[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Miami Herald



Kelvin Bailey wrote:
20010920011017.92145.qmail at web11507_mail.yahoo.com"> 


I think the first one is the coward.
I think neither is. Each group in this situation sees itself as doing what is right, just, and necessary. I myself agree with neither group, because I don't think violence will do anything but escalate into continued violence. I know that we are being cowardly, because I know that if we would change our Middle Eastern foreign policy to be less imperialistic, and would pull out of the Palestine/Is real conflict, the terrorism might end, or at least end w/r/t us. That we have had the means to end terrorism without bloodshed for thirty years and have doe nothing is pretty cowardly on our part. We choose our comfy lifestyle over the quality of life and respect for the culture of other peoples, and that it cowardly. What, people can't use less fossil fuels, rely on solar power? That we have the technology to move beyond our need for the fossil fuels of the MIddle East and so remove our need to keep a stranglehold on them, but don't, is cowardly. That we don't possess the restraint to limit our marketing of our culture only to those who want it, leaving the rest in peace, that is cowardly too.
20010920011017.92145.qmail at web11507_mail.yahoo.com"> 


I think they shamed themselves.  I'm sorry you don't
see that.
Keep in mind that shame isn't an absolute: one only feels shame in front of certain people, people whose opinion's of oneself one values. bin Laden, we know, doesn't value our opinion, or the opinion of "Westernized" Arabs, like King Fahd. He values the opinions of other extremists, who, we know, already see him as a hero.
20010920011017.92145.qmail at web11507_mail.yahoo.com"> 

And where did you get this?  In my Bible it is part of
the 'Sermon On the Mount'.  Christ was speaking to his
disciples about how to treat and deal with their
enemies.  It's smack dab in the middle of taking oaths
and loving your enemies.  It has nothing to do with
warfare and governments.  That would be a huge
extrapolation.
Everything we do with Jesus's teaching is extrapolation. :) Personally, I think that if you remember to whom Jesus was speaking, a colonized Middle Eastern nation who had been occupied by a Western power, and who had been eagerly awaiting a Messiah to save them from that power, it isn't that much of an extrapolation. Remember that one of the examples Jesus uses of turning the other cheek is that if a Roman soldier asks you to carry his pack for a mile, carry it two miles. The Romans really did that, and Jesus was remarking on both the personal and the political.
My wife was watching Oprah the other day and they were talking about saving money to have a million dollars when you retire (again). ONe woman pointed out to Oprah that Oprah has repeatedly said to live in the now, and not to worry about tomorrow. Oprah replied "That's a *spiritual* concept, not a financial one." In doing so she was advocating a spirituality that is meaningless, because she was suggesting spiritual things don't affect the rest of life. By making Jesus's teacing about turning the other cheek mean only small offenses against individuals, you're doing somewhat the same thing.

-John
20010920011017.92145.qmail at web11507_mail.yahoo.com"> 

          

          

          
-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"History goes blind and in darkness;
neither ses nor is seen, nor is
known except as a carrion
marked by unintelligible wounds:
dragging its dead body, living,
yet to be born, it moves heavily
to its glories. It tramples
the little towns, forgets their names."

-Wendell Berry, "The Design of the House: Ideal and Hard Time"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.johnpauldavis.org

          

          
          




Follow-Ups:



References: