A Near Miss, Your Freedom, and the Ball They Hide
Politicians are dangerous. Let us not forget that Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were all once favorites of their people. It was their consolidation of federal powers and a concomitant withdrawal of civil liberties that made those societies the totalitarian states they were. For years after World War II, Westerners asked themselves what they would have done had they lived in these states? Would they have stood up to these regimes? Or worse yet, would they have even seen them coming?
Today it appears that the Senate has shot down a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. To most Americans, they hear only that a patriotic symbol they believe in was not protected. However, the issue is actually larger than most politicians would lead us to believe. The Supreme Court, whose job it is to protect minority interests and rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution must balance the desires of the majority as expressed through Congress. The Court has ruled that flag burning is "symbolic speech" and thus protected by the First Amendment. This amendment is an attempt by Congress to tell the Court they were wrong. Certain congresspersons have not hid this fact. You might say to yourself, flag burning? Who cares about that speech? Or who cares about the hate-speech of the KKK? Or pornography maybe? Why keep any of it? Because once we start limiting ourselves, we cease to be a land of the free. Moreover, as the infamous pornography publisher, Larry Flint, said, (and I paraphrase) if the law will protect a scumbag like me, it'll protect you. These "rights" are not just the rights of hatemongers and criminals--they are your rights too.
Consider also this amendment in conjunction with the proposed amendment prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. This would implicitly, in part, repeal the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protections of the law. Once the homosexuals can be legally discriminated against, who's next? Atheists? Jews? Blacks? There is a reason that we have so rarely amended the Constitution in this country. It is the bedrock of all the ideals of this nation. It stands for and enumerates the freedoms and liberties so many have fought and died for in this country. To give it away for such a trivial reason as setting fire to a piece of cloth, even if that piece of cloth is an important symbol, because we don't like the message this sends, leads inexorably away from freedom, and down a path of intolerance and thought-control.
Americans accept the notion that there is no tyranny by the majority in this country. We are after all, a free society. That is, all persons are protected by the Constitution. Who would have thought it would come down to the day when the America we love could be governed by tyranny? Turns out, it just takes a 2/3 majority.
||
posted by mW @ 6:52 PM
Today it appears that the Senate has shot down a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. To most Americans, they hear only that a patriotic symbol they believe in was not protected. However, the issue is actually larger than most politicians would lead us to believe. The Supreme Court, whose job it is to protect minority interests and rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution must balance the desires of the majority as expressed through Congress. The Court has ruled that flag burning is "symbolic speech" and thus protected by the First Amendment. This amendment is an attempt by Congress to tell the Court they were wrong. Certain congresspersons have not hid this fact. You might say to yourself, flag burning? Who cares about that speech? Or who cares about the hate-speech of the KKK? Or pornography maybe? Why keep any of it? Because once we start limiting ourselves, we cease to be a land of the free. Moreover, as the infamous pornography publisher, Larry Flint, said, (and I paraphrase) if the law will protect a scumbag like me, it'll protect you. These "rights" are not just the rights of hatemongers and criminals--they are your rights too.
Consider also this amendment in conjunction with the proposed amendment prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. This would implicitly, in part, repeal the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protections of the law. Once the homosexuals can be legally discriminated against, who's next? Atheists? Jews? Blacks? There is a reason that we have so rarely amended the Constitution in this country. It is the bedrock of all the ideals of this nation. It stands for and enumerates the freedoms and liberties so many have fought and died for in this country. To give it away for such a trivial reason as setting fire to a piece of cloth, even if that piece of cloth is an important symbol, because we don't like the message this sends, leads inexorably away from freedom, and down a path of intolerance and thought-control.
Americans accept the notion that there is no tyranny by the majority in this country. We are after all, a free society. That is, all persons are protected by the Constitution. Who would have thought it would come down to the day when the America we love could be governed by tyranny? Turns out, it just takes a 2/3 majority.
Hypocrite
President Bush promised to hold his White House to a higher ethical standard after the "scandals" invovling President Clinton. I'll mostly let that one go for now. When a CIA operative's identity was leaked, he promised to punish the leaker. That is, until that person turned out to be Vice-President Cheney's Chief of Staff. That is, until his top advisor, Karl Rove, was implicated. Now from the Washington Times, "A clearly incensed President Bush yesterday called the public disclosure of a secret terrorist-tracking program 'disgraceful.'" This relates to tracking of bank records. There are even hints that he wants to go after newspapers that published these reports. I'm sure he would, unless it turned out to be one of his staff.
