A theological response to "wedge issues"

This is what I really wanted to say about the whole "flag-burning" mess, and the plethora of stupid "issues" that are spewed at us in this crossfire democracy we live in. Both parties are very guilty, though President Bush bears greatest responsibility since he has the ability to set the manner of dialogue.

The Bible contains a particularly relevant and useful story to these political times. The Prince of Egypt leaves us off at around Exodus 15 - if you recall, there was a big fuss about Hebrew slaves and freedom and parting the sea.

In "the book", the Hebrews are now on their own, wandering across the desert to reach the Promised Land. Along the way, they stop to camp at the base of Mount Sinai, where Moses is led to climb the mountain in order to receive the Law from God.

Apparently, God has more than a few instructions to give (it's true: see chapters 20-31 of Exodus), or is simply enjoying Moses' stimulating conversation. Either way, the prophet Moses is detained for quite a while, and the people at the bottom of the mountain grow impatient. They complained to Aaron, the interim leader, "Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us; as for this man Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." Aaron decides to put together all their gold jewelry in order to melt it down and recast it as a golden calf for the people to worship in the meantime. They said, "These are your gods, O Israel..." (Exodus 32).

I wonder - maybe our nation is at the bottom of a mountain, waiting for some new order to descend upon us. Maybe some of us have grown impatient and fearful in an increasingly complicated time. Are our leaders more like Moses, climbing mountains to seek justice and truth, or are they more like Aaron, appeasing the fears of the masses through false fixes?

Let's reject the golden calves that are being put before us by Democrats and Republicans alike - we can't afford to bow down to idle-issues (pun intended) like gay marriage, "the war on terror", flag burning, or gas prices (which are still far cheaper here than most of the West). We must demand that our leaders climb the mountains, and if they're unwilling, we do it ourselves. I've seen so much pandering to tepid, inadequate leadership during my tenure in the student government - some people call this "being realistic." I think it's accepting a life wandering the desert when we have the potential to reach something much better - I hope people expect more, because then we can do more. This, ultimately, seems to be a central part of the Christian message in regards to civic engagement.

"What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" - Micah 6:8

"Desecration" as "respecting establishment"?

I posted earlier about America's "military idolatry" - the notion that the soldier is a sacrosanct element of our national culture, and that the military, because it is seen as the means for our collective mission to save the world, is literally above democratic criticism.

If militarism is the national cult, then the flag is its standard.

Karl makes an astute observation about the use of the word "desecration" in the ridiculuous amendment that all but passed the Senate:

The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Already in the Constitution is this familiar phrase:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

If "desecration" still means "the act of depriving something of its sacred character" (which it does), wouldn't the insertion of a clause prohibiting any type of "desecration" contradict the First Amendment?

This issue obviously runs deeper than constitutional semantics... Americans REALLY see the flag as sacred - our national relic. This implies many other sentiments as well - if our national symbol is sacred, than surely our nationhood is sacred. If our nationhood is sacred (chosen), then surely our mission and purposes are also ordained by the divine.

I suppose I wouldn't burn the flag, either - but frankly, it has much less to do with my devotion to the flag than it does with the unwillingness to flagrant insult the religion of other people. Likewise, I don't think Karl would ever spitefully rip up a Bible in front of me - and it has nothing to do with Karl's reverence for the Holy Scriptures (and trust me - there's no love lost between Karl and the Bible).

Somehow, though, we need to move on from this self-aggrandizing, arrogant view of our own nationality. Is the flag of the United States more sacred than the flag of Mexico, or of France? The amendment would seem to establish that it is. What sort of democracy exists under a sacred banner? Where the nation's motives and actions are protected under a godly cloth? It's a democracy where some but not all questions are askable, and some but not all answers are necessary. It's really not a democracy at all.

Burning of the American Flag

I was struck today that a constitutional amendment to allow the outlawing of burning the American flag failed in the Senate by a mere vote. Later, I saw yet another article about the proposed Freedom Tower that is to replace the World Trade Center towers. And then a terrifying truth seized me: we have become a nation increasingly concerned with symbols of freedom, while simultaneously less concerned with the principles and practices of it.

The supposed "Flag Desecration Amendment" is the perfect example of this. I shall allow the supporters of the amendment to speak to their motivations in their own words:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) – "Throughout the history of our country, our flag has given the brave men and women serving in uniform the strength to persevere and protect the freedoms that are a foundation of our way of life. We owe them – and we owe all Americans – an amendment that would guarantee the preservation of the honor, integrity, and history represented in that flag."

Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) - “Countless men and women have died defending that flag. It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

These arguments, typical of arguments advanced by many proponents, turn on this amendment somehow being a necessary service to veterans. Interestingly, while these two non-veterans argue that it is necessary to outlaw the “desecration” of the American flag, a fellow senator who is himself a veteran of the U.S. military argued against the proposed amendment.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) "...I believe Americans gave their lives in the many wars to make certain that all Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts."

For me, this speaks to a larger point. No man or woman dies for a piece of cloth. No, what we admire, indeed what our society reveres, about the flag is the symbolism inherent to it. The American flag symbolizes freedom and liberty, sources of pride for Americans since the nation’s inception. The greatest liberty, to my mind, is the freedom to openly challenge one’s government, it is the freedom which allows liberty to protect itself. This proposed amendment would have strongly curtailed that freedom in the name of protecting a symbol of freedom. We would protect the symbol of freedom while actively impinging upon the practice of it. It genuinely baffles the mind.

This issue is an exceedingly deep one and I have left the vast majority of it unexamined (What is the meaning of 'desecration'? How did election year politics play into this vote? What is the role of the military in the public psyche? Is it wise to amend the Constitution to overturn part of the Bill of Rights? Why do we allow this all to happen? So on and so on). I do hope my esteemed colleague will contribute his thoughts and that you contribute yours in the comments as well.

General Convention III - Lessons on Activism and Change

Exactly thirty years ago, at the 1976 Episcopal General Convention, women were, for the first time, allowed to be delegates from their local regions. Not completely surprisingly, the 1976 Convention also authorized allowing women to become ordained as deacons, priests, and bishops. Women now make up just over 20% of the clergy of the Episcopal Church (source: Louie Crew).

Yesterday afternoon, my friends and I waited through hours of mind-numbing procedural debate in the House of Deupties to hear the results of the closed election at the House of Bishops. The bishops had been bused about eight blocks to an Episcopal church in the middle of Downtown Columbus and were sequestered there until a candidate for Presiding Bishop (the highest-ranking clergy position in the American church) achieved a majority of votes (yes, Karl, we use a version of run-off voting).

Finally, we were informed that representatives of the House of Bishops had arrived to deliver a special envelope to the Deputies' Committee on Consecration of Bishops - the envelope contained the election results. The air electrified, and the enormous convention hall started to bulge at the sides as the people continued to pack in for the news. Grain by grain, the moments dripped by as the crowd inched closer to the edge of their seats. My mind was on nothing else - I hung on every word, waiting for two of them to be, "And now..."

"And now..." began the President of the House. We all suddenly realized that the time had come. A profound gravity took hold of the room as 3,000 anxious Episcopalians interrupted their breathing. The President introduced the Chair of the Committee on Bishops, who was responsible for verifying the results. The Chair walked slowly to the podium and greeted us, his transfixed captives. My jaw was already open.

"The committee has received the results of the election by the House of Bishops..."

History raised its eyebrow.

"...and moves consent for the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church..."

History turned its head.

"...the Right Reverend..."

History waited.

"...Katharine..."

Quite literally, a windy gasp rippled throughout the assembly. I looked at my friends sitting around me, both women, eyes bigger than their faces.

"...Jefferts Schori."

The deed was done. The entire chamber erupted into wild shouts of joy and roaring applause. History smiled.

The House of Deputies still had to vote its consent to the choice of the bishops. But before it did, one by one, women crowded the eight microphones and gave their testimonies. Sixty, seventy, eighty year-old women recalled how hard they had fought to even be allowed a vote at the Convention. Twenty, thirty, forty year-old women spoke of how excited they were to tell their daughters that their bishop was a sister. A few men (no women, I should note) stood up against Jefferts Schori, saying her election would cut us off even further from the rest of the world church. But more men spoke of how they were excited to now celebrate with their wives.

Next to me and in front of me, as I listened to the testimony, elderly women were smiling so broadly - I realized that I had no conception of how vindicated they must feel. Thirty years ago, these women were radical pioneers of progress - now one of their own would be representing all women everywhere in conversations that previously have never fallen on female ears. Many had water in their eyes, trickling down their cheeks and into the happy corners of their beaming lips.

My friend Karl gives advice on successful activism - it's important to re-iterate that he is NOT calling for compromise.

Where they met opposition, they didn’t belittle those challenging them, they
engaged those individuals in dialogue, eventually persuading the vast majority.

This was exactly how Episcopal women achieved their right to vote (in fucking 1973!) and then consequently their access to ordination. They put forth very clearly that they were equally valued and spiritually sensitive as men were - no qualifiers or exceptions. They did not convince people by villifying those who disagreed with them - they did so by showing their love for their church and for the people in it. As a related aside, it was the opponents of the women who did the vilifying, declaring those who supported the ordination of women as "betrayers of Scripture" and "revisionist."

But they were not shaken: the women engaged their opponents with their honest interests fully visible - they wanted full inclusion, and that is exactly what they demanded. They didn't curl up into balls of self-comforting isolation whenever they encountered dissent: rather, they steered themselves deliberately into those shaky waters in order to listen, learn, discuss, and reconcile.

I think the ridiculous events put on by the UW College Republicans are seen by members of that group as attempts to "engage opponents" and "steer into dissent" - but the intention of these events is clearly NOT reconciliation.

Wherever activism's real goal is to reconcile differences for the sake of mutual progress - rather than to convince (another way to say "conquer") or to silence - activism becomes change. I witnessed the fruits of this yesterday night. People are very excited. I just got handed an awesome pink button pin that reads "It's a girl!" with the new bishop's name on it.

So, as a footnote to Karl's excellent article, I would urge progressives to ask themselves, in whatever they're doing or strategizing about, "Why are we here?"

Ingredients of Successful Activism

Below is an article I wrote for Ruckus, a progressive newspaper at the University of Washington (one that, sadly, wasn't published at all during the 2005-2006 school year). Hopefully the summer edition will be published, as they solicited a number of progressive leaders on campus for tips about successful activism.

Don't lose sight!
By Karl Smith

It’s easy to make fun of the College Republicans. Their annual events include an "Animal Rights BBQ," where they grill the flesh of the animals - a striking statement on the Republican understanding of the term "rights;" a "Conservative Coming Out Day" which attempts to equate admitting oneself as a member of a group that controls the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches to being a member of a group that is constantly threatened with state and federal constitutional amendments diminishing one's personhood; and, of course, the "Affirmative Action Bake Sale," an annual attempt to again appear on the O'Reilly Factor by marginalizing the value of underrepresented students and completely ignoring social and institutional forces of inequality. These are laughable events in that they are examples of what I’ll term 'bad activism.'

Step back for a moment and consider what exactly it is we're trying to accomplish through our activism on campus. This sounds trivial, but it’s not; the College Republicans aren't the only ones who don't get it. It can be a whole lot of fun to hold an event for progressives to get together and satirically deride our opponents – it's certainly not difficult these days – and I’m not trying to diminish the occasional holding of such events, but they shouldn’t be the primary focus of our activism and advocacy work. We need to reach out BEYOND the progressive community to those who otherwise be apathetic or even opposed to us; we need to communicate our moral vision in a way that’s accessible to everyone.

This might strike you as a daunting task, but it's far from impossible. Consider the remarkable achievements of the Fair Trade Coffee Coalition (FTCC) this year. They convinced Housing and Food Services and Tully's Coffee Company to offer a Fair Trade Certified espresso blend. Though they're not finished transforming the UW into a 100% Fair Trade Certified coffee campus, they accomplished the enormous task of convincing students across campus, especially those beyond the progressive community, of the value of Fair Trade Certified coffee. They successfully communicated the moral vision that we have a duty to those who produce the products we consume. Indeed, by the end the few remaining opponents of the FTCC accepted the value of Fair Trade Certification but fell back on the argument that they demanded the right to choose between exploitative and non-exploitative products (may I nominate this for Conservative Argument of the Year?). So how did the FTCC get there? Unlike the CRs, the FTCC went to other groups across campus, such as the ASUW Student Senate and the Residence Hall Student Association, giving presentations about Fair Trade Certification and why it was a beneficial idea. Where they met opposition, they didn’t belittle those challenging them, they engaged those individuals in dialogue, eventually persuading the vast majority.

