Religious Liberty–or death (Common Sense #2).

You’re free to your own opinions–BUT NOT TO YOUR OWN [choose one]:
~~~facts;
~~~actions;
~~~constitution;
~~~tyranny;
~~~state.

or

~~~forts & armadillos;
~~~armed forces & art museums;
~~~commandos & conscience courts;
~~~tanks & torpedoes;
~~~state security & surveillance agencies;

When some say, “People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts,” others say, “Well, that’s your opinion. I don’t agree.” Which is telling it the way it is? As every freshman learns at Hogwash Academy, in the real world (i.e., the classroom), it depends.

Your right to sacrifice virgins stops where my purely beating heart begins, for example. Your right to burn, rape & pillage on behalf of Cosmosis the Almighty, Destroyer of Worlds, stops where such actions are in violation of civil & criminal codes, local municipal ordinances, and non-sectarian moral commandments. Along these same lines, your right to believe whatever you want (& practice accordingly) ends where my right to believe whatever I want (& practice accordingly) begins.

We are more likely to give way on freedom of beliefs, so long as those who believe differently in some respects at least keep their mouths shut & practices secret. Otherwise, it’s “Stranger, stay out of my face.” Speech itself is a form of action, although less so where all talk, no walk. Practice is where the rubber meets the road, however, and all but the extreme Satanists recognize some limits to complete freedom, particularly where other people’s rights & lives are involved.

These limits simply recognize that a person’s rights do not include the right to infringe, violate or take away the rights of others–except, of course, for a good, sound & compelling reason, e.g., protection of others. A reason might be good, but not compelling. A compelling reason is not the same as an obsessive-compulsive one whispered in one’s ear by the Lord of Delusion or one’s invisible puppet master. Prohibition might seem like a good idea with rowdy drunks around, and even compelling out on the highway. It may not be sufficiently sound, however, as historical experience has rather soundly established.

When a particular means causes more serious problems than it solves, its soundness may be questioned, in other words. That’s certainly the case with those who would establish their religious views on others, especially as part of public policy & embedded in the legal system at large. The cost of having one’s own religious freedom is recognizing that others have the same. It doesn’t take much attention to recognize the simple fact that many others have quite different views from one’s own. However ignorant that may seem to make them, this is simply the reality. Recognize it.

Nor does it take much awareness to notice how commonly people kill each other (often in large numbers) over which set of beliefs shall be not just dominant, but exclusive, &, even more commonly over which faction of interpreters shall have sole authority & power of enforcement over any given geography & its population. Tribalism, nationalism,  imperialism & colonialism can all feed into the same sinkhole, where the only way to protect oneself & one’s own is to fight against all others.

One way out of this morass is to redefine the public space as separate from the private, leaving room in the private realm for people to believe & practice without interference–to them by others, or by them to others–within the limits that are defined by a consensus of reason, the non-sectarian commandments by which a successful community operates.

A pluralistic society removes the need to dominate others to preserve one’s own freedom. One need only respect the freedom others also have. That’s the cost, and, presto, like magic, a huge area of potential conflict is eliminated, eliminating incalculable social & community costs in the process, while further empowering the community at large by the range of people cooperating in those areas properly in the public square–trade, business,  economy, administration, highway engineering, military, even government service itself.

It really doesn’t matter what your religious views are for most of one’s public work, what your church & scripture say, or even your political party, so long as you can do your job. That applies to the person making a road, a county clerk, a private enterprise employee, or even spiritual leader. Whatever it is, your job is not to impose your views on others, but to perform your tasks, as defined within the law & conscience.

In the case of a conflict between these last two, if conscience prevents someone from performing in accordance with the job description as legally defined, that person should  presumably resign. There’s nothing dishonorable in that, whereas it is dishonorable for a public servant to refuse refuse to serve members of the public who hold different views, and to serve them equally, which is presumably the basis for the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding same-gender unions.

It simply doesn’t matter what anyone’s views on the sacrament of marriage is, means, or should represent. By recognizing something as sacramental, we explicitly represent it as having religious significance–therefore, not the business of the state to determine among competing views. The partnership of marriage may have deep sacramental meaning, but equally deep meaning to agnostics, or pagans, or followers of other traditions. That’s not the marriage that the state license!

