Date: Sat Oct 18 11:35:06 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Chairman of Board
At 08:57 AM 10/18/97 0500, you wrote:
I think I discovered some "truth," or something very close to it. I'll be sending it (a tape) to you. Subject: Original Intent. Hope you find it personally and professionally enlightening. Consider it my contribution to the "original intent" discussion.
We'll see. The biggest reason I'm auditing this class at AUM is to find out who the players were and what the writings involved were. I don't really care what the history professor thinks, although he serves the necessary purpose of filling in historical facts -- so and so was there, this person was not, this person grew up here, that one went to school there, this event had just taken place, that kind of thing. Since they're available, or really to the degree they're available, I intend to make my own evaluation of whether "original intent" is even ascertainable based on primary documents, not what someone else says they say, pro or con.
The next question once I've done that, is determining what relevance it has to our society and jurisprudential thought today. If the Constitution was meant to be a barebones document that was intended to evolve as circumstance and necessity dictate or suggest (not merely temporary politics), then original intent, while informative, will not be dispositive. If I have a predisposition toward a conclusion I'm looking for, it's that there was no unified original intent, as its modern proponents would argue. We'll see.
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:17:57 0500
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Acquaintance, Rnd 3
Rob,
I'm back at the office (Saturday) to work some more....
Hey, you are a government employee. You're supposed to goof off most of the time; certainly not be dedicated enough to work on such a beautiful Saturday! Of course I'm just kidding. That "government employee" stereotype has only very limited applicability, from my experience.
You know if one allows himself to be influenced by others, it tends to broaden his horizon in various directions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ready to join Green Peace, contribute to the ACLU, or anything like that quite yet. But you have held up a few mirrors for me to examine myself in. For that, I am grateful.
Well, we may be having definitional issues again. We're not really talking about people who overtly practice anti-Semitism, but about approaches to thinking about getting along with one another that can lead to discrimination and result in anti-Semitism.
Racist or anti-Semitic thoughts (versus overt actions) are difficult to diagnose. If I "think" certain actions are characteristic of a group (or a significant majority of them), is that racist? If it is, we are all hopelessly racist. To me, if I allow my preconceived notions to be modified by what I experience, that is not racism. If (the majority of) the group tends to reinforce my negative beliefs, that is not racism. It is fact, based on observation and experience. If my preconceived notions are proven false, then I can modify my belief on the same grounds. The key here is to not take actions against a member of a group because of the way you feel about the group as a whole. There are streets in Athens that I (as a white man) wouldn't walk down alone at night. That isn't racism. If I commit an injustice toward a black person because streets with that reputation exist in Athens, that is racism.
I think where you and I may not quite have a common understanding is about things that you interpret as anti-Semitic, but are not intended to be so. I'm not sure how to define or deal with that kind of situation. When members of separate groups interact there's bound to inadvertent insults or offenses. For example, in Vietnam, if I were sitting in a room with Vietnamese, and put my leg up on my other knee (such that the bottom of my foot was toward the person to my side), that was an insult. When I got to Korea, I was advised not to express myself to a Korean by putting my hand on his shoulder (because the shoulder was where the "good spirits" dwelled, and doing this would cause them to depart). I tried to be conscious not to do them, but I may have done it inadvertently a few times. Am I rambling again?
I'm sensing a tendency that you are viewing things in the extremes here. I've certainly never said that or made a connection between ordinary belief in Christ and anti-Semitism. We're talking about the dangers of a thought system that implicitly encourages moral superiority over peoples who believe differently. There's a difference between your belief that Christ is your savior, and therefore the ONE WAY for your, and believing that he's everybody else's and they better get on board or suffer the consequences.
I am having difficulty with the fight against public expressions of one's religion (if it happens to be Christianity, because no other religion is being attacked so vigorously in America today) being justified in terms of trying to destroy a "thought system." Has the "anti-Christian left" already sufficiently stifled freedom of speech, and the freedom of thought is the next objective? Dangerous ground, that course! Let me leave that subject before I get on my soap box and not get any leaves raked. ; ) Let's remember that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Lest you doubt that the move is anti-Christian, rather than anti-religious, take a drive by a local public school. (You know the place where "religion" is not to be taught?) You will find jack-o-lanterns and witches drawn and/or posted as holiday decorations. Halloween is traditionally a satanic holiday. And Satanism is accepted by the Court as a religion. The principles of humanism (another recognized "religion") are taught as fact. And New Age practices are taught to help the kids "find themselves" or learn to interact with their "spirit guides." Is religion being taught in the public schools? Absolutely! And it is promoted by the U.S. Government, as long as it isn't Christianity. Many Christians respond, not by litigation, but by home schooling their children.
Do you think the idea of a world of people getting along who have many different beliefs in God is a worthwhile pursuit? If you believe that ought to be a goal the "right" should share, then we're halfway there.
“Wow! That is a pretty tall order, kind of like setting out to eat an elephant! While the idea that a world of peace is a worthy goal on an individual, community, or national level, the reality of the world in which we live is that it is unrealistic and unachievable."
