From Dictionary.com's Word of the Day have come some very timely words lately. In light of the election season, they draw laughs and then resigned sadness.
One recent word was "pharasaic." It means "hypocritical; self-righteous." Ha! Another was "palter." It's meaning is "to talk insincerely or deceitfully."
On a related note, a recent newspaper article noted the reliance on "fact checkers" in various newspapers. Candidates'/parties' claims are "checked" for accuracy. One newspaper even gives "Pinocchios" for lies or at least deceit. The article, though, indicated that some of these "fact checkers" need to be "checked" themselves. In fact, it cited an instance where the "Pinocchio" newspaper deserved a "Pinocchio" itself. Now, why isn't that a surprise?
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Glee?
Now, not this movie or television show, although I haven't seen a minute of it/them--and have no plans to do so. But glee as in joy and, in some instances, even giddiness.
I was thinking of this the other day, handing back papers/essays to students. How disappointed many of them looked. And, I noted, even some with Bs and Cs looked like they weren't too happy. Hmmm..... There was a day when I almost shouted with "glee" when I received a paper back with a B or even B- on it. And, to get a B+? That was almost sheer giddiness.
How times have changed! Now, a B is a let-down for many students. Back when, my classmates practically exulted over Bs on papers; certainly we bragged about them. I suppose it's the times. Of course, it may also be the schools.
For a long time I was under the impression I had about the worst GPA among my classmates and friends at Amherst. Only much later, maybe 25 or 30 years, did I discover it wasn't. My GPA wasn't the best, but I was far from being the anchor. My B- average was about, well, average.
I remember being struck, hard, at how easy graduate school was--three different universities over the years. I'm not sure it was that easy or if it was merely comparatively so. I wondered, but appreciated it, when my advisers gave me graduate credit, up to three courses if I recall correctly, for my Amherst undergraduate courses. Hmmmm.... It save me time and, at the time, money when it was very tight for us. It all added up.
If I remember correctly, for the first two degrees, I only had to do 18 hours of credit. And the third one, I think, I did 24 hours. Each degree "required" 30 or 32 hours. Yep, that's a lot of time and money.
And, not only was the work much, much easier, but grading was much more lenient, in all but one or two cases/classes. I laugh when I think how my classmates at Amherst would react if they knew I was a Phi Beta Kappa (or whatever the equivalent is) in grad school--they don't. In fact, before this admission, I think the number of people who knew this could be counted on one hand.
Yes, I remember looking at my returned papers or even my report card at the end of a term at Amherst and thrilling at Bs and B-s. I never had an A there, at least never for a course grade. I was proud of the half dozen or so B+s I received. I still have a few of those papers. I look at them--and the B grades--and compare them to the B grades my students get...they don't match up too well.
But, as I realize, times and places change. I don't know if that's for the better or not. It just is, I guess.
An all-A average v a B- average? Nah, I wouldn't trade at all; I wouldn't even consider it. I was a very, very lucky guy.
I was thinking of this the other day, handing back papers/essays to students. How disappointed many of them looked. And, I noted, even some with Bs and Cs looked like they weren't too happy. Hmmm..... There was a day when I almost shouted with "glee" when I received a paper back with a B or even B- on it. And, to get a B+? That was almost sheer giddiness.
How times have changed! Now, a B is a let-down for many students. Back when, my classmates practically exulted over Bs on papers; certainly we bragged about them. I suppose it's the times. Of course, it may also be the schools.
For a long time I was under the impression I had about the worst GPA among my classmates and friends at Amherst. Only much later, maybe 25 or 30 years, did I discover it wasn't. My GPA wasn't the best, but I was far from being the anchor. My B- average was about, well, average.
I remember being struck, hard, at how easy graduate school was--three different universities over the years. I'm not sure it was that easy or if it was merely comparatively so. I wondered, but appreciated it, when my advisers gave me graduate credit, up to three courses if I recall correctly, for my Amherst undergraduate courses. Hmmmm.... It save me time and, at the time, money when it was very tight for us. It all added up.
If I remember correctly, for the first two degrees, I only had to do 18 hours of credit. And the third one, I think, I did 24 hours. Each degree "required" 30 or 32 hours. Yep, that's a lot of time and money.
