William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
via Google Reader, from A Man for All Seasons
Yeah, yeah. A Utopian who was always losing his head.Report
So you win the thread.Report
Now that we have that out of the way, allow me to recommend the movie wholeheartedly. The whole movie is full of scenes of that caliber.Report
The Paul Scofield version. (Never seen the Heston, but I can’t imagine it’s anything like as good. Not a knock on Heston, but Scofield was transcendent.)Report
Believe it or not, the Heston wasn’t bad (only saw it once, so my memory might be hazy); it was far more faithful to the original Robert Bolt play — something we can thank Heston the director for.Report
That doesn’t surprise me; Heston was, among other things, a great Cardinal Richelieu. But the original was one of the true classics.Report
Thomas More’s life and death show that just laws aren’t enough for a civil society — respect for the rule of law is what counts. The rule of law resides in those (secondarily) who execute and in those (primarily) who allow the execution of the laws.
The abuses of power that we experience here in the USA exist because we the people allow them.Report
Not that this has anything to do with the reason Erik posted this quote, but…
I like the Thomas Moore in A Man For All Seasons. But I like the Thomas Cromwell in Wolf Hall better.
Wolf Hall points notes that the Thomas Moore that was willing to die for his convictions was also that Thomas Moore that slowly tortured countless people to death for not interpreting scripture the “correct” way, and that these actions sprung from the same convictions.Report
And who burned English translations of the Bible, lest non-clergy read it and decide for themselves what it meant. And who was willing to recognize the divorce from Katherine of Aragon after all.
It’s further worth looking in to what More meant when he refered to “conscience” in his motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him. More was very much a Catholic hierarchist and not an individualist as we moderns understand that word.
With that said, yes, he was very much a victim in regards to his trial and execution. Those things should be deplored and none of More’s flaws and misdeeds exonerates Henry of the unnecessary judicial murder of a man who had been his friend, a pillar of the legal community, and a valuable member of Henry’s government.Report
You the get same impression in The Tudors. It becomes abundantly clear that Thomas Moore’s humanism was vastly different from the modern version.Report
Let us not forget that he burned 5 lutherins alive.
It seems relevant to the whole the state killing people issue.Report
So…yeah I know Moore was deeply flawed and horribly cruel. That aside, this exchange is still pretty good.Report
Yep, I just get creeped out that there is a law center named after him that is dedicated to getting rid of church and state separation
Real scary choice of mascot once you learn the whole story. .Report
From their home page, it seems like their main goal is proving that Muslims are scary. So the name fits well.Report
Though not as well as if it was dedicated to proving that Protestants are scary.Report
What they want to turn the Untied States into makes Christians look pretty damned scary.Report
Agreed.Report
One of my favorite quotations, Erik (concerns about the character of the real Thomas More aside). Good choice.Report
That exchange constantly ran back and forth in my mind during the Bush administration.
I’ve been thinking about this play lately because the character of Richard Rich reminds me so much of Ross Douthat. It’s like he knows better, but <a href="http://community.nytimes.com/comments/douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/the-parties-of-no/?permid=4#comment4"<he just can't help himself, he has to propagandize for the GOP.Report
That exchange constantly ran back and forth in my mind during the Bush administration.
But not anymore?Report
Erik:
Wow. There seems to be a sudden and severe shortage of bloodthirsty neocon warmongering commentary. So am I going to have to fill in?Report