top of page

Friends of Give to Give

Public·10 members

Conscience Hasty


This digital exhibit was created by Jason Hasty, UGA Athletics History Specialist for the Hargrett Rare Book & Manuscript Library. All graphic design for this digital exhibit was created by Elizabeth Harwood, a current undergraduate student in the Lamar Dodd School of Art majoring in Graphic Design. All questions or comments about this digital exhibit can be directed to Jason Hasty at hasty@uga.edu.




Conscience Hasty



Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness andglory of a representative to live in the strictest union, theclosest correspondence, and the most unreserved communicationwith his constituents. Their wishes ought to havegreat weight with him; their opinion, high respect; theirbusiness, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice hisrepose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and aboveall, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to hisown. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, hisenlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, toany man, or to any set of men living. These he does notderive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and theconstitution. They are a trust from Providence, for theabuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representativeowes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; andhe betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to youropinion.


To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that ofconstituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which arepresentative ought always to rejoice to hear; and whichhe ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritativeinstructions; mandates issued, which the member isbound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to arguefor, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgmentand conscience,--these are things utterly unknownto the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamentalmistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.


Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from differentand hostile interests; which interests each must maintain,as an agent and advocate, against other agents andadvocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of onenation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not localpurposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but thegeneral good, resulting from the general reason of thewhole. You choose a member indeed; but when you havechosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a memberof parliament. If the local constituent should have aninterest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently oppositeto the real good of the rest of the community, themember for that place ought to be as far, as any other,from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon forsaying so much on this subject. I have been unwillinglydrawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful franknessof communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devotedservant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flattereryou do not wish for.


I have before me a little-known letter of Maurice Blondel dealing with the subject of obedience. He addressed it, on July 7, 1902, to a priest who found himself opposed to certain acts of the Roman authority. Reading between the lines of his letter, I can guess the priest's objections: "For obedience to be worthy of a man and of a Christian, it must not be merely 'external'; he should be able to endorse freely in conscience the reasons underlying the command".


Duty, even when it is an expression of our deep-seated will, is always in opposition to our hasty will. Herein lies the mystery of action: there is no true freedom without this death to oneself. This is true in every moral context; it applies to a member of the faithful in his Church. From the minute when he freely and in conscience recognises that he lawfully owes submission to Christ and to the Church, he cannot insist that every prescription should conform to his own wishes. Even more than this, dear Father, I would go so far as to say: For the action of authority to have a beneficial and sanctifying effect upon our soul, it must necessarily be burdensome and sometimes painful".


Having had the good fortune to know of this letter, when I later read the text of Paul VI on obedience, I see the close connection between two trains of thought, separated by a distance of sixty years. There is a great deal of talk about "conscience" and "freedom". I am willing to admit that the attitude of conscience changes according as to whether one is outside the Church or is a member of the Church. Outside the Church, we have at our disposal only our reasoning power, our information, and our freedom. Conscience is the only judge. But if we once accept that the Church is of divine origin, then conscience accepts a subordinate role; it becomes like the eye which must be impregnated with light in order to see. You will ask me: But what happens if my conscience no longer accepts the authority? I reply: If it can't be helped, then take the consequences. But reflect that no society, however trifling it may be, (even a card party!) can continue to exist if those who have accepted the rules publicly oppose them when they no longer follow them.


Besides, Blondel was right. I knew him as I knew my priests, those fine religious, Pouget, Legrange, Postal. In silence they suffered and obeyed. They taught that true freedom, the kind that demands the most from conscience, the kind that complies with our everlasting duty, has another name: "Self-denial".


