When the President addressed the nation after the 9/11 attacks, he told us that we were attacked because the terrorists hated our freedom. With the same self-awareness seen in Bush's address to our nation during that fateful time, Trump won the election because he promised to make America great again. With that promise, Trump had noted that our policies and trade agreements were poorly constructed so that all others were winning except for us. Thus, he would bring in the 'best people' who would cut the right deals so that the only richest nation in the world that is a loser could win again.
It should be more than apparent that America's self-awareness has not grown between the presidency of George W. Bush and the election of Donald Trump. It should also be obvious here that many Americans, at least conservative ones, still fail to see America's actual place in the world. They only see an idealized version of what they think America is and is seen as. But they don't have clue as to how America really comes across to many people.
We should note that self-awareness to Christians is a painful process. Why? It is because the Scriptures teach us about our sinfulness. We have all committed many sins against both God and each other. And once we start to realize--we never become fully aware of--our sinfulness, we feel shame and other sorts of pain. Perhaps self-awareness for others is not as harsh as it should be for Christians. But if that self-awareness does not bear an adequate resemblance to the reality, it really isn't self-awareness at all.
Though we would like to see our nation as the last, best hope for man, in reality, we are seen by many nations as the greatest threat to peace in the world--that was according to a poll taken in 2013. It should be noted that besides North America, America was seen as the greatest threat to peace in all other continents when counting by nations. And lest we too easily dismiss that poll, we should study the long list of American interventions since WW II and note how many of those interventions supplanted democratic processes in favor of dictatorships and tyrannical rulers. We even supported brutal tyrants like Saddam Hussein and terrorists like Osama Bin Laden because, at the time of that support, these people were in line with either American strategic or its business interests. We've overthrown governments, invaded countries, and continue to drain resources from other nations in order to maintain our living standard. To use terminology from the Hunger Games movie series, to a certain extent the Capitol resides in America while its districts are outside serving our whims with their resources. And in order to maintain that order, the US employs a series of proxy rulers and retains a large number of military bases throughout the world.
If we want to learn more about how the world views us, then we need to go to outside sources and read the views of our critics to see what is credible and what isn't. Until then, our self-image as a nation will consist of nothing more than delusions of grandeur.
Yes, self-awareness is painful. Why? Because we are all sinners and self-awareness rubs our face in our sins, becoming self-aware is not an attractive proposal. But the advantage of developing self-awareness is that we get a better idea of not only how we come across, but how we can improve. To lack self-awareness is to make conditions more favorable to becoming like a bull in a china shop. And for the most powerful nation in the world to continue to lack self-awareness endangers the world. Certainly electing Donald Trump was not the best step to take to develop self-awareness. And considering how he, the soon to become the most powerful man in the world, seems to lack self-awareness, perhaps the only way for the nation to limit his use of power is for us to develop a national self-awareness and act accordingly.
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Resolving Conflicts Using The Hardest Way Possible
I ran into a part of an article that claimed that the LGBT movement was not only forcing men into the locker rooms of women and children, they were trying to silence speech that would oppose such efforts (click here for the article).
Of course, when one reads the whole article, one sees a bit of overstatement and a bit of filtering in the reporting of the facts. Because the whole bathroom debacle had to do with transgendered people only, not all men, as the article sometimes seemed to suggest.
The article also overstated what happens when one refuses to use one's 'artistic talents' to celebrate a same-sex wedding. The overstatement was found in the omission of the word business. If one's business refuses to provide goods and services to a same-sex wedding, then one could find oneself with legal problems that could threaten one's business. But what is left out is the mention that for a business to refuse to provide goods and services to a group in a capitalist economy, even if it was for religious reasons, it contributes to the marginalization of that group in society as we saw during Jim Crow.
Does that mean that the LGBT movment is without fault in all of the demands they are making? No. But what we see is the use of the victim card being played by those opposing the LGBT movement's efforts to secure equality in society for its members. And what isn't mentioned is the history of marginalization and even persecution that those in the LGBT movement have had to endure for centuries in this country back when Christianity had a predominant place in society. What isn't mentioned is how those in the LGBT community have been victims of those who were privileged. What is ignored is what preceded these challenges meant to expand the rights of those in the LGBT community.
Such a reaction to challenges reminds one of George W. Bush's first post 9-11 speech where he blamed the 9-11 atrocities on the hatred our enemies have for freedom. His exact words were (click here for a source):
What he didn't mention was how George Bush's American had, for decades, been overthrowing democracies and other governments as well as been using tyrants to rule over nations in the Middle East. During the golden days of Ronald Reagan, we supported Saddam Hussein as well as Osama Bin Laden despite the fact that we knew how they operated. But we also supported Mubarak of Egypt and the Saudi Royal family as they ruled as dictators over their respective nations. And we supported terrorism outside of the Middle East such as in Central America in the name of anti-Communism while saying nothing about the dictators who preceded them and whom we supported.
What we saw in the 9/11 attacks and what we see in the LGBT movement's efforts to gain equality are attempts to dislodge those who are privileged from their current state. With the 9/11 attacks, the attempts to dislodge those who are privileged resulted in horrendous atrocities that continue to this day by both Islamic terrorists and Western, especially American, foreign policies in the Middle East. With the attempts to secure equality made by the LGBT movement, we see a mixture of good and bad decisions and rules for society with the bad decisions often being based on all-or-nothing thinking.
