How Do We Enlarge the Great Circle of Compassion?

For delivery April 15, 2012
St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church


Compassion

How Do We Enlarge the Great Circle of Compassion?

A Homily Originally Prepared for Delivery
January 17, 2010
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty Annual Meeting
Louisville, KY

By: Donald Vish

***


Note: 4-15-12: In January 2010, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty asked me to deliver a homily at an interfaith worship service organized by our Terry Taylor of Interfaith Paths to Peace. At the conclusion of all NCADP meetings the participants join hands and form what they call the great circle of compassion. They asked me to address the topic: “How do we expand the great circle of compassion.” Here’s what I said:

** ** ** **

Thank you for staying for this part of the program--the homily. All the religions of the world agree on one thing for sure: there’s no thief worse than a bad sermon. So special thanks to each of you for your trust and your faith in remaining in this room.

When I was first asked to preach a homily on compassion I said "No. I am willing to preach to the choir but I'm not willing to preach to the pope. What can I possibly say about compassion to an audience that's got Sister Helen and my patron saint Bud Welsh in it? The only thing Sister Helen is going to like about me is that I don't talk with an accent." So, "No way" I said.

But my friend Fr. Delahanty would not take no and cajoled and flattered me into ‘yes.’

So, here I am. 



My invitation to speak so to speak included specific instructions to answer the question:



How Do We Enlarge the Great Circle of Compassion?

I’m going to answer that question. I’m just not going to answer it very quickly. I wouldn’t be a very good preacher if I got to the point too soon.

The Golden Rule: (Say it. You know the words): do unto others as you would have others do unto you.



That’s a good rule of good sense. It’s valuable as a cornerstone of justice. It’s a solid metric for fairness. It’s true in the same way it’s true to say: whoever smiles will always have a reason to smile.



But the Golden Rule is not an expression of compassion.



First, it affirms otherness, thee and me that leads to thine and mine. Secondly, it is ever so slightly animated with self-interest expressing in Elizabethan language what the 3-card Monte dealer says more plainly about the arc of justice: what goes around comes around.



Plato’s dictum comes closer to compassion: be kind, everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

Plato’s sermon is built on empathy not compassion. Empathy is based on perception, understanding. Empathy is neither sympathy nor pity each of which relates to the adverse impact someone else’s suffering has on us!

Sympathy means ‘fellow feeling’ and requires a certain degree of equality. Pity, on the other hand, regards its object as weak and hence as inferior. We have place in Kentucky we call down home. Everybody knows where it is. Down home they like to say pity don't cost nothing 'cause pity ain't worth nothing.

Compassion is the selfless disposition to relieve human suffering. It soars above empathy and sympathy and pity. Compassion is the noblest trait of human nature. Dante would call it caritas, pure love with no expectation of a quid pro quo.



Make no mistake: many good works are built on the Golden Rule, on empathy, on sympathy, on pity and on lesser motives like fame and glory and vanity and self-interest. They all count. But compassion is in a class by itself.

When General Agamemnon was ready to launch 1000 ships to invade Troy, he had two problems: the first one is so typical of blood vengeance—no one knew how to get to Troy. They attacked the wrong country.

Blood vengeance is always ready to act before its ready to act. Vengeance never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It is ever and always aimless and misdirected even though its arc is predictable and certain: it comes around then goes around. 



Like Macbeth’s vaulting ambition, vengeance o’erleaps itself and then falls on itself.

Agamemnon’s second problem was the lack of wind. The ships could not sail. The man had 1000 sail boats and no wind. So he made a bargain with the gods—he sacrificed his daughter for a favorable breeze. Then the ships sailed for Troy and war began.

Agamemnon’s murder of his daughter ensured that he would return home from war to more war. 

Under the law of blood vengeance, his daughter’s mother was obligated to murder him—and she did; and under the law of blood vengeance her son was obligated to murder her—and he did; and under the law of blood vengeance, her daughter was obligated to murder her brother…and so it goes.

The arc of vengeance is as sure and as certain as the laws of mathematics: a series ending where it begins, and repeating itself.

Those words are the dictionary definition of a circle—as well as a complete treatise on blood vengeance.

Like a pebble dropped into a pond, vengeance sends out ripple after ripple each extending its sphere until it runs out of space or spends itself.

