In response to my essay on The Book of Job, my father's pastor suggested I read Walter Brueggemann's An Unsettling God: The Heart of the Hebrew Bible. I blazed through its 176 pages in fascination and amazement. While not having been converted, I had been exposed to an extremely important facet of the Judeo-Christian god's personality that has been utterly forgotten by Christianity.
Brueggemann writes, "Israel is clear, moreover, that such angry and insistent protests addressed to YHWH are not acts of unfaith, as they are often thought to be in quietistic Christian piety, but are a vigorous act of freedom and responsibility." (Forgive me, I have since given this book to my father's pastor, and thus I do not have the page numbers). Wow. This actually vindicates what I said about Job and his friends, and helps to understand why God responded to Eliphaz in the end as he did*. Also, it is worth pointing out that that as Abraham and God are venturing to Sodom with the intention of nuking it, Abraham pleads multiple times that if there are but fifty righteous people to be found there, would God spare it [Gen 16:22-32]?
Of course, it is true that this is not the only interesting thing to be found in Bueggemann's book, but to me it is the most pressing because of how profound it is juxtaposed with how most Christians look at God and themselves.
The question to which I am drawn after reading this book is how could such an important thing be forgotten? There is an enormous discrepancy between the woman who told me that Job shouldn't complain, and Brueggemann's work. There are a multitude of possible factors, and I will try to clarify some of the directions I'm considering as I ponder this question.
The first thing I considered was the rise of the Catholic Church, but as immediately obvious this answer is (such a profoundly democratic view jettisoned in favor of absolute conformity and the pursuit of consolidated political power), we must also consider the fact that this idea did not resurface during the Reformation. It could be argued that in the beginning, the denominations that arose immediately out of the Reformation were as totalitarian and stifling as the Catholic Church itself.
The second answer is Christian anti-Semitism, and this makes as much sense as it does for Christians to be anti-Semitic in the first place. But a few steps down from that is indifference: An utter lack of communication between Christians and Jews, which is kind of funny, in a terribly dark and misanthropic way. The problem is--and Brueggemann touches upon this himself in the book--that Jews don't read Christian theology. I wonder if Christians read Jewish theology--oh wait I know they don't or this problem wouldn't exist. Christians tend to take the New Testament for granted, and read the OT in the context of the NT, which really doesn't make much sense from a literary standpoint, as it was written long before Jesus.
The truth is, God is not the evil tyrant fundamentalists and atheists make him out to be, and human beings are not helpless ants in his gaze. It's quite sad to see that most Christians do behave as Job's friends behave, and it's quite interesting that that kind of complacency is boring even to God. If Brueggemann is to be believed, God wants us to challenge him as much as he challenges us.
While Brueggemann failed to convert me (as Dostoevsky did before him), I find this engagement extremely valuable. While my own philosophy was often shafted in the book (due to the author's own disposition, which was to be expected because I am not his immediate audience), he certainly said some things I could get behind, even as an atheist; supporting such things as egalitarianism and environmentalism. After reading this book, I think it is absolutely possible for our two camps to cooperate, in spite of our differences on The Big Question.
Before I end this essay, there is one other thing that Brueggemann pointed out that I find a bit startling: "That is, YHWH did not create the world where there was nothing. rather YHWH so ordered the 'preexistent material substratum,' which was wild, disordered, destructive, and chaotic, to make possible an ordered, reliable place of peacableness and viability." This is a big deal. A lot of Christians, at least in my experience (because I pay so much attention to cases like Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the idiocy in the Creationism/Evolution conflict), the religious often simply say that God created matter, when this is not the case. The point I'm trying to make is that neither religion nor science has yet solved the problem of the appearance of matter. In fact, the way the story goes is very much in line with what we know about the formation of planets, and especially the formation of the Earth into a habitable environment.
