Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the controversial issue of protests at military funerals. To set the scene: The father of a serviceman KIA is has sued the pastor of a fundamentalist Christian church in Kansas for intentional infliction of emotional distress (that you may remember from Hustler v. Falwell and the movie "The People vs. Larry Flynt") for protesting his son's funeral by holding up signs reading awful and offensive messages, such as, "God hates fags." The pastor and his cronies feel that God is punishing the States for their sins, including and predominantly homosexuality.
The thing is, the pastor and his "church" did everything by the book, legally speaking. They followed all the rules pertaining to rallies or protests, they stayed within their physical boundaries, stayed the appropriate distance away from the funeral procession, and left when they were supposed to. Legally speaking, the "church" did nothing wrong.
There are some facets of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as the famous example of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, as that poses an immediate threat, or a clear and present danger of being trampled to death. Similarly, threats and "fighting words" are not protected. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is also not covered under this amendment. Falwell lost the case because, although his emotions were clearly intentionally inflicted with distress, he was a public figure, and public figures should stand immune to that type of speak. The father of the soldier, however, is a private figure, and is not considered to be immune to intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus if follows (to me) that it makes sense to find the pastor guilty of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. BUT there is another side.
The pastor and his church were not targeting the father of the soldier as an individual. Rather, they were just using his son's funeral as a screen on which to project their bigoted and unrepresentative agenda. I personally see that as a pretty convincing argument, because intentional infliction of emotional distress does tacitly require the offensive material to be targeting the prosecution. This targeted a nation in general, not just the father. So this boils the case down to a tiny minority expressing offensive and unpopular views within the confines of the law at a funeral. It still sounds pretty sick, but to me, it is an example of the speech that the First Amendment was written to protect.
Let me clarify, I am 100% against the pastor and his church's actions. I think that they are wrong and disgusting, and do not condone the participants or their message in any way.
Still - let's flip this around. Let's say that the event that the slim minority was protesting was a big hate rally against homosexuals, just because they're different. And let's imagine that this is the popular view. Would any of use try to silence a small portion of the populous that comes out to protest against this make-believe event? Probably not, because they have the right to express their opinions. No one would be especially happy about it, but that is the kind of speech that is protected by the Constitution. Speech that doesn't infringe on anyone's immediate rights, speech that does not present a clear and present danger, and speech that is expressed within the appropriate legal confines.
So here is my point - as much as I hate to sound like the ACLU and their outspoken legal sector, I do believe that however sick the message the pastor is sending and however inappropriate the times and places he chooses to send that message, he has the right to do it. The problem here is not with the freedom of speech he is exercising. The problem is with the speaker. This speaks more to the fallen nature of humanity and the inability to discipline one's own right to free speech more than a First Amendment gone crazy. This is not a bug in the amendment, this is complete user error.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Regarding the proposed Qur'an burning
I was reminded of a news story on the radio today that on September 11th, a (apparently) self-proclaimed 'church' is going to have a Qur'an burning. I don't know if they are doing this to mourn the victims of the attacks (seems like a strange way of doing so), to protest radical Islam (and all of the Islamic world, for that matter), to disrespect a sworn nemesis (in a rather child-like manner) or to prove a point - but the point they are proving is my own - that an aggressive wave of xenophobic ignorance is sweeping our nation. Although it may not be to the extent of the rogue church in Florida, it's still there (see previous posts...)
It seems that if there was going to be another angel in Revelation, representing different churches, it may as well be this one. First of all, I will flat out deny that this church is authentically Christian. No way. Not if it is going against the most basic tenet of the Christian faith, that of "Love your neighbor as yourself." Second, if this church could have a warning straight from the mouth of God, I wonder what it would sound like...perhaps, "What in My Name are you doing? Don't you know how hypocritical and ignorant you look, not to mention endangering the precious lives of troops in Afghanistan?"
Regardless, as a Christian, I am shocked and infuriated by this church's ignorant, ungodly, and frankly (and hopefully) unrepresentative-of-the-rest-of-the-church behavior. Under no circumstances should any Christian church desecrate the holy book of another religion, en masse (as is the case) or individually, to prove a point of resentment.
