I'm still not sure how to feel after this past election, but I'm not entirely sure it matters. After what was likely the worst presidential campaign in recent history, Donald J. Trump was elected. The man who insulted just about every non-white male variant that exists attained the highest office in the land and now has the power to shape the United States, and subsequently the world, for years, possibly even decades beyond his tenure. The man who thinks that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese; the man whose entire platform was scrapping international trade deals and jailing his opponent, Hillary Clinton; the man who can only describe warzones as "a mess". It's not an easy thing to fathom.
Every single poll decided that he was the underdog by a landslide. Every single person who has ever studied political science knew, knew that it was impossible for a man of his style of campaigning to win. And then, it happened, and all of us ivory tower-types have to reconsider what we thought we knew.
Maybe it's because we all underestimated the power of his anti-establishment, anti-trade deal message; maybe we all underestimated the inherent racism still firmly entrenched into parts of the United States. Maybe some people just really didn't like Hillary Clinton. It doesn't matter now, really. Historians and political scientists will write books and papers aplenty about the statistical impossibility and supicilious stupidity that was the 2016 election, and hopefully in 50 years, people will look back on this point in history with deep, bitter disdain.
But, we're in it now. A lot of people are afraid of what will happen; I'm not, honestly. It's hard to fear the possibility of something. I'm dismayed and disillusioned at the moment. I suppose the fear will kick in once he raises his right hand, but for now, it's still a foggy notion that the election even happened. It's still a waking nightmare.
Though what do I have to fear? I'm a generic straight white guy. You can go around America and find millions of me wasting time or making money or losing money or flipping burgers and picking up hookers. You can even find a copper-coated jabberwocky version preparing to move into the White House.
Except, that's a lie. I do feel fear; fear for my friends, many of whom are the children of immigrants from predominantly non-white countries, and it twists my stomach to think that just because some spray tanned living word jumble became president that many of them would be targeted in hate crimes simply because they aren't white. Hate crimes have surpassed post-9/11 levels, by some metrics, which is a truly scary thought: the worst attack in American history was going to create backlash, as anyone would expect it to; but an election? There is no mandate for discrimination; everyone retains the right to be safe, regardless of who is president.
I read an interesting interview with Trevor Noah, the current host of the Daily Show. He's from South Africa, the posterchild for racism in modernity, and he stated that racism was never excised in the United States like it was in South Africa. With the end of apartheid, a system of governance based entirely on racism, the tumor was cut: it was held up and displayed in all its failure as a system of thought and left to die. That isn't to say that racism doesn't still exist in South Africa, but it was a moment of ablution that let South Africa face its demons.
The United States never truly had that. Schools had to be forced to integrate in the 1970s, and even today there is a noticeable disparity in race in schools. White nationalist groups still exist and are active around the country.
So, what does the future bring? I don't know, honestly. I wrote more than a year ago that Trump would never be president, and here we are. The bare minimum we can do to make a better life for ourselves and others is to speak up if you see someone getting harassed because of how they look, even if no one else does; you'd be surprised how much one person can inspire courage in others.
Chances are that if you're reading this, you agree with most, if not all, of what I've written. And if so, great, I'm glad, let's be friends if we aren't already. If not, write a comment and tell me why I'm an asshole, but at least do so politely, because we're not in clans of gorillas fighting to defend our territory by slinging shit at each other; we have words, and feelings, and advanced reasoning that lets us settle disputes without laying a finger on each other. So if you have a problem with this post, write it out; if you don't like someone, tell them, but don't forget to ask yourself why you feel that way in the first place.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Showing posts with label Muslim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim. Show all posts
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Kill it with Fire
If you're a hermit and have not been listening to the news, then you haven't heard of fringe religious pastor Terry Jones who threatened to burn Qu'rans this past September 11th. His reason for burning the holy book of the Muslim people was because he "wanted to send radical Islam a message." What I find funny is that he probably didn't realize the irony if his statement; he should have just replaced "Islam" with the name of his church.
You see, Pastor Jones is a radical in his own right; he calls Islam the "devil's religion" and that Islam is trying to dominate the United States and the world. Now, I won't challenge the legality of his right to protest the religion by burning a piece of symbolism (as established in Texas v. Johnson), but I will call him irrational. Why? Well, you'll see.
