#why henry ii murdered archbishop thomas becket

[annarubys]

everything wrong with me can be explained by the fact that i only use youtube when i don’t feel like committing to an episode of tv (takes too long) but my ideal youtube video length is 20-30 minutes and i spend at least another 15 minutes during every use adding hour long essays to my watch later

[seekfirst-community]

"Remember the sufferings of Christ, the storms that were weathered... the crown that came from those sufferings which gave new radiance to the faith..." (St Thomas Becket).

"When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, the parents of Jesus took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord, and to offer the sacrifice of a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.

Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. This man was righteous and devout, awaiting the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Christ of the Lord. He came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to perform the custom of the law in regard to him, he took him into his arms and blessed God, saying:

“Lord, now let your servant go in peace; your word has been fulfilled: my own eyes have seen the salvation which you prepared in the sight of every people, a light to reveal you to the nations and the glory of your people Israel.”

"The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him; and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be ­revealed.” (Luke 2: 25 - 35).

Thursday 29th December 2022, 5th Day in the Octave of the Solemnity of Christmas is the feast of St Thomas Becket. (1118 - 1170). English. Martyr. St Thomas Becket, also known as St Thomas of Canterbury was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1162 until his murder on December 29th 1170 by King Henry II inside the Cathedral while St Thomas Becket was celebrating Mass.

Our key Scripture introduces us to a man whose name is Simeon. Who is this holy old man, Simeon? According to the testimony of holy Scripture, Simeon is:

#1 A righteous and devout man. (Reminds us of Saints Joseph, Stephen, Barnabas).

#2 Simeon was one of the faithful who actively awaited the coming of the Messiah Jesus, foretold over 700 years before. With the appearance of John the Baptist, the expectation for the coming of the Messiah became fever pitch.

#3 Simeon was filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit promised Simeon that he would not die until he sees Jesus with his eyes.

Simeon is immensely important in salvation history. This is why:

He was inspired to present himself in the Temple the very day Mary and Joseph brought Jesus for His presentation to the Lord, His Father. Here is what Simeon said, words that are used by the Church in prayer every night:

“Now, Master, you may let your servant go in peace, according to your word, for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you prepared in sight of all the peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and glory for your people Israel.” (Luke 2: 29 - 32).

Simeon gave an eloquent testimony to the faithfulness of God. God made a promise over 700 years ago. He had not forgotten it. In the fullness of time, God fulfilled His promise to the letter and here is the Prophet Simeon to bear witness to the truth.

Whenever I read this Scripture, I am reminded of the radical faithfulness of God. Our God is a Promise Maker and a Promise Keeper.

"My Immaculate Mother also knew sin in all its ugliness and horror. She saw all that sin wrought upon My Body, the very Body she bore in her virginal womb, and, in seeing the ravages of sin on My Body and on My Face, her Heart was pierced by a sword of sorrow in fulfilment of Simeon’s prophecy." (IN SINU JESU, Thursday, March 31, 2016).

Daily Bible Verse @ SeekFirstcommunity.com

[sasquapossum]

Civil War, Stochastic Terrorism, and Free Speech

You might have heard recently that half of Americans anticipate a civil war soon. So, first off, key word: anticipate. That doesn’t mean they want it, or intend to participate in it - only that they expect it. Secondly, most people have a pretty vague notion of what “civil war” really means. I don’t think people really expect a repeat of the 1861-65 Civil War in the US. I would have compared it more to Shays’ Rebellion of 1786, or the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, but the comparison I saw most often in a discussion $elsewhere was to the Irish Troubles of 1968-98 - massive civil unrest, terrorism, and demands for autonomy/devolution (but not necessarily full secession). But no matter how you slice it, I’m among those who expect some kind of Extremely Unpleasant times ahead.

The issue of terrorism is a particularly interesting one, and what I really want to write about now. Some people mentioned the recent uptick in (an already awful number of) mass shootings as a precursor to more severe or widespread violence. Others were quick to point out that “a civil war is not made up of lone wolf attacks” (direct quote). I think that objection is garbage, because the whole “lone wolf” idea is garbage. No, Tumblr, it’s not because “lone wolf” is based on bad biology. It’s because many of these “lone wolves” absolutely did choose specific targets and intended to foment greater violence. We know because they often expounded at great length on these topics in their subsequently found diaries, forum posts, TikToxic videos, etc. We shouldn’t exonerate people who most definitely were connected to a particular group or ideology, nor should we exonerate the leaders who planted these thoughts in their heads.

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

That quote is attributed to Henry II of England, encouraging - but not outright telling - his knights to murder Thomas Becket - the archbishop of Canterbury who had opposed him on $doesntmatter. It’s one of the best known examples of what is now called stochastic terrorism (and it’s telling IMO that the definition even uses “lone wolf” to illustrate the point). “Stochastic” is not quite the same as “random” technically, but close enough for current purposes. The leaders who spout hateful rhetoric are not advocating for a specific action against a specific target, but they often know damn well that their words can lead some of their more unstable followers to commit such acts somewhere, at some place. They get the effects they want while retaining plausible deniability.

