I originally wrote a longer version of this post on the night before the election but learned, to my chagrin, that in future I should write my posts in 'Word' and paste here, because sometimes, when you hit 'publish,' it doesn't get published at all, but simply disappears forever into cyberspace....
With the enthusiasm of the former history teacher that I am, I talked a bit about the genius and dedication of those who wrote our Constitution. What an amazing accomplishment it was to come up with the necessary compromises and produce a framework for government that not only still works--220+ years later in a thoroughly changed world--but works remarkably well.
I commented that one of its few flaws (at least in that changed world) is the lack of a provision for term limits for members of Congress. No doubt, when John Adams and others of our founders were slogging through mud and cold on horseback for days on end to reach New York or Philadelphia, they didn't imagine that anyone would choose to do that forever. They couldn't possibly imagine the day when a Speaker of the House would be soaking the taxpayers for millions of dollars to fly her around on a private jet, when members of Congress would be abusing the franking privilege to mail re-election propaganda, and the perks and benefits of elected office were so great that those in those offices would do practically anything to stay.
Or, and this is where my money is, perhaps what they never envisioned was an American electorate so stupid, selfish, or disengaged that they would return people like that to office over and over.
Whichever it was, we need term limits for Congress, and herein lies the flaw. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3 of Congress to propose the amendment (followed by 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying it.) Congress did this, of course, to limit the President's time in office (22nd amendment) but what are the chances we'll get 357 of these clowns to vote themselves away from the trough?
Which is why I bring up the Tea Party. There is much speculation, by supporters and detractors, about whether this movement has been a 'flash in the pan,' a la the Reform Party, or whether it's here to stay as a force in American politics. Much derision has been directed at this movement, some of it justified, more of it snobbery of the worst kind.
I suggest that an effort for these individuals, which would benefit the entire country (except those porkers at the aforementioned trough) and establish the movement as one with staying power and organizational chops, would be to lead the charge for Congressional term limits with an end run around Congress. The Constitution provides another pathway to amendment, although it's one that's never been used.
3/4 of state conventions can propose an amendment, with ratification following the same route--3/4 of the state legislatures. Congress would fight what they would no doubt consider a 'usurpation' of their power, probably by exploiting the non-specificity of the term 'convention,' but that's the beauty of the Constitution--it isn't solely their power. Our founders, with their incredible prescience, envisioned a time when the people's representatives would refuse to do their will, and provided a way to counter that intransigence.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Gay marriage--good idea or bad? Please weigh in.
My last blog post sparked a spirited but civil exchange of views; I'm grateful to the contributors for their time. On the assumption that most people don't follow a comment thread all the way down, though, I wanted to bring the discussion back to the present.
The point I was really trying to make--and it's up for debate whether or not I made it very effectively--is that people who oppose making gay marriage legal are by and large not motivated by 'hate,' and that accusations to that effect are not only hateful, themselves, but counterproductive.
Personally, I support the idea of gay marriage, but I refuse to demonize people who don't. Some of them may be motivated by homophobia, but I believe the vast majority of them have reservations which are motivated by sincere religious convictions, or sincere concern over negative consequences for society. It is the latter of these two that I am most interested in hearing from people about. Obviously, if the objections are religious in nature, there is no real basis for discussing them--one either believes in the validity of the strictures or one doesn't. If one does believe in them, but accompanies that belief with respect and kindness to individual gays and lesbians, I cannot condemn such belief, although many do.
What follows is a column I wrote in August of 2003 for the Wilmington Star-News, when the issue of gay marriage was beginning to be much in the news. I was teaching history at the time, so there was an emphasis on giving the controversy some historical perspective. I was gratified that it generated a lot of mail, and that virtually all of it, no matter the opinion of the writer, was thoughtful.
August 27, 2003
It's virtually impossible to avoid the influence of our own preferences, prejudices, and fears when forming opinions about issues. We're even more likely to do it when the issue is controversial, which compounds the problem. It is a challenge to relegate those emotions to secondary status--to acknowledge that they're not sufficient for forming an intelligent opinion about what government should do to deal with complex problems.
Whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry is an issue that's picking up a lot of steam. So far at least, public discourse seems civil, which is good. I hope that people on both sides of the question can maintain an awareness that the majority of those who disagree with them are good people who care about the future of our society, but who simply disagree fundamentally about what is in that society’s best interest. Any time policy must be made that deals with something as sensitive and personal as human relationships, the going won’t be easy.
The issue of homosexual marriage has to be considered from two completely separate perspectives—the legal and the religious. And while the question of morality figures in both, it is important to remember that the first can be dealt with by our public institutions—legislatures and courts—but the second cannot. After much thought, I am leaning towards the view that gay marriage is inevitable and, from a legal standpoint, the right thing to do.
If civil marriage is a legally binding agreement between two people who make certain promises about fidelity, property, and commitment and who then receive certain guarantees about insurance benefits, property, and custody of children, then it seems unjustifiable to deny it to any consenting adult American who wishes to engage in it. Whether these civil marriages will be celebrated in churches, though, as unions blessed by God—well, that is a matter for the churches (as individual congregations and as members of larger institutions) to decide. Which of those—the individual churches or their parent institutions—has the greatest influence, will depend on the denomination.
The most frequently voiced argument against gay marriage (and I suppose this falls into both the legal and the religious categories) is that it will “threaten” the institution of marriage as it now stands. This seems to me not only vague, but specious. The existence of homosexual marriages is not going to dissuade heterosexual couples from marrying if that’s what they want to do; I doubt it would affect them much at all. The concern of opponents that deserves the most consideration is the welfare of children being parented by gay couples. To my knowledge, there have been no studies that have included enough subjects and have followed them long enough to really give reliable information about the long-term effects of being raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple. If denying marriage to those couples meant they would not be raising children, then the situation would be different. But it doesn’t. Gay couples are living together already—and raising children—all over the country. It’s a fact. Perhaps legal recognition of homosexual unions would actually be a step forward in terms of protecting the interests of children affected by them.
We may like the idea of homosexuals marrying or we may not, on an elemental level, but with regard to civil rights and their equal application to all citizens, the Constitution and the law prevail, not our gut feelings or our religious convictions. How this all plays out in the religious arena, though, promises to be very interesting. I think it might, to some extent, even galvanize a sort of third “Great Awakening,” with schisms appearing in many denominations. The Episcopalians are already feeling the repercussions of ordaining a gay bishop, and the rank and file are speaking their minds through donations or the withholding of donations, just as the Catholic faithful have done over the sex abuse scandal in their church. It’s not a bad thing, really, and very typical of our history.
A European clergyman once told me that he feared faith was dying on his continent and that he was amazed by the religious vitality he saw in America. I told him that continual waves of immigration have meant a history of clashes between established groups and groups who were outside the mainstream, between the ‘status quo’ and new ideas. Upheaval and discord might be the immediate results of these clashes, but accommodation, assimilation, and toleration had to be the final ones if we were going to continue to live together as Americans devoted to the principles of liberty.
The point I was really trying to make--and it's up for debate whether or not I made it very effectively--is that people who oppose making gay marriage legal are by and large not motivated by 'hate,' and that accusations to that effect are not only hateful, themselves, but counterproductive.
Personally, I support the idea of gay marriage, but I refuse to demonize people who don't. Some of them may be motivated by homophobia, but I believe the vast majority of them have reservations which are motivated by sincere religious convictions, or sincere concern over negative consequences for society. It is the latter of these two that I am most interested in hearing from people about. Obviously, if the objections are religious in nature, there is no real basis for discussing them--one either believes in the validity of the strictures or one doesn't. If one does believe in them, but accompanies that belief with respect and kindness to individual gays and lesbians, I cannot condemn such belief, although many do.
What follows is a column I wrote in August of 2003 for the Wilmington Star-News, when the issue of gay marriage was beginning to be much in the news. I was teaching history at the time, so there was an emphasis on giving the controversy some historical perspective. I was gratified that it generated a lot of mail, and that virtually all of it, no matter the opinion of the writer, was thoughtful.
August 27, 2003
It's virtually impossible to avoid the influence of our own preferences, prejudices, and fears when forming opinions about issues. We're even more likely to do it when the issue is controversial, which compounds the problem. It is a challenge to relegate those emotions to secondary status--to acknowledge that they're not sufficient for forming an intelligent opinion about what government should do to deal with complex problems.
Whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry is an issue that's picking up a lot of steam. So far at least, public discourse seems civil, which is good. I hope that people on both sides of the question can maintain an awareness that the majority of those who disagree with them are good people who care about the future of our society, but who simply disagree fundamentally about what is in that society’s best interest. Any time policy must be made that deals with something as sensitive and personal as human relationships, the going won’t be easy.
The issue of homosexual marriage has to be considered from two completely separate perspectives—the legal and the religious. And while the question of morality figures in both, it is important to remember that the first can be dealt with by our public institutions—legislatures and courts—but the second cannot. After much thought, I am leaning towards the view that gay marriage is inevitable and, from a legal standpoint, the right thing to do.
If civil marriage is a legally binding agreement between two people who make certain promises about fidelity, property, and commitment and who then receive certain guarantees about insurance benefits, property, and custody of children, then it seems unjustifiable to deny it to any consenting adult American who wishes to engage in it. Whether these civil marriages will be celebrated in churches, though, as unions blessed by God—well, that is a matter for the churches (as individual congregations and as members of larger institutions) to decide. Which of those—the individual churches or their parent institutions—has the greatest influence, will depend on the denomination.
The most frequently voiced argument against gay marriage (and I suppose this falls into both the legal and the religious categories) is that it will “threaten” the institution of marriage as it now stands. This seems to me not only vague, but specious. The existence of homosexual marriages is not going to dissuade heterosexual couples from marrying if that’s what they want to do; I doubt it would affect them much at all. The concern of opponents that deserves the most consideration is the welfare of children being parented by gay couples. To my knowledge, there have been no studies that have included enough subjects and have followed them long enough to really give reliable information about the long-term effects of being raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple. If denying marriage to those couples meant they would not be raising children, then the situation would be different. But it doesn’t. Gay couples are living together already—and raising children—all over the country. It’s a fact. Perhaps legal recognition of homosexual unions would actually be a step forward in terms of protecting the interests of children affected by them.
We may like the idea of homosexuals marrying or we may not, on an elemental level, but with regard to civil rights and their equal application to all citizens, the Constitution and the law prevail, not our gut feelings or our religious convictions. How this all plays out in the religious arena, though, promises to be very interesting. I think it might, to some extent, even galvanize a sort of third “Great Awakening,” with schisms appearing in many denominations. The Episcopalians are already feeling the repercussions of ordaining a gay bishop, and the rank and file are speaking their minds through donations or the withholding of donations, just as the Catholic faithful have done over the sex abuse scandal in their church. It’s not a bad thing, really, and very typical of our history.
A European clergyman once told me that he feared faith was dying on his continent and that he was amazed by the religious vitality he saw in America. I told him that continual waves of immigration have meant a history of clashes between established groups and groups who were outside the mainstream, between the ‘status quo’ and new ideas. Upheaval and discord might be the immediate results of these clashes, but accommodation, assimilation, and toleration had to be the final ones if we were going to continue to live together as Americans devoted to the principles of liberty.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
NY gubernatorial candidate Paladino's comments regarding gays
Oh boy, here we go again--a firestorm about comments that the person who made them interprets one way, some listeners and the media, another.
Carl Paladino, running against Mario Cuomo for governor of New York, decried events like gay pride parades, and came out against gay marriage. According to some accounts, he used words like "pervert," and was playing to his conservative Orthodox Jewish audience--none of which excess I am defending, and I really can't stand name-calling--but people quick to jump on his condemnation of gay pride events would like to gloss over the fact that his objections are not to gay people living their lives and being who they are, but to public behavior that is gross and offensive, and would be just as offensive if it were engaged in, in public, by heterosexuals. (I realize that seems like a bourgois concept to those who think they are the intellectual and moral superiors of the 'common folk,' but there is a reason that a concept of "common decency" has been a feature of any stable community, at virtually every time and place in history.)
It's no surprise, of course, that Paladino is being vilified in the press, although he was at pains to point out that he condemned any persecution of gays and that his own philosophy was to "live and let live." From what I've read, his gay nephew is a part of his campaign team.
That said, I am not interested in defending Paladino's opinions here, as I don't share most of them. I think gay people should have the right to marry, and I don't think anyone is qualified to decide what constitutes a "valid" lifestyle, as long as it isn't one that exploits someone.
What I _am_ defending is the concept of being able to have an opinion without becoming an object of hate and ugliness. I think it is incredible that many of the same people who get the most angry about Christians (in particular, but basically any group that opposes gay marriage) are very much like the people they decry. The same self-righteousness that outrages them, the same sense of moral superiority they deplore, the same intolerance of dissent, are hallmarks of their own attitude. (Speaking of which, I happened to notice the other day that a friend of a friend on Facebook posted a link to an article about Paladino, and after condemning him as 'hate-filled,' went on, in the space of three lines, to call him an "A-hole" and a "rectal cyst." Don't you love the irony?)
I'm tired--and, frankly, bored--by those who continue to try to demonize anyone who isn't supportive of gay marriage. Sure, some of them are probably homophobic, but many more of them are kind, intelligent people who have friends and relatives who are gay, but who simply have sincere reservations about radically redefining the basic societal structure that has existed for millenia. I don't agree with them, but I'm not prepared to ridicule them and call them names because of it. Perhaps I'm just not hate-filled enough to do that.
