Take a good look in the mirror
Back in May, Mark D. Uhl was arrested on charges for terrorism. Given that he was a Liberty University student, I think it's not unreasonable to guess that he was a Christian. When arrested, he had homemade bombs in his possession, saying that he wanted to keep protesters from disrupting the funeral if Jerry Falwell. Now how he planned on using those bombs is hard to say, though it certainly does indicate that he had violent intentions and a warped view of the world.
Predictably, we never saw newspaper headlines blaring out about this "Christian Terrorist".
A while back, the right-wingers in America were all gloating "I told you so" because a poll by Pew Research showed that 8% of American Muslims approved of suicide bombings in some situations. This is anti-Muslim hysteria, pure and simple. When news of the Virginia Tech shooting emerged, it was easy to find right-wing blogs speculating about whether or not the shooter was a Muslim. When it turned out he wasn't - they lost interest quickly - except to say that more guns would have saved the students. But going back to the original poll, it must be put into perspective that the other side of the coin is obviously that a majority of Muslims are opposed to terrorism. Unfortunately, apparently most Christians cannot say the same.
Here, we sadly find out that a majority of us are in favor of torture.
Note the especially disturbing part which has been highlighted by the excellent blogger Glenn Greenwald - "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists..." The word here to take notice of is "suspected". Within this population of suspected terrorists, there will inevitably be innocent people - it's unavoidable unless it's on "24" where Jack Bauer knows all and the only thing he does wrong is that he doesn't torture people fast enough.
What kind of person can look his own soul in the mirror and call himself a Christian when he believes that other possibly innocent human beings should be routinely tortured? (15% White Protestant and 13% White Evangelical chose "often". That's not even ticking-bomb, folks)
If right-wingers wish to understand why this small minority of Muslims would believe that suicide bombings could sometimes be justified in defense of Islam, they simply need to look at their own Republican debates between Presidential candidates. During the debate in South Carolina, people cheered when GOP candidates were verbally masturbating to torture in hypothetical scenarios. In that fantasy world, if torture can be justified, then shouldn't it be embraced in the real world as a viable option?
I understand that emotions may run high especially if people are consumed by the imminent doom and possible "heroism" of torture revealing important information to stop a "ticking bomb". But looking at a different but related issue, it is clear that it is not merely a mental blind spot - it is a symptom of a problematic world view.
Here, let's look at a public opinion poll conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Public Attitudes, conducted in December 2006. Target populations were the people of the United States and Iran. Full findings can be found here.
What I'm looking at in particular here is the question asking whether or not" bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified?" Looking at the chart, the sad news is that Americans approved of these sorts of attacks by a undeniably larger margin than the Iranians did. (Iran: 3% + 8% +5% = 16%. America: 5% + 19% + 27+ = 51%)
In fact, if you read this article in the Christian Science Monitor you will notice that except for Nigeria, all "Muslim" countries had lower approval numbers for terrorist attacks against civilians than did America. Now, the meaning and reason for this is debatable. In part I think it comes from the sort of education we got in elementary school, particularly regarding World War II. Because we were the victors, the ends justified the means. Considering that the atomic bombings of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are widely heralded as justified to bring about a quick end to the war (I realize that there were military targets within the cities, but there were other more suitable targets if the primary aim was to disrupt military effectiveness), saying that attacks on innocent civilians are never justifiable casts doubt upon the morality of our own actions in "The Greatest War", and no doubt makes people feel uncomfortable. If you can't even be proud of our conduct in World War II, what war can you feel warm and fuzzy crowing about?
If we want to change our reputation around the world as barbaric hypocrites who tell people to "Do as we say" rather than "Do what we do" we've got to stop the hypocrisy. As the polls above indicate, us Christians are not immune to having screwed up moral compasses. Before we point the finger at other people, we have to take a deep, long look at our inner souls and ask ourselves if we are worthy enough to cast the first stone. Does this mean that we shouldn't protest human rights violations in China because Habeus Corpus has been suspended in the United States? No, evil is evil regardless of who points it out. But our criticism will forever be toothless until we shape up our act and live as we preach.
While I'm on the subject of criticism and the validity of its source, I have to talk to my progressive/liberal compatriots here. We've got to stop giving Christian fundamentalists ammunition to shoot at us with. Now I know that undoubtedly they'll always find something to blame on the "terrorist-loving tree-hugging baby-eating jesus-hating libruls", but there is a very real phenomenon I noted back when Jerry Falwell died that deserves real criticism. We need a slap in the face, and I say so because many people wanted to dance on his grave.
