dChan
Anonymous ID: 483b53 Aug. 4, 2022, 2:29 p.m. No.17035531   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5707 >>5880 >>5888 >>7310

>>17035437

 

Most of us are very familiar with the chapter of United States history known as Prohibition. However, there was a prohibition of something other than alcohol back in the early days of our nation.

 

Believe it or not, Theater, as well as other forms of expensive entertainment, was banned in certain parts of the colonies during the late 1700's. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Massachusetts had formal laws banning the practice for more than ten years. Why? This goes back to a religious debate in post-revolution America.

 

“…why ain’t cards and dice the devil’s device, and the play-house the shop where the devil hangs out the vanities of the world upon the tenter-hooks of temptation?”

~Excerpt from The Contrast play (1787) by Royall Tyler

 

https://www.hhhistory.com/2020/03/theater-prohibition.html

 

 

The historic Jesuit theater represents two centuries of didactic theater in which the Society of Jesus, following both the organizational instructions and Spiritual Exercises of founder Ignatius of Loyola, used theater to inculcate virtue in both performer and audience member while teaching Latin, dance, poise, rhetoric, oratory, and confidence to the students who performed. Jesuit spirituality is inherently theatrical, and conversely Jesuit theater was intended to also be highly spiritual. The dramaturgy and scenography was spectacular and designed to draw audiences who would delight in them and learn the moral lessons the Jesuits hoped to teach while simultaneously drawing them away from a corrupt public theater. This essay considers Jesuit drama and theater in four key aspects: (1) Jesuit spirituality and performative practice; (2) the historic Jesuit educational theater of early modern Europe; (3) Jesuit drama in the missions outside of Europe; and (4) contemporary Jesuits involved in theater.

 

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935420.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935420-e-55

Anonymous ID: 483b53 Aug. 4, 2022, 2:30 p.m. No.17035954   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6666 >>6824

There is a LEGAL basis for the Supreme Courts recent rulings on the New York concealed carry gun law and overturning the Court's own previous ruling on Roe v. Wade.

 

It does not matter in the least how the media or others wish to characterize the morality of gun ownership and/or abortion, and these two decisions of the Court should not be judged based on emotional or moral issues.

 

These decisions, and all cases brought to the US Supreme Court, should be based on their CONSTITUTIONALITY. For these two cases, the Court affirmed the that the US Constitution (2nd Amendment) clearly specifies that the government cannot infringe on the right of gun ownership. Therefore, the New York law was inconsistent with the Constitution and was ILLEGAL. The rest is noise.

 

In the second case, the Court determined that the Constitution does not offer any legal framework (for or against) the practice of abortion. As such, the US Supreme Court does not have the authority to issue rulings on the abortion issues raised in the various states. Therefore, by default, any legal issues pertaining to abortion should be decided by the states and their legal systems.

 

The Supreme Court supposedly deliberates LEGAL matters and issues rulings that specifically involve the highest Law of the Land, which is the US Constitution.

 

The prevalent misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's role as it relates to the powers of the federal government is understandable, given their recent history of judicial activism. Foremost, it is the duty of the US Supreme Court to restrict powers that federal and state governments claim to give themselves that are not allowed in the US Constitution.

 

These two recent rulings offer some hope that.