Pages

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Why not Galileo Day?


Portrait of Galileo by Justus Sustermans
The other day we rightfully celebrated the anniversary of the births Abraham Lincoln as well as Charles Darwin, both born on February 12, 1809. As America’s greatest statesman, Lincoln led the fight to maintain the Union and freed nearly four million slaves; while Darwin, grandson of famed enlightenment thinker Erasmus Darwin, became the world famous evolutionary theorist, naturalist, geologist, biologist, and author of (among others) On the Origins of Species, and one of the great thinkers of the 19th century.

The celebration of these two giants both born on the same day in 1809, oftentimes overshadows by only a few days the birth of yet another of the great minds in our shared human history, Galileo Galilei, born in Pisa, Italy on today’s date in 1564 (d. January 8, 1642).

Equally considered the father of modern astronomy, the father of modern physics, and the father of modern science, Galileo taught mathematics, geometry, and astronomy. His work included observing how the swing of a pendulum does not depend on the arc (the isochronism) which led to the development of the pendulum clock. Galileo questioned the Aristotelian approach to physics and the belief that heavier objects fall faster through a medium than lighter ones and proved that all objects regardless of their density, fall at the same rate in a vacuum (his findings were published many years after his death in his book, De Motu or On Motion). Galileo invented the pump, the hydrostatic balance, the thermoscope, a precursor to the thermometer, and most famous of all, in 1609 he invented the telescope, using it to prove the Copernican theory—the idea that the earth and planets revolved around the sun, as opposed to the Ptolemaic geocentric (and Biblical) idea which held that the sun revolved around the earth. In 1610, Galileo published Starry Messenger (Sidereus Nuncius) and described observations he had made with his telescope including discovering four moons of Jupiter.

For years Galileo had written in support of the Copernican theory and how the earth revolved around the sun. Indeed, as early as 1616 the Catholic Church had warned Galileo to, "abandon completely the…opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would start proceedings against him.”
Dialogue Concerning
Two Chief World Systems
 
As is often the case with genius, Galileo remained steadfast and ignored Church admonition to "be silent" and on February 22, 1632, published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. As the titled implied, Galileo's work took the form of a dialogue or discussion surrounding the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems. Galileo began his famous by telling the reader that: “since bitter death has deprived Venice and Florence [Ptolemy and Copernicus] of those two great luminaries in the very meridian of their years, I have resolved to make their fame live on in these pages, so far as my poor abilities will permit, by introducing them as interlocutors in the present argument.” 

Within his book Galileo presented three characters:

  • Salviati, a proponent of the Copernican theory who postulated the idea that (among other things) the earth revolved around the Sun and Galileo described as possessing “…a sublime intellect which fed no more hungrily upon any pleasure than it did upon fine meditations;"
  • Simplicio (oftentimes thought of as a simpleton) who supported Ptolemaic model which held that the earth was fixed within the universe, did not move, and that sun and all heavenly bodies revolved around it; and finally,
  • Sagredo, “…a man of noble extraction and trenchant wit,” who represents an honest broker striving to hearing all sides."

Having published his book, Galileo was charged "...for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world and motionless and the earth moves even with diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for being in correspondence with some German mathematicians about it; for having published some letters entitiled On Sunspots, in which you explained the same doctrine as true; for interpreting Holy Scripture according to your own meaning in response to objections based on Scripture which were sometimes made to you; and whereas later we received a copy of an essay in the form of a letter, which was said to have been written by you to a former disciple of yours and which in accordance with Copernicus's position contains various propositions against the authority and true meaning of Holy Scripture."

For teaching that that the "sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;" and that "the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith, on June 22, 1633, Galileo was found guilty of heresy.



Imagined Galileo on trial,
pushing the Bible away
Galileo was convicted of:

“[vehemently suspected]…heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.”
 
As a verdict of heresy by the Catholic Church oftentimes lead to being burned at the stake, the 70 year-old Galileo recanted his teachings:
“…with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and in general each and every other error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, orally or in writing, anything which might cause a similar suspicion about me; on the contrary, if I should come to know any heretic or anyone suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I happen to be.”
Galileo’s book was formally banned and while he was sentenced to prison, the sentenced was commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life. Popular legend has it that upon recanting his teachings, Galileo defiantly muttered e pur, si muove -  "even so, it does move" (oftentimes translated to “and yet it moves”) under his breath.

 360 years later, on October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences noted how the:

“…brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the Sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of the Sacred Scripture. Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Baronius: "Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur non quomodo coelum gradiatur" [The Holy Spirit shows us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.]…There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power.”

