November 2nd, 2010: The day when America's dreams for the future after W Bush get flushed down the toilet, and all of our current problems are greatly exacerbated by GOP freshmen1.
But there is, of course, something darkly comical about this election cycle since the 2008 presidential election. The fate of the Tea Party, according to Frank Rich this week, will be a fitting and hilarious one2.
Everything will go sour for us as Americans, but it will be exponentially worse for the Tea Party, because of their gross lack of foresight.
Rich says, "What the Tea Party ostensibly wants most — less government spending and smaller federal deficits — is not remotely happening on the country club G.O.P.’s watch. The elites have no serious plans to cut anything except taxes and regulation of their favored industries. The party’s principal 2010 campaign document, its “Pledge to America,” doesn’t vow to cut even earmarks — which barely amount to a rounding error in the federal budget anyway. Boehner has also proposed a return to pre-crash 2008 levels in “nonsecurity” discretionary spending — another mere bagatelle ($105 billion) next to the current $1.3 trillion deficit. And that won’t be happening either, once the actual cuts in departments like Education, Transportation and Interior are specified to their constituencies."
All of those charges by the "Librul Elite" of astroturfing when this mess started were absolutely correct, and we saw it, with Dick Armey's FreedomWorks Tea Party tours, Sarah Palin's $100k booking fees, and the relentless promotion of Fox News all point to one possible conclusion.
But this, I didn't even notice it, even though it was entirely obvious. The "Pledge to America" was so non-specific that even my father, a life-long Republican, was embarrassed. All this time, the Tea Party presented not a single concrete policy.
They thought Obama was going too far, so they decided to elect people--who were, quite honestly, among the most uneducated and terrifying people I have ever seen run for any kind of public office--to change that. I've already covered why this doesn't work, but Sarah Palin's devout followers failed to see the trap right in front of them. And now they've just walked right into it, ruining everything not just for the rest of us, but even worse for themselves, too.
It is worse for them by virtue of the fact that they are responsible. When Mitch McConnell states that his only goal is to ruin Obama regardless of public policy, it should make people think twice before voting for him and people like him (those who want power the most are those who should be kept as far away from it as possible), but for the Tea Party? Obama's a Nazi! Obama's a Communist! Obama's a Muslim! Obama hates white people! Nothing is more important than destroying Obama, even at the expense of America's very future.
The question is, when the conclusion to this narrative is so obvious, will they be able to see it? This is a crucial question because we've already seen how they were able to whitewash Bush's presidency to an amazing degree, and being that our political memory capacity is only about a year and a half long, maybe less, Fox News will be able to manipulate Joe the Plumbers for a long time afterward. Hell, they even had a Marine Corps veteran advocating the dissolution of VA hospitals on the charge that they are socialistic institutions. The schism between reality and perception has become that wide. Forget bending your brain into a pretzel, their worldview has become an MC Escher painting.
I hate to play this card, as I fear it will devalue what I have to say, but I keep coming back to it into my mind. Fox News really is George Orwell's Ministry of Truth. More than even MSNBC (which I will admit is quite liberal*), Fox News is the most ideologically-dependent news organization in the United States. Nearly every single news anchor save one is conservative, and Fox News itself has admitted that it devotes an extremely small block to actual news. Everything else, it says, is opinion.
But my real point here is that Fox News is directly responsible for creating and promoting the Tea Party through Glenn Beck and the other hosts. Fox News gladly gave platform to candidates who, anywhere else, would not have had a chance in hell, and thus propelled them to undeserved stardom. Consider that very few other news organizations have ever had an opportunity to interview Christine O'Donnell, or that Sarah Palin's interview rounds stopped dead after her encounter with Katie Couric. Because everywhere else, these candidates are seen for who they really are. Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow only served to suggest that he was either a racist, or that he was too extreme for his own good with his suggestion that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of its provision preventing private businesses from discriminating against different people.
I charge that this entire scenario was created and promoted by Fox News for the express purpose of pushing the Republican party back into power undeserved by way of blatant manipulation of its viewers using fear tactics and false promises. I charge that Fox News is under direct subservience of the Republican Party by unstated allegiance, and to this end it has brought on board those who have been fired by more responsible news organizations after making irresponsible remarks for the expressed purpose of causing division and enmity among its viewers and the rest of the American population.
I thus charge that Fox News is directly responsible for the coming disaster because of how it conducts its programming in service of a political cause. This political cause serves obviously not the interests of its viewers, but the interest of the company. But now even its parent company is at odds with it, as Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal is News Corps' largest shareholder, making it that much more difficult for Fox News to say just how evil those Muslims are. Our only hope is that these business politics continue to encroach upon Fox News' ideology and make such hypocrisy more and more uncomfortable to themselves.
But there is something else here, something perhaps worse than everything I have just described. Could it not be that Fox News has a vested interest in the success in Christine O'Donnell's victory, but that they present such people simply for the sake of sensationalism? Could it instead be that Fox News is so despicable that they would present or say just about anything to get attention, like Pat Robertson? That in pursuit of the Almighty Dollar, they would have scorched our political landscape by terrifying millions of people, jeopardized America's future, and presented the most terrible bigotry as virtue? To throw all of what it is to be a journalistic enterprise away simply for the sake of money. This, this is the most disgusting thing in the world. I would not dare say that this is a problem unique to Fox News, but I have never seen a more egregious example. Fox News is to politics what the RIAA is to music.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/opinion/31rich.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
* It's funny, because Meet the Press and The McLaughlin Group have some of the best conservative commentators available.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Politics and Comedy
Today, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert faced off in an epic battle between reason and fear at the National Mall in their Rally to Restore Sanity (and/or Fear).
Speculation is already brewing about the sobering turn that the rally took as Jon Stewart made his final remarks. Is he still a comedian, or a political pundit?
From a literary standpoint, most comedies and comedians were preoccupied with politics from the start, from Moliere's Tartuffe, which was a comedy of manners aimed at Christian fanaticism, to Oscar Wilde, who said, "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you."
Or Franz Kafka's The Trial and Metamorphosis, and other absurdist comedies (Nabokov also comes to mind). The Trial, however, is a mixed bag, because while it is very funny, I can't help but think that Kafka, through The Trial, inadvertently influenced the bureaucratic systems of the totalitarian regimes that arose after his death.
Who could also forget Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, Or, The Children's Crusade; a hilarious and glaringly anti-war novel centered around the bombing of Dresden?
In fact, I would say that one of the the best ways to get one's message across is to make people laugh, because if they laugh, they've understood the point.
How could I omit South Park, the most obvious example of this idea? South Park uses the often ridiculous to make very, very strong political statements. The trick is to look past the profanity and immature humor and examine the big picture. Twice they've covered the Mohammed cartoon scandals, the state of our elections (Douche & Turd), activism (Whale Whores), and gang violence (Krazy Kripples), and bigotry (Ginger Kids).
To say that comedy and politics are entirely separate is to completely miss the point, and it displays nothing but an ignorance of our long literary history.
But Jon Stewart himself has always combined sober reason with biting satire. The only recourse to much of what he presents on his show is ridicule, often, however, in service of a larger point. The fact that for about ten minutes at the end of the rally he explained how we really are in contrast to the image of ourselves that is presented back to us by the 24/7 news cycle in a sober demonstration using traffic patterns as an example (traffic patterns are also one of my favorite examples) does not diminish his role as a comedian. I would argue that Stewart is the voice America would be wise to listen to right now in stark contrast to Fox News (which was not talking at all about the rally).
Colbert, for his part, did an excellent job in showing us the adversity we have manufactured and accepted. The puppet of him seems like Goliath or the Boogeyman, the fears we have used to divide and separate ourselves from one another, and all it takes is to simply refuse it.
I have done more than my share of trying to do this, but there is still more for me to do, but I still don't like fundamentalists, and I'm still not a fan of the Tea Party.
I would really like to see, at this point, someone try to paint Jon Stewart as a fearmongering anti-American charlatan and/or a bigot.
Speculation is already brewing about the sobering turn that the rally took as Jon Stewart made his final remarks. Is he still a comedian, or a political pundit?
