Tag: Bill of Rights

  • The Concept of Freedom

    Artist’s Conception of Eve making a critical life choice

    The two dominant political parties in the United States of America, the Republican and Democratic parties, keep pushing reproductive rights in front of the public eye. It is the lever and the fulcrum that keeps the nation pried into two miserable, dysfunctional halves, an “either/or”Kierkegaard, Søren, Howard V. Hong, Edna H. Hong, and Søren Kierkegaard. Either/Or. Kierkegaard’s Writings 3–4. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1987. that we seemingly cannot go beyond. It is the lever and the fulcrum that keeps money pouring into re-election campaign coffers.

    At some point somebody, for some reasonWallenbrock, Emma. “Inside the Handbook on Abortion.” Slate, June 8, 2022. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/fetal-photos-jack-barbara-willke-handbook-on-abortion.html. framed an idea of reproductive rights as the seemingly mutually exclusive either/or pair of pro-life / pro-choice. It is a false dichotomy as is evidenced by a parable from the book of Genesis, the so-called the “fall of man”. (A scribe could have dubbed it—perhaps more accurately—the “rise of man”.)

    The story of Eve’s fateful first bite of the apple is the locus classicus in Scripture—given to us as in concrete poetic imagery—of the concept of free-will. It’s a dubious incident of free choice at best. How is it not a set-up if the Supreme being furnishes the first couple’s new apartment with a tree and not just any old tree, but the “Tree of Knowledge”? Inevitably the garden of Eden became—as any Penthouse suite, cruel for its lack of imperfections, would eventually become—incredibly boring. It got to a point where Eve had played all the Mahjong she was ever going to play. She had garden fever. Nagged by the threat of hanging out confined for all time with a sulky Adam, what could she do? What was left for her but to bite into that apple and feel life rupture in the crunch of the apple as the juices flowed down her gullet and over her lips. Despite all of the siren-song inevitableness of it, Scripture makes it clear: it was Eve’s choice.

    So, we have to get this right. Scripture is pro-choice.

    But in so choosing, Eve chose to be a mother; ergo, she chose life. So, Scripture is pro-life. Scripture presents this—as Kierkegaard would delight in—as a paradox, an either/or to which there is no way past.

    For that matter, did Abraham really have a choice either? The voice of God spoke to him in private, not before an audience. Abraham did not share his confrontation with God in a stump speech on a campaign trail. It was an intimate conversation, pillow talk, the kind you don’t blab about. And it was about sacrifice. As Eve sacrificed the Garden of Eden, a perfect home ready to grace the cover of any edition of Martha Stewart Living magazine, Abraham was prepared to make literally the Supreme sacrifice, his patronage, his legacy, his son, the course of history.

    Under those conditions it doesn’t seem to be much in the way of a choice. But Scripture makes it clear: it was Abraham’s choice.

    Eve disobeyed the Lord. John Milton called it the “first disobedience.” Abraham obeyed His Master. In the strict chronology of Genesis, Eve’s indiscretion led to Abraham’s ability to obey (not to mention his conception). Both were driven by inscrutable impulses not readily subject to analysis or critique, not subject to judgement, both with unimaginable verve and daring.

    God wants to receive our love. Yet He/She cannot mandate it. We have to love God of our own free will. We have to have the latitude to sin, to screw-up, recover our senses and come to Him/Her of our own accord, in our own time, purely as an act of desire and will. Otherwise, it is phony and fake religion.

    The phony dichotomy of pro-choice / pro-life creates an unholy amount of suffering, political skullduggery, and crocodile tears. It is a perpetual source of government inaction when palpable lives, of persons subject to the U.S. census, are compromised by uneven distributions of food and healthcare. It is at the center of a frightening lack of compassion for real lives (e.g., women, people of color, Samaritans, prisoners, housekeepers, bootblacks) for theoretical lives (e.g., unborn children).

    Religion is an inward thing, I’m quite sure. Faith is a nocturnal creature that shrinks from the braying light. Maybe a better question to ask our political candidates before we go to the polling station is “Where is their sacrifice?” But an even better question is to ask ourselves in an out-of-the-way place, a quiet corner, far from the madding crowd[mfn]John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961[/mfn], “Where is my sacrifice?”.

