Dear Mr. President,
Your faith teaches that today's celebration is marking the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Christians from around the world will be making pilgrimages to the tiny church of the Nativity, lighting candles and saying prayers, passing through the apartheid wall that confines Palestinians in the West Bank. When I visited this church in the shimmering heat of high summer, we walked past walls still scarred by bullet holes from 2002 gun battles between Israeli troops and Palestinian fighters. Perhaps, not being Christian myself, I failed to experience the reverence I was meant to feel for the site of Jesus' birth, but I could not separate my horror at the grotesque oppression (and it's violent legacy) of the residents of Bethlehem from my respect for the teachings of Christianity's central figure.
For all of those American Christians who are today sitting in churches, saying their prayers or singing carols, I hope that the harsh restrictions on the freedoms and opportunities of those, like Jesus, guilty of the unforgivable crime of having been born in Bethlehem are not forgotten. It seems so unjust that Christ's disciples are happily celebrating his birth when the citizens of his birthplace, Muslim and Christian alike, live under occupation in fear and confinement. Christmas may be a time of celebration, but I would hope that remembering the reason for this holiday and the ongoing (and overlong) fight for basic human rights for Palestinians might not be so easily disentangled.
I hope that you have had a good and peaceful holiday, despite the burdens of your office. As an individual with rather more control over the fate of those living in Bethlehem, I hope you, at least, have not forgotten them today.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Two well-written pieces on this can be found at Ma'an news and at Al-Jazeera. I urge all of you to read them.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Day 346- "Bigotry disguised as prudence"
It still seems an unwritten rule in establishment Washington that homophobia is at most a misdemeanor. By this code, the Smithsonian’s surrender is no big deal; let the art world do its little protests. This attitude explains why the ever more absurd excuses concocted by John McCain for almost single-handedly thwarting the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are rarely called out for what they are — “bigotry disguised as prudence,” in the apt phrase of Slate’s military affairs columnist, Fred Kaplan.
-Frank Rich "Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian"
Dear Mr. President,
Frank Rich's column in the New York Times is worth reading, and not just for the brilliant and characteristically eloquent way he takes down the hypocrites crying "hate speech" about the Smithsonian's exhibit including "A Fire in My Belly." Beyond the cold political outrage, Rich draws a parallel between the deaths of bullied gay teens and the deaths of so many artists and the ones they loved to AIDS. His words convey a palpable helplessness, the frustration of watching from a distance as so many suffer and die needlessly as those in power condemn them, of listening as the hateful bullying from the right once is once again allowed to marginalize the gay community without objection.
I can relate to the way Rich feels. It's appalling to see the Smithsonian capitulate to the homophobic bullies on the right offended by art. And while Republicans in congress pile on their own objections, they continue to hold up repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, and, as Rich notes, have yet to participate in the anti-bullying it gets better project. I think that common sense tells us a piece of art that some find offensive is far less deserving of the condemnation of members of congress than a national epidemic of homophobia and its attending death and suffering. I don't understand. I know I am removed from it, living in the privilege of a white-skinned heterosexual body. But I couldn't help but see the faces of my friends in the stories of the young artists dying of and losing loved ones to AIDS, of the boys giving up on life because they fear they will never live and be accepted for who they are. I see them in these stories and I ache for losing them and seeing their losses. Most of all, I feel angry. Angry that I cannot protect them from people like this, people with the power to help them who do nothing but make it worse and then have the audacity to get angry about their expressions of frustration. It is unsurprising that a religion wielded as a tool of oppression will become the target of criticism and frustration by those it oppresses.
Heterosexual Christians wrote the laws of this country. They have determined who can vote, who can marry, whose lives are worth funding research to save and who gets to serve in the military. It is long past time for it to be ok to make and display and honor art that expresses the pain at the damage that their system has caused. The Smithsonian made a mistake, backing down in the face of this manufactured controversy. I think it is time that you (and more of those with the power to change our cultural acceptance of homophobia) stood up and said so.
Mr. President you campaigned on the promise that life for gay and lesbian Americans would be better under your administration than under President Bush's. While there may be a limit on how many minds you can legislate into acceptance, there are unjust laws that are within your power to change. The alteration of this exhibit at the Smithsonian may seem like a small thing, but it is the latest in a long series of capitulations to the idea that not only is being gay unacceptable, being angry at the way the rest of the country treats you isn't either.
Please read Mr. Rich's column, Mr. President, and ask yourself if you are still fine doing nothing on this issue.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
-Frank Rich "Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian"
Dear Mr. President,
Frank Rich's column in the New York Times is worth reading, and not just for the brilliant and characteristically eloquent way he takes down the hypocrites crying "hate speech" about the Smithsonian's exhibit including "A Fire in My Belly." Beyond the cold political outrage, Rich draws a parallel between the deaths of bullied gay teens and the deaths of so many artists and the ones they loved to AIDS. His words convey a palpable helplessness, the frustration of watching from a distance as so many suffer and die needlessly as those in power condemn them, of listening as the hateful bullying from the right once is once again allowed to marginalize the gay community without objection.
I can relate to the way Rich feels. It's appalling to see the Smithsonian capitulate to the homophobic bullies on the right offended by art. And while Republicans in congress pile on their own objections, they continue to hold up repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, and, as Rich notes, have yet to participate in the anti-bullying it gets better project. I think that common sense tells us a piece of art that some find offensive is far less deserving of the condemnation of members of congress than a national epidemic of homophobia and its attending death and suffering. I don't understand. I know I am removed from it, living in the privilege of a white-skinned heterosexual body. But I couldn't help but see the faces of my friends in the stories of the young artists dying of and losing loved ones to AIDS, of the boys giving up on life because they fear they will never live and be accepted for who they are. I see them in these stories and I ache for losing them and seeing their losses. Most of all, I feel angry. Angry that I cannot protect them from people like this, people with the power to help them who do nothing but make it worse and then have the audacity to get angry about their expressions of frustration. It is unsurprising that a religion wielded as a tool of oppression will become the target of criticism and frustration by those it oppresses.
Heterosexual Christians wrote the laws of this country. They have determined who can vote, who can marry, whose lives are worth funding research to save and who gets to serve in the military. It is long past time for it to be ok to make and display and honor art that expresses the pain at the damage that their system has caused. The Smithsonian made a mistake, backing down in the face of this manufactured controversy. I think it is time that you (and more of those with the power to change our cultural acceptance of homophobia) stood up and said so.
Mr. President you campaigned on the promise that life for gay and lesbian Americans would be better under your administration than under President Bush's. While there may be a limit on how many minds you can legislate into acceptance, there are unjust laws that are within your power to change. The alteration of this exhibit at the Smithsonian may seem like a small thing, but it is the latest in a long series of capitulations to the idea that not only is being gay unacceptable, being angry at the way the rest of the country treats you isn't either.
Please read Mr. Rich's column, Mr. President, and ask yourself if you are still fine doing nothing on this issue.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Day 240- Keeping it in perspective
Dear Mr. President,
Tonight the onset of a minor sore throat has me slightly panicked. It is almost certainly just a cold. I'll drink tea and plenty of fluids and be fine in a few days. The thought that keeps lingering in the back of my mind, however, is about the enormous medical debt my sister once had after a case of strep throat. At the time she was uninsured and it took her over a year to pay off the considerable ER bills. I looked in to what it would cost to be added on to my mother's policy, or to buy my own insurance through my school. Either plan would leave me with a co-pay that I (more than likely) couldn't afford, and the premiums would be more than half of what I pay in rent each month. I know the arguments for having insurance; I want to have insurance. But I also like buying groceries. What I mean to say is I could really go for some socialized medicine right about now.
I seem to be losing some perspective on the actual size of my problems lately. I should be glad that all I have is a sore throat, and that I'm healthy enough to work, and able to go to school. These should be good enough for me, right now. It could be worse, after all, I could be a meat-eater.
Speaking of losing all perspective, it seems that our country has been "wandering in darkness." It was really unlikely that I would find much to agree with Glenn Beck about today, but his religious tones surprised me. All of his talk about returning America to God and restoring our honor just didn't make any sense. Am I, as a secular American, laboring under the false illusion that this country has never had any shortage of religious devotion? Or is Beck, as a Christian, deluded in his idea that America has become too secular? I think the problem is that, so long as our standards for "too religious" or "too secular" are "more religious/secular than me" we will always see ourselves as a persecuted class. Anyway, Beck's speech today seemed harmless enough; if I think that his timing was tasteless and his message off-base, well, that's probably the nicest response I've had to anything he's ever said.
Lately I've been talking to a friend quite a bit about our mutual feeling that we've regressed. Bad habits and old problems seem to be creeping back in to our behavior, while the progress we'd made toward life goals is slipping away. This feeling of falling backwards was beginning to get overwhelming. Regaining my perspective on this, accepting that growth isn't linear or neat or increasing at a predictable rate has helped me calm down and remember that a few bad days don't mean that it's ok to give up. I think I see the whole Tea Party movement as a big regression for our country, back to the mentality that elected and re-elected President Bush. It may be all I can do to comfort myself with the thought that it, too, is a temporary setback, the inevitable ebb of our progress away from those times. A few bad days (or news cycles, or elections) don't mean that it's ok to give up. For now, I'm going to try to sleep away whatever is ailing me and avoid any WebMD-induced panic.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tonight the onset of a minor sore throat has me slightly panicked. It is almost certainly just a cold. I'll drink tea and plenty of fluids and be fine in a few days. The thought that keeps lingering in the back of my mind, however, is about the enormous medical debt my sister once had after a case of strep throat. At the time she was uninsured and it took her over a year to pay off the considerable ER bills. I looked in to what it would cost to be added on to my mother's policy, or to buy my own insurance through my school. Either plan would leave me with a co-pay that I (more than likely) couldn't afford, and the premiums would be more than half of what I pay in rent each month. I know the arguments for having insurance; I want to have insurance. But I also like buying groceries. What I mean to say is I could really go for some socialized medicine right about now.
I seem to be losing some perspective on the actual size of my problems lately. I should be glad that all I have is a sore throat, and that I'm healthy enough to work, and able to go to school. These should be good enough for me, right now. It could be worse, after all, I could be a meat-eater.
Speaking of losing all perspective, it seems that our country has been "wandering in darkness." It was really unlikely that I would find much to agree with Glenn Beck about today, but his religious tones surprised me. All of his talk about returning America to God and restoring our honor just didn't make any sense. Am I, as a secular American, laboring under the false illusion that this country has never had any shortage of religious devotion? Or is Beck, as a Christian, deluded in his idea that America has become too secular? I think the problem is that, so long as our standards for "too religious" or "too secular" are "more religious/secular than me" we will always see ourselves as a persecuted class. Anyway, Beck's speech today seemed harmless enough; if I think that his timing was tasteless and his message off-base, well, that's probably the nicest response I've had to anything he's ever said.
Lately I've been talking to a friend quite a bit about our mutual feeling that we've regressed. Bad habits and old problems seem to be creeping back in to our behavior, while the progress we'd made toward life goals is slipping away. This feeling of falling backwards was beginning to get overwhelming. Regaining my perspective on this, accepting that growth isn't linear or neat or increasing at a predictable rate has helped me calm down and remember that a few bad days don't mean that it's ok to give up. I think I see the whole Tea Party movement as a big regression for our country, back to the mentality that elected and re-elected President Bush. It may be all I can do to comfort myself with the thought that it, too, is a temporary setback, the inevitable ebb of our progress away from those times. A few bad days (or news cycles, or elections) don't mean that it's ok to give up. For now, I'm going to try to sleep away whatever is ailing me and avoid any WebMD-induced panic.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, July 16, 2010
Day 197- 3 kinds of ironic
Dear Mr. President,
Today you issued a proclamation. I wanted to use today'd letter to comment on this, but I thought I'd let your words speak for themselves. (I think you'll see where I'm going with this.)
For Immediate Release July 16, 2010
Presidential Proclamation--Captive Nations Week
CAPTIVE NATIONS WEEK, 2010
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
In 1959, President Eisenhower issued the first Captive Nations Proclamation in solidarity with those living without personal or political autonomy behind the Iron Curtain. Since that time, once-captive nations have broken free to establish civil liberties, open markets, and allow their people access to information. However, even as more nations have embraced self governance and basic human rights, there remain regimes that use violence, threats, and isolation to suppress the aspirations of their people.
The Cold War is over, but its history holds lessons for us today. In the face of cynicism and stifled opportunity, the world saw daring individuals who held fast to the idea that the world can change and walls could come down. Their courageous struggles and ultimate success and the enduring conviction of all who keep the light of freedom alive remind us that human destiny will be what we make of it.
