THE FURTHER CORRESPONDENCES OF MARC SUSSELMAN PART 22
********
28 March 2024
MS said:
I don’t particularly care for Larry David as a comedian, but I agree with him on this:
"https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/28/larry-david-trump-chris-wallace-wtcw-lcl-cprog-vpx.cnn"
********
MS said:
Beelzebub defends his analogy comparing Israel’s invasion of Gaza, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians, to Derek Chauvin’s murder by suffocation of George Floyd and thinks the analogy makes perfect sense. He apparently does not understand the difference between murder and self-defense. George Floyd did not attack Derek Chauvin before Chauvin suffocated him. Israel invaded Gaza after its government, led by Hamas, massacred several thousand Israelis, raped “only a few” Israeli women, and then abducted several hundred Israelis, whom they are still holding as hostages.
One has to question the mentality, let alone the rationality, of a person who could make such a silly, indefensible analogy.
********
MS said:
This article about Justice Breyer's new book is very informative. I recommend it.
"https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/26/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-interview-00148948"
********
MS said:
The other day, I took the deposition of the former Mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan, in my lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the City’s resolution banning the display of the Pride Flag on the City’s flagpoles. After the deposition, we went out to lunch and talked about a variety of subjects, including the upcoming Presidential election. (We had lunch at a Polish restaurant in Hamtramck, where I had a delicious lunch of cabbage soup, rolled cabbage and Polish crepes. Yummy.)
I asked her if she was worried. She was, and is, a diehard Democrat. She responded that she was not at all worried. I expressed my surprise, because I am worried, and all of my Democrat friends are worried, as are many Democrats around the country. In response to my surprise, she said she is confident that Biden will win, for several reasons. First, she believes that Trump is not a healthy man, and will likely succumb to something before the election. Second, he will likely be convicted of something prior to the election. And third, there are not enough Democrats defecting from Biden to threaten him winning in all of the states he won in 2020, even in Michigan.
I found her assurances soothing. I hope she is right.
********
MS said:
I was just thinking about the similarities between Islam and Marxism, and the contradiction between Wolff’s avowed adherence to Marxism, and his essay In Defense of Anarchism.
One of the principal focuses of Islam is on the obligation of the community to the welfare of all of its members, which is comparable to the same emphasis in Marxism. However, this obligation to promote communal welfare comes with a price – it requires suppression of individual liberty, which is evident in every society which has sought to create a communist government.
This underscores a contradiction in Wolff’s philosophical writings. Wolff views Marxism as the ideal economic theory which would maximize the just distribution of capital among all of its adherents. But such egalitarianism comes with the same price as Islam – it requires the suppression of individual liberty in order to succeed. However, this contradicts the position which Wolff took in his essay In Defense of Anarchism, in which he argued that one’s highest ethical obligation is to one’s own autonomy and a refusal to suppress that autonomy in the face of authority. Does he even realize the contradiction?
********
MS said:
Regarding a comparison between Islam and Marxism, I found this article on the internet:
"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2057891119888583"
********
Michael said:
I actually believe that Islam is a real religion given to mankind by the angel Gabriel. As far as the contradictions between the Koran & the Torah and the Gospel, I believe these contradictions are purposely put into Islam to separate Islam from Judaism & Christianity. Otherwise such Abrahamic faiths will melt into each other & disintegrate the three separate Abrahamic faiths into nothing.
********
MS said:
Post-script: I would note that Wolff has indicated that he still uses In Defense of Anarchism in his guest lectures. What gives?
********
29 March 2024
MS said:
What happened to Kaiser Wilhelm II after the end of WWI?
I had never given this question any thought until last night, when my wife and I watched a movie titled “The Exception.” The movie depicts the Kaiser’s life after WWI. As Germany was losing the war, he abdicated and went into exile in the Netherlands, where he lived until 1941, ruminating about the past and how he had been betrayed by his military, hoping and expecting that Hitler would restore him to power. The Kaiser is portrayed by Christopher Plummer, in one of his typical outstanding performances.
