From Plato’s “Apology”; Socrates Speaking:
“If you say to me, Socrates, this time we will not mind Anytus, [the man who was calling for Socrates execution.] and you shall be let off, but upon one condition, that you are not to enquire and speculate in this way any more, and that if you are caught doing so again you shall die; - if this was the condition on which you let me go, I should reply: Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall never cease [to question]. . .
For know that this is the command of God; and I believe that no greater good has ever happened in the state than my service to the God. For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. . .
Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you. For if you kill me you will not easily find a successor to me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am the gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me and therefore I would advise you to spare me.”
_____________________________________________________________________
I can see how it went. The “camp friend” visited his troop just as he had been trained. He made small talk with the leaders and boys. One leader said he knew me.
“Oh yah,” says my guy.
“Yah,” replies the scout leader, “I used to go to church with him; he is a loud mouthed trouble maker.”
The camp staffer was feeling “bad” when he told me. He didn’t know how I’d take it; I’m such a pleaser at camp. But I am a Loud Mouth Trouble Maker, most of the time. I explained that to him. He’ll be Okay when he gets older.
I used to go to Sunday school; I used to teach the class. On a day a wise old bishop asked me into his office; on another day a young bishop would do the same. They both wondered why I always had to ask so many questions in Sunday school; did I have a testimony? I answered them both the same. I suggested that a testimony that can hold through a flood of questions is a better thing to have than one kept safe in ignorance.
I can honestly say that after each and every Sunday school “discussion” I have stirred up, some class members have thank me for making them think. But I am sure more of them have been angry at me for forcing them out of the usual, “pray, go to church, read the scripture”, formula for righteousness. They have had all the answers down since Primary, why arouse them? So I quit going.
I can imagine some of my friends and foes alike asking: But why, Lysis, can’t you just shut up? Why can’t you go to class and sit there like everyone else and recite the mantra? You have known it (pray, go to church, study the scripture) since you were a child. If Prophets and Seminary Teachers have agreed, why do you question?
A young friend, visiting from California, talked me into attending Sunday school one last time this past spring. I made the teacher cry. Now don’t be so hard on me. She was teaching the “Samuel ragging on Saul” lesson; you know the one were Saul is thrown out as king for disobedience. Why hadn’t he killed all those wicked goats and sheep!!? Don’t worry, I won’t go back.
In his “Apology” before the five hundred and one Athenian judges Socrates replied:
________________________________________________________________________
“Some will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong – acting the part of a good man or of a bad. Whereas, upon your view, the heroes who fell at Troy were not good for much, and the son of Thetis [Achilles] above all, who altogether despised danger in comparison with disgrace; and when he was so eager to slay Hector, his goddess mother said to him, that if he avenged his companion Patroclus, and slew Hector, he would die himself – ‘Fate,’ she said, in these or the like words, ‘waits for you next after Hector’; he, receiving this warning, utterly despised danger and death, and instead of fearing them, feared rather to live in dishonour and not to avenge his friend. ‘Let me die forthwith,’ he replies, ‘and be avenged of my enemy, rather than abide here by the beaked ships, a laughing-stock and a burden of the earth.’ Had Achilles any thought of death and danger? For wherever a man’s place is, whether the place which he has chosen or that in which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think of death or of anything but of disgrace. And this, O men of Athens, is a true saying.
Strange, indeed, would be my conduct, O men of Athens, if I who, when I was ordered by the generals whom you chose to command me at Potidaea and Amphipolis and Delium, remained where they placed me, like any other man, facing death – if now, when, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfill the philosopher’s mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death, fancying that I was wise when I was not wise."
___________________________________________________________________
For years I have attended Larae Larkin’s History Seminar at WSU. I have learned a lot and found the presenters, for the most part, to be informed and interesting, and with few exceptions capable of handling questions. Many actually conducted seminars rather than “Sunday School” lessons. I have great respect for Professor Larkin and the program she has crafted at the University – but . . .
On October 25, 2006 – the seminar leader was Omar Cater. (I am sorry, I have tried to check the spelling of his name, but for all his fame and influence I cannot find anything. My bad I’m sure.) Larae’s glowing introduction promised a man of deep experience and ability. There were a good number of his fans; interns from his business I suppose, in the room. Who would have guessed he had brought along a cheering section?
His own comments about his various activities and accomplishments soon left Larae’s praise of him in the dust. Discussions, held in the last week or two, with four-star-generals and kings sounded very impressive. But then he turned to the course for the night. He wrote the number 650,000 on the board and announced that that was the number of civilian deaths in Iraq since the “American Invasion”.
“That’s a bogus number!” I said.