Unfortunately for them, people are onto this trick now. It’s why hate speech is even considered as an exception to general freedom of speech. People who incite these kinds of acts, even lacking specific details, should be held accountable - especially if their incitement can be directly linked to a subsequent specific act or event. I believe in free speech but it has limits and always has since before the First Amendment (or anything like it) was written. All those politicians or preachers who abuse their influence to cause murder absolutely should go to jail as accomplices.

[pamphletstoinspire]

Proclamation on 850th Anniversary of the Martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket  

Issued on: December 28, 2020

Today is the 850th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket on December 29, 1170. Thomas Becket was a statesman, a scholar, a chancellor, a priest, an archbishop, and a lion of religious liberty.

Before the Magna Carta was drafted, before the right to free exercise of religion was enshrined as America’s first freedom in our glorious Constitution, Thomas gave his life so that, as he said, “the Church will attain liberty and peace.”

The son of a London sheriff and once described as “a low‑born clerk” by the King who had him killed, Thomas Becket rose to become the leader of the church in England. When the crown attempted to encroach upon the affairs of the house of God through the Constitutions of Clarendon, Thomas refused to sign the offending document. When the furious King Henry II threatened to hold him in contempt of royal authority and questioned why this “poor and humble” priest would dare defy him, Archbishop Becket responded “God is the supreme ruler, above Kings” and “we ought to obey God rather than men.”

Because Thomas would not assent to rendering the church subservient to the state, he was forced to forfeit all his property and flee his own country. Years later, after the intervention of the Pope, Becket was allowed to return — and continued to resist the King’s oppressive interferences into the life of the church. Finally, the King had enough of Thomas Becket’s stalwart defense of religious faith and reportedly exclaimed in consternation: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”

The King’s knights responded and rode to Canterbury Cathedral to deliver Thomas Becket an ultimatum: give in to the King’s demands or die. Thomas’s reply echoes around the world and across the ages. His last words on this earth were these: “For the name of Jesus and the protection of the Church, I am ready to embrace death.” Dressed in holy robes, Thomas was cut down where he stood inside the walls of his own church.

Thomas Becket’s martyrdom changed the course of history. It eventually brought about numerous constitutional limitations on the power of the state over the Church across the West. In England, Becket’s murder led to the Magna Carta’s declaration 45 years later that: “[T]he English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired.”

When the Archbishop refused to allow the King to interfere in the affairs of the Church, Thomas Becket stood at the intersection of church and state. That stand, after centuries of state-sponsored religious oppression and religious wars throughout Europe, eventually led to the establishment of religious liberty in the New World. It is because of great men like Thomas Becket that the first American President George Washington could proclaim more than 600 years later that, in the United States, “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship” and that “it is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”

Thomas Becket’s death serves as a powerful and timeless reminder to every American that our freedom from religious persecution is not a mere luxury or accident of history, but rather an essential element of our liberty. It is our priceless treasure and inheritance. And it was bought with the blood of martyrs.

As Americans, we were first united by our belief that “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” and that defending liberty is more important than life itself. If we are to continue to be the land of the free, no government official, no governor, no bureaucrat, no judge, and no legislator must be allowed to decree what is orthodox in matters of religion or to require religious believers to violate their consciences. No right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious convictions. As I declared in Krasiński Square in Warsaw, Poland on July 6, 2017, the people of America and the people of the world still cry out: “We want God.”

On this day, we celebrate and revere Thomas Becket’s courageous stand for religious liberty and we reaffirm our call to end religious persecution worldwide. In my historic address to the United Nations last year, I made clear that America stands with believers in every country who ask only for the freedom to live according to the faith that is within their own hearts. I also stated that global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life, reflecting the belief held by the United States and many other countries that every child — born and unborn — is a sacred gift from God. Earlier this year, I signed an Executive Order to prioritize religious freedom as a core dimension of United States foreign policy. We have directed every Ambassador — and the over 13,000 United States Foreign Service officers and specialists — in more than 195 countries to promote, defend, and support religious freedom as a central pillar of American diplomacy.

We pray for religious believers everywhere who suffer persecution for their faith. We especially pray for their brave and inspiring shepherds — like Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong and Pastor Wang Yi of Chengdu — who are tireless witnesses to hope.

To honor Thomas Becket’s memory, the crimes against people of faith must stop, prisoners of conscience must be released, laws restricting freedom of religion and belief must be repealed, and the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed must be protected. The tyranny and murder that shocked the conscience of the Middle Ages must never be allowed to happen again. As long as America stands, we will always defend religious liberty.

A society without religion cannot prosper. A nation without faith cannot endure — because justice, goodness, and peace cannot prevail without the grace of God.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 29, 2020, as the 850th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket. I invite the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches and customary places of meeting with appropriate ceremonies in commemoration of the life and legacy of Thomas Becket.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.