Carl Paladino, running against Mario Cuomo for governor of New York, decried events like gay pride parades, and came out against gay marriage. According to some accounts, he used words like "pervert," and was playing to his conservative Orthodox Jewish audience--none of which excess I am defending, and I really can't stand name-calling--but people quick to jump on his condemnation of gay pride events would like to gloss over the fact that his objections are not to gay people living their lives and being who they are, but to public behavior that is gross and offensive, and would be just as offensive if it were engaged in, in public, by heterosexuals. (I realize that seems like a bourgois concept to those who think they are the intellectual and moral superiors of the 'common folk,' but there is a reason that a concept of "common decency" has been a feature of any stable community, at virtually every time and place in history.)
It's no surprise, of course, that Paladino is being vilified in the press, although he was at pains to point out that he condemned any persecution of gays and that his own philosophy was to "live and let live." From what I've read, his gay nephew is a part of his campaign team.
That said, I am not interested in defending Paladino's opinions here, as I don't share most of them. I think gay people should have the right to marry, and I don't think anyone is qualified to decide what constitutes a "valid" lifestyle, as long as it isn't one that exploits someone.
What I _am_ defending is the concept of being able to have an opinion without becoming an object of hate and ugliness. I think it is incredible that many of the same people who get the most angry about Christians (in particular, but basically any group that opposes gay marriage) are very much like the people they decry. The same self-righteousness that outrages them, the same sense of moral superiority they deplore, the same intolerance of dissent, are hallmarks of their own attitude. (Speaking of which, I happened to notice the other day that a friend of a friend on Facebook posted a link to an article about Paladino, and after condemning him as 'hate-filled,' went on, in the space of three lines, to call him an "A-hole" and a "rectal cyst." Don't you love the irony?)
I'm tired--and, frankly, bored--by those who continue to try to demonize anyone who isn't supportive of gay marriage. Sure, some of them are probably homophobic, but many more of them are kind, intelligent people who have friends and relatives who are gay, but who simply have sincere reservations about radically redefining the basic societal structure that has existed for millenia. I don't agree with them, but I'm not prepared to ridicule them and call them names because of it. Perhaps I'm just not hate-filled enough to do that.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Stuxnet--'google it'
One of my favorite movies is "Master and Commander" starring Russell Crowe as Captain Jack Aubrey of the British Royal Navy. The movie was based on a long series of meticulously researched novels by the late Patrick O'Brian; the script incorporated elements of many of them. In the film, there is a scene in which Aubrey is holding a model of a ship that two of his crew have made, one of them having heard accounts of its construction at a Boston shipyard. Aubrey and his officers can't figure out why they've been able to inflict so little damage on this enemy ship, until they see the thickness of the hull and other innovative particulars of its design. Holding the model, he muses, "What a fascinating modern age we live in." (I think that's exact, but if not, it's close enough:))
I thought of that when I first heard of 'Stuxnet.' It is a computer worm that is generally being credited with derailing, at least temporarily, Iran's nuclear program. Apparently, it has a number of features no other malware has had, including the ability to know what systems it has penetrated and 'decide' whether or not to attack them. The worm was designed to operate in Siemens products, which are the main components in Iranian industrial facilities, including their nuclear ones. It has been discovered in a number of other countries, but Iran appears to be its target. The Iranians discovered its existence in June, but there is evidence it has been working for possibly a year. (According to what I read, the worm had to have been introduced via USB port--not over the internet.)
The Iranians have pointed accusatory fingers at Israel, the United States and India, but primarily at Israel. It is too early to tell, especially since Iran is not going to be entirely forthcoming, how much damage Stuxnet has done to their nuclear program so far, or how much continued capability it has, but if indeed Israel is responsible, it certainly answers the question of why they never bombed those facilities when it seemed there was still time to do so.
(I am not very knowledgable on the subject of computers, so if I have mischaracterized anything about Stuxnet's capabilities or methods, or used incorrect terminology, it's not surprising.)
I thought of that when I first heard of 'Stuxnet.' It is a computer worm that is generally being credited with derailing, at least temporarily, Iran's nuclear program. Apparently, it has a number of features no other malware has had, including the ability to know what systems it has penetrated and 'decide' whether or not to attack them. The worm was designed to operate in Siemens products, which are the main components in Iranian industrial facilities, including their nuclear ones. It has been discovered in a number of other countries, but Iran appears to be its target. The Iranians discovered its existence in June, but there is evidence it has been working for possibly a year. (According to what I read, the worm had to have been introduced via USB port--not over the internet.)
The Iranians have pointed accusatory fingers at Israel, the United States and India, but primarily at Israel. It is too early to tell, especially since Iran is not going to be entirely forthcoming, how much damage Stuxnet has done to their nuclear program so far, or how much continued capability it has, but if indeed Israel is responsible, it certainly answers the question of why they never bombed those facilities when it seemed there was still time to do so.
(I am not very knowledgable on the subject of computers, so if I have mischaracterized anything about Stuxnet's capabilities or methods, or used incorrect terminology, it's not surprising.)
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Bullying of gay students--what's the solution?
'Heartbreaking' is the word that comes to mind with regard to last week's suicide of a Rutgers University freshman. Tyler Clementi leapt to his death from the George Washington Bridge, prompted it appears, by the public humiliation he received at the hands of his roommate and another student. They hid a camera in the dorm room Tyler and his roommate shared, recorded a sexual encounter Tyler had with another male, and streamed it, live, to the web.
The incredible cruelty of such a vicious trick takes my breath away. Tyler was not just outed and embarrassed, he was violated. And thanks to modern technology, he knew that his humiliation was guaranteed never to really disappear. I wonder if that might have even been the worst part, the part that drove him to think he simply couldn't get through this, because it would never really end.
And then, in California, a 13-year-old has just died after ten days on life support--his attempt to hang himself from a tree didn't succeed at first, leaving him in a coma. There was another who shot himself in Texas, another suicide in Indiana, all boys who decided they could no longer take the persecution being meted out to them by classmates because they were gay.
I have never known anyone who is gay that didn't really struggle as a teenager. To come to a level of self-acceptance and self-love required time, and that these young men didn't have more of it is a terrible tragedy and a great loss.
The thing I wonder about is, were these kids and so many others like them persecuted because they are gay, or because they are vulnerable? Is it really the homosexuality that motivates their tormentors, or are they just motivated to inflict harm and suffering, and gay kids are easy targets? Perhaps it's a meaningless distinction, but I'm not so sure.
If it really is the homosexuality that triggers the bullying, then the stock answer is that more education is needed, about both homosexuality and 'tolerance.' The reasoning is that these kids act out of ignorance and fear. That they need to be taught to see homosexuality and gay people in a different light. Once they do, their behavior changes.