The term marriage has widely accepted & used secular meaning as well, however, and serves many functions in the legal system, as well as in the management of families, property, etc. This is the marriage–& the only marriage–that the state has an entirely legitimate stake in regal;eating, licensing, recording. What you do in or out of churchy, like what partners do (or don’t do) in & out of bedrooms, is not a county clerk’s business.

It’s a strange confusion to think otherwise, brought on perhaps by an inability to distinguish the multiple levels of meaning a word like “marriage” can have, both religious & secular seemingly wrapped up together. That was why some felt a distinction should be made, using “marriage” for the sacramental & “civil union” for the secular, but that solution didn’t fly. Some though it smacked of a second class marriage, but the real reason was that the single word already had the wide spectrum in deeply & widely established usage. Fighting usage can be harder than fighting city hall.

The genius of a system like ours is that it preserves the freedom to mean “different things to different people,” without having to fight over it. How? By leaving what’s private (e.g., sex & religion) to the people involved. I don’t need to know whether your partnership is celibate or erotic, for example, let alone what your religion says about marriage. The public space marriage isn’t about such things at all.

In fact, it’s specifically NOT about such things. As soon as religious convictions are expressed, for example, you’re talking about something else! The fact that it is something else doesn’t make it less important. (The same may be said about sexuality, or lack thereof.) It’s not what the state licenses, although the confusion may be encouraged by the fact that states recognize for civil purposes the marriages affirmed by religious practitioners & organizations, though they do so equally under the law.

 It is striking, on must admit, how few people seem to grasp the difference between the private sphere & the public, let alone the fundamental reason for the separation church & state, protecting the religious of all persuasions equally, as well as everyone else. Nor is the confusion always to assume that the law should reflect what your church says. There’s more on the other side, too, where a person’s religious rights may be violated for being unwilling to participate in a private ceremony. No one would force a clergy person to officiate at a sacrament that person considered heretical. Why would you force a photographer to photograph it?

The Colorado cake-maker who didn’t want to make a cake for a same-gender gay couple’s event cuts a thin slice of the issue. Courts ruled, I think, that being in a public business, he could not discriminate against clients–whether on religious or gender grounds. And certainly that should be the standard for customers buying displayed items. It’s an entirely different matter where custom made work may (or may not) be contracted for an event or occasion.

A cake-maker (like the photographer) ought to have some considerable range of freedom in accepting a custom contract with any customer, for a wide range of reasons–price; time; other commitments; aesthetic, ethical or religious sensibilities. In this case, there may be no single line separating off-the-shelf from custom contract. If it’s a matter of adding names & a toy couple as standard fare, he should deliver equally. If it’s entering the spirit of a bonding ceremony he can’t in good conscience do, hey, there are plenty of other cake-merchants without trying to make a federal case of it, as if to rub the poor fellow’s face in it, then that’s an abuse of the state.

When the Indian sub-continent was partitioned into two independent nations on his birthday in 1947, the Cambridge-educated sage Sri Aurobindo indicated he’d have far preferred a gift of one country to two. Sensitive to the sectarian troubles sown, he was especially sorry as a Bengali to see East & West Bengal divided, East given to a Pakistan divided geographically as well as culturally. From the inherent stresses, he predicted pretty much to the year how long it would take for East Bengal to free itself from the unnatural grip of rule by those with their own agenda so far away.

As mandated, the original partition precipitated countless deaths in the panic of people trying to find where they belonged & conflicts over dominance. Despite brutal repression by the Pakistani occupation, the separation of Bangladesh happened right on Aurobindo’s predicted schedule, with all the extra suffering that might have been avoided. Conflicts in & over Kashmir continue, while those in & around Pakistan have provided the people of the region a quite troubled (& still troubling) history, including many military coups, dangerous partnerships, & export of nuclear weapons technology.

One must wonder about the old idea of “Divide and Conquer,” so deeply embedded in the international strategic power game, yet with such a mixed history. There are various  cases in which such an approach presumably makes good sense, encouraging adversaries to spend their hostilities on each other. Other times a potential adversary might be weakened by turning its hostile attentions to its internal factional divisions.

I suppose it might even seem like simple good sense to create two countries more or less balanced (& always potentially against each other) rather than one united baby super-power. Long before fear of institutions becoming “too big to fail,” there was a basis for fear of “too big to contain.” In the case of super-power politics, the great powers come into conflict in the same way that corporations do in the open market place, from their perceived need to expand market-share & influence. This is not always to the benefit of  neighbors or of the expansive power’s own inhabitants, who tend to be conscripted to make the sacrifices & pay the costs required, for a share of benefits that, if they happen at all, accrue mostly to others & the state machinery itself.

It might have seemed as if this expansive drive reached its explosive climax in World War II, with one world order violently challenged by another considerably darker & more brutal. Implicit in the cooperation of the grand alliance that first stopped, then toppled the Imperial Japanese & Nazi regimes was an unmade promise to end imposed colonial rule, a path to self-determination. Not that the old powers wouldn’t try to re-establish control, as the French did in Indochina & elsewhere, generally with disastrous results.

In the case of the sub-continent, the British had never lost control, however, nor was independence a foregone conclusion, let alone its form & timing. They would hold Hong Kong for more than another half century, after all. Still, it became clear that the days of the British Raj in India were numbered. As with apartheid in South Africa later, the question became not if, but when & how, especially the latter, including the cost paid for the added time, which at some point leads to increasing losses, a bleeding of the ruling power in treasure, blood, & spirit, holding on only by becoming more brutal, less humane, a terrible cost on a people, perpetrators & victims alike.

One may make the case that the British Raj granted independence in a more timely & civilized a way than either the French with its colonies or the South Africans internally. They could have fought to hold on, as they had with the breakaway United States, or with previous Indian uprisings. Faced with the tactics of non-violence, people who wanted to consider themselves relatively enlightened, guided by principles of reason & fairness, had little choice, particularly in the geo-political strategic situation after a war fought, at least in part, against such brutal use of imposed power.
.
One can hardly imagine the outcome of trying to hold on much longer, very likely giving the most extreme elements greater sway on all sides, while forcing many would-be moderates into a more radical agenda. From some perspectives, a war of liberation had been going on for a long, long time, with Russia & China both interested in fueling the process. Expansive ideologically & geographically, the chief argument the communists had was the idea that only communist revolution could liberate the people from the grip of a colonially  imposed capitalist exploitation. The harder the colonial power tries to hold on in such a situation, the more it tends to justify the arguments against it.

On the other hand, the British, like most empires, had its self-justification, its reasons for being, among them two over-riding “functions” they could claim to provide. One of these is the maintenance of a social order based on more or less enlightened principles of law, including public safety. The second is the opportunity for education, advancement & diverse achievement provided. One shouldn’t underestimate the importance of either service, starting with public safety.

Where a society has individuals willing to prey on other individuals, as well as factional groups otherwise fighting for control &/or survival, having a relatively fair, effective,  impartial peace-keeping authority may be considered a primary benefit of civilization. The opportunity for development, with all the virtues of culture, is another.

The history of colonial rule in India is “lenticular,” however, like a sign that reads differently according to the angle of light & looking. One can focus on the abuses & venalities for one picture, or on the higher values sometimes realized, for another.

It was no accident that the leading voices for enlightened swaraj, self-determination, were themselves beneficiaries of “western” education, with exposure to European, American & classical traditions. There are core aspects of civilization inherent in the social contract under-girding democratic societies that are threatened by aggressive suppression of indigenous speech & political participation, particularly where shared values are what’s expressed–& suppressed. Despite illusions to the contrary, it’s simply not possible to suppress such values in the population at large and maintain them for the privileged class; the hypocrisy becomes too obvious.

In the lenticular world, there’s always the question of whether reasoning ostensibly for the greater good is really just a part of the packaging, propaganda used to cover the exploitation & injustice. Does the cost-benefit analysis that counts really consider the greater good, in other words, or just look at “the good” from the more limited perspective of the colonial elite alone?

Faced with an undefeatable ideological or philosophical challenge to its imposed order, an imperial power must at some point ask, “What’s the actual alternative, and how might we best influence its future?” What’s needed is not just an abstract idea of an “ideal,” however, but clear appreciation of the likely outcomes on the ground under the different alternatives. As Twain & others have reminded us, however, prediction is inherently difficult, “particularly about the future.”

If they did not take a worse path, the British might nevertheless have still done  better than they did in the clumsy, autocratic, and poorly considered hand-over that included such an ill-considered partition. Most of the public details of the process are mostly  irrelevant to the actual bottom line, results on the ground, which in this case involved terrible factional violence, widespread panic & dislocation, horrendous atrocities on a vast scale. Never mind the excuses & rationalizations, it simply did not have to be that way.

Horrified as they may have been, some of those most responsible might have felt the resulting chaos provided some vindication to the imperial idea. “So you want your independence? You’ll see how hard it can be without the enlightened guidance of a Greater Raj to stabilize your less civilized factions.”

The imperfections of a former colonial administration may look far less damming when compared to those that follow, especially to the former colonial elite–who nevertheless may not wash their hands so easily of some responsibility for the sufferings a more enlightened hand off would have avoided. The partition itself was a terrible idea, and ought to have been recognized as such by those not contaminated with a “divide-&-conquer” mentality, whether British or those pro-partition militants who could gain such power themselves in no other way. It was a costly mistake to feed such separatist ambitions, made indescribably worse by the arrogantly blind way it was carried out.

Forty years or so earlier, in the hours before a new law would restrict their ability to do so, President Theodore Roosevelt & forester Gifford Pinchot drew lines on maps to protect newly designated national forests, without knowing much about what the lines meant on the ground. That was one thing. It was another entirely to do so dividing human worlds along religious, ethnic or ideological grounds without regard for the actual ground, thoroughly mixed & variously pluralistic.

Whatever the pressures & rationalizations, there is no excusing either the partition or how it was carried out, including its timing. Yes, there are scenarios that could have been worse. But there are also many that required only rather minimally clearer foresight to have avoided so much trouble later. This fact ought to faced, as the lessons that should have been learned don’t seem to have been, starting with the horribly foggy notion of partition–unclear in its essence, and even muddier in its execution, lines drawn on maps without much regard for the territories.

The aim is not to point blame, as if trying to settle scores long since settled, but to understand the nature of the error, starting with a clearer notion of partition itself in relation to the idea of self-determination. Let’s face it; the essential issues still seem dangerously foggy to the general public & strategic planners alike, at least partly because these issues must be seem as part of a holistic continuum across levels, where the relative balance across the spectrumis the critical factor.

To clarify, an issue like “self-determination” necessarily operates across many levels, from the individual, the family, the voluntary group, the community, the state, etc. Each of these naturally wants & appropriate deserves some measure of self-determination. If that’s a given, so is the fact that none of these are absolute. If even the federal powers are limited by rights held by individuals, states and other entities, so, too, the individual & group rights are necessarily limited by the rights of other individuals & groups, as presumable represented by the higher orders of government with the responsibility for the fair administration of rights & services on behalf of the whole.

No one can declare his own rights absolute at the expense of his neighbor’s–or perhaps may declare, but not execute. Although a varying percentage will in fact try to do so, by guile, by corruption, &/or by force, having the power to do so. It’s a fact, and so we have a sheriff, a marshal, local, state & federal agencies charged with keeping the systems sufficiently honest, just, and in balance. None of these systems are perfect, and neither are the systems created to regulate them, in need of continual re-tuning themselves, yet the balancing functions they perform are no less vital–and the health of the system as a whole is reflected in the balance between the levels.

One kind of unhealthy society makes high state power absolute at the expense of abused individuals; another does the same thing by elevating the individual & gang’s freedom to operate, without a higher, community-serving restraining force. The potential for abuse exists at every level, in other words, individual, county, state, & national agency, but so does the potential for correction & the ultimately shared responsibility for bringing these about, at least in a system based on “checks & balances.”

A driver or cyclist makes countless adjustments, corrections, re-corrections, on many levels, from tiny tweaks & shifts to major moves in response to urgent circumstances. The same process goes on in societies & larger ecologies also, wherever feedback  affects the system that continues to feed back. Where orders of magnitude are necessary & appropriate to the management of human affairs, claims on behalf of any single level to absolute authority ought to be a discrediting characteristic–whether of a self-declared Supreme Leader of a state religion or a citizen who declares himself king over all others for all time, laws be dammed, or a rogue government agency.

If there were an absolute, the two main claimants would each have an unshakeable case. The individual, for one, must at some point be considered captain of his or her own vessel, although still limited. And the “whole” also has rights it won’t have trumped by technicalities, or abstract restraints. Even its most basic restraints, designed to prevent the abuse of its members, are justifiably suspended in practice where the well being of the whole itself seems to require–as in the case of isolating an otherwise innocent individual to prevent or limit an epidemic.

The individual’s right to freedom of movement may be temporarily limited, but that does not make the government’s right to isolate individuals absolute or arbitrary. The margins between levels are themselves fractal, not absolute, in other words. The same may be said for the two essentially complementary principles of self-determination & pluralistic whole, partition & union. You can’t have one without the other; neither can be held up as absolute. If the imposed partition of the Indian sub-continent into two countries was foggy to the point of a serious breech of the last colonial responsibility, the partition of East Bengal from Pakistani domination was a step in the tight direction, a necessary correction, even though it doesn’t restore what was lost by the original partition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Indian partition at independence was not only foggy, but a deeply flawed concept. How do you even contemplate dividing an inherently mixed population along sectarian & geographical lines, creating one supposedly pluralistic & non-sectarian state and another in which the majority may declare & define itself along militantly sectarian lines? If that doesn’t sufficiently set the stage for incessant conflict to come, throw in the possibility of disputed borders & unresolved territories like Kashmir.      

The unnatural divisions of partition cut across so many lives and communities, and continues to cut, internally as well as along the fractiously disputed borders. A united India might have avoided most of that, with a constitution guaranteeing all its tribal & religious communities degrees of participation & self-determination within pluralistic, regional frameworks. The United States, another large & diverse pluralistic society, fought not just a war of colonial separation, but so-called Civil, Indian, & Mexican Wars to establish a unifying “pax Americana” within its current borders.

In many cases, it’s a larger unity that alone protects its parts from the conflicts they will inevitably have with each other. To some extent, that’s the fundamental principle underlying a society of laws based on rights. Control of & by a larger empire is not always the option of informed choice, however.

Something there is that resists such control from above, with its potential for insensitivity, abuse at multiple levels of administration & local oppression. Such control from above is often experienced as the more immediate existential threat than those from temporarily suppressed internal divisions or fractious competition with neighbors. The skirmishes and battles between groups like the Lakota & the Blackfeet might have been considered less dangerous to some chiefs than threats from the U. S. Cavalry.

On the other hand, the Cavalry, like every other such group, worked in a context of shifting alliances & hostilities, with native allies as well as “hostiles.” On the ground, there were in theory two ways to view what the “American” agencies represented: the larger threat by far, a common enemy all tribes might unite against, if only towards a negotiated settlement; another player in the game, potentially useful in a tribe’s other conflicts, some long-standing.

In retrospect, it seems evident how fruitless most tribal struggles against “Manifest Destiny” were bound to become. However heroic the attempts, nothing could stay that relentless tide, or break more than a few waves. Given the rise of more brutal & tyrannical empires elsewhere in the 20th Century, however, native seers might have found some value in American hegemony, after all, even if not for all parts equally.

We can’t help noting how unclear such things must seem at the time, how easy to be wrong, even dead wrong. Whether we’re talking about an advance of Roman legions, Mongol bands, Soviet tanks, Nazi blitzkrieg, Japanese invasion, or “pacification” of tribes removed to “reservations,” it’s natural to resist such domination. There are good reasons to retain one’s independence and distinctness, whether Estonian, Chechnyan, TIbetan, Lakota, Navaho, or Hopi….

Nor is it “one size fits all” when it comes to would-be “greater wholes.” Whether the aim is tribal, national or larger well-being, each situation must be considered in its particulars, as well as at different time-scales according to situation. For every larger alliance that makes eminent sense, there may be any number that don’t. In this, the judgment is related to how any contract might be regarded–the devil in the details. But not random details–rather in those which reflect essential differences in the kind of order established, not an entirely static thing.

The characteristics that ultimately make the most difference can be described, and even defined in general terms. They are not that arcane, but mostly common sense, the same characteristics most people want in the operation of their communities, economic systems & personal activities. The things people don’t want are even more obvious, from oppression, abuse, the short end of the stick, barely enough stick to survive on, corruptions by which the powerful take unfair advantage of the less so, physical abuse & repression, inconsistent standards by which other individuals & groups are consistently favored at your & your group’s expense.

No one wants to give up any more personal freedoms than necessary, or even a sense of some individual sovereignty, the ability to make choices where one’s person is involved. On the other hand, from infancy, our choices are limited by our need for others & by circumstances, as we learn to accommodate self-determination to situation & self-discovery to opportunity. Beyond the comic book world, we don’t expect to achieve big things just by snapping our fingers, wishing they were so. We are not sovereign & independent, it turns out, neither with respect to society, nor with respect to nature. We are part of larger wholes, with or without inherent “integrity.”

When big powers mess about with boundary making, as in the foggy partitions carved up in the sub-continent & so-called middle east, they can do damage to their own long-term self-interest while focusing on shorter term strategic gains. The advantages they consider may be mostly their own, inherently temporary, with little regard to the longer term. This is especially apparent where maps are carved according to unnatural divisions, sowing seeds of discord.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Given the quality of ambitiously expansive leadership in both countries, the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s might be considered a strategic advantage to the Israelis, Americans, Jordanians, & others who might otherwise have found their own interests more directly threatened. Better these two should use up each other’s will to fight on each other, so long as one didn’t emerge so victorious as to swallow the other to become part of one greater & more threatening whole.

Americans apparently sold arms to both sides, and mostly looked the other way when the worst WMD atrocities were carried out. Or perhaps not; perhaps the gassing of the Kurds went a step too far with some would-be backers, who started backing off. Then, with what must have looked like an American pass, Hussein went into Kuwait. After pushing the Iraqi army back in Operation Desert Storm, the Americans exercised more restraint than some thought appropriate, by not destroying the Republican Guard, making room for a more inclusive, less aggressive regime.

When the Shia rose up against Sadam’s domination in the south, expressly encouraged by the American president, however, the Americans then sat by while they were slaughtered, until driven by public opinion to at least establish no-fly zones. This was a costly strategic blunder. As seemed clear to me at the time, we should established–on  explicit invitation from the local Kurdish & Shia populations under threat of slaughter–a line of defense effectively containing Hussein’s Bathist forces. Americans would be present at each line for protection, by invitation of the protected, not as an invading enemy, as they’d become in the next strategic blunder in 2003, which would with a stroke of the pen destroy the fundamental structure of the Iraqi state without the ability to impose a new & more effective one, fostering an increasingly inflamed insurgency as inevitable expression of patriotism, group loyalty, & response to abuses.

Instead, back in Bush 1, we established some limits to the Bathist control with a partial “no fly zone,” deferring any real resolution on the ground. The rest of the history is all too clear from then, a clumsy & incoherent policy that ultimately served the interests of adversaries. Now, similar lines are being fought over, at the cost of much extra struggle & suffering, as the area grapples with either fragmentation or some kind of federated regional relation, each with its dominant sectarian profile….

With foresight, these lines could have been established without further bloodshed with  small protective forces put in place in 1990. Would that have eliminated all abuse or hostility against foreign troops. Tensions tend to exist with foreign troops even within the friendliest of host countries. Nevertheless, the prospects for a relatively violence-free détente looked strong, on the Korea model but with a more asymmetrical allied power, including the ability to prevent WMD development.

The level of force required to maintain a protected border against a far inferior adversary is far less than what is required to contain an insurgency with minimal indigenous support. Instead, the callous blunders of the father in encouraging uprisings he was not prepared to help were compounded by the arrogant frat-boy blunders of the son, naïve enough to gloat in staged “Mission Accomplished photo ops with no sense of what’s to come, the very model of lack of foresight.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ukraine running round my brain—

Woke up this morning in a whole lot of pain

All I want for breakfast is that old Ukraine.

Crawl for my honey & stand with a cane,

Ukraine running hurdles around my brain.

~~~~~~Ukraine running round my brain—

~~~~~~Ukraine running round my brain—

~~~~~~Ukraine running round my brain—

~~~~~~~~~from Black Sea ports to the Tartar plain.

Oh, mama, come here quick,

Russia’s in the Ukraine just to make me sick…

One take the east & another take the west

& we’ll see who ends up worst & best.

~~~~~~Ukraine running round my brain—

~~~~~~Ukraine running round my brain—

~~~~~~Ukraine running round my brain—

~~~~~~~~~from Black Sea ports to the Tartar plain

Here come Chairman K. & there goes crap,

from there himself, popped Crimea in the Ukraine’s lap.

Mouse in the cupboard, better set a trap,

change all the maps with a finger snap.

~~~~~~Here come your baby, dressed in red.