DONALD J. TRUMP

[lawrenceop]

HOMILY for 29th December

The Feast of St Thomas of Canterbury

Today’s celebration is unique to England. For only in England, in the extraordinary form calendar, is today’s feast of St Thomas of Canterbury ranked as a first class feast, and so allowed to be celebrated in the Octave of Christmas, and even on a Sunday. However, there is a fittingness to this since the Christmas Octave is, we’ll have noticed, a time of martyrs. For the liturgy draws our attention to the many different ways in which people have witnessed to Christ, even to the point of death. The Liturgy thus teaches us that because of the Incarnation of Christ, and by his saving work on the Cross, the martyrs bear witness to a new transformed reality for mankind: that henceforth those who die in Christ and particularly for the martyrs, the day of one’s death becomes one’s birthday, one’s day of entry into heaven. Hence the protomartyr St Stephen said as he was stoned to death at the gates of Jerusalem: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” Thus, the martyr went in through the gates of the new Jerusalem to share in the victory of Christ.

So, on this day in 1170, a poor-born Londoner who became an Archbishop, in his own Cathedral of Christ Church at Canterbury, ordered that the doors of the cathedral be thrown open to admit the four knights and one subdeacon who would consequently murder him. Thus the doors of heaven were also thrown open to admit the new martyr of Christ, St Thomas Becket.

In T.S. Eliot’s magnificent dramatisation of this day’s events, Murder in the Cathedral, St Thomas says: “Unbar the door!… I give my life/ to the Law of God above the Law of Man… Unbar the door! unbar the door! We are not here to triumph by fighting, by stratagem, or by resistance. Not to fight with beasts as men. We have fought the beast/ And have conquered. We have only to conquer/ Now, by suffering. This is the easier victory. / Now is the triumph of the Cross, now/ Open the door! I command it. open the door!” The authoritative account of St Thomas’s last words likewise says: “It is not right to turn the house of prayer, the church of Christ, into a fortress… we will triumph over the enemy not by fighting but by suffering, for we have come to suffer, not to resist… See I am ready to suffer in the name of Him who redeemed me with His blood.”

The martyr, therefore, is one who is ready to suffer for Christ and with Christ. For he is infused with the virtue of fortitude. After his death, St Thomas was found wearing a hair-shirt, and it was said that during his years of exile to the Cistercian monastery of Pontigny in France he lived a life that exceeded the austerity of the monks. This is unsurprising for one is prepared for the grace of martyrdom by acts of penance and self-discipline which fortifies the soul. So fortified in himself by these acts of devotion and prayer, St Thomas thus had the courage to say: “The church is not a fortress but the house of prayer.” 

So, if we wish, in our time, to defend the faith, to stand up for the Church, and to witness to Christ’s truth, then the Church puts before us today the example of St Thomas of Canterbury. We are called to pray, and to be ready to suffer for Christ. Victory belongs to Christ and has already been won, but we may not see this temporal triumph in our own lifetimes, nor in our own political and social struggles. Rather, Christ promises only that, if we are faithful in prayer and penance, that we will see the triumph of his grace in our lives; that he will give us heavenly gifts and virtues that will enable us to endure to the end. Strikingly, T.S. Eliot calls this the “easier victory”. Why? Because we have only to conquer our own selves. Granted, it is the hard work of a lifetime to conquer our fears, our sins, our pride, our disordered desires, and to submit in humility to the Cross. But nevertheless, this is the gentle yoke of grace, which Christ rightly says is a burden that is “easy and light”. 

However, why was St Thomas killed? What exactly did he die for? It’s often said that he died for the rights of the Church, and this is true. In 1164, King Henry II had put forward legal claims for the Crown that would have restricted the independence of the clergy, and weakened their connection with the Papacy. St Thomas resisted, and fled into Exile rather than submit to the king, and he threatened spiritual sanctions such as excommunication. 

Among the rights demanded by the king were disputes over land and taxes. However, there was also a claim by the king to the right to put clerics on trial for secular crimes. In our time, this issue remains lively and relevant. For the Church in England is currently being investigated by the State for historical crimes against minors and the vulnerable committed by her clerics, her priests. And this, I believe, is just. For St Thomas Becket did not die so that accused clerics could be protected from the Law, nor so that the Church could shield her priests from the temporal judgement and punishments that their crimes rightly deserve. Rather, St Thomas died for the independence of the Church so that she could stand up for the truth. The right of the Church, for which St Thomas and other martyrs of this land have died, therefore, is essentially this: the right to freely preach and proclaim the truth of the Gospel. 

Sadly, the suspicion – all too often confirmed – that members of the Church in this land, including high-ranking clerics, have hidden the truth of the crimes of certain clerics and religious, has hindered the preaching of the Gospel. It is now harder, because of a vainglorious concern to defend the “rights of the Church”, for us to be seen as preachers of the truth. I think this is because it had been forgotten that the only right we need as a Church is to be free to preach the truth, that is, free to witness to the person of Jesus Christ who is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (Jn 14:6) St Thomas of Canterbury knew this. Thus he embraced the suffering of the Cross; embraced his martyrdom for Christ; and so he died with Christ. We too, as a Church in England, need to know this. We need to turn to God in prayer and penance, and be prepared to suffer for Christ and with Christ as St Thomas had been ready. For, as our Lord said, only the truth will set us free (Jn 8:32). Our current situation, therefore, is a call by the Holy Spirit for the whole Church in these lands to be truthful, and to stand up once more for the truth, for the fullness of the Gospel. 