Seeking to learn more about the Kaiser, I read the article about him on Wikipedia. He was a rather deranged man, a virulent anti-Semite and Anglophobe. From the article: “[H]e believed that the Freemasons and the Jews had caused both world wars, and were aiming for a world empire financed by British and American gold, but that ‘Juda’s plan has been smashed to pieces and they themselves swept out of the European Continent!’ Continental Europe was now, Wilhelm wrote, ‘consolidating and closing itself off from British influences and the elimination of the British and the Jews!’ The result would be a ‘U.S. of Europe!’ … ‘The Jews [are] being thrust out of their nefarious positions in all countries, whom they have driven to hostility for centuries.’”
Yes, the Jews were responsible for causing both world wars, and had infiltrated all of the governments of Europe. Obviously, he was not alone in believing these ludicrous ideas. The Third Reich was full of such people. And they continue to exist even today, even in the U.S. People wonder how supposedly sane, rational people can fall for Trump’s asinine lies? Well, apparently a lot of people can be persuaded to believe all sorts of ridiculous nonsense, if they are so pre-inclined. They can even be persuaded to believe that the Jews stole Palestine from the Palestinians; that the real victims of the Hamas massacre on October 7 are the Palestinians themselves, whom the Israelis are deliberately starving to death. And many of these same anti-Semites pride themselves as despising Trump and his idiot supporters – they could not fall for his nonsense! And they are flourishing on Wolff’s blog.
********
MS said:
What can one say about a purported journalist who does not know the difference between the 19th and 20th centuries?
In an article on CNN today about the reference to the Comstock Act, which was enacted in 1873, at the Supreme Court oral argument Wednesday regarding the FDA’s approval of the sale of the abortion pill mifepristone, the journalist writes: “There were some prosecutions under the law in the initial decades after it was passed, but courts in the early 19th century whittled down its scope … .” So, a statute passed in 1873 counts as the early 1800s. From what institution of higher learning did this person obtain his/her journalism degree?
********
MS said:
Below is a link to Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan’s powerful speech at the UN commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day.
"https://youtu.be/ZU1M2GKXc5Q?feature=shared"
The anti-Semites flourishing here and around the world – and on Wolff’s blog - will reject his remarks as more Jew whining.
********
MS said:
Putting aside what has actually happened in those societies which have actually attempted to implement Marxism/communism, which have evolved into autocratic societies which severely limit individual liberties, Marxism has two aspects: (1) the economic analysis, which argues that at the heart of capitalism is exploitation of the workers enriching the owners of the means of production at their expense; (2) and the political analysis, which proposes taking the means of production away from the capitalists and having the workers owning the means of production on an egalitarian basis. The first focus is meaningless without the second. That is, what sense does it make to point out that workers in a capitalist society are being exploited, unless you propose a solution which will eliminate the exploitation? Wolf tends to focus on the exploitation aspect, without seriously addressing the political aspect as to how to remedy the exploitation. But I find his rather academic and pedantic approach ultimately meaningless – great, so you have proved that in a capitalist society workers are being exploited and it is unfair, as if we did not already know that.
This leaves unaddressed whether there is a feasible solution which eliminates the unfair exploitation. Wolff makes no real effort to deal with this question. He seems to assume that once the inequity is proved, the solution will somehow evolve on its own, eventually. But it is not at all that simple, as demonstrated by what has actually occurred in those societies which have attempted it. The solution must necessarily deal with human nature, which history has proved is frequently self-centered and acquisitive. Not addressing this is a form of punking out. Given human nature, the solution which posits egalitarian ownership of the means of production requires leadership and management, which must employ measures and pressures to quell the natural impulses of individuals for self-assertion and self-advancement, which are counter to egalitarianism. Wolf avoids these issues by simply not addressing them, and he fails to recognize that those necessary measures and pressures run directly counter to his thesis in In Defense of Anarchism which holds that the individual’s highest moral obligation is to assert one’s autonomy and to resist the imposition of authority over one’s autonomy. In a world in which his thesis of assertion of one’s autonomy is paramount, eliminating the exploitation of capitalism is not possible.