So how can you, as a progressive activist, ensure your advocacy and outreach are actually accomplishing something? First, make sure your outreach extends beyond those who already support your cause. Design your publicity to attract those who would otherwise be apathetic or even disagree with you. Second, step back and consider the event from the point of view of your opponents – will you further alienate them or engage them in further dialogue, thus creating the opportunity to change their position? Finally, remember that language matters! Frame your ideas in ways that communicate, and are consistent with, your moral vision. For more on this, George Lakoff's Don’t Think of an Elephant! is the perfect starting point.

Positive progressive change IS possible and can start right here on the University of Washington campus. There’s no time like the present for bringing it about.

General Convention II - Immigration Speech

I feel like a newsreel - everything I'm reporting from the Convention is about a day late because I'm just not finding very much time to really say what I want to say here.

The Millenium Development Goals have emerged as the biggest topic of discussion besides all the "gay stuff"... the MDGs are also a part of the "ONE Campaign" that we've all heard a lot about from people like Bono. The idea with ONE is that if every person and institution in the developed world gave only 0.7% of their annual revenue towards alleviating impoverished conditions, extreme poverty would be eradicated by 2015. Already, many regional divisions of the Episcopal Church (called "dioceses") give 0.7% of their budgets, and all churchmembers are encouraged to do the same themselves. The resolutions at hand call for the national church to follow suit - this would be a huge boost for the ONE campaign.

But, of course, straight men just can't get enough of talking about gay men - and so the only issue the mainstream press cares about from the General Convention is the issue of the gay bishop we elected in 2003. Some are calling for the Church to officially "express regret" about what it did. Considering that I found the Episcopal Church and eventually became Episcopalian exactly because I saw a Church going through an honest and open discussion of sexuality. In fact, it was right around the same time that I was really coming out to myself that I started to look for a church again - and the Episcopal Church welcomed me. Should it "express regret" for me, and for the countless others it has drawn in from the cold by being so inclusive? I think not.

On the 13th (yesterday), I testified to the Church's National and International Concerns Committee about a resolution proposed to adopt a new document as part of the Church's policy on immigration. The document ("The Alien Among You" - located just above the resolution in the link above) is a good step, but misses some fundamental concerns such as more protection against criminalization of humanitarian aid for migrants at the border, deeper reform of the path towards legal residency and citizenship to make these paths more accessible, and opposition to militarization of the border and vigilante activity by groups like the "Minutemen."

In the Christian spirit, here is my resurrected speech:

Resolution A017 is a good step forward for the Church's policy on immigration. It makes some crucial recognitions such as recognizing that a system which forces immigrants to live in fear and hiding creates an underground world where they are subject to exploitation, that the system of attaining residency is broken, and that xenophobia since 9-11 has sharply increased. A good summary of the document is made near its end: "Let us not fear being agents of generosity and abundance."

However, several key shortcomings to the document make it incomplete as the Church's holistic policy. My colleagues will review several of these - I would like to highlight the issue of border militarization and vigiliantism.

We see that President Bush recently deployed about 5,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico. The federal government recently approved funds for the construction of a fence - I ask you here, does a fence keep "them" in or does it keep us in?

Especially here in Columbus, the idea of a border fence is especially ironic, considering we meet today in a city named after a gentleman, who, with good intentions, nevertheless inaugurated the age of European border drawing around the world.

If we are truly committed to the radical hospitality of Christ as key to our ongoing conversion and salvation, we can't stand by and watch as guests to the Wedding Banquet are blocked from entering or even actively being thrown out, as is the case with the Minutemen.

The document and A017 are good steps towards addressing what we recognize to be an issue that violent and fearful reaction cannot solve. I believe that this resolution should be amended to not only adopt the document as our policy-in-progress, but to call for further development of the document that could address these and other concerns.

The ability of people to pursue a different life in America is the unique American ministry to the world. We as the American church have a chance to speak for the extension of this ministry to all of God's honored guests, non of whom we are entitled to turn away, none of whom could ever be called "illegal."

General Convention I - Introduction

I've found the first real "me" time at this whole thing... I'm sitting in an alcove by the lobby of my hotel here in Columbus because I've been hoping for a while for the chance to "blog" this convention.

In a nutshell - I've never seen so many collars in one place before. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church draws about 10,000 people every three years to some unfortunate place in the country - this year, Columbus, Ohio. It's a great city, much to my surprise. We discovered later that something is terribly wrong with this place: the city is completely spotless. I have yet to see a SINGLE piece of stray litter flapping around in the breeze along the sidewalk. Barely even a crumb - for proof of this, also consider the fact that I have not even seen a single PIGEON yet. People are friendly, service is good, and food is tasty. I came up with the theory that beneath the streets in an ancient sewer system, an underground underclass lives off of the city's trash - thus, none is seen.

After pulling into the hotel at around 8:30pm on Sunday night the 11th, I was exhausted and also slightly nervous with anticipation about meeting my new colleagues and also my new roommate for the next eleven days. Great people, every single one of them. It's going to be a great time... these are going to be good friends.

A lot of people are pretty nervous about General Convention... at the last convention, the Church approved the election of an openly gay man (Gene Robinson) as a Bishop - this let the dogs out, for sure. Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh is waging a venomous verbal/psychological campaign of division against the rest of the church family because he and a gaggle of other "leaders" think the best way to address their disagreements of the issue of Bp. Robinson is to threaten to leave the church entirely!

Since I've been here, I've heard a lot of metaphors about the church as a family: people disagree, but they come together in the end at the Table to do those few pieces of truly inviolable business. As long as a family is able to share a Table, it also maintains a critical foundation for reconciliation and understanding. This was the hope of consecrating Gene Robinson - the initiation of a new dialogue.

Instead, the homophobes in the church (who annoyingly call themselves "traditional Christians" or "orthodox") have simply left the table altogether - I learned today that a group of them are meeting separately from the rest of the family for worship. How sad.

In the meanwhile, the Church is grappling many other issues (believe it or not, some Americans care about more than "pelvic politics")... the big buzz this year is around mobilizing the entire Church to rally for the Millenium Development Goals and the ONE Campaign to "Make Poverty History." I just came back from a Eucharist service that used all U2 songs - very cool.

