Second Entry: 'The Flight Of Years. A Discourse Delivered In The First Independent Church of Baltimore' - Ramblings on religion; my incomplete thoughts and certain convictions

'A Discourse delivered before the First Parish in Cambridge on the Sunday following the death f Mr. Andrews Norton, September 25th 1853', William Newell, in The Flight of Years.  A Discourse Delivered In The First Independent Church of Baltimore - Rev. George W. Burnap D.D, printed by John D. Toy, 1853, Baltimore, Harvard College Library - p.27

 "There are paleness, and weeping, and sighs below;
For our faith is faint, and our tears will flow;
But the harps of heaven are ringing;
Glad angels come to greet him;
And hymns of joy are singing,
While old friends press to meet him.

"O honored, beloved, to earth unconfined,
Thou has soared on high; thou has left us behind.
But our parting is not for ever;
We will follow thee, by heaven's light,
Where the grave cannot dissever
The souls whom God will unite."

In my adolescent and early adult years I maintained strong religious conviction. As I've grown older, learned more about the world, undertaken a tertiary education and accumulated different experiences, those convictions have greatly waned.  That being said, every year on the Greek Orthodox Easter calendar, I undergo a week-long lent/fast (put simply: I'm a vegan for a week).  I say that I undertake this in memorandum of my grandmother, but is it really indicative of a greater religious belief?  The overwhelming reason is the former, but I can't wholly deny the latter.  Let me say now that religion has never been forced upon me, it was always my choice.

I guess the best term would be Agnostic.  I certainly don't believe in many of the practices and attitudes of organised religions, but I guess for my own comfort I like to put some sort faith into the existence of some higher power.  I know it isn't practical.

I don't believe in predestination or any sort of magnificent plan.  I believe in the human spirit and our capacity to choose, to act with autonomy and make efforts to shape our own existence.  I refuse to believe that a human is destined to starve to death, or that a person's fate is to die cold and hungry down an alley way, in the company of rubbish bins and rats. 

I am angered by the application of religious conviction in systems of governance.  I believe that Church and State should be separate entities, and that politicians religious beliefs should not undermine tangible benefits to society.  Preaching abstinence is not an effective method of curbing AIDS, sexually transmitted infections or teenage pregnancy in any part of the world.  Providing access to condoms do.  Homosexuality isn't some recent trend that will die out, it's natural for some people to feel attracted to the same sex, not emblematic of sin - for fuck's sake let them marry (go New York!).  We are the product of an evolutionary process and the Earth is older than ten thousand years, inculcating otherwise is not an exercise in balance, but one of lunacy.

"For our faith is faint, and our tears will flow."

This is a poem that is sad and beautiful.  It mourns, but promises reunion.  It comforts the bereaved with the knowledge that their loved one is amongst angels and friends, enjoying them with a soundtrack of harps and hymns.  In many writings on the topic of religion, it can be difficult to find  any sort of median voice.  It is either my preceding rant or 'praise the Lord'.  Poems like this demonstrate the comfort that religion can and does provide.  At a previous job I would park my car in front of a modern church.  I noticed that many of the church-goers were immigrants as well as white folk.  This church, as well as providing free English lessons, also brings these people together into a community, where I am sure they help each other find work and forge friendships in a new land.  I don't believe in many of the moral restrictions that many religions espouse, but there is much virtue in the work that centres like these perform and the belonging and community that they bring.  Whilst not for me, I can respect the worthiness of such a place.

At that same work place, I met a man whose young child was suffering from a terminal illness.  That child recently died.  This illness was battled over a number of years by dedicated parents and by an exceptionally brave boy.  In these years of turmoil, the father 'found God' and became quite devout in his Christian beliefs.  Whilst I can never pretend to understand what this man has endured for the last few years and will do for the future, I 'get' why he turned to the church.  He found a place of support and people that would listen, and in that he found some measure of solace.  It's certainly not something that I would question him about; I think any amount of comfort that could be extended to him was worthy.   I know that people would say 'what sort of God allows this to happen to a child' and that's a perfectly legitimate question, one I have no intention of trying to answer nor debate.

I guess my position does lean more towards agnosticism, with an understanding of the role of religion, or better yet; a level of understanding behind the role of religion and why it exists.  Not something that I've effectively clarified, but the blog's title is 'Ruminate', not 'Answer'.

First entry: 'Death on the River' prompts Crocodile Dundee and the presumption of innocence

Death on the RIver - John Wilson, 2009, Orca Book Publishers, United States - p.68

"This blade?" Like lightning, Billy whips out his knife, steps over and holds it under the man's nose.

"I didn't mean nothin'," the man says, drawing back.  "Don't care what the fool died of."

"No," Billy says, "we got to clear this up.  I ain't about to have folks whisperin' that me and Jake come by this place foul.. I'll make a deal.  YOu check the body and if you find a knife hole, you can have my blade, and me and Jake'll go and find ourselves another shelter.  If'n you don't find no hole, you shut up."

"It's okay," the man says nervously. "I believe you."

"But othrs might not now that you've put the suspicion in their minds.  Check."

Reluctantly, the man goes over to the body and checks it for knife wounds.  The rest of us watch in silence.  I'm remembering that Billy was gone when I woke in the night.

"Aint nothin' there," the man says, straightening up.

"Must've died in his sleep like this fella says."

Billy nods.  "Ain't good to have distrust 'tween neighbors.  Now we can all look out few each other."

"Sure," the man says.

Billy goes to the body and deftly slices off the brass buttons from the dead man's jacket.  He tosses one over to our neighbor -

"This blade?" Like lightning, Billy whips out his knife…."

I am reminded of that famous Crocodile Dundee scene where Mr. Dundee comically brandishes his machete to compare with a New York gangster's (or is that gangsta?) flick knife.  Here it is, brilliantly reenacted by some Lego pieces.

"…others might not [believe you] now that you've put the suspicion in their minds."

People are quick to judge on little actual evidence.  Even after a person's innocence has been proven, he/she remain in thrall to a previous accusation.  The technologies of instantaneous information and news aid the abrogation of  Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies), the presumption of innocence.  It is a fallacy to argue that this is a recent trend though.  In Dickens' classic 'Great Expectations', published in 1860-1861, the character of Mr. Jaggers, a London lawyer, is dramatically introduced through his public chastising of Mr.Wopsle for his ignorance and prejudice in relation to a reported trial.

"Do you know, or do you not know, that the law of England supposes every man to be innocent, until he is proved - proved - to be guilty?…  And now I ask you what you say to the conscience of that man who, with that passage before his eyes, can lay his head upon his pillow after having pronounced a fellow-creature guilty, unheard?" (P.134, 135)

Concluding a person's guilt, especially when a heinous crime has been perpetrated, is easy to do.  Declaring blame quickly brings closure and quells outrage, making it a primal reaction; we seek immediate justice and vengeance.  The trial of Dominic Strauss-Kahn provides a salient example.  What he has been accused of is utterly heinous and if proven guilty he must be punished to the full extend of that land's law.  But first, his guilt must be proven - beyond reasonable doubt.

Suspending judgement is no easy feat, especially when it concerns crimes of great turpitude.  The price of living in a democratic society, where the rule of law is designed to maximise people's safety and freedoms is to presume a persons innocence.  Maybe instead of seeing at as having to prove a person's criminality, we can view it as accepting first a person's virtues and assume their inherent good, until the contrary can be proved in all totality. 

Also in regard to the 'suspicion in minds' bit, I am tempted to include a YouTube video of a particular Elvis song, but will be contented by the jingle ringing in your head right about now.