Happily, yesterday, I saw a sign of hope. A Bishop, in his own diocese of Portsmouth, spoke on the national radio (BBC 4) asking for forgiveness for “the wrongs committed in the past” against children and vulnerable adults. But he also proclaimed the Gospel of Life, and had the pastoral courage to ask: “How do we safeguard the most vulnerable creature of all: the unborn child in its mother’s womb – innocent, dependent, defenceless?” Something of the fortitude of St Thomas of Canterbury lives on! Therefore, may St Thomas intercede for us, and especially for the pastoral clergy in England and Wales, whose patron he is. 

[crapfutures]

Careless whispers

In a previous post we mentioned the story of the infamous conflict between King Henry II and Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 12th century England. It’s a familiar story of two powerful and egotistical men clashing over issues of status and pride. After a series of altercations over clerical privilege, Henry finally loses his temper; what he actually said to the assembled courtiers has been lost to history, but the most likely version comes from the biographer-monk Edward Grim, who recorded it as follows:

What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?

Whatever Henry said, four of his knights (Richard le Breton, Reginald FitzUrse, Hugh de Morville, and William de Tracy) interpreted the utterance as a royal command. They rode to the Normandy coast, took ship for England, and confronted the Archbishop. What happened next was described by the aptly named Grim, who was on the scene and actually wounded in the attack:

The wicked knight, fearing lest Becket should be rescued by the people and escape alive, leapt upon him suddenly and wounded this lamb who was sacrificed to God, cutting off the top of the crown which the sacred unction of the chrism had dedicated to God.

More terrible blows followed, and eventually the Archbishop succumbed. Was the king’s statement interpreted correctly? We’ll never know. But we can perhaps read parallels to our own time in the complex motivations and agendas that informed the knights’ collective decision to commit murder.

Another story, more recent. This one takes place in Dallas, Texas, where a six-year-old girl asked her family’s Amazon Echo: ‘Alexa, can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?’ Alexa promptly complied, ordering a $300 KidKraft Sparkle Mansion doll’s house from one of Amazon’s suppliers. She also ordered (for reasons known only to the internal logic of the system) nearly two kilograms of sugar cookies. The story doesn’t stop there: the following day, when a San Diego news programme reported the story, a number of Echos were roused by the wake word ‘Alexa’ coming from proximate television sets, and they in turn followed the command to also purchase dolls’ houses.

What inspired Alexa to order the biscuits? A flawed system or a very smart one?

In 560 BC, King Croesus of Lydia set a challenge to the world’s oracles to determine who provided the most accurate prophecies. His emissaries were sent to seven sites to ask the resident oracle what the king was doing at that precise moment. The winner was the Oracle of Delphi, who correctly reported that the king was making a lamb-and-tortoise stew.

Oracles were seen as conduits to the gods, speaking and giving advice on their behalf. Divination came in many other forms: augurers would follow the flight paths of birds (legend has it that the location of Rome was decided through this approach). Haruspices would read the entrails of sacrificed animals. Today, however, reading the future is much less exotic or gruesome, being mostly about data and statistics.

The next story starts back to front. A man walks into a Target outside Minneapolis and demands to see the manager. He’s got a handful of targeted coupons that had been sent to his teenage daughter, and he’s angry. ‘My daughter got this in the mail!’ he said. ‘She’s still in high school, and you’re sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?’ In fact the daughter actually is pregnant. Target knows it before the girl’s father, thanks to a hunch based on its analysis of online searches and product purchases - in this case a particular lotion often used by pregnant women in the second trimester.

One more story. In happier times for Facebook, the social media giant played a significant - if unevenly distributed and still debated - role in the Arab Spring by facilitating communication between protesters. The April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, for example, used Facebook to launch a successful call for protests in the aftermath of the Tunisian Revolution that preceded the spread of uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011-12. Events of the Arab Spring demonstrated that social networks provide a perfect mechanism through which to disseminate information broadly and quickly, as long as you have access to the internet.

So far this is a familiar and well-trodden tale; the more interesting story, however, happened when Arab states began to shut down internet access. Activists in Cairo found the solution in a different kind of social network - not screen-based, but via the city's taxi drivers. The activists realised that if they could direct conversations towards the planned anti-Mubarak gathering on 25 January 2011 in Tahrir Square, taxi drivers might spread the word and the protest would be a success. Initially, the activists tried to talk directly to drivers. 

But they soon discovered that due to the highly politicised nature of their subject, conversations would quickly turn into arguments rather than dissemination, and their objective would fail. The solution was found in exploiting the human tendency to gossip. Instead of engaging in direct conversation, the activists allowed the taxi drivers to overhear a mobile phone conversation where they would disclose the details of the protests. The taxi drivers eavesdropped, and believing they had overheard a gossip-worthy secret, they began to spread the message.