That sounds like a "no." Now you're letting the obstacles get in the way of the goal. I'll tell you this. If I didn't believe it was a goal we should pursue, no matter how realistic or achievable it appears, we wouldn't be talking at all. In fact, it has occupied much of my thoughts these days.
You misunderstood my response. I favor "working toward" world peace and good relations with folks of different groups. I do it on a personal basis whenever I can. I was commenting on that as being a goal for you and I to pursue to find a common base of understanding. I guess what I am saying is that I know of no way to measure our progress. But, for the record, I am for world peace and peaceful relations between individuals and groups. It is the "how to achieve it" that is the philosophical bottomless pit.
“Okay, I've thought about it. It has nothing to do with my ‘one way’ belief. I don't know how many ways I can say it. Being Christian is not anti-get-along with anyone. I have good neighbors and friends who aren't.” You go off on a tangent here. And, it sounds a little defensive. Again, belief in Christ as YOUR savior doesn't automatically have to equate with anti-get along in my book. Indeed, as I understand the precepts of Christianity, it should be exactly the opposite. It doesn't have to be us against them, Pogo. And it shouldn't be.
Agreed. Your understanding of the precepts of Christianity are correct. I just wish more "Christians" understood them that well. : (
The question is, whether you think it's realistic or not, can it be?
No place on earth is a perfect place. But I think America has a pretty good track record of accommodating varied religious beliefs and practices. Yeah, the Mormons and some Indians may not quite agree to a great degree. At least we haven't taken lethal action against individual members, Waco excepted (but then they were under the banner of Christian, so it was okay to waste them). I didn't see the ACLU jumping to defend their liberties or screaming when they were violated. Don't misunderstand, I am not endorsing Koresh or his lifestyle, but reduced to its lowest terms, our Government attacked and destroyed a home church. There are a lot of tangential issues that are used to cloud the argument, but that is the main point. That is a precedent. Koresh may have been a criminal, but the action by the government was uncalled for. When I heard they were using CS gas, I knew something bad would be the result, even before the place caught fire. (No, I'm not a member of a militia group.)
“ ‘And so, on a number of different fundamental levels, although I hate to have to say “never,” I don't think I'd ever accept the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word.’
“Could you rephrase that thusly? ‘I will never accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, unless and until, I can prove it to myself to be so.’ If you will say that, my friend, you'll get no criticism from me, and you'll have set out an achievable objective.”
I'm not sure that turnabout is better from where you stand.
It is far better! It means you will set out to prove the Bible to and for yourself. That is my objective. Hey, you are a smart guy in a very responsible position. If for no other reason, you need first hand knowledge of what the Bible says. Whether it makes a change in your personal beliefs is another matter altogether. Whether we like it or not, the Bible was a key document of influence in American law and government. As one who uses the law, you should know more about one of its foundations.
“ ‘Original intent’ will be addressed in another session. Your knowledge of history seems to have a hole here and there as well. Excuse me, but wasn't it Franklin (probably the least Christian of our founding fathers) who addressed the assembly during a hopeless deadlock and quoted Psalm 127:1, then called for a prayer (which lasted for hours)?"
Yup, that's what Franklin did, called for it anyway. That's what you do. It's what I'd do if I thought it would stop the fighting. Shame people by calling on their gods before them. What I've learned is that he was a deist. And all sorts of other things. But the fact that I can talk about God doesn't mean you can imply any sense of religiosity about me.
Franklin was a deist; no argument. Whatever his motivation, it worked. Barry Farber has a neat saying that I like, "A lot of truth is spoken through false teeth." God has used even more unlikely characters than a deist to accomplish his purposes. See 2 Peter 2:15 16 and, as Paul Harvey would say, for the "rest of the story" see Numbers 22:21 30. God is sovereign. He can do whatever he wants!
“If Washington didn't believe God responded, all those artists who painted him in prayer sure led us astray. Washington was a man of prayer!”
Think about this, because I think you're making my point. Washington is "recorded" as this devout man and all that. But he was a military leader who had a commanding presence who then took on a political role. He had many foibles. I'm not knocking him. But with few exceptions, anyone who seeks those offices hasn't got spirituality on the brain.
You are applying today's standard. In earlier times, becoming a minister was on par with becoming a doctor or lawyer. Going into politics was an honorable pursuit for those in the ministry.
We deify and romanticize our founding fathers and the important leaders of our day. Princess Diana and Mother Theresa die a week apart, and who gets the lion's share of the press for all her "good works"? That's precisely my point. Relying on the artistic or literary (or even "historical") portrayals of important or popular figures is not proof of who they really were.
Undoubtedly their legends are larger than life. Get your father to speak about his father (if deceased), and you'll probably see another example of this.
I agree with your example of how the deaths of Princess Di and Mother Teresa were played in the media. But then look at O.J.! I guess the history book writers have agendas as well. But I'm not sure it used to be this way to the extent it is now. Revisionists with a political agenda use (their interpretation of) history as a tool. I like to look for old history books in used book stores. The older the better.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment