The word "heretic" comes from a greek word, "heresis" which means to make a choice. This word, I believe, became a word that came to have some of the meaning associated with a Semetic word "herem" -- which means that which is prohibited. Originally Heresis was a normal part of thinking. People could weigh and decide moral issues for themselves. In the case of the current debate, a person who believes in "Choice," looks at a debate on the morality of abortion and says "well this is bad, but on the other hand it is potential, dependent and not yet formed so it doesn't deserve the same protection as the fully formed; expecially if weighed against the needs and health of the mother.
But to those who are "anti-choice" this whole line of reasoning is irrelevent. It is heresy. It is "herem." For many Christians and other people who share the Judeo-Christian heritage; "choice" is prohibited when it comes to moral things. To the "anti-Choice" thinkers of our present age, those things are "commanded;" not the product of logic. Thus all the arguments used to outlaw or defend Abortion come up against one the one final barrier that these things are not logically fine tuned for their oponants. One either believes or doesn't believe. One either takes it on faith or is a heretic.
Even those who think their positions are reasoned, deep in their heart are trying to justify authority based on faith. Many of them, deep in their hearts see 'pro-choice' as heresy, as doing that which is morally objectionable. Not because these things can be finely tuned and reasoned out, but because the apostles of "anti-choice" feel there is a divine authority behind them -- from God himself -- that they must obey. But of course it's not so easy.
I was listening to a discussion of WB. Dubois's trip to Germany in 1936 and thinking about Kierkegaard and the current campaign to outlaw abortion, when I noticed a pattern in the terminology. Both Dubois and Kierkegaard longed for order and authority. Both saw that authority as having it's basis in Christianity. I haven't started reading from Dubois yet, but Kierkegaard wrote extensively about his longing for authority and his belief in it's need.
In the Present age he decries the "ambiguity" and reflective passionlessness he saw in society. He felt that reflection "imprisons man's will and his strength." And that "He can only excape from this second imprisonment through the inwardness of religion, no matter how clearly he may perceive the falseness of the situation." [these quotes are from "The Present Age" Harper and Row]
Of course he was wrong about his age, but so much an emblem of the conflicts that drove it. He talked about the lifelessness of his times one year before a round of revolution broke out in Europe in 1848. But of course even this illustrates the fact that he was a man of his time. The world was at it's most "reasonable." There was to be a reaction. For Kierkegaard, the issue was that "apostles" are chosen and speak for God, while sages or "geniuses" have no particular authority except their wisdom and "genius." The authority of the Apostle comes from God. To him; "authority is a specific quality which, coming from elsewhere, becomes qualitatively apparant when the content of the message or of the action is posited or indifferent."
In his essay "The Genius and the Apostle" he writes; "What, then is authority? Is it the profundity, the cleverness of the doctrine? Not at all!" He goes on to completely reject the role of wisdom and sagacity in the role of authority. He goes on to say that if that were the basis of the authority of apostles; "if the learner were to assimilate this doctrine completely and entirely through the understanding, then there would cease to be any difference between the teacher and the learner."
And that expresses the fundamental doubt and even "unbelief" that is at the basis of "anti-choice" thinking. Somehow "humanism" and "wisdom" are rejected as not only inadequate, but hindrances to society. Man is eternally inferior to "God Man" and to God himself, and therefore the idea that each of us should, as the Buddha instructed us "work out our own salvation" -- is anathema to such anti-thinkers. Rejecting reason their logic becomes twisted as they have to figure out a way to justify reasoning out their un-thought. If an Apostle, as Kierkegaard maintains, has "no proof but his own statement" for his teachings. Then does he -- in fact -- merit the divine authority he claims? Simply because something has been taught for hundreds of years as "authority" and "divine" authority, does that make it "in fact" absolute truth?
For Kierkegaard "Genius has only an immanent teleology; the Apostle is absolutely, paradoxically, teleologically placed." Being on a "mission from God" the absurdity may be apparant to him as "paradox" but because he feels trapped by command, he is unable to do more than wiggle and writhe in his own efforts to justify the unjustifiable. For if, in fact, God were the one giving the orders, then the Apostle would need no more faith than anyone else and reason and logic would show this by the example within this world. But "religion" is a creation of man, not God. And generations of assertions of authority, give people authority they don't always merit. The logic of authority within absurdity leads inexcoriably towards fascism and repression. One always has a choice. One can "chose life" or can chose to close choice.
Anyway, this essay asks more questions than it answers. I hope that it will launch some thought.
Posted by cholte at October 21, 2004 05:57 AM