    Footnotes

    [mfn_list/]

  • Marco Rubio, Professional Agitator or Just Another Cool Dude?

    Shenanigans in Washington, D.C. on June 1st, 2020

    A long time ago (2020), I wrote a letter to Florida’s U.S. Senator Rubio when he raised an alarm alleging that “professional agitators” numbered among the protestors in Lafayette park who had gathered to demonstrate against police brutality of the kind that had then so recently resulted in George Floyd’s murder.

    The truth is I was agitated by the Senator’s remarks—which he posted on that beacon of truth, Twitter[mfn]So called, I imagine, after all the twits who frequent the site.[/mfn]—since they appeared to be baseless and lacking in substance[mfn]Though I recognize that “fertilizer” legitimately ranks as a substance.[/mfn].

    Citizens might remember that President Trump posed with a bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal church on June 1st (see above) but I feared that few would remember Senator Rubio’s grandstanding on that day and in the shadow of the president’s. Hence, this remembrance.

    For the record, here is the letter I wrote:

    June 10, 2020

    The Honorable Marco Rubio

    United States Senate

    Washington, D.C. 20510

    Dear Senator Rubio,

    I read with alarm your recent assertion on Twitter that there were professional agitators among the protesters on June 1st, the day President Trump made his law and order speech. It piqued my interest that the agitators you mention are professional—as opposed to amateurs—which suggests that they get paid for their agitation. It galls me to think that somebody would get paid to do that.

    This is what you wrote on the melee which ensued between protesters and police during and following the President’s speech:

    A screenshot of a cell phone

Description automatically generated

    I assume that you have concrete evidence, such as a pay stub or subpoenaed bank account records, that proves how and by whom these agitators get paid. If there is any destruction of private property as a direct or indirect consequence of their agitation, I want to know their names! I think you owe it to the great American people you serve to release their names immediately if not to the press (you can leak the names if necessary) then at least to the proper authorities. 

    If you are withholding this information, I beg you to consider whether you are putting yourself in legal jeopardy. I am not an expert on criminal law, what I know is mostly from watching LAPD, but I fear you could be accused of withholding evidence, which is probably a crime. I say this because I find it impossible to believe that you, bearing the solemn responsibilities of a U.S. Senator, would talk about “professional agitators” without concrete evidence (what chatty press persons like to call “a smoking gun”).

    It is possible that you misplaced that evidence. If it is true, you shouldn’t have trouble relocating it with the kinds of federal resources you have at your disposal. Maybe your colleagues could help you find it? Maybe now would be an excellent opportunity for you to “reach across the aisle”, as they say, and ask your Democratic colleagues to help you find it?

    I am actually quite agitated to think that you might have misplaced this information!

    One angle would be to get with the IRS and find out if these agitators pay taxes on their agitation earnings. If they’re paid professionals, even if for them it’s just a moonlighting gig, they should be paying taxes. Sometimes the best way to get these guys behind bars is to get them on income tax evasion. It’s an old trope as I’m sure you are aware. A lot of people with suspect or lax moral standards I am told dodge paying taxes. This is only hearsay. I pay mine in full every year. Also, if you find out who is funding them, it could be quite the coup for your political aspirations ☺.

    I did a little Internet research (thank you Al Gore!) and discovered concrete evidence of one such agitator. I believe based on this visual proof that the agitator is in fact employed—big clue, he’s wearing a uniform—and that charges, if brought against him, could be pretty harsh. 

    I am not a constitutional scholar but I’m pretty sure he’s violating a few of our most cherished constitutional rights, which are found in the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights, the bits having to do with our rights to peaceful assembly (#1), freedom of speech (#2), and freedom of the press (#3).

    I attach a few pix in case you can help me and put your muscle into running down this professional agitator to bring him to justice. I also wish to spare you the trouble of finding your smoking gun.

    A person with a helmet on

Description automatically generated

    Figure – Professional Agitator or Thug?

    Figure – The Smoking Gun

    I have saved this evidence on my hard drive and will present it to you or the FBI upon request.

    Yours Respectfully,

    John H. Poplett

    CC: Chicago Tribune, NYT, Medium.com, other national media outlets

    P.S. – I’m serious!