Monday, December 7, 2009

Law and the Bible

Some thoughts posted in Cannabis Culture Forums by the Registrar of the Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society. He is posting as Malaclypse IV

"So that's what you call it eh? Christian-Libertarian...where did you pick up your Christian influences from?"

Well, I've been interested in drug prohibition since I was in gradeschool and a coffee-swilling public educator tried to tell us kids about the evils of "drugs"---well, clearly some drugs are OK, you're drinking coffee...didn't go over too well.

So, fast forward to a couple of years ago. I was taking a mixture of arts courses at The University of British Columbia, including Critical Studies in Sexuality. I mention this course because it taught me that the "left", for lack of a better term, is completely shameless about justifying itself through obfuscation---essentially, say "heteronormativity" is bad, and repeat "performative", "iterated", "queer theory" enough times that people respect you and your vacuity. This led me to believe that I had been far too circumspect in my values and my tactics visavis drug prohibition; if the queers are now at a point where they basically set the script _on their own terms_ in Universities, why should that not be the goal of the drug culture?

As an example, here on these forums there are many drug users who believe in "soberonormativity," at least for children, in that they believe a sober childhood is normal/optimal/better than a high childhood. Now, to my mind, this is more or less the equivalent of trying to teach children to be accepting of queers by telling them "you know, once you're an adult, if you want to be gay, that's one thing, maybe, I guess, but, gosh, try to kiss girls if you're a boy and boys if you're a girl while you're growing up---trust us, we're older and wiser." Yeah, right.

And, totally coincidentally, at this time I was given a bible, and I began to read it. Goodness gracious does it say some hip things---and I'm not going to argue for the truth/falsity of the Scriptures; I will point out that in every courtroom of British Columbia there is a copy, and that I've heard a Judge of the Provincial Court go so far as to say that he would not contradict anything in Scripture.

So, I thought "won't contradict anything in Scripture"? Ah, well then. The charter says, pretty much, that a Court may contradict any charter right insofar as that contradiction facilitates amelioration of the condition of a historically oppressed group, so Charter rights are right out, but what about Scriptural rights, I thought?

Anyway, at this time I was also reading Fortescue's Commendation of the Laws of England which details the rights and responsibilities of the Monarch, who at the time was in exile with Fortefcue. More or less, it says therein that the book of Deuteronomy is especially important to Monarchy, as it is in Deuteronomy that all of God's commandments are most explicitely and totally recounted; that is to say, the entire Scripture is a fountain of lifegiving water, but Deuteronomy is especially instructive for rulers.

I'd also been reading some very good Coke at the time, and Coke says animals are hurtful if single, as bears and foxes, but they are not hurtful if they are social, as sheep, fish, etc. So, from that, I gathered that one is required to have some society, that is, partnership. Thus I set to draughting a charter for a society that would use Deuteronomy, which Fortescue confirms is complete, and which the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere states is part of the foundation of the common law of england by way of his statement that the common law of England's ground is the law of God.

So, it appeared, and still appears to me, that in terms of Anglo-Christian legal heritage, drugs simply cannot be prohibited for free individuals, for the prohibition requires theft, and theft is of injuria, not jus, and the Monarch's power is that of jus, not injuria, for jus and injuria are mutually exclusive. And this is all outlined in the Society's Charter and various Acts of Parliament.

At this point we are "in medias res" the refining/firing of the creation---and what I find most dreadful is the lack of imagination on the part of people. It is very sad to me that I've had more respectful dialogue on this issue with Ed Fast, Conservative MP, than with the people here who supposedly want drugs legalized. In my view, anyone who wants to do something politically helpful should stay the hell away from the Socialists in the NDP and get in with the Conservatives...

"Is that Christian as in the ridiculously distorted from of Christianity the world has known...or the universal teachings of Jesus?"

Well, presuming you're not of the "Jesus is love! Love is a hallmark card!" persuasion,

"36For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

38Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
(from Mark 8)

The project really consists merely in not being ashamed of the Word of God, or holy scripture, especially the ten commandments, or Law called Moral.

"If it's the former, mixing religion and politics is a dangerous habit. I heard it leads to psychosis"

Well, considering that psychosis only exists because psychiatrists have voted it into being, I am just not so sure that anything can lead to psychosis, 'cept a duly authorized Quack being allowed to work out on some precious mind. Even though he's out of fashion, I think Szasz makes a good argument, and, no, I do not think that fancy coloured pictures of brains refute him at all. There is a fundamental epistemic problem associated with the diagnosis of mental illness, especially without the permission of the patient as is often the case for diagnoses of "psychosis." And it is generally self-fulfilling: "we do not need his permission because he is psychotic," and why is he psychotic? "He doesn't want to give us permission. He says we are cryptofascists, members of a monopolistic corporation called the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Clearly we need to pump him full of drugs until he forgets how our scam works..."

Given the responses in this thread and in general to these ideas when brought up in public, a lot of vicious laypeople of slightly above average intelligence (it's odd that less intelligent people and more intelligent people can often get it, tho the former can rarely repeat it coherently, they are good people and know they are free.) are perfectly at ease with labelling the holders of different political opinions with mental health terminology---of course, they're "reasonable persons", which is like a "reasonable man", which is taken to be "the man on the Clapham Omnibus," or someone just like them: a silly worker going to work, knowing all of the things that workers "know." Not someone dedicated to study, wisdom, etc...a mere worker, a bee for the beehive.

Now, we all know that in the Soviet Union they interred people under the guise of mental health problems for political dissent; and it is no surprise to me, for there is always a segment of the population so insecure in its views that they are only able to maintain them by coercive authority.

No comments: