| Monday, June 01, 2009 |
| Can We Handle the Proof? |
 Controversy surrounding the photographic evidence from 'alleged' abuse of Iraqi and Afghani prisoners of war are now pushed to the forefront of our minds and demanding to be dealt with in this new presidency. What has been repeated over and over in proverb have again prophetically rose from the ashes: Deeds men do in darkness and shadow will be shown in the light of day for what they truly are.
But dare we publish these disturbing images? Could we actually suggest that there are those in our own ranks that have sunk to the basest of things and taken on nothing more than animalistic behavior, nothing more than something befitting of a sociopath seen in a WWII movie or horror flick? Surely not in our own military. Not one of ours. They're the Good Guys. Only those who side with The Terrorists would use such tactics as raping an innocent woman or torturing a man beyond his capacity for pain. Yet somehow there is evidence of this. Or alleged evidence. But it could be misplaced. Or taken out of context. Or perhaps that person could have asked for such abuse, if information was being withheld. Always the victim's fault. (S)He asked for it.
And of course, if these images were to get out, then all of our own troops would be in danger. Eye for an eye. That's the way that side of the world works. So it would be best to keep this information behind closed doors and let our military keep to itself and discipline itself. Just as it disciplines the men who rape or abuse the women in our own ranks. Don't ask, don't tell, right?
So yes, we should just cover it up. After all, I'm sure we all would have been better off without the pictures of Auswitz and the gas chambers and East Germany with the Berlin Wall and Russia during the Cold War. Life is far better with repression and false memories of the Golden Years. After all, we never do anything wrong.
And we should never apologize because the U.S. never makes mistakes.
See also: Pro Liberate: "Again, May God Forgive Us"
Additional information from The Rutherford Institute can be read in their report here.Labels: Afghanistan, christian, conservative, current events, forgiveness, human rights, Iraq, Islam, liberal, middle east, politics, religion, right-wing, spirituality, war, women's issues |
posted by Sara @ 11:08 AM   |
|
|
|
| Saturday, August 30, 2008 |
| A Kinder, Gentler Nation |
The following commentary was published in my local paper this past Sunday. Of course, I was not able to find any links. The paper rarely archives any commentaries regarding religion and politics, thus I decided to retype it in its entirety here. Mr. Whitehead is the local watchdog for religion, politics, law, and civil rights, the founder and president for The Rutherford Institute. Fabulous organization.
When Pastor Rick Warren decided to hold a 'forum' on August 16, 2008, at his mega church Saddleback and invited both presidential candidates to avoid losing his tax-exempt status. This I'm certain of. Due to millions of Christians leaning away from the Religious Right and becoming more 'loving' and 'forgiving' -- thus of the evangelical persuasion -- Warren saw his opportunity and took it. The Purpose-Driven Pastorprenuer opened his arms and welcomed both sides -- surely a thing Christ would do, right? -- and asked questions... and charged tickets, to make sure this was not confused with a church event. Some went as high as 2 grand, from my limited websurfing.
was truly pointless, spineless, and lacked purpose, something Warren should really have some knowledge, considering his empire of books. I agree. Warren should have asked the tough questions instead of worrying about offending the evangelical masses. He is known for avoiding hot button issues and instead focuses on uniting the peoples. He avoids the issues of abortion, or specifically what causes abortions, and instead focuses on world poverty. A wonderful thing when you live in a rich country and the American Way is to fix problems with your checkbook... when the problems are thousands of miles away... when we are known for ignoring our neighbors down the street who are struggling financially or emotionally.
Christ was never worried about being offensive when it came down to it. He confronted the church leaders of his day who lived lavish lifestyles. He went out to find the poor and oppressed. He challenged the comfortable who thought they had done 'enough'. He wasn't afraid to die for what he believed, for those he cared for, which is what ultimately happened. So why is this pastor afraid to lose his earthly kingdom when he should be more concerned for his soul?
Commentary from "The Daily Progress" (Charlottesville, VA)
Sunday, August 24, 2008
by John W. Whitehead
America, meet your new evangelical leader
I have never been considered a part of the religious right, because I don't believe politics is the most effective way to change the world. Although public service can be a noble profession, and I believe it is our responsibility to vote, I don't have much faith in government solutions, give the track record. --Rick Warren
The recent Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was a wash. Both candidates, who claim to be Christians, spent much of their time pandering to the nearly three million television viewers who tuned in. But in terms of what presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama had to say, their responses were largely lacking in content.
However, the Saddleback Forum wasn't insignificant. Its significance has less to do with what the two candidates had to say than in what the person asking the questions, Rick Warren, signifies for the future of Christianity.
The fact that it was Warren and not James Dobson, the Christian Right's de facto Godfather, is particularly telling. It speaks of a decided shift away from the rigid, right-winged mindset that has dominated evangelical Christianity in America over the last three decades. Warren, pastor of the 23,000-member Saddleback Church in California and the best-selling author of "The Purpose-Driven Life," seems to be about as far as you can get from the stigma of the Christian Right while still calling himself an evangelical Christian.
The Christian Right, represented by such prominent figures as Dobson, Pat Robertson and the Late Jerry Falwell, among others, has long stoof for the erection of a Christian State. As David Kuo, who served as special assistant to President Bush documents in his book "Tempting Faith," these Christian leaders worked hard to maintain ties to the Bush White House, complete with weekly conference calls to keep them updated on ever facet of the president's policy and political agenda.
However, the dismal failure of the Bush presidency has led inevitably to the decline of the Christian Right -- and can be credited with contributing to Warren's rise to prominence. According to a 2005 Nation article, Warren "disassociates himself from the religious right, noting that he shares its position on social issues but doesn't want to focus on them. He focuses on poverty, disease, and aid to Africa."
It's not difficult to see why Warren, a mainline evangelical in the Billy Graham mold, is enjoying such popularity. Disillusioned by the power-hawking, war-mongering of the Christian Right, the nation's 80 million evangelical Christians would have little trouble with the feel-good Christianity that Warren sells -- non-confrontational, congenial, and polite. That isn't to say that it lacks substance, merely controversy.
As a recent time article observed, like Graham, Warren "projects an authenticity that he helped him forge an exquisite set of political connections -- in the White House, on both sides of the legislative aisle and abroad. And he is both leading and riding the newest wave and change in the Evangelical community: an expansion beyond social conservatism to causes such as battling poverty, opposing torture and combating global warming.
"The movement has loosened the hold of religious-right leaders on ordinary Evangelicals and created an opportunity for Warren, who has lent his prominent voice to many of the new concerns."
Warren has avoided much that is controversial, such as abortion and gay marriage (what he refers to as "sin issues"). Instead, Warren focuses on issues that "unite," such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change, and human rights. Warren is, whether consciously or unconsciously, shifting the national faith dialogue back to a pre-Regan era, before the small group of leaders that have come to dominate the Christian Right turned Christianity into a synonym for right-wing theocracy.
Sidestepping the siren call of politics, Warren has taken aim at what he calls the "five global giants": spiritual emptiness, selfish leadership, hunger, sickness, and illiteracy. Empowered by his publishing success and with the support of his megachurch, he launched his PEACE initiative -- an acronym for Promote reconciliation, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, and Educate the next generation. Since coming up with the plan, he has taken his PEACE plan global, with Rwanda as his testing ground.
Warren is now being looked upon as America's pastor. Suddenly, Christianity appears somewhat appealing again. Yet while there is so much to commend this so-called New Evangelicalism, with its rejection of politics as the answer and its emphasis on carrying out Jesus' mandate to care for the poor and helpless, there is also an important lesson to the learned. The rise of the Christian Right came about at a time when the evangelical church in America was doing its best to be non-controversial an inoffensive. The evangelical church's subsequent failure was to morally impact the culture and the legalization of abortion can be directly attributed to the emergence ot the Christian Right.
The Christian Right was, without a doubt, a semi-militant reaction to a society that seemed to be lacking a moral compass. And as journalist Chris Hedges points out in his book "American Fascists," if a real crisis rises again across this country (such as another terrorist attack), it would not take much for the country to revert back to such a militant fundamentalism.
This brings us to the current presidential election. No matter who ascends to the White House, it's clear that Christians will not enjoy the kind of access that laid claim to during the Bush administration -- whatever good it did them. For example, abortions didn't decline under Bush, and it's doubtful that whether they would under either Obama or McCain.
The lesson to be learned is this: what is needed now is not a return to the overly polite Christianity of the pre-Regan era. Nor is it the politically charged Christianity of the Religious Right, but a brand of Christianity that does not shy away from speaking truth to power. In other words, the type of Christianity Jesus practiced.
John Whitehead is president and founder of the Albemarle County-based Rutherford Institute, a civil-liberties organization. He can be reached at johnw@rutherford.orgLabels: christian, GenX, GenY, liberal, politics, religion, right-wing, spirituality |
| posted by Sara @ 4:06 PM |
|
|
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 |
| It's There If You Look For It |
Being raised with exposure to the Chinese culture while growing up in the Midwest is hard to explain to the average American. You don't really fit in either world. Especially when none of your family is Chinese. Except your cousins. Your half-Chinese cousins. While everyone else is either all Finnish or an American mix.
Try to buy fake Olympic merchandise... ?
"The police say it will destroy the reputation of the Olympics," said one vendor. So the Beijing Olympics were a mix for me. The culture was as I remember from my childhood, visiting my grandparents. The respect, the culture toward foreigners, the 'strange' food. Giggling while watching anchors and reporters attempting to eat with chopsticks. And all the red. Everyone was talking about how polite the Chinese were. Of course. That's how you act. You respect your elders. You put others first. And -- if I dare say -- the government can and will make play nice to your visitors. They spent billions of dollars putting on this show. They have the people power to pull this off. If you do not follow along, you are expendable. Do not protest. Do not talk poorly about the government. Remember that. You are only one of a billion people. Remember that. After the earthquake, the government dished out paperwork to grieving parents, making them sign so the parents wouldn't investigate if there was shoddy workmanship in the schools that had collapsed. They also reminded parents that they could have another child, as the only one that they had had died. Their flesh and blood was, yes, replaceable, just like that.
I saw subtle (and not-so-subtle) propaganda in the imagery. There were posters around Tienanmen Square that got very little face time. I was able to see them a bit longer in design magazines that I subscribe to. It would take a little longer to explain to those unfamiliar to Chinese culture, where image, color, and tone all have meaning. But if you are familiar with Communism, you can pick up on some of the nuances. One article I would recommend is Party Games from Print Magazine, which describes Beijing's carefully calculated iconography, incorporating both ancient meaning with governmental propaganda. The main icon, the Da  ncing Beijing logo, is one such icon. It is taken from the second Chinese character for the city, jing (below left), which is often used shorthand for  'capital'. Beijing itself means literally 'North Capital' (bei = North, jing = Capital). The Dancing Beijing logo is made to look like a chop, or block, which is a seal. Governments use them to stamp official documents. I personally own one that my grandmother used to sign her paintings. Every artist had a chop made specially to signify his or her work and to prevent counterfeits. They are highly prized and not duplicated. They are still used today, from business to government work. Also, religion is still not tolerated in this 'progressive,' modernizing city. Churches are driven underground. Tibetan monks are imprisoned and tortured. Buddhists practice... hesitantly. To a degree. And all without question of the infallible government. Big Brother knows best. You can buy anything you want in China, especially on the black market. Even the police and government officials. Corruption is everywhere. There is question about the age of the Chinese girl gymnasts, which government workers could have can easily altered certificates and official papers. But if try to buy fake Olympic merchandise? Nope. "The police say it will destroy the reputation of the Olympics," said one vendor from the Print article. The good side to the Olympics were the athletes. Pure, unadulterated sport. No background or superimposed banners for Nike or Adidas or Budweiser. Yeah, you still have to sit through commercials. And the opening ceremonies were done in the spectacle and grandeur that I expected (constantly interrupted by the freeking commercials). Artistry, imagery, music, ancient instrumentation, illuminating light, technology never seen before, everything incorporating all senses. Plus the elements of wind, water, fire, wood, metal...  Holistic, that everything is interconnected. And reminding the world -- and the Chinese -- of the power of the human. The sheer mass. The largeness. One of many -- so very many --and yet, just one of many. And more subtle propaganda woven in here and there. You wouldn't see it if you weren't familiar with the history or culture of China. Proud history. Thousands of years. Luxurious costuming and fantastic attention to detail -- jewels, posture, makeup, facial expression. Then we incorporate the new with old, strength with weakness, power with control, chaos with order, balancing opposites without clashing. Americans have a terrible time of doing this. We tend to forget our past or forget to set time aside, remembering that the dishes can wait for tomorrow -- we want to leave it behind and just live in the future. We forget about today. China accepts its past and brings it forward, incorporating it into today. Now if it would let its people forward instead of letting the few rule the many under an iron fist.  Labels: business, China, human rights, Olympics, politics |
| posted by Sara @ 8:17 AM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, March 14, 2007 |
| China and the AIDS Crisis |
 I was glad to see that "The Blood of Yingzhou District" won Best Documentary Short Subject at the 79th Academy Awards.
I don't want to shortchange the epidemic sweeping across Africa. Yes, AIDS is a pandemic. The misconceptions and rumors floating around in Africa are terrible. But in order to make a change, we have got to stop treating kids as trendy fashion accessories and taking them away from their homes. If we want kids to grow up and change the world as adults, we have to help them grow into adults in the world they know. Change must take place locally, in countries and neighborhoods worldwide. We have got to start acting locally. That means where local begins, not bringing it to a more convenient and safe location that is familiar to us. Ok, stepping off my soapbox now...
The government in China is doing all they can to shush their own people. It must be terrifying, not knowing how many are living with this disease, not knowing how you got it, not knowing if your transfusion has been tainted or if you have passed it on to your children. And knowing your own government does not care. A billion live your country and you are just another number, another cog. Expendable. Makes me shiver.
Below is a column written by Wendy McElroy:
By Wendy McElroy
"What can they do to an old woman like me?"
 That’s how 80-year-old Gao Yaojie responds to threats from the Chinese government. In 1996, the now-retired doctor became instrumental in exposing an AIDS scandal involving China's blood banks that officials still want to quash. But the powerful Communist bureaucracy that rules a nation of 1.3 billion people cannot silence one old lady who is a crusade.
The silence, however, is cracking wide open. Part of the reason is that China will be hosting the 2008 Olympics, which demands China embrace greater openness to international media. On Jan. 1, for example, new rules went into effect by which some journalists can travel into the provinces without prior government approval.
However, another reason the silence surrounding China's dismal record on AIDS is fading is because Gao has been recognized by the international community as a champion of AIDS patients who are victims of both bureaucracy and disease.
In a scramble for damage control, Chinese officials are simultaneously punishing and praising the grandmotherly dissident. For example, last week policemen placed Gao under de facto house arrest, presumably to prevent her from making arrangements to accept an award in New York City next month. Yet, on Feb. 12, a high-ranking Communist official visited her home to grab a photo-op with Gao who was then lauded in the party’s newspaper. What are officials so eager to cover up? It began in April 1996 when a female patient with “no-name fever” entered the hospital in China’s central Henan province where Gao worked. The woman pleaded, "I don't want to die! My husband and my child can't live without me." She died 10 days later. For over a week, the woman’s husband slept by her grave in an act of contrition: He had approved a blood transfusion years before through which Gao determined that the woman had contracted AIDS. “I was astonished to find that the contaminated blood had come from a blood bank," Gao stated. "If a blood bank has been contaminated with HIV, there certainly must be more than just one victim!” She was correct. In the 1990s, "unofficial" blood banks flourished and Chinese peasants were encouraged to sell their blood in order to harvest the plasma. The "clinics," sometimes run by local politicians or the military, had to overcome the reluctance of many peasants to give blood. Thus, it became commonplace to re-infuse donors with plasma-stripped blood that was drawn from a general pool. That blood was not tested for AIDS. No one knows how widespread the resulting problem is. According to The Economist, “The United Nations estimates that at the end of 2005 there were 55,000 commercial blood and plasma donors infected with HIV in China….One Chinese AIDS expert, Zhang Ke, reported in 2004 that the figure for Henan province…could be more than 170,000. Dr Zhang estimated that a further 130,000 in Henan got the virus from transfusions in hospitals.” Estimates on how many people have been infected through other vectors of disease (e.g. unprotected sex) do not seem to exist. One thing is clear, however. Although policies on blood donation and transfusions have been tightened, the spread of AIDS in China has taken on a life or death of its own. The government seems more interested in preventing information than preventing the disease. Gao, who continues to print and circulate educational brochures at her own expense, is a source of chronic embarrassment for the government. She is also exposing the corruption of officials who misappropriate money and resources intended for the AIDS victims. The accusations of corruption are accumulating. For example, in 2005, the powerful Party member Wen Jiabao took a much-publicized inspection tour of AIDS prevention work. At Wenlou village, he promised patients that they would each receive 10 yuan (a Chinese dollar) or a total of 8,830 yuan in all. The allocated money vanished as did subsequent shipments of food to the area. Gao tirelessly raises funds for AIDS victims but she has appealed for people not to donate money to the effort in Wenlou. "[G]o and tell your friends and readers not to donate money or material to Wenlou village," she has said. "This is just a PR project to deceive the public….This is a 'black hole'…There are quite a few more 'black holes' in Henan like this one." No wonder the government wants to silence Gao… along with the growing ranks of anti-AIDS activists whom she has emboldened. It is too late to quiet her now; the world is paying attention. Consider Li Xige, who was infected during a blood transfusion in childbirth and passed AIDS on to her now-deceased daughter. Last July, she traveled to petition the Beijing Municipal Health Bureau for assistance. Instead, she was arrested on the charge of "assembling crowds to attack state institutions." Human rights organizations and the media immediately advocated on Li Xige’s behalf. According to Amnesty International: “Following her release on 10 August, she was placed under tight police surveillance and warned not to travel outside her home county…or talk to foreign media.” Chinese attempts to cover up the AIDS epidemic and scandals have been so clumsy that they have merely created more interest. Last November, I toured China in the company of various guides who clearly follow the official Communist line on political matters. On separate occasions, three different guides assured me that the AIDS situation was firmly under the government’s control. The interesting thing: I hadn’t asked them anything about AIDS. But, since they brought the subject up, I pursued it. The path led directly to where they did not wish me to go: GaoYaojie. Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada. Respond to the Writer
Labels: China, human rights, politics |
| posted by Sara @ 2:38 PM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, February 01, 2007 |
| The Least of These |
There has been a lot of debate over who is better suited to raise children following the news that Mary Cheney and her 15-year partner, Heather Poe, are expecting. I'm very glad Ms. Cheney gave a public statement denouncing the pregnancy as a political statement: “This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child.” I agree. Children should never be used as salve to save a marriage or as bartering chips in a disintegrating relationship, to prove to overbearing parents that you're reallyreally an adult now (stomp foot for effect), to provide undying love and affection for a lonely adult when a housepet is far more appropriate, to be molded into a miniature clone for reliving unfulfilled dreams or correcting mistakes, toted as a trendy fashion accessory or because all your friends have one, or groomed as a poster child for a cause.
It's not hard to have children. Paris Hilton is proof. It is, however, hard to raise them. You see evidence of this day after day. Super Nanny and Nanny 911 show the results of parents who won't be parents, who refuse to discipline or set proper boundaries and rules because the child might not like them or may think they're *gasp* uncool. The horror! We hear heartbreaking stories of children who are abused or neglected because the kid is interfering with a previously thriving social or lovelife. In a Russian hospital, orphaned infants were found gagged with tape or plaster because their cries were too loud and distracted the nurses from their "important" duties.
Many feel that a child thrives when raised by a stable, loving family; the controversy lies with what sexes comprise that family life. Focus on the Family has been openly critical of Ms. Cheney's pregnancy due to her unmarried status. (Ok, so let her get married, then. No, wait, you don't want that either...) During a CNN interview, Wolf Blitzer took a cheap-shot at Vice President Dick Cheney, asking if he cared to respond to the criticism. Mr. Cheney rightly refused to comment on the personal matter:
BLITZER: We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby, you're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?
CHENEY: No, I don't. BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter... CHENEY: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question. BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate... CHENEY: I think you're out of line. BLITZER: ...your daughters. No, we like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very
sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up, and it's a responsible, fair question. CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you. BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.
Quick editorial: If Mr. Blitzer wanted to merely congratulate Mr. Cheney on having another grandchild, why didn't he just say those nine words without implying this was controversial? Many conservative groups and blogs latched onto this political teat, crying that if the VP felt so strongly about gay rights that he needed to blast his own party instead of attacking poor journalists. I found it rather humorous since most right-wingers shun liberal media as evil, biased filth -- especially CNN. Also, numerous authors and researchers cited in Mr. Dobson's letter and other writings demanded that he refrain from quoting their research as much was taken out of context and selectively eliminated findings on gay parenthood.
So what is best for the child, then? Ask any adult who survived childhood and let him educate you:
- Children need to know they are loved no matter what.
- Children need to know that there are rules and consequences.
- Children need consistency and trust.
- Children need basic physical, emotional, and spiritual needs met.
- Children need safety and security.
- Children need encouragement to pursue ambitions.
- Children need guidance during disappointments and trials.
- Children need to receive and learn patience.
- Children need ears to listen when it feels like they are the only one in the world who has experienced pain or loss.
- Children need to know that everyone (including parents) makes mistakes.
- Children need to learn "please," "thank you," and "I'm sorry."
- Children need to know that it's never too late to start over.
- Children (like adults) need to learn that the world does not revolve around them and that helping others is the best thing they can contribute.