Firstly, the US' image overseas, to many Muslims, is that the country is at war with Islam itself instead of with al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. Those groups, in turn, utilize that rhetoric to recruit young men into their ranks. Pastor Jones, with his widespread media coverage and his handlebar mustache now played all over the world, is now becoming a rallying point for radical Muslims.
(Pictured: 19th-century sex.)
With his anti-Islam message, the radical Islamic groups can now say "Look! Americans allow for the burning of the holy book without chastising him for it! Join us and defend our beliefs!" (Hope that doesn't sound too campy) A battle based on beliefs, especially personal beliefs, is the most difficult and time-consuming battle, and is almost always impossible to win.
Aside from that, Pastor Jones has revealed a flaw in our portrayal of Muslims in the country: they are all radical. The Pastor has conflated all Muslims into essentially one entity, which, as we all know, is illogical. Like I've said before, not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, not all black people are criminals, and not all Chinese people know Kung-Fu.
If this post seems a little errant, that's because I had too much damned reading to do. Hell, I'm barely even doing it.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
You see, Pastor Jones is a radical in his own right; he calls Islam the "devil's religion" and that Islam is trying to dominate the United States and the world. Now, I won't challenge the legality of his right to protest the religion by burning a piece of symbolism (as established in Texas v. Johnson), but I will call him irrational. Why? Well, you'll see.
Firstly, the US' image overseas, to many Muslims, is that the country is at war with Islam itself instead of with al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. Those groups, in turn, utilize that rhetoric to recruit young men into their ranks. Pastor Jones, with his widespread media coverage and his handlebar mustache now played all over the world, is now becoming a rallying point for radical Muslims.
(Pictured: 19th-century sex.)
With his anti-Islam message, the radical Islamic groups can now say "Look! Americans allow for the burning of the holy book without chastising him for it! Join us and defend our beliefs!" (Hope that doesn't sound too campy) A battle based on beliefs, especially personal beliefs, is the most difficult and time-consuming battle, and is almost always impossible to win.
Aside from that, Pastor Jones has revealed a flaw in our portrayal of Muslims in the country: they are all radical. The Pastor has conflated all Muslims into essentially one entity, which, as we all know, is illogical. Like I've said before, not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, not all black people are criminals, and not all Chinese people know Kung-Fu.
If this post seems a little errant, that's because I had too much damned reading to do. Hell, I'm barely even doing it.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Point of Ire
A group of Muslim radicals are attempting to rubs America's face in the tragedy of 9-11 by building a mosque in Ground Zero.
--EDIT--
Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."
This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?
"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.
Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.
I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?
Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
--EDIT--
Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."
This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?
"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.
Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.
I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?
Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, May 31, 2010
Paranoia and Confusion
A flotilla of ships carrying approximately 600 Palestinian activists and aid to Gaza was attacked by the Israeli Navy. The point of the flotilla was to raise awareness of the Israeli blockade of Gaza, started in 2007 because of Hamas' takeover of Gaza and which has caused a humanitarian crisis (as described by the UN) in the Palestinian region. 9 activists were killed. The exact details of the confrontation are not so clear.
The Israeli government claims that soldiers that rappelled down from helicopters were immediately attacked by the Muslim activists and had their guns stolen. It is on that basis that Israel claims that the activists shot first, incurring an Israeli response in kind. Several Israeli soldiers were injured, along with dozens of activists.
The activists on board claimed that the soldiers began firing immediately as they rappelled from the helicopters, ensuring an aggressive response from the activists. There is also a claim that the Israelis fired on the main ship before boarding it, wounding the captain.
Unfortunately, this is a serious incident which should be investigated by an independent party, or even several independent parties rather than the Israeli state. What is especially of concern is that the ships were boarded in international waters, so there is seemingly no reason that Israel should have boarded the ships in the first place. There were no ammunition weapons found on any of the ships, only small things like slingshots and switchblades. What kind of provocation a small, unarmed flotilla could invoke in this situation is beyond me.
The questions that need to be answered in this muddled situation are such:
1. Why did the Israeli navy attack the flotilla in international waters, and who gave such an order and for what reason?
2. Who actually shot first?
3. As Israel has allowed ships to pass through before, why not allow a peaceful delegation of activists with essential supplies through?
4. For what reason, if any, did the Israeli navy feel under pressure to act?
5. Did any of the activists actually take the soldiers' weapons and begin firing?
6. Were the activists provoked into action, or were the soldiers?
This is something that does not bode well for Israel at all, as this denigrates their international image to that of an evil dictator of the Middle East region.
I'd actually like some feedback on this one, as the repercussions of this event will be widespread and fierce.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
The Israeli government claims that soldiers that rappelled down from helicopters were immediately attacked by the Muslim activists and had their guns stolen. It is on that basis that Israel claims that the activists shot first, incurring an Israeli response in kind. Several Israeli soldiers were injured, along with dozens of activists.
The activists on board claimed that the soldiers began firing immediately as they rappelled from the helicopters, ensuring an aggressive response from the activists. There is also a claim that the Israelis fired on the main ship before boarding it, wounding the captain.
Unfortunately, this is a serious incident which should be investigated by an independent party, or even several independent parties rather than the Israeli state. What is especially of concern is that the ships were boarded in international waters, so there is seemingly no reason that Israel should have boarded the ships in the first place. There were no ammunition weapons found on any of the ships, only small things like slingshots and switchblades. What kind of provocation a small, unarmed flotilla could invoke in this situation is beyond me.
The questions that need to be answered in this muddled situation are such:
1. Why did the Israeli navy attack the flotilla in international waters, and who gave such an order and for what reason?
2. Who actually shot first?
3. As Israel has allowed ships to pass through before, why not allow a peaceful delegation of activists with essential supplies through?
4. For what reason, if any, did the Israeli navy feel under pressure to act?
5. Did any of the activists actually take the soldiers' weapons and begin firing?
6. Were the activists provoked into action, or were the soldiers?
This is something that does not bode well for Israel at all, as this denigrates their international image to that of an evil dictator of the Middle East region.
I'd actually like some feedback on this one, as the repercussions of this event will be widespread and fierce.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Das Religio!
Just a note:
I occasionally write blogs on www.shoutwire.com, usually just to pass the time. I suppose that I could start putting them here as well. Here is the first:
Religion, as it stands today, is the biggest institution in the world. Nowhere else does one find so many devout believers in a subject, nor so many willing to pontificate about something which no one really knows about. It is something questionable and grandiose, and something that almost no human can comprehend. That is one facet that deserves further study.
Religion, in its roots, was the original explanation for the natural occurrences that one would see in a normal Earth day. The sun rose and set because Ra rode his chariot across the sky. The seasons changed because Persephone was kidnapped by Hades. Everything revolved around the Earth because God created man, thus making them perfect, and everything revolves around perfection.
Technology and science have both debunked almost every religious explanation for the natural phenomena we see every day. Of course, mankind has not yet progressed to the stage in which we will be able to explain almost everything (though I'm hoping to see that in my lifetime), but that does not mean that everything does not have an explanation; it simply means that it is necessary to search.
There are a few advantages to religion, however, the largest one is that it provides solace to those who have lost loved ones. It is much more reassuring to hear that one has moved on to a better place rather then just gradually wearing away in the ground. The question remains, though: should we continue to follow a text that is 2000 years old?
Several instances warrant this question: the religious reluctance to allow gays to marry; the "necessity" for the leader of the United States to be a Christian (or Catholic, in JFK's case); the hatred of other ethnicities simply because their religions have clashed for the last millenia, and the simple scientific ignorance that religion encourages, amongst a plethora of other instances.
There are many arguments to be made in favor and in opposition, so I wanted to open the floor to debate. Please, try not to be overly insulting or condescending. Just because someone does not follow the same beliefs as you does not mean that they are idiotic.
One last caveat: instead of citing religious examples, such as the bible, use logic. It is much more convincing than going on a tangent about quoting Leviticus or John or...well, you get the picture.
addendum (after viewing several comments):
There is a fine line to draw between religious beliefs and the law. For instance, while watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (great movie, I recommend it), even the utterance of the name of god was punishable by stoning. Gladly, we have since moved past that stage in human development, but the question still remains: how much should religion impact the law, if not at all?
One side can argue, philosophically, that man has developed preconceptions about what is right and wrong, i.e. causing harm to others, burglary, arson, etc. It is not necessary for religion to interfere in the legal processes of the state, as law already has a firm legal grounding in thousands of years of philosophical precedent.
