Being civil only works when both parites are civilized.
I got an email from a friend of mine, chiding me for my Amero-centric response to the events in Spain following the terrorist attacks. I was also given a lecture about the American imperialist actions in Iraq questioning our imposition of democracy on the Arab world.
First of all, I don't care what your opinons about the war in Iraq are. What the Spainiards did was f***ing stupid. No, the Spanish people didn't vote out the old goverment because it was pro-American. It voted out the government because it supported the Iraq war, which led to the attack. However, since America is currently in Iraq and since al'Queda don't want us (or Spain) in Iraq, and since the previous goverment supported the war and the new government won't support the war...it's ends up being about America doesn't it? Yes, it was also stupid of the Spanish goverment to try and pin the attack on the Basques before really having full information. I seriously doubt it would have changed anything if they had said it was the Arabs from the start.
I still don't get the characterization of the U.S. engaging in imperialist colonization. Afghanistan and Iraq where military targets. We are at war, people. Make no mistake. We are not at war with the Arab world, or with Islam, as many would like to paint it. We are at war with an extremist faction and the governments who support them and their terror. Even with all the mistakes that have been made in the esitmations of the costs, even with the misinformation, misinterpretation or outright lies about weapons of mass destruction—depending on your political leanings—the fact remains that al'Qaida is rapidly running out of governments willing to give them shelter and funding. Do you think they don't get that? Saddam was stupid and/or arrogant enough to believe he could win a war with the United States. bin Laden isn't either. His only hope is to drive a wedge between the United States and everyone else. So he blows up his own people while they are at prayer. He blows up innocent Spainiards on their way to work.
It is foolish to think that the war in Iraq has increased terrorist animosity. Desperation, maybe, but not animosity. We always have been the target of suicidal muslism extremists. 9/11 wasn't the first. Only the worst so far. Europe has borne a heavier burden of these attacks. Proximity has as much to do with that as anything else. I was in Europe in 1986. There were still soldiers with automatic weapons in the airports from the attacks in the early 80s. Now Spain has shown the terrorists they will cave to blackmail. France has already stated they will not retaliate against terrorist attacks. Europe seems to think that if they just ignore the terrorists they will leave them alone. Why is it so hard to understand that the nut jobs responsible hate the West? They blame the west for their poverty. They see the West as a threat to their backward, misogynistic, homophobic society. Constitutional democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq is their worst nightmare. They will stop at nothing to undermine those efforts. They will stop at nothing to destroy the West, even if they have to do it a bit at a time. They aren't just going to go away.
The U.S. has tried to play nice. We have tried the the rule of law to find and prosecute terrorists. Or we have at least pretended at it anyway. We've known all along it was bin Laden. Our allies have been telling us that for years. If Clinton had had the balls to slap some terrorist ass around after the first attempt on the Twin towers, or after the bombings of the embassys in Africa or the attack on the Cole in Yemen, they would not have dared 9/11. They would not have supposed that such a brutal attack would sway American public opinion to inaction. Whatever his other failings, Bush did the right thing in taking the war to them. I'm no international relations expert, but having been the target of bullies through my whole childhood, I did learn one thing. They are all cowards at heart. You stand up to them and they back down. You can't reason with them. You can't negotiate with them. You either cave to their demands or you fight back. Period.
The best possibility for curtailing the terrorists ability to wage war is to establish democratic rule in the Middle East. When people have control over their own destiny, when prosperity reigns, people are much less inclined to strap TNT to their bodies and detnonate. It is going to take a lot of hand holding for Democracy to have a chance in the Middle East. Democracy would come to the Middle East eventually. Take a quick look at Iran. As Iran is learning, when people become more educated, more capable of free thought, they quickly see through the lies that their current station is the result of oppression from the West, who sold its soul to Satan.
Arabs deserve the same freedom that we enjoy. Most of them want it, but they are hedging their bets. France refuses to engage the powers that have visted terror on them for decades. Spain rolls over and plays dead after a single attack. Not exactly encouraging signs for an oppressed people afraid of coming under the rule of another despot and afraid of repraisals if the United States doesn't stay its course. What have the United States and the world ever done to show that we care more about the people who live in the Middle East than we care about their oil? Not a damn thing. And we are surprised they don't trust us? We are surprised they don't like us?
What will the cost be for democracy in the Middle East? Will wars need to be fought as in America? Will there need to be a period of hellish anarchy as in France? If the United States is in a position to coach these countries through the growth process and avoid such bloodshed, shouldn't we at least try?
How stupid can you be?
In the wake of the bomb blasts in Spanish commuter trains which killed 200 and injured hundreds more, the Spanish people have voted out the pro-American government and voted in a anti-American government. France is, I am sure, ecstatic. Now all the coward jokes will be made about Spain. With one swift stroke Spain has given the terrorists exactly what they wanted. They want to further undermine the U.S.'s ability to establish a nominally democratic government in Iraq. They want the U.N. (a bunch of dithering diplomats), not the U.S. (a very determined world power) in charge. Why? Because the U.S. is the only serious threat to their continued existence.