Perhaps we should add Galileo Day to our calendar?
 
Useful links:
 

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Random musings on The Joshua Tree (sprinkled with just a bit of Fundamentalism)

No, the Joshua Tree didn't get its name from them U2 dudes. The tree got its name from the Mormons who said it resembled the Biblical figure, Joshua reaching his arms upward toward the sky in prayer.[1]

Remember Joshua? He was Moses' number 2 dude and led the Israelites in conquering the Cannanites.

The Cannanites? Funny you should ask. The Good Book tells us how Cannanites are descendants of Canaan, that “Son of Ham” who, along with Shem and Japeth made up Noah’s “My Three Sons.” Yup, Noah, he’s the same dude who built a fairly big boat (Ken Ham – no apparent relation to Noah’s seemingly perverted son - sezs it was at least 450 feet long x 75 feet wide x 45 feet high[2]) when a spry, barely middle-aged, 500 year-old,[3] daddy, using gopher wood (why gopher wood? ‘Cause gerbil wood was just plain silly) to carry either two – or kinda, meybe even seven (yeah, that one’s sorta confusing[4]) of everything, yup, every dinosaur including the Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus, and  Sauroposeid,[5] every kind of dino-bird, every type of mammal, animal, bird, snake, worm, bug, gnat, spider, mosquito, and well, everything – in the entire freakin’ world – yup, all estimated 8.7 million species – not even including the now extinct ones, all of ‘em, ‘cause see, it was gonna rain fer 40 days ‘n nights, ‘n then stay flooded fer a year which is a seriously long time to backstroke, and when it finally drained, created – ta da – the Grand Canyon! Yeah, he’s that dude…

So Cannanites are therefore, the "Sons of Ham" dudes who found themselves "forever enslaved" 'cause it seemed Ham – they’s pappy, or grand-pappy or great-grand pappy, or great-great-grand pappy, or great-great-great-grand pappy, or well…you get the idea, apparently done some dirty, nasty stuff to Noah while the old man was shat-faced drunk 'n passed out, ‘parently neked, 'an woke up, said something to the effect, “Hey dude, me bum's a-burnin', 'an it shore don’t seem like it ain’t no 'roids;” and as opposed to whoopin’ the tar outta hiz boy or cursing Ham, Noah done – in true Mafioso form – cursed Ham's kinfolk, them “Sons of Ham” – ferever, yup. Fer-ever...

or at least until “…those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman” done figured out what in fact the Bible actually meant.[6]

Point being, Joshua was that same dude who led the Israelites in conquering them “forever enslaved” Cannanites.

Anyhoos...back to the tree. See, our Mormon brothers apparently said the tree resembled Joshua reaching his arms skyward in prayer. Of course that’s when I starts a-thinkin’ of Joshua reaching to the sky demanding that the Sun and Moon stop doing whatever it was they’d been doing keeping gravity, gravitizing, the tides from tiding, the poles in place and whatnot:

"O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the Good Book tells us that they did…

Which gets me a-thinkin' of my recent visit to the Dayton, Tennessee courthouse where the Scopes Trial was held and the famous Clarence Darrow examination of William Jennings Bryan (can’t help but hear Spencer Tracy and Frederic March’s fast-paced dialogue):