********
30 March 2024
MS said:
Now Ireland has come out against Israel, condemning it as a colonialist occupier of Palestine. It bases its position on Ireland’s experience of subjugation by the British:
“Ireland’s position on the Israel-Hamas conflict has made it an outlier among European governments. Zoë Lawlor, who leads the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC), said there was “deep empathy and sympathy in Ireland with Palestinian people.”
That solidarity is largely born out of a shared experience of subjugation by an occupying state. The island nation was under English and then British rule for more than 800 years, after Anglo-Norman invaders seized huge stretches of land from the native Irish in the 12th Century.”
Ireland’s position underscores the ignorance of people regarding Jewish history and their inability to engage in analytical thinking. As far as I know, there is no evidence that prior to the Norman invasion of England in 1066, the Normans had occupied England, were themselves expelled by the Angles or the Saxons, and then returned in 1066 to reclaim their ancestral home. Nor is there any evidence that after the Normans were expelled from their ancestral home, Norman populations continued to live in England, and were joined by their Norman cousins when they returned in 1066. Nor is there any evidence that when the Normans invaded England, they cultivated land which the Angles and Saxons had left fallow, and, after cultivating it and making it fruitful, offered to share it with the resident Angles and Saxons, an offer which was rejected by the Angles and Saxons.
The Hebrews, by contrast, had an established government in Judea and Samaria as early as 800 B.C., before there were any Romans; before there were any Christians; before there were any Muslims. Hebrews continued to live in what the Romans named “Palestrina” after their partial expulsion by the Romans and the Diaspora. They lived there through the Middle Ages; through the Crusades; through the conquest and occupation by the Ottoman Turks. When Jews in the Diaspora began returning to Palestine when it was governed by the Ottoman Turks, they did not “steal” the land from the native Arabs living there. They purchased the land from the absentee landlords, the Turks, and cultivated land that had been left fallow by the resident Arabs. They then proposed to partition the land and share it with the Arabs, which the Arabs rejected, and launched a war against the Jews, determined to “drive the Jews into the sea.” Nothing like this ever happened in Ireland.
So much for my annual enthusiastic celebration of St. Patrick’s Day.
********
31 March 2024
MS said:
In response to the Benny Morris article linked by Anonymous (which I, also, have been unable to read due to the paywall), LFC states:
“This is the epitome of ‘common sense,’ according to Anonymous (and we all know who this particular Anonymous is): criticize the Palestinians for turning down previous two-state deals, and then turn around and say ‘oh it wd never be enough for them.’ Then why criticize them for turning down the previous deals, when acc to him that was predictable? Seems a rather fatalistic outlook, to put it mildly.”
As Antonio states in The Tempest, “The past is prologue.” Benny Morris is predicting the future on the basis of the past actions by the Palestinians of rejecting every reasonable two-state solution which Israel has offered them. At the time the offers were made, Israel could not predict that the Palestinians would repeatedly reject all of them. It was not “predictable” when they were first offered. It is predictable now.
********
2 April 2024
MS said:
"https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/opinion/two-state-solution-israel-palestine.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20240402&instance_id=119110&nl=opinion-today®i_id=116606494&segment_id=162381&te=1&user_id=306c6f279e52d371ba02c31b1c20638c"
The above link is to a guest essay printed in the NYT today It proves that Benny Morris is right – that the Palestinians will never agree to live peacefully, side by side with Israeli Jews.
The author, Tareq Baconi, writes:
“Repeating the two-state solution mantra has allowed policymakers to avoid confronting the reality that partition is unattainable in the case of Israel and Palestine, and illegitimate as an arrangement originally imposed on Palestinians without their consent in 1947. And fundamentally, the concept of the two-state solution has evolved to become a central pillar of sustaining Palestinian subjugation and Israeli impunity. The idea of two states as a pathway to justice has in and of itself normalized the daily violence meted out against Palestinians by Israel’s regime of apartheid.”
Ms. Baconi is rewriting history. The Palestinians did not reject the partition plan proposed by the UN because they thought its details were unfair. Their mantra when the Arab states attacked the fledgling country was that they would “Drive the Jews into the sea.” They had no intention of sharing the land with the Jews – land which the Jews through their sweat and toil had made to flourish. They wanted it all for themselves. And the only reason that there is so-called “apartheid” is that it is the only way that Israel can protect its people from Palestinian terrorist attacks.
The Palestinians have never wanted peace. They are culturally incapable of making compromise. Under Islam, once Muslims take possession of land, they hold it in trust for eternity with Allah’s blessing. Throughout history, it has always been the Muslim way, or the highway. They conquered North Africa and southern Spain at the point of the sword, forcing the population to convert to Islam. They never wanted to share Palestine with the Jews, and still do not want to share Palestine with the Jews.
********
Michael said:
I don't believe the Palestinians are as bad as that. I believe the Palestinians never had a democratic choice as to who really leads them or speaks for them. If you have evil leaders, you're most likely going to do evil things. Especially if you're on their payroll and you're not given a choice of leadership and policy. Although that still is no individual ethical excuse.
Now the Muslims did conquer up to Spain. But the reason the Muslims even were welcomed into Spain, by the Spanish, was that the Spanish were still under the iron fist of the descendents of the Visigoths. And they wanted to shake off their old oppressors.
The Palestinians are like sheep, and their media noticable shepards, from Yasser Arafat onwards, have been adamant to staying with Israel in almost a continual state of war. And those wicked Palestinians who took part in the October 7th attacks should be brought to justice or destroyed. It is good that evil men be punished. Having wicked leaders is no excuse for the actions of wicked men.
And I'll say this. The warlike aggressiveness (or terrorist inclination) of the Palestinians will disappear as soon as the Palestinian leadership dries up. Especially if there is no similar leadership oligarchy to take its place. Some may say Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to destroy the real powers in control of Gaza. History will decide if he is a hero in support of liberating the Palestinians from their Iranian overlords or if he is nothing more than a genocidal maniac. The question everyone must ask themselves now is: What do you think?
********
3 April 2024
MS said:
In the classified documents prosecution case, Jack Smith is objecting to Judge Cannon’s requirement that the parties submit two sets of proposed jury instructions, one which sets forth the exact words of the Espionage Act, and one which incorporates Trump’s version of the Espionage Act, which would make it impossible for Smith to obtain a conviction.
See:
"https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/02/politics/special-counsel-mar-a-lago-jury-instructions/index.html"
This is what incompetent and biased judges do. They have a lot of power in their courtroom. They can determine the outcome to fit their bias in numerous ways – by their evidentiary rulings during a trial, admitting, or rejecting, the evidence they want, or dislike, over an opposing counsel’s objection; by their rulings on motions prior to the trial, to which they say, “If you don’t like it, file an appeal,” appeals which cost time and money.
I have experienced this many times in my 45-year legal career, as recently as this week. After 45 years, I have concluded that the legal system sucks. There are too many incompetent, ideologically driven judges. Judges in the federal courts who have obtained their appointment via political connections. Judges in the state courts, in which judges are elected, who favor those attorneys and law firms which contribute to their re-election campaigns. Is there any solution? Probably not, given the corruptibility of human nature.
********
MS said:
In response to a joint letter wish was published in the April issue of the Washtenaw Jewish News, which called for an immediate ceasefire, I submitted the below letter which I have requested be published in the May issue of the WJN. I had to edit the original letter significantly, because the editor of the WJN stated that it was too long. This is the final version which I submitted for publication in May. We will see if she publishes it.
