"So, my point is that the bulk of the law in this sense categorically is a reflection of the common consensus of any given society (again, ideally), and new legislation ought to keep this in mind."

[More]

Fair enough.  He might have had religious undertones, but I didn't notice as many overtones as you did.  He did respond to your question rather oddly, I'd say.  How were you hoping he would respond to your "why" question?  PS - I don't think you were being OVER-sensitive.

Maybe the majority/minority issue doesn't apply so well to this case.  For the record, I don't think that it should be a law (Aunt R + Fluffy), and aside from animal cruelty I don't know why it is illegal (maybe another person doesn't want to be in eternal proximity to animal in Aunt Rose's grave? -- how far should we protect that person's sensibilities?????)  Can we really legislate taboos and please everyone?  Probably not.  Ought we to legislate taboos??  

Yes, the Bill of Rights protects our rights, and I am pretty much libertarian as far as that goes.  The less the gov't the better for the most part.  I suppose I feel a little uncomfortable with our culture's tendency to capitulate to the vocal minority, although I recognize it is such individuals who have progressed society/culture at many points.  I agree with you on your comments on the tyranny of the majority, yet if we are to institute laws in our country then I still think they must, for the most part, reflect the majority opinion.  Laws aren't eternal truths, they are just contracts among members of a society (ideally).  They reflect the opinions of that socio-cultural complex, and are artificial/constructed entities.  I know you know this, I am thinking out loud.  So, my point is that the bulk of the law in this sense categorically is a reflection of the common consensus of any given society (again, ideally), and new legislation ought to keep this in mind.  At times too much of modern law is geared towards instituting a minority's opinion upon society - I don't think this is what we ought to manipulate law.  Leave it alone until its broken and fix it, then leave it alone (in my opinion).

I read an article yesterday about how a student body (like their gov't or something official like that - who represented the student body) at OCC banned the Pledge of Allegiance in their meetings.  They didn't like saying "under God" and praising our nationalism.  That's fine, I guess, in that if you don't want to say it for those reasons then don't say it at your meetings. But to ban it is another issue, and I highly doubt whether this reflects the wishes of the OCC student body of 28,000.  This is one small and unimportant instance of the ways in which a vocal minority is crossing the line, in my opinion (by the way, I could care less whether they say it or not).

Another issue is one like that in San Diego about that cross. We can talk about this one if you want.

Enough senseless meandering, see you at Forest Lawn.  I wrote 1.5 pages for my final in this class, and have decided that I am going to change topics - what the heck is wrong with me?   

[More]

Hey, Ryan (since you and Tyler are probably the only two people who read things I write). Actually, I DO think that Llewellyn expressed a religious bent to his work. He mentioned at one point that Forest Lawn was somehow religiously affiliated and he seemed (in fact I think he might have even said it outright) proud of that fact. That, in addition to how he seemed to turn his nose down at for-profit mortuaries made me think that maybe he saw this as some sort of calling and not just a business. Then there was the tone of his answer to my question. He answered a lot of questions, but mine was the only one that seemed to get that reaction out of him. I don't even know if anyone else noticed it, and I don't really think I'm being OVER-sensitive, but I am rather sensitive in general to the way people use words and tones and body language to communicate (that would be my counseling background speaking). Anyway, his tone was one that said that the very idea of burying an animal with a person was absurd in his view. The fact that he made the ridiculous leap to burying a horse next to a person in order to dismiss my question seemed to say that he found the question reprehensible. He also did not seem to see my point. WHY is that legislators would ban the burial of animals with people. If the state legislature was made up ancient Egyptians we probably would not have that law. I think we have that law because we are mired in a Christian worldview that finds such things impure, immoral, pagan, etc. I don't even know that the legislators would have to be aware that their religion was informing their sensibilities (Llewellyn at least didn't admit to recognizing this, although I really don't think he did), but as someone who ISN'T Christian, it seems to be like they're swinging their big stick at those of us who might want to bury Aunt Rose with Fluffy.