On the religious side, one can argue that the bible and other religious scriptures give a firm outlining of a secure law in which all would be content and satisfied. Obvious examples are do not kill, respect thy elders, etc. Keep in mind, however, that these were written in a time when it was not uncommon for two men to fight over the ownership of a sheep.
Aside from law, hearkening back to what cbjrdm stated before, it is quite evident in today's world that many (if not every human) are searching for a purpose. Whether they know it or not, we all search for something to fulfill our lives. Several of my friends gamble profusely, some only know of sports, and a few spend their entire lives dedicated to either video games or religion (reference to the Monty Python quote "You're a messiah, I should know; I've followed three."). Should we look to fill that need with trivial things, or should we work towards something meaningful? In fact, what do we, as a society, consider meaningful?
The original is http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/273155/E_Religion_hopefully_This_One_Works_.html. Enjoy.
Das Flüg
I occasionally write blogs on www.shoutwire.com, usually just to pass the time. I suppose that I could start putting them here as well. Here is the first:
Religion, as it stands today, is the biggest institution in the world. Nowhere else does one find so many devout believers in a subject, nor so many willing to pontificate about something which no one really knows about. It is something questionable and grandiose, and something that almost no human can comprehend. That is one facet that deserves further study.
Religion, in its roots, was the original explanation for the natural occurrences that one would see in a normal Earth day. The sun rose and set because Ra rode his chariot across the sky. The seasons changed because Persephone was kidnapped by Hades. Everything revolved around the Earth because God created man, thus making them perfect, and everything revolves around perfection.
Technology and science have both debunked almost every religious explanation for the natural phenomena we see every day. Of course, mankind has not yet progressed to the stage in which we will be able to explain almost everything (though I'm hoping to see that in my lifetime), but that does not mean that everything does not have an explanation; it simply means that it is necessary to search.
There are a few advantages to religion, however, the largest one is that it provides solace to those who have lost loved ones. It is much more reassuring to hear that one has moved on to a better place rather then just gradually wearing away in the ground. The question remains, though: should we continue to follow a text that is 2000 years old?
Several instances warrant this question: the religious reluctance to allow gays to marry; the "necessity" for the leader of the United States to be a Christian (or Catholic, in JFK's case); the hatred of other ethnicities simply because their religions have clashed for the last millenia, and the simple scientific ignorance that religion encourages, amongst a plethora of other instances.
There are many arguments to be made in favor and in opposition, so I wanted to open the floor to debate. Please, try not to be overly insulting or condescending. Just because someone does not follow the same beliefs as you does not mean that they are idiotic.
One last caveat: instead of citing religious examples, such as the bible, use logic. It is much more convincing than going on a tangent about quoting Leviticus or John or...well, you get the picture.
addendum (after viewing several comments):
There is a fine line to draw between religious beliefs and the law. For instance, while watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (great movie, I recommend it), even the utterance of the name of god was punishable by stoning. Gladly, we have since moved past that stage in human development, but the question still remains: how much should religion impact the law, if not at all?
One side can argue, philosophically, that man has developed preconceptions about what is right and wrong, i.e. causing harm to others, burglary, arson, etc. It is not necessary for religion to interfere in the legal processes of the state, as law already has a firm legal grounding in thousands of years of philosophical precedent.
On the religious side, one can argue that the bible and other religious scriptures give a firm outlining of a secure law in which all would be content and satisfied. Obvious examples are do not kill, respect thy elders, etc. Keep in mind, however, that these were written in a time when it was not uncommon for two men to fight over the ownership of a sheep.
Aside from law, hearkening back to what cbjrdm stated before, it is quite evident in today's world that many (if not every human) are searching for a purpose. Whether they know it or not, we all search for something to fulfill our lives. Several of my friends gamble profusely, some only know of sports, and a few spend their entire lives dedicated to either video games or religion (reference to the Monty Python quote "You're a messiah, I should know; I've followed three."). Should we look to fill that need with trivial things, or should we work towards something meaningful? In fact, what do we, as a society, consider meaningful?
The original is http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/273155/E_Religion_hopefully_This_One_Works_.html. Enjoy.
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)