did he just say something sacrilitigious?

EsĀ­tiĀ­mated reading time is 6 minĀ­utes.

FACEBOOK GETS MY ATTENTION in the early morning hours as I sip my coffee and wait for that part of my brain/mind that raĀ­tiĀ­oĀ­ciĀ­nates to kick into gear. I scroll through my timeĀ­line and when an inĀ­terĀ­esting image catches my atĀ­tenĀ­tion, I read it, and someĀ­times chime in. I try to be posĀ­iĀ­tive and huĀ­morous: yesĀ­terday I made a someĀ­what silly comĀ­ment on someone’s FaceĀ­book page and I coined a word that somehow reĀ­lated in some way to the origĀ­inal post: ā€˜sacĀ­rilĀ­itiĀ­gious.’

It is, of course, a play on the words sacĀ­riĀ­leĀ­gious and litiĀ­gious and no doubt the FaceĀ­book post had someĀ­thing to do with someĀ­thing reĀ­lated to reĀ­liĀ­gion or faith.

With me, it could have been inane Rep*blican polĀ­iĀ­tics, which is as close to an act of faith as most AmerĀ­iĀ­cans get in a culĀ­ture that worĀ­ships reĀ­liĀ­gion but fears and loathes spirituality.

And throughout the day that silly word kept popĀ­ping back in my head. So here I am with it today . . .

 

Sacri_Gay_Kaufmann

NiĀ­etĀ­zsche’s title was Die FrƶhĀ­liche WisĀ­senschaft and was first transĀ­lated into EngĀ­lish as The Joyous Wisdom. But The Gay SciĀ­ence has beĀ­come the common transĀ­laĀ­tion since Walter KaufĀ­mann’s enorĀ­mously popĀ­ular transĀ­laĀ­tion of 1960.

What does the dictionary say?

AcĀ­cording to the ever-trust Merriam-Webster, the word sacĀ­riĀ­lege means:

•  an act of treating a holy place or obĀ­ject in a way that does not show proper respect

•  a techĀ­nical and not necĀ­esĀ­sarily inĀ­trinĀ­siĀ­cally outĀ­raĀ­geous viĀ­oĀ­laĀ­tion of what is saĀ­cred beĀ­cause conĀ­seĀ­crated to God

•  gross irĀ­revĀ­erĀ­ence toĀ­ward a halĀ­lowed person, place, or thing

Also courĀ­tesy of Merriam-Webster we have litiĀ­gious, which means:

•  too ready or eager to sue someone or someĀ­thing in a court of law

•  tending or likely to enĀ­gage in lawsuit

Arriving at a definition for sacrilitigious

If I comĀ­bine asĀ­pects of the deĀ­fĀ­iĀ­nĀ­iĀ­tions above, I could arĀ­rive at sevĀ­eral opĀ­tions for sacĀ­rilĀ­itiĀ­gious:

•  the act of suing someone in a court of law over an inĀ­trinĀ­siĀ­cally outĀ­raĀ­geous viĀ­oĀ­laĀ­tion of what is conĀ­sidĀ­ered sacred

•  ready to sue someone in a court of law as a gross irĀ­revĀ­erĀ­ence toĀ­ward a halĀ­lowed person, place, or thing

EiĀ­ther way, we are looking at a word that means taking someone to court—something that takes place in conĀ­senĀ­sual (shared) reĀ­ality and is emĀ­pirĀ­iĀ­cally verifiable—over an acĀ­tion, stateĀ­ment, writing, records, etc., that the plainĀ­tiff conĀ­siders an asĀ­sault on his reĀ­liĀ­gious beliefs.

That is his beĀ­lief in someĀ­thing that is not a part of conĀ­senĀ­sual reĀ­ality and cannot be verĀ­iĀ­fied empirically.

So, sacĀ­rilĀ­itiĀ­gious is about one person suing anĀ­other or having anĀ­other person prosĀ­eĀ­cuted for comĀ­mitĀ­ting a crime against his faith.