Sagessa greets Link when he speaks to her, as many travelers do not pass through the area.[6] Sagessa says it is sometimes easy to forget the world almost ended during the Great Calamity because of how peaceful it can be.[7] Despite this, she notes that monsters still tend to wander around, and that the area near Hyrule Castle is especially dangerous.[7] Sagessa tells Link that if he is going to be traveling he should know about Elixirs.[7] If Link he explains that an Elixir can be made by cooking Bugs and other small creatures with Monster Parts.[8] She notes that while most Elixirs do not restore health, they can still have different effects, like increasing speed or raising resistance to extreme Temperatures.[8] Impressed that Link has made it so far without knowledge of Elixirs, Sagessa gives him a Hasty Elixir in case something happens to him, in order to ease her conscience.[8] Since Hasty Elixirs increase running speed, Sagessa says she uses them to escape from monsters or when she needs to hurry.[9] The Recipe is simple, so she usually has a rough stock of 10 on hand.[9] If Link states that he already knows all about Elixirs while Sagessa is standing near the pond, she'll be surprised that he's leaving so soon and decides to spend her time admiring the Ancient Shrine.[10] If Link tells her this during the day, she'll point out how only twins seem to run the Stable, and how this fact unnerves her.[11] If spoken to again, Sagessa will repeat her information of Elixirs, but will not give Link another one.[12] While walking between places at the Stable, Sagessa will complain about how hungry she is.[13]


world gives up a lamentable portion of its time tofleeting literature; authors who might be occupied upon great works fritter away their lives in producing endless hasty sketches. kind, wise, and good Doctor Arnold deplored the fatal sympathy which the "Pickwick Papers" had created among the boys of his school; and it is a fact that Punch is as regularly read among the boys at Eton as the Latin Grammar.


Laying on his praise for Arnold rather too lavishly, Thackeray-as-Titmarsh echoes the strategies the Broad Churchman's had used in his religious writing by appealings to Protestant liberty of conscience:


Freedom of religious belief and behavior The editorial "America's Crown Jewel," July 19, raises an interesting point: The Constitution not only creates the framework for democratic self-government and protects political and economic liberty, but also, through the First Amendment, protects freedom of conscience and expression of ideas. But I believe it goes further than this mental realm. Religion, one of the freedoms mentioned, is often misunderstood to be primarily concerned with ideas, but in fact religion is entwined much more deeply with all facets of behavior - not just those by which we seek to express some idea or those which reflect some particular point of conscience, but all aspects of how we live. This freedom of behavior, which goes far beyond mere freedom of political speech, is vitally important to our perception of liberty and our sense of well-being. It is protected implicitly under the "freedom of religion," as well as under the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment. Rick Wicks, Washington


Government's regulation of religion Regarding the opinion-page column "Religious Conservatives Misjudged Court," July 18: I have to agree with the author's premise that religious conservatives - ironically - support government regulation (read "domination") of religious matters. But unlike the author I wouldn't draw too many hasty conclusions. As a lawyer and former Mormon missionary, I've seen the legal system turn on itself. In 1890, for example, the government hounded Mormons into abandoning polygamy, placing their prophet in the untenable position of being compelled to reassure Congress under oath in 1904 that no new polygamous marriages had been authorized, even though they had. Times change, though. The Utah Supreme Court, always a conservative body, recently held that practicing polygamy does not make a family ineligible to adopt children. The decision was applauded by none other than the American Civil Liberties Union. As my mother used to counsel me, never assume anything but a 2 percent mortgage. Michael J. Barrett, Sterling, Va.


As a law severely restricting freedom of religion and belief awaits Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbaev's signature, Justice Ministry officials attacked local human rights groups for criticising the Law, accusing them of "openly lying." Denying that the Law will impose restrictions, Ministry officials claimed that "benevolent conditions" have been created for religious communities. The Law has been condemned by many religious leaders, such as Protestant leaders and Murat Telibekov of the Union of Muslims. Fr Vsevolod Chaplin of the Moscow Patriarchate pointed out to Forum 18 News Service that, under the proposed Law, "if a young person is walking past and goes into a mosque during prayers, the imam could be arrested." Fr Chaplin pointed out that he was himself a believer at the age of 13, against the wishes of his parents, which would be forbidden by the Law. Pope Benedict XVI has made an apparent oblique criticism of Kazakh policy. In a personal letter, he wrote to the Kazakh Ambassador to the Holy See that "it is incumbent upon the State to guarantee full religious freedom, but it also has the duty of learning to respect what is religious, avoiding interference in matters of faith and the conscience of the citizen." 041b061a72


About

A giving circle in support of a mission committed to helpin...
bottom of page