I heard more about this church on the radio this morning. The pastor's name is Terry Jones, and his church is called something about a Dove and World Outreach. It does NOT get any more ironic than that, considering a dove represents peace and what they are doing is the opposite of peace, and there is no way this book burning is going to reach anyone in the world (positively, that is). Anyway, there are about 50 members of the congregation, and as Steve Inskeep on NPR put it this morning, it seems to be the congregation against the rest of the world.
It's not just me that is outraged at this planned event. First of all, Muslims probably are. I haven't heard anything for sure, but if people get pissed about a cartoon of the prophet Muhammed, they would be livid to know about a Qur'an burning. Secondly, world leaders, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (scary!) are trying to persuade "Reverend" Jones not to do this. Thirdly, top commander of troops in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, is warning that this event may incite a violent backlash against the American troops overseas. (There is a very interesting line drawn here between free speech and national security then, because it does pose a "clear and present danger" and is therefore not protected under the First Amendment.) It really is this congregation against the rest of the world. Especially me.
Finally, the "reverend" is quoted in saying that he felt called to do this. Called by who?! This is a blatant case of a) pure insanity or b) palpable interference from the devil. This should be a warning to other Christians - look out! There will be false prophets, and not everything you hear in any church is Scripture-based, Christ-like in nature, or just plain cogent. Here is where an old Calvin aphorism seems appropriate - discern. Discern the message of this guy Jones, and discern what message it is sending. Is it really something Christ would smile on? No. Make disciples of all nations, that is something we are all called to do. Love our neighbors as ourselves, another encouragement from Christ. And even as we remember the horrible and resentful events of September 11th this weekend, we should also remember to pray for those who persecute us. And for that matter, we should pray that we stop persecuting whoever we already are.
It seems that if there was going to be another angel in Revelation, representing different churches, it may as well be this one. First of all, I will flat out deny that this church is authentically Christian. No way. Not if it is going against the most basic tenet of the Christian faith, that of "Love your neighbor as yourself." Second, if this church could have a warning straight from the mouth of God, I wonder what it would sound like...perhaps, "What in My Name are you doing? Don't you know how hypocritical and ignorant you look, not to mention endangering the precious lives of troops in Afghanistan?"
Regardless, as a Christian, I am shocked and infuriated by this church's ignorant, ungodly, and frankly (and hopefully) unrepresentative-of-the-rest-of-the-church behavior. Under no circumstances should any Christian church desecrate the holy book of another religion, en masse (as is the case) or individually, to prove a point of resentment.
I heard more about this church on the radio this morning. The pastor's name is Terry Jones, and his church is called something about a Dove and World Outreach. It does NOT get any more ironic than that, considering a dove represents peace and what they are doing is the opposite of peace, and there is no way this book burning is going to reach anyone in the world (positively, that is). Anyway, there are about 50 members of the congregation, and as Steve Inskeep on NPR put it this morning, it seems to be the congregation against the rest of the world.
It's not just me that is outraged at this planned event. First of all, Muslims probably are. I haven't heard anything for sure, but if people get pissed about a cartoon of the prophet Muhammed, they would be livid to know about a Qur'an burning. Secondly, world leaders, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (scary!) are trying to persuade "Reverend" Jones not to do this. Thirdly, top commander of troops in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, is warning that this event may incite a violent backlash against the American troops overseas. (There is a very interesting line drawn here between free speech and national security then, because it does pose a "clear and present danger" and is therefore not protected under the First Amendment.) It really is this congregation against the rest of the world. Especially me.