He rushed across the room and roared in my face, “That’s bullshit!” There was some applause from my fellow class members. Many of them have no doubt wanted to swear at me for a long time. I’m sure Omar expected me to be cowed by his anger and the fact that he had just talked with generals. But I have attended too many Sunday school classes to be so easily scared into submissive acquiescence.
“I know how they came up with those numbers, and they aren’t legitimate.” I explained.
“They are!” He was almost screaming at me. I have noticed that when neo-libs get cornered, their defense mechanism is often to scream, use vulgarity, or if they are writing, to spread out the exclamation points (!!!!!!!!!)
“The numbers are from the “Lancet” I said and the method of coming to those numbers is not legitimate. They may as well make them up out of the air.”
Coming right up into my face, he yelled I didn’t know what I was talking about and returning to the board, he informed the class that the war was killing more people than Saddam. I thought that would be the end of the clash. Omar went on to show slides of the numbers of people killed in the twentieth century. Having established that the Communists killed the most, he suddenly turned back to me.
Looking back, I can see now that Cater was already off track in his “lecture”. He had intended to point out that the “methods” of dealing with killing used in the 20th century had not worked and then lead the class haply down the “UN is the answer” trail. But now he was distracted. He was still thinking of his dust up with me; his mind wandering off course. At this point he demanded I explain what was wrong with the numbers provided by the “Lancet”. I am fairly certain he was confident I would not know. Thanks to our adventures here in the Agora I was ready. I explained the BOGUS methods employed, of sampling small and uncontrolled neighborhoods, where killings were frequent, and where people could fabricate at will, and casualties be counted again and again by different reporters. Then these numbers are presented as representative of distinct and factual victims. Those numbers are then multiplied by the total number of people in Iraq and a fantastic BOGUS number concocted. Cater even gave an example of how it could work. If a family of nine had been killed in a neighborhood, and five persons were polled; asked if they knew anyone who had been killed, and answered nine each, “Lancet” would then report 45 killings in the neighborhood.
“Yes,” I said, “and multiply that number by the number of people in Iraq to get a fantastic number that bares no resemblance to reality.”
Let me explain how the Agora might conduct a similar study. Killer X is a Democrat, he has killed 10 women. We then take the number of people who voted for John Kerry in the 2004 election, roughly 59,000,000 and come up with the number of people murdered by democrats in the US to be around 590 million people. The fact that there are barely 300 million Americans would not matter, because as Mr. Cater explained – ‘they have a methodology based on real numbers!!!!!’
Mr. Cater asked me what number I would accept. I said that the number of Iraqis killed counted by the Iraqi government is around 45,000 – “Iraqi Body Count” puts the number at around 47,000. He was indignant. He admitted that the 650,000 was not necessarily accurate, but that people believed it to be, caused the US great harm.
I pointed out that it is the enemies of the United States that use such a BOGUS number like a club to beat the war effort with; that those who know the truth should challenge such false “statistics”.
He replied that it didn’t matter how many had been killed – even one killed by American troops made us enemies all over the world.” He then erased the 650,000 number from the board.
By this time Cater had lost control of the room. He tried to bring the discussion back to the United Nations; but was now challenged by several of my colleagues. His analysis of the Christian Right’s support of Israel was questioned by a teacher from the local Christian academy. His attempt to push the UN as a solution to all wars was questioned by several with references to the “Oil for Food” scandal, and failures in Iraq and with North Korea.
I asked him to give one example of a success of the UN in negotiating peace. He tried to go back to Camp David.
When I asked him why Arafat had rejected the peace agreement offered by Israel, Cater insisted that there had never been any written offer to the Palestinians by Israel and that the “Peace Talks”; which he hinted that he had been involved in; failed because Arafat was not a good negotiator. That Arafat was in essence “tricked” by the Israelis.
Having failed to establish any creditability for his “negotiations through the UN will solve all” theme, Omar spent the majority of the rest of our two and one-half hours insisting that he had nothing against President Bush but that Bush was taken in by bad advisors. This mantra, right out of the neo-lib talking points for the week, did not impress me. He attacked Rumsfeld and Cheney as though saying their names would anger the mob; and at last, as the minutes of the “seminar” ran out, said:
“You saw this week, didn’t you, that Bush says he never said stay the course?”
“That’s not what he said,” I said.
Once more “mad” Omar was in my face. “I was a Bush lover,” he screamed. There was some more applause from the class. “I had a right to my opinion, but I couldn’t lie.”
Interestingly enough this was exactly what I was pointing out about his presentation.
“Have you ever read the article; did you listen to the Stephanopoulos interview?”
“You just love Bush, but you can’t lie.” He snarled.
“It doesn’t matter if I love President Bush or not, I love the truth!” I replied.
“What did he say?” Omar demanded. He didn’t think I knew, but battles in the Agora had prepared me.