‘Technology is making gestures precise and brutal, and thereby human beings.’ - Adorno

In one of our very first posts, The Pleasures of Prediction, we described the daily experience at our local cafe - where the gestures of interaction were not always precise, sometimes brutal (depending on the mood of either ourselves or the people behind the counter), but mostly genial and surprisingly seamless. More recently, our colleague was telling us how his landlady keeps track of the number of bottles of alcohol he consumes each week by counting his recycling - a sort of small island version of a fitness tracker like the Fitbit. ‘She’s not judgemental’, he said. ‘Well … not really.’ Of course surveillance and tracking - mediating, amplifying, interpreting - have always been present in society; in the past they were just more social, or at least more analogue.

These examples raise some big questions, such as: Would you rather be monitored by a human being or a machine? If machine, why? Why don’t we trust humans? For that matter, why don’t we trust ourselves? How have we been shown to be untrustworthy and unable to control our own self-destructive or anti-social impulses? For the past two years we have been collecting stories that relate to the interpretation of information - tracing the shift from human beings to technological mediation as translator and interpreter; who is making important decisions, on whose behalf, and why.

There is certainly precision and brutality in Cambridge Analytica’s use of Facebook data for micro-targeting and psychological profiling. Likewise Amazon Echo, a data-based Trojan horse mediating our personal lives in increasingly precise but also brutal ways. There is a tendency to understand and evaluate technology according to old-fashioned notions of progress: faster, easier, more efficient and so on. But digitisation, the data that it creates, and the vast networks of dissemination also facilitate the augmenting of darker aspects of human behaviour, targeting our deepest vulnerabilities. How we examine the implications, embrace the ethics, and understand the complexity of these systems are some of the fundamental challenges we face.

Real Prediction Machines

Shortly before the Echo appeared on the market in 2014, Real Prediction Machines addressed many of the issues Amazon’s new device (and others like it) would raise. The speculative project was developed by James Auger in collaboration with designer Jimmy Loizeau, artist Alan Murray, and Edinburgh University data scientist Ram Ramamoorthy, who at the time was developing predictive modelling systems combined with machine learning to predict when professional athletes might sustain an injury through overtraining.

James, Jimmy and Alan began by asking Ram what kind of other things might be predictable through such techniques, such as ‘Will my child become a professional football player’, ‘Will Labour win the next general election’, and ‘Will I suffer a heart attack?’ The words inside the circles of the Bayesian network diagram represent potential variables. In relation to a heart attack they could correspond to something like diet or exercise, the data coming from a supermarket loyalty card, or the accelerometer in your smartphone. Or more finite information such as family history, for example data coming from a genetic testing service like 23andMe.

These variables combine to create a live and ongoing feed into the predictive algorithm. The heart attack example seemed a little too banal due to its obvious connection to wellbeing and the huge growth of data and tracking methods, so the group suggested another question to Ram: Will I have a domestic argument?

The Bayesian network shown above looks similar to the earlier one, but in this instance a microphone was added for live sound input (anticipating the omnipresent Echo). Using machine learning, the system would become better at predicting arguments through the statistical analysis of keywords, tone, and frequency - identifying particular subjects that a couple might commonly fight about.

The output was translated into an object - not an app but something more symbolic, sympathetic. They settled on an ambient device sitting in the background, providing information when you might need it. 

The device essentially has three states:

Clockwise means that the argument is moving into the future;

Anti-clockwise means that the argument is approaching, and the slower the rotation the more imminent it is;

When the rotating stops, the argument starts.

Projects like Real Prediction Machines work when it is not completely clear whether the idea is a ‘good’ one or not. Is it too invasive? Is it genuinely helpful? This is how we should think about all potential technologies, but we rarely do.

What happens next? How far away are we from Alexa ordering not biscuits, but a councillor? How much control will we have in the future, and how much do we want to have?

Images:

All diagrams by James Auger; photo of Real Prediction Machines by Sophie Mutevelian.

[newstfionline]

They Canned the Chaplain

Gail Collins, NY Times, April 27, 2018

For the first time in history, the chaplain of the House of Representatives has been fired.

We do not normally spend a heck of a lot of time dwelling on the House chaplain, since his (or theoretically, her) job is just to give an opening-of-the-session prayer and provide private counseling to members and the House staff.

Now, Patrick Conroy, the Jesuit priest who’s been chaplain for nearly seven years, is on his way out. A lot of people are shocked. “Washington can be a very mean place,” said Trump on Friday. “A nasty place.”

Actually, the president was not talking about Conroy, but Ronny Jackson, his own doomed nominee for the job of running the Veterans Affairs Department. The two career catastrophes would be similar only if Conroy had been appointed despite a lack of experience in praying.

So this time the leading man is House Speaker Paul Ryan. Conroy told The Times’s Elizabeth Dias that he recently got a message from Ryan, requesting his resignation, with no reason given. His last day is May 24.

One possible spark for Ryan’s wrath is an interview Conroy gave recently in which he was quoted as saying that many people who get elected to Congress “don’t know how to say hello in the hallway” let alone work well with a staff. Perhaps the article will be followed up with a second interview on lawmakers’ ability to take criticism.