I'm sure President Nixon felt the same way when Daniel Elsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War. I'm sure Reagan felt the same way about whoever leaked details of the Iran-Contra scandal. This is why we have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in this country. To expose what a corrupt government would not want us to see. They are a private check on unmitigated state power. This is not even to say that this particular operation was illegal, but the culture of secrecy which this president would breed is one that is arranged to preclude a disclosure of such wrongs.
So not only are you a continuing hypocrite, Mr. Bush, you just do not understand the constitutional guarantees that our forefathers established and so many men and women have fought and continue to fight to protect.
||
posted by mW @ 9:56 AM
I'm sure President Nixon felt the same way when Daniel Elsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War. I'm sure Reagan felt the same way about whoever leaked details of the Iran-Contra scandal. This is why we have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in this country. To expose what a corrupt government would not want us to see. They are a private check on unmitigated state power. This is not even to say that this particular operation was illegal, but the culture of secrecy which this president would breed is one that is arranged to preclude a disclosure of such wrongs.
So not only are you a continuing hypocrite, Mr. Bush, you just do not understand the constitutional guarantees that our forefathers established and so many men and women have fought and continue to fight to protect.
The Little War That Wasn't
Ok. Quick facts. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the ability to declare war. Article II appoints the president the commander in chief of the armed forces. Now stop. Take a deep breath. And understand this very clear premise: the United States is not at war. Congress has never authorized a "war" against either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have they passed "resolutions" that enable the president to so use the armed forces? Sure. But they have not declared war. Why am I nitpicking this point? Because I am one of those damn lawyers? Well, don't forget that most politicians and policymakers are too. The end result of this representation is twofold: domestic and international.
Domestically, we traditionally allow the president to assume greater power during war, and this can even include the suspension of certain civil liberties. Okay. But he cannot do this during non-war time. Let me reiterate. There has been no declaration of war. If anything that is attacked under the "rubric" of war allows greater federal powers and less individual freedom, what are we fighting for? And moreover, then what is a "war" in the court of public opinion? Well, the battles raging in Afghanistan and Iraq seem like good examples. For that matter, it seems the government has sold most of the country on a "War on Terrorism." What is that? Where is it fought? There are no boundaries to the answer. What about "War on Drugs" or the "War on Crime?" Both present bad guys. Seem good? Who cares if criminals get their rights stomped? What about the "War on Illegal Parking" or "War on Anti-capitalists?" Where do you draw the line? My point is this, if Americans do not realize what rights they are even giving away, how can they protest them? Oh, and let's not forget the current administration's "War on Dissenters." If you can gain real power by just changing your language, hasn't the government played us all for fools?
Now, internationally, the deal becomes even sweeter. The United Nations and its members (which, yes, includes the United States) have all signed multilateral treaties which create rules of war. Ah, but the United States has never declared war. Oh, and of course there are rules for prisoners of war. Whoops, we're not at war. Instead, we have "enemy combantants" (a term which the president invented to dodge this very issue-and no, I am not making this up, it is absolutely a fact). So no, no prisoners of war, which means no rules for how we treat these persons. It means we don't have to even proove they did anything like we would with someone who only picked your pocket. Three of the persons kept in Cuba have already committed suicide in despair. Europe has found evidence of secret CIA prisons in those countries. Rumors have long circulated about outsourcing interrogations so they can use whatever methods necessary. Is this what we're fighting for?
All said, this is a very real joke that has been played on all Americans, the punchline of which is that you are anti-American if you question any of this, and any judge/court which has the bravery to actually interpret the Constitution as it was written is branded an "activist judges/court." Would a congressperson be an "activist" for passing legislation that someone else didn't like? Would the president be an "activist president" for signing a bill someone didn't like? No. They would both be fulfilling their constitutional duties. as for the judiciary, courts interpret the constitutionality of laws. That is their job. They cannot be faulted for merely holding that a legislative body or the executive office has overstepped its constitutional limits. If doing that is some form of invalid "activism" then we shouldn't even have a court system. And before that sounds too good, let's remember that we might still have segregation if it wasn't for the courts; we might still sanction other forms of discrimination and bias just because a majority approved of it. Legislatures look out for the wishes of the majority, and the courts make sure the minorities' rights are not extinguished in the process. This is called balance of power, something we all learn about in middle school. So how is it that a few inflammatory politicians can make a big deal of it?