But I'm not convinced kids are all that ignorant. I think some of them are just vicious. The capacity to be cruel exists in all of us, but to a greater degree in some than others. A lot of bullying goes on in schools that is _not_ targeted at gays, which supports the conclusion that the motivation is simply sadism--pleasure in someone else's suffering. Gay kids, or those who are struggling to come to terms with whether or not they are, are simply better targets than virtually everyone else, because their 'issue' tends to isolate them. Although it's changing some, confiding in parents or friends is so much more difficult because it requires disclosure the child is often not ready to make.
I wonder sometimes if kids are crueler now than they used to be, or if the popular culture just gives them so many more examples to emulate and technology gives them so many more ways to stick the knife in deeper. Either way, I don't know that the conventional wisdom--that the answer is to 'educate' them into being more accepting of or comfortable with homosexuality--is the most effective solution at their age. I taught high school for many years, so I know that it's something that makes many kids, particularly boys, _un_comfortable, and growing up is what dissipates that discomfort, in most cases. The important point is that the vast majority of these students who were squeamish about homosexuality were not out tormenting kids they thought were gay.
There are people, both gay and non-gay, who think the only acceptable end goal is for everyone to be okay with it--to regard homosexuality as inherently 'normal' and to be in favor of gay marriage, and so on. To that end, some of them label anyone who doesn't/isn't as a "hater" or a bigot.
I think that's unrealistic and unproductive thinking, though, and not the best line of offense when it comes to preventing more tragedies like Tyler Clementi's. We need to teach kids instead, that the criteria that determine their treatment of others has nothing whatever to do with their personal feelings. It has everything to do with kindness, decency, and honor.
You don't have to approve of another person's lifestyle, or be comfortable and non-judgmental about all their preferences in order to choose not to bully them. You choose not to because you're a decent human being and decent human beings don't do that to other human beings. But, how to instill that conviction in kids who didn't incorporate it at home, I don't know.
The incredible cruelty of such a vicious trick takes my breath away. Tyler was not just outed and embarrassed, he was violated. And thanks to modern technology, he knew that his humiliation was guaranteed never to really disappear. I wonder if that might have even been the worst part, the part that drove him to think he simply couldn't get through this, because it would never really end.
And then, in California, a 13-year-old has just died after ten days on life support--his attempt to hang himself from a tree didn't succeed at first, leaving him in a coma. There was another who shot himself in Texas, another suicide in Indiana, all boys who decided they could no longer take the persecution being meted out to them by classmates because they were gay.
I have never known anyone who is gay that didn't really struggle as a teenager. To come to a level of self-acceptance and self-love required time, and that these young men didn't have more of it is a terrible tragedy and a great loss.
The thing I wonder about is, were these kids and so many others like them persecuted because they are gay, or because they are vulnerable? Is it really the homosexuality that motivates their tormentors, or are they just motivated to inflict harm and suffering, and gay kids are easy targets? Perhaps it's a meaningless distinction, but I'm not so sure.
If it really is the homosexuality that triggers the bullying, then the stock answer is that more education is needed, about both homosexuality and 'tolerance.' The reasoning is that these kids act out of ignorance and fear. That they need to be taught to see homosexuality and gay people in a different light. Once they do, their behavior changes.
But I'm not convinced kids are all that ignorant. I think some of them are just vicious. The capacity to be cruel exists in all of us, but to a greater degree in some than others. A lot of bullying goes on in schools that is _not_ targeted at gays, which supports the conclusion that the motivation is simply sadism--pleasure in someone else's suffering. Gay kids, or those who are struggling to come to terms with whether or not they are, are simply better targets than virtually everyone else, because their 'issue' tends to isolate them. Although it's changing some, confiding in parents or friends is so much more difficult because it requires disclosure the child is often not ready to make.
I wonder sometimes if kids are crueler now than they used to be, or if the popular culture just gives them so many more examples to emulate and technology gives them so many more ways to stick the knife in deeper. Either way, I don't know that the conventional wisdom--that the answer is to 'educate' them into being more accepting of or comfortable with homosexuality--is the most effective solution at their age. I taught high school for many years, so I know that it's something that makes many kids, particularly boys, _un_comfortable, and growing up is what dissipates that discomfort, in most cases. The important point is that the vast majority of these students who were squeamish about homosexuality were not out tormenting kids they thought were gay.
There are people, both gay and non-gay, who think the only acceptable end goal is for everyone to be okay with it--to regard homosexuality as inherently 'normal' and to be in favor of gay marriage, and so on. To that end, some of them label anyone who doesn't/isn't as a "hater" or a bigot.
I think that's unrealistic and unproductive thinking, though, and not the best line of offense when it comes to preventing more tragedies like Tyler Clementi's. We need to teach kids instead, that the criteria that determine their treatment of others has nothing whatever to do with their personal feelings. It has everything to do with kindness, decency, and honor.
You don't have to approve of another person's lifestyle, or be comfortable and non-judgmental about all their preferences in order to choose not to bully them. You choose not to because you're a decent human being and decent human beings don't do that to other human beings. But, how to instill that conviction in kids who didn't incorporate it at home, I don't know.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Israeli construction moratorium expiration: genuine obstacle to Israeli/Palestinian peace talks, or red herring?
Any opinions on this subject? I'm leaning more toward red herring, because one has to wonder why so little was accomplished in the ten full months the moratorium was in effect. It was a conciliatory gesture aimed at re-starting meaningful talks, but none got going until it was set to expire. Now the Palestinian demand is for it to be extended, apparently without any firm concession in return.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Ahmadinejad's remarks at the UN today
Ahmadinejad of Iran opined that capitalism was the cause of inequity and suffering in the world, and is in its death throes.
Although he offered no details of an alternative economic system, he said this:
"The world is in need of an encompassing and, of course, just and humane order in the light of which the rights of all are preserved and peace and security are safeguarded."
Lofty sentiments from the man whose regime is detaining, torturing, and murdering hundreds of people whose only 'crime'was to protest that regime. If anyone has reliable information to the contrary, please share it, but two examples follow (seen in multiple sources) of the practices of this regime vis-a-vis their prisoners:
In order that a virgin will not automatically go to Paradise, virgin female prisoners are raped by a prison guard before their executions--with a marriage certificate being issued for the said guard and the prisoner. Some accounts say the marriages are performed so the sexual contact is 'lawful' but that the purpose is to deny the women entrance to Paradise; others say that it is to circumvent an Iranian penal code that prohibits the execution of virgins. What seems not to be in dispute is that these rapes occur.
A former guard (himself later imprisoned, then released) recounts being present while a couple is forced to watch the rape of their 9-year-old daughter, after which the father is given an espionage confession he had previously declined to sign.