It hapĀ­pens elseĀ­where and it could happen here . . .

 

Debatably sacrilitigious writing

In 1882, German philosoĀ­pher, culĀ­tural critic, poet, comĀ­poser, and Latin and Greek scholar Friedrich WilĀ­helm NiĀ­etĀ­zsche alerted the world to the fact that God was dead. And I will leave this topic to the experts:

ā€œThe meaning of the phrase [God is dead] is often misunderstood—many have inĀ­terĀ­preted that NiĀ­etĀ­zsche beĀ­lieved in a litĀ­eral death or end of God. InĀ­stead, the line points to the western world’s reĀ­liance on reĀ­liĀ­gion as a moral comĀ­pass and source of meaning. As he exĀ­plains in The Gay SciĀ­ence:

ā€˜God is dead. God reĀ­mains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comĀ­fort ourĀ­selves, the murĀ­derers of all murĀ­derers? What was holiest and mightĀ­iest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?

What water is there for us to clean ourĀ­selves? What fesĀ­tiĀ­vals of atoneĀ­ment, what saĀ­cred games shall we have to inĀ­vent? Is not the greatĀ­ness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourĀ­selves not beĀ­come gods simply to apĀ­pear worthy of it?’

Nietzsche’s works exĀ­press a fear that the deĀ­cline of reĀ­liĀ­gion, the rise of atheism, and the abĀ­sence of a higher moral auĀ­thority would plunge the world into chaos. The western world had deĀ­pended on the rule of God for thouĀ­sands of years—it gave order to soĀ­ciety and meaning to life.

Without it, NiĀ­etĀ­zsche writes, soĀ­ciety will move into an age of niĀ­hilism. AlĀ­though NiĀ­etĀ­zsche may have been conĀ­sidĀ­ered a niĀ­hilist by deĀ­fĀ­iĀ­nĀ­iĀ­tion, he was critĀ­ical of it and warned that acĀ­cepting niĀ­hilism would be danĀ­gerous.ā€ (PhiĀ­losĀ­ophy Index)

In the 19th cenĀ­tury, the idea of taking an auĀ­thor to court for anyĀ­thing other than libel was probĀ­ably never enĀ­terĀ­tained. Today, Friedrich might be hauled beĀ­fore a jury of his peers—and Hah! on finding peers for Nietzsche—and taken to the cleaners through sacrilitigation!

 

Sacri_Datebook2

DateĀ­book (cover-dated SepĀ­tember 1966): ā€œI don’t know which will go first—rocknroll or ChrisĀ­tianity.ā€ And all hell broke loose upon the land and the RightĀ­eous among us who helped the Lord smote thouĀ­sands of BeaĀ­tles records. 1

Debatably sacrilitigious speaking

In March 1966, the London Evening StanĀ­dard ran a seĀ­ries of arĀ­tiĀ­cles enĀ­tiĀ­tled ā€œHow Does a Beatle Live?ā€ They feaĀ­tured inĀ­terĀ­views with George HarĀ­rison, John Lennon, Paul McĀ­Cartney, and Ringo Starr by jourĀ­nalist MauĀ­reen Cleave. She had inĀ­terĀ­viewed the Fab Four regĀ­uĀ­larly for sevĀ­eral years. John faĀ­mously stated:

ā€œChrisĀ­tianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that. I’m right and I’ll be proved right. We’re more popĀ­ular than Jesus now. I don’t know which will go first, rock and roll or ChrisĀ­tianity. Jesus was all right, but his disĀ­ciĀ­ples were thick and orĀ­diĀ­nary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.ā€

And nothing happened.

In EngĀ­land.

In July 1966, nearly five months after UK pubĀ­liĀ­caĀ­tion and no one having said anyĀ­thing anyĀ­where about John’s reĀ­stateĀ­ment, DateĀ­book pubĀ­lished the inĀ­terĀ­views in the US. In BirmĀ­ingham, AlĀ­abama, a disc-jockey named Tommy Charles heard about the quoĀ­taĀ­tion and broadĀ­cast it on his show.