The journey towards worldwide freedom and democracy sought in 1959 remains unfinished. Today, we still observe the profound differences between governments that reflect the will of their people, and those that sustain power by force; between nations striving for equal justice and rule of law, and those that deny their citizens freedom of religion, expression, and peaceful assembly; and between states that are open and accountable, and those that restrict the flow of ideas and information. The United States has a special responsibility to bear witness to those whose voices are silenced, and to stand alongside those who yearn to exercise their universal human rights.
In partnership with like-minded governments, we must reinforce multilateral institutions and international partnerships that safeguard human rights and democratic values. We must empower embattled civil societies and help their people connect with one another and the global community through new technologies. And, with faith in the future, we must always stand with the courageous advocates, organizations, and ordinary citizens around the world who fearlessly fight for limitless opportunity and unfettered freedom.
The Congress, by Joint Resolution, approved July 17, 1959 (73 Stat. 212), has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week of July of each year as "Captive Nations Week."
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim July 18 through July 24, 2010, as Captive Nations Week. I call upon the people of the United States to reaffirm our deep commitment to all those working for human rights and dignity around the globe.
Mr. President, those were some powerful words. I would very much like to live in a country that could live up to these promises.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Day 93- Easter
Dear Mr. President,
Years ago, as an 18-year old traveling abroad for the first time, I found myself on a beach outside of the Hague on Easter. I remember it was cold and gray and empty, all the shops were closed, and I got horribly, horribly lost. I don't remember being afraid, which I suppose you just can't be when you're lost in a foreign country by yourself. I thought a lot about Easter and Jesus, imagining that my own wanderings throughout the strange landscape of the Netherlands were linked somehow to his own travels through the holy land. Fact or fiction, God or man, he has existed in my mind always as a wanderer.
Other, more mundane Easters have passed since then, spent waiting tables in a near-empty restaurant, being sent to the McDonald's on M street to bring back breakfast for the other bookstore employees, reading, reading, reading through the rainy hours by at home by myself. I have also learned a bit more about the historical Jesus, walked in the streets of Jerusalem, visited his birth place and tomb, the stations of the cross, the site of his temptation in the desert. I am not Christian enough to imagine him as more (or less) than human; the places that echo with his presence in Palestine did not move me as they did many of the tourists who seemed overcome by the intense resonance of the divine.
I know enough about Christianity to understand that Jesus is expected, any day now, at the Gates of Jerusalem. I know enough about his political philosophy to doubt, seriously, that he would approve of what the city has become. I'm not a Christian, so I'll be spending Easter making lattes and worrying about the earthly, mundane details of existence. However, since you are a Christian, Mr. President, I'll think of you tomorrow and hope that your own meditations on the central figure of your faith will lead you to use your considerable influence to better the conditions of those living in the places he once wandered.
Happy Easter.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Years ago, as an 18-year old traveling abroad for the first time, I found myself on a beach outside of the Hague on Easter. I remember it was cold and gray and empty, all the shops were closed, and I got horribly, horribly lost. I don't remember being afraid, which I suppose you just can't be when you're lost in a foreign country by yourself. I thought a lot about Easter and Jesus, imagining that my own wanderings throughout the strange landscape of the Netherlands were linked somehow to his own travels through the holy land. Fact or fiction, God or man, he has existed in my mind always as a wanderer.
Other, more mundane Easters have passed since then, spent waiting tables in a near-empty restaurant, being sent to the McDonald's on M street to bring back breakfast for the other bookstore employees, reading, reading, reading through the rainy hours by at home by myself. I have also learned a bit more about the historical Jesus, walked in the streets of Jerusalem, visited his birth place and tomb, the stations of the cross, the site of his temptation in the desert. I am not Christian enough to imagine him as more (or less) than human; the places that echo with his presence in Palestine did not move me as they did many of the tourists who seemed overcome by the intense resonance of the divine.
I know enough about Christianity to understand that Jesus is expected, any day now, at the Gates of Jerusalem. I know enough about his political philosophy to doubt, seriously, that he would approve of what the city has become. I'm not a Christian, so I'll be spending Easter making lattes and worrying about the earthly, mundane details of existence. However, since you are a Christian, Mr. President, I'll think of you tomorrow and hope that your own meditations on the central figure of your faith will lead you to use your considerable influence to better the conditions of those living in the places he once wandered.