Otherwise, the best explanation anyone has come up with is that the priest was being punished for a prayer he gave last November, at the opening of a debate on the Republican tax bill. Conroy asked the Almighty to make sure that the members’ efforts “guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.”

Clearly a hostile act.

“Invoking fairness if you’re a chaplain is apparently a firing offense,” said Representative Gerald Connolly, a Virginia Democrat who’s been leading a pro-Conroy rebellion.

Actually, the idea that Conroy was being fired for asking God for a fair tax bill is one of the more palatable explanations for Ryan’s behavior. A popular alternative is that some non-Catholic lawmakers were just getting tired of having a priest in the job.

Representative Mark Walker, a conservative Republican who is co-chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, stirred up a squall when he suggested the next chaplain should be a family man, with a wife and “adult children.” Clearly, that’s going to eliminate any new Jesuits. (Asked for comment, Walker’s office said he was “not excluding any faith or denomination.”)

House members staged a very short uprising on Friday, with a passel of Democrats and a couple of Republicans calling for an investigation. Those of you who are aware of the way the House of Representatives functions will not be stunned to hear that the motion was rather quickly snuffed out by a mostly party-line vote.

Representative Connolly is now going around quoting Henry II, who, legend tells us, asked “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” just before some of his loyal soldiers ran off and murdered the politically difficult archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. Henry II is possibly the most often cited man in Washington these days--James Comey said that line was just what he thought of when Donald Trump asked him to do something about that irritating Michael Flynn investigation.

It cannot possibly be a good sign that an ancient invitation to homicide is coming up so frequently. But you have to admit this time the quote works pretty well, what with the actual priest and all.

Ryan, who’s been vague about his motives, apparently did complain about the tax prayer. (Conroy says he told him, “Padre, you just got to stay out of politics.”) But that was last year. Why do you think this is all happening now, when the 115th Congress is nearly over?

Possibly there’s a growing Republican hysteria around that tax bill. They were so proud of it, and it’s virtually the only thing Republicans have accomplished. Now, they’re going back to their districts to run for re-election and discovering that most voters are unenthralled.

So getting rid of Conroy might have been an exercise in pique. Otherwise, the timing is a mystery. Ryan himself is leaving Congress at the end of the year. When he announced his retirement, some malcontents muttered that he ought to step down from the speaker’s job now and give someone else a turn. No way. “I intend to run through the tape, to finish the year,” said the man who loves everything about physical fitness, including metaphors.

“Paul Ryan’s giving himself that luxury,” said Connolly. “Why wouldn’t you give it to the chaplain?”

Perhaps Ryan has simply been driven crazy trying to deal with the Trump White House, the president’s strange, unsettling behavior and his endlessly contradictory comments. Maybe he just felt a need to act out.

Let’s go with that explanation. It makes as much sense as anything, and we can pin Chaplaingate on you-know-who.

[renissanceandreformationblr-blog]

This man is Thomas Becket, aka Saint Thomas of Canterbury a man who is the archbishop in Canterbury during the 1100 Century. This man is interesting because he was named a martyr when he was killed for his actions of excommunication in Canterbury. His death was controversial because it is difficult to know whether or not he was killed by order or misunderstanding by King Henry II’s men. it is interesting to talk about his man because he was against much of what Henry II was doing and did not agree with much of it. He would commonly deny Henry II an audience and went so far as to take asylum in France due to Crimes Henry II accused him of. 

The king and Thomas were once friends and had fight in battle together as a young prince and cleric in campaigns against France. It is interesting to see how they had fell out with one another when Thomas was brought to be the archbishop. Thomas strives for a free church away from politics, however it would lead to disaster when he was put on trial for murder. He would be tried in a religious court and acquitted of his crimes, then the King tried to accuse him of murder making Thomas go to France for asylum. When Thomas excommunicated a prince who was crowned in Canterbury against the rules of Canterbury, the king spoke about Thomas causing him to inevitably die. King Henry II could have demanded his death, or his guards misinterpreted the words to mean death. Either way, his guards wen to Thomas and beat and killed him by stabbing him in the head. This is why he has a depiction of a sword in his head  in this stained glass example of Thomas. 

[bluemoon21-blog]

Winners and Losers from James Comey’s testimony

In the highest-profile Congressional testimony in decades, fired FBI Director James Comey spent nearly three hours detailing his interactions with President Donald Trump — a forced and awkward relationship defined, according to Comey, by a series of lies told about him by Trump.

In the highest-profile Congressional testimony in decades, fired FBI Director James Comey spent nearly three hours detailing his interactions with President Donald Trump — a forced and awkward relationship defined, according to Comey, by a series of lies told about him by Trump.

We live-blogged the whole thing here. And I wrote some analysis of the debate over whether Trump is a liar, as Comey said, here. But I also jotted down a bunch of notes about the good, the bad and the just plain strange — John McCain, I am looking directly at you — from Comey’s testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

My best and worst are below.