And, not only was the work much, much easier, but grading was much more lenient, in all but one or two cases/classes. I laugh when I think how my classmates at Amherst would react if they knew I was a Phi Beta Kappa (or whatever the equivalent is) in grad school--they don't. In fact, before this admission, I think the number of people who knew this could be counted on one hand.
Yes, I remember looking at my returned papers or even my report card at the end of a term at Amherst and thrilling at Bs and B-s. I never had an A there, at least never for a course grade. I was proud of the half dozen or so B+s I received. I still have a few of those papers. I look at them--and the B grades--and compare them to the B grades my students get...they don't match up too well.
But, as I realize, times and places change. I don't know if that's for the better or not. It just is, I guess.
An all-A average v a B- average? Nah, I wouldn't trade at all; I wouldn't even consider it. I was a very, very lucky guy.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Differing
The editor of the Detroit Free Press retired last week. Ron Dzwonkowski will be missed. Oh, I often disagreed with what he wrote. But he was always reasoned in his arguments. His columns/editorials were thoughtful, insightful, and sometimes humorous. He was an editor who, even though most often held views different from mine, I looked forward to reading and who I respected. Perhaps as much, whether I wrote to him in support or in opposition, he always replied.
I didn't know Dzwonk had retired when I heard Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an interview. Just coincidentally, he talked about a similar thing--differences and disagreeing. His example was his colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He noted, as everyone must know, that he and Justice Bader Ginsburg have very different views. Yet, he said, "We are good friends." He acknowledged that they differed, often greatly. (He also made a joke, saying there was one category of cases on which they always agreed--unanimous decisions! I thought it was funny.) But, he also stressed, each recognized that the other, in his/her own way, was working to try to make things better. That, Justice Thomas clearly stated, is what it is all about--doing one's best to make things better.
Yes, we can differ. After all, this is America. I don't think it's the differences that bother me very much; it's the hypocrisy. That's a very different matter.
No matter one's political persuasion, we all can learn a few lessons from Ron Dzwonkowski and Clarence Thomas.
I didn't know Dzwonk had retired when I heard Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an interview. Just coincidentally, he talked about a similar thing--differences and disagreeing. His example was his colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He noted, as everyone must know, that he and Justice Bader Ginsburg have very different views. Yet, he said, "We are good friends." He acknowledged that they differed, often greatly. (He also made a joke, saying there was one category of cases on which they always agreed--unanimous decisions! I thought it was funny.) But, he also stressed, each recognized that the other, in his/her own way, was working to try to make things better. That, Justice Thomas clearly stated, is what it is all about--doing one's best to make things better.
Yes, we can differ. After all, this is America. I don't think it's the differences that bother me very much; it's the hypocrisy. That's a very different matter.
No matter one's political persuasion, we all can learn a few lessons from Ron Dzwonkowski and Clarence Thomas.
Hmmm......
I recall back in the '60s and '70s the righteous calls for boycotts of South Africa; the Sullivan Plan I believe the boycotts were called. Companies were coerced into selling their interests in South Africa due to the evil apartheid. Countries pressured the South African government to end this vile practice of segregation and discrimination.
I also remember than a number of US companies were criticized for having done business with Nazi Germany in the '30s, before the war. They, it was claimed, put profits ahead of principle, namely dealing with an evil regime.
I certainly agree with the sentiments and, in part, success of the above. We should walk the walk, not just talk the talk. If we believe in freedom, liberty, and independence, our actions should follow our beliefs.
So, I ask, why are we so intent on doing business with Commie China? Companies, from automobiles to electronics, are lauded for entering the Chinese markets. States, Michigan most recently, are scurrying to get their slice of the Chinese economic pie. There's an article today about how the Michigan governor is looking toward China to help Michigan's economic situation. A former state superintendent of schools, now a consultant and op-ed writer, constantly reminds us of how great the Chinese are and what opportunities we have over there.
Wait a minute? Aren't these the same Chinese who ordered that guy run over by a tank in Tianenmen Square? Aren't these the same Chinese who are all over the rights of the Nepalese and Tibetans, among others? Aren't these the same Chinese who order abortions or infanticide for more than one kid, esp if it's a girl? Aren't these the same Chinese who imprison and otherwise punish people for their ideas and words? Aren't these the same Chinese who are helping to undermine our economy with their own government practices and policies? OK, the point is clear. So, the question remains, why are we so intent on doing business with Commie China? Why are we now characterizing them, not as brutal and tyrannical ideologues, but as coveted business partners, nice guys, etc.?
