You are here

Home

Precedence of property protection over emergence of truth


Would Jesus Now be Prosecuted by US? (Part #4)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The various approaches to justice in the matter, as indicated above, tend to obscure the vested interest in any particular interpretation, and the procedures which may have been used to achieve it.

One useful approach, of relevance to consideration of the current cases, is to reframe the case of Jesus in terms of "property" -- but especially such as to encompass the financial assets of business operations, intellectual property, even extending to cultural property, despite uncertainties in this regard (Naomi Mezey, The Paradoxes of Cultural Property, Georgetown University Law Center, 2007; Joseph P. Fishman, Locating the International Interest in Intranational Cultural Property Disputes, The Yale Journal of International Law, 35, 2010).

This extension would provide a common framework for consideration of:

  • Cleansing of the Temple, so evidently characterized by money changing. Clearly Jesus disrupted business in ways reminiscent of the recent activities of the Occupy Wall street movement in relation to the so-called Temple of Capitalism. As argued by Mark Manolopoulos (Jesus's Provocative Political Protest, Consortiumnews.com, 11 January 2013):
    Christians celebrate Jesus's birth and the immediate events around his crucifixion, but less attention is given to the clearest sign of his political activism, his overturning of the money-changing tables at the Temple in Jerusalem, the likeliest reason for his execution.... In sum: "Jesus attacked the temple system itself," assailing it because it was patently unjust.
  • Blasphemy, as the focus of the trial from a Jewish perspective (as concluded by William J. Gaynor, Arrest and Trial of Jesus View from a Legal standpoint. American Lawyer, 1903). The Jewish belief system can indeed be understood as a form of "intellectual property" of the collectivity. The third book of the Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that he that blasphemes the Name of the Lord "shall surely be put to death". This prohibition against blasphemy is understood by Judaism to be applicable to all people (Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and the Jewish Examination of Jesus, Bulletin for Biblical Research, 2007). As noted by Edward W. Hatch (The Trial and Condemnation of Christ as a Legal Question, The Green Bag, 1893):
    Blasphemy was an offence so odious to the Jews that they conducted the trial in all its aspects in such a manner that the words used by the offender, constituting the crime, were not spoken by the witnesses; but fictitious words and personages were introduced. As they could not execute under the fictitious name, they finally excluded the public, and calling the principal witness said to him: "Tell us clearly what thou hast heard"; and then the witness, naming the person, stated the words constituting the offence.

Property: The primary legal case against Manning-Assange-Snowden relates to the "property" of the United States government which they are alleged to have misappropriated. The property takes the form of data in electronic files. There is currently no question that such property is effectively held in trust by government for the peoples of the USA, according to the Preamble of the Constitution of the USA, which reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Expressed more explicitly, the property is effectively that of tax payers as a collectivity. The argument is currently in process of development in relation to the paywalls severely constraining public access to the results of any research -- as intellectual property -- funded by tax payers via government agencies (Megan Gannon, White House Promises Free Access to Publicly Funded Research, Live Science, 26 February 2013; Meredith Schwartz, FAsTR Aims to speed Open Access to Government-Funded Research, Library Journal, 21 February 2013; David Crotty, Expanding Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research: first Iimpressions on the US Government's policy, The Scholarly Kitchen, 25 February 2013; Harvard Open Access Project, Notes on the Federal Research Public Access Act).

Curiously the property framework draws attention to the manner in which the USA has been systematically acquiring, via electronic surveillance and without consent, the "property" of those using modern electronic communications -- to the extent that their content is to be understood as private property. The accusation against Manning-Assange-Snowden thus strangely mirrors that which can be made against the USA. The defence is of course that the USA has declared such acquisition to be lawful via a range of legal provisions and directives, whether secret or not, and whether concluded with complicit foreign governments or not.

More controversial, to the extent that this property has been acquired in the name of the peoples of the USA, is the question as to whether Americans can in any way be held responsible for what be considered the "theft" of the private property of other peoples of the world.

Truth: The secondary case against Manning-Assange-Snowden relates to the manner in which the received consensual truth, cultivated misleadingly by the government of the USA, is called into question by the "concrete evidence" in the electronic disclosures. These alternative understandings of the truth are readily to be seen as "blasphemous" from the perspective of US government authority -- to a degree that their revelation is considered treasonous and punishable by death. some evidence is considered so sensitive that, as in the original trial of Jesus for blasphemy, it can only be heard in secret.

This raises the question as to the nature of the truth promoted by a religious belief system and that promoted by a political authority -- both with their possible complicities, as explored by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman (Manufacturing Consent: the political economy of the mass media, 1988). The issue is also evident in relation to the "truth" promoted by "science", as separately discussed (Knowledge Processes Neglected by Science: insights from the crisis of science and belief, 2012). The issue is framed differently with respect to the financial community where reference is made to a "culture of deceit" (David Milliken and Huw Jones, Bank of England attacks "deceitful" bank culture, Reuters, 29 June 2012). The phrase is also used with respect to politics (Henry A Giroux, Deceit in Obama's America: the rule of damaged politics, Truthout, 21September 2009 )

The pattern with respect to truth is also evident in the case of other unquestionable assumptions of "consensus" -- such as the so-called Washington Consensus -- and the manner in which they are considered to be "blasphemously" called into question by "alternative" perspectives (Considering All the strategic Options: whilst ignoring alternatives and disclaiming cognitive protectionism, 2009; Framing the Global Future by Ignoring Alternatives: unfreezing categories as a vital necessity, 2009).

It is understandable that questioning any such truth should be perceived as dangerously "un-American" (as noted above), "un-scientific", or "anti-semitic", as separately discussed (Guidelines for Critical Dialogue between Worldviews: as exemplified by the need for non-antisemitic dialogue with Israelis? 2006). This notes the dialogue modality in which criticism of any kind is defensively reframed as being necessarily symptomatic of illegitimate "anti" bias justifying appropriate measures in response.

Guardians of the truth: This highlights a curious parallel between the systemic dynamics of the bodies protective of the truths central to the following belief systems:

The worldview framed by "TINA" is eloquently called into question by the arguments of the Chinese-American venture capitalist Eric Li (A Tale of Two Political Systems, TED, July 2013) who challenges efforts to impose a single socio-political "meta-narrative" as a universal panacea -- whether it be (Western) electoral democracy or a (Chinese) single party system. Succinctly he states that any panacea so framed is culturally unrealistic and "boring" in addition to being of questionable efficacy. It is unfortunate that such thinking is not applied to the quarrelling religions of the world, as suggested by the arguments of Stephen Prothero (God Is Not One: the eight rival religions that run the world -- and why their differences matter, 2011).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here