Wake up people. Stop just believing what you have been told by people who have done nothing but earn your distrust. How many misrepresentations does it take for the American people to get it? Is it just that some of us don't understand the law? Well I'm telling you. I'm not even telling you my opinion in this post, just the law. I'll leave it to you to decide what to feel about that information.
||
posted by mW @ 5:05 PM
Domestically, we traditionally allow the president to assume greater power during war, and this can even include the suspension of certain civil liberties. Okay. But he cannot do this during non-war time. Let me reiterate. There has been no declaration of war. If anything that is attacked under the "rubric" of war allows greater federal powers and less individual freedom, what are we fighting for? And moreover, then what is a "war" in the court of public opinion? Well, the battles raging in Afghanistan and Iraq seem like good examples. For that matter, it seems the government has sold most of the country on a "War on Terrorism." What is that? Where is it fought? There are no boundaries to the answer. What about "War on Drugs" or the "War on Crime?" Both present bad guys. Seem good? Who cares if criminals get their rights stomped? What about the "War on Illegal Parking" or "War on Anti-capitalists?" Where do you draw the line? My point is this, if Americans do not realize what rights they are even giving away, how can they protest them? Oh, and let's not forget the current administration's "War on Dissenters." If you can gain real power by just changing your language, hasn't the government played us all for fools?
Now, internationally, the deal becomes even sweeter. The United Nations and its members (which, yes, includes the United States) have all signed multilateral treaties which create rules of war. Ah, but the United States has never declared war. Oh, and of course there are rules for prisoners of war. Whoops, we're not at war. Instead, we have "enemy combantants" (a term which the president invented to dodge this very issue-and no, I am not making this up, it is absolutely a fact). So no, no prisoners of war, which means no rules for how we treat these persons. It means we don't have to even proove they did anything like we would with someone who only picked your pocket. Three of the persons kept in Cuba have already committed suicide in despair. Europe has found evidence of secret CIA prisons in those countries. Rumors have long circulated about outsourcing interrogations so they can use whatever methods necessary. Is this what we're fighting for?
All said, this is a very real joke that has been played on all Americans, the punchline of which is that you are anti-American if you question any of this, and any judge/court which has the bravery to actually interpret the Constitution as it was written is branded an "activist judges/court." Would a congressperson be an "activist" for passing legislation that someone else didn't like? Would the president be an "activist president" for signing a bill someone didn't like? No. They would both be fulfilling their constitutional duties. as for the judiciary, courts interpret the constitutionality of laws. That is their job. They cannot be faulted for merely holding that a legislative body or the executive office has overstepped its constitutional limits. If doing that is some form of invalid "activism" then we shouldn't even have a court system. And before that sounds too good, let's remember that we might still have segregation if it wasn't for the courts; we might still sanction other forms of discrimination and bias just because a majority approved of it. Legislatures look out for the wishes of the majority, and the courts make sure the minorities' rights are not extinguished in the process. This is called balance of power, something we all learn about in middle school. So how is it that a few inflammatory politicians can make a big deal of it?
Wake up people. Stop just believing what you have been told by people who have done nothing but earn your distrust. How many misrepresentations does it take for the American people to get it? Is it just that some of us don't understand the law? Well I'm telling you. I'm not even telling you my opinion in this post, just the law. I'll leave it to you to decide what to feel about that information.
Publication Cornocopia
I've wanted to be a writer for so long, it's probably concomitantly not surprising that I am finally published and surprising that I'm now a legal writer. My first time to hit print was a foreword I wrote for Volume 14, Issue 1 of the Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, entitled On the Visibility of Contemporary International Issues, cited as 14 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1 (2005). But I was much more proud to have published a larger piece on the legality of the international use of force, The Waning Power of Shared Sovereignty in International Law: The Evolving Effect of U.S. Hegemony, published in Volume 14, Issue 2 of the Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, cited as 14 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 579 (2006).
Now, I'm proud to find out that I will be having another article published. The Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution has agreed to publish my article, Language, Morals, and Conceptual Frameworks in Dispute Resolution: Establishing, Employing, and Managing the Logos. This will appear in Volume 8, Issue 1, but the full cite is not yet available, thus for now, will be referenced as 8 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. (2007) (forthcoming). You can also find abstracts of these works on my website here.
I'm really excited about being to take my academic endeavors and analysis and to be able to share them with a wider legal audience. I've started off with quite a diverse set of papers, and I hope to continue to pursue those thoughts that engage me, rather than focusing on any one topic.
MORE THAN ONE ISSUE!