Do I once again sniff the stench of hypocrisy?
While I'm at it.... I noted a number of letters in today's newspaper regarding Mitt Romney's "47%" comments. I note that many of those critical of Romney, often calling him names ("lap dog," "pampered," "spoon-fed," "silver spoon," "lord," etc.) live in places like West Bloomfield, Lake Orion, Rochester, Farmington Hills, and Grosse Pointe. Hmmm...... Is this another case of talking the talk, but not walking the walk? They criticize Romney and his wealth and position, but never take account of their own standing. Living in places like they do strongly suggests these folks have money, a lot of it. How about this? Instead of being so vocally critical, why don't they lead by example (sort of like Zachary Taylor, the southern President who was in the process of freeing his slaves when he died unexpectedly in 1850, you know, to lead by example)? How easy it would be for these critics to do. First, they could move from their rather exclusive suburbs (my father and mother could never afford to live in places like those), live in Pontiac, Detroit, or even a suburb like Dearborn or Trenton? Then they could donate, either directly to charities or voluntary extra taxes, the difference in their monthly mortgage payments. That would come to a tidy sum to help, as so many of the letters suggest, "those people in need." And, to further help "those people in need," perhaps these suburbanites could forgo their SUVs, their big screen plasma TVs, their trips to Disney World, not to mention their vacation homes Up North and whatever they also spend on themselves. After all, who are the ones talking about "greed?" Isn't it "greedy" to spend all this on themselves when they could be donating it? (In full disclosure, as those who know me well know, I walk the walk with donations and giving, believe me. But I still resent paying taxes.)
Today's word of the day from Dictionary.com is "pharisaic." It's meaning is generally "hypocritical." Ah, how fitting....
I also remember than a number of US companies were criticized for having done business with Nazi Germany in the '30s, before the war. They, it was claimed, put profits ahead of principle, namely dealing with an evil regime.
I certainly agree with the sentiments and, in part, success of the above. We should walk the walk, not just talk the talk. If we believe in freedom, liberty, and independence, our actions should follow our beliefs.
So, I ask, why are we so intent on doing business with Commie China? Companies, from automobiles to electronics, are lauded for entering the Chinese markets. States, Michigan most recently, are scurrying to get their slice of the Chinese economic pie. There's an article today about how the Michigan governor is looking toward China to help Michigan's economic situation. A former state superintendent of schools, now a consultant and op-ed writer, constantly reminds us of how great the Chinese are and what opportunities we have over there.
Wait a minute? Aren't these the same Chinese who ordered that guy run over by a tank in Tianenmen Square? Aren't these the same Chinese who are all over the rights of the Nepalese and Tibetans, among others? Aren't these the same Chinese who order abortions or infanticide for more than one kid, esp if it's a girl? Aren't these the same Chinese who imprison and otherwise punish people for their ideas and words? Aren't these the same Chinese who are helping to undermine our economy with their own government practices and policies? OK, the point is clear. So, the question remains, why are we so intent on doing business with Commie China? Why are we now characterizing them, not as brutal and tyrannical ideologues, but as coveted business partners, nice guys, etc.?
Do I once again sniff the stench of hypocrisy?
While I'm at it.... I noted a number of letters in today's newspaper regarding Mitt Romney's "47%" comments. I note that many of those critical of Romney, often calling him names ("lap dog," "pampered," "spoon-fed," "silver spoon," "lord," etc.) live in places like West Bloomfield, Lake Orion, Rochester, Farmington Hills, and Grosse Pointe. Hmmm...... Is this another case of talking the talk, but not walking the walk? They criticize Romney and his wealth and position, but never take account of their own standing. Living in places like they do strongly suggests these folks have money, a lot of it. How about this? Instead of being so vocally critical, why don't they lead by example (sort of like Zachary Taylor, the southern President who was in the process of freeing his slaves when he died unexpectedly in 1850, you know, to lead by example)? How easy it would be for these critics to do. First, they could move from their rather exclusive suburbs (my father and mother could never afford to live in places like those), live in Pontiac, Detroit, or even a suburb like Dearborn or Trenton? Then they could donate, either directly to charities or voluntary extra taxes, the difference in their monthly mortgage payments. That would come to a tidy sum to help, as so many of the letters suggest, "those people in need." And, to further help "those people in need," perhaps these suburbanites could forgo their SUVs, their big screen plasma TVs, their trips to Disney World, not to mention their vacation homes Up North and whatever they also spend on themselves. After all, who are the ones talking about "greed?" Isn't it "greedy" to spend all this on themselves when they could be donating it? (In full disclosure, as those who know me well know, I walk the walk with donations and giving, believe me. But I still resent paying taxes.)