Just because someone does not have a child of his or her own due to infertility, physical problems, personal choice, or sexual orientation, does not mean that (s)he is suddenly rendered incapable from becoming a healthy, loving parent to a biological, foster, or adopted child. Raising a child becomes a conscious decision instead of scrambling to line up "Plan C."
There are no perfect parents and we all will screw it up massively at least once. We just have to brush ourselves off, keep going, and keep our ego at the back of the line. We have been entrusted with a weighty responsibility -- someone else's life. It won't matter if Jenny has a mommy and a daddy, two mommies, or none that are even related.
Labels: homosexuality, human rights, politics |
| posted by Sara @ 12:35 PM |
|
|
|
| Monday, January 29, 2007 |
| State of the Union |
People are confusing. Being the cynic that I am, I will generally subscribe that good can come about if we're willing to work at it. But this is the age of instant gratification. We want our rice cooked and on the plate in 90 seconds. We will sit with our turn-signal on, waiting for the soccer mom to load up her three young children in the SUV to get that prime parking spot 20 feet from the entrance even though there are open spots further down the row. We will spend an extra $5.00 for convenient, ready-to-serve entrees without caring about the extra "ingredients" that require a B.A. in chemistry to decipher. What exactly is "caramel color" and why is used both in Coca-Cola and sliced roast beef?
This spills over into not thinking before we speak. After all, we can always take a page from Hollywood and go into rehab if we offend or over-indulge. Take the latest from America's favorite state, Virginia. First, the George Allen Scandal which may have cost him the election. Now, Senator Virgil Goode.
The Chair of the Charlottesville Sierra Club wrote Congressman Virgil Goode. True to our automated nature, a letter came back that struck a nerve. It was published first in the local weekly and soon made its rounds over the World Wide Web. Now, I am all for free speech, but as a representative of the people, I also believe in discretion.
In brief, Keith Ellison, a Muslim, had been elected to serve the Fifth District of Minnesota. Apparently Sen. Goode took exception to that and, in his letter, made it known: "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to the Koran in any way. ...(I)f American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran." Sen. Goode refused to apologize for the letter and stood by his statements. A representative from his office stated that the letter had been sent in error and was meant for "other" constituents.
Reminding Sen. Goode that he was an American citizen, Sen. Ellison decided to use Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran for his swearing in. Even tastier is that Jefferson has strong ties to Charlottesville; the founding father is the little town's claim to fame, next to Dave Matthews. The University of Virginia was founded by Mr. Jefferson and his home, Monticello (flip over your nickel for a picture), is open for tours.
True xtianity states that we are to love others as ourselves, even if we disagree. The tone of Sen. Goode's letter is anything but that. Why would anyone wish to take an oath on something that is not personal? Would Sen. Goode take his oath over the Egyptian Book of the Dead if it were our common religious book?
There was some local retaliation against Sen. Goode which I do not condone. As with others who have been caught in the snare of bad judgment or hatred, forgiveness is the only acceptable outcome with or without the guilty requesting it. I didn't say blind trust. I didn't say looking the other way. I didn't say repressing the memory. I didn't say laying down and letting it happen again and again. It is more so for us, so bitterness doesn't eat away at our conscience. It's hard. It takes work. It is not for those who wish to get over it and move on "now."
I do wish for an admission of guilt, but I don't see that happening. As ignorant as I think Sen. Goode is, I do [wish to] forgive him and pray that his eyes open up to see that this country is made up of all races, religions, and creeds. That is what it was based on; freedom to believe what you will, not being forced to attend church, not experiencing persecution if you subscribe to a different religion or denomination, not having to revere the government as infallible under threat of prison or death.
In a grand display of public forgiveness, Sen. Ellison sought out Sen. Goode and extended his hand in friendship and was accepted. I hope the exchange was more than just politics as usual.
Labels: Islam, politics, religion |
| posted by Sara @ 12:55 PM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, October 12, 2006 |
| Black and Blue and Red All Over |
Will these people please get off my side? Or at least stop pretending to know what I stand for?
I read a column written by Susan Estrich who was reviewing Ann Coulter's latest book Godless. (First, some grammar, Ms. Coulter... please use the small g.) It is Ms. Coulter's stance that "everything liberals believe is in elegant opposition to basic Biblical precepts." (Again, Ann, small b.) And then she goes on with other tasty soundbites about how the Methodist church is barely a church, runs off a list of people she would like to see killed or poisoned or blown up, and that Islamic militants love American more than than the hell-bound Liberals. I'm sure she'd be up to an abortion clinic bombing if the mood hit her.
Of course I'll have to borrow the book and get a fuller picture with my own biases.
But I'm lost here. Ms. Coulter and the Vast Religious Right Wing claim to uphold biblical principles. I'm missing the part where G-d's generously doling out the lightening bolts to those who vote against him and his earthly kingdom established in the god-given land of America, those who have gone against these biblical teachings. After all, we're now talking about an entity who sits passively in the clouds, looking down on us to catch us doing wrong, and who has no desire to hear confessions of regret and sorrow because we'll just be at it again tomorrow. Rather Grecian, doncha think?
Let's revisit some ancient history for a moment. This Christ that these xtians claim to follow hung out with the people the uppity and smug wouldn't even consider sharing an elevator with, let alone sit on their Gucci padded pews inside their sterile houses of "worship". He ate at the homes of people who willingly lied and cheated for a living. I'm sure he knew the food was stolen. He touched the contagious, unafraid that G-d might not allow him to escape potential infection. He loved [and spent time with] the worthless and hopeless, the whores, slave owners, slaves, homosexuals, the abused, abusers, addicts, skeptics, the curious, politicians, business owners, the deformed, homeless beggars, pagans, the irreligious, foreigners, renters, landowners, murderers, victims. But the people that he got miffed at were the religiously self-rightous; those who had all the answers and refused to learn and bend.
Hmmm...
I'm missing the verse about manifest destiny, where "our" way is The Right Way (no pun intended) and The Only Way and those opposed are godless, soulless, and heartless heretics of the most Anti-Patriotic stench and the only solution is public humiliation peppered with a few violent outbursts until the infidels [read: American liberals] are whipped back into passive submission. Suddenly, we find we have wrapped our delusional brain around an eternal, omniscient and omnipresent spirit and we know all there is to know about it. So when did we become G-d?
The good news is I'm not the only one who's pretzel is in a twist over this new theology. There is a startling number of books that have come out within the past few years discussing the place of politics in religion and revisiting the teachings of Christ. Rather prophetic.
The strange thing is that many progressive ideals came about because people did try to live these xtian ideals of equality and basic human goodness. Freedom of religion was established with a safety net so the government couldn't impose rules for worship or rule through the church and the church couldn't establish a national religion or rule through the government. Slavery was abolished, even though many say it was "on its way out" due to economic instability. Women received the right to vote, own property, and other basic rights. Civil rights were demanded for all races and sexes, though we aren't quite there yet. All this when we could get along, identify what was truly evil, and work together to fix it. There is more to life than building bigger barns, people.
And now we're back at each other's throats. Progressive, conservative, liberal, republican. "If you are not for us, you are against us." It's no wonder we are in more trouble than we think.
Labels: Ann Coulter, liberal, politics, right-wing |
| posted by Sara @ 2:34 PM |
|
|
|
| Monday, September 11, 2006 |
| Happy Anniversary |
 September is the month of anniversaries for me. It's been five years since I stared in awe at a television screen just moments after hearing that the indestructible towers of steel and glass had melted in the heat from two plane crashes and I quickly put out bulletins to all my international email pals (and my mother who was vacationing in Finland) about the attacks, experiencing the internet freeze-up on any news site I tried to access, and listening to silent skies for days afterward. It's been ten years for sobriety... think I'll have a drink. Of coffee. It's been 25 years since my brother's birth, and February will mark the anniversary of his death.
All these end in a nice, even number this year. And I can remember where I was when I first heard about the beginnings of all these events. Each time prayer was involved. Prayers for protection, forgiveness, pleadings. Each made their own mark and life was never the same.
Reflecting on 91101, that was the only time in history that I can remember watching the news that much. Even to this day, I get a bit overwhelmed and can only watch a half hour a day.
It was the second to last day of my job working at my church. The first plane hit and no one knew what was going on. The guys on the radio prayed for those who may have survived and wondered. The second plane hit as I parked. I ran inside, demanding a TV and told everyone that we were under attack. None of my coworkers knew what was going on. I got updates from a friend who was watching everything happen on cable until the TV was procured. The Towers had collapsed by the time the TV was switched on. "What do you mean they're GONE?" I kept asking over and over. The internet was frozen with all the traffic and I listened as they told about another crash into the Pentagon. And more planes suddenly went missing. We all grew more anxious.
Our biggest symbols were destroyed or disfigured. The World Trade Center -- our symbol of capitalism. The Pentagon -- our symbol of defense. A plane downed in a random field in Pennsylvania. We wondered at what would be next.