I hope the Church can set an example for the world of what an intentional, tense, productive, familial democracy can look like. I wrote a letter to my friends along those lines - I might post that later. The point was, however, that the Church can show the world how to LIVE democracy.

Let's see.


"We love because he first loved us. Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hatetheir brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brotheror sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must lovetheir brothers and sisters also." - 1 John 4:19

Opposing the 14th Amendment

I've never had a great deal of love for the Washington State Republican Party (WSRP). Whether it was the vitriol I witnessed former chair Chris Vance spew forth on several occassions or their treatment of moderates in their midst such as Sam Reed, I've just not been impressed. Somehow Republicans in the State of Washington have generally adopted far-right positions, which generally strikes me as counter-productive in a generally liberal state. Now, though, they've really gone over the edge.

It seems the Washington State Republican Party is officially opposing the United States Constitution. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Constitution pretty clearly states that if you're born within the United States you're a citizen - that is a value we have long cherished and celebrated. So why has the WSRP staked out a position in defiance of this long-standing value?

I also want to clarify that opposing a provision in the Constitution isn't negative in and of itself; everything is up for debate and revision. That's a strength of our system. But amendments to the Constitution come at a very high threshold and indicate widely held values of the citizens of the time. So what has changed? It would be easy to point to xenophobia and nativism (two "values" of the United States that have continuously reemerged and been suppressed over time), but that fails to explain much. To be certain, immigration patterns have shifted from Western European nations to Eastern European, Southeast Asian, and Latin American nations. But what significance does that have? To understand the shift in cultural understanding we must turn to those most vocal in advocating the shift, and here I refer to tthe powerfully-influential conservative commentators. Rather than provide my own speculation , I'd like see some meaningful discussion on the subject in the comment section. [Of course, as virtually no one reads this, I'm not terribly optimistic this will go anywhere]

Turn the other cheek

Yeah... Jesus said that. But who would guess that today?

I think that academic work is often a good opportunity to turn the lemons of life into lemonade by studying the hell out of something and making a better point. This is recently what I've done with the whole "Pappy" fiasco of earlier this year in February (check out Karl's original post, his follow-up post, and my post on this matter).

Below is an abridged and edited version of an essay I wrote for a class I am taking this quarter. If you want to skip ahead to my conclusion, just scroll to the text underneath the dotted lines.

---------------

On February 7, 2006, the Student Senate of the University of Washington, of which I am the Chair, voted to fail a resolution calling for a memorial to Col. Gregory Boyington. The vehement comments I received in response (many calling me ignorant, ungrateful, deserving of death or punishment) provided an unexpected firsthand education in America’s military idolatry – an idol worship rooted in American self-righteousness – a worship wherein we shirk greater duties to ourselves and our neighbors.

Andrew Bacevich defines American militarism as “a romanticized view of soldiers, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness, and outsize expectations regarding the efficacy of force” (2). Over the course of his book, it becomes clear that our militarism requires a myth of “chosenness” in order to work. Myths, writes Bacevich, “enable us to sustain the belief that [soldiers]… are, in fact, bringing peace and light to troubled corners of the earth rather than pushing ever outward the perimeter of an American empire” (98).

America's special myth is a sense that our nation is specially favored to do God's will. Throughout U.S. history, leaders have constantly invoked America's special place in the world. William Stoughton, a 17th century settler, said, "God sifted a whole nation that he might send choice grain over into the wilderness." Senator Albert Beverige said in 1900, "[God] has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth… He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the redemption of the world!" Woodrow Wilson said, "These are American principles, American policies... they are the principles of mankind and must prevail." Explicitly Christian or not, the myth of "chosenness" is a constant thread in our history, and is obviously present in today's George W. Bush.

The problem is that a divine destiny requires a national commitment to this destiny. Bacevich writes, “For conservative Christians after Vietnam, the prerequisite for fulfilling America’s mandate as divine agent was the immediate reconstitution of U.S. military power” (135). Politicians turned military force into the means to fulfill our covenant obligations to God – and consequently, soldiers became the priests of this temple in Jerusalem, preparing sacrifices on behalf of the chosen nation (this is a reference to Second Temple Judaism - ask me if you want to learn more). Jerry Falwell called the American G-I “a champion for Christ”, and Billy Graham charged West Point graduates to “become the beacon lights to guide our nation…” (127, 141).

Robert Bellah wrote convincingly that America’s myth of chosenness, unaccompanied by a covenantal obligations to better the society, was leading the nation to disaster. But we see here that militarism is exactly how we see ourselves fulfilling the covenant after all. No surprise, then, that criticism of the military idol is taken as a polemic attack against these religious covenant duties – failure to immortalize a soldier is tantamount to desecration of a priest. Addressing educational inequality, environmental degradation, and criminal injustice become but leisurely tasks – the real work of republic is to fulfill this ordained, violent destiny. Heads turned to this false altar, what is it we ignore? Al Gore recently asked, “Is it possible that we should prepare against other threats besides terrorists?” Discourse must allow for reasoned dialogue about the use of force and the users of force without cries of heresy or treason. We owe much more to ourselves, our families, and our future - we owe much more to God.

---------------

I hereby call upon all people of faith to renounce the false religion of American militarism - the mindless veneration of soldiery, the justification of the sin of murder, the warping of the resources of God's Creation towards mutual destruction - it is all false, false, false. We have real work to do - to proclaim the love of God in ways that do not also contradict it. Is this "too idealistic"? Of course - how else can Christians be?

How do you like them apples?

Damn liberals

Well it seems that once again the liberal media is turning to bleeding heart, immoral types to get soundbites about the Marriage Amendment. For example, look at this shoddy piece of work today:

"But you know, what I can say is look, amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."

Wait, that was Laura Bush? On Fox News?? Oh well, at least Frist still got to look like an ignorant asshole true patriot.

On a less satirical note, I have long predicted that marriage equality is a winning issue. It's not easy, and the win may not be a short-term one, but when you talk to people, really engage them in conversation, the majority can come to understand. Appeal to their humanity, to their empathy for others. Appeal to someone they know, if possible. It's easy for them to criticize Rosie O'Donnell (or any impersonal celebrity) as a "dyke" but a co-worker, a neighbor, a friend, that's a human being they respect. Again, it's not easy - all these years later and I'm still working on my own family, but it's a battle worth fighting. If Laura Bush and Dick Cheney can come around, there's hope.

