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 someoneās FaceĀbook page and I coined a word that somehow reĀlated in some way to the origĀinal post: āsacĀrilĀitiĀgious.ā
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 . . .
NiĀetĀzscheās 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 KaufĀmannās 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 courtāsomething that takes place in conĀsenĀsual (shared) reĀality and is emĀpirĀiĀcally verifiableāover 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:
āThe meaning of the phrase [God is dead] is often misunderstoodāmany have inĀterĀpreted that NiĀetĀzsche beĀlieved in a litĀeral death or end of God. InĀstead, the line points to the western worldās reĀliance on reĀliĀgion as a moral comĀpass and source of meaning. As he exĀplains in The Gay SciĀence:
āGod 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?ā
Nietzscheās 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 yearsāit 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 peersāand Hah! on finding peers for Nietzscheāand taken to the cleaners through sacrilitigation!
DateĀbook (cover-dated SepĀtember 1966): āI donāt know which will go firstārocknroll 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 āHow 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:
āChrisĀtianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I neednāt argue about that. Iām right and Iāll be proved right. Weāre more popĀular than Jesus now. I donāt know which will go first, rock and roll or ChrisĀtianity. Jesus was all right, but his disĀciĀples were thick and orĀdiĀnary. Itās 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 Johnās 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: āWe just felt it was so abĀsurd and sacĀriĀleĀgious that someĀthing ought to be done to show them that they canāt 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 statesāwhere 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
Critic Lucy R. LipĀpard opined that Piss Christ is āa 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 fluidāsupposedly the artistās urine. The photo was one of the winĀners of the SouthĀeastern Center for ConĀtemĀpoĀrary Artās 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 Serranoās phoĀtoĀgraph Piss Christ to go beĀyond the boundĀaries of taste and border on sacĀriĀleĀgious. AcĀtuĀally, itās 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 elseās faith-based perĀspecĀtive on what is proper and alĀlowĀable, you might want to conĀsider whether that someone might find your someĀthing sacrilitigious . . .
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 ā90s.
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 groupās 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!