Finally, the "reverend" is quoted in saying that he felt called to do this. Called by who?! This is a blatant case of a) pure insanity or b) palpable interference from the devil. This should be a warning to other Christians - look out! There will be false prophets, and not everything you hear in any church is Scripture-based, Christ-like in nature, or just plain cogent. Here is where an old Calvin aphorism seems appropriate - discern. Discern the message of this guy Jones, and discern what message it is sending. Is it really something Christ would smile on? No. Make disciples of all nations, that is something we are all called to do. Love our neighbors as ourselves, another encouragement from Christ. And even as we remember the horrible and resentful events of September 11th this weekend, we should also remember to pray for those who persecute us. And for that matter, we should pray that we stop persecuting whoever we already are.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
France's Immigration Law
This will be the second time I've come to criticize the French on a social issue, but it fits well within the trend of issues that have been grabbing my attention in the news lately. To sum up the order in one sentence: President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered all of the Roma population in France to leave, and if they don't, they will be deported.
To be fair, France did not pull this order out of the blue. There have been incidents that have incited public discourse against the Roma (Gypsie) population, including violence against police and others. But France sees only one solution to this problem, and that is to deport them? Apparently, and tragically so.
According to official figures cited on the BBC website, there were over 11,000 deportations last year, and almost 1000 last month alone. Unreal! What if that happened in the United States? Just like across France today, there would be furious protests everywhere. The thing is though - just like the aggressive xenophobic policies that have been proposed in the United States, it appears to have overwhelming public support. Apparently, over half of the French population is in concurrence with this law. Remember, this is the same population that outlawed a basic Islamic practice in wearing the hijab. But at least that has some contextual background in the laicety tradition - the deportation of an entire race of people is straight up xenophobic intolerance.
According to the official definition, the deportation of an entire race of people can sometimes constituted genocide, but I won't go there.
I guess all I can hope for is that the protests are representative of public sentiment, and the French people learn how to get along and finally realize that sometimes they can take their revolutionary ideal of equality a little too far...or not far enough.
To be fair, France did not pull this order out of the blue. There have been incidents that have incited public discourse against the Roma (Gypsie) population, including violence against police and others. But France sees only one solution to this problem, and that is to deport them? Apparently, and tragically so.
According to official figures cited on the BBC website, there were over 11,000 deportations last year, and almost 1000 last month alone. Unreal! What if that happened in the United States? Just like across France today, there would be furious protests everywhere. The thing is though - just like the aggressive xenophobic policies that have been proposed in the United States, it appears to have overwhelming public support. Apparently, over half of the French population is in concurrence with this law. Remember, this is the same population that outlawed a basic Islamic practice in wearing the hijab. But at least that has some contextual background in the laicety tradition - the deportation of an entire race of people is straight up xenophobic intolerance.
According to the official definition, the deportation of an entire race of people can sometimes constituted genocide, but I won't go there.
I guess all I can hope for is that the protests are representative of public sentiment, and the French people learn how to get along and finally realize that sometimes they can take their revolutionary ideal of equality a little too far...or not far enough.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Mosque-zilla
A new monster is hitting New York City, only this one doesn't climb the Empire State Building. This monster is a part of the American sentiment that wants to deny religious freedom to those that are different from "us".
Everybody knows about September 11th and how it has effectively shaped modern history into "Pre 9/11" and "Post 9/11" eras. The political and military ripple it started has consumed headlines for the better part of a decade. And most important, the emotional and cultural effects that remain because of it are the most obvious we've seen in a while. Take for example: The color printouts of the American flag in newspapers across the nation, and the subsequent hanging of such flags in windows everywhere, the "Rally 'Round the Flag" phenomenon that we saw in the months directly following September, and presidential approval ratings through the roof. We mourned with those who lost loved ones, and we gathered together in the name of a beloved country with a deep wound. For as horrible as the attacks were, they brought the country as close as it's ever been since WWII (in my opinion).
There was an equal reaction, however, when it came to national security. Take for example the USA PATRIOT Act (which is an ingenious acronym, by the way). This re-drew the line between personal liberties and infringements on said liberties for the sake of national security. And one would be foolish to deny that there was a backlash against those of Middle Eastern descent. I specifically recall, even as a freshman in high school, radio hosts discussing the problems of judging people based on their skin tone or dress because of the race of the attackers. I'd like to think we could get over that, like we are still doing with Civil Rights-era prejudices, but any estimate is an underestimate when it comes to predicting when all races can live peacefully together.
