Showing posts with label mercy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mercy. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 28, 2025

On the Aftermath of the Budde Homily

Let’s talk about Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s homily last week, or rather the responses to it.  You will recall, Gentle Reader, that she closed her remarks with the following:

Let me make one final plea, Mr. President. Millions have put their trust in you. As you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are transgender children in both Republican and Democrat families who fear for their lives.

And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in our poultry farms and meat-packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shift in hospitals—they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara, and temples.

Have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. Help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were once strangers in this land.

May God grant us all the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world.

Curmie has three other essays partially written, and he acknowledges both that he’s late to this particular party and that he could never be as informed or articulate as Hayden Vaughn or Mark Sandlin or Tom Christofferson.  Rex Huppke’s snark is pretty good, too.  Seriously, please read those posts.  All that said, Curmie wants to follow up on a couple of ideas.

First, obviously, is that Bishop Budde owes no one an apology for suggesting that <checks notes> “Blessed are the merciful” (that’s Matthew 5:7, for those of you keeping score at home).  Nor does her Church.  The closest her critics can come to a rational argument is that she shouldn’t have addressed her closing remarks directly to the newly-installed President Trump. 

To this criticism, Curmie offers the following rebuttal: 1). It is her right, indeed her responsibility, to inject an ethical perspective into the proceedings.  Representing the teachings of the faith the new President purports to believe in doesn’t seem out of line. 2). The ceremony was part of the inauguration festivities.  We know that because Trump was in a church.  (Curmie hasn’t attended a regular church service—as opposed to, say, a wedding—in years, either.  But Curmie isn’t a hypocritical billionaire hawking autographed Bibles, either.) 

But let’s move on to the reactions of three people in particular.  The first, of course, is the POTUS himself.  (That’s an acronym for Petulant Obnoxious Toddler of Unusual Size, right?)  You can read his screed in its entirety here, if you must.  By now, though, you probably know the salient points: that she’s a “so-called bishop,” a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater,” that she was “was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart,” and “the service was a very boring and uninspiring one.”  Yadda yadda yadda.

Actually, of course, she was simply doing her job, suggesting that the most powerful man in the world (but don’t tell Elon that) might show some mercy.  She didn’t say anything political, strictly speaking, at all.  That Trump would take offense at an indirect suggestion that he might pay at least a little attention to one of the central tenets of the religion of which he purports to be a member tells us all we need to know.

But we expect such brattiness from Trump, so it practically doesn’t register.  And, by now, we probably ought to expect even greater inanity from Representative Mike Collins of Georgia, who is primed to give his fellow Georgia Congresscritter Marjorie Taylor Greene a run for her money if she wants to retain her title of Biggest Idiot in American Politics.  This is the same yahoo who claimed that Joe Biden was behind that “assassination attempt” on Trump that Curmie still isn’t convinced was anything but a poorly directed community theatre production.

Now this blithering buffoon has posted that New Jersey-born Bishop Budde “should be added to the deportation list.”  Collins is, of course, too stupid to realize that in his zeal to protect the Tangerine Tribblehead that he’s undercutting what few philosophical underpinnings there are to the ongoing mass deportations (but notably, not from blue states with the exception of notoriously liberal Austin, Texas).  

If you want to claim that people are are “criminals” if they’re in the country illegally, even if they’ve been taxpayers and community leaders for decades or if they arrived as infants and never knew another country, there’s at least a legalistic argument there.  But Collins has shown very clearly that the intent of the MAGA minions isn’t grounded in the law, but in the attempt to get rid of anyone who isn’t willing to say and do whatever the Fat Felon wants.

And finally we move on to Karoline Leavitt, the new White House Designated Liar Press Secretary, who claimed that Budde had “weaponized the pulpit” (unlike, say, Franklin Graham or Jerry Falwell, apparently), that her comments were “egregious,” and that “she should apologize to President Trump for the lies that she told.”  Look, we all understand that whoever is in that job is expected to shill for the boss, and if it takes a little dishonesty to do that, none of us are shocked that we’re fed a line of bull.  This is true of every administration Curmie can remember; Republicans don’t have a monopoly. 