“President Bush said, ‘we’ve never been stay the course, George. We have been – we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but were constantly adjusting our tactics, constantly.’ That’s what he said. He never said ‘I never said stay the course’.”
“News papers don’t lie!” Omar yelled, bending into my face. By this time the class was leaving; herding themselves out the doors. He stepped back to say goodbye to the few “seminar” attendees still in their seats and received some polite applause.
I gathered my papers and left.
When brought before the Athenian court, Socrates attempted to explain to his judges why so many disliked him. He recounted the visit of his friend, Chaerephon, to Delphi where Chaerephon was told that ‘no man was wiser’ than Socrates. Socrates, accepting that the God could not lie, still set out to find a man wiser than himself to see if he could refute Apollo. Here is how he recounts his search and the anger it stirred against him:
____________________________________________________________________
“I should say to him [Apollo], ‘Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.’ Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him – his name I need not mention [perhaps it was Omar]; he was a politician whom I selected for examination – and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise, and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is, -- for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another who had still higher pretension to wisdom, and my conclusion was exactly the same. Whereupon I made another enemy of him, and many others besides him.
____________________________________________________________________
A week passed and I was rushing to the classroom at the college. My play practice duties and a quick stop at my favorite restaurant – Maverick – had made me almost late. As I rushed, panting, to the door I was met by Professor Larkin.
She said we needed to talk. What happened “last week” was unacceptable. Omar was a famous man who talked to kings and it wasn’t right to ambush him. She said she had had phone calls and the blow up was all over campus. Omar had brought some of his friends and interns to hear the presentation and they were angry. She pointed out that many in the class were new teachers. She had been told by someone that they came to hear two and a half hours of Cater, not half an hour of some crank.
I explained that I didn’t care if Omar was a king, that it was impossible for me to sit there and let him lie to the class. I love truth and learning it. Hard to do when the teacher is telling unchallenged lies. He had every opportunity to answer my questions and validate his points.
Dr. Larkin explained that there had been swearing and shouting. I reminded the Professor that I had neither sworn nor shouted; it was Omar that had done that.
Well, we can’t have you challenging the professors any more. These are new teachers and they are here to get the information the presenters bring for them.
I fear her greatest concern was that some of the folks in the class said they would not attend if I were there disrupting. I must admit that the possibility that her efforts might suffer through acts of mine was painful to me.
She said some nice things about me, complemented my intellect, and said she had often appreciated my questions, but…
She asked if I would agree to sit in the back of the class and save my questions and comments for the breaks or for after the lectures. I felt like I was back in the bishop’s office; maybe in front of the Five Hundred and One
I explained I could not do that. I told her how much I appreciated the classes and how much I had learned over the years, but that I could not sit back and listen to disinformation.
It seems odd to me that she would choose controversial subjects and book controversial speakers and then want to avoid controversy.
I was reminded of when BYU brought in the “Kiss” by Rodin and then allowed the prudish hypocrites in the student body to have the work removed because it titillated their dying passions.
Now we had a bunch of “teachers” demanding my silence because my questions tweaked their dying minds.
Such judgment of them may be rather a conceit from me. Perhaps they are just tired of my stupidity, my arrogance, my nasty disrespectful harangue. It is hard to judge ones’ own statements. We are often like the makeup covered fools who only see themselves as the perfectly sculptured image presented in their morning mirrors. They carry that image of themselves about in their minds all day while the grease and powder slump and slide into a grotesque.
Anyway, I told Professor Larkin that I would not attend under the conditions she had set down. That I did not need the class, nor did I want to listen to unchallenged lies pushed by agenda driven presenters. I love folks with agendas, but only if they can be challenged. “You won’t come in and sit down?” she asked.
“No. Don’t flunk me.” I said.
“I won’t,” she promised, looking quite relieved. She had no doubt been expecting some nastiness. Such is my reputation. "If you ever want me back, you know were to find me.” I said, and I left the University.
As gadfly or crank, I have made my share of enemies. I can see how my disruptions in Sunday school could draw the ire of those who seek only the conformation of their Faith, but I had thought that in a University class; filled with teachers non-the-less; I would be tolerated. At least I could provide a path to truth, a way for those I challenged to let the brilliance of their ideas show as they shot down my questions to their claims. I was wrong.
Did I feel like Socrates holding the cup? Well, maybe a little.
Socrates ends his “Apology” like this:
____________________________________________________________________
“But I see clearly that the time had arrived when it was better for me to die and be released from trouble; wherefore the oracle gave no sign. For which reason, also, I am not angry with my condemners, or with my accusers; they have done me no harm, although they did not mean to do me any good; and for this I may gently blame them. . .
The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.”