Above, I stated that Bruegemann had failed to convert me. Based upon my previous essay ("Why I Could Never Be Religious Again"), he should have assuaged some of my points--which he had--and I should be a believer. But there is one major hitch, which was hidden in my deconstruction of Pascal's Wager: The Bible is a book. There is nothing in it or outside of it that leads me to believe that God actually exists, nor do I see any compelling evidence in my daily life or in my studies of politics, philosophy, science, or history that leads me to believe that this god or any other actually exists. But this is absolutely not to say that I do not like these gods. Simply because I do not believe that they exist does not eliminate my respect or appreciation for them. I would say that it is for the same reason that we still turn to Greek mythology. I am simply reading The Bible in the same way, and this may actually bring forth better understanding and appreciation than the other interpretations of The Bible I have encountered.
*God had said to Eliphaz, "My anger is kindled against you, for you have not spoken of me as Job has done".
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Fate of the Tea Party: Black Comedy At Its Finest
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.
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.
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
Monday, September 13, 2010
List of Freeware PC Games I've Played Over the Past Year
As requested, here is the list of freeware PC games. None of these games have malware/spyware, nor will any of them otherwise screw with your computer.
1) Hero Core - http://www.remar.se/daniel/herocore.php
I finished this game last night in an hour and 23 minutes, but I didn't get everything in it. I would estimate that it should take 2 hours to get 100%. Despite the Atari graphics, this is an incredible Metroidvania game that sort of also plays like a space shooter. There's no blood, and no language. Totally worth downloading. Walkthrough unnecessary.
2) The Journey Down: Over the Edge - http://www.bigbluecup.com
/yabb/index.php?topic=41648.0
This game is rather short, and it must be played full-screen at a 320x200 resolution, because it's much too small to be played in a window. Despite that, the animation is beautiful, and the puzzles are decent, but it's otherwise no different from any other point-and-click game. It's still worth playing, though. Walkthrough required. Takes about 2 hours to complete.
3) The Yahtzee Quadrilogy - http://jayisgames.com/archives/2007/12/the_chzo_mythos.php
You know the stuck-up Australian dude who talks too fast when he reviews games on The Escapist? This is that guy. These are the very best freeware games I've ever played. WARNING: Intense pixellated violence.
The order is:
5 Days a Skeptic
7 Days a Stranger
Trilby's Notes
6 Days a Sacrifice
Each takes about an hour or 2 to complete. Also, a walkthrough is required.
4) The McCarthy Chronicles: Episode 1 - http://www.bigbluecup.com/games.php?action=detail&id=1243
This is second only to Yahtzee's work. It's absolutely amazing. There is even voice acting, and its surprisingly good! WARNING: Instense violence. Walkthrough required. This one takes maybe 2-3 hours to complete, if I remember correctly.
5) A Second Face - http://www.bigbluecup.com/games.php?action=detail&id=1115
This is a bizarre story of an archaic totalitarian regime. I kind of forget the point of it, but I remember it being really, really good. The voice acting is a little off though, so bear with it. It's also a bit longer than the previous games I've listed, maybe about 4-6 hours. WARNING: Nudity/sex. Walkthrough required.
6) The Marionette - http://themarionette.game-host.org/downloads.php
Unfortunately, I forget a lot about this game, but I remember enjoying it a lot. WARNING: Violence, disturbing themes. It should take about 2 hours to complete. Walkthrough required.
7) Cave Story - http://www.miraigamer.net/cavestory/
This game was released recently on the Wii, and so I played it on the computer for free. It's a Metroidvania game that can be intensely frustrating under its cutesy exterior. Every time you get hit, your weapon power gets reduced, and this can really SSSUUUCCCCCCKKKKKK. WARNING: Intensely frustrating. Accounting for the number of times you will die, I would estimate completion time at about 10 hours. Walkthrough recommended.
8) Ever Eternal Winter World 1 & 2 - http://nifflas.lpchip.nl/index.php?topic=3737.0
I haven't finished either of these yet, so I can't say how long it should take you to finish them. They are much like Cave Story/Hero Core.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many games I've downloaded but haven't started yet, and a few that I wouldn't really care to pass on. These should get you guys started though :D
1) Hero Core - http://www.remar.se/daniel/herocore.php
I finished this game last night in an hour and 23 minutes, but I didn't get everything in it. I would estimate that it should take 2 hours to get 100%. Despite the Atari graphics, this is an incredible Metroidvania game that sort of also plays like a space shooter. There's no blood, and no language. Totally worth downloading. Walkthrough unnecessary.