I know what it's like to live in fear. I know how powerful fear is. So does al'Qaida. I also know you cannot give in. You cannot let fear rule your life. You cannot give others that kind of power over you. Spain's reaction was natural, if stupid. Let's hope as the hysteria dies down, wiser minds will prevail. As long as al'Qaida's tactics work and achieve the desired results, the bombings will continue. What will it be next time? To what bit of foreign policy will al'Qaida take exception? And where will it be?
Death, Taxes and Religious Idiots
Every religious tradition has its own media outlets. There are official publications. There are unofficial publications. In the Mormon tradition, The Ensign is the official publication. Among the unofficial publications is Merdian. Recently the following appeared in Meridian:
George Mason, a Virginia delegate at the Constitutional Convention reminds us of something every activist, for or against gay marriage, ought to consider: "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be [punished] in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities."
Does that sound familiar to anyone else? I'll give you a hint: Jerry Falwell, Sept. 13, 2001. It seems obvious this fear of Divine Retribution is solidly entrenched in the minds of many Christian adherents and this fear knows no boundaries between traditions. It also seems to have no basis in logic whatsoever.
Scripture is replete with passages describing God withholding his support from nations steeped in wickedness. People seem to have extrapolated from these passages that God is just waiting to smack anyone who steps out of line. I just don't get that. For one, how can you worship a God like that? I've always found it interesting that people seem to worship the God that reflects their own personalities. You have nut jobs like Fred Phelps who preaches a God of anger and hatred, a God just waiting to toss everyone but Fred and his followers straight down to Hell. Most Mormons worship a God of tough love. I've always seen God as a benevolent being, one who has seen fit to reach into our sphere and give us some guidelines for getting through life with a minimum of fuss.
Regardless of the God you worship, application of the Smack Down Theory just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. For starters what is meant by "national calamities?" Let's start by ruling out natural disasters. Nature is a vastly complex system and God has intervened on barely a handful of occasions, the most notable being the death of His Son. A few years ago a freak tornado moved through Salt Lake City. It happened to demolish one of the oldest gay bars in town. Naturally there was all kinds of talk about the wrath of God. Never mind that the same tornado also moved through Temple Square and took out the olive tree next to which my ex-wife and I had our wedding pictures taken, then moved on and demolished Memory Grove, a war memorial. How exactly does that work? God sent the tornado to take out a gay bar, but did damage to sacred grounds just so He would not appear to be playing favorites? Doesn't that sort of contradict the whole punishment thing?
I do think that the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 do qualify as a national calamity. They were attacks aimed directly at the spirit of our nation. (Jerry's only fault seems to be that he speaks his mind without thinking it through first.) If indeed God is punishing the U.S. for our wickedness, or merely withholding his blessing as Jerry later asserted, then how does one explain the war in Iraq? By any estimation, that conflict has gone remarkably well. God certainly seems to have been on our side. Or does He really take sides?
Saddam was a victim of his own hubris. I'm not really convinced Divine Retribution had anything to do with it. Since God does encourage humility and benevolence, and Saddam was arrogant, violent and cruel one could argue that Saddam was "punished for his sins." It's more likely that Saddam was so blinded by his own sense of self importance, he grossly underestimated his enemy. Fairly simple case of cause and effect. God has provided us guidelines for living a good life. If you choose not to follow the guidelines, nature will take its course and eventually catch up with you...or not. One of the questions religious people through the ages have struggled with is why the wicked seem to prosper when the righteous often get it in the teeth. Following God's guidelines guarantees only a minimum of self inflicted pain. We have no control over the actions of others and God does not interfere with anyone's free will.
One final note: Since this comment was made in the context of a Mormon publication and since the comment was specifically aimed at the current marriage debate, I would like to point out a small sermon given in Mormon scripture by one King Benjamin, wherein he states it is not up to you to decide who is worthy of your grace and benevolence. It's Mosiah 4:17-23 in case you are not familiar with it. For those of you who have issues with Mormon scripture, try Matthew 7:1-2.
What is marriage?
A friend of mine recently began asking me several questions about my views on marriage. It should be obvious by now that I have fairly strong opinions regarding gay marriage. He found it interesting that I should have such strong opinions and yet not necessarily be interested in the "institution" for myself. The fact is my opinions about marriage are rather jumbled. That may be due, in some part, to the fact that most of the current discussion about "marriage" has really nothing to do with marriage. The rest of it is, I am sure, simply because I haven't really taken the time to sit down and organize my thoughts on marriage. So, here we go.
The best metaphor I can think of for marriage today is a beautiful Arabian mare that has been loaded down like a pack mule with baggage. Religious conservatives are always playing the Garden of Eden card when discussing marriage: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Well, God also didn't create Adam and Eve and Mary and Margaret, and yet he appears to have sanctioned plural marriage later on. Abraham had a couple wives; so did Jacob, a.k.a. Israel, the two fathers of Judaism and God's Chosen People. God also didn't create Adam and Hembadoon, which people through the ages have used to preach white supremacy and justify racial bigotry. However, apart from a small minority most other people consider whackos, no one today suggests that only caucasian men and women should be allowed to marry because that is how God "ordained" it. The reality is--personal beliefs notwithstanding--God did create Adam and Steve, he just didn't put them in the Garden together.
So already our Arabian has extra baggage that doesn't seem to be evident in Genesis. There is also constant talk of marriage being the glue that holds society together. I'm not sure how you get that out of Genesis. I'm sorry, but you can't call one man and one woman a "society." Even if we wanted to stretch the definition of society to include one man and one woman and a few kids, that is hardly how society looks today. Society has changed and evolved, grown, collapsed and rebuilt itself all independent of marriage. Society has often co opted marriage for its own ends, however. In Rome it was a privilege afforded only to citizens. Slaves were not allowed. For that matter slaves in the United States were not allowed to marry either. In the feudal era, marriage was turned into a political tool for expanding power and ratifying treaties. Some duke was a lot more secure from attacks by neighboring duke, if the duke of the first part had the daughter of the duke of the second part as a hostage...I mean, daughter-in-law. Always marriage has been used as a means of managing societal relationships and defining an order to society. Wealth and status were and are often used as a means of defining an "appropriate" marriage. Religious groups only sanction marriage within their own little society. Marriage was and is granted as a privilege of citizenship. Denial of marriage rights has been done to slaves and "inferiors" of all ages. It's being done to homosexuals now. Can you honestly tell me that is what God intended when He put Adam and Eve in the Garden together? He intended marriage to be limited to certain classes of people? Not the God I know and love.
Also absent from Genesis are priests and judges. Adam and Eve's relationship was between themselves and God. Period. The bonds that create a family exist in the love that is shared between each of the parents and between the parents and the children. That love exists without the blessing of a priest. It exists without the ratification of a judge. And neither of those two acts creates it. The love that exists between two individuals, love strong enough to weather the hardships of life and the difficulty of raising children is what sanctifies a marriage.
And yet, people talk about the sanctity of marriage as if it is the government that sanctifies a marriage. Of course no one comes out and says it that way. In fact, many a religious body would take exception to such a statement. Religions tend to reserve that privilege for themselves. In fact, if you want to get technical, most religious only tolerate marriages performed by a civil authority. Still, people continue to talk about the baggage while pointing at the horse. The conservative right has been blowing a lot of smoke to capitalize on this misdirection and to keep the definition of marriage deliberately vague.
For example, I was at lunch with a very good friend of mine. He and his boyfriend/partner/live-in-love-slave have been together over two years now. With all the hubbub in San Francisco on my mind, I asked him, "If marriage were and option, would you and Ryan get married?" He thought for a moment and said, "I think we would opt for a civil union." What he was really saying is they would be perfectly content with a civil marriage and not seek or feel the need to have their union solemnized by some religious body.
I have never heard anyone who went to a court house and was married before a judge call their relationship a civil union. They don't say, "We are unionized." They say, "We are married." Now, there are a whole host of cases where there might be parties who would disagree. A Catholic priest would say they are not married "in the eyes of God." Mormons would view the marriage as one inferior to a marriage performed in their temples. In some cases even the parents of an estranged child might refuse to acknowledge the marriage. However, despite any personal opinions to the contrary, as far as the law is concerned they are married. End of story.
Religious debate has never been a part of marriage as defined by the U.S. Government. Nor should it ever be. If people object to homosexual marriage, they are free to do so. Each religious community is free to give or withhold their blessing of a homosexual marriage. Parents and family are free to do the same. It's not really about any of them anyway. Marriage is between two individuals and God, just like it was in the Garden.
Marriage is not "an institution." It's a thing of beauty. Do I need a priest or some other ecclesiastical authority to bless the love I share with my future partner? No. Will a marriage license strengthen my commitment to him? No. Will I want to have a party and celebrate when he and I make the decision to share the rest of our lives with each other? Very likely. Will God smile upon us and celebrate with us? I believe that He will. Do I expect the government to acknowledge our commitment with the same privileges and rights it grants heterosexuals who make the same decision? Damn right I do.
It seems to me that our poor Arabian mare is holding up fairly well for all the baggage she has been laden with. In fact, if she is appearing weak and shaky, maybe we should be relieving her of some of the burden of ages past and not adding more to it. Toss the idea that marriage is a duty. Discourage marriage as a means of escape. Help people escape in other ways. Don't tell (force) people to get married to hide mistakes. And above all, end marriage's abuse as a tool for enforcing social order. Man seems to have a knack for complicating things. We should have left marriage the way God made it: pure, simple and beautiful.