~~~~~~KGB gonna kill you dead…

Early one morning ‘bout half past 4,

KGB come breaking through my door…

You take Rasputin, I’ll take Mr. Pu–

can’t find much difference between the two

~~~~~~Ukraine running hurdles round my brain—

~~~~~~Ukraine running dashes round my brain—

~~~~~~Ukraine running wild round my brain—

~~~~~~~~~from Black Sea ports to the Tartar plain

~~~~~~~~~~~from “Ukraine running whirlpools down my drain,” by Mucky Waters

Mucky Waters aside, there’s plenty of water muddying & muck throwing to go around. On the one hand, arguments that ignore the historical relationships ring rather hollow, & as do claims of illegitimacy based on the fact that a constitution largely in abeyance requires acquiescence of other regions for secession. In the current context, with a defacto government following the former head’s skedaddling, legitimacy itself is a slippery concept, particularly when put against the principle of self-determination in a situation so fundamentally unstable.

On the other hand, there’s no denying the hypocrisy of the Russian muscle-flexing, however relatively judo-esque in its achievement, so far avoiding most more violent tactics. However reasonably reversible Chairman K’s shift in Crimean administrative affiliation might well be, the 1994 treaty guaranteeing Ukrainian security & the integrity of its borders (in return for giving up its nukes, etc.) seems less so, particularly without negotiations. To act either unilaterally or even just in cahoots with a regional majority on the basis of that majority’s inherent right to self-determination conjures the heights of Mount Hypocrisy itself. Russians presumably feel the self-determination of Chechens is another matter, analogous to how the Chinese feel about Tibet. A vote may take place, but only when the demographics support the required outcome.

It turns out that self-determination by majority requires certain characteristics for validity. Among these are respect for the fundamental rights of minorities & for larger geo-political agreements legitimately entered. These may indeed be changed from time to time, adjusting to conditions with or without the tremors of shifting plates, but preferably on the basis of reason & negotiation, not simply on the basis of power to do so. The right of self-determination disappears when it is used as an excuse for preventing the self-determination of others, as may be considered the case with respect to the American Confederacy.

On the other hand, the Union didn’t offer most indigenous populations much of a viable self-determination option when territories were absorbed & they were in turn geo-politically restricted. Nor did the United States forego the opportunity to re-affiliate New Mexico, Arizona & California, or hold up its annexation for the result of a vote. Not that any of these, given a free referendum, would vote now to re-affiliate with Mexico, or Mexico with Spain for that matter. Empires are inherently friable & porous, particularly in administrative organization. Cultural streams are less defined & more persistent, or to reverse the metaphor, are like vegetation with deeper roots.

A modern principle of self-determination must start with a set of individual rights, which communities are bound to protect as a fundamental basis for their own legitimacy in organization & administration. An entity, whatever its claim to legitimacy, loses that legitimacy to the extent it fails to protect the rights of all its individual constituents. Where that loss becomes egregious, some larger organizational entity constituted to encourage compliance with such rights has a responsibility to weigh in, not necessarily by military means, which must involve many further calculations. Not even the Dalai Lama wants American air power to try bombing the Chinese out of Tibet, let alone the Russians out of the Crimea.

The fact is on the ground that many territories have multiple lineages in their current populations, speaking different languages, with diverse traditions, alliances, contractual relationships, affiliations, preferences, political parties & other agencies of influence, sometimes at odds with each other &/or in various forms of competition. The Russian grab-back of the Crimea, no matter how well executed & arguably justified, deserves push-back even so, though in this case not roll-back. On the other, such push-back shouldn’t just hurt everyone “to make a point.” One point may be that the Crimea is not eastern Europe circa 1968, nor Hungary in the 1950s, nor the Baltics, nor Poland.

It is far from Russian self-interest to invigorate an eastern self-defense focus in the NATO alliance, just as it is far from general interest to feel a need to. It will go on seeming too much like the work of the old bully unless they at least give the Ukranians back some of their own fleet.

An interesting topic with various branches, though the relation of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW is currently the most prominent–seemingly right at the border where exercise of religious freedom may potentially break laws meant to protect the equal rights of others.

It shows how same-gender marriage rights could reach beyond the line where those who seek rights that supposedly take nothing away from rights held by others start to take rights from others, after all. Those who say people who don’t share their orientation are free to mind their own business, & mind their own marriages, lose that high ground if they take away the freedom others have to not participate. Presumably that’s the situation in the New Mexico case of a professional  photographer who declined to shoot a same-gender wedding on religious grounds.

