From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 22:57:16 BST
Hi David,
I don't want to second guess my considered response (in the related thread)
but put simply, the impression I gained from what you quoted was that Scalia
was a (Biblical) fundamentalist, and I have a prejudice against
fundamentalists. They tend to believe in an imminent 'rapture', and many
think it would be OK to bring on that rapture (and apocalypse) through their
own actions. I wouldn't like to see a nuclear war in the Middle East that
was - however remotely - helped to happen because of a Modernist misreading
of a Biblical text. Their occupying positions of power in the US is
something that literally does scare me, especially at the moment. But
perhaps I am maligning people on the basis of inadequate information - as I
did with Scalia.
When I read what he had said, it was clear that he wasn't a fundamentalist,
although he is clearly a conservative Catholic. His essential point, it
seemed to me, was that you shouldn't use the justice system to change the
law - that was what congress is for - but that, given that, you shouldn't be
a judge unless you felt able to support the death penalty (because it is a
necessary part of administering the law as it presently stands). The rest of
his paper was giving his own personal reasons why he felt able to act
morally in that situation, hence his own understandings of Catholic
teaching. He explicitly says that it's OK for state or federal law to
prohibit the death penalty if that is what the body politic determines, and
he wouldn't have a problem with being a judge in that situation. He just
doesn't believe in 'judicial activism'.
All of which is a long way from the unenlightened position that I had been
led to believe he was articulating. But that brings us back to the other
thread, on which more tomorrow. You say that you have no idea what makes
someone like Scalia tick. Hopefully at the end of our dialogue you'll have a
better idea (which isn't to say that I stand where Scalia does, only that,
perhaps presumptuously, I think I can explain where he is coming from). I
should add that I don't see "anti-modern" as a criticism. Indeed, logically,
anyone who agrees with the MoQ is anti-Modern by definition, including you
;-)
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:56 GMT