And what we also see in both conflicts is how those who are privileged respond to challenges. Because of their feeling of entitlement to rule over others, those who are privileged can never see their part in tbeir struggles with the possible exception that weakness caused them to allow challenges to exist. To them, the beginning of the conflict always starts with their suffering. Entitlement blinds them from seeing what started those challenges. In addition, entitlement blinds them from seeing their own sins in how they respond to challenges today. On a side note, we should note that we have at least one presidential candidate whose dismissive antics toward others clearly demonstrates that both he believes he is entitled to rule over others and is blind to his own faults.
When those who challenge the privileged sin, we are often presented with a false dichotomy of either supporting the status quo or the sins, and even atrocities, used by those looking to change things. One only needs to look at the conflict between Israel and Palestine to see this dynamic. And whom we will side with often depends on whether we are living on whose coattails we are riding on. But such a choice never results in a just and righteous end of a conflict. So unless we employ justice and mercy to both change the status quo and confront and stop the overreactoins or immoral actions of those challenging the privileged, we end up doing nothing more than to prolong the conflict as well as ensure unnecessary suffering once the conflict temporarily subsides.
This is why we can fully side with neither side mentioned in the first article cited from the Federalist website. And this is why we cannot side with either side in the War on Terror. What we can do is to try our best to synthesize the righteous concerns of each side involved in the respective conflicts. And that means that we must confront who would treat others with injustice. For unless we escape our false dichotomies, again, we will only be working to prolong conflicts and cause unnecessary suffering.
Of course, when one reads the whole article, one sees a bit of overstatement and a bit of filtering in the reporting of the facts. Because the whole bathroom debacle had to do with transgendered people only, not all men, as the article sometimes seemed to suggest.
The article also overstated what happens when one refuses to use one's 'artistic talents' to celebrate a same-sex wedding. The overstatement was found in the omission of the word business. If one's business refuses to provide goods and services to a same-sex wedding, then one could find oneself with legal problems that could threaten one's business. But what is left out is the mention that for a business to refuse to provide goods and services to a group in a capitalist economy, even if it was for religious reasons, it contributes to the marginalization of that group in society as we saw during Jim Crow.
Does that mean that the LGBT movment is without fault in all of the demands they are making? No. But what we see is the use of the victim card being played by those opposing the LGBT movement's efforts to secure equality in society for its members. And what isn't mentioned is the history of marginalization and even persecution that those in the LGBT movement have had to endure for centuries in this country back when Christianity had a predominant place in society. What isn't mentioned is how those in the LGBT community have been victims of those who were privileged. What is ignored is what preceded these challenges meant to expand the rights of those in the LGBT community.
Such a reaction to challenges reminds one of George W. Bush's first post 9-11 speech where he blamed the 9-11 atrocities on the hatred our enemies have for freedom. His exact words were (click here for a source):
America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.
What he didn't mention was how George Bush's American had, for decades, been overthrowing democracies and other governments as well as been using tyrants to rule over nations in the Middle East. During the golden days of Ronald Reagan, we supported Saddam Hussein as well as Osama Bin Laden despite the fact that we knew how they operated. But we also supported Mubarak of Egypt and the Saudi Royal family as they ruled as dictators over their respective nations. And we supported terrorism outside of the Middle East such as in Central America in the name of anti-Communism while saying nothing about the dictators who preceded them and whom we supported.
What we saw in the 9/11 attacks and what we see in the LGBT movement's efforts to gain equality are attempts to dislodge those who are privileged from their current state. With the 9/11 attacks, the attempts to dislodge those who are privileged resulted in horrendous atrocities that continue to this day by both Islamic terrorists and Western, especially American, foreign policies in the Middle East. With the attempts to secure equality made by the LGBT movement, we see a mixture of good and bad decisions and rules for society with the bad decisions often being based on all-or-nothing thinking.
And what we also see in both conflicts is how those who are privileged respond to challenges. Because of their feeling of entitlement to rule over others, those who are privileged can never see their part in tbeir struggles with the possible exception that weakness caused them to allow challenges to exist. To them, the beginning of the conflict always starts with their suffering. Entitlement blinds them from seeing what started those challenges. In addition, entitlement blinds them from seeing their own sins in how they respond to challenges today. On a side note, we should note that we have at least one presidential candidate whose dismissive antics toward others clearly demonstrates that both he believes he is entitled to rule over others and is blind to his own faults.
When those who challenge the privileged sin, we are often presented with a false dichotomy of either supporting the status quo or the sins, and even atrocities, used by those looking to change things. One only needs to look at the conflict between Israel and Palestine to see this dynamic. And whom we will side with often depends on whether we are living on whose coattails we are riding on. But such a choice never results in a just and righteous end of a conflict. So unless we employ justice and mercy to both change the status quo and confront and stop the overreactoins or immoral actions of those challenging the privileged, we end up doing nothing more than to prolong the conflict as well as ensure unnecessary suffering once the conflict temporarily subsides.
This is why we can fully side with neither side mentioned in the first article cited from the Federalist website. And this is why we cannot side with either side in the War on Terror. What we can do is to try our best to synthesize the righteous concerns of each side involved in the respective conflicts. And that means that we must confront who would treat others with injustice. For unless we escape our false dichotomies, again, we will only be working to prolong conflicts and cause unnecessary suffering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)