The whole day I wrestled with the question "Why". Being the interim editor for our newsletter, I knew something had to be written. Some explaination. Some reason. I tried to write about faith during such a trying time. Where was G-d? Was this just another example of religious fanatisicm? What would happen next? And why us? Why now?
As people began to draw together, it encouraged me that so many were willing to put aside petty differences and focus on something bigger than themselves. Churches, mosques, synagogues, everyone opened their doors. Time, money, water, blood, sweat and tears... all were sacrificed to those who were in need. It no longer mattered where we lived, how much money we had, if we had a degree or not, political persuasion, if we worshiped in the same church or shared the same religion, we all were in this together. Our soul had been ripped open and we all saw the responsibility to repair it and to love our brothers and sisters who were in pain and loss. Sure, there were a few loudmouths who prophesied that the attacks were brought on by G-d's wrath against homosexuals or nonXtians or tattoos or lobster or whatever such nonsense (and were told by many to shut up and stop representing us), but overall, we bonded as a country. To paraphrase Becky Garrison, the Kingdom of G-d had come on earth. We finally were acting instead of speculating.
But five years later and we're more divided than we were before these events. We can't seem to get along anymore. I really wish we were in a better place than we are now. But we still have time to learn from our successes as well as failures. Five more years? I hope it won't take that long.
Labels: 9/11, politics |
| posted by Sara @ 8:48 AM |
|
|
|
| Friday, September 08, 2006 |
| Human Rights Violations |
Ok, so I lied. We'll be taking a brief sabbatical from the previously mentioned topic of church and marketing -- and this is everywhere, so feel free to research -- and move our focus on China.
Now, I grew up with a mixed heritage: an American with Finnish grandparents who met in China, spoke Manderin along with several other languages, and raised their children in Taiwan before moving to the States in the 60s... Confused? Anyway, I learned about the finer points of tea, to always share take-out, and mastered chopsticks. My grandparents were missionaries in China before the communist revolution and forced them out. There are stories I have yet to hear of my grandmother jumping onto a moving train, afraid for her life, because she had a heart for the Chinese people and wanted to tell them of God and Jesus. But I digress. Anyhow, China has always held a piece of my heart and hearing of the atrocities that are [still] committed over there makes my soul weep.
So when I read of the Chinese government "disciplining" a film director... it kinda upsets me. The director of Summer Palace, Ye Lou, apparently did not submit his film to the government for approval, and so he has been banned from making films for the next 5 years. His producer was also banned from making films for 5 years. The film, which I've heard is excellent, is a love story that takes place during the pro-democracy demonstrations that lead up to the 1989 massacre at Tienanmen Square. Lou states that there are autobiographical moments in the movie that he wanted to share with the rest of the world. I'm sure that Lou didn't submit his film because the censors wouldn't have allowed it to be shown at the festival. This is not a proud moment in Chinese history and one that they would like forgotten; the protests are remembered as "counterrevolutionary riots." I still remember watching TV, seeing a student confront a tank, watching the staredown. My memory quits after that moment. It was surreal.
One more incident that makes my stomach turn is the Chinese government shutting down a website that reported the killing of a villager who was trying to stop the demolition of his home. From the link above: "The Web site contained reports from overseas sites and also people's comments on the death of the villager reported to have been beaten to death by thugs after resisting government efforts to tear down his home." The government has eminent domain and can seize land at any time from anyone for any purpose. Sound familiar?
In one country alone people are denied the right to make a living or even a right to live in their own home because The Powers That Be deem they are not human enough; they aren't worth enough monetarily. It is cheaper to look after Their business than save one insignificant life. This is so very very wrong. And this does not end with China alone. This happens in the States, too.
So what do we do about it? Why are we not outraged? Why are all the talk show hosts hatefully spewing about the ills of That Other Party instead of linking up and taking on what is truly evil in the world?
Labels: China, human rights, politics |
| posted by Sara @ 4:02 PM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Sara
Home: gypsy wanderer, United States
About Me: Those who know me find me stubborn, opinionated, open-minded, strong-willed, of some intelligence, and yet they still hang around.
See my complete profile
|
| Previous Post |
|
| Archives |
|
|
| Shoutbox |
Love God. Love all. Serve both. There is wisdom in turning as often as possible from the familiar to the unfamiliar: it keeps the mind nimble, it kills prejudice, and it fosters humor.
-George Santayana, philosopher (1863-1952) |
| Links |
|
|
| Powered by |
 |
|
