When Pigs Go On Trial, Can They Take Notes?
In the long history of the Catholic Church nothing is more intriguing than The Inquisition. The stated purpose of the Inquisition was to root out the devil as it manifested in ordinary form. Cervantes had to look over his shoulder at the minions of the Inq. Their Most Catholic Majesties were avid readers. Teams of priests under the supervision of bishops were avid readers as well. Words for scrutinized for satanic influences and Cervantes’ sense of humor drifted toward satire. Without separation of church and state an insult against any institution revealed the underlying heretic.
In France the trial of barnyard animals was common. Pigs possessed by demons were subjected to ecclesiastical trial. The accused received counsel by a Church appointed lawyer whose task it was to Mirandize the porker, speak on its behalf, offer an apologia. Witnesses were summoned to establish the pig’s unusual behavior, to wit: the pig was heard to speak, the pig was critical of farm policy, the pig wore undergarments of fallen women. His attorney, mindful of the risks of becoming too zealous in defense, would cross examine a witness along these lines: the amount of spirits the witness may have consumed on the day he heard the speaking pig. Efforts were made by the prosecution to induce the pig into a courtroom outburst. Yeah, I can talk, so what?
Writers of today need not fear such illogic. There is no Inquisition. Writers are protected by the Constitution with explicit freedom of speech. If a pig were put on trial today, it would not be for heresy. Sure, he might have been reading Judy Bloom, but this is not enough to incarcerate, insufficient grounds to deny that pig its right to assemble, to seek food and shelter, hang with his friends. No court in the land would try a pig for reading a banned book. Pigs can’t read. And, very few of them are liberals.
October 13th, 2005 at 7:11 am
First of all, I would like to see some evidence that animals were put on trial that is not anecdotal.
Also, you’re right that the Constitution is a wonderful document that protects those that would speak against the Church/any religion/etc. But why isn’t the same protection given to those who speak in defense of the Church? Why is that “freedom of speech” is not protected when you talk about your faith?
October 13th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
You can’t see it too well, but the defendent is clearly guilty because he has a feather in his mouth. http://www.decordova.org/decordova/exhibit/Humor/totterness.htm
October 13th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Great post, David. Thanks.
And, Marc. Peace to you — I think you’re free to speak your mind. Have at it.
Best,
Robin