The April issue of the WJN contained a joint letter, which stated, “We support the release of hostages and call emphatically for a permanent ceasefire.” By the end of the letter, the support for the release of the hostages took a back seat to a permanent ceasefire, with or without the release of the hostages as a nonnegotiable precondition for a ceasefire. They state: “We adamantly believe that Jewish Israeli and Palestinian safety are not mutually exclusive, but are closely intertwined. Lasting peace will only be achieved when everyone – both Israelis and Palestinians – has access to safety, dignity, and self-determination. We claim recognition that this life affirming stance is based on strong Jewish values.” No more mention of releasing the hostages simultaneous with a ceasefire.
Strong Jewish values? What about strong Muslim values? When in the history of Islam, as Arabs conquered North Africa at the point of a sword and forcibly converted populations to Islam, have its adherents displayed strong Muslim values of respect for their fellow human beings, and concern for their “safety, dignity, and self-determination”? When in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have the Palestinians displayed “strong Muslim values” of respect for their fellow human beings, and concern for their “safety, dignity, and self-determination,” as they declared their dedication to the objective of “driving the Jews into the sea”-or are such values only the obligation and duty of the Jews?
On April 2, the NYT published an opinion piece by Tereq Baconi, in which she wrote: “Repeating the two-state solution mantra has allowed policymakers to avoid confronting the reality that partition is unattainable in the case of Israel and Palestine, and illegitimate as an arrangement originally imposed on Palestinians without their consent in 1947. … The idea of two states as a pathway to justice has in and of itself normalized the daily violence meted out against Palestinians by Israel’s regime of apartheid.”
Is this a person who wants peace? She is rewriting history. The Palestinians did not reject the UN partition plan because they thought its details were unfair. Their mantra was that they would “Drive the Jews into the sea.” They had no intention of sharing the land with the Jews–land which the Jews through their sweat and toil had made flourish. They wanted it all for themselves. Under Islam, once Muslims take possession of land, they hold it in trust for eternity with Allah’s blessing. The reason there is so-called “apartheid” is that it is the only way Israel can protect its people from Palestinian terrorist attacks.
As stated in 1 Corinthian, 13:11, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” It is time for the signatories of the letter to relinquish their childish claim that all humans have equally strong ethical values and are equally dedicated to respect for their fellow human beings, and concern for their “safety, dignity, and self-determination.” This may be a painful and depressing truth. But it is reality, and it is about time they realize it, before they make the Israelis, and others, victims of Islam in its program to annihilate Israel and reestablish the Caliphate.
********
MS said:
Last night on my local PBS station, they had a program about Julius Caesar. It was fascinating. They portray Caesar as a shrewd politician, whose ultimate objective was to become the autocratic leader of Rome, without restrictions by the Senate. He used his ability to ingratiate himself with the masses of Rome, most of whom were impoverished, to enhance his power, as he moved from Pontifex Maximus, chief religious leader of Rome (although he was a dandy and not particularly devout), to Consul, to member of the First Triumvirate, with Pompey and Crassus. The message was clear – Trump is the most recent reincarnation of Caesar, using his popularity with the masses to obtain autocratic power.
********
Michael said:
I've always looked at Trump as being more like Marcus Crassus. Both men were very rich. Both men made the majority of their wealth through Real Estate. Both men built a big wall to keep out undesirables. (Marcus Crassus built a very long wall in southern Italy to keep out or trap Spartacus and his fellow ex-slaves.) And both men got their start (and success) in politics late in life.
********
MS said:
Michael,
You do not believe that the Palestinians are “as bad as that.” Then why was their uniform mantra in 1948 that they would “drive the Jews into the sea.” This was not just a rallying cry by the Palestinian leadership. Why were thousands of Palestinians, both in Gaza and the West Bank, cheering the Hamas terrorists as heroes for their massacre on Oct. 7?
********
Michael said:
If you read Marco Polo's Travels (written in the 13th century) you will find that Jews and Muslims lived in relative harmony throughout the Middle East and Asia. In fact, it was the Christians who were the oppressed and outcasts in such lands.