Although he offered no details of an alternative economic system, he said this:
"The world is in need of an encompassing and, of course, just and humane order in the light of which the rights of all are preserved and peace and security are safeguarded."
Lofty sentiments from the man whose regime is detaining, torturing, and murdering hundreds of people whose only 'crime'was to protest that regime. If anyone has reliable information to the contrary, please share it, but two examples follow (seen in multiple sources) of the practices of this regime vis-a-vis their prisoners:
In order that a virgin will not automatically go to Paradise, virgin female prisoners are raped by a prison guard before their executions--with a marriage certificate being issued for the said guard and the prisoner. Some accounts say the marriages are performed so the sexual contact is 'lawful' but that the purpose is to deny the women entrance to Paradise; others say that it is to circumvent an Iranian penal code that prohibits the execution of virgins. What seems not to be in dispute is that these rapes occur.
A former guard (himself later imprisoned, then released) recounts being present while a couple is forced to watch the rape of their 9-year-old daughter, after which the father is given an espionage confession he had previously declined to sign.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Why I like reader feedback...it really does make me think.
For those of you who have let me know that you're having trouble either becoming a 'follower' or leaving comments, I have to confess that I'm clueless why it's working for some and not others. I hope you'll try again.
I received an articulate and thoughtful response on Facebook to my comments, and will respond briefly to two points that were made. With the writer's permission, I have pasted his comments, in their entirety, below the last post, so check them out; they are well worth reading. (I posted them from 'anonymous,' for lack of a better idea how to do it.)
He says:
"You write that it is hypocritical to expect a measure of tolerance from Americans that is clearly not present in the inflamed protests of other groups and countries around the world. Guilty as charged. In proof of my own hypocrisy (perhaps even of my own bigotry) I do indeed expect more of us."
An earlier post echoed this idea that focusing on the hypocrisy is kind of a pointless intellectualism or a useless tit for tat. Although the hypocrisy I specifically referred to was that of Islamic-ruled countries lecturing us on tolerance, I would certainly agree that it's not really the point. The point has more to do with my correspondent's statement that he 'expects more of us.' I like that idea a lot, and it really is an expression of pride in being American to say, 'I'm going to treat you according to this set of values, whether or not you to it in return.' As a philosophy, it's admirable.
I'm just not so sure it's producing results. I wish it would, but so far, the evidence isn't pointing that way. This is a simplistic example, I know, but it will suffice to illustrate the point: have you ever been a witness to a relationship in which one person was a tyrant and the other was the pleaser? If so, was it your observation that when the tyrant became more demanding and the pleaser tried even harder, that the tyrant was satisfied and became a better partner?
No. It works the other way, doesn't it? The more the tyrant is appeased, the more demanding he or she becomes. And I am afraid this is characterizing our relationship with the radical, Sharia-promoting Muslims. It's endlessly pointed out that most Muslims are not that way, and they're not. But as they're not the ones who are controlling the dialogue, not to mention wanting to kill us all because we're infidel Americans, it's hardly the most important point.
I think President Obama's intention to 'reach out' to the Muslim world was a good one. And if, as he assumed and Americans hoped, a new man and a new attitude and a new approach was what would improve our relations with the Muslim world, it should have borne fruit by now. Instead, we've had more terror attacks and attempted attacks on our soil, Iran now probably _can't_ be prevented from going nuclear, and Israel's enemies are circling even more, in spite of the fact that President Obama is unprecedented as President in the level of his support for the Palestinian cause.
If giving more than we get, in terms of tolerance or anything else, was working, I'd be all for it. But it's looking more like the more we give, the more they want. And where does that end? None of us knows.
My correspondent:
You write that fear of what may follow is the thing driving many Americans to speak out against the idea of a small church in Florida burning copies of the Quran. Again, I know for myself this is true. I fear that until we find the strength and courage to break old cycles of cause and effect then nothing is ever going to truly change.
Again, I genuinely admire the idealism of this, and knowing the writer, I know it's genuine idealism. I also agree with him. I think I was pretty clear that one of the reasons we didn't want the pastor to follow through was that burning the Quran absolutely was an insensitive, provocative, dumb thing to do that would have a predictable result. But this statement ignores the very real fear we have about what the physical consequences will be for 'offending' radical Muslims. Ignoring it doesn't mean it's not real.
I received an articulate and thoughtful response on Facebook to my comments, and will respond briefly to two points that were made. With the writer's permission, I have pasted his comments, in their entirety, below the last post, so check them out; they are well worth reading. (I posted them from 'anonymous,' for lack of a better idea how to do it.)
He says:
"You write that it is hypocritical to expect a measure of tolerance from Americans that is clearly not present in the inflamed protests of other groups and countries around the world. Guilty as charged. In proof of my own hypocrisy (perhaps even of my own bigotry) I do indeed expect more of us."
An earlier post echoed this idea that focusing on the hypocrisy is kind of a pointless intellectualism or a useless tit for tat. Although the hypocrisy I specifically referred to was that of Islamic-ruled countries lecturing us on tolerance, I would certainly agree that it's not really the point. The point has more to do with my correspondent's statement that he 'expects more of us.' I like that idea a lot, and it really is an expression of pride in being American to say, 'I'm going to treat you according to this set of values, whether or not you to it in return.' As a philosophy, it's admirable.
I'm just not so sure it's producing results. I wish it would, but so far, the evidence isn't pointing that way. This is a simplistic example, I know, but it will suffice to illustrate the point: have you ever been a witness to a relationship in which one person was a tyrant and the other was the pleaser? If so, was it your observation that when the tyrant became more demanding and the pleaser tried even harder, that the tyrant was satisfied and became a better partner?
No. It works the other way, doesn't it? The more the tyrant is appeased, the more demanding he or she becomes. And I am afraid this is characterizing our relationship with the radical, Sharia-promoting Muslims. It's endlessly pointed out that most Muslims are not that way, and they're not. But as they're not the ones who are controlling the dialogue, not to mention wanting to kill us all because we're infidel Americans, it's hardly the most important point.
I think President Obama's intention to 'reach out' to the Muslim world was a good one. And if, as he assumed and Americans hoped, a new man and a new attitude and a new approach was what would improve our relations with the Muslim world, it should have borne fruit by now. Instead, we've had more terror attacks and attempted attacks on our soil, Iran now probably _can't_ be prevented from going nuclear, and Israel's enemies are circling even more, in spite of the fact that President Obama is unprecedented as President in the level of his support for the Palestinian cause.
If giving more than we get, in terms of tolerance or anything else, was working, I'd be all for it. But it's looking more like the more we give, the more they want. And where does that end? None of us knows.
My correspondent:
You write that fear of what may follow is the thing driving many Americans to speak out against the idea of a small church in Florida burning copies of the Quran. Again, I know for myself this is true. I fear that until we find the strength and courage to break old cycles of cause and effect then nothing is ever going to truly change.