Today's word of the day from Dictionary.com is "pharisaic." It's meaning is generally "hypocritical." Ah, how fitting....
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Headlines!
Maybe it's a sign of the times; maybe it's a sign that the Apocalypse is nearing. This AM's headline, main headline, didn't have to do with the election, didn't have to do with the spate of murders in Detroit, didn't even have to do with the Tigers or Lions. Nope, it had to do with none of them. It was something about the issue of a new I-Pod/I-Pad or whatever it is called...the main headline. OK, I guess I am something of a 20th and 21st Century Luddite, but that seems a bit much to me, yet another paean to the god of Technology.
I was listening to Clarence Thomas today and he mentioned the Articles of Confederation and its difficulties. He said, "The congress wasn't working." There were some quick titters in the audience before everyone caught on and burst into laughter. Justice Thomas merely smiled and said, "That was inadvertent." I found something he said to be quite worth consideration. We should keep Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, etc. "close at hand to remind us of our obligations" to freedom and democracy. Yes, we should. I know people are critical of Justice Thomas, notably his supposed lack of intelligence. Bologna/Baloney!!!!!! He is one of us, down-to-earth and common sensical. He sounded very intelligent to me all evening, discussing a variety of topics related to the Constitution--its writing, its meaning, its authors, its time, etc.
I also watched Julie (Nixon) and David Eisenhower this evening. They were discussing their recent book on his grandfather and another author's new biog on Eisenhower. It was nice to see them. They both look pretty good. He sounded quite knowledgeable and I picked up a few things about, if not Ike, then about Harry Truman. I self-congratulated myself, without breaking my arm, when I heard some Yale history professor explain the relationship between the Gettysburg Address and Declaration of Independence in terms that I use in class--the exact same ones. Hmmm.... I think I am older than that guy, at least I think I look it, so I will still claim I "invented" that explanation.
How cool! I just noticed I haven't yet done the Saturday Stumper, the Sat crossword that is much more difficult than the Sun NY Times crossword--as is the Sat NY Times crossoword. Out to give that one a shot....
I was listening to Clarence Thomas today and he mentioned the Articles of Confederation and its difficulties. He said, "The congress wasn't working." There were some quick titters in the audience before everyone caught on and burst into laughter. Justice Thomas merely smiled and said, "That was inadvertent." I found something he said to be quite worth consideration. We should keep Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, etc. "close at hand to remind us of our obligations" to freedom and democracy. Yes, we should. I know people are critical of Justice Thomas, notably his supposed lack of intelligence. Bologna/Baloney!!!!!! He is one of us, down-to-earth and common sensical. He sounded very intelligent to me all evening, discussing a variety of topics related to the Constitution--its writing, its meaning, its authors, its time, etc.
I also watched Julie (Nixon) and David Eisenhower this evening. They were discussing their recent book on his grandfather and another author's new biog on Eisenhower. It was nice to see them. They both look pretty good. He sounded quite knowledgeable and I picked up a few things about, if not Ike, then about Harry Truman. I self-congratulated myself, without breaking my arm, when I heard some Yale history professor explain the relationship between the Gettysburg Address and Declaration of Independence in terms that I use in class--the exact same ones. Hmmm.... I think I am older than that guy, at least I think I look it, so I will still claim I "invented" that explanation.
How cool! I just noticed I haven't yet done the Saturday Stumper, the Sat crossword that is much more difficult than the Sun NY Times crossword--as is the Sat NY Times crossoword. Out to give that one a shot....
Motown, Redux
A couple of weeks ago I noted my admiration, to this day, of the music that came out of Motown. I was reminded of that several times this week.
Listening to, esp the Smokey, I again realized how great the Motown Sound was. (Of course, there were several labels, Motown, Gordy, Tamla--whose name somewhat oddly came from Debbie Reynolds singing "Tammy's in Love" from that movie--and others, such as Chess.) The Motown Sound included great voices--Smokey, Levi, Diana, Marvin, several of the Temptations, Martha of the Umbrellas, and more. But the music can stand on its own. It's not just the singer or singers who make the music so great, but the band(s), too. In the '60s, Choker Campbell and Earl Van Dyke, whose bands played the music for Motown in the studio and at concerts, released instrumental versions of Motowns hits. They, without the words, were well worth listening to, as I did for hours and hours.