Just as the Jews were oppressed in Europe during the 13th century it was the Christians who were oppressed in Asia & the Middle East at the same time. But Muslims & Jews lived in relative harmony in such places. It was only until the "Land Wars" of Palestine (which began towards the end of the 19th century) did the Muslims begin a virtual blood feud with the Jewish people. As Israel prospered, the Palestinians didn't. This caused the Palestinians to fall under one bad leader after another. The Palestinian leadership has rejected peace with Israel again and again. If they had proper & positive leadership like that of Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King Jr, or Mohatma Ghandi this big mess in the Middle East concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict wouldn't be happening.
"Sheep, mere sheep, easily dispersed once the shepherd is struck." --King Edward Longshanks from the movie Braveheart
********
5 April 2024
MS said:
Are Wolff and his readers being punked by Kit Charles and Edvin Berg?
********
Michael said:
[Q & A proving why Atheism is not definitive in scope...]
Q: Is it possible that an omnipotent Creator (or God) of the universe exists?
A: Yes, it is possible.
Q: Is it possible for that Creator to use his unlimited omnipotence to hide from mankind for all of eternity?
A: Yes, that's possible too since he would have that power to do so if he existed.
Q: Then you must admit that Atheism is self refuting since the two mentioned theoretical possibilities make it impossible for an Atheist to have 100% certainty in their belief that God doesn't exist in any point of the timeline?
A: That does inevitably result.
********
6 April 2024
MS said:
The death of the 7 food aid workers of World Central Kitchen is a tragic occurrence for which Israel deserves condemnation. And it is true that Israeli military deliberately targeted the vehicles in which the food aid workers were driving. But this does not equate to a conclusion that the Israeli military intended to kill food aid workers of World Central Kitchen. It constituted what in the law would be “gross negligence,” but this does not equate to intentionally killing. But this is what many are accusing Israel of doing. This was another case of Hamas embedding its terrorists with the civilian population so that the IDF would kill civilians, increasing outrage against Israel. The officers who authorized the attack, and who have since been disciplined by Israel, report that as the World Central Kitchen left the warehouse where it picked up the food, they saw armed militants enter some of the vehicles. Only Hamas has armed individuals in Gaza. If we assume that food aid workers of World Central Kitchen would not let militants enter their vehicles – which we must assume, otherwise permitting such infiltration would make the World Central Kitchen complicit with Hamas – then the IDF’s conclusion that the vehicles in question were not being operated by the World Central Kitchen, but by Hamas, is a rational inference. Now, of course, one can reject this explanation, and maintain, as some do, that the IDF officers must be lying, then one would reject this explanation as more lying by the Jews. Is it possible that some Jews lie? Of course. I have encountered Jews whom I thought were lying to me. But, given the history of Hamas, I am more inclined to believe the IDF explanation, than accuse the Jewish Israeli officers of deliberately lying. To an anti-Semite, this explanation would, of course, not hold water.
In 1999, NATO forces bombed a hospital in Belgrade, as well as several embassies in Belgrade, including the Chinese embassy. Several patients in the Belgrade hospital died. NATO denied that it had committed a war crime, asserting that the bombing was accidental. Did NATO fire the military personnel responsible for this accidental bombing? As far as I know, it did not. Did NATO have an excuse that Serbian forces had embedded its military in the hospital? No, they did not. Did the press and the world accuse NATO of deliberately killing those medical personnel? No, they did not. They accepted the explanation that the bombing was accidental. But in the military operation in Gaza, only the Jews lie.
In 2011, NATO forces bombed a hospital in Libya, killing 7 medical personnel. NATO once again denied that it had committed a war crime, asserting that the bombing was accidental. Did NATO fire the military personnel responsible for this accidental bombing? As far as I know, it did not. Did the press and the world accuse NATO of deliberately killing those medical personnel? No, they did not. They accepted the explanation that the bombing was accidental. Did NATO have an excuse that Libya had embedded its military in the hospital? No, they did not. Did the world accuse NATO personnel of lying? No, they did not. But in the military operation in Gaza, only the Jews lie.