From a literary standpoint, most comedies and comedians were preoccupied with politics from the start, from Moliere's Tartuffe, which was a comedy of manners aimed at Christian fanaticism, to Oscar Wilde, who said, "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you."
Or Franz Kafka's The Trial and Metamorphosis, and other absurdist comedies (Nabokov also comes to mind). The Trial, however, is a mixed bag, because while it is very funny, I can't help but think that Kafka, through The Trial, inadvertently influenced the bureaucratic systems of the totalitarian regimes that arose after his death.
Who could also forget Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, Or, The Children's Crusade; a hilarious and glaringly anti-war novel centered around the bombing of Dresden?
In fact, I would say that one of the the best ways to get one's message across is to make people laugh, because if they laugh, they've understood the point.
How could I omit South Park, the most obvious example of this idea? South Park uses the often ridiculous to make very, very strong political statements. The trick is to look past the profanity and immature humor and examine the big picture. Twice they've covered the Mohammed cartoon scandals, the state of our elections (Douche & Turd), activism (Whale Whores), and gang violence (Krazy Kripples), and bigotry (Ginger Kids).
To say that comedy and politics are entirely separate is to completely miss the point, and it displays nothing but an ignorance of our long literary history.
But Jon Stewart himself has always combined sober reason with biting satire. The only recourse to much of what he presents on his show is ridicule, often, however, in service of a larger point. The fact that for about ten minutes at the end of the rally he explained how we really are in contrast to the image of ourselves that is presented back to us by the 24/7 news cycle in a sober demonstration using traffic patterns as an example (traffic patterns are also one of my favorite examples) does not diminish his role as a comedian. I would argue that Stewart is the voice America would be wise to listen to right now in stark contrast to Fox News (which was not talking at all about the rally).
Colbert, for his part, did an excellent job in showing us the adversity we have manufactured and accepted. The puppet of him seems like Goliath or the Boogeyman, the fears we have used to divide and separate ourselves from one another, and all it takes is to simply refuse it.
I have done more than my share of trying to do this, but there is still more for me to do, but I still don't like fundamentalists, and I'm still not a fan of the Tea Party.
I would really like to see, at this point, someone try to paint Jon Stewart as a fearmongering anti-American charlatan and/or a bigot.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Book of Job is the Best Book in the Bible
For quite a long time, I hated the Book of Job. "Why would a so-called 'Benevolent' god torment his most devout follower (or anyone, for that matter) for no reason?" But then I was thinking about it over the past few weeks, and last night, I decided to read it in its entirety, and I discovered that it was the most beautiful story in the whole book.
There are two sides to it, the key is in the beginning. Satan walks up to God, and God said, "Hey, check out Job. Isn't he awesome? He always praises me, and I make him rich."
"Well, wait a minute here," replies Satan. "What if he praises you because you make him rich?"
"Oh shit..."
"Let me play with him a while and see if he sins against you."
"Alright, but don't harm him."
So Job is out in his field, and a few of his servants come up to him, and tell him one after the other that his livestock has all died of disease, that his crops failed, and that his house has collapsed and killed his whole family. Job still does not complain, saying "God giveth, and God can taketh away."
"Hey Satan, check out Job! He still worships me, even though you acted against him on my behalf."
"Sure, but if I attack his health, he will curse you to your face."
"Very well, only spare his life."
Satan got to work, and Job was covered in sores, and fell into deep depression. No one in society respected him anymore, and all he had left were his three friends, who remind me of Socrates' sycophants.
This is the meat of the story, as there is a long dialogue between the tormented Job and his friends, who believe that God is punishing him for some unknown transgression. The story says that they stayed with him for a week, but to me it seems longer than that.
Reading Job's monologues as his agony gets worse is an extremely powerful experience. In truth, he sounds like Imago and Ivan Karamazov, and he tries to level with God, and beseeches Him to answer.
"Therefore I will not restrain my
mouth;
I will speak in the anguish of
my spirit;
I will complain in the
bitterness of my soul...[J7:11]
"What are human beings, that
you make so much of
them,
that you set your mind on them
visit them every morning,
test them every moment?
Will you not look away from me
for a while
let me alone while I swallow my spittle?
If I sin, what do I do to you, watcher of humanity?
