Wanna talk about the 1st Amendment.
Let's examine a classic piece of literature and its subsequent film. I choose Walter van Tilburg Clark's "The Oxbow Incident", published in the early 1940s, the film adaptation following about a year or so later, featuring Henry Fonda, Dana Andrews, Anthony Quinn and Harry Morgan. It is western story about a lynching.
In the film, at the end, Fonda and Morgan -- their characters -- are standing at the bar in a saloon. Fonda reads aloud the letter written by the wrongly-lynched man (Dana Andrews) to his surviving wife and kids:
[Gil Carter reading Martin's letter]
Gil Carter: "My dear Wife, Mr. Davies will tell you what's happening here tonight. He's a good man and has done everything he can for me. I suppose there are some other good men here, too, only they don't seem to realize what they're doing. They're the ones I feel sorry for. 'Cause it'll be over for me in a little while, but they'll have to go on remembering for the rest of their lives.
"A man just naturally can't take the law into his own hands and hang people without hurtin' everybody in the world, 'cause then he's just not breaking one law but all laws. Law is a lot more than words you put in a book, or judges or lawyers or sheriffs you hire to carry it out. It's everything people ever have found out about justice and what's right and wrong. It's the very conscience of humanity.
"There can't be any such thing as civilization unless people have a conscience, because if people touch God anywhere, where is it except through their conscience? And what is anybody's conscience except a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived? I guess that's all I've got to say except kiss the babies for me and God bless you. Your husband, Donald."
Over my life, I had seen this film several times and will probably see it again on some day with nothing to do, the remote in hand and an inclination for it. But I had read the book as a senior in high school. The movie script of interest here is almost a tear-jerker -- especially that part about God. Out of curiosity, I wanted to find the origin of the script lines quoted above as printed in the book. Here it is:
"Sin against society,” Winder said, imitating a woman with a lisp.
‘‘Just that,” Davies said passionately, and suddenly pointed his finger at Winder so Winder’s wry, angry grin faded into a watchful look. Davies’ white, indoor face was hard with his intensity, his young-looking eyes shining, his big mouth drawn down to be firm, but trembling a little, as if he were going to cry. You can think what you want later, but you have to listen to a man like that.
“Yes,” he repeated, “a sin against society. Law is more than the words that put it on the books; law is more than any decisions that may be made from it; law is more than the particular code of it stated at any one time or in any one place or nation; more than any man, lawyer or judge, sheriff or jailer, who may represent it. True law, the code of justice, the essence of our sensations of right and wrong, is the conscience of society. It has taken thousands of years to develop, and it is the greatest, the most distinguishing quality which has evolved with man- kind. None of man’s temples, none of his religions, none of his weapons, his tools, his arts, his sciences, nothing else he has grown to, is so great a thing as his justice, his sense of justice. The true law is something in itself; it is the spirit of the moral nature of man; it is an existence apart, like God, and as worthy of worship as God. If we can touch God at all, where do we touch Him save in the conscience? And what is the conscience of any man save his little fragment of the conscience of all men in all time??"
He stopped, not as if he had finished, but as if he suddenly saw he was wasting something precious.
The point of it all: the movie script is not so clear as to the origins of secular law, and leaves the connection with God a bit confused. But the author's words evoke the anthropological and historical fact that secular law has evolved in many civilizations, and so cannot be said to have its origins in The Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition.
And this is also the factual understanding that is missing from current evangelical arguments that the 1st Amendment is only a one-way street, insinuating that some particular religion can meddle in law and government without restriction. This has profound implications in the ongoing frenzy concerning Roe v Wade, with people arguing that abortion is murder. But the State decides what is murder and what is not. The State has serious penalties which vary for different crimes, whereas -- take Catholicism as an example -- murdering Abel is a Mortal sin; stealing your grandmother's estate and kicking her out of her house is a mortal sin; slam-dancing with a hooker while your wife tends to the kids at home is a mortal sin, and "bearing false witness" or lying whether under oath or in any other circumstance is a mortal sin -- all with no distinction as to the consequence. You're gonna go to hell no matter what.
This goes back to the anchor point in the movie script and the printed novel:
" . . . There can't be anything such as civilization . . . " The purpose of the State is to preserve the nation-State and civilization, and the law of the State has no concern with helping people get to heaven.
That's one idea I want to present about the 1st Amendment.
The other idea is simple. If you have two parties engaged in a discussion, and the discussion ultimately must end in discovery of the Truth, then everything is just wonderful if both parties have the Truth as an objective.
But if one party is only interested in winning the argument and could care less whether the outcome is based in the Truth and represents the Truth, one could say that party is "murdering" the Truth. And if you murder the Truth, on the discovery of the deceit, you cannot have any civil argument or discourse. Why would the victim of the Murdered Truth wish to invest more time and effort in discourse? Therefore, Lies contribute to violence.
What cost to society arises from the willful proliferation of Lies? It takes time and money to analyze and unravel the deceitful information. And there must be a terrific cost if many fail to listen to the analysis and consider the impact of Falsehood on their opinions and decisions. What sort of sane person would want to make important decisions that are grounded in willful Falsehood?
Therefore, "you tell me" -- how do we reduce or eliminate the costs explained here?
www.huffpost.com
Facebook
Twitter