Now I admit I disliked him as much as any other guy, especially because I think he was completely distorting the message of Christianity and turning away people faster than we could ever win them back. (Gay people are to blame for 9/11? Please.) He was powerful, and commanded the power of vengeance, twisting people's minds towards evil. Yet at this time the best thing I believe we progressives should have done was promote the subversive message of forgiveness. Why do I say it's subversive? Because most people base their life principles off of the belief that when I am wronged, I am justified or even obliged to do at least as much harm to you in return. But as Gandhi noted, "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." (The original meaning of an eye for an eye is debatable. Some say that it's talking about punishment for those who commit crimes. Others say that it was originally put in place to ensure that punishment would fit the crime and not go beyond) Revenge or vengeance is self-destructive. In action movies when Arnold kills the bad guys they go back home and live happily ever after. Life isn't like that. You will have to search a long time before you find someone who believes that their cause is evil; and so each act of revenged goes revenged, because everyone believes they have been wronged.
The world believes that forgiveness is a weakness. (Like saying sorry) I call bull. Forgiveness takes real courage, and is sometimes hard as hell to do sincerely. In my mind, what separates Christianity from the other two Abrahamic faiths - Judaism and Islam - is that a core message of Christ is to love our enemies. Maybe the original text had a slightly different meaning, but to me his actions (or non-actions) when being arrested and crucified were clear. He didn't even allow others (Peter) to fight for him; in fact he healed the ear of the servant whom Peter had maimed with his sword. A major aspect of being a Christian is learning how to come to grips with this "inconvenient truth" and its implications for your life and how you should conduct yourself.
The retribution and suffering that Falwell wished upon others should not have been wished upon him, difficult as it may be to do so. We have to hope that Falwell has met and reconciled with Jesus, and that at the very least he will know love and forgiveness at that point. We cannot claim not to be hypocritical in condemning hurtful speech while doing so ourselves, because we are below hypocrisy. When people think of the Victorian era, they think of hypocrisy.
Yet in contemporary America, we can find two extremes - the hypocrites who espouse tough standards yet cannot follow them themselves, and those who do not believe in any sense of morality; if they don't have any rules to break then they are not doing anything wrong. In this world, you cannot be guilty because nothing is real.
Hypocrisy obviously should be avoided. Our condemning of suicide bombings weakens when our own population believes in the righteousness of killing innocent civilians. But creating a moral environment where hypocrisy is something one can be guilty of is a goal to be strived for. The Victorians were considered hypocrites because people believed what they were doing was wrong, and at the very least knew what direction to go and strive for even if they themselves fell short.
Predictably, we never saw newspaper headlines blaring out about this "Christian Terrorist".
A while back, the right-wingers in America were all gloating "I told you so" because a poll by Pew Research showed that 8% of American Muslims approved of suicide bombings in some situations. This is anti-Muslim hysteria, pure and simple. When news of the Virginia Tech shooting emerged, it was easy to find right-wing blogs speculating about whether or not the shooter was a Muslim. When it turned out he wasn't - they lost interest quickly - except to say that more guns would have saved the students. But going back to the original poll, it must be put into perspective that the other side of the coin is obviously that a majority of Muslims are opposed to terrorism. Unfortunately, apparently most Christians cannot say the same.
Here, we sadly find out that a majority of us are in favor of torture.Note the especially disturbing part which has been highlighted by the excellent blogger Glenn Greenwald - "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists..." The word here to take notice of is "suspected". Within this population of suspected terrorists, there will inevitably be innocent people - it's unavoidable unless it's on "24" where Jack Bauer knows all and the only thing he does wrong is that he doesn't torture people fast enough.
What kind of person can look his own soul in the mirror and call himself a Christian when he believes that other possibly innocent human beings should be routinely tortured? (15% White Protestant and 13% White Evangelical chose "often". That's not even ticking-bomb, folks)
If right-wingers wish to understand why this small minority of Muslims would believe that suicide bombings could sometimes be justified in defense of Islam, they simply need to look at their own Republican debates between Presidential candidates. During the debate in South Carolina, people cheered when GOP candidates were verbally masturbating to torture in hypothetical scenarios. In that fantasy world, if torture can be justified, then shouldn't it be embraced in the real world as a viable option?
I understand that emotions may run high especially if people are consumed by the imminent doom and possible "heroism" of torture revealing important information to stop a "ticking bomb". But looking at a different but related issue, it is clear that it is not merely a mental blind spot - it is a symptom of a problematic world view.
Here, let's look at a public opinion poll conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Public Attitudes, conducted in December 2006. Target populations were the people of the United States and Iran. Full findings can be found here.
What I'm looking at in particular here is the question asking whether or not" bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified?" Looking at the chart, the sad news is that Americans approved of these sorts of attacks by a undeniably larger margin than the Iranians did. (Iran: 3% + 8% +5% = 16%. America: 5% + 19% + 27+ = 51%)In fact, if you read this article in the Christian Science Monitor you will notice that except for Nigeria, all "Muslim" countries had lower approval numbers for terrorist attacks against civilians than did America. Now, the meaning and reason for this is debatable. In part I think it comes from the sort of education we got in elementary school, particularly regarding World War II. Because we were the victors, the ends justified the means. Considering that the atomic bombings of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are widely heralded as justified to bring about a quick end to the war (I realize that there were military targets within the cities, but there were other more suitable targets if the primary aim was to disrupt military effectiveness), saying that attacks on innocent civilians are never justifiable casts doubt upon the morality of our own actions in "The Greatest War", and no doubt makes people feel uncomfortable. If you can't even be proud of our conduct in World War II, what war can you feel warm and fuzzy crowing about?
If we want to change our reputation around the world as barbaric hypocrites who tell people to "Do as we say" rather than "Do what we do" we've got to stop the hypocrisy. As the polls above indicate, us Christians are not immune to having screwed up moral compasses. Before we point the finger at other people, we have to take a deep, long look at our inner souls and ask ourselves if we are worthy enough to cast the first stone. Does this mean that we shouldn't protest human rights violations in China because Habeus Corpus has been suspended in the United States? No, evil is evil regardless of who points it out. But our criticism will forever be toothless until we shape up our act and live as we preach.
While I'm on the subject of criticism and the validity of its source, I have to talk to my progressive/liberal compatriots here. We've got to stop giving Christian fundamentalists ammunition to shoot at us with. Now I know that undoubtedly they'll always find something to blame on the "terrorist-loving tree-hugging baby-eating jesus-hating libruls", but there is a very real phenomenon I noted back when Jerry Falwell died that deserves real criticism. We need a slap in the face, and I say so because many people wanted to dance on his grave.Now I admit I disliked him as much as any other guy, especially because I think he was completely distorting the message of Christianity and turning away people faster than we could ever win them back. (Gay people are to blame for 9/11? Please.) He was powerful, and commanded the power of vengeance, twisting people's minds towards evil. Yet at this time the best thing I believe we progressives should have done was promote the subversive message of forgiveness. Why do I say it's subversive? Because most people base their life principles off of the belief that when I am wronged, I am justified or even obliged to do at least as much harm to you in return. But as Gandhi noted, "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." (The original meaning of an eye for an eye is debatable. Some say that it's talking about punishment for those who commit crimes. Others say that it was originally put in place to ensure that punishment would fit the crime and not go beyond) Revenge or vengeance is self-destructive. In action movies when Arnold kills the bad guys they go back home and live happily ever after. Life isn't like that. You will have to search a long time before you find someone who believes that their cause is evil; and so each act of revenged goes revenged, because everyone believes they have been wronged.
The world believes that forgiveness is a weakness. (Like saying sorry) I call bull. Forgiveness takes real courage, and is sometimes hard as hell to do sincerely. In my mind, what separates Christianity from the other two Abrahamic faiths - Judaism and Islam - is that a core message of Christ is to love our enemies. Maybe the original text had a slightly different meaning, but to me his actions (or non-actions) when being arrested and crucified were clear. He didn't even allow others (Peter) to fight for him; in fact he healed the ear of the servant whom Peter had maimed with his sword. A major aspect of being a Christian is learning how to come to grips with this "inconvenient truth" and its implications for your life and how you should conduct yourself.
The retribution and suffering that Falwell wished upon others should not have been wished upon him, difficult as it may be to do so. We have to hope that Falwell has met and reconciled with Jesus, and that at the very least he will know love and forgiveness at that point. We cannot claim not to be hypocritical in condemning hurtful speech while doing so ourselves, because we are below hypocrisy. When people think of the Victorian era, they think of hypocrisy.
Yet in contemporary America, we can find two extremes - the hypocrites who espouse tough standards yet cannot follow them themselves, and those who do not believe in any sense of morality; if they don't have any rules to break then they are not doing anything wrong. In this world, you cannot be guilty because nothing is real.
Hypocrisy obviously should be avoided. Our condemning of suicide bombings weakens when our own population believes in the righteousness of killing innocent civilians. But creating a moral environment where hypocrisy is something one can be guilty of is a goal to be strived for. The Victorians were considered hypocrites because people believed what they were doing was wrong, and at the very least knew what direction to go and strive for even if they themselves fell short.
This is great info to know.
ReplyDelete