Vengeance is a circle. A circle delineates, it defines and separates the inside from the outside. The circle is closed. Any segment of a circle is a curved line.

In architecture, a curved line is pretty but it’s weak. Leonardo reflected on the weakness of curved lines and made an astounding observation: two curved lines when propped up against each other form an arch: one of the strongest formations in architecture. So an arch is a strength created by two weaknesses.



Here’s the answer to the question—enlarge the circle of compassion by never closing it.

Keep the circle open. Reach out, join hands with one another in a tangible display of unity, solidarity and connectedness; but let those on each end extend an open hand to the world at-large as an invitation to others to join hands.

Let the circle of compassion be like Leonardo’s arch, a strength comprised of many weaknesses.




As delivered
January 17, 2010
971 words

#12 Class--Law & Social Policy Review for Final Exam 4-9-12

In process Saturday 8:00 a.m.
Draft

4-9-12

Lecture # 12: Law & Social Policy: Review & Preparation for Final

***

1. Readings:
The scissors adorn by taking away. A French motto.

Literature is the art of sorting though. A French motto.

2. Summary of Classes #1 through #11: How Do You Prepare for the Final Exam?

Materials:
• The Syllabus—look at the four-page introduction and summary. Pay attention to the course objective, what is the course about and the ultimate questions posed by the course. Is justice the aim of both law and social policy? Look at all the quotes. Review broadly the class plans especially where I have made editorial comments in Lecture #1 and # 2 and # 5 and #11 and anything that describes the text, Democracy in America.
• Class # 5 Student Assignments on the big themes of the book functions as an index to the book as does the Class Plan # 4 in the Syllabus).
• Class summaries posted to Blackboard should be helpful. The substantive lectures are EXAMPLES of a broader topic: how law and social policy interact.
• The Text: Democracy in America---chapter 2: page 39: “The readers of this book will therefore discover in this chapter the seed of what follows and the key to almost the whole book”. Also page 816: “ I shall conclude with one general idea which comprises not only all the individual ideas expressed in the present chapter but also most of those which this whole book has aimed to highlight.” Chapters 3 & 4 are also important. Every question will allow you to use some of Tocqueville. While first two questions are about Tocqueville the others will allow you to use his text. I have read the book for you. In the book, pay attention to comments about the book: For example, the main idea of the book is to reveal American laws: see pages 335, 816-817, 49, 57, 58, 71, 319, 335, 357.
• Text: Federalist Papers: two main areas---war powers and how the government is structured. # 47 and #51 on checks and balance and separation of powers. #10 is the most famous (on factions, nature of constitution, dangers of majority rule).


The Big Ideas

• Equality,
• Freedom
• Judicial Review//Independent Judiciary
• Lawyers
• Free Press
• Threats of Majority Rule//Tyranny of Majority
• Liberty and Religion,
• War Powers
• Social Conditions and the Law (Sources of Law)
• The social //civic profile of America: Materialism, love of money, love of comfort, security, conformity, individuality, order, practicality, associations (factions).


3. Final Exam—specific questions considered
4. Administrative Time to allow students to complete written review of course//professor

#11 Class--Marriage and Sexuality 4-2-12

4-2-12

Lecture # 11: Law & Social Policy: Family & Marriage

***

1. Readings: none


2. Summary of Class #10: War Powers

In the first class we examined the Power of the People; the second, the Power of the Judiciary; the third the Power of the Legislature; the fourth the Power of the Executive Branch in the fifth we reviewed social, political and governance themes and issues treated by Tocqueville in his classic work, Democracy in America. The sixth class concerned the Death Penalty, the seventh class considered Race. In the Eight we covered libel, the Ninth Corporate Political Activity and the last class, the Tenth, we reviewed War Powers. Here’s what we’ve learned:

The ‘war powers’ class brings us to a new place----The invitation for conflict about the scope, operation and meaning of the war power is built into the constitution itself. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but Article II makes the president the commander in chief. Our textbook writer says this feature of the constitution is an invitation to struggle over control and conduct of war. The judiciary has rarely intervened in the struggle mainly because of the political question doctrine—that doctrine declares off limits judicial review of issues that are essentially political decisions.
What is the evolutionary process by which laws come to reflect changing social policies (short of outright amendment to the law or adoption of new statues)? What’s the algebraic equation, what are the metrics, how do we track it, measure it, quantify it? The substantive lectures on the death penalty, libel, school segregation, corporate political activity, war powers, marriage are not the text—they are the footnotes to the text, illustrations of the various METHODS by which changing social policies impacted the law. Here is a list:

