A few thoughts I will combine in one post.
First, happy Boxing Day. A reminder that Downton Abbey's new season will come to the states soon.
Second, Prof. Tribe has a bit of a mea culpa as to Sonia Sotomayor, whose third party doctrine concurrence is but one thing getting some attention. I am continuously annoyed when people criticize Obama as some loser -- be upset at various things he did, which is normal practice (St. Ron, e.g., sinned ... at least while alive) -- and ignoring various singifcant good things he did. One is the choice of two fine justices to the Supreme Court.
Justice Sotomayor is the justice assigned to the 10th Cir. (Ginsburg, appointed at 60 btw, is assigned the 2nd) , which just refused a stay for the same sex marriage case. Prof. Dorf thinks that is on some level both the moral and legal thing to do, but still problematic. As noted in a comment left there and earlier here, I am conflicted as to that. It might be somewhat moot -- given the breadth of the ruling (the 9th Cir. stayed the Prop 8 ruling and there domestic partnerships already enjoyed most legal benefits of marriage) , it seems likely to me (who's to know though -- the 10th ruling surprised me some) that the USSC will grant a stay.
Next, among my presents were two books [I put aside one I bought for myself and a couple obtained free from the library] that touch upon issues addressed on this blog. One by Prof. Colb concerns questions asked to vegans (I'm a vegetarian -- not pure enough for the bunch at Dorf on Law, who rejected my defense of Temple Grandin, who works to ease the harm to animals in slaughterhouses and the like*). For instance, it has a chapter on "what about plants." The other is A New New Testament, which provides an up to date translation of the books, adds some more among the various writings not inserted in the original and provides some further explanatory materials. Looks interesting.
Among the books added is the Gospel of Mary, which is often labeled a gnostic work (though the people behind this book question using that label given the range of material involved and debate over definitions). One thing that interests me, and I think Pagels/Ehrman and perhaps others don't say enough about this in certain books and accounts, is the overall environment that led people to find gnostic beliefs convincing.
This is often discussed in Christian context as if gnosticism is merely Christian. It's not -- Christianity was influenced by others, which is pretty clear given the importance of Jewish thought! I have noted my interest as well in the Qu'ran, which has various influences as well (like Star Trek, the great thinkers and stories referenced are both familiar and unfamiliar). Christianity, including its gnostic aspects, followed the trend. For instance, Ehrman in Lost Christianities and an entry to the Oxford Companion to the Bible (guess in the last decade or so, additional scholarship might warrant an update, but this volume has been a very helpful reference guide for me) suggests the Jewish thinker Philo of Alexandra (d. c. 50) has gnostic implications. With the possible exception of Thomas, gnostic gospels were written later than the originals, but the thought was in the air earlier. Certain NT epistles' concerns reflect this.
In Elaine Pagels book Beyond Belief (subtitle respects the Gospel of Thomas, but the book itself is only partially about that) talks a bit about Didache or Teaching of the Apostles, a guide to Christian practice that might have been composed some time in the last first century. It is a brief and interesting read and there was a strong push to include it in the new volume. But, oh no, there is an abolition to "abortion" and that was the deal breaker. Sacred Choices by Daniel C. Maguire, among a discussion of beliefs of various religions, suggests early Christian thought here was mixed. Just what was "abortion"? Did it include early use of potions that worked before some believed ensoulment occurred? Unclear. There was a mixed set of beliefs here and even Didache (as Pagels notes) at one point (as compared to similar more absolute commands in the orthodox gospels) puts forth an ideal and adds (in effect)"or do the best you can."
A recent comment online argued that allowing same sex marriage was "just as" arbitrary, merely social choice, as a range of other things such as incestual or underage marriage. Such lack of nuance is basically an immature approach. Noting that somewhat hazy lines are drawn leads to pure statements like there being no real lines, just social judgments that are pretty arbitrary (some are sure to say they are okay with it but when you put same sex marriage on the level of brother/sister marriages, so sorry, your bona fides are questionable).
The prohibition of "abortion" along with other things should not be treated with such immaturity. Early Christian thought clearly in part was a reaction to certain Roman social practices, including infanticide. Likewise, early Islamic thought included some strong rejection of certain bad treatment of women, which might seem a bit ironic to some people now. The prohibition of "abortion" is of the character along with New Testament comments about sexual immorality, which were generally a result of concerns about temple prostitution and practices involving use of young boys and the like for sex. It is a bit hard to stretch this, though some try, to mean that the material is totally benign. We are talking about early centuries here, not current gender relations.
Still, putting aside that ideals are not the same as what should be the law of the state (see, e.g., divorce rules) or what non-saints will do in their actual lives, I don't think a reference to an abortion ban should really have led not to include this book. Again, it should get more attention, in part as an expression of early Christian practice. It has some liberal implications, which was why it appealed to people like Elaine Pagels. Finally, the one word opposition should be put in a proper context. As Sacred Choices noted, an influential early Christian theologian spoke of the necessary evil of certain late term abortions that were necessary for health. One way to look at that is that even late term abortions were seen as acceptable in certain cases. If so a ban on abortions without context is incomplete.
Anyway, I have some reading to do.
---
* Prof. Dorf and as I recall his wife (who wrote the book) both thought that she merely enabled wrongdoing, while I think change occurs over time, so we should support those things that cushion the blow. The logic behind her actions is that we have an obligation to take into consideration the animals' interests, which Grandin has said so herself. We have not taken the logical next step, but this is not a reason to do what we can.