Why have you made me your target?
Why have I become a burden to you? [J7:17-20]
Here's where it starts getting really good:
"Indeed I know that this is
so;
but how can a mortal be just before God?
If one wished to contend with
him,
one could not answer him once in a thousand...[J9:2-3]
"God will not turn back his anger...
How then could I answer him,
choosing my words with him?
Though I am innocent, I cannot
answer him;
I must appeal mercy to my accuser.
If I summoned him and he
answered me,
I do not believe he would listen to my voice.
For he crushed me with a
tempest,
and multiplied my wounds
without cause...
If it is a contest of strength, he is
the strong one!
If it is a matter of justice, who
can summon him? [J9:13-17, 19-20]"
Job then goes on to describe his existence for a while, and tell his friends that they are of no help to him, as they accuse him of some unknown transgression, and actually offer up the same garbage excuses that Christian fundamentalists like to say when something happens to somebody, "God punishes the wicked (you must have done something bad to deserve this)," "God works in mysterious ways," etc.
But then Job says something else. Job starts talking about how much evil goes unpunished, about how people wholly undeserving of success come into it and are never destroyed.
"Why do the wicked live on,
reach old age, and grow
mighty in power?
Their children are established in
their presence,
and their offspring before their
eyes.
Their houses are safe from fear,
and no rod of God is upon
them... [J217-9]
Job ends his case by saying,
"Oh, that I had one to hear me!
(Here is my signature! let the
Almighty answer me!)
Oh, that I had the indictment
written by my adversary!
Surely I would carry it on my
shoulder;
I would bind it on me like a
crown;
I would give him an account of
all my steps;
like a prince I would approach
him. [J31:35-37]"
God finally appears to Job as a whirlwind, but does not give him an honest reply by telling him his object. This is my only major complaint with the story, and probably will always be. God asks Job if he had ever done what God has done, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?" [J38-4], and if Job had ever killed a Behemoth, or tamed a Leviathan.
But that doesn't mean that God is necessarily angry with Job, because he actually chastises Job's friends; he says to Eliphaz, "My wrath is kindled against you and against your friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has done" [J42:7].
As much as God probably doesn't want to tell Job that his object was to test him, I think he does understand exactly where Job is coming from, as he finally restores Job's fortunes twofold.
I see two things in this story: Job's indignation (which I sympathize with), and God's resentment at the possibility that people can love him simply because they get something out of it (which I also sympathize with).
In fact, the latter case is what moved me to read Job in the first place, because a month ago, I had someone try to convert me simply because of all of the great things she said I would get out of it. I told this person, "I am not compelled to believe in something on the basis of reward or punishment."
I think its sad that people are greedy in their relationship with whatever god they happen to believe in. Wouldn't any kind of Divine Being see through that? What good would it be then, for them or It? It seems in my eyes to cheapen religious belief, if that is all it is for. After that dismal poll recently released by the Pew Research Center, its hard to imagine that for most people, God has any other purpose.
It's quite interesting, because I think The Bible is far more nuanced than most people would believe. Not all of it is so absolutist.
I just thought of something. Is Othello the Book of Job? HMMMMMMMMM.....
Othello: God
Iago: Satan
Desdemona: Job
Except that Othello ends up murdering Desdemona.
There are two sides to it, the key is in the beginning. Satan walks up to God, and God said, "Hey, check out Job. Isn't he awesome? He always praises me, and I make him rich."
"Well, wait a minute here," replies Satan. "What if he praises you because you make him rich?"
"Oh shit..."
"Let me play with him a while and see if he sins against you."
"Alright, but don't harm him."
So Job is out in his field, and a few of his servants come up to him, and tell him one after the other that his livestock has all died of disease, that his crops failed, and that his house has collapsed and killed his whole family. Job still does not complain, saying "God giveth, and God can taketh away."
"Hey Satan, check out Job! He still worships me, even though you acted against him on my behalf."
"Sure, but if I attack his health, he will curse you to your face."
"Very well, only spare his life."
Satan got to work, and Job was covered in sores, and fell into deep depression. No one in society respected him anymore, and all he had left were his three friends, who remind me of Socrates' sycophants.
