"Don't be fooled by me. Don't be fooled by the face I wear. For I wear a thousand masks,
masks that I am afraid to take off and none of them are me." —Unknown

18 February, 2005 - 11:47 a.m. - Freedom of obscenity?
On one of the message boards i frequent, an age-old debate has resurfaced. It is this: what constitutes free speech, and where do courtesy and politeness figure in it?

The debate came about as a result of the sudden emergence of two or three evocative thread titles that included phrases that just aren't uttered in polite society--and that might raise warning flags for people posting from work.

Before the debate wandered off and began to focus on whether or not people should be posting from work in the first place (and, some argued, if people work in an environment where it's okay to post, then surely a few dirty words here and there should be acceptable, right?), there arose the issue of free speech. In short, a couple of people argued that self-censoring their thread titles out of consideration for the public nature and mixed company (both age- and culture-wise) on the message board cuts into one's right to free speech.

I've been mulling this issue over quite a bit since the topic came up. I'm not sure that i really have much to add to it that's outside the box, but i'll spout off a little anyway.

My take on it is this (and i'm not posting it there because i believe the topic has been more or less satisfactorily buried if not resolved, and i don't want to reignite it): Courtesy never hurt anyone, and respect for the sensibilities of others reflects far better on a person than does exercising the right to post things that are widely considered obscenities.

Call me old-fashioned and conservative on this one if you like. Honestly--i won't mind. Despite all my lefty leanings, and despite my own heavy use of obscenities (especially while driving), i believe that a person can express him- or herself perfectly fine without having to resort to foul language--and that the truly intelligent person won't sink to that level.

Call me elitist if you want; so be it--but when the right to free speech is invoked, i don't believe it should be done so to protect usage. Usage, when it comes down to it, is trivial in comparison to content. Free speech shouldn't have to protect people who want to swear in public; its task is far more important and its energies should be spent on things like ensuring people the right to express an opinion (even if it's a hateful one; enlightened people will know better, and those who aren't will learn something one way or the other), or to bring to light controversial facts.

Or, to put it another way, i quote Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., from his book Hocus Pocus:

My lawyer...asked me yesterday why it was that I never swore....

So I told him my maternal grandfather's idea that obscenity and blasphemy gave most people permission not to listen respectfully to whatever was being said.

I repeated an old story Grandfather Willis had taught me, which was about a town where a cannon was fired at noon every day. One day the cannoneer was sick at the last minute and was too incapacitated to fire the cannon.

So at high noon there was silence.

All the people in the town jumped out of their skins when the sun reached its zenith. They asked each other in astonishment, "Good gravy! What was that?"

My lawyer wanted to know what that had to do with my not swearing.

I replied that in an era as foulmouthed as this one, "Good gravy" had the same power to startle as a cannon shot.

17 February, 2005 - 2:58 p.m. - New courses at the Vatican; millennial fear
Here's an interesting one:

Vatican university debuts Satanism classes
By ANGELA DOLAND, Associated Press
Last updated: 1:16 p.m., Thursday, February 17, 2005

ROME -- Worried about the lure of the devil, a Vatican-linked university on Thursday debuted its latest course offering: a class on Satanism, black magic and exorcism.
The class for clergy and seminarians at Rome's Pontifical Academy "Regina Apostolorum" arose from alarm about what some religious officials see as Satanic practices among young people, especially in Italy.

In one case in Italy in January, members of a heavy metal band called "Beasts of Satan" were ordered to stand trial for their alleged role in three ritual killings. One of the victims was a 19-year-old stabbed to death in 1998. She may have been targeted because her killers believed she was a personification of the Virgin Mary, prosecutors contend.

A major theme of the first day's course was how to differentiate between a person who is possessed and someone who is simply suffering psychological problems.

Rome exorcist Francesco Bamonte described how he works with a team of priests and psychologists to make the distinction before deciding whether to go through with an exorcism.

"If not, I would be inundated with requests from people who don't need me," said Bamonte, who said he performs about 20 exorcisms a year.

The Vatican is also concerned about a growing number of young people who develop what instructors called personal forms of Satanism, outside the sects that are closely monitored by police. They often learn about the devil through the Internet.

"It's a more spontaneous and hidden phenomenon, a problem of loneliness and isolation, a problem of emptiness, that is fulfilled by the values of Satanism," said one of the teachers, Carlo Climati, a specialist on youth culture and Satanism.

Climati said concerned parents had been asking for a special course for priests.

The pontifical academy is run by the Legionaries of Christ, a conservative order, and teachers for the class include exorcists and psychiatrists.

In 1999, the Vatican issued its first new guidelines since 1614 for driving out devils, offering cautions to exorcists about taking psychiatric problems into account.

The updated exorcism rite, first issued in Latin and contained in a red, leather-bound book, was a reflection of Pope John Paul II's efforts to convince the skeptical that the devil is very much in the world. At the time, he gave a series of homilies denouncing the devil as a "cosmic liar and murderer."

Among the signs of possession by the devil, according to church teaching, are speaking in unknown tongues and demonstrating physical force beyond one's natural capacity.

I've long been interested in millennial fear. It's a phenomenon that is not unique to Christianity; the ancient Maya demonstrated similar panic at the end of every katun and baktun (especially the end of each baktun). And it's particularly interesting given the particularly human context. I mean, other animals don't seem to keep track of years. Many (most) of them do seem to understand seasonal changes, as far as we can tell, but how often do you see a grizzly bear whip an annual calendar out of his back pocket?

Exactly.

In the end, we're the ones responsible for this fear. We created the cultural and calendrical contexts for it, even if the calendrical aspects correspond to real seasons.

Then again, that fear might not be ill-founded after all. We are, without question, the most dangerous species on the planet.

It just makes me wonder: in the end, when all is said and done, will our fear be a self-fulfilling prophecy?