I’d more or less assumed that both vendor & client would have equal freedom in choosing whether or not to enter a contractual relationship on a particular assignment, & if so, on what terms, apart from gender &/or religious issues. The idea of forcing a creative professional to take a job that violates his or her own religious convictions, or even aesthetic taste for that matter, seems quite self-contradictory, where taste is in part what’s hired. Why would you want to hire someone for an event whose spirit they did not appreciate? I’d have though a discriminating prospective client would appreciate the respect shown in declining the job on honest grounds, where many false reasons might have been marshaled.

In this case, hiring wedding services seems a small step from hiring a member of the clergy to officiate at the ceremony. Who would dream of demanding a wedding service from a clergy person of another “faith” or “way”? The performance of a wedding sacrament, as well as its details, would not ordinarily be considered a suitable matter for the courts. Who would deny the individual religious agent &/or church the right to determine its own criteria? The county clerk is another matter entirely, of course, bound to set personal religious views aside in matters like licenses.

One church or religious agent approached may decline to provide the service requested, whereas another might be quite pleased. The state, meanwhile,  regulates not the religious or sacramental aspect, but the secular only, so may not discriminate on religious, aesthetic, or other personal grounds, including against those who prefer a non-religious ceremony.

This much seems clear & quite simple, yet the issue became a little more  complicated in the case of the Arizona legislation the governor there just vetoed, giving as her reason the broadness of wording & potential for unintended consequences, including the loss of considerable business. These were real & relevant issues. Never mind the sound-bite shorthand on which issues are often publicly sold; how a bill is actually worded makes a real difference, often the main difference.

Whether justified or not, such a bill raises the specter of the kind of discrimination cartoonists portray by establishments with signs like “We Serve No Blacks, Jews, or New Yorkers–on Religious Grounds.” It is no easy matter to define where personal & religious freedoms end, but nevertheless it may be both possible & necessary to do so. Professionals play a role in doing so. Where it would criminally unethical to deny medical services on discriminatory grounds, the same can’t be said for most professions, some of which assume more or less total artistic freedom in the choices made.

Surely there’s a significant difference between contracting professional wedding services (whether with clergy person or photographer) and a business serving members of the general public in a public location (using the community’s street & sidewalk, for example). Not that the latter can’t have some standards of dress & behavior, or have to serve all menus for all people. Stillone must respect that community as a whole, not discriminate against its parts.

Some freedom implicitly exists in the kind of products & services offered. Restriction of access may also  take many legitimate forms (age appropriateness, dress code, behavioral norms, cost levels, for example) without being considered discriminatory.

The word discrimination contains two quite distinct meanings, meanwhile. The most common these days is that relating to anti- groups (e.g., anti members of particular races, religions, ethnicities, sexual orientations, lifestyles, or cultures). There is another, quite positive use, however, in the sense of “a fine discrimination,” where recognized distinctions are relevant & appropriate. Even a Buddha may hold up a hand the palm of which shows an open eye: see what is.

All meanings, according to one way of looking, represent differences. (A difference that doesn’t make a difference is meaningless.) Meaning is the difference made. Obviously, a discriminating palate may find more meaning in a meal, talk or work of art than a dull one. Meaning requires a context. Something perfectly appropriate in one context is grossly inappropriate in another–name your bodily function or behavior in relation to one or more others for as many examples as you need.

In the case of 99.99% of the proprietors doing business with the public, neither the gender of customers nor their relational preferences has anything to do with the products & services offered. Discrimination on such a basis  would therefore be inappropriate, & legitimately a subject of anti-discrimination law. That principle might even apply to pastries, wines, & other products used at a wedding reception. It would presumably NOT apply to those supplying services involving direct participation in a religious sacrament (including its civil equivalent), where such participation runs counter to that person’s religious beliefs.

One kind of respect deserves another.

Recently I got one of the better viral emails, titled “Why old men don’t get hired.” It offered a short job interview dialog which I have tweaked slightly to make it more precise (& less scatological).

Personnel rep: What would you say was your greatest weakness?

Wise old dude: My honesty.

PR: I wouldn’t describe that as a weakness.

WOD: Well, that just shows how ignorant you are.

Point made, &/or proven. As a fan of honesty (at least in public), I wouldn’t have thought it so easy to reveal such a weakness. It just goes to show why easy generalizations so often end up trite. With a nudge, almost anything can masquerade as (or be turned into) its opposite, its mirror, its inverse, in language as in nature. Change the intonation & bad becomes good, the tall man gets called Shorty, the apostle of peace is portrayed carrying a flaming sword. With so many ways of modulating the communication waves, the range of variation reaches far beyond even what even experts can describe with new languages invented for specialists. Meaning slips between.

Meanwhile, back at the main ranch, I have my doubts about how honest people are in general, starting with themselves–make that, ourselves. We have so many ways of being false, knowing so little about what we are.