This is the meat of the story, as there is a long dialogue between the tormented Job and his friends, who believe that God is punishing him for some unknown transgression. The story says that they stayed with him for a week, but to me it seems longer than that.
Reading Job's monologues as his agony gets worse is an extremely powerful experience. In truth, he sounds like Imago and Ivan Karamazov, and he tries to level with God, and beseeches Him to answer.
"Therefore I will not restrain my
mouth;
I will speak in the anguish of
my spirit;
I will complain in the
bitterness of my soul...[J7:11]
"What are human beings, that
you make so much of
them,
that you set your mind on them
visit them every morning,
test them every moment?
Will you not look away from me
for a while
let me alone while I swallow my spittle?
If I sin, what do I do to you, watcher of humanity?
Why have you made me your target?
Why have I become a burden to you? [J7:17-20]
Here's where it starts getting really good:
"Indeed I know that this is
so;
but how can a mortal be just before God?
If one wished to contend with
him,
one could not answer him once in a thousand...[J9:2-3]
"God will not turn back his anger...
How then could I answer him,
choosing my words with him?
Though I am innocent, I cannot
answer him;
I must appeal mercy to my accuser.
If I summoned him and he
answered me,
I do not believe he would listen to my voice.
For he crushed me with a
tempest,
and multiplied my wounds
without cause...
If it is a contest of strength, he is
the strong one!
If it is a matter of justice, who
can summon him? [J9:13-17, 19-20]"
Job then goes on to describe his existence for a while, and tell his friends that they are of no help to him, as they accuse him of some unknown transgression, and actually offer up the same garbage excuses that Christian fundamentalists like to say when something happens to somebody, "God punishes the wicked (you must have done something bad to deserve this)," "God works in mysterious ways," etc.
But then Job says something else. Job starts talking about how much evil goes unpunished, about how people wholly undeserving of success come into it and are never destroyed.
"Why do the wicked live on,
reach old age, and grow
mighty in power?
Their children are established in
their presence,
and their offspring before their
eyes.
Their houses are safe from fear,
and no rod of God is upon
them... [J217-9]
Job ends his case by saying,
"Oh, that I had one to hear me!
(Here is my signature! let the
Almighty answer me!)
Oh, that I had the indictment
written by my adversary!
Surely I would carry it on my
shoulder;
I would bind it on me like a
crown;
I would give him an account of
all my steps;
like a prince I would approach
him. [J31:35-37]"
God finally appears to Job as a whirlwind, but does not give him an honest reply by telling him his object. This is my only major complaint with the story, and probably will always be. God asks Job if he had ever done what God has done, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?" [J38-4], and if Job had ever killed a Behemoth, or tamed a Leviathan.
But that doesn't mean that God is necessarily angry with Job, because he actually chastises Job's friends; he says to Eliphaz, "My wrath is kindled against you and against your friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has done" [J42:7].
As much as God probably doesn't want to tell Job that his object was to test him, I think he does understand exactly where Job is coming from, as he finally restores Job's fortunes twofold.
I see two things in this story: Job's indignation (which I sympathize with), and God's resentment at the possibility that people can love him simply because they get something out of it (which I also sympathize with).
In fact, the latter case is what moved me to read Job in the first place, because a month ago, I had someone try to convert me simply because of all of the great things she said I would get out of it. I told this person, "I am not compelled to believe in something on the basis of reward or punishment."
I think its sad that people are greedy in their relationship with whatever god they happen to believe in. Wouldn't any kind of Divine Being see through that? What good would it be then, for them or It? It seems in my eyes to cheapen religious belief, if that is all it is for. After that dismal poll recently released by the Pew Research Center, its hard to imagine that for most people, God has any other purpose.
It's quite interesting, because I think The Bible is far more nuanced than most people would believe. Not all of it is so absolutist.
I just thought of something. Is Othello the Book of Job? HMMMMMMMMM.....