"The Best Justice Money Can Buy"

All too often in our American legal system, we're left reflecting on the influence of money, believing that the wealthy have more ready access to "justice," that justice can somehow be purchased. While this claim has some element of truth, its automatic acceptance obscures the complete picture. Money, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the legal system. Try offering sums of money to a judge; you'll probably find yourself in even more dire straits (I hope!). No, what benefits one before the law is knowledge. Knowledge of statutes, knowledge of procedures, knowledge of the people within the law, knowledge of what strings to pull. More knowledgeable attorneys are generally those we consider "better" attorneys. This, then, is where we begin to discover one of the systemic problems of the legal system in our country. You see, those lawyers with knowledge tend to sell themselves (their services) to the highest bidder, so those with the most resources have better representation in the legal system and are thus more privileged.

This system seems utterly flawed. Justice shouldn't be apportioned based on the relative wealth of those before the system. At the risk of sounding revolutionary, I believe capitalist structures are entirely inappropriate within the legal system. Everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, is equally deserving of fair, competent, and knowledgeable counsel.

The news isn't all bad, though. There's a growing trend of law schools seeking to support students who desire to pursue a career in public interest law, as through Loan Repayment Assistance Programs (LRAPs) and scholarships. Law school is priced for those going into lucrative fields of law who will be able to pay off substantial loans and this proved a barrier to those who might otherwise have liked to enter the public interest field. Hopefullly this trend will continue and more attorneys will eventually end up devoting their careers to causes greater than the accrual of wealth; until then we can only hope that the best attorneys will increasingly dedicate their time to defending those without the financial means to otherwise acquire the best representation.

Crash with Mars Hill Church

Mars Hill Church is the largest congregation in the county, with over 6,000 members attending seven services on Sundays (five in Ballard, two in Shoreline where the pastor's sermon is telecasted in). Mars Hill says "yes" to literal reading and strict interpretation of scripture, to intentionally intersecting the church with the culture (something it does beautifully well), extremely long sermons (average 75 minutes), and defining itself as standing in opposition to the secular tides of Seattle, which Pastor Mark Driscoll constantly refers to as "the least churched city in the nation."

Mars Hill says "no" to female pastoral leaders in the church and gays and lesbians anywhere in the church: as one can safely assume with most "megachurches", Mars Hill is theologically quite conservative. Which is why I was very interested in seeing how members and pastors at Mars Hill would handle the screening and discussion on Crash - the movie about race relations in L.A. that just won Best Picture at the Oscars - held yesterday evening in Ballard.

For me, at least, Crash was a compelling portrait of racism internalized and externalized at various levels - its clear message is that racism is still a major reality in our social fabric despite the rhetoric of progress we often hear. I was curious to see how the generally socially conservative people at Mars Hill would respond to this film with a pointedly progressive political message.

When you go out to a place expecting there to be a difference, you usually find it - this is the prime rule of ethnography, and also a major pitfall. You can't really force yourself not to filter your observations through your expectations - the only thing you can do is to admit your slants upfront before you write about the people you're with. In my case, I find much of Mars Hill's theology quite limiting and sometimes appallingly simplistic and exclusive - this is only exacerabated by its contradictory commitment to "engaging the culture" but at the same time often extolling itself as an island church in the ocean of depravity that is Seattle. This tends to make Mars Hill practical theology focus more on personal purity than on social justice - for this reason, I went in expecting a discussion filled with denial of the movie's real messages (at least as I saw them).

There were about 300 people sparsely filling the front half of Mars Hill's gigantic auditorium. A pastor named James began the evening with some disclaimers, saying, "People called with concerns that we were showing this movie. Some asked, 'Will you really show this unedited?'" I racked my brain for any scenes of especially gratuitous violence or sex in the film, but when I came up short, Pastor James revealed what was distressing some people: "A lot of f-words in this movie... this movie has more f-bombs than a Tarantino!" He invited people to bear through the profane language and try to understand the message, but stressed, "If it bothers you, go ahead and just leave."

(spoilers follow - do not read if you haven't seen the film!)

The scenes got similar reactions as I'd seen when I first saw the film in a theatre with my old roommate when it first came out. Everyone gasped when that little girl got "shot" in her front yard, same when Don Cheadle's brother got shot by Ryan Phillipe. Several people were sobbing heavily when Cheadle's mom saw the body and broke down, and especially when she said "Your brother came home. He bought me groceries. That's the last thing he did." For some reason, a sizable number of people around me laughed when we saw that the white van Ludacris stole was holding a group of Asian indentured migrants - this shocked me a little, and I said pretty loudly "That's really not funny." I had my hat off so that everyone could see I was Asian (a little hackery, I know) and that shut some people up. I don't attribute this laughter to Mars Hill, of course - anytime you watch a movie with a group of people, there are always people who find things funny that you find shocking. Of course, that doesn't mean I have to just take it.

The highlight of the evening was the post-film discussion - two pastors led the session. A pastor named Gary went through a brief sermon based off themes from the movie. He said right off the bat, "Hopefully, some of you tonight are pushing and prodding yourselves." He hit the nail on the head (as I see it) from the first minute by saying, "This movie highlights two sorts of racial tensions, one that exists on a personal level, and another that is systemic."

Crash served as a point of departure for a discussion of humanity's sin nature (a theology I don't think leads to very robust inspiration for life, but we'll get to that another time) - Pastor Gary said that there were four "reasons" for racism: personal sin, total depravity of mankind, ignorance, and the desire to attain worth and power through being racist. He said that the Biblical statement that humans were "created in the image of God" was a radically new vision of the equal worth of every person, regardless of their color. He called it "PC before PC ever existed" (this is interesting on many levels... the use of the term "PC" deserves some serious investigation).

He also asserted that Jesus himself was the victim of racism: "He was criticized, beat on, persecuted, and rejected by his own people." Apparently, Gary equated these things to being "racism". Later he said there were types of racism based not just on skin color, but also "religion, nationality, sex... any form of discrimination" (this tempts to further investigate what people mean by 'racism'). I wondered if he would include "sexual orientation" in that list.

Ultimately, it was a very compelling and powerful discussion - he said that Christians were called to a "ministry of reconciliation and redemption" and I think that is right on target. He encouraged people to go home and share the film with friends and spark good conversations about the issue of race. He said, "Just because it's systemic doesn't mean we can't do anything about it. ...There's hope in Jesus."