He asked lisĀ­teners to phone in the reĀ­sponse was overĀ­whelmĀ­ingly negĀ­aĀ­tive: ā€œWe just felt it was so abĀ­surd and sacĀ­riĀ­leĀ­gious that someĀ­thing ought to be done to show them that they can’t get away with this sort of thing.ā€

In 1966, this led to bonĀ­fires conĀ­suming old BeaĀ­tles records and picĀ­tures and magĀ­aĀ­zines and trinĀ­kets. Most of this hapĀ­pened in the southern states—where all the exĀ­citing things take place.

Today, in a world where the Supreme Court has ruled that the sitĀ­ting PresĀ­iĀ­dent of the United States can be sued by priĀ­vate inĀ­diĀ­vidĀ­uals and orĀ­gaĀ­niĀ­zaĀ­tions with a poĀ­litĀ­ical ax to grind, no doubt all four of the BeaĀ­tles would have been subĀ­poeĀ­naed. 2

 

Sacri_PissChrist

Critic Lucy R. LipĀ­pard opined that Piss Christ is ā€œa darkly beauĀ­tiful phoĀ­toĀ­graphic image. The small wood and plastic cruĀ­cifix beĀ­comes virĀ­tuĀ­ally monĀ­uĀ­mental as it floats, phoĀ­toĀ­graphĀ­iĀ­cally enĀ­larged, in a deep rosy glow that is both omiĀ­nous and glorious.ā€

Debatably sacrilitigious art

Piss Christ is a phoĀ­toĀ­graph by AnĀ­dres SerĀ­rano deĀ­picting a plastic cruĀ­cifix in a glass of yellow fluid—supposedly the artist’s urine. The photo was one of the winĀ­ners of the SouthĀ­eastern Center for ConĀ­temĀ­poĀ­rary Art’s Awards in the ViĀ­sual Arts. And it creĀ­ated a brouhaha still felt by artists to this day.

Many people who are not inĀ­volved in the conĀ­temĀ­poĀ­rary art world found AnĀ­dres Serrano’s phoĀ­toĀ­graph Piss Christ to go beĀ­yond the boundĀ­aries of taste and border on sacĀ­riĀ­leĀ­gious. AcĀ­tuĀ­ally, it’s a rather striking image and might have been seen in a very difĀ­ferent light if the artist had named it, say, BeĀ­hold The Man, and only let a few friends in on the source of the gold low.

But, alas, he did not . . .

And the moral of this story is?

The next time you feel the urge to say or do or write or paint or phoĀ­toĀ­graph someĀ­thing that might ofĀ­fend someone else’s faith-based perĀ­specĀ­tive on what is proper and alĀ­lowĀ­able, you might want to conĀ­sider whether that someone might find your someĀ­thing sacrilitigious . . .

 

Sacri_header

HEADER IMAGE: Hell hath no fury like that of a rightĀ­eous AmerĀ­ican chrisĀ­tian teenager. ApĀ­parĀ­ently, this photo was taken outĀ­side of CanĀ­dleĀ­stick Park in San FranĀ­cisco on AuĀ­gust 29, 1966, as the BeaĀ­tles were perĀ­forming one of their last conĀ­verts inĀ­side. Many of these kids grew up only to have their own chilĀ­dren seĀ­duced by the Devil through the backĀ­masking of saĀ­tanic mesĀ­sages in heavy metal records in the ā€™90s.

 


FOOTNOTES:

1   Of course, this was beĀ­fore God inĀ­vented used record stores. Had they been around these kids could protested by swapĀ­ping their old BeaĀ­tles records for new MonĀ­kees records . . .

2   And since the subĀ­poenas would have coĀ­inĀ­cided with the group’s deĀ­ciĀ­sion to give up touring, we would still be blaming that damn DJ and those dumb chrisĀ­tian kids for turning the BeaĀ­tles way from our stores and our conĀ­cert halls!

 

Subscribe
Notify of
Rate this article:
Please rate this article with your comment.
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x