WINNERS

* James Comey: You could tell the former FBI director had done this before and had prepared relentlessly for today’s hearing. He was relaxed — or as relaxed as you can be in a setting like this one — and low-key. He was the textbook “Just the facts, Ma’am” G-man that we’re used to seeing in the movies. He seemed entirely ready for all the questions thrown at him. And while he made Trump’s life — and Republicans’ by extension — much more difficult, he also gave Republicans something to seize on with his description of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s insistence that he call the Clinton email investigation a “matter.” (More on that below.). If you hated Comey heading into this hearing, you left it feeling that way. But, for people more on the fence about him — and his role both in the 2016 election and after it — Comey did himself some good. Or at least he didn’t do himself any damage.

* Richard Burr/Mark Warner: Bipartisanship is a very hard thing to come by these days in Washington (or anywhere). But, Burr, the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee and Warner, the Democratic vice chair, ran a hearing that was the epitome of what people want from their government: Good, hard questions from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to a former public official. Listening to their opening statements, closing statements and the questions they asked in between, you’d be hard-pressed to know which one of Burr and Warner was a Republican and which was a Democrat. Plus, as a bonus for people like me who have to write on all this stuff, the hearing started on time and ended early!

* Angus King: The Maine Senator isn’t all that well-known to people outside of his home state, where he spent eight years as governor before coming to Washington in 2013. This hearing should change that. King was the single best questioner of Comey in either party — he’s an independent who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate — as he repeatedly elicited substantive and informative answers on the former FBI director’s meetings with Trump as well as, by my count, three times Comey claimed Trump didn’t tell the truth about them.

* Daniel Richman: Comey said that, upon hearing of Trump’s tweet that recordings might exist of their conversations, he reached out to a longtime friend at Columbia Law School to make sure that some of the notes of his conversations with Trump leaked out — and, Comey hoped, triggered the appointment of a special counsel. That Columbia Law professor? Daniel Richman. And, yes, of course, the Columbia Law School website collapsed almost as soon as Comey mentioned it. Congrats, Daniel Richman! You are officially the most famous law professor in the country! (For today, at least.)

* “No fuzz”: Before today, I had never, ever heard this phrase before. But it’s clearly one of Comey’s favorites, as he used it at least twice as he sought to make sure a point was very clear. I typed “no fuzz” into Google. It’s apparently not a terribly common phrase but it is a band!

* Thomas Becket: Comey and Angus King found common ground on a famous quote from Henry II about Becket, who was then the Archbishop of Canterbury: “Will no one rid of me of this turbulent priest?” Becket was murdered by Henry’s men soon after. (Comey was comparing that situation to Trump’s “hope” that the FBI director could find a way to drop the investigation into fired national security director Michael Flynn.) Of course, Becket wound up dead so maybe he’s not a “winner” in the traditional sense. But he was later venerated as a Saint, so he’s got that going for him.

LOSERS

* Donald Trump: The good news for Trump? Legally speaking it may be tough to prove obstruction of justice because, as several Republican senators noted during Comey’s testimony, saying you “hope” an investigation gets dropped and actually telling the FBI director to drop the investigation aren’t the same thing. But, that’s about it in terms of good news. Comey repeatedly cast Trump as a liar, insisting that a number of claims made by the President about their interactions were totally false. He also said, with no equivocation, that Trump saying he hoped Comey could find a way to end the Flynn investigation amounted to a “directive” from the President of the United States. There was no smoking gun here. But, if this investigation ultimately comes down to Comey’s word versus Trump’s, the FBI director helped his credibility on Thursday — meaning that Trump’s took a hit.

* Jeff Sessions: It’s been a rough week for the Attorney General. First came the stories that he had fallen out of favor with Trump and even offered to quit unless the President allowed him to do his job. Then came Comey’s testimony. The former FBI director made clear that in the February 14 meeting in which Trump asked everyone to leave him alone with Comey, Sessions knew he probably shouldn’t have left — and seemed to linger. Then there is Comey’s recounting that when he told Sessions that Trump had to stop contacting him, the AG said nothing. (Comey, when pressed, suggested that Sessions may have made a “what can I do?” shrug.) None of that makes Sessions look great. Or even good.

* Loretta Lynch: Not a good day for attorneys general! Comey said that during the 2016 campaign that Lynch, who was at that point the Attorney General, asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a “matter” when speaking about it publicly. Comey added that he was aware that “matter” was the same way that the Clinton campaign was explaining the situation and that fact concerned him. Uh, yeah.

* John McCain: What. Was. That. McCain’s line of questioning — why had Comey closed the investigation into Clinton’s email server but not Russia’s meddling in the election (I think) — would have been odd no matter when it happened. But that McCain went last made it all the worse/stranger. I’ve read the transcript of his back-and-forth with Comey three times and I still don’t get what he was driving at.