1. Judicial review (interpretation by its very nature is an evolutionary process). When a court is guided by broad principles, constitutional principals, change is built into the model. Examples:
2. The 8th Amendment, evolving standard of decency. Example: the death penalty. This was relatively easy concept for us to grasp. Changing mores are actually consulted to reach a result. The process is direct, deliberate and open although the steps may be open to contention (for example, whether foreign law or the opinions of experts is a legitimate consideration).
3. Racial separation in public education presented a more difficult challenge. Here the conduct that would be disapproved of was actually authorized by law. So social science was used to prove that the law’s requirement of equality could not be met through separation. Science, or more particularly social science, was used
4. Unlike the death penalty case where the was in place a constitutional concept to deal with the change in social policy or the race cases where science was used to give new meaning to old language, the libel case was somewhat of a blank slate. The defamation case didn’t fit any specific provision and there was no helpful legislative history; in fact, what little history was available was not helpful because private tort cases didn’t seems to involve state action. So here the social policy was reflected in overarching purposes of free speech and the important role it plays in democracy. Perhaps we might say the result was ‘necessary’ to vindicate broader values.
5. We learned the ‘commerce clause’ was the legislative entre into new fields and, if you will, new ways of thinking; that ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, ‘due process of law’ and ‘equal protection’ of the law were the concepts that allowed judicial review to enter new fields and new ideas about the law, justice and social policy.


3. Summary of Class #11: Sexuality and Marriage

Tonight we consider something new: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. Unlike the death penalty cases that invoked an evolving standard of decency or the school segregations cases that used social science to define the parameters of equal protection of the law or the laws of necessity and implication to animate the meaning of free speech in the libel context and war powers, the issues regarding marriage and sexuality are no where mentioned in the constitution---we’re dealing with a blank slate.


4. Student Assignments Class # 11 Family & Marriage

Lecture #11: Family
[April 2, 2012]
I hold it to be an impious and detestable maxim that, politically speaking, the people have a right to do anything; and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I, then, in contradiction with myself? Tocqueville 292.
It is the very essence of democratic government that the power of the majority should be absolute. –Tocqueville 287
___________________________
Assignments for Class #11: Marriage, Procreation and Sexual Orientation
1. Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
2. Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
3. Goodrich v. Dept. of Pub. Health 790 N.E.2d 941 (MA. 2003).
4. Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
5. Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
6. Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
7. Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
8. Lawrence v. Texas 539 U. S. 558 (2003).
9. Chemerinsky Chapter 9 Section 9.7.4 “Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation” pp.807-809.
10. Chemerinsky Chapter 10, Section 10.2 “The Right to Marry” pp. 818-821 (and cases cited in Section 10.2.1 on Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8) (Give special thought to whether the executive branch can refuse to defend a congressional law); Section 10.3 “The Right to Procreate” pp. 829, 833-834; Section 10.4 “Sexual Activity and Orientation” pp. 866-868

___________________________
Assignments for Class #11:  Marriage, Procreation and Sexual Orientation
1.    Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923). JOSH PORTER
2.    Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967). NATHAN BATEY
3.    Goodrich v. Dept. of Pub. Health 790 N.E.2d 941 (MA. 2003). BRANDI
MELVIN (Can’t attend).
4.    Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927).  BRAD CORBIN (Can’t attend).
5.    Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942). ZAC RICHARDS
6.    Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986). SARA THOMSON
7.    Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620 (1996). LU JESSEE
8.    Lawrence v. Texas 539 U. S. 558 (2003). JASMINE HARDIN
9.    Chemerinsky Chapter 9 Section 9.7.4 “Discrimination Based on Sexual
Orientation” pp.807-809. LAUREN REYNOLDS
10.  Chemerinsky Chapter 10, Section 10.2 “The Right to Marry” pp. 818-821 (and
cases cited in Section 10.2.1 on Defense of Marriage Act and California’s
Proposition 8) (Give special thought to whether the executive branch can refuse
to defend a congressional law);Section 10.3 “The Right to Procreate” pp. 829,
833-834; Section 10.4 “Sexual Activity and Orientation” pp. 866-868. CHRIS ROBERT