Now, almost ten years after the attack (which, granted, is not that long), there is a proposed Islamic center a few blocks away from the site of the attacks on the Trade Centers. Note - this is not a radical Islamic Center, this is not an Al Quaeda training camp, this is not even a real mosque with minarets and Friday sermons, but a generic Islamic cultural center. Consider it a different version of an old-fashioned YMCA (a YMMA, so to speak). There is absolutely no reason to link every member of one of the world's largest religions with the vicious attacks on the World Trade Centers, yet for some reason, we Americans are.
So much for freedom of religion. It seems to be a trend that American civil liberties are being viewed through the lens of the will of the majority. James Madison warns against this in the Federalist papers when he talks of the tyrannical majority and the dangers they pose to a functioning democracy. Now we see it - a majority of Americans who wallow in ignorance and xenophobia try to argue that 1) couples that are different than themselves don't deserve the same marriage rights, 2) immigrants who are here illegally should be hunted like animals and denied basic rights, and now 3) religions that spawn radical, violent groups should not be allowed to build a symbolic bridge or an extended hand towards the American people at the site of a great atrocity. In some cases, one has to take a step back and say, "Who cares if that is what the majority wants!" Because sometimes, the majority wants the wrong thing and it takes a Platonic philosopher-king to point that out.
Of course, there is another angle: Have we forgotten the violent escapades of Christians and Jews? The Crusades, the Inquisition, the KKK, even the current violence between Israelis and Palestinians - but it doesn't seem to matter as much that violence is an inevitable consequence of the human condition, not just the Islamic faith. Of course, the recent 9/11 violence strikes way too close to home and is way too fresh in our memories, but we should hesitate before we lay an umbrella-conviction on a huge group of heterogeneous people. We should remember that we are guilty of many of the same things, and forgiveness does not require forgetting.
Just because a small fraction of a large group hurt us does NOT mean that we should retaliate against the whole group by denying them basic religious freedoms. Let them build, let them socialize, let them worship. It won't take any more lives, and although it certainly won't bring any lives back, both sides' willingness to extend an olive branch and live in (at the very least) tolerance is a step in the right direction.
Everybody knows about September 11th and how it has effectively shaped modern history into "Pre 9/11" and "Post 9/11" eras. The political and military ripple it started has consumed headlines for the better part of a decade. And most important, the emotional and cultural effects that remain because of it are the most obvious we've seen in a while. Take for example: The color printouts of the American flag in newspapers across the nation, and the subsequent hanging of such flags in windows everywhere, the "Rally 'Round the Flag" phenomenon that we saw in the months directly following September, and presidential approval ratings through the roof. We mourned with those who lost loved ones, and we gathered together in the name of a beloved country with a deep wound. For as horrible as the attacks were, they brought the country as close as it's ever been since WWII (in my opinion).
There was an equal reaction, however, when it came to national security. Take for example the USA PATRIOT Act (which is an ingenious acronym, by the way). This re-drew the line between personal liberties and infringements on said liberties for the sake of national security. And one would be foolish to deny that there was a backlash against those of Middle Eastern descent. I specifically recall, even as a freshman in high school, radio hosts discussing the problems of judging people based on their skin tone or dress because of the race of the attackers. I'd like to think we could get over that, like we are still doing with Civil Rights-era prejudices, but any estimate is an underestimate when it comes to predicting when all races can live peacefully together.
Now, almost ten years after the attack (which, granted, is not that long), there is a proposed Islamic center a few blocks away from the site of the attacks on the Trade Centers. Note - this is not a radical Islamic Center, this is not an Al Quaeda training camp, this is not even a real mosque with minarets and Friday sermons, but a generic Islamic cultural center. Consider it a different version of an old-fashioned YMCA (a YMMA, so to speak). There is absolutely no reason to link every member of one of the world's largest religions with the vicious attacks on the World Trade Centers, yet for some reason, we Americans are.