Let me make one more thing clear. The War Against Iraq is a complicated matter. Any of us would be fools to say otherwise. And so the question of whether we should support troops over there or pull them out shouldn't be the only question we fixate on. Yes, that is important and, hey, they are there. It's a fact. America needs to support its troops. But that doesn't mean as Americans, we shouldn't ask why they are there.
Some people want to pretend that because we're there already, it doesn't matter why we went there in the first place. They just want us to deal with it. That doesn't make sense. Let me offer an analogy that will highlight what they are asking you. Imagine your girlfriend, wife, sister, or mother was raped. Now imagine the authorities just said to you not to worry about who did it or why it happened, but that the rape just happened, so you only need to figure out how to deal with your girlfriend, wife, sister, or mother as a victim. Would that satisfy you? Or would you be angry? Wouldn't you want to know who did it and see them punished? Of course you would. That's common sense. They committed a crime, and so they should be punished. It's a standard we hold to rapists, drug dealers, murderers, etc. So why are politicians exempt from this? Is that common sense?
Now, we don't know if there was a crime committed under the laws of the United States. But shouldn't we be concerned about whether there was some sort of misfeasance? This country was ready to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about where his penis had been. Yet no one was hurt in that affair. Even the most wronged person in that affair, his wife, forgave him and is still married to him. But over 2500 Americans are now dead in Iraq, and dare we even ask how many Iraqis have died since March? So why are we fighting so hard not to know why we went there? Are maybe we all afraid that we will be collectively ashamed of the answer?
||
posted by mW @ 6:54 PM
Some people want to pretend that because we're there already, it doesn't matter why we went there in the first place. They just want us to deal with it. That doesn't make sense. Let me offer an analogy that will highlight what they are asking you. Imagine your girlfriend, wife, sister, or mother was raped. Now imagine the authorities just said to you not to worry about who did it or why it happened, but that the rape just happened, so you only need to figure out how to deal with your girlfriend, wife, sister, or mother as a victim. Would that satisfy you? Or would you be angry? Wouldn't you want to know who did it and see them punished? Of course you would. That's common sense. They committed a crime, and so they should be punished. It's a standard we hold to rapists, drug dealers, murderers, etc. So why are politicians exempt from this? Is that common sense?
Now, we don't know if there was a crime committed under the laws of the United States. But shouldn't we be concerned about whether there was some sort of misfeasance? This country was ready to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about where his penis had been. Yet no one was hurt in that affair. Even the most wronged person in that affair, his wife, forgave him and is still married to him. But over 2500 Americans are now dead in Iraq, and dare we even ask how many Iraqis have died since March? So why are we fighting so hard not to know why we went there? Are maybe we all afraid that we will be collectively ashamed of the answer?
Where are your tax dollars going, or, no one was spared . . .
Seriously, why are we paying congresspersons hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? Both Democrats and Republicans are more worried about jousting for the next election, than actually solving the problems plaguing each state, such as crime, education standards, and disaster prevention. No, instead these men and women who should certainly know better are voting on USELESS items, such as:
||
posted by mW @ 5:13 PM
- The Senate same-sex Marriage Amendment: regardless of whether you think this is necessary or legislating hate crime, it was a measure that lost badly, falling well short of the votes necessary--a fact they knew going into the vote.
- The House resolution to preclude a timetable on pulling out of Iraq: listen, reasonable people dispute why we are there in the first place--notably many House democrats--but few actually advocate an immediate, unequivocal pull-out. So why vote on such an essentially meaningless measure when the contrary result would never have been authorized anyway?
- LA Rep. Jefferson is ousted from a key House panel: by his own party, and then the House, for a crime of which he was not only presumed innocent until proven guilty for, but which he has not even been charged for!
Iraqi In-security
So in case anyone is wondering what the "real" situation in Iraq is, and whether the media is inflating the sense of danger and chaos there, or if our government is hyping it up to maintain its "war" rhetoric, consider each visit of high-ranking U.S. officials, as exemplified by President Bush's recent trip. It's always a "surprise" visit. If you don't believe me keep your eyes open for the next vist. Why is this so? Because this gives "insurgents" no time to plan an attack. That shows you you much confidence the United States has in Iraqi security.
Moreover, Bush stayed in Iraq for five hours. Think about that. Five hours. Who believes that this was because of his busy schedule? Right. To anti-U.S. forces in Iraq, it would be the equivalent of CNN reporting Osama in Baghdad. Can you imagine the intensity of the U.S. response? Yeah. He would be a walking target who could not be protected. It only highlights the bizarre hybrid situation of violence going on. It's not war, but it is war. Can you imagine FDR traveling to France days after D-Day? No way. Yet, admittedly, there is enough war to get him the hell out of there once stopping in.