2) The Journey Down: Over the Edge - http://www.bigbluecup.com
/yabb/index.php?topic=41648.0
This game is rather short, and it must be played full-screen at a 320x200 resolution, because it's much too small to be played in a window. Despite that, the animation is beautiful, and the puzzles are decent, but it's otherwise no different from any other point-and-click game. It's still worth playing, though. Walkthrough required. Takes about 2 hours to complete.
3) The Yahtzee Quadrilogy - http://jayisgames.com/archives/2007/12/the_chzo_mythos.php
You know the stuck-up Australian dude who talks too fast when he reviews games on The Escapist? This is that guy. These are the very best freeware games I've ever played. WARNING: Intense pixellated violence.
The order is:
5 Days a Skeptic
7 Days a Stranger
Trilby's Notes
6 Days a Sacrifice
Each takes about an hour or 2 to complete. Also, a walkthrough is required.
4) The McCarthy Chronicles: Episode 1 - http://www.bigbluecup.com/games.php?action=detail&id=1243
This is second only to Yahtzee's work. It's absolutely amazing. There is even voice acting, and its surprisingly good! WARNING: Instense violence. Walkthrough required. This one takes maybe 2-3 hours to complete, if I remember correctly.
5) A Second Face - http://www.bigbluecup.com/games.php?action=detail&id=1115
This is a bizarre story of an archaic totalitarian regime. I kind of forget the point of it, but I remember it being really, really good. The voice acting is a little off though, so bear with it. It's also a bit longer than the previous games I've listed, maybe about 4-6 hours. WARNING: Nudity/sex. Walkthrough required.
6) The Marionette - http://themarionette.game-host.org/downloads.php
Unfortunately, I forget a lot about this game, but I remember enjoying it a lot. WARNING: Violence, disturbing themes. It should take about 2 hours to complete. Walkthrough required.
7) Cave Story - http://www.miraigamer.net/cavestory/
This game was released recently on the Wii, and so I played it on the computer for free. It's a Metroidvania game that can be intensely frustrating under its cutesy exterior. Every time you get hit, your weapon power gets reduced, and this can really SSSUUUCCCCCCKKKKKK. WARNING: Intensely frustrating. Accounting for the number of times you will die, I would estimate completion time at about 10 hours. Walkthrough recommended.
8) Ever Eternal Winter World 1 & 2 - http://nifflas.lpchip.nl/index.php?topic=3737.0
I haven't finished either of these yet, so I can't say how long it should take you to finish them. They are much like Cave Story/Hero Core.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many games I've downloaded but haven't started yet, and a few that I wouldn't really care to pass on. These should get you guys started though :D
Saturday, September 11, 2010
September 11th, the Wound We Don't Want to Heal
It has been 9 years since 3,000 people were horrifically killed when two planes deliberately crashed into the WTC as the result of religious nihilism. Since that time, America behaved just as perhaps to be expected, much like a traumatized psychiatric patient, who makes bad decisions and hurts himself and others in order to protect himself from the pain. This person may engage in heavy drinking, drugs, and self-mutilation. America, just the same, retreated into bigotry and misguided policies, including wire-tapping, the abandonment of habeas corpus, and the preemptive invasion of another country.
For 9 years this pattern of irresponsible behavior continued. Like a drunkard, America proudly defends itself by defecating on everything it should hold dear. "Thish ish 'Merikuh, and we dun like yer kind, sho get outta mah countreh..." In response to WTC, we have only given more ammunition to those who would destroy us, and shown the rest of the world that sometimes we aren't so great.
We have been blinded by the pain and anger we were right to feel on that day, but we failed to understand--as bigots typically do--that what a few people do is not representative of an entire group of over a billion people. That is to say that there is more to Islam than political leaders in the Middle East would have us believe. Tragically, they are doing this to us--and themselves--deliberately.
It works in their favor if we hate them, it works in their favor if we appease the least among us and deny Imam Feisal Rauf his project, and it works in their favor if Terry Jones burns their book. It works because that is what they want. They are exactly like some of us, who emphasize what they perceive as dangerous differences and dreams of domination, who justify discrimination and fear. The more we are given reason to hate Islam, either by ourselves or the Wahhabis, the worse off everyone is. Paradoxically, immediately after Sept 11th, a large portion of the American population drove bigger and more gasoline-demanding vehicles. This, of course, fed right into their hands as we were essentially paying also for the other side of the wars we were waging. Is it American to fund both sides of a war, especially when one side of that war was none other than us?
Nine years later, and the wound is still festering. We are as resistant to tolerance as some of those in the Middle East. Why should we be afraid? Of what must we be afraid? Are we really afraid of some moron who shoves incendiary substances into his underwear, or some ignorant kid who leaves a blatantly suspicious vehicle in the busiest and most vigilant area of NYC, complete with a long paper trail so specific it takes law enforcement just two days to find him? I can only laugh!
But here's where our bigotry really begins to hurt us. In a Pew poll released last month, 18% of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim, and what's more than a little worse is that they believe that because they view both as alien1. Couple that with--if Soledad O'Brian is truly correct--the fact that 71% of Americans now believe that Imam Feisal Rauf's project is a bad idea. It is abundantly clear at this point that Imam Rauf is precisely the kind of person we should empower in order not only for us to present a better America to the Middle East, but also in order for us to learn more about Islam itself and begin to heal the wounds we suffered on 9/11.
I was a bigot once, and it took a full year in college for me to even begin to understand not only myself, but others as well, and it's only now that I've really engaged others in constructive dialogue, and just now understood to the point of deciding to do something I never before thought I could ever do in order to help someone else through the same thing. I cannot imagine how long it could possibly take for an entire nation to forgo its prejudices, even though it has repeatedly gone through the same cycle several times. Some sociologists say that every "new" group of immigrants goes through a phase where the Public (in Heidegger's terms) is immediately intolerant of them.
But Muslims have it perhaps more difficult than most groups, as, in the eyes of the Public, Muslims (or Islam itself) killed 3,000 people on American soil, and all America knows is the despotism and misanthropy of small-minded Middle Eastern leaders. What America likes to forget is that Christianity also is prone to exhibit the same kind of misanthropic and despotic charlatans who feed on the blood of their followers. Have we so soon forgotten Terry Jones?
"Hey! That's not fair! I thought you appreciated Christianity now!" I do, but it's true all the same. Here, I will repeat what I said in "A Mosque? In MY NYC!?" Is Terry Jones representative of all Christianity? No, he is absolutely not. So if we accept that Terry Jones for all intent and purpose has nothing to do with Jesus, what right does the public have to still believe that Osama bin Laden (and by extension the 9/11 hijackers), Hezbollah, Hamas, and Ayatollah Khomeini are representative of all Islam?
The point is, and this is also from that same essay, that Islam and Christianity (The Bible itself is often keen to describe the fate of "wicked prophets." See Micah 3:9-12) exhibit entirely equal amounts of beauty and depravity. If we are able to see beauty in Christianity, what could possibly prevent us from seeing beauty in Islam?
The only way we could ever heal this wound is for Imam Feisal to build his Islamic Cultural Center, though I doubt that anyone outside of his supporters and the Muslims who live in the area would ever visit. So I have just one question for Imam Feisal: How would you try to reach out to those 71% of Americans who do not want to heal September 11th, 2001?
1) http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/19/pew-poll-18-think-obama-is-a-muslim/
For 9 years this pattern of irresponsible behavior continued. Like a drunkard, America proudly defends itself by defecating on everything it should hold dear. "Thish ish 'Merikuh, and we dun like yer kind, sho get outta mah countreh..." In response to WTC, we have only given more ammunition to those who would destroy us, and shown the rest of the world that sometimes we aren't so great.