Now, as to your other point about majority rule - I sometimes agree with this, but not always. For example, I think the majority can decide how much income tax we should pay or whether or not we should go to war or what our trade agreements will be. But when it comes to personal decisions about how we should live our lives, I tend to go the other way (except in rare cases when it is really in the nation's best interest such as in requiring children to receive a certain amount of education). I do not think, however, that the government should tell us how many children to have, whether or not to get married (I don't see these as national concerns yet although they can certainly become such as they have in China), what religion to believe in, how to vote, how to eat, or how to voice dissent against a goverment we are unhappy with. If the majority ruled in all of this I would probably end up in prison at some point. The Bill of Rights are meant, in part, to protect against just such dangers of majority rule. They're there to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. And THAT IS a constitutional issue. So yes, if someone of a different religious sensibility were to believe the their soul would make it up to heaven faster if it were buried with 6 dead doves, then I would hope that the law would allow for that. That would seem to me to be freedom of expression and I do not think the government should outlaw such acts. Would PETA like that? No, I definitely have to agree with you there. And no, I'm not saying that I should then be allowed to "force" my widow to burn herself at my gravesite but that's hardly the same matter. I guess, in the end, I'm fairly libertarian on a lot of issues and what you get buried with, to the extent that it's not a biohazard, is something that I don't think should be legislated.

[More]

But then again, I suppose emancipation required a civil war....................I mean, "The War of Northern Aggression".......

[More]

Kevin,

I didn't read Llewelyn in the same sense you did - i.e. he didn't come off as particularly religious to me, and I don't think he referenced any religious sensibilities except for those of others he had encountered.  He answered your question, I think, in terms of the sensibilities of a state legislator who decided that animal bury w/ humans wasn't right - he wasn't advocating it, was he?

Besides this, I'm all for burying Fluffy with Aunt Rose, if thats what Aunt Rose wanted.  I don't think that PETA would like the idea of killing a pet to bury with its owner, however.  It could make for an interesting encounter, though.  Maybe we could write our local state assembly folks and see if they can try to amend the law.

You brought up an interesting point, though, about the imposition of ones mores upon an entire society.  In my mind, laws are reflections of what a society collectively deems to be right or wrong.  Thus any law ought to reflect the general, majority consensus of what is to be deemed acceptable.  So, your comments above challenge the notion that ones sense of right and wrong should be foisted upon all of society.  I would imagine that if the majority of folks in California found it acceptable to be buried one with their pets, then the law would reflect this.  The fact that no advocacy groups exist to push this cause, at least to my knowledge, would indicate that our society is OK with this law.  In other words, the law more than likely reflects the sensibilities of the majority of Californians, whether these sensibilities are religious or not.  Now, if there was say a vocal minority pushing the agenda because they felt that the sensibilities of the citizens of California were somehow oppressing them, and California ceded to their wishes, then would that be a fair law?  In other words, would ceding to a vocal minority really be the right, democratic thing to do? Should the majority opinion of a citizenry be suaded by a loud group of individuals who do not reflect the mores of an entire society?  Now if these majority sensibilities happened to be religious, would that change the question of the way in which one would answer it?  (I.e. would you answer differently if it were a religoius sensiblity?) Does a sensibility derived from religious conviction make it any less valid from this perspective?  Most of the time it doesn't really matter (i.e. theft sucks whether you believe in the Ten Commandments or not), but at other times it obviously gets really sticky (abortion, gay marriage, etc).  Its an interesting legal/social/political/ethical issue.  I don't think that Aunt Rose not being buried with Fluffy is impeding anybody's constitutional rights, but then again it isn't really a constitutional question.

I don't know.  Your questions sparked some issues that I have been thinking about (obviously you weren't expecting such a long response about Fluffy and Aunt Rose).  Respond?????????????

 

[More]

The Film Colloquia is considered part of your participation grade, but three or fewer absences from classes or events is no cause for panic.

[More]

Zev,

This is a well-written account.  I'm looking forward to seeing the final project for your group and exactly how you compare and contrast the burial practices you've chosen to study.

[More]

Tom - Thanks for getting this to us; I appreciate it.  See you Wednesday.

[More]

Zev,

A very good post.  This reminded me of similar words spoken by Joseph Campbell to Bill Moyers in Campbell's last taped interview at the Skywalker Ranch which I often show to my screenwriting students.  Campbell said that our actions evoke our character (and by extension...speak to our faith).  I often urge students not to write on-the-nose dialogue, but to let the actions of their characters speak for them.  Non-verbal statements are often the most compelling.

[More]

Hi, Tom. I can't make it to the Film Colloquia. I work on Fridays and am doing training there every Friday morning which I can't miss. I'm assuming this isn't really part of our grade since it wasn't on the syllabus so that shouldn't be a problem, right?

[More]