It's also this juxtaposition of war and un-war that keeps critics and supporters off-balance alike. By breaking all the rules, no one knows what to do or say about this situation. And apparently, that means no one can propose any better alternative than the current administration.
||
posted by mW @ 11:00 AM
Moreover, Bush stayed in Iraq for five hours. Think about that. Five hours. Who believes that this was because of his busy schedule? Right. To anti-U.S. forces in Iraq, it would be the equivalent of CNN reporting Osama in Baghdad. Can you imagine the intensity of the U.S. response? Yeah. He would be a walking target who could not be protected. It only highlights the bizarre hybrid situation of violence going on. It's not war, but it is war. Can you imagine FDR traveling to France days after D-Day? No way. Yet, admittedly, there is enough war to get him the hell out of there once stopping in.
It's also this juxtaposition of war and un-war that keeps critics and supporters off-balance alike. By breaking all the rules, no one knows what to do or say about this situation. And apparently, that means no one can propose any better alternative than the current administration.
Religious Acceptance
Sarah and I were talking about something the other day, which the news reported all kinds of Christian groups had a problem with. She was upset, like why don't they just let people live their lives? It occurred to me the problem with Christian disapproval is not inherent. That is, Christians should be allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights the same as anyone, and be justified in encouraging its members to approve or disapprove of certain things. That is because the people who are Christians choose that form of belief. Moreover, the first amendment is meant to allow such speech, no matter who agrees or disagrees with it.
The problem comes from the hegemonic influence that Christianity as a whole, and arguably even Abraham-descendant monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), exert. That is, what certain church leaders approve or disapprove of something, it in essence becomes a standard bearer of all morals. The related problem that in this country in particular, we subscribe to "universal truths and freedoms" to which all persons are entitled, and yet concurrently presume those are the same truths and freedoms given by religion. Maybe yes, maybe no. Humanity has existed long before these religions, and will likely exist thereafter. Maybe that's right and maybe that's wrong. But the bottom line is, that there are plenty of people out there, be they Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, or any other sphere of belief, who have different morals. Yes, before anyone gets huffy, there are certain morals we pretty much all agree with. Killing is wrong. Stealing is wrong. But it did not take the 10 Commandments to make these things law; certainly Romans and Greeks had such prohibitions, let alone the many societies that existed before them. More importantly, there are things we disagree with. Must we follow dogma to a T? When is sex allowed? How do we view abortion or use of stem cells? These are complex questions to which different faiths have different answers.
The resultant problem is that Christianity and Islam, in particular, are not so good at playing with others. I would have a much easier time accepting the dictates of priests on matters of conscience, if I didn't feel their mandates were restricting all of society. Let's remember separation of Church and State people. Ironically, when the colonies were founded, it was the religous zealots who demanded this, for they feared state encroachment on their religion. Yet now that Christianity has largely blended into a melting pot of similar beliefs, it is they who push relgion on the state, claiming the birthright of a Christian nation. I hate to be the one to break it, but there were Jewish settlements in the original colonies, and the founding fathers were certainly aware of Islam and Hindu, even if they were not in the Americas. All said, these founding fathers pointedly chose to make no reference to God in the Constitution, and refused to make any law favoring Christians over other religions.
So the bottom line is, I don't care what Christian leaders tell their followers. That is between them and their congregations. But to impart one's individual beliefs as the one and true center of the universe and force it on others is another thing. The thing that people forget with religion is that it is okay to believe in one's faith. But you have to remember that there will always be others who believe just as strongly that their faith is the truth. Yet the two are incompatible. Either one is "wrong" or both are. Based on the probabilities, doesn't it just make sense to believe what you believe, cherish your own faith, and to respect the other person as having the right to follow their own individual consscience?
The other problem with religious fervor is that sometimes people only look at the surface and not the meaning. Ironic for a relgion based largely on parables and metaphors. Regardless, Kevin Smith said it best in his much-maligned movie Dogma. (Which only proves this point.) People never kill each other over ideas. But they will over beliefs. The point that God has tried to impart on us all is just to have good ideas about how to live a moral life.