I think most, likely most of most, of the singers of "rock and roll" can't carry a tune and that it's the bands (well, some of them) that make the sound. I can't imagine where Springsteen would have been without the E Street Band or Madonna without whoever was playing for her. But my guess is not at the top of the charts.
One of my college classmates noted taking a date to a Wilson Pickett concert in Hartford, CT. He noted something about being "the only whites in the crowd," but never felt threatened. Of course not. It reminded me of the Motortown (the original name, not Motown at first) Revues. Taking dates there, we, too, were "the only whites" at the Fox Theater, next to Louis the Hatter (on 1440 WCHB, "Soul Radio," were the Hatter's commercials, "Does Louis the Hatter have hats??????") an we never felt threated. There were shows in the late AM, mid-afternoon, and evening--and we often attended multiple shows in a day.
It never fails. No matter when or where I listen to my Motown music, I start to feel a whole lot better and happier.
Listening to, esp the Smokey, I again realized how great the Motown Sound was. (Of course, there were several labels, Motown, Gordy, Tamla--whose name somewhat oddly came from Debbie Reynolds singing "Tammy's in Love" from that movie--and others, such as Chess.) The Motown Sound included great voices--Smokey, Levi, Diana, Marvin, several of the Temptations, Martha of the Umbrellas, and more. But the music can stand on its own. It's not just the singer or singers who make the music so great, but the band(s), too. In the '60s, Choker Campbell and Earl Van Dyke, whose bands played the music for Motown in the studio and at concerts, released instrumental versions of Motowns hits. They, without the words, were well worth listening to, as I did for hours and hours.
I think most, likely most of most, of the singers of "rock and roll" can't carry a tune and that it's the bands (well, some of them) that make the sound. I can't imagine where Springsteen would have been without the E Street Band or Madonna without whoever was playing for her. But my guess is not at the top of the charts.
One of my college classmates noted taking a date to a Wilson Pickett concert in Hartford, CT. He noted something about being "the only whites in the crowd," but never felt threatened. Of course not. It reminded me of the Motortown (the original name, not Motown at first) Revues. Taking dates there, we, too, were "the only whites" at the Fox Theater, next to Louis the Hatter (on 1440 WCHB, "Soul Radio," were the Hatter's commercials, "Does Louis the Hatter have hats??????") an we never felt threated. There were shows in the late AM, mid-afternoon, and evening--and we often attended multiple shows in a day.
It never fails. No matter when or where I listen to my Motown music, I start to feel a whole lot better and happier.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Why is Islam so easily offended?
Here are a couple of good articles that we should consider in light of the most recent Muslim outrages over supposed slurs of their prophet/messenger.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-arab-world-why-a-movie-trailer-can-lead-to-violencewhy-cant-the-arab-world-accept-offenses-without-violence/2012/09/14/d2b65d2e-fdc8-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=174022
Of course, the apparently wrong-headed You Tube video didn't cause the riots that led to destruction and deaths. It was merely an excuse, like the cartoons of Muhammad, "Tickle Me Muhammad," etc. were excuses. (That the Administration and State Dept were slow to recognize or at least admit that is disturbing and should be a reason for concern.) But, why is Islam so easily offended?
More to the point, why is Islam so offended that murdering people is considered the lesser evil when compared with insulting the prophet/messenger? I wonder, if Muhammad was such a saintly person, to be revered (although not as a god, as Allah), what he would think of another human being killed merely because Muhammad had been slurred. Is an insult count more than a human life? If so, then what kind of religion is that?
Of course, we know the Islamists merely use these things to precipitate violence, actions against the US and West. Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a fascist. He didn't advocate using the state to "dominate," as he thought Islam should. Rather, it was religion, Islam, that was to be used to extend power and impose laws on the rest of the world.
I know history isn't important, but here are some other things to consider. Muhammad did marry an older widow, one with a lot of money. He apparently never held a job. I don't know what that says, but he ran afoul of many of the citizens of Mecca. So much so, he was forced to flee to Medina (Yathrib), the Hijira The explanation of Islam is that the rich people drove him out because he was exposing their greedy, corrupt ways. Hmmmm....