DARROW: Do you believe Joshua made the sun stand still?
BRYAN: I believe what the Bible says. I suppose you mean that the earth stood still?
DARROW: I don't know. I'm talking about the Bible now.
BRYAN: I accept the Bible absolutely.
DARROW: The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?
BRYAN: I do.
DARROW: Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth?
BRYAN: No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun.
DARROW: Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun could be stopped?
BRYAN: I don't know what they thought.
DARROW: You don't know?
BRYAN: I think they wrote the fact without expressing their own thoughts.
DARROW: Have you an opinion as to whether or not the men who wrote that thought …
DARROW: Have you an opinion as to whether whoever wrote the book, I believe it was Joshua -- the Book of Joshua -- thought the sun went around the earth or not?
BRYAN: I believe that he was inspired.
DARROW: It is your opinion that the passage was subject to construction?
BRYAN: Well, I think anybody can put his own construction upon it, but I do not mean that necessarily it is a correct construction. I have answered the question.
DARROW: Don't you believe that in order to lengthen the day, it would have been construed that the earth stood still?
BRYAN: I would not attempt to say what would have been necessary, but I know this: that I can take a glass of water that would fall to the ground without the strength of my hand, and to the extent of the glass of water I can overcome the law of gravitation and lift it up, whereas without my hand, it would fall to the ground. If my puny hand can overcome the law of gravitation, the most universally understood, to that extent, I would not set a limit to the power of the hand of the Almighty God, that made the universe.
DARROW: I read that years ago, in your "Prince of Peace." Can you answer my question directly? If the day was lengthened by stopping either the earth or the sun, it must have been the earth?
BRYAN: Well, I should say so. Yes, but it was language that was understood at that time, and we now know that the sun stood still, as it was, with the earth.
DARROW: We know also the sun does not stand still.
BRYAN: Well, it is relatively so, as Mr. Einstein would say.
DARROW: I ask you if it does stand still?
BRYAN: You know as well as I know.
DARROW: Better. You have no doubt about it?
BRYAN: No, no.
DARROW: And the earth moves around it?
BRYAN: Yes, but I think there is nothing improper if you will protect the Lord against against your criticism.
DARROW: I suppose He needs it?
BRYAN: He was using language at that time that the people understood.
DARROW: And that you call "interpretation?"
BRYAN: No, sir, I would not call it interpretation.
DARROW: I say you would call it interpretation at this time, to say it meant something then?
BRYAN: You may use your own language to describe what I have to say, and I will use mine in answering.
DARROW: Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still?
BRYAN: No.
DARROW: You have not?
BRYAN: No, sir; the God I believe in could have taken care of that, Mr. Darrow.
DARROW: I see. Have you ever pondered what would naturally happen to the earth if it stood still suddenly?
BRYAN: No.
DARROW: Don't you know it would have been converted into a molten mass of matter?[7]

'An then I gets to thinkin' how Bryan's insisted how the fundamentalist avoided Biblical “interpretation” like the Biblical Plague – jes like Antonin Scalia, our Supreme Court judicial fundamentalist, always harkens back to our founding fathers original intent…



Friday, January 3, 2014

Looks like our right-wing friends is gonna e-volve themselves right outta existence…

Chas. Darwin
(the early years)
In his 1859 publication of On The Origin of Species, Charlie Darwin concluded that his notion of natural selection provided a much more serene and magisterial approach to the origin of life within our natural world:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

The seriously cool part about Darwin’s (some say Satan-inspired) little idea is not merely his “grandeur view of life,” but rather that his (not entirely original – yup, it also evolved) “theory” is proven time and time, and time – and yes, time again to…to be…to be, oh, what’s that word? Oh, yeah, that’s right – it's true! Don’t believe me? Check-it-out, here’s a contemporary and real world, objective and even tangible example illustrating Darwin’s notion of natural selection in all its subtle glory.

Between March and April 2013, The Pew’s Religion & Public Life Project randomly polled over 1900 adults throughout the U.S., and asked a number of questions about religious beliefs, political affiliations, gender, race, and even if the respondents “believed” in evolution or rather, were they adherents of the notion of a divinely inspired creation.

God
(or Santa?)
(looks like God)
That is, did those polled believe that some invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful, deity who, by definition, existed before even time, energy, matter, gravity and all that other groovy stuff – and even though middle eastern Jews first wrote about him, somehow managed to look a lot like a seriously buffed Santa, or Ian McKellen (à la Gandalf, minus the gay of course); one day apparently felt that whole self-worship thing wasn’t cutting it, ‘n decided that what he really needed to make his godliness more better were a couple of minions to worship and admire him in all his splendor and greatness, an up ‘n decided to create life, the Universe and darn near everything (thanks Doug Adams) – especially including man and again, even though he had every opportunity to do it anywhere he wanted – Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon or anywhere nice would have been…nice, heck, the North Shore of Hawaii still makes for a splendid paradise (if'n he could just get rid of those annoying tourists), but apparently chose that freakin’ god forsaken land between the Tigris and Euphrates (been there, it seriously blows – big time) and, again, even though it’s in the middle of the middle east, decided to up ‘n create a European lookin’ dude ‘n dudette (I guess ‘cause Europe is much classier than…not Europe?). And then decided, well...you get the idea.
(definitely a white dude...)

So, did those polled believe than life was created, in its present form by God (no, not Gods)? Or in the alternative, did they essentially believe the Universe started some 13.5 billion years ago, the Galaxy 13 billion years ago, the Solar System 4.8 billion, the Earth some 4.5 billion years ago; did simple cells develop some 3.6 billion years ago, complex cells 2 billion years ago, multi-celled organisms 1 billion years ago, simple "animals" 600 million years, mammals 200 million, primates 60 million, hominids some 20 million years ago, and well, heck…‘Voila! Present day dudes ‘n dudettes!