Again, I genuinely admire the idealism of this, and knowing the writer, I know it's genuine idealism. I also agree with him. I think I was pretty clear that one of the reasons we didn't want the pastor to follow through was that burning the Quran absolutely was an insensitive, provocative, dumb thing to do that would have a predictable result. But this statement ignores the very real fear we have about what the physical consequences will be for 'offending' radical Muslims. Ignoring it doesn't mean it's not real.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Ground Zero mosque complex will be built, I predict
The latest news I've heard is that Pastor Jones and his church have called off the Quran-burning for good--not postponed it, but cancelled it without conditions. This is great news, of course, and hopefully, the radical Muslims who have used the incident to whip the uneducated into a homicidal frenzy will be forced to call them off.
Don't take that last sentence to mean that I think radical Muslims were the only ones offended by the proposed burning. Such an act would offend not only decent people of other (or no) religion, but moderate and even secular Muslims. I'd like to think that last fact might have influenced Pastor Jones' decision--he'd made it clear he was aiming at the radicals, but perhaps he realized there would be a lot of collateral damage.
So, this particular crisis appears to have been averted, and a collective sigh of relief is warranted. But the underlying issues are not going away. Indeed, there is an ongoing manifestation of them in the mosque at Ground Zero controversy, and I suspect there will be more controversies to come. The issues include: is 'tolerance' a one-way street that goes from America outwards, and, who is shaping the debate about what 'tolerance' entails?
Today is certainly an appropriate day to address the mosque. I am one of the 70 percent of Americans who think that Imam Rauf, and whoever his partners/backers are, should choose to change their minds and change their location, out of sensitivity to our national wound, respect for our repeatedly expressed wishes, and in the interests of MUTUAL tolerance.
I know they have the right to build it there, but if their professed goals of 'building bridges' and promoting understanding are genuine, why do they determinedly rebuff a clear and overwhelming majority who tell them that the way to do that is pick a different spot? It's funny, but when Pastor Jones announced that he had been promised the Ground Zero mosque would be moved (an announcement contradicted by Rauf only minutes later) my initial reaction was shock--could that possibly be true?--closely followed by the thought 'maybe they really mean it?! Maybe they are really are trying to promote understanding and reconciliation!'
Well, maybe not. Or, if you believe them, they are, but it can't possibly be done anywhere but on that exact piece of real estate. My prediction is that the mosque will be built. Not only do I think they have no intention--and have never had any intention--of considering other options, but we have somehow reached a point where the will of the people--and the goodwill of the vast majority of Muslims--is not what is shaping the debate. I'm not entirely sure how that's happened, and much less clear on how to change it.
But, one thing I am sure of--if we dig in our heels and stop listening to one another--if you decide I'm a 'bigot' because I think the mosque should be moved, or I decide you're one of those 'useful fools' because you think it should be built--then we're playing right into the hands of those who ARE shaping the debate.
**That point, and some others, are made in the following comment, which was sent to me by e-mail, because the poster had problems trying to comment on the blog itself. Please let me know, at anotherangle03@yahoo.com, if you have encountered similar problems.
Have a wonderful weekend, but take a moment to remember.
9/11/2001
"I see similarities with this "pastor" and self-syled "imams" in, say, Pakistan , who destroy the spirit of their respective religions and foment antagonism against others. These types have psychological problems (e.g., "unresolved past conflict issues") or use their positions for personal gain, or think they are being religiously authentic. Their positions are anti-intellectual, for sure. Many of these types are apocalyptic thinkers as well. Perhaps they should simply meet each other on the plains of Megiddo and leave the rest of us out of their simple-minded plots.
Finally, I detect a lot of squaring off in this matter ("Yes Jones is wrong but you don't see a bunch of Christians threatening death when Christian interests are not being tolerated"). These types of comments can become the seeds for escalating separations between Muslims & Christians, and is exactly what these extremist types desire. All who are intolerant are wrong, and both religions contain plenty of members who refuse to play this deadly game."
Don't take that last sentence to mean that I think radical Muslims were the only ones offended by the proposed burning. Such an act would offend not only decent people of other (or no) religion, but moderate and even secular Muslims. I'd like to think that last fact might have influenced Pastor Jones' decision--he'd made it clear he was aiming at the radicals, but perhaps he realized there would be a lot of collateral damage.
So, this particular crisis appears to have been averted, and a collective sigh of relief is warranted. But the underlying issues are not going away. Indeed, there is an ongoing manifestation of them in the mosque at Ground Zero controversy, and I suspect there will be more controversies to come. The issues include: is 'tolerance' a one-way street that goes from America outwards, and, who is shaping the debate about what 'tolerance' entails?
Today is certainly an appropriate day to address the mosque. I am one of the 70 percent of Americans who think that Imam Rauf, and whoever his partners/backers are, should choose to change their minds and change their location, out of sensitivity to our national wound, respect for our repeatedly expressed wishes, and in the interests of MUTUAL tolerance.
I know they have the right to build it there, but if their professed goals of 'building bridges' and promoting understanding are genuine, why do they determinedly rebuff a clear and overwhelming majority who tell them that the way to do that is pick a different spot? It's funny, but when Pastor Jones announced that he had been promised the Ground Zero mosque would be moved (an announcement contradicted by Rauf only minutes later) my initial reaction was shock--could that possibly be true?--closely followed by the thought 'maybe they really mean it?! Maybe they are really are trying to promote understanding and reconciliation!'
Well, maybe not. Or, if you believe them, they are, but it can't possibly be done anywhere but on that exact piece of real estate. My prediction is that the mosque will be built. Not only do I think they have no intention--and have never had any intention--of considering other options, but we have somehow reached a point where the will of the people--and the goodwill of the vast majority of Muslims--is not what is shaping the debate. I'm not entirely sure how that's happened, and much less clear on how to change it.
But, one thing I am sure of--if we dig in our heels and stop listening to one another--if you decide I'm a 'bigot' because I think the mosque should be moved, or I decide you're one of those 'useful fools' because you think it should be built--then we're playing right into the hands of those who ARE shaping the debate.
**That point, and some others, are made in the following comment, which was sent to me by e-mail, because the poster had problems trying to comment on the blog itself. Please let me know, at anotherangle03@yahoo.com, if you have encountered similar problems.
Have a wonderful weekend, but take a moment to remember.
9/11/2001
"I see similarities with this "pastor" and self-syled "imams" in, say, Pakistan , who destroy the spirit of their respective religions and foment antagonism against others. These types have psychological problems (e.g., "unresolved past conflict issues") or use their positions for personal gain, or think they are being religiously authentic. Their positions are anti-intellectual, for sure. Many of these types are apocalyptic thinkers as well. Perhaps they should simply meet each other on the plains of Megiddo and leave the rest of us out of their simple-minded plots.