Othello: God
Iago: Satan
Desdemona: Job
Except that Othello ends up murdering Desdemona.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Bullies, or The Readily Apparent Impact of Religious Bigotry
In late September, four kids killed themselves because of the bullying they endured as a result of their sexual identity1. Seth Walsh, 13; Tyler Clementi, 18; Billy Lucas, 15; and Asher Brown, 13; all committed suicide because of the unfathomable torment they suffered in school. One of these scenarios, however, is more terrifying to me than the others.
I like to describe public school as a rat cage with an electrified floor: The rats have no escape from the shocks, and so they attack each other, desperate and blind with rage and terror. It is also the first time the kids will encounter people different from themselves, and they judge based upon their own egos, inflated by their parents' praise, or overcompensation for its absence.
Bullying begins early, and for the pettiest of reasons, because that's what children are.
But the problem isn't simply racism or sexism, or any kind of outmoded bigotry that the school system and greater community has a readiness to alleviate. The problem in these cases is that homophobia is still to a large extent institutionalized and propagated. Parents take their children to church, and their pastors beat Leviticus 18:22 into their heads.
There is no other rationale for homophobia. It is merely, much like many other instances of institutionalized prejudice in our society, religiously justified. The Mormons believed that Africans and African-Americans were the cursed decendents of Ham, and for women, we followed the advice of the Apostle Paul in I Timothy 2:8-15.
Leviticus 18:22 is the only mention of homosexuality in all of the Bible's 2000 pages, and we act as though it is the only verse that matters, and our children take this to heart. Our children go to school, and like their maladjusted parents, lash out at this difference because they see their parents doing it.
It is bad enough when bullying is perpetrated by children without their parents'--and society's--influence, but in this case, we are responsible as a society for the behavior of our children, not because of the media, but because of what we have expressed ever since Jerry Falwell began to run his mouth in the 80s.
The Christian conservatives may claim that they have "a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong," but when that view is passed on to their children, who lack the self-control of their parents (who also lack a degree of self-control), and harass and discriminate against their peers because of what they have been told to believe, I see a problem. If they believe in Leviticus 18:22 (the only verse in the entire OT they will ever follow), then they should take to heart Jesus' "Judge not lest ye be judged," "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and most important for their role in society, John 18:36: "My Kingdom is not of this Earth."
No one is more disenfranchised as a result of society's errors than our children. They take what they are taught--even if only when it suits them--and apply it to their own lives. Leviticus 18:22 is probably the most easily-exploited verse in the entire Bible, and it is incredibly tragic that children as young as thirteen have taken to using it as a weapon against others, just like their parents.
Tyler Clementi, of the four cases, is in my mind the most terrifying. College was the greatest time of my life. I didn't think anyone could still care who or what one is enough to harass or discriminate against him or her. By the end of high school we were supposed to have grown up at least enough to get along with each other--and if we didn't, there is too much for us to do for us to bother anyone else. This is why I find Tyler Clementi's suicide so tragic, the product of a very sick and determined mind, to record him having sex and put it on the internet in order to destroy him.
Matthew Shepherd's murder did not deliver to us the full impact of what we are teaching our children, would these four suicides in the span of a month manage to sway us?
To me, and hopefully to my readers the consequences of belief--any belief--are readily apparent, and greatly influence what we choose to believe. But many people, such as the religious leaders whom their parents listen to, may be blind to the sea of blood that follows in the wake of their words.
What about the other children who endure this every day, and who are yet still alive? Can we save them from that terrible decision they shouldn't have to make? One of my good friends told me a story of her friend who came out as a homosexual and was pulled out of school by his parents. What will happen to him? Has he any recourse? Our children don't deserve this, and we can no longer afford to propagate this belief in our society.
The object of our education system is in part to make us more tolerant of one another, and we are failing miserably. I, unfortunately, have no solution beyond that of school psychologists and tolerance programs. Unfortunately, overriding the beliefs of the parents is difficult, if not impossible because many of these parents can simply choose to homeschool their kids if they disagree with what their children are being taught, defeating the purpose of education. This means we need to offer psychological counseling to the victim, and find him or her help in order to make their life at school and/or at home more tolerable.
That said, teachers, at least in my own experience, are hugely supportive, but it's not enough to counterbalance the overwhelming oppression that exists wherever those teachers do not, and they certainly do not help to find friends for the oppressed students, as they may be further ridiculed for being a "teacher's pet."
