Monday, March 11, 2019

Why are we forced to call judges "honorable?"



Embedded in my brain from seven years ago is a man beating his 16-year old handicapped daughter because she disobeyed him by watching the internet.

Barbara Sawyer and others got wind and ran the story. I was amazed at how many people sided with the brutally authoritarian father.  To them, obedience is a sacred virtue.

But obedience is NOT a virtue. At best it's amoral, at worst it's sadistic.

Consider that every horrific man-made mass slaughter of humans throughout the ages has been done by a few in the name of "obedience."

But obedience is the toxic glue that binds slaves to masters.

Don Cooper has a brilliant way of exposing the bull.  Check out how he cleverly illustrates that symbols and costumes create an illusion of a superiority that seduces the masses into states of obedience.

"All rise as the honorable judge enters the court, dressed in an imposing black robe, and ascends to a position of superiority behind an ominous desk above everyone else in the room. A large government seal illuminated on the wall behind him to create a sense of divinity. Armed guards posted strategically around the room. Flags and pictures of other distinguished, “honorable” people past and present adorn the walls. It’s an intimidation technique used to get and keep people off balance. To create a sense of superiority over them so they’ll be obedient little participants in the State’s dog and pony show. But why is he honorable? Why should we honor him? Honor is earned not bestowed. We don’t even know him. Is he honorable? Has he earned it? Judges are either elected or appointed from what I understand. Nothing honorable about that. I don’t think “honorable” means what they think it means."

And yet, who are judges, but flawed people. Perhaps more flawed than average. And we the tax-slaves tolerate them, some even worship them. In the case of this violent, authoritarian Texas judge, he returned to "the bench" to prosecute cases in family court.  How's that for irony?

TigerLily

No comments: