Inspector of Nuisances

Taking deep breath. Just coming up for air after a plunge down the rabbit hole discovered by googling “quiet enjoyment”.  English common law, “hundreds”

Image result for Inspector of Nuisances
An inspector of nuisances. Nice beard! 

and Wapentake, frankpledge, court leet, and, among a dozen more fascinating tidbits, the inspector of nuisances.

The issue that triggered my research is this: the idea that people have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their lives. English common law recognized that right, breaking it into two parts: common, where some activity or failure to act impairs the ability of the people in general to quietly enjoy their lives in public, and private, where some private persons are deprived of the quiet enjoyment of something, such as leased property, to which they have specific, privately contracted rights.

Thus, the office of Inspector of Nuisances. Somebody has got to check out claims that, for example, somebody is making too much of a racket in the commons or that the neighbors are burning trash upwind.

Inspectors of nuisances eventually became public health inspectors, charged with dealing with sewage and slums and trash. Wonder if this delightfully named office could be resurrected and repurposed to deal with the messes people make when they dump their personal garbage on the intellectual and moral landscape?

Image result for inspector of nuisances
Evidently, problems with cat ladies can be a nuisance, and go way back. The guy on the left looks like a bobby, so I’m guessing guy on the right is the Inspector of Nuisances. 

That the modern intellectual and moral landscape more and more is a dump and open sewer only becomes an issue for our newly-commissioned Inspector of Nuisances if it infringes on our quiet enjoyment. While it is still conceivable that a private person might simply ignore what goes on in public, never opening a browser or newspaper or turning on a TV, the situation is such that that they’d need to shield their eyes whenever out and about. If one were generous and dedicated enough, that might work, for now.

But, we are told, politics is everything. Part of the dumpster fire we’d be attempting to ignore is the claim that we can’t ignore it, that there’s no such thing as a private life. Thus, even if we were determined to not let the garbage into our private lives, there are demonstrably those unwilling to let us do so, that even our claim to have a private life is wrong and must be crushed.

Examples: Private businesses are now subject to the rules of modern intolerance; social media are increasingly censored for politically unacceptable speech; schools are used (as designed) for inculcation of the latest, most modern ideas, and attempts to free our kids from this outrage are treated as practically treason, which, under the rules of the champions of  education, they are.

(This gets back to the problem of toleration discussed briefly in the last post – a ‘consensus’ that includes the idea that the state always knows better than the parents cannot tolerate dissention, while the old pseudo-convention could. The Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters agreed that, while parents have the ultimate duty and consequent right to educate their own children, the state also has a duty and right to see to it that those children are educated. I fear it is not in the nature of things for the state to settle for having shared rights whenever it could have sole rights.)

If my business, my conversations and my decisions on how to educate my children are not private, the sphere of ‘private’ has shrunk drastically.

Chesterton repeatedly makes the point that the only place one can truly be free is with family and friends. In public, you are only free to conform. Even protests are conventional. By trying to make all things political, victims of post-modern ideas insist on public and private (because those are the same thing!) acceptance of those ideas. The very idea of quiet enjoyment, where what I do is my own business for my own pleasure but only on the condition that I honor the same rights in others, is an outrage, and in any event cannot be tolerated – it is a threat to the whole post-modern house of cards.

Advertisements

Author: Joseph Moore

Enough with the smarty-pants Dante quote. Just some opinionated blogger dude.

6 thoughts on “Inspector of Nuisances”

  1. Here in the U.S., only the Lutheran Church was willing to speak up for the claim that marriage is between men and women, such that homosexual arrangements are not marriage.

    The current Pope is proving faithless in this regard. And God help all the various “evangelical” denominations attempting to square the gay-positive, pro-feminism circle.

    Why, it’s almost as if a rigorous catechism, based on the notion that, when in doubt, God’s word is the sole and final answer, acted as a corrective to worldly folly and human willfulness.

    Who knew?

    Sola fides
    Sola gratia
    Sola Christus
    Sola scriptura
    Sola Dei gloria

    ’nuff said.

    1. My first reply to this seems to have gotten eaten by WordPress. Perhaps it was for the best, but this claim is too audaciously absurd for me to leave unchallenged in friendly territory. We’ll see if this one makes it through.

      1) What is the Lutheran church? Does it include the ELCA, which not half a decade ago ordained an openly practicing sodomite? Or are they not “real” Lutherans? If they don’t count as Lutherans, then why should other bodies have to account for their own treacherous nominal members? More to the point, the ELCA or AALC might with some truth be said to do or be willing to do something, but the “Lutheran church” is not one body at all: it is a collection of divided entities who share certain doctrines, traditions, practices, some fell0w-feeling, aesthetics, and even blood, but nonetheless remain autonomous and not accountable to each other, with no unified will or direction except by the occasional coincidence.

      2) Not only the Catholic Church, but even many non-Lutheran protestant groups have explicitly and repeatedly rejected the possibility of a homosexual “marriage.” As far as I know the PCUSA are the only Presbyterians which don’t deny it, the Southern Baptist Convention has come out pretty strongly against it, the Pentecostals are by and large fairly solid on the subject, and so on. Many members of all these bodies, often in positions of great authority, have spoken up in defense of the truth. The claim that the “Lutheran church”alone takes the right position here is laughable on its face, even if this body were satisfactorily defined and it were established that she did in fact take this position.

      3) If we look beyond these United States (not like the Pope is American, after all), while Papa Frank may regretfully revel in ambiguity, at least he has not, like practically every decent sized Lutheran faction in Europe, explicitly approved of sodomitical “marriage.”

      4) While solid catechesis certainly helps, that Lutheran catechisms are based solely on God’s word is far from obvious. And I have not seen anything to indicate Lutheran catechesis is on the whole particularly well done or more rigorous than the usual.

      1. #1. ELCA is the Lutheran Church much as the Unitarian church is Christian. Just because someone calls himself “Antifa” doesn’t he is not a brownshirt. I don’t hold the Catholic Church accountable for the liberation theology, any more than I do for the nun who went through the printed liturgy at a student mass (~1990) crossing out all the “he” and “him” and replacing them with gender neutral language until my best friend, a Catholic, had to point out, “Sister, Jesus was actually a man, you can use “he” when you sing about him.”

        So, no, let’s not go down that road, shall we?

        #2. Dr. Harrison, our LCMS president, publically, and without quibbling, immediately responded to the SCoTUS ruling on “gay marriage” unequivocally holding fast to Biblical teaching. Frankly, other denominations, including the Catholic church have been weak sauce on this one, preferring to play footsie with worldly powers and going for plausible deniability.

        #3 Thanks to Martin Luther, we Lutherans have the “solae” whereby to reject the worldly church leaders in Europe. The state Lutheran churches are as Lutheran as the Red Chinese Catholic church is Catholic. See #1

        #4 When the Pastor sings, “we give thanks unto the Lord,” and we reply “It is meet, right, and salutary so to do.” I know why this is true. Not only from three years of catechism class, sitting an exam on the subject, but also from being grilled on other elements of the liturgy, the sacraments, the articles of Faith, the commandments, etc. by the Elders of the church.

        We may’ve been the hammer used to break the Church, may He forgive us, but the one thing we get right is knowing what we believe, and why.

  2. I see what you did here. You somehow recognized, from half a continent away, that I have been truly missing Dr. Boli and his fanciful and humorous (but always serious, if you know what I mean) essays. Thank you, that was interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s