Finally, I detect a lot of squaring off in this matter ("Yes Jones is wrong but you don't see a bunch of Christians threatening death when Christian interests are not being tolerated"). These types of comments can become the seeds for escalating separations between Muslims & Christians, and is exactly what these extremist types desire. All who are intolerant are wrong, and both religions contain plenty of members who refuse to play this deadly game."
Friday, September 10, 2010
Who, along with the pastor, deserves a share of the blame?
Below is a comment I received via e-mail about my first post. I reproduce it here because it makes several interesting points, one of which involves the press' role in the current controversy.
"Timely and thought provoking. Once again, this situation highlights differences in Western and Eastern understandings of the power of words, especially revealed Word, and the part they play in the lives of people West and East. It takes a long time to break through rigid, often shallow, positions held by people who can't or won't make the distinctions—or try to understand the other's position. A facile press doesn't help the situation much. "News" people seem totally unequipped to understand the intricacies of religious fundamentalisms. We aren't served well by too many people. You, however, have written with care and dispassionate facility. Many thanks."
Although I am no doubt in the minority (in terms of feeling that Pastor Jones made a bad decision but is not necessarily a bad man) I hope more people, like my correspondent, see that there are other responsible parties besides the pastor. The point of my first entry was that the focus seems to be entirely on Jones' intolerance, as if it is the only problem, when the magnitude of intolerance which is characterizing the response to it, is so much greater. The unspoken attitude is that the death threats, the demonstrations--all of it--are entirely Jones' responsibility. All the blame is focused on him for provoking it, without any attention towards the fact that the response has been beyond disproportionate and incredibly 'intolerant.'
The other question which isn't being asked enough is, 'has the press been responsible in this matter?' and the answer is clearly no. Pastor Jones and his tiny church announced this campaign back in July; I remember reading about it. For two months, then, this has been in the works without attracting much notice even in the U.S., never mind around the world.
Had the press not decided to fan this tiny ember into a flame as 9/11 approaches, we wouldn't be seeing the extremity of reaction we're seeing now. But, it's in their interest, if no one else's. Pastor Jones, as lightning rod, makes a convenient scapegoat.
"Timely and thought provoking. Once again, this situation highlights differences in Western and Eastern understandings of the power of words, especially revealed Word, and the part they play in the lives of people West and East. It takes a long time to break through rigid, often shallow, positions held by people who can't or won't make the distinctions—or try to understand the other's position. A facile press doesn't help the situation much. "News" people seem totally unequipped to understand the intricacies of religious fundamentalisms. We aren't served well by too many people. You, however, have written with care and dispassionate facility. Many thanks."
Although I am no doubt in the minority (in terms of feeling that Pastor Jones made a bad decision but is not necessarily a bad man) I hope more people, like my correspondent, see that there are other responsible parties besides the pastor. The point of my first entry was that the focus seems to be entirely on Jones' intolerance, as if it is the only problem, when the magnitude of intolerance which is characterizing the response to it, is so much greater. The unspoken attitude is that the death threats, the demonstrations--all of it--are entirely Jones' responsibility. All the blame is focused on him for provoking it, without any attention towards the fact that the response has been beyond disproportionate and incredibly 'intolerant.'
The other question which isn't being asked enough is, 'has the press been responsible in this matter?' and the answer is clearly no. Pastor Jones and his tiny church announced this campaign back in July; I remember reading about it. For two months, then, this has been in the works without attracting much notice even in the U.S., never mind around the world.
Had the press not decided to fan this tiny ember into a flame as 9/11 approaches, we wouldn't be seeing the extremity of reaction we're seeing now. But, it's in their interest, if no one else's. Pastor Jones, as lightning rod, makes a convenient scapegoat.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The plot thickens....
According to the latest news, to which I responded with a heavy sigh of relief, the pastor has called off the Quran burnings. He made the amazing announcement that he had done so in return for assurances that the planned mosque at Ground Zero was going to be located elsewhere! He claimed that he had asked three times for this promise to be articulated clearly, and that he had witnesses.
Mere minutes after this news, Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam in charge of the Ground Zero project, denied that any agreement had been reached. Pastor Jones is insistent that that's what he was promised, while Muhammad Musri, a Florida imam, says the agreement was simply that there would be a meeting between him, Jones, and Rauf.
Mere minutes after this news, Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam in charge of the Ground Zero project, denied that any agreement had been reached. Pastor Jones is insistent that that's what he was promised, while Muhammad Musri, a Florida imam, says the agreement was simply that there would be a meeting between him, Jones, and Rauf.
Quran/Koran burning...not burning
Very brief background before I get to the subject:
Between 1997 and 2005, I had a public forum for my opinions/observations. At first it was a bi-weekly commentary on Wilmington, NC's public radio station, WHQR FM 91.3. After that, it was a bi-weekly column in the local paper, the Star-News, a New York Times afflilate. Because I was a high school teacher at the time, many of the commentaries/columns concerned education, but I was not limited to these subjects. I was fortunate enough, for a time at least, to be allowed free rein in terms of subject matter (my decision to quit the column was prompted by the withdrawal of this initially agreed upon latitude.) That's the beauty of blogging--no one has the authority to control you in that way--and as I have missed having a 'stump' to stand on, I would have done this a lot sooner if I'd realized how easy it is to get started.
As a final note, I truly appreciated having that public forum, and was always desirous of using it wisely. My goal was never to anger, inflame or incite, so I made every effort to be respectful of people whose opinions were different from mine. My goal was simply to make people think about something in a new way--at least consider it, whether or not they were convinced. That's why I called the newspaper column "Another Angle" and decided to use the same name for this blog.
I believe that my intention--to offer opinions without causing unnecessary offense--must have been evident, because even though I didn't shy away from controversial subjects and was frequently disagreed with, most of those who disagreed were very civil. I invite your comments, but hope that they will be offered in that same spirit.
So...on to the subject of Terry Jones, the pastor in Gainesville, Florida who, at the time of this writing, is still planning to follow through on his burning of the sacred text of Islam this coming Saturday, the ninth anniversary of 9/11.
I'll preface my remarks by saying I think it's a bad idea that shouldn't have been conceived in the first place, and should be aborted now.
But, dismissing the pastor as a publicity-seeking ignoramus, or as the worst stereotype of an un-Christian Christian, is not only, I think, unfair, but it allows his critics to dismiss as irrelevant some of the points he makes, and they shouldn't be ignored.
Before you get hot under the collar, I will repeat, I definitely think he should call it off. But I believe he is genuine when he says that he is continuing to pray for guidance, and that when he says 'at this time' calling it off doesn't seem the right choice, it indicates he is paying attention to the criticisms and is doing his best to examine his own convictions and intentions in light of them.