First, happy Boxing Day. A reminder that Downton Abbey's new season will come to the states soon.
Second, Prof. Tribe has a bit of a mea culpa as to Sonia Sotomayor, whose third party doctrine concurrence is but one thing getting some attention. I am continuously annoyed when people criticize Obama as some loser -- be upset at various things he did, which is normal practice (St. Ron, e.g., sinned ... at least while alive) -- and ignoring various singifcant good things he did. One is the choice of two fine justices to the Supreme Court.
Justice Sotomayor is the justice assigned to the 10th Cir. (Ginsburg, appointed at 60 btw, is assigned the 2nd) , which just refused a stay for the same sex marriage case. Prof. Dorf thinks that is on some level both the moral and legal thing to do, but still problematic. As noted in a comment left there and earlier here, I am conflicted as to that. It might be somewhat moot -- given the breadth of the ruling (the 9th Cir. stayed the Prop 8 ruling and there domestic partnerships already enjoyed most legal benefits of marriage) , it seems likely to me (who's to know though -- the 10th ruling surprised me some) that the USSC will grant a stay.
Next, among my presents were two books [I put aside one I bought for myself and a couple obtained free from the library] that touch upon issues addressed on this blog. One by Prof. Colb concerns questions asked to vegans (I'm a vegetarian -- not pure enough for the bunch at Dorf on Law, who rejected my defense of Temple Grandin, who works to ease the harm to animals in slaughterhouses and the like*). For instance, it has a chapter on "what about plants." The other is A New New Testament, which provides an up to date translation of the books, adds some more among the various writings not inserted in the original and provides some further explanatory materials. Looks interesting.
Among the books added is the Gospel of Mary, which is often labeled a gnostic work (though the people behind this book question using that label given the range of material involved and debate over definitions). One thing that interests me, and I think Pagels/Ehrman and perhaps others don't say enough about this in certain books and accounts, is the overall environment that led people to find gnostic beliefs convincing.
This is often discussed in Christian context as if gnosticism is merely Christian. It's not -- Christianity was influenced by others, which is pretty clear given the importance of Jewish thought! I have noted my interest as well in the Qu'ran, which has various influences as well (like Star Trek, the great thinkers and stories referenced are both familiar and unfamiliar). Christianity, including its gnostic aspects, followed the trend. For instance, Ehrman in Lost Christianities and an entry to the Oxford Companion to the Bible (guess in the last decade or so, additional scholarship might warrant an update, but this volume has been a very helpful reference guide for me) suggests the Jewish thinker Philo of Alexandra (d. c. 50) has gnostic implications. With the possible exception of Thomas, gnostic gospels were written later than the originals, but the thought was in the air earlier. Certain NT epistles' concerns reflect this.
In Elaine Pagels book Beyond Belief (subtitle respects the Gospel of Thomas, but the book itself is only partially about that) talks a bit about Didache or Teaching of the Apostles, a guide to Christian practice that might have been composed some time in the last first century. It is a brief and interesting read and there was a strong push to include it in the new volume. But, oh no, there is an abolition to "abortion" and that was the deal breaker. Sacred Choices by Daniel C. Maguire, among a discussion of beliefs of various religions, suggests early Christian thought here was mixed. Just what was "abortion"? Did it include early use of potions that worked before some believed ensoulment occurred? Unclear. There was a mixed set of beliefs here and even Didache (as Pagels notes) at one point (as compared to similar more absolute commands in the orthodox gospels) puts forth an ideal and adds (in effect)"or do the best you can."
A recent comment online argued that allowing same sex marriage was "just as" arbitrary, merely social choice, as a range of other things such as incestual or underage marriage. Such lack of nuance is basically an immature approach. Noting that somewhat hazy lines are drawn leads to pure statements like there being no real lines, just social judgments that are pretty arbitrary (some are sure to say they are okay with it but when you put same sex marriage on the level of brother/sister marriages, so sorry, your bona fides are questionable).
The prohibition of "abortion" along with other things should not be treated with such immaturity. Early Christian thought clearly in part was a reaction to certain Roman social practices, including infanticide. Likewise, early Islamic thought included some strong rejection of certain bad treatment of women, which might seem a bit ironic to some people now. The prohibition of "abortion" is of the character along with New Testament comments about sexual immorality, which were generally a result of concerns about temple prostitution and practices involving use of young boys and the like for sex. It is a bit hard to stretch this, though some try, to mean that the material is totally benign. We are talking about early centuries here, not current gender relations.
Still, putting aside that ideals are not the same as what should be the law of the state (see, e.g., divorce rules) or what non-saints will do in their actual lives, I don't think a reference to an abortion ban should really have led not to include this book. Again, it should get more attention, in part as an expression of early Christian practice. It has some liberal implications, which was why it appealed to people like Elaine Pagels. Finally, the one word opposition should be put in a proper context. As Sacred Choices noted, an influential early Christian theologian spoke of the necessary evil of certain late term abortions that were necessary for health. One way to look at that is that even late term abortions were seen as acceptable in certain cases. If so a ban on abortions without context is incomplete.
Anyway, I have some reading to do.
---
* Prof. Dorf and as I recall his wife (who wrote the book) both thought that she merely enabled wrongdoing, while I think change occurs over time, so we should support those things that cushion the blow. The logic behind her actions is that we have an obligation to take into consideration the animals' interests, which Grandin has said so herself. We have not taken the logical next step, but this is not a reason to do what we can.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!