We have been blinded by the pain and anger we were right to feel on that day, but we failed to understand--as bigots typically do--that what a few people do is not representative of an entire group of over a billion people. That is to say that there is more to Islam than political leaders in the Middle East would have us believe. Tragically, they are doing this to us--and themselves--deliberately.
It works in their favor if we hate them, it works in their favor if we appease the least among us and deny Imam Feisal Rauf his project, and it works in their favor if Terry Jones burns their book. It works because that is what they want. They are exactly like some of us, who emphasize what they perceive as dangerous differences and dreams of domination, who justify discrimination and fear. The more we are given reason to hate Islam, either by ourselves or the Wahhabis, the worse off everyone is. Paradoxically, immediately after Sept 11th, a large portion of the American population drove bigger and more gasoline-demanding vehicles. This, of course, fed right into their hands as we were essentially paying also for the other side of the wars we were waging. Is it American to fund both sides of a war, especially when one side of that war was none other than us?
Nine years later, and the wound is still festering. We are as resistant to tolerance as some of those in the Middle East. Why should we be afraid? Of what must we be afraid? Are we really afraid of some moron who shoves incendiary substances into his underwear, or some ignorant kid who leaves a blatantly suspicious vehicle in the busiest and most vigilant area of NYC, complete with a long paper trail so specific it takes law enforcement just two days to find him? I can only laugh!
But here's where our bigotry really begins to hurt us. In a Pew poll released last month, 18% of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim, and what's more than a little worse is that they believe that because they view both as alien1. Couple that with--if Soledad O'Brian is truly correct--the fact that 71% of Americans now believe that Imam Feisal Rauf's project is a bad idea. It is abundantly clear at this point that Imam Rauf is precisely the kind of person we should empower in order not only for us to present a better America to the Middle East, but also in order for us to learn more about Islam itself and begin to heal the wounds we suffered on 9/11.
I was a bigot once, and it took a full year in college for me to even begin to understand not only myself, but others as well, and it's only now that I've really engaged others in constructive dialogue, and just now understood to the point of deciding to do something I never before thought I could ever do in order to help someone else through the same thing. I cannot imagine how long it could possibly take for an entire nation to forgo its prejudices, even though it has repeatedly gone through the same cycle several times. Some sociologists say that every "new" group of immigrants goes through a phase where the Public (in Heidegger's terms) is immediately intolerant of them.
But Muslims have it perhaps more difficult than most groups, as, in the eyes of the Public, Muslims (or Islam itself) killed 3,000 people on American soil, and all America knows is the despotism and misanthropy of small-minded Middle Eastern leaders. What America likes to forget is that Christianity also is prone to exhibit the same kind of misanthropic and despotic charlatans who feed on the blood of their followers. Have we so soon forgotten Terry Jones?
"Hey! That's not fair! I thought you appreciated Christianity now!" I do, but it's true all the same. Here, I will repeat what I said in "A Mosque? In MY NYC!?" Is Terry Jones representative of all Christianity? No, he is absolutely not. So if we accept that Terry Jones for all intent and purpose has nothing to do with Jesus, what right does the public have to still believe that Osama bin Laden (and by extension the 9/11 hijackers), Hezbollah, Hamas, and Ayatollah Khomeini are representative of all Islam?
The point is, and this is also from that same essay, that Islam and Christianity (The Bible itself is often keen to describe the fate of "wicked prophets." See Micah 3:9-12) exhibit entirely equal amounts of beauty and depravity. If we are able to see beauty in Christianity, what could possibly prevent us from seeing beauty in Islam?
The only way we could ever heal this wound is for Imam Feisal to build his Islamic Cultural Center, though I doubt that anyone outside of his supporters and the Muslims who live in the area would ever visit. So I have just one question for Imam Feisal: How would you try to reach out to those 71% of Americans who do not want to heal September 11th, 2001?
1) http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/19/pew-poll-18-think-obama-is-a-muslim/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)