Islam also spread very quickly and very wide. The Islamic Empire, although it had several "houses" such as the Umayyads and Abbasids, was bigger than that of Rome, extending from India to Spain. It lasted for four or five centuries and, in some areas, a thousand years. It did this--spread and lasted--through military power, conquest and control. It was not very tolerant of differences.
Which leads to my last point, one I've made before. Islam has not accepted the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. Of course, why should it have, seeing it was a European movement and the Europeans were the onces who began the Crusades? Still, by the 20th and 21st centuries? Principles such as those propagated by Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others never gained footholds. Granted, many of those ideals were slow to spread in the West (note "all men are created equal" took decades and more to apply to blacks, women, Indians--and too often not to gays). But we've, if too slowly, worked at expanding them. We, mostly, tolerate differences. (I am concerned that we have begun taking backward steps in this regard.) But we believe in free speech. Voltaire infamously said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to my death your right to say it." The key to this, as I point to my students, are the pronouns. Muslims, at least the Islamists and those who do their dirty work at the slightest beck and call, don't embrace this idea, not in the least. It's OK to murder people, to take human lives, but it's not OK to draw funny pictures of their prophet/messenger. (Yes, I am aware that Christianity was--and in many ways still is--intolerant in much of its history.)
Anyway, the articles are worth reading and pondering. Do they offer any kind of hope? I don't know, but they can help us to understand a bit better....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-arab-world-why-a-movie-trailer-can-lead-to-violencewhy-cant-the-arab-world-accept-offenses-without-violence/2012/09/14/d2b65d2e-fdc8-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=174022
Of course, the apparently wrong-headed You Tube video didn't cause the riots that led to destruction and deaths. It was merely an excuse, like the cartoons of Muhammad, "Tickle Me Muhammad," etc. were excuses. (That the Administration and State Dept were slow to recognize or at least admit that is disturbing and should be a reason for concern.) But, why is Islam so easily offended?
More to the point, why is Islam so offended that murdering people is considered the lesser evil when compared with insulting the prophet/messenger? I wonder, if Muhammad was such a saintly person, to be revered (although not as a god, as Allah), what he would think of another human being killed merely because Muhammad had been slurred. Is an insult count more than a human life? If so, then what kind of religion is that?
Of course, we know the Islamists merely use these things to precipitate violence, actions against the US and West. Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a fascist. He didn't advocate using the state to "dominate," as he thought Islam should. Rather, it was religion, Islam, that was to be used to extend power and impose laws on the rest of the world.
I know history isn't important, but here are some other things to consider. Muhammad did marry an older widow, one with a lot of money. He apparently never held a job. I don't know what that says, but he ran afoul of many of the citizens of Mecca. So much so, he was forced to flee to Medina (Yathrib), the Hijira The explanation of Islam is that the rich people drove him out because he was exposing their greedy, corrupt ways. Hmmmm....
Islam also spread very quickly and very wide. The Islamic Empire, although it had several "houses" such as the Umayyads and Abbasids, was bigger than that of Rome, extending from India to Spain. It lasted for four or five centuries and, in some areas, a thousand years. It did this--spread and lasted--through military power, conquest and control. It was not very tolerant of differences.
Which leads to my last point, one I've made before. Islam has not accepted the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. Of course, why should it have, seeing it was a European movement and the Europeans were the onces who began the Crusades? Still, by the 20th and 21st centuries? Principles such as those propagated by Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others never gained footholds. Granted, many of those ideals were slow to spread in the West (note "all men are created equal" took decades and more to apply to blacks, women, Indians--and too often not to gays). But we've, if too slowly, worked at expanding them. We, mostly, tolerate differences. (I am concerned that we have begun taking backward steps in this regard.) But we believe in free speech. Voltaire infamously said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to my death your right to say it." The key to this, as I point to my students, are the pronouns. Muslims, at least the Islamists and those who do their dirty work at the slightest beck and call, don't embrace this idea, not in the least. It's OK to murder people, to take human lives, but it's not OK to draw funny pictures of their prophet/messenger. (Yes, I am aware that Christianity was--and in many ways still is--intolerant in much of its history.)
Anyway, the articles are worth reading and pondering. Do they offer any kind of hope? I don't know, but they can help us to understand a bit better....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