Back to the whole point of this thing. Last spring the nice folks at Pew polled them folks, just like they did four years earlier. They then did what any good, reality-based thinkers do  they compared the results. Here's the deal:

In 2009, 64% of Democrats said humans evolved over time, while 4 years later, that number increased to over two-thirds or fully 67% of Democrats saying folks done e-volved over time. With just about every bit of polling data showing that Democrats continue to outnumber their Republican opponents, and especially when considering the increase in the U.S. population, it’s easy to see how the left is surviving – nay, even flourishing.

It's not just natural, natural selection!

Prof. Megginson
But who said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change”? No, while most folks like to give him credit, it certainly wasn’t Chuck Darwin (it’s actually a paraphrase from a Professor Leon C. Megginson, a marketing professor at LSU who wrote something pretty close to it back in ‘63)?

Point being is that them infernal lefties is clearly adaptable to change. Heck, pretty sure that’s the bedrock foundation of their “Liberal” ideology – that whole inclusive, “changey” thing (a demonic euphemism for evolution, to be sure).

Wha-What’s that? What about them other guys? See, in that same study, 54% of Republicans said they believed folks evolved over time and now, nearly 4 years later with our Tea Baggin’ friends seizing control of Lincoln’s GOP, the number of Republicans stating that humans have evolved, dropped to 43%. Corresponding with this fairly substantial decline is the Gallup party affiliation tracking poll  which shows that as recently as September 2004, fully 39% of registered voters identified themselves as Republicans. By October 2008, the number of folks claiming GOP loyalty had dropped to 33%, by May 2010, to 30%, and by the end of 2012, the number had plummeted to 24%.

Ergo (one ‘o them fancy-schmancy words meaning, therefore), the political party most adaptable to change is the one that will clearly survive. With the number of registered Republicans dropping faster than a hooker’s panties at a political convention (or hooker’s at the C-Street House or dropping faster’n David Vitter’s diapers, take yer pick), looks like our right-wing friends is gonna e-volve themselves right outta existence…

Links:
Darwin's On The Origin of Species (.pdf format)
Publics views on human evolution

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Hard Year?

As we reflect upon this year that was anything but memorable for us, what say a brief reflection on a time more than 50 years earlier in order to keep things in perspective? Here’s a young Bob Dylan interviewed in 1963 by the great Studs Terkel. Studs asks Bob about his song, A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall; Bob’s take on the 18th c. Scottish ballad Lord Randal that models the question/answer narrative throughout Dylan’s Hard Rain:
I wrote that when I didn’t figure – I didn’t know how many other songs I could write. That was during October of last year. I remember sitting up all night with a bunch of people someplace and I wanted to get the most down that I knew about into one song as I possibly could, so I wrote that…That was during that blockade…I was a little worried.

While the interview is typical Dylan myth-making (interviewed in spring '63 with Dylan referencing the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, he first performed the song at Carnegie Hall in September ’62), it does provide a glimpse into the tension and immediacy of that year, fifty years ago.

A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall:
New York Times Oct. '62 headlines
Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, where have you been, my darling young one?
I’ve stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I’ve walked and I’ve crawled on six crooked highways
I’ve stepped in the middle of seven sad forests
I’ve been out in front of a dozen dead oceans
I’ve been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard
And it’s a hard, and it’s a hard, it’s a hard, and it’s a hard
And it’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall

Oh, what did you see, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what did you see, my darling young one?
I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin’
I saw a room full of men with their hammers a-bleedin’
I saw a white ladder all covered with water
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all brokenI saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children
And it’s a hard, and it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard
And it’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall

And what did you hear, my blue-eyed son?
And what did you hear, my darling young one?
I heard the sound of a thunder, it roared out a warnin’
Heard the roar of a wave that could drown the whole world
Heard one hundred drummers whose hands were a-blazin’
Heard ten thousand whisperin’ and nobody listenin’
Heard one person starve, I heard many people laughin’
Heard the song of a poet who died in the gutter
Heard the sound of a clown who cried in the alley
And it’s a hard, and it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard
And it’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall

Oh, who did you meet, my blue-eyed son?
Who did you meet, my darling young one?
I met a young child beside a dead pony
I met a white man who walked a black dog
I met a young woman whose body was burning
I met a young girl, she gave me a rainbow
I met one man who was wounded in love
I met another man who was wounded with hatred
And it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard
It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall

Oh, what’ll you do now, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what’ll you do now, my darling young one?
I’m a-goin’ back out ’fore the rain starts a-fallin’
I’ll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest
Where the people are many and their hands are all empty
Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters
Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison
Where the executioner’s face is always well hidden
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten
Where black is the color, where none is the number
And I’ll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it
Then I’ll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin’
But I’ll know my song well before I start singin’
And it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard
It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall

See: A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall and Carnegie Hall, September 22, 1962

Lord Rendel:

“O where ha you been, Lord Randal, my son?
And where ha you been, my handsome young man?”
“I ha been at the greenwood; mother, mak my bed soon,
"Lord Randal", by Arthur Rackham.
llustration from 
Some British ballads,
published in about 1919: 
wikipedia
For I’m wearied wi hunting, and fain wad lie down.”