So much for freedom of religion. It seems to be a trend that American civil liberties are being viewed through the lens of the will of the majority. James Madison warns against this in the Federalist papers when he talks of the tyrannical majority and the dangers they pose to a functioning democracy. Now we see it - a majority of Americans who wallow in ignorance and xenophobia try to argue that 1) couples that are different than themselves don't deserve the same marriage rights, 2) immigrants who are here illegally should be hunted like animals and denied basic rights, and now 3) religions that spawn radical, violent groups should not be allowed to build a symbolic bridge or an extended hand towards the American people at the site of a great atrocity. In some cases, one has to take a step back and say, "Who cares if that is what the majority wants!" Because sometimes, the majority wants the wrong thing and it takes a Platonic philosopher-king to point that out.
Of course, there is another angle: Have we forgotten the violent escapades of Christians and Jews? The Crusades, the Inquisition, the KKK, even the current violence between Israelis and Palestinians - but it doesn't seem to matter as much that violence is an inevitable consequence of the human condition, not just the Islamic faith. Of course, the recent 9/11 violence strikes way too close to home and is way too fresh in our memories, but we should hesitate before we lay an umbrella-conviction on a huge group of heterogeneous people. We should remember that we are guilty of many of the same things, and forgiveness does not require forgetting.
Just because a small fraction of a large group hurt us does NOT mean that we should retaliate against the whole group by denying them basic religious freedoms. Let them build, let them socialize, let them worship. It won't take any more lives, and although it certainly won't bring any lives back, both sides' willingness to extend an olive branch and live in (at the very least) tolerance is a step in the right direction.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Trouble in the AZ
There are two major problems with the freshly-blocked immigration law in Arizona: 1) Its bigoted and unconstitutional nature, and 2) Its biggest proponent, Governor Jan Brewer.
First Brewer. In my eyes, she is a southwestern version of George Wallace. Perhaps she hasn't gone so far as to openly advocate a segregationist platform, but she has shown that she has a prejudice against human beings of Hispanic ethnicity, conveniently masked as a legitimate response to a major problem in illegal immigration. Ok, maybe that's taking it too far. But seriously, she has gone to great lengths just to defend this bill. And how convenient for her...right about the time she needs to get re-elected, she decides to put her Lucretia Mott on an enormously significant piece of legislation that will sate the public demand for something to be done about illegal immigrants. She has some major political motivation behind this bill (which actually went into effect last week), and may ride the coattails of the whole affair straight back to the governor's mansion. But doesn't that define a good governor? Sticking up for what your constituents want? For what is best for the state? Sometimes. When it means protecting your state from harmful pork spending, or excessive taxes. And illegal immigration could certainly be considered a threat to the state, in some areas! But a governor who takes such a strong stance on such a demeaning bill is acting as a mouthpiece for the perceived "public will" on a sensitive social issue...which is never a good idea. Let's look at history for a few examples. Does anyone suppose that if a referendum went out in 1890 suggesting Native Americans shouldn't be stripped of their ancestral grounds and forced into reservations that it would have passed? Probably not! What about 1954 in the case of Brown et al v. Topeka Board of Education? Do we think that the post-war society would have voted for integration? Absolutely not! We still see these issues today - Same-sex marriages (which, constitutionally, are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages), or intervention in humanitarian crises abroad (Rwanda, Balkans, currently Darfur). As Voltaire once said, "The masses are asses," and the "public will" may not always be the best source look for ideas for major legislation.
The real problem though lies with the bill itself. Let's walk through it - A man of Hispanic heritage gets pulled over on a freeway in Arizona. An Arizona police officer, presumably a normal, un-prejudiced American, pulls him over for speeding. So far, so good. BUT - if the bill would have passed, that officer would have been obligated to inquire into the legal immigration status of the speeder. If the driver could not produce documents proving his legal immigration status on the spot and the officer had "reasonable suspicion" that the driver was in the United States illegally, the officer would be obligated to take the speeder into custody and hold him in detention indefinitely, until his immigration status was determined to be legal. If it was concluded that the man was there illegally, the proposed law gave the Arizona police the power to turn him over to Immigration for deportation.
