Clearly many Americans think the mass murderers who carried out the 9/11 attacks on men, women and children of Moslems, Christians, Jews and others were of the same cloth as any who profess to be Moslem. Those criminals were no more representative of Islam than the Ku Klux Klan is of Christianity. Theirs is an extremism that is not on the edges of Islam - it's beyond the border.
The people to punish for the terrorist acts are the people who committed them - not the religion they pretend to have belonged to. Any religion has its murderers and psychopaths. A religion may even welcome them, steer them toward redemption - but it is not defined by the worst acts of its members.
The KKK has carried out acts of vandalism and murder as good, God-fearing Christians. Timothy McVeigh carried out the Oklahoma federal building attack as a justified Christian act of morality and necessity. Do we blame the Christian religion for such acts? There is certainly enough incendiary and cruel language in the Bible to make that case; the Quran can barely compete. Of course, this is not to reference either the whole Bible or Quran - only the passages critics use to try to discredit one religion or the other.
Do we, should we, look at the Oklahoma federal building bombing, that Christian terrorist act, as truly Christian? As representative of the faith? Do we feel the KKK are reasonable emissaries of the Lord? Do we demand that no Christian churches be allowed in Oklahoma City out of respect for dead and their families? Or do we understand the difference between acts of horrific violence and acts of spirituality, faith, and grace? Or do we think only Christianity has those virtues? Judge not, lest ye be judged. Any faith can be used to fan or quench the flames of hatred and fear.
I would think that the people of Oklahoma City might think it would be healing to have a house of worship at the site of that attack. People of faith might think that prayer to the one God would be a good thing.
Christians are not terrorists. Jews are not terrorists. Buddhists are not terrorists. Hindus are not terrorists. Moslems are not terrorists.
Terrorists are terrorists. This is an incredibly important distinction.
And to those of you who will continue to think that a downtown New York public community center built and operated by Islamic clerics would be a terrorist training center, I have one word:
Really?
If that's the best plan the terrorist brain trust can come up with, I’m much less worried about terrorism. “Hey, I know - if we build a community center a few blocks from the World Trade Center attacks, we can conduct our evil plans in complete secrecy! People won’t even know we’re there! We can carry out our evil plots and no one will suspect a thing! Evil laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I love America. I hate terrorism. Who’s with me? Anyone? Everyone? Good. Terrorists tell their followers that we hate Moslems without reason; that we do not respect their religion; that we will cower with fear and reveal our true - and anticonstitutional - colors if provoked. An example they could give would be our abandoning our commitment to freedom of speech and religion by refusing, say, to allow the legal building of a community center and/or mosque. What on earth do the terrorists tell their followers if we say, “Sure! Build your center. We welcome all faiths. We’re America. We’re good like that.” How does that go over with the terrorist recruiting? Not great. Takes the wind right out of their sales. Or should we burn our values on the pyre of our fear, and let terrorist plotters use that flame to light their way?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Be nice to the Tea Party
I think they're working from a different reality. There is consistent, provable bias to Fox, the Wall Street Journal editorial staff, Limbaugh and the other 600 ultraconservative radio hosts who make up America's "liberal media." The bias... is clear, and demonstrated daily by fact-checkers who rely on verifiable sources. If I shared that same reality, I would be as up-in-arms as some of these protesters. They believe the Health Care Bill means fewer people will be insured, that Mexican Nationals take American jobs, that death panels will dictate the killing of their loved ones, that Mexicans behead people in the Arizona desert - although not one instance of any of those things has occurred. They think that the majority of taxes goes to support people who won't work, when only 1--2% goes to direct aid, and most of that goes to policing the aid to prevent cheating. They are directly informed that that 1% of support is over half the budget expenditure. They blame the recession on the administration that ended it, not the one that began it. But these things are clearly stated on "news" channels and radio stations.
They want a leaner, more efficient government and an end to the stripping away of the economic security of the middle class. So does nearly everyone else. A notable exception is the top 3% of businesses, who earn the most and want more, and who sponsor Fox news and the conservative radio programs. We want the same things. The methods of creating positive change and preventing perceived problems vary depending on how people understand civics, economics, history, and current events.
Much media singles out the weirdest of the political far right, ridicules them, and insults the rest of the protest movement by association.
I would say education is key. The point is reasonably made that you can't educate a populace that will literally shout down reason. There are relatively few public shouters. They should be ignored. If we want less shouting, less abject and unsupported fear, we need to treat these very concerned and frightened people with respect and compassion. If we want it, we should give it.
57% of Americars agree with the Tea Party's expression of their values and concerns. Many of these people are bright, college-educated people who sincerely desire the best for all Americans. They aren't even isolationist - the...se are people who donate as heavily as anyone else to international aid. I'm not talking about condescention; simply respect for them and proper, detailed, in-depth reporting for all. Oh, how I wish cable networks had licenses that could be rescinded - by wonks, not politicians.
There is another contingent mixed in with these very good people, people who taint us all. These are the ones who hate the president, other black people, Arabs, Mexicans, women in positions of authority, Jews, and homosexuals absolutely regardless of policy, ethics, morality, compassion, principles, or economic or social effect. These racists, bigots, and neo-Nazis in Tea Party clothing deserve identification and categorical censure across the political spectrum. They need to be culled from the herd and cut off from the debate. No one should give them voice. Their brainless slander should die on their lips, fall to the floor and never even echo.
They want a leaner, more efficient government and an end to the stripping away of the economic security of the middle class. So does nearly everyone else. A notable exception is the top 3% of businesses, who earn the most and want more, and who sponsor Fox news and the conservative radio programs. We want the same things. The methods of creating positive change and preventing perceived problems vary depending on how people understand civics, economics, history, and current events.