After the pastors spoke, there was a time for Q&A and more public discussion. One young man said, "Racism has sociological factors, that's part of the problem, and we can come up with this policy or that policy, but it misses the point that racism is sin."

That statement encapsulates the general message I feel people received here: ending racism is about reconciling your personal interactions with people of different races - it comes down to an exercise of the personal will not to sin. I find this conclusion valuable, but incomplete: it doesn't speak to political responsibilities for addressing structural racism and histories of racism.

I don't think it had anything to do with Mars Hill that the take-home message was that we only needed to look at our personal interactions and choose not to commit the sin of racism: I think it's a shortcoming of the movie that a broader, historical view of racism is not seen. So while Crash does a great job of bringing back to light significant racism in interpersonal relations, I don't think we can rely on it to deliver a message that socially construced racist structures must be challenged.

More pressing is the question of how we need to renew the language of progress: evident from this evening were conflicting usages of the words "politically correct", "racism", "systemic", and "white guilt" (which, troublingly, was used). If we're not talking about the same things when we all use these words, then we're not really talking to each other. It seems worth looking into.

Two Sides of the Mouth

On Thursday, military officials told the press: "The prison will be turned over to the Iraqi government after the 4,500-odd prisoners being held there are moved, probably within about three months, to another prison now being built in Baghdad."

On the same day, the Department of Defense posted on its website: "News reports that the U.S. military intends to close Abu Ghraib within the next few months and to transfer its prisoners to other jails are inaccurate."

Under other circumstances, I might be inclined to believe there was simply a significant miscommunication and that perhaps Gen. Pace the military spokesman in Baghdad merely had inaccurate information, but this administration has regularly adopted this tactic in dealing with the press. You say one thing, which is popular, loudly and publicy and then quietly retract it later. All anyone, of course, is the first announcement. I've already commented on the Administration's first linking Iraq and 9/11 and then later quietly disavowing those statements; we saw how that turned out. Also, remember Bush's denial that he ever knew Abramoff, followed later by the admission that he did (though even his forced admission obscured the truth - .pdf).

The worst part, however, is that the press seems to allow itself to play into this strategy of deliberate manipulation. Sure, in the White House Press Briefings reporters will ask pointed questions, but the Adminstration has mastered the art of deflection. Where are the hard-hitting questions? Where are the journalistic ambushes? Where is the damned Fourth Estate?

Hardship withdrawal

I'm not sure who even bothers to read my crazy theology and Karl's crazy secular humanism (hehe), but I am sorry that I haven't posted in such a long time, for anyone who cares. As you might have guessed, as the chair of the recently embroiled ASUW Student Senate, I've been rather engulfed by this entire Boyington blow-up.

What's been most frustrating are comments like these (this is my friend Gary from the UW College Republican Online Forum):

"I must say that I take a bit of joy in seeing this happen. How many of us remember being cursed at just for standing by the CR table? How many of us tire of comments about Rich White people? I love how they can't take the heat (so maybe they should get out of the kitchen)"

Gary's a great guy, by the way. I'm just unhappy that people think me and others involved here can't "take the heat" - I've been "taking the heat" for quite a while, as have other progressive-minded people for the past decade of "compassionate conservatism" where meaningful dissent is immediately splattered around on the internet and abstracted into treason. A better word would be blasphemy, but more on that another time.

Despite this, everyone in ASUW has been diligently responding to questions, disagreements, and inquiries - I wonder if the people on the UWCR forum have this fantastic image of us liberal student government geeks, huddled together in our office shivering with fright and clinging to each other for sheer body heat in the cold wind of conservative reason. My mind has definitely been engaged as I've defended my vote and the views of the majority of the Senate to curious people.

But the reason I haven't posted here in so long has been due to the greater part of the messages I've received - these don't merely disagree, they indignify. For instance:

I thought I should ask, are you of Korean heritage; going by the surname of 'Kim' I rather thought you may be. Should that be the case my dear Mr Kim, it is rather surprising that you are not aware the USMC; Colonel Boynton's old outfit. Spent much time, bloodshed and lives, saving your sorry arsed country from your communist cohorts during 50 to 53. I know because I had the privilege of fighting along side them, and if you are an example of why we fought; I almost regret it now.

I got this e-mail from a man in Australia - he takes it upon himself to remind me how a "real Korean" should feel and act about the actions of the Marines. When we use tactics like this to make ourselves "righter" than our opponents, sure, we might win, but is it democratic?

I haven't posted here in a while because there hasn't been anything very constructive to say - messages like this and countless others that are equally debasing have made me a much angrier and more calloused person than the guy who lasted posted on the 8th. I've been trying to meditate and discern lessons from all that's happened.

Clearly, I've contributed to the poisonous rhetoric used by all sides in today's American politic - last year, I said that if people didn't support a certain amendment in the Student Senate, they were racists. So I'm definitely not claiming to be without sin here. The pain of being on the receiving end of rhetoric like that is now clear to me, and I've seen it take a heavy toll in the past few weeks on friends who are even less accustomed to this world of politics than I am.

Several times in the same period, though, I've had the pleasure of sitting down with some of my conservative friends and just being two human beings, talking about the issue - neither of us compromising our values, but both of us increasing understanding. These were conversations where the people involved could somehow walk away with their dignities not only intact, but enhanced through encounter.

The Qur'an teaches, "Do you not know, O people, that I have made you into tribes and nations that you might know each other?" Democracy seems to be resting on this principle - that through dialogue across difference, progress can be acheived for a society. Instead, we find ourselves in this sickened country, where people can barely talk to each other without someone winning and someone losing. How much longer can this sort of "crossfire democracy" work?

It's been a sobering realization that as fun as it might be, I no longer am allowed to indulge in rhetoric like the stuff I've been receiving. And in fact, no one else is either. If we take our democracy seriously, we all must start by changing the way we talk to each other. One person doesn't make a difference here - but two people make all the difference: you and the other.

In the space between Self and Other, find healing. Find justice. Find peace. Amen.