I'm not against justice as a principle. I'm not against making those that have broken the law pay for their offense. However, I am against punitive legislation that promotes a diverse display of unconstitutional maladies. To begin with, the law expressly prohibits racial profiling, but almost forces officers to do just that! Let's be honest - what kind of "reasonable suspicion" might an officer have other than the guy has dark skin, is listening to a certain genre of music, or speaks a certain language/with a certain accent? By my definition one or any combination of those certainly constitutes racial profiling. But that part aside, the law would have given Arizona police forces the power to hold suspected illegal immigrants - that is, those that are presumably innocent because they haven't been found guilty, persons not officially arrested, much less charged with anything - indefinitely until their legal status is determined. This effectively strips that person of any remnant of due process of law that is given to them by the Constitution, or if you argue that illegal immigrants aren't entitled to constitutional rights, the due process of law that is a basic human right according to the Declaration of Human Rights as ratified by the United Nations.
There are a TON of arguments that would point to the fact that this law is such a contradiction to the Constitution that it never should have been passed. Most of the arguments I've heard in favor of the bill are that the Feds aren't doing their job and the states are sick of it. Still, the Feds don't do a lot of things well (remember the budget, energy, Afghanistan, etc crises?) and the states aren't taking action on those issues. This, to me, points to an underlying current of xenophobia that borders on racism in our country today. It's not a new problem, by any means, but just the most recent face. And that's something that we need to get over if we're going to be able to function as a State.
First Brewer. In my eyes, she is a southwestern version of George Wallace. Perhaps she hasn't gone so far as to openly advocate a segregationist platform, but she has shown that she has a prejudice against human beings of Hispanic ethnicity, conveniently masked as a legitimate response to a major problem in illegal immigration. Ok, maybe that's taking it too far. But seriously, she has gone to great lengths just to defend this bill. And how convenient for her...right about the time she needs to get re-elected, she decides to put her Lucretia Mott on an enormously significant piece of legislation that will sate the public demand for something to be done about illegal immigrants. She has some major political motivation behind this bill (which actually went into effect last week), and may ride the coattails of the whole affair straight back to the governor's mansion. But doesn't that define a good governor? Sticking up for what your constituents want? For what is best for the state? Sometimes. When it means protecting your state from harmful pork spending, or excessive taxes. And illegal immigration could certainly be considered a threat to the state, in some areas! But a governor who takes such a strong stance on such a demeaning bill is acting as a mouthpiece for the perceived "public will" on a sensitive social issue...which is never a good idea. Let's look at history for a few examples. Does anyone suppose that if a referendum went out in 1890 suggesting Native Americans shouldn't be stripped of their ancestral grounds and forced into reservations that it would have passed? Probably not! What about 1954 in the case of Brown et al v. Topeka Board of Education? Do we think that the post-war society would have voted for integration? Absolutely not! We still see these issues today - Same-sex marriages (which, constitutionally, are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages), or intervention in humanitarian crises abroad (Rwanda, Balkans, currently Darfur). As Voltaire once said, "The masses are asses," and the "public will" may not always be the best source look for ideas for major legislation.
The real problem though lies with the bill itself. Let's walk through it - A man of Hispanic heritage gets pulled over on a freeway in Arizona. An Arizona police officer, presumably a normal, un-prejudiced American, pulls him over for speeding. So far, so good. BUT - if the bill would have passed, that officer would have been obligated to inquire into the legal immigration status of the speeder. If the driver could not produce documents proving his legal immigration status on the spot and the officer had "reasonable suspicion" that the driver was in the United States illegally, the officer would be obligated to take the speeder into custody and hold him in detention indefinitely, until his immigration status was determined to be legal. If it was concluded that the man was there illegally, the proposed law gave the Arizona police the power to turn him over to Immigration for deportation.
I'm not against justice as a principle. I'm not against making those that have broken the law pay for their offense. However, I am against punitive legislation that promotes a diverse display of unconstitutional maladies. To begin with, the law expressly prohibits racial profiling, but almost forces officers to do just that! Let's be honest - what kind of "reasonable suspicion" might an officer have other than the guy has dark skin, is listening to a certain genre of music