Much media singles out the weirdest of the political far right, ridicules them, and insults the rest of the protest movement by association.
I would say education is key. The point is reasonably made that you can't educate a populace that will literally shout down reason. There are relatively few public shouters. They should be ignored. If we want less shouting, less abject and unsupported fear, we need to treat these very concerned and frightened people with respect and compassion. If we want it, we should give it.
57% of Americars agree with the Tea Party's expression of their values and concerns. Many of these people are bright, college-educated people who sincerely desire the best for all Americans. They aren't even isolationist - the...se are people who donate as heavily as anyone else to international aid. I'm not talking about condescention; simply respect for them and proper, detailed, in-depth reporting for all. Oh, how I wish cable networks had licenses that could be rescinded - by wonks, not politicians.
There is another contingent mixed in with these very good people, people who taint us all. These are the ones who hate the president, other black people, Arabs, Mexicans, women in positions of authority, Jews, and homosexuals absolutely regardless of policy, ethics, morality, compassion, principles, or economic or social effect. These racists, bigots, and neo-Nazis in Tea Party clothing deserve identification and categorical censure across the political spectrum. They need to be culled from the herd and cut off from the debate. No one should give them voice. Their brainless slander should die on their lips, fall to the floor and never even echo.
Overpopulationisamyth.com
That site is owned by Joel Bockrath for his organization, the Population Research Institute. They are a strongly anti-abortion/anti-birth-control group.
I've never come across or heard of anyone who is pro-abortion. I think the problem is one that needs to be honestly and ethically addressed. To ignore the very real world, clearly demonstrated problems of overpopulation, to suggest stop trying to realistically address the root cause of deep suffering, disease and death that affects literally millions of people is not in any way ethical or necessary in order to address the abortion question. To allow tens of thousands of infants and children to die each year to try to prevent abortion is a perversely false economy.
The kinds of wholesale change suggested are worthy to the extent they don't supplant other successful and compassionate strategies, but they are overly simplistic. I have no problem with the advocacy of political/governmental strategies to provide for common welfare. However, to do so while abandoning other strategies - and, incidentally, dictating personal values - would literally result in massive suffering. I know he's taking a Catholic position, but its focus is narrow; I can't believe the God he worships would be in favor.
And again, there's practicality. Look at the backlash there is in this country to reduce the share of wealth of the richest 1% of this country to less than 25% of all the country's money, and resources that money provides, by reducing taxes to the rich-favorable Reagan levels. Look at the vigor of many conservatives to reduce any aid to poor families and children whatsoever, so that money can stay in the hands of the very wealthy. There's even growing strength to the movement to repeal Medicare and Social Security. The deep level of change Bockrath - and I - dream of will be met with resistance stronger than the Huns showed against the Romans.
The problems of overpopulation are rife, present, common, threatening, and deadly. It's beyond cruel to advocate abandoning ethical and working methods such as simple availability of condoms to prevent AIDS, unwanted births, and abortions in favor until the realization of a Utopian dream.
I've never come across or heard of anyone who is pro-abortion. I think the problem is one that needs to be honestly and ethically addressed. To ignore the very real world, clearly demonstrated problems of overpopulation, to suggest stop trying to realistically address the root cause of deep suffering, disease and death that affects literally millions of people is not in any way ethical or necessary in order to address the abortion question. To allow tens of thousands of infants and children to die each year to try to prevent abortion is a perversely false economy.
The kinds of wholesale change suggested are worthy to the extent they don't supplant other successful and compassionate strategies, but they are overly simplistic. I have no problem with the advocacy of political/governmental strategies to provide for common welfare. However, to do so while abandoning other strategies - and, incidentally, dictating personal values - would literally result in massive suffering. I know he's taking a Catholic position, but its focus is narrow; I can't believe the God he worships would be in favor.
And again, there's practicality. Look at the backlash there is in this country to reduce the share of wealth of the richest 1% of this country to less than 25% of all the country's money, and resources that money provides, by reducing taxes to the rich-favorable Reagan levels. Look at the vigor of many conservatives to reduce any aid to poor families and children whatsoever, so that money can stay in the hands of the very wealthy. There's even growing strength to the movement to repeal Medicare and Social Security. The deep level of change Bockrath - and I - dream of will be met with resistance stronger than the Huns showed against the Romans.
The problems of overpopulation are rife, present, common, threatening, and deadly. It's beyond cruel to advocate abandoning ethical and working methods such as simple availability of condoms to prevent AIDS, unwanted births, and abortions in favor until the realization of a Utopian dream.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Holier than Thou
I like the phrase "holier than thou," especially in its common use as an accusation. It reminds us that it's not good to try to be holy. It says you should assess the holiness of the person you're with, and strive to be less holy, maybe considerably so. Maybe this is why bad things happen to good people. "Well, he was like reeaall holy, so I took his car and slept with his wife." Maybe there's a corollary with the saying, "If you see the Buddha by the side of the road, kill him." That seems, on the surface, less holy. So if you see Jesus, mug him. You won't get much, but you won't be accused of being holier than anybody. The problem is that if you're trying to politely be less holy than the person you're with, and he's trying to be less holy than you, there's a downward escalation. This is evident in the conflict between the Shias and the Sunnis, both groups having started out pretty holy, but trying to be less holy than 'thou'. It's an admirable effort. You can also see such manners at work in professional wrestling and Republican caucuses. Ron Paul said something pretty sensible at a recent debate - almost holy, I think was the problem - but Giuliani interrupted with a "demand that he take that back, immediately".
Also, according to this phrase, when thou really goes to far and tries to be too spiritual, thou will start saying thou a lot. Watch out for that.
Also, according to this phrase, when thou really goes to far and tries to be too spiritual, thou will start saying thou a lot. Watch out for that.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)