We can also extend to Leavitt at least a modicum of respect for clinging (retroactively) to the legalistic argument outlined above.  Technically, anyone in the country without either citizenship or appropriate other credentials is a “criminal.”  This would include even Dreamer kids, who have done literally nothing “wrong” other than not leaving the only home they have ever known, still as children, and without their parents...  or a passport, for that matter.  (Curmie expresses precisely zero surprise that the DACA policy introduced by the Obama administration has been ruled unlawful by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which often rules in ways no rational and even marginally empathetic person would do.)

So we can blame a little of Leavitt’s accusation that Budde “lied” on an inelegant phrasing by the latter, but notice that Leavitt objects to Budde’s “lies.”  That’s plural.  Where are the rest?  Are there people in this country right now who are scared?  Hell, yes.  Curmie is a little trepidatious, himself, and he’s a cishet white male American-born citizen.  He does have this awful habit of speaking his mind, however, and that there’s even a remote possibility that he’ll end up in trouble for that is more than a little ominous.

Are there trans kids in both Republican and Democratic households?  Yes; Curmie knows both, personally.  Do “the vast majority” of immigrants, even those without documentation, pay taxes?  Yes.  Are they good neighbors?  Yes.  Do they attend religious services?  At least as much as citizens do.  Are some of them “fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands”?  Yes.  Does the Christian God teach that “that we are to be merciful to the stranger”?  Undeniably.  So… about that plural, Ms. Leavitt…

It is indeed clear that Budde is no fan of Trump.  She wrote in response to Trump’s media stunt standing holding a Bible in front of St. John’s Church after having police and National Guard troops clear the area with flash-bang and tear gas munitions, “Mr. Trump used sacred symbols to cloak himself in the mantle of spiritual authority, while espousing positions antithetical to the Bible that he held in his hands.” Tell us what you really think, Bishop!

By contrast, Budde is pretty accurate when she says “It was a pretty mild sermon.  It certainly wasn’t a fire and brimstone sermon. It was as respectful and as universal as I could, with the exception of making someone who has been entrusted with such enormous influence and power to have mercy on those who are most vulnerable.” 

That seems reasonable enough to Curmie.  He’s now officially a fan.

Thursday, December 5, 2024

Athena, Whataboutism, and Retribution

We could use her about now.

There’s a fair amount of consternation that President Biden has used his authority to pardon his ne’er-do-well son, Hunter (they’ll be JB and HB hereafter if there’s any chance for confusion) after promising not to do so.  The outrage is mostly from the right, as might be expected, but there’s also no little anger emanating from the left, mostly from those who believed, probably naïvely, that JB would show respect for the law, keep his promise, and thereby differentiate himself, and by extension his party, from Donald Trump’s openly stated imminent campaign of retribution.  Curmie is disappointed but hardly surprised at his reversal of course.

JB’s defenders argue that the pardon of his son is legitimized by the fact that Trump had pardoned many of his minions who had been convicted of worse crimes than those of HB.  Did Trump do that?  Yes, of course, he did.  Is that a defense for JB’s actions?  Not in Curmie’s books.  It’s difficult to say what was going in in JB’s mind when he made the vow—did he really believe that he would keep his word, or was that just another lie told by a politician looking to appear objective and above the fray of partisan squabbling? 

Did he think he would win re-election and could then “change his mind”?  Was this a strategic move intended to suggest that the prosecutions of Trump were other than politically motivated?  Curmie can’t answer those questions with authority, but let’s just say he has his suspicions.

That said, two things: 1). Trump is indeed a convicted felon.  However much those charges may have been motivated by something other than a concern for justice, the guy who crows incessantly about hiring only the best people had a legal team that really screwed the pooch if he really was innocent.  They were present for the trial, including the voir dire of prospective jurors.  All they needed was one juror who wasn’t convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the actions were not only criminal but felonious, that it was reasonable to have 34 indictments, and that Trump was guilty on all counts.  That… erm… didn’t happen.

2). JB’s announcement was ill-timed politically because it became the lead story across a compliant and lazy media who might otherwise have been noting that Trump’s nominees for important government posts are the greatest collection of rogues, scoundrels, and scalawags since Catwoman, the Joker, the Riddler, and the Penguin joined forces to form the United Underworld.  Trump also threw in a couple of idiots and wackadoodles: his version of an inclusion initiative, apparently.  (Can Vivek Ramaswamy really be so stupid that he misses the irony of his disparagement of “unelected bureaucrats”?)

The problem is that the majority of the allegations on both sides are, well, true.  Both candidates for the Presidency (well, all three if we count Biden along with the two finalists) babbled incoherently on the campaign trail, lied about themselves and their opponent, and generally proved to be unfit for office.  Both are intentionally divisive; both significantly threaten First Amendment freedoms. 

Curmie has already noted that he voted for NotTrump in three consecutive elections, not because he was particularly impressed with any of the Democratic candidates, but because he believes that Donald Trump is indeed an existential threat to democracy.  (Note to any right-leaning readers: the fact that Biden and Kamala Harris may also qualify for this description does not mean the Trump does not: not all situations are either/or; some are both/and.)

Over the years, Curmie has collected more than a few posters of shows, museums, and the like: far too many to be able to display them all, although virtually none have actually been discarded.  One that always finds its way onto a wall somewhere in the house or apartment we’ve lived in is from the London production of Aeschylus’s trilogy The Oresteia, directed by Sir Peter Hall.

The principal reason it has a place of honor at Chez Curmie is that the play was the standout production (against some pretty solid competition) that he and Beloved Spouse saw on their honeymoon <mumblemumble> years ago.  But for the purposes of this essay, it’s more than that: the poster declares The Oresteia to be “the world’s first dramatic masterpiece,” and Curmie has no argument with that description. 

What is remarkable about the trilogy is that the cycle of violence and retribution perpetuates itself until it is finally resolved by divine intervention.  King Agamemnon of Argos had sacrificed his daughter, Iphigenia, believing it to be the only way to get to Troy and thereby to return Helen to her husband, Menelaus.  In the first play of the trilogy, Agamemnon, the title character returns victorious, only to be killed, along with his concubine Cassandra, by his wife Clytemnestra and her consort, Aegisthus.

In the middle play, The Libation Bearers, Agamemnon’s other children, Orestes and Electra, egged on at least indirectly by the god Apollo, conspire to kill Clytemnestra and Aegisthus.  They succeed, but Orestes ends the play hounded by the Furies, the chthonic goddesses who believe no crime to be worse than matricide.  The fact that only he can see them may be a practical dramatic necessity, but it also renders the moment all the more terrifying: a tactic later employed by the likes of Alfred Hitchcock, who knew that the unknown can conjure a level of dread that no literal representation can match.

Finally, in the Eumenides, Orestes is brought to trial.  The judge is Athena, the goddess of wisdom.  The immortals—Apollo and the Furies—state their respective cases, with the ultimate issue being trying to rank the evils of filicide, regicide/mariticide, and regicide/matricide.  Athena has appointed a jury of the leading men of Athens, the Areopagus, to decide the case.  Their vote ends in a tie; Athena casts the deciding vote for mercy, but assures the Furies (now re-named the Eumenides, the Kindly Ones) that they will henceforth be appropriately honored in exchange for their benevolence.

Athena thus effectively ends the spiral of retribution and whataboutism.  As we prepare for a radical change in government in January, we desperately need an Athena.  The chances that Joe Biden will morph into such a figure in his last days in office: one in a million.  The chances Donald Trump will ever do so: zero.

Alas.