Happy Easter.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, March 8, 2010
Day 67- Semantics
Dear Mr. President,
Today I'd like to point out yet another example of the appalling anti-Islamic bias in our media. Two articles, about the same tragic incident, caught my attention today. One, linked on the front page of the New York Times website, ran under the headline "Death Toll From Nigeria Violence Hits 500." The other, linked from the front page of CNN.com, ran under the headline "Muslims kill hundreds in Nigeria.". Before comparing the language used in these headlines, I'd like to first say that I am horrified by the violence described by the articles. I'm not insensitive to the superficial nature of the argument I'm about to make, especially when considering the toll this conflict has taken on the lives of so many.
However, these headlines speak to a greater trend, an undercurrent of Islamophobia perpetuated by our media, and, while there may be no statistics available on how many, this certainly has its own grievous toll. The articles, which are about the attack on a largely Christian population by a largely Muslim group, each specify that the attacks were retaliation for an attack in January that left 150 Muslims dead. The NYT article mentions this in the second paragraph, CNN mentions it at the very end of the article. Both quote sources who caution against characterizing the violence as solely based on religion, citing economic, social and ethnic tensions as additional contributory factors. And, (I checked,) in January, both news organizations covered the attack on the Muslims, but neither described it as "Christians kill hundreds in Nigeria." During Operation Cast Lead, no headlines read, "Jews kill thousands in Gaza." Clearly, those headlines would be seen as ridiculous and offensive. Why has it become acceptable to identify criminals as "Muslims", but not by any other religion? I see this time and time again in the way the news is reported. I'm not a Muslim, Mr. President, but I find this reporting style offensive.
I'm writing to you about this because I know you are sensitive to the ways that such perceptions, and the language that supports them, can exacerbate conflict and fear. No religious group should be indicted every time a person claiming to subscribe to it commits a crime. Islam, as you know, does not promote or condone violence and should not be twisted to suit the media's need to simplify the identification of our enemies.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today I'd like to point out yet another example of the appalling anti-Islamic bias in our media. Two articles, about the same tragic incident, caught my attention today. One, linked on the front page of the New York Times website, ran under the headline "Death Toll From Nigeria Violence Hits 500." The other, linked from the front page of CNN.com, ran under the headline "Muslims kill hundreds in Nigeria.". Before comparing the language used in these headlines, I'd like to first say that I am horrified by the violence described by the articles. I'm not insensitive to the superficial nature of the argument I'm about to make, especially when considering the toll this conflict has taken on the lives of so many.
However, these headlines speak to a greater trend, an undercurrent of Islamophobia perpetuated by our media, and, while there may be no statistics available on how many, this certainly has its own grievous toll. The articles, which are about the attack on a largely Christian population by a largely Muslim group, each specify that the attacks were retaliation for an attack in January that left 150 Muslims dead. The NYT article mentions this in the second paragraph, CNN mentions it at the very end of the article. Both quote sources who caution against characterizing the violence as solely based on religion, citing economic, social and ethnic tensions as additional contributory factors. And, (I checked,) in January, both news organizations covered the attack on the Muslims, but neither described it as "Christians kill hundreds in Nigeria." During Operation Cast Lead, no headlines read, "Jews kill thousands in Gaza." Clearly, those headlines would be seen as ridiculous and offensive. Why has it become acceptable to identify criminals as "Muslims", but not by any other religion? I see this time and time again in the way the news is reported. I'm not a Muslim, Mr. President, but I find this reporting style offensive.
I'm writing to you about this because I know you are sensitive to the ways that such perceptions, and the language that supports them, can exacerbate conflict and fear. No religious group should be indicted every time a person claiming to subscribe to it commits a crime. Islam, as you know, does not promote or condone violence and should not be twisted to suit the media's need to simplify the identification of our enemies.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Day 34
Dear Mr. President,
Repealing 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is the right thing to do, and I'm glad you've made it a clear priority. Legalizing gay marriage is also the right thing to do; I hope in the coming months we hear more about it from your administration. I don't think marriage is an institution that exists between more than two people. That is to say, I don't think including other types of partnerships in the definition of marriage affects me & my hypothetical marriage. Otherwise, I'd argue that arranged marriages, or marriages that take place on reality shows, or pretty much anything that happens in Las Vegas, are all threats to the Institution itself.
Any one citing their religious traditions as the basis for their opposition to same-sex marriage, (and I am sorry to have to include you in this, Mr. President,) should, by their own logic, be equally opposed to any marriages outside of their religious tradition, which would seem to include, in your case, marriages between non-Christians. Since you don't seem to be calling for a ban on non-Christian marriages, I can only assume that your real reasons for your opposition to same-sex marriage are more complicated than you claim. I have a difficult time understanding this position on the issue, but I do appreciate that you, at least, don't seek to impose your religious views on the entire country. I still think you've got it wrong. I'm sorry, Mr. President, but I just don't see the same god that values love, and kindness, and consideration for others supporting the oppression of people because of who they love.
I hope that your administration continues to seek justice and equal rights for the gay community. I applaud your aggressive approach to repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I'm gratified to see it sparking a national discussion on the issue. I know many of my letters so far have been complaints about what you're doing wrong or not doing enough of, and I'm sure many of the letters to follow will be the same, but, for today, I just want you to know I think you're doing a good job.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Repealing 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is the right thing to do, and I'm glad you've made it a clear priority. Legalizing gay marriage is also the right thing to do; I hope in the coming months we hear more about it from your administration. I don't think marriage is an institution that exists between more than two people. That is to say, I don't think including other types of partnerships in the definition of marriage affects me & my hypothetical marriage. Otherwise, I'd argue that arranged marriages, or marriages that take place on reality shows, or pretty much anything that happens in Las Vegas, are all threats to the Institution itself.
Any one citing their religious traditions as the basis for their opposition to same-sex marriage, (and I am sorry to have to include you in this, Mr. President,) should, by their own logic, be equally opposed to any marriages outside of their religious tradition, which would seem to include, in your case, marriages between non-Christians. Since you don't seem to be calling for a ban on non-Christian marriages, I can only assume that your real reasons for your opposition to same-sex marriage are more complicated than you claim. I have a difficult time understanding this position on the issue, but I do appreciate that you, at least, don't seek to impose your religious views on the entire country. I still think you've got it wrong. I'm sorry, Mr. President, but I just don't see the same god that values love, and kindness, and consideration for others supporting the oppression of people because of who they love.
I hope that your administration continues to seek justice and equal rights for the gay community. I applaud your aggressive approach to repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I'm gratified to see it sparking a national discussion on the issue. I know many of my letters so far have been complaints about what you're doing wrong or not doing enough of, and I'm sure many of the letters to follow will be the same, but, for today, I just want you to know I think you're doing a good job.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Day 14-Pat Robertson is the worst Christian ever
Dear Mr. President,
"To the people of Haiti, we say clearly, and with conviction, you will not be forsaken; you will not be forgotten. In this, your hour of greatest need, America stands with you. The world stands with you." Your words to Haiti were such a relief after the appalling ignorance of Pat Robertson the day before. After tragedies like this, I often feel as though I should have studied something more practical, like medicine. This helplessness is mitigated (though not completely assuaged,) by the secure knowledge that my government, at least, is doing all it can.
I hope this latest display of bigotry and hate will finish Pat Robertson's career for good. Sadly, there will probably always be those who listen to what he says and believes him, simply because he claims to be a man of God. I wasn't raised in a religious household, and my forays into Christian churches were always because I had friends inviting me along for dances, camps, or some other social activity that only peripherally involved God. Now, I have friends who are Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Wicca, Buddhist and hardcore atheists. I don't know where I fit in amongst them. I used to think I was an atheist, but absolute knowledge has never suited my disposition, and being sure, absolutely sure, that there is no God or power too complex for me to understand, is, in my mind, arrogance on the same level as any religious zealot.
One of the Arabic tattoos I have reads, "In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful." This line is often said or written at the beginning of things in the Muslim world, letters, stories, meals, and the Qur'an. The idea that everything I do, every action though, and word; every heartbeat, is done in the name of whatever force and reason governs the universe appeals to me. If there is one tenant of Islam that resonates with my own belief system, it is the tawheed, or supreme oneness of God. The idea that God is not some bearded patriarch, or some moody tyrant, is something I can reconcile with my intellectual side. And it doesn't leave much room for Pat Robertson's Devil. This may not make me a particularly good Muslim, in the traditional sense, but Muslim is literally "one who submits" and what choice to any of us have but to submit to the higher laws of our universe? The nature of those laws may be more like scripture or Karma, or as impersonal as gravity, but I don't claim to know enough about them to say for sure.
I know your faith is in all likelihood closer to the defined, unambiguous faith of Mr. Robertson than my own nebulous collection of dishes from the theological buffet. That being said, I don't think that, just because you're a Christian, you should have to dignify the words of Mr. Robertson by denouncing them, in order to demonstrate that not all Christians are ignorant nutcases. I feel the same way when Muslim groups feel compelled to denounce acts of terror or the hateful words of holocaust deniers or other crimes, just because they are perpetrated by those claiming to be Muslim. The faith of true Muslims stands in opposition to these acts, and that faith alone should suffice as a rejection of them.
Anyway, I know people of all faiths are praying for those in Haiti, and I suppose that can't hurt. Thank you for sending aid, and for the addressing the people of Haiti with the respect due to them. I don't think that my idea of God can forsake people, so I'll just hope that America, really that the whole human race, collectively forsake Mr. Robertson and that one day he finds himself lost, alone, (preferably somewhere being occupied by the 18th-century French) and is forced to reflect, honestly, on his life.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
"To the people of Haiti, we say clearly, and with conviction, you will not be forsaken; you will not be forgotten. In this, your hour of greatest need, America stands with you. The world stands with you." Your words to Haiti were such a relief after the appalling ignorance of Pat Robertson the day before. After tragedies like this, I often feel as though I should have studied something more practical, like medicine. This helplessness is mitigated (though not completely assuaged,) by the secure knowledge that my government, at least, is doing all it can.
I hope this latest display of bigotry and hate will finish Pat Robertson's career for good. Sadly, there will probably always be those who listen to what he says and believes him, simply because he claims to be a man of God. I wasn't raised in a religious household, and my forays into Christian churches were always because I had friends inviting me along for dances, camps, or some other social activity that only peripherally involved God. Now, I have friends who are Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Wicca, Buddhist and hardcore atheists. I don't know where I fit in amongst them. I used to think I was an atheist, but absolute knowledge has never suited my disposition, and being sure, absolutely sure, that there is no God or power too complex for me to understand, is, in my mind, arrogance on the same level as any religious zealot.
One of the Arabic tattoos I have reads, "In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful." This line is often said or written at the beginning of things in the Muslim world, letters, stories, meals, and the Qur'an. The idea that everything I do, every action though, and word; every heartbeat, is done in the name of whatever force and reason governs the universe appeals to me. If there is one tenant of Islam that resonates with my own belief system, it is the tawheed, or supreme oneness of God. The idea that God is not some bearded patriarch, or some moody tyrant, is something I can reconcile with my intellectual side. And it doesn't leave much room for Pat Robertson's Devil. This may not make me a particularly good Muslim, in the traditional sense, but Muslim is literally "one who submits" and what choice to any of us have but to submit to the higher laws of our universe? The nature of those laws may be more like scripture or Karma, or as impersonal as gravity, but I don't claim to know enough about them to say for sure.
I know your faith is in all likelihood closer to the defined, unambiguous faith of Mr. Robertson than my own nebulous collection of dishes from the theological buffet. That being said, I don't think that, just because you're a Christian, you should have to dignify the words of Mr. Robertson by denouncing them, in order to demonstrate that not all Christians are ignorant nutcases. I feel the same way when Muslim groups feel compelled to denounce acts of terror or the hateful words of holocaust deniers or other crimes, just because they are perpetrated by those claiming to be Muslim. The faith of true Muslims stands in opposition to these acts, and that faith alone should suffice as a rejection of them.
Anyway, I know people of all faiths are praying for those in Haiti, and I suppose that can't hurt. Thank you for sending aid, and for the addressing the people of Haiti with the respect due to them. I don't think that my idea of God can forsake people, so I'll just hope that America, really that the whole human race, collectively forsake Mr. Robertson and that one day he finds himself lost, alone, (preferably somewhere being occupied by the 18th-century French) and is forced to reflect, honestly, on his life.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
