From the category archives:

politics

Religion and Hatred, and Other Supposed Opposites

by Sarah Morgan on August 18, 2010

This fuss going on in Lower Manhattan is beyond ridiculous; it’s wrong.

Religion is belief in the rightness of a deity. Patriotism is belief in the rightness of a country. The latter belief is usually to a lesser degree than the former, normally. But beliefs are not extenuating circumstances.

The people who call themselves Americans or Christians but pretend that this justifies spouting off increasingly anti-Moslem bile? They’re on a moral level with the people who call themselves followers of Islam but pretend that this justifies their violence and hatred.

And I’ve gotten so tired of seeing the first group talk as if anyone who disagrees is neither patriotic nor religious that I had to say something.

Now, please understand one thing very clearly: I am not saying that people prancing around with paper signs are as bad as murderers. What I am saying is that the same root is at the bottom of both passions and it’s horribly mistaken. It’s hooking onto our innate desire for the one who created us, and twisting it to trick us into wrongdoing. It’s taking the best that we’re capable of and trying to warp it into the worst that we’re capable of. It’s evil at its most fundamental.

And even if you’re a non-religious American, the first Amendment to our Constitution – remember, the one before that one about the guns that so many people love? – gives us all the freedom of religion. Even a religion you might not understand.

On top of which, there’s no factual justification for what the opponents seem to be saying. Nobody is trying to build a Ground Zero Mosque. Someone bought a condemned department store two blocks from Ground Zero and they want to knock it down to build a mosque and a big community center like a YMCA or a JCC. It’s called Park51. The area is depressed and vacant and has been for nine years, and there are a handful of religious buildings – Christian and Moslem, among others – already in the area. None of this appears to me to be out of the ordinary or menacing or disrespectful.

What I do find menacing and disrespectful – and, I hope, out of the ordinary – is the bigotry that this building is facing because of its religious purpose.

There have been mosques that have been fronts for training murderers. This is despicable. But that isn’t every mosque.

The IRA used Catholic churches and priests in their terrorist activities. That doesn’t make me a terrorist for going to church.

When you spout off words that make other people less equal and you justify yourself with information that you didn’t bother to check against facts, or logic, or the truth of the religion you espouse, you’re not being Christian and you’re not being a patriot.

We need reminding that “this is America, dammit, and in America, when somebody comes for your neighbor or his Bible or his Torah or his atheist manifesto or his Koran, you and I do what our fathers did and our grandmothers did and our founders did. You and I speak up.” MSNBC commentator’s Keith Olbermann’s whole comment is very much worth watching.

And for those of us who are Catholic, we need reminding that: “the Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.”

Post to Twitter Tweet This

{ 6 comments }

Google: Just a Little Bit Scary

by Sarah Morgan on March 13, 2010

This winter, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

I saw the quote in an Australian infographic video that’s pretty fear-mongering when it comes to Google, so I wasn’t sure it was accurate. But I did my homework, and not only did he say it – he said it on CNBC.

Google’s breadth is intimidating to begin with, but a sentiment like Schmidt’s zooms right past privacy concerns into basic human rights.

Why would we have anything that we don’t want anyone to know, Eric? I don’t know, why do they make doors with locks on them? Why do we have doors at all? Why do we have walls? Why isn’t life lived in one giant cattle car, one massive open plan?

Because, Eric, the ability to keep yourself protected and feeling secure is a basic human need, one that is negated when someone removes your ability to do something that no one knows about. It’s Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

If what I need safe can’t be as protected as I want it to be, that’s knocking out that rung, and it’s only the second one up. The only things more basic are physiological needs. I won’t get to fulfilling needs like love, belonging, esteem, let alone self-actualization – not if I don’t feel safe.

The world Eric Schmidt is describing is one in which creativity like that which formed Google could not be possible.

Don’t get me started about options. I know I can choose to not have Google locate me on Latitude, share my read articles on Reader, etc. I know. But the point is, they’ve become so big that that becomes a flawed argument. It’s becoming increasingly like saying well, you could choose not to have the internet at all. I could choose not to eat any animal products, I could choose to only use words that don’t have the letter P in them. But if you choose a fairly common way to live your life, you should not be required to give up basic human rights to do so.

Post to Twitter Tweet This

{ 5 comments }

The Rare Political Post

by Sarah Morgan on February 12, 2010

In reading this BBC opinion piece on American healthcare reform, what struck me more than the actual topic were its views on how careful politicians have to be.

They can’t try to teach the people – or they’ll sound condescending.

They can’t assume the people have a basic understanding – because they won’t.

Depressing. But, I think, true.

I don’t know much about politics on purpose – because it depresses me. I realize that’s an appalling reason not to get involved – that I feel it’s beyond hope. But let me explain.

From what I know, our country was founded with the tacit understanding that our leaders would be part-time politicians. You’d go serve your time helping run the country, and then you’d go back to your farm. But that’s completely upside-down now.

We not only have career politicians, we have dynasties of them. These people can’t possibly understand what it’s like for their constituents. That’s not a crack on them – I think most of them are brilliant and well-intentioned. But they’ve spent their lives on the Hill: the outside world is foreign.

Our democracy was meant to be “of the people” but it’s now run by a group of ultra-specialists. How can a leadership that insular function in our best interests? And how could we change that, when it seems so inherently incapable of working?

Post to Twitter Tweet This

{ 6 comments }

Buzzkills, Rodent and Religious Alike

by Sarah Morgan on September 21, 2009

You’re going to laugh, but groundhogs are way scarier close up than you’d think.

Remember my skunk predicament in South San Francisco? Redux with groundhog this weekend. Running down a lovely country road with cornfields and blue, blue skies, I was in a pleasant sort of self-hypnosis with the sun and the rhythm. Till we snuck up on each other.

Neither it nor I noticed each other till it arched and hissed right next to me. I screamed. We both froze. The elderly gentleman in the passing pickup saw it all and laughed.

Total buzzkill. Try getting a rhythm back after you’ve just developed Instant Paralyzing Marmot Phobia.

* * *

But, more seriously in the buzzkill file this weekend, someone I respect surprised me with what I saw (and see) as totally out-of-character bigotry.

It’s hard to act in a way that untangles feelings out of it. But as much as you want to say “you’re wrong, this is horrible,” it doesn’t do any good to turn it into a shouting match. So I politely pointed out some of the errors in their facts. They expressed interest and appreciation.

Fine.

Except not really.

The conversation functioned in its subtext. What those nice words meant was, they said Those People Were Bad, I disagreed, they recognized that I wasn’t a useful person to talk about Those People with, and we shoved it all under the rug.

It feels like I gave them an easy out to keep up appearances, and all I accomplished was that I won’t be graced with those opinions in future. I wish I knew a response that could truly sufficiently negate the cavalier repetition of untruths.

* * *

Later that day, though, my faith was restored by a blog post. And I can feel your skepticism from here, but I mean it.

Amy sent me to this post on Daily Mish Mash, and if anyone doubts the literate value of online conversation, I want them to read it. The post is on gay marriage, and it is, bar none, the most considered, non-judgmental, sincere, calm, heartfelt conversation between proponents and opponents I’ve ever seen.

If we all acted like Jen’s readers, the world would be a better place.

* * *

(Except for the groundhogs.)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

{ 2 comments }