Do any of you have any solutions better or more specific than those I have presented?
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04suicide.html
I like to describe public school as a rat cage with an electrified floor: The rats have no escape from the shocks, and so they attack each other, desperate and blind with rage and terror. It is also the first time the kids will encounter people different from themselves, and they judge based upon their own egos, inflated by their parents' praise, or overcompensation for its absence.
Bullying begins early, and for the pettiest of reasons, because that's what children are.
But the problem isn't simply racism or sexism, or any kind of outmoded bigotry that the school system and greater community has a readiness to alleviate. The problem in these cases is that homophobia is still to a large extent institutionalized and propagated. Parents take their children to church, and their pastors beat Leviticus 18:22 into their heads.
There is no other rationale for homophobia. It is merely, much like many other instances of institutionalized prejudice in our society, religiously justified. The Mormons believed that Africans and African-Americans were the cursed decendents of Ham, and for women, we followed the advice of the Apostle Paul in I Timothy 2:8-15.
Leviticus 18:22 is the only mention of homosexuality in all of the Bible's 2000 pages, and we act as though it is the only verse that matters, and our children take this to heart. Our children go to school, and like their maladjusted parents, lash out at this difference because they see their parents doing it.
It is bad enough when bullying is perpetrated by children without their parents'--and society's--influence, but in this case, we are responsible as a society for the behavior of our children, not because of the media, but because of what we have expressed ever since Jerry Falwell began to run his mouth in the 80s.
The Christian conservatives may claim that they have "a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong," but when that view is passed on to their children, who lack the self-control of their parents (who also lack a degree of self-control), and harass and discriminate against their peers because of what they have been told to believe, I see a problem. If they believe in Leviticus 18:22 (the only verse in the entire OT they will ever follow), then they should take to heart Jesus' "Judge not lest ye be judged," "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and most important for their role in society, John 18:36: "My Kingdom is not of this Earth."
No one is more disenfranchised as a result of society's errors than our children. They take what they are taught--even if only when it suits them--and apply it to their own lives. Leviticus 18:22 is probably the most easily-exploited verse in the entire Bible, and it is incredibly tragic that children as young as thirteen have taken to using it as a weapon against others, just like their parents.
Tyler Clementi, of the four cases, is in my mind the most terrifying. College was the greatest time of my life. I didn't think anyone could still care who or what one is enough to harass or discriminate against him or her. By the end of high school we were supposed to have grown up at least enough to get along with each other--and if we didn't, there is too much for us to do for us to bother anyone else. This is why I find Tyler Clementi's suicide so tragic, the product of a very sick and determined mind, to record him having sex and put it on the internet in order to destroy him.
Matthew Shepherd's murder did not deliver to us the full impact of what we are teaching our children, would these four suicides in the span of a month manage to sway us?
To me, and hopefully to my readers the consequences of belief--any belief--are readily apparent, and greatly influence what we choose to believe. But many people, such as the religious leaders whom their parents listen to, may be blind to the sea of blood that follows in the wake of their words.
What about the other children who endure this every day, and who are yet still alive? Can we save them from that terrible decision they shouldn't have to make? One of my good friends told me a story of her friend who came out as a homosexual and was pulled out of school by his parents. What will happen to him? Has he any recourse? Our children don't deserve this, and we can no longer afford to propagate this belief in our society.
The object of our education system is in part to make us more tolerant of one another, and we are failing miserably. I, unfortunately, have no solution beyond that of school psychologists and tolerance programs. Unfortunately, overriding the beliefs of the parents is difficult, if not impossible because many of these parents can simply choose to homeschool their kids if they disagree with what their children are being taught, defeating the purpose of education. This means we need to offer psychological counseling to the victim, and find him or her help in order to make their life at school and/or at home more tolerable.
That said, teachers, at least in my own experience, are hugely supportive, but it's not enough to counterbalance the overwhelming oppression that exists wherever those teachers do not, and they certainly do not help to find friends for the oppressed students, as they may be further ridiculed for being a "teacher's pet."
Do any of you have any solutions better or more specific than those I have presented?
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04suicide.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)