“An wha met ye there, Lord Randal, my son?
An wha met you there, my handsome young man?”
“O I met wi my true-love; mother, mak my bed soon,
For I’m wearied wi huntin, an fain wad lie down.”

“And what did she give you, Lord Randal, my son?
And what did she give you, my handsome young man?”
“Eels fried in a pan; mother, mak my bed soon,
For I’m wearied with huntin, and fain wad lie down.”

“And wha gat your leavins, Lord Randal, my son?
And what gat your leavins, my handsom young man?”
“My hawks and my hounds; mother, mak my bed soon,
For I’m wearied wi huntin, and fain wad lie down.”

“And what becam of them, Lord Randall, my son?
And what became of them, my handsome young man?”
“They stretched their legs out an died; mother, mak my bed soon,
For I’m wearied wi huntin, and fain wad lie down.”

“O I fear you are poisoned, Lord Randal, my son!
I fear you are poisoned, my handsome young man!”
“O yes, I am poisoned; mother, mak my bed soon,
For I’m sick at the heart, and I fain wad lie down.”

“What d’ ye leave to your mother, Lord Randal, my son?
What d’ye leave to your mother, my handsome young man?”
“Four and twenty milk kye; mother, mak my bed soon,
For I’m sick at the heart, and I fain wad lie down.”

“What d’ ye leave to your sister, Lord Randal, my son?
What d’ ye leave to your sister, my handsome young man?”
“My gold and my silver; mother, mak my bed soon,
For I’m sick at the heart, an I fain wad lie down.”

“What d’ ye leave to your brother, Lord Randal, my son?
What d’ ye leave to your brother, my handsome young man?”
“My house and my lands; mother, mak my bed soon,
For I’m sick at the heart, and I fain wad lie down.”

“What d’ ye leave to your true-love, Lord Randal, my son?
What d’ ye leave to your true-love, my handsome young man?”
“I leave her hell and fire; mother, mak my bed soon,
For I’m sick at the heart, and I fain wad lie down.”

(Anonymous Traditional Folk Ballad, published by Sir Walter Scott in 1803)
Lord Rendal

Friday, November 15, 2013

Better late than never...


On November 24, 1863, the forefathers of The Patriot & Union, predecessor to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s Patriot News "brought forth to its audience a judgment so flawed, so tainted by hubris, so lacking in the perspective history would bring, that it cannot remain unaddressed."

The offense? The newspaper passed "over the silly remarks" of President Lincoln. The "silly remarks?" Well those were the 270-words Lincoln spoke on November 19, 1863, dedicating the Gettysburg National Cemetery.

Yup, the Gettysburg Address that the Patriot Union magnanimously vowed, "for the credit of the nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them, and that they shall be no more repeated or thought of."


"Whatever may be the President's virtues, he does not possess sense…"

Providing a contemporaneous glimpse into the past, the Patriot & Union wrote how:

The dead of Gettysburg will speak from their tombs; they will raise their voices against this great wickedness and implore our rulers to discard from their councils the folly which is destroying us, and return to the wise doctrines of the Fathers, to the pleadings of Christianity, to the compromises of the Constitution, which can alone save us. Let our rulers hearken to the dead, if they will not to the living - for from every tomb which covers a dead soldier, if they listen attentively they will hear a solemn sound invoking them to renounce partisanship for patriotism, and to save the country from the misery and desolation which, under their present policy, is inevitable.

There is so much in that paragraph to chew on...

In any event, some seven score and ten years later and appreciating that their "predecessors, perhaps under the influence of partisanship, or of strong drink," might just have gotten that one wrong, the Editors reconsidered the paper's position:

In the fullness of time, we have come to a different conclusion. No mere utterance, then or now, could do justice to the soaring heights of language Mr. Lincoln reached that day. By today's words alone, we cannot exalt, we cannot hallow, we cannot venerate this sacred text, for a grateful nation long ago came to view those words with reverence, without guidance from this chagrined member of the mainstream media. The world will little note nor long remember our emendation of this institution"s record – but we must do as conscience demands.

November 24, 1863 Patriot & Union