So next time your religious leaders tell you to lash out at someone else for believing something contrary to your faith, just think to yourself not that you believe what they are saying, but that whatever the substance of his argument is, that it is a good idea. And that others are entitled to their ideas. Maybe, just maybe, at the end of the day this will lead people to getting along better. Maybe instead of being willing to strap bombs to his chest, a young Palestinian will say to the American Christian tourist. "I disagree with your Jesus, but I no longer believe you are the great Satan." And maybe that Christian American tourist will say, "I don't believe your Mohammed spoke the word of God, but he seemed like a good person." And maybe instead of getting violent, they'll look each other in the eye, laugh, slap each other on the back.
Maybe then each will go their separate ways, thinking, I disagree, but their faith is a nice idea.
||
posted by mW @ 10:52 AM
The problem comes from the hegemonic influence that Christianity as a whole, and arguably even Abraham-descendant monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), exert. That is, what certain church leaders approve or disapprove of something, it in essence becomes a standard bearer of all morals. The related problem that in this country in particular, we subscribe to "universal truths and freedoms" to which all persons are entitled, and yet concurrently presume those are the same truths and freedoms given by religion. Maybe yes, maybe no. Humanity has existed long before these religions, and will likely exist thereafter. Maybe that's right and maybe that's wrong. But the bottom line is, that there are plenty of people out there, be they Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, or any other sphere of belief, who have different morals. Yes, before anyone gets huffy, there are certain morals we pretty much all agree with. Killing is wrong. Stealing is wrong. But it did not take the 10 Commandments to make these things law; certainly Romans and Greeks had such prohibitions, let alone the many societies that existed before them. More importantly, there are things we disagree with. Must we follow dogma to a T? When is sex allowed? How do we view abortion or use of stem cells? These are complex questions to which different faiths have different answers.
The resultant problem is that Christianity and Islam, in particular, are not so good at playing with others. I would have a much easier time accepting the dictates of priests on matters of conscience, if I didn't feel their mandates were restricting all of society. Let's remember separation of Church and State people. Ironically, when the colonies were founded, it was the religous zealots who demanded this, for they feared state encroachment on their religion. Yet now that Christianity has largely blended into a melting pot of similar beliefs, it is they who push relgion on the state, claiming the birthright of a Christian nation. I hate to be the one to break it, but there were Jewish settlements in the original colonies, and the founding fathers were certainly aware of Islam and Hindu, even if they were not in the Americas. All said, these founding fathers pointedly chose to make no reference to God in the Constitution, and refused to make any law favoring Christians over other religions.
So the bottom line is, I don't care what Christian leaders tell their followers. That is between them and their congregations. But to impart one's individual beliefs as the one and true center of the universe and force it on others is another thing. The thing that people forget with religion is that it is okay to believe in one's faith. But you have to remember that there will always be others who believe just as strongly that their faith is the truth. Yet the two are incompatible. Either one is "wrong" or both are. Based on the probabilities, doesn't it just make sense to believe what you believe, cherish your own faith, and to respect the other person as having the right to follow their own individual consscience?
The other problem with religious fervor is that sometimes people only look at the surface and not the meaning. Ironic for a relgion based largely on parables and metaphors. Regardless, Kevin Smith said it best in his much-maligned movie Dogma. (Which only proves this point.) People never kill each other over ideas. But they will over beliefs. The point that God has tried to impart on us all is just to have good ideas about how to live a moral life.
So next time your religious leaders tell you to lash out at someone else for believing something contrary to your faith, just think to yourself not that you believe what they are saying, but that whatever the substance of his argument is, that it is a good idea. And that others are entitled to their ideas. Maybe, just maybe, at the end of the day this will lead people to getting along better. Maybe instead of being willing to strap bombs to his chest, a young Palestinian will say to the American Christian tourist. "I disagree with your Jesus, but I no longer believe you are the great Satan." And maybe that Christian American tourist will say, "I don't believe your Mohammed spoke the word of God, but he seemed like a good person." And maybe instead of getting violent, they'll look each other in the eye, laugh, slap each other on the back.
Maybe then each will go their separate ways, thinking, I disagree, but their faith is a nice idea.
What does America really care about?
Sometimes one needs to admit when someone addresses a subject better than you possibly could. As participants in a representative government, we all have a duty to ourselves, our family, and if applicable, certainly our children to make our country a better place. America is great not for its deeds, but for the ideals to which it adheres. Therefore, it is encumbent upon each of us to bring it closer to those ideals, if with our vote if through no other means.
To that end, please read or skim this CNN article which is about more than the title might lead you to believe.
||
posted by mW @ 10:27 AM
To that end, please read or skim this CNN article which is about more than the title might lead you to believe.
[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010