Fundamentalists, Ancient Tradition, & Conflict Resolution
Mr. & Mrs. Binoculars give us some more home-cooked justice:
Pete called me on the phone August 2002 and told me that if I didn’t give the bones to them that there would be legal action. . . . I told him to just come get them, that I wouldn’t go to court with a Christian brother. . . . I do not now consider Pete DeRosa or Doug Phillips to be Christians.
Oh good! The convenience our belief-forming cognitive faculties afford us! Most the on-looking Christian world no longer thinks Frank Vance is a Christian either, so perhaps we can all agree about the nature of the situation before us. Nothing like fundamentalist approaches to dispute resolution:
“Oh, no; I won’t have my complaint against X adjudicated in an equitable environment within an ancient tradition of justice in which the judgment is backed by tangible force. I’ll rather express my amazing piety and turn the other cheek—we are to be only “in” the world and not “of” it after all. But please let me know as soon as there is an unjust lynch mob raging through the streets seeking the life of X and X’s family. I want to take my complaint to the world wide web at just the right moment.”
Mr. and Mrs. Binoculars take their stand against unholy law suits, and fundamentalists at least lend their ideological support. Recall Peter Kershaw’s unhappiness about our ancient tradition of bribing the Furies:
“. . . His study of law came as a direct result of his belief in self-reliance, and his distrust of attorneys and a corrupt judicial system.”
That’s interesting. It was, after all, a Florida attorney who drafted the charges against St. Peter’s Four. And good thing for the practical results of the RPCGA’s ruling (!).