If you are prejudiced against or contemptuous of Christians, particularly those of a fundamentalist nature, you won't at all grant him that benefit of the doubt, I know. I'm simply saying that I believe he wants to do the right thing.
For our part, we should at least be honest about why we are calling for him to stop. Certainly, part of it is the genuine desire to show respect for the religion of a billion+ people by not desecrating their holy text.
But it's also--undeniably--the fear of the consequences if we don't stop him. We're not only afraid for our soldiers in Afghanistan, but there are vocal calls by some Muslims for killing any and all Americans wherever they might be found. Afghanis and others are screaming "Death to Christians" in the streets. In the name of 'tolerance' towards themselves, these people are screaming for the annihilation of literally millions of other people, all because of the ill-advised decision of 50 people in Florida who are attracting near-universal condemnation from the rest of America.
Can we not see the incredible hypocrisy, danger, and sheer, unmitigated gall inherent in Islamic-ruled nations demanding that any individual demonstration of "intolerance" by a citizen of our country ('intolerance' to be defined by them) must be squelched, while at the same time, they either inhibit or outright prohibit, depending on the nation in question, the practice of any religion but Islam?
They are quite clearly demanding tolerance from everyone else while saying that it is perfectly acceptable that they tolerate no one. And we are buying it! Perhaps because we have become hypocritical ourselves? Think of the following example (information cited in an AP article) The Revenend Franklin Graham (who has called on Pastor Jones not to proceed, by the way) had his invitation to speak at a Pentagon prayer breakfast rescinded earlier this year by the Army, because a "religious freedom group" raised an objection, citing his past remarks about Islam.
What does this mean other than that freedom of speech, at least about religion, doesn't exist here anymore, because you really aren't free to criticize Islam, if you're so inclined? Can it be any clearer that one of our bedrock principles, expressed in the line, "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is no more?
Christians are still legitimate targets because by and large people don't care if they offend Christians, and perhaps they don't care because they know they aren't going to get killed for it.
In recent years, American museums have exhibited works of "art" that featured a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine, and the Virgin Mary covered in excrement--images which were deeply offensive and painful to Christians. Would they feature a picture of Mohammed at all, never mind covered in excrement? You know the answer is no. And if they defend the first on Constitutional principles and high ideals, but not the second, what is the reason? Plain and simple--it's fear.
Although the pastor has picked the wrong ground to defend, his question of where it will all end should not get lost.
Between 1997 and 2005, I had a public forum for my opinions/observations. At first it was a bi-weekly commentary on Wilmington, NC's public radio station, WHQR FM 91.3. After that, it was a bi-weekly column in the local paper, the Star-News, a New York Times afflilate. Because I was a high school teacher at the time, many of the commentaries/columns concerned education, but I was not limited to these subjects. I was fortunate enough, for a time at least, to be allowed free rein in terms of subject matter (my decision to quit the column was prompted by the withdrawal of this initially agreed upon latitude.) That's the beauty of blogging--no one has the authority to control you in that way--and as I have missed having a 'stump' to stand on, I would have done this a lot sooner if I'd realized how easy it is to get started.
As a final note, I truly appreciated having that public forum, and was always desirous of using it wisely. My goal was never to anger, inflame or incite, so I made every effort to be respectful of people whose opinions were different from mine. My goal was simply to make people think about something in a new way--at least consider it, whether or not they were convinced. That's why I called the newspaper column "Another Angle" and decided to use the same name for this blog.
I believe that my intention--to offer opinions without causing unnecessary offense--must have been evident, because even though I didn't shy away from controversial subjects and was frequently disagreed with, most of those who disagreed were very civil. I invite your comments, but hope that they will be offered in that same spirit.
So...on to the subject of Terry Jones, the pastor in Gainesville, Florida who, at the time of this writing, is still planning to follow through on his burning of the sacred text of Islam this coming Saturday, the ninth anniversary of 9/11.
I'll preface my remarks by saying I think it's a bad idea that shouldn't have been conceived in the first place, and should be aborted now.
But, dismissing the pastor as a publicity-seeking ignoramus, or as the worst stereotype of an un-Christian Christian, is not only, I think, unfair, but it allows his critics to dismiss as irrelevant some of the points he makes, and they shouldn't be ignored.
Before you get hot under the collar, I will repeat, I definitely think he should call it off. But I believe he is genuine when he says that he is continuing to pray for guidance, and that when he says 'at this time' calling it off doesn't seem the right choice, it indicates he is paying attention to the criticisms and is doing his best to examine his own convictions and intentions in light of them.
If you are prejudiced against or contemptuous of Christians, particularly those of a fundamentalist nature, you won't at all grant him that benefit of the doubt, I know. I'm simply saying that I believe he wants to do the right thing.
For our part, we should at least be honest about why we are calling for him to stop. Certainly, part of it is the genuine desire to show respect for the religion of a billion+ people by not desecrating their holy text.
But it's also--undeniably--the fear of the consequences if we don't stop him. We're not only afraid for our soldiers in Afghanistan, but there are vocal calls by some Muslims for killing any and all Americans wherever they might be found. Afghanis and others are screaming "Death to Christians" in the streets. In the name of 'tolerance' towards themselves, these people are screaming for the annihilation of literally millions of other people, all because of the ill-advised decision of 50 people in Florida who are attracting near-universal condemnation from the rest of America.
Can we not see the incredible hypocrisy, danger, and sheer, unmitigated gall inherent in Islamic-ruled nations demanding that any individual demonstration of "intolerance" by a citizen of our country ('intolerance' to be defined by them) must be squelched, while at the same time, they either inhibit or outright prohibit, depending on the nation in question, the practice of any religion but Islam?
They are quite clearly demanding tolerance from everyone else while saying that it is perfectly acceptable that they tolerate no one. And we are buying it! Perhaps because we have become hypocritical ourselves? Think of the following example (information cited in an AP article) The Revenend Franklin Graham (who has called on Pastor Jones not to proceed, by the way) had his invitation to speak at a Pentagon prayer breakfast rescinded earlier this year by the Army, because a "religious freedom group" raised an objection, citing his past remarks about Islam.
What does this mean other than that freedom of speech, at least about religion, doesn't exist here anymore, because you really aren't free to criticize Islam, if you're so inclined? Can it be any clearer that one of our bedrock principles, expressed in the line, "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is no more?
Christians are still legitimate targets because by and large people don't care if they offend Christians, and perhaps they don't care because they know they aren't going to get killed for it.
In recent years, American museums have exhibited works of "art" that featured a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine, and the Virgin Mary covered in excrement--images which were deeply offensive and painful to Christians. Would they feature a picture of Mohammed at all, never mind covered in excrement? You know the answer is no. And if they defend the first on Constitutional principles and high ideals, but not the second, what is the reason? Plain and simple--it's fear.
Although the pastor has picked the wrong ground to defend, his question of where it will all end should not get lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)