********
MS said:
It is of course true that the truth of any two propositions is possible, unless they logically contradict each other. The proposition that the existence of a Supreme Creator exists is possibly true, and the proposition that the Supreme Creator deliberately conceals its existence is also possible, and does not contradict the first proposition. One might question, however, whether such a Supreme Creator would qualify as a beneficent Being. A person who claims to be an atheist and maintains that it is impossible for such a Supreme Creator to exist would be logically erroneous. However, suppose the atheist does not maintain that it is impossible for such a Supreme Creator to exist, but only that, based on empirical evidence, it is highly unlikely that such a Being exists, particularly if defined as being a beneficent Being. This would not be logically erroneous.
Which is what Sigmund Freud believed. Last night, my wife and I saw the movie “Freud’s Last Session.” The plot of the movie involves a conjectured meeting between Freud and C.S. Lewis, the author of the Narnia series. Freud was an atheist. Lewis was a devout Christian. In the movie, Freud has invited Lewis to his home in London essentially to debate the existence of God. Freud is portrayed by Anthony Hopkins, in another tour de force performance by Hopkins. Freud is critical of all religions, and rejects the proposition that there is a beneficent Supreme Being. It is one of the most cerebral movies I have seen in a very long time. It is at the end of Freud’s life, and he is suffering from advanced jaw cancer. In addition to the interaction between Freud and Lewis, the movie is revealing about the relationship between Freud and his daughter Anna, who became a world-renowned child psychologist. I thought it was a wonderful, thought-provoking movie, and I highly recommend it.
As a legal sidenote, this week I had an experience in court which astonished me. I am representing a woman who is seeking to regain partial custody of her two minor sons. Her ex-husband has parental custody. He is living with his two sons at his parents’ home. The ex-husband has portrayed his ex-wife as an incompetent parent and that she does not deserve to have custody. During my direct examination of my client this week, among my numerous questions to prove that she is not an incompetent parent, I asked her if her two sons attend church. She responded that they do, with their grand-mother, three times a week. I asked her if they have expressed how they feel about attending church. She said that they have, and have expressed that they do not like attending church, that it is boring, and that they do not believe that God exists. She testified that she told them that if this is the case, they should express how they feel to their father and grand-mother. The younger of the two sons said they cannot do this. “You know how grandma is – her house, her rules.”
At this point opposing counsel objected and stated that this testimony was crossing the line of separation between church and state, and that under the law, parents have the right to require that their children do certain things, like doing their homework. The judge rejected the objection, stating that the analogy did not apply, that there is a difference between requiring that children do their homework and attend church against their will. He stated that he thought requiring children to attend church, or any religious service, against their will, was a form of child abuse! Further, he said, there are many people who believe that religion is the cause of many of the problems in our world. He went further and stated he wanted to interview the boys to find out how they felt about attending church. I was shocked. I expected the judge to agree with opposing counsel, and state that a religious upbringing is essential in a child’s rearing. Finally, I thought, I have an enlightened judge.
********
Michael said:
I agree with the judge but for different reasons. Church, Synagogue, & Mosque are a privilege and not a torture to attend. People who don't appreciate the Shabbat can stay at home for all I care. Sour people make Shabbat hard to enjoy whether in a Synagogue, Church, or Mosque.
Here is an analogy I made up:
"Saint Francis, why should I go to Church? It is such a torture."
Saint Francis responded:
"Mankind tortures God six days every week with their pettiness & ungratefulness. God should be able to torture mankind for at least one hour every seven days in respectful justice."
********
MS said:
Life is not fair.
"https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/06/sport/controversial-late-foul-call-iowa-uconn-march-madness-spt-intl/index.html"
Would a beneficent Supreme Being allow this to happen? Or doesn’t S/He care about basketball?
********
Michael said:
I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about the game itself, but rather about the people playing the game he cares.
********
The End.