Troop Poll

I recently came across an important poll courtesy of an anonymous (and liberal) contributor on the University of Washington College Republican Forum. The poll itself is from Stars and Stripes, a daily paper for U.S. servicemen and women authorized by the Department of Defense. Here are some of the most significant findings:

• "85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was 'to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks.'"
• Only 43% said their equipment was adequate
• An entire 72% thought the U.S. should pull out within one year; 29% believed the U.S. should leave immediately

I don't particularly want to discuss how long we should stay, except to say that I believe we have a responsibility to ensure peace in Iraq. The destabilization is an indirect (arguably direct) result of the U.S. invasion and we shouldn't ignore that. We are, however, in desperate need of an exit strategy - we must know what the ideal withdrawal situation looks like and decide how best to bring that about. We should have had such a plan when we went in there, but our hubris and lack of planning are not excuses.

There are, however, bigger issues raised by this poll. One is the complete disconnect between the Bush Administration/Republicans and reality. Remember Rep. Jean Schmidt's (R-Oh) shameful attack on Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa), a retired Marine when she charged "Cowards cut and run, marines never do"? Well, apparently a significant number of our troops on the ground think that what conservatives consider "cutting-and-running" isn't such a bad idea and who can blame them? They were assured they would be "greeted as liberators" and now 2,300 of them are dead. Just awful.

A second imporant issue raised by this poll is the disinformation perpetuated by the Bush Administration making connections between Iraq and 9/11, connections that, as most anyone who bothered to actually investigate the claims knew (our 9/11 Commission, for instance), never existed. Even the Administration, when confronted, said they had never directly made such a connection. 85% of our troops disagree, Mr. President. (More analysis by Dan Froomkin here).

It's a bit terrifying, really, how pervasive the Bush Administration's misinformation has become. I suppose it just highlights that if you get enough people to reiterate the same false information time and again, even Truth can be conquered.

Delicious Defamation

Well, it seems someone discovered a response I posted on a conservative blog; the good folks at aero-news.net. Indeed, they took the opportunity to further attack an issue they proved they knew nothing about. Anyone even remotely familiar with the situation would know that the inaccurate paraphrase of Jill Edwards did not "[speak] for the student body." Nor did Ashley Miller ever "sneer." For that matter, I also don't recall anyone holding a bong. This hardly qualifies as "Top News." More like "Made-up Nonsense." And now my most honorable mention:

"Defending his decision to diss Boyington, Director of Student Senate Operations Karl D. Smith thought he was going for middle ground, commenting in a regional blog, 'We also are home to civil rights leaders such as Gordon Hirabayshi and a major contributor in the eradication of smallpox William Foege, and the Nigerian statesman who worked for peace Alex Ekwueme.' Yep, household names all, just like Boyington. I was just wondering today, what's Al Ekwueme up to these days? You hardly hear his name any more. By the way, I am not the Great Punctuator, but I'm willing to send Karl some commas. You know, to bring his writing up to the junior-high-school standard expected at UW.

Smith issued the plaintive call of today's university dweller, confused, intimidated, and relativistic: 'How do we decide who is and is not deserving?'

Well, Karl, it looks like you just did, despite your girly-man waffling. Did you say that he was evil for shooting down enemy airplanes?

'I stand by my comments in support of removing the language regarding the Japanese planes shot down.' (Geez, the kid talks like a bureaucrat already. He'll be making everyone's life miserable in the DMV some day). 'In war, killing is a necessary evil. Because of this I am all the more grateful for those who endure the effects of war. But I do not believe our honor of him should focus upon the evil, regardless of how necessary.'"

Their ad hominem attacks aside, I would suggest that they drop the "household names" argument. Gordon Hirabayashi is far more of a household name to me than is Pappy Boyington. Besides, isn't one of the points of creating a memorial to ensure someone will be remembered? As to their questions regarding where Alex Ekwueme is now, evidently he's still doing good works in Nigeria: "Now 66 years old, Ekwueme is a philanthropist as well as a public servant and architect. He established an educational trust fund that sponsors the education of several hundred Nigerian youths in universities at home and abroad."

It gives me some reassurance that I am not the only object of Mr. O'Brien's bullying. Also, I am no Great Researcher, but nor am I the "Director of Student Senate Operations." A trifling matter, but about as significant as a missing comma.

As of this writing, I have not received said commas offered by Mr. O'Brien. I'll be waiting at the DMV!

The Problem as I See It

Last week the Senate voted against a resolution to create a memorial to a distinguished alumnus. Almost immediately conservative talk show hosts sprang into action. Ironically, perhaps, I wasn't even going to post on this; it simply wasn't worthy of attention, but it has gotten so out of hand (WorldNetDaily, Michelle Malkin, Boortz Report, Seattle PI) that I wish to establish a few facts here. You see, the problem wasn't the debate which occurred in the Student Senate; it's what occurred after the meeting, which I intend to establish here.

1.) College Republican president Brent Ludeman sent out an e-mail to his listserv (including conservative talk show hosts and state legislators) which characterized the opposition thusly: "Opponents of the resolution contended that Colonel Boyington 'is not the type of person we should be honoring' and that 'we don't need to honor any more richwhite males' while others ecquivicated the hero's actions to murder." He paraphrased two individuals of the 130 senators and insinuated that all those voting against the resolution did so for these reasons and I can personally vouch that that is simply not the case.

2.) Local conservative talk show hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson carry the show on the air, repeating the characterization of Brent's e-mail and singling out students for derision. They attacked the intelligence and motivation of certain students. Unsurprisingly, this is when the hate mail and intimidating phone calls began.

3.) The conservative blogosphere picked up the story, continuing the misrepresentation, but now adding personal e-mail addresses and phone numbers online. The hatefulness peaked here; one individual received FOUR HUNDRED such e-mails in a single day to say nothing of the phone calls.

4.) The WorldNetDaily "News" carried a "story" repeating the UWCR press release insinuations, but now quoting conservative bloggers (who were, in fact, basing their work off the original press release).

5.) Fox News is picking the story up today; I only hope this can be promptly defused.

The greatest irony of all here? The sponors of the legislation, Andrew Everett, is a friend of mine and respects those who disagree with him; he doesn't necessarily like it, but he resents the circus this has turned into. Why, then, if this is not an issue on campus, has the conservative media become so mesmerized and incensed? Why do they seek to divide through insinuation and misrepresentation?

When it rains...

...it pours. Evidently the state of Israel intends to create a museum of tolerance. Fantastic. By removing skeletons from a Muslim cemetery. Not fantastic. Regardless of your stance on other actions by the state of Israel, this one deserves consternation. Muslim groups in Israel have protested the action and sought legal relief with some limited success thus far. And yet the government continues to push for the completion of the project.