Source: Winners and Losers from James Comey’s testimony – CNNPolitics.com

from Winners and Losers from James Comey’s testimony

[pamphletstoinspire]

Children's Religious Stories - The Saints - Part 29

Story with image:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/childrens-religious-stories-saints-part-29-harold-baines/?published=t

ST THOMAS OF CANTERBURY

HENRY II became King of England when he was only twenty-one, so he chose the cleverest man in the kingdom to help him rule wisely. This man was named Thomas Becket. He was fifteen years older than the King, and he was glad to be able to help Henry to rule the land well. They became very great friends, and were always together. At that time there were many strong nobles who tried to take no notice of the King's law, but held little law-courts of their own, and Henry and Thomas were determined that this should stop. Everyone, they said, must come under the royal justice. When the Archbishop of Canterbury died Henry decided to make Thomas Archbishop in his place.

"No, no," said Thomas. "You must not do that."

"Why?" asked Henry. "You are my closest friend, and you will be able to bring the Church courts under the King's law. We have built up the law in this land — you and I. At the King's Courts men can have justice and safety once more. My judges cannot be frightened by force or bribed by gold. There is only one kind of court left which makes its own laws — the Church court. If I make you Archbishop you can see that that too obeys the King."

"No," said Thomas. "If you make me Archbishop my first duty will be to the Church. And that will be the end of our friendship."

But the King did not believe him. He was sure that Thomas would really do as he wanted, and he made him Archbishop, in spite of all his protests.

As soon as Thomas was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury he became a different man. Instead of living a gay, extravagant life, he became quiet and humble. Instead of wearing rich clothes and jewels, he dressed like a monk and wore a hair-shirt next to his skin. Instead of giving the great feasts he once did, he lived on so little food that he might have been a hermit. And instead of helping the King to do away with the Church courts, he did what he had warned Henry he would do — upheld the Church in every way he could.

The Church courts were never allowed to condemn anyone to death, though if any cleric had committed some dreadful crime, such as murder, he could be turned out of the Church, and then the ordinary law-courts could try him. Henry wanted clerics to have to appear in the ordinary courts in the first place, but the Church said that priests and other people in orders ought to be tried by Church people and not by lay people. The Church, because it was specially founded by God, was more important than the State, and it was wrong of the King to try to put the State over it.

When Henry found that Thomas was against him he broke out into a terrible rage. He said he was ungrateful, because everything he had he owed to the King.

"Are you not the son of one of my poor subjects?" he asked.

"Certainly I am poorly born," answered Thomas. "I have no royal blood. But neither had St Peter, who was a fisherman, and to him our Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the headship of the whole Church."

"True," said the King. "But he died for his Lord."

"And I," said the Archbishop, "will die for my Lord when the time comes."

It was some years before that time came. Many people tried to make Henry and Thomas friends again, but it was always impossible, because the only thing the King wanted was that the Archbishop should give way on the matter of the Church courts; and that was the one thing he would not do. When it was time for Henry's eldest son to be crowned to reign with his father — as was the custom in those days — the one person who should have put the crown on his head was the Archbishop of Canterbury. But Thomas was not in England, and thereupon, instead of waiting for him to come, the Archbishop of York and some other bishops performed the ceremony. When Thomas heard of it he excommunicated them — that is to say, he said they were no longer to be members of the Church.

The Archbishop of York, who was a particular enemy of Thomas's, complained to the King, "My lord, as long as Thomas lives, we shall have no peace or quiet."

Then the King broke out in one of his crazy rages. "Why am I troubled with this? Why cannot my servants deal with this turbulent priest? This fellow I loaded with benefits dares insult the King and the whole kingdom. What cowards have I in my Court who care nothing for the duty they owe me? Will no one deliver me from this low-born priest?"

There were four ruffians standing by as the King said this, and they determined to do a deed which they thought would bring them much money and thanks from Henry. On the afternoon of December 29, 11705 they called on the Archbishop in his palace at Canterbury, and threatened to kill him if he did not do as the King wished. They gave him a few hours to think it over, and said they would come back again at sunset.

"I shall be here," said Thomas.

The monks of Canterbury, who had found out what had happened, implored the Archbishop to fly to safety, but he would not. They asked him at least to go into the Cathedral, thinking that even the wicked knights would not dare to attack him there. And, as he would not do that either, they got hold of him by force, and in spite of his resistance they pulled, dragged, and pushed him, taking no notice of his orders to let him go, until they got him into the sacred building. They asked him to allow the doors to be bolted.

"It is not right to turn God's House into a fortress," said Thomas.

"But, Father, look ! There are four soldiers there with drawn swords." "God will protect His own," said Thomas. "We shall win by suffering rather than by fighting."

Then suddenly out of the shadows of the Cathedral came the voice of one of the knights, "Where is Thomas, traitor to the King?"

"I am here," answered Thomas, "a priest of God." "For the last time, in the King's name, we order you to obey the King," shouted another of the knights. "I cannot obey the King in things which he has no right to ask. But I am ready to die," answered Thomas, "that with my blood the Church may obtain liberty and peace. But, in the name of Almighty God, I forbid you to hurt my people."

Then the four knights advanced to where he stood and murdered him there in his own Cathedral.

So St Thomas of Canterbury died, and, in dying, he won what he had been struggling for; for the King, horrified by the news, not only stopped all his attacks on the Church and the Church courts, but, so that the whole world might know how sorry he was, he allowed himself to be scourged at Thomas's tomb.