difference in words with the Greek East's understanding. Personally, I find the filioque quite difficult to uphold, especially if one feels it necessary to regard the Council of Florence authoritative.

Hilary Clinton's RFK Comment

Yesterday, Hilary Clinton made a comment to the effect that RFK was assassinated in June. The comment came immediately after a reference to her husband going into June in the early 90's. The comment clearly was in the context of presidential nominees going into the summer without dropping out of the race; yet, for some reason, she immediately was accused of insensitivity towards the Kennedy family.

This is nonsense. Any sensible person can see that the comment was meant to say that presidential candidates still have a chance in the primaries well into the summer. I'm not a supporter of Clinton; in fact, I can't stand her. However, I think that the charges against her in this regard are nonsense.

Now, Hilary's comments on Bosnia are a different matter.

Crime and Punishment: Murder Scene

I'm reading Crime and Punishment. I'm at the point where Raskolnikov viciously murders the old woman (the pawnbroker). I don't think I've read such a violent scene since the murder scene in Richard Wright's Native Son. In fact, reading this scene and all of Raskolnikov's inner stream of thoughts recalls to my mind the similar stream of thoughts of Bigger. I wonder if Richard Wright read Crime and Punishment and was influenced by it.