Particularly intriguing was a quote from a spokeswoman for the Israel Antiquities Authority: "Israel is more crowded with ancient artefacts than any other country in the world. If we didn't build on former cemeteries, we would never build." So we can expect to see new developments on top of the Western Wall? Jewish cemeteries? Or is there perhaps a double standard at work here?

(Thanks to Jesus' General for the link)

[Edit: For those not caring for The Indepent as a news source, read about the same story in the Seattle PI, the Chicago Tribune, or, just for fun (I certainly don't share all the frames of the article), the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency.]

Just about impossible

Karl has written up, I think, a very good distinction between the right to speak freely and whether one should. Western liberal governments allow for unethical behaviors (lying, for instance) - but should we perform them? Unfortunately, Karl's distinction doesn't give much help right now to the governments who are grappling with the issue right now: does the Danish government apologize?

I want to offer a theological note - it is just about impossible for any non-Muslim American to understand the level of offense involved in creating an image of God or God's messenger, Muhammed (peace be upon him). I'm pretty sure I don't understand - and for that matter, whoever is reading this probably doesn't either.

As people who have grown up and been educated in a Western context, and even more so because it has been an American context, the scent of Christian norms and assumption lingers on all of us. It doesn't matter what religion you call yourself - growing up in the West, and especially growing up in America, means that you basically receive a basic Christian foundaiton - this carries with it many ethical norms and expectations.

One of these is the innocence of imagery - I think Christianity is a thought-system where images are not only tolerated, but vital. Theologically, I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that the person of Jesus Christ himself represents the decision of God to reveal Godself to humanity through a direct human image. This means, really, that the center of the entire system revolves around an IMAGE of God - additionally, for Christians, this is the unique and, at least for me, the graceful part of the religion. It means that God recognizes and understands the way that we see and conceptualize the material world, and that rather than see that as evil or fallen, God thinks so highly of human perspective that God would come into the world, in human form, to share in that perspective. So, Jesus as the perfect human image of God is pretty darn important.

I definitely don't think that it's a reach at all, then, to say that Christianity carries with it a high regard for the power of imagery. This isn't to say other systems do not, but in Christianity, the power of imagery is seen as a positive, good force. Images facilitate connection, promote understanding, and foster sympathy. It means that someone who grows up on "Christian milk" (pretty much every domestic-born American), regardless of whether he or she is "Christian", internalizes a deep-seated reverence for imagery.

Muslims also recognize the power of imagery - but here, the recognition takes on an overall negative form: imagery is seen skeptically, prone to hasty interpretation, curtailing deeper thought and criticism of ideas, and worst of all, encouraging far-reaching but inherenty incompelte generalizations about what is contained in the image. I must admit my knowledge of Islam isn't stellar, but I don't think what I'm saying here is a stretch - Muslims revere imagery also, but in the negative sense. This is evident from the strict injunction, contained in the Qur'an, against ANY images of God or God's prophets. In the case of depicting images of God, this is part of Islam's one unforgiveable sin: shirk. You can read more about shirk from other sources, I'm sure, but it basically means the confusion of God with part of God's creation. Islam's central tenet is the total and utter one-ness, only-ness, and infinite-ness of God. To say, for instance, that God is a man (as Christianity claims) is quite unacceptable in Islam, because a man (part of Creation) could never contain the infinite-ness of God, and since man is in the material world, it would also violate the only-ness of God because then God would exist in two places differently.

Creating an image of God is shirk because it rudely violates the one-ness, only-ness, and infinite-ness of God by replacing the mysterious, infinite nature of our conception of God with the fences of a picture - the idea, then, is that in our minds, we think of God and helplessly see the picture, and never again can the true, infinite God be accessed. This is shirk. And considering that every chapter of the Qur'an begins with the phrase, "In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful...", the one unforgiveable sin of shirk is pretty serious business - don't you see that creating an image of God or a prophet chosen by God creates forever a barrier to fully contemplating God and God's teaching?

I wonder if the cartoonist, or the Danish Government, or any of us can really know what it's like to have a reckless sketch forever alter our relationship with the cosmos? Not if we grow up surrounded by Christianity, where images are sacred! So I think I'm justified in saying that mutual understanding here is truly just about impossible.

But, it does come down to action time for the governments in question here. The Danish Government must recognize the immensity of what's happened here - and offer its overdue apology. It, by no means, should place restriction on its press - but it should feel the need and duty to call injustice when it happens. In the case of the cartoon, the injustice was done to Allah, to the Prophet of Allah (pbuh), and to those who submit to Allah.

If you've read this far, thank you. Hope to hear what you have to think. Peace out.

Freedom of Speech

Recent discussion of the cartoon published in European newspapers has become something of a magnet for freedom of speech rhetoric. And yet it is woefully misapplied. The freedom of speech protects individuals from government censorship or punishment; it does NOT dictate what *should* be said – that is, simply because you can legally say something doesn’t mean you should. Think about it, just because it would be legal to create a political cartoon glorifying the lynchings of American history, wouldn’t it be utterly distasteful to not do so? A newspaper can decide what content it will or will not publish, and such inflammatory rhetoric will only be harmful (there is no *benefit* to its publication); it would be irresponsible to publish such a cartoon. The instance in Europe is far worse.

Another website recently created a cartoon of Hitler and Anne Frank in bed together with Hitler saying “Write this one in your diary, Anne” in response, to illustrate this very point. As offensive as that is (and it’s damn offensive), it doesn’t compare to an attack on one’s religion, on one’s reason for being. Though I cannot understand, the Islamic proscription on depictions of Allah and the Prophet are especially deep, lacking direct comparisons in contemporary Christianity (but here, I overstep my bounds of knowledge, so I leave further discussion to my esteemed colleague).

As French President Jacques Chirac stated, the reprinting of the cartoon is an exercise in provocation, not free speech. Free speech may protect the newspapers from government sanction, but they do not justify the decision of the newspapers to publish the cartoon. Chirac put it aptly when he said, "[f]reedom of expression must be exercised in a spirit of responsibility.” The decisions of the European media have thus far been quite the opposite.

Another perspective: The freedom of speech is certainly not absolute. Particularly illustrative here is that the third Geneva Convention, which forbids the publishing of pictures of POWs and, arguably, the dead (subjecting them to “public curiosity” is the precise wording). The principle behind that is one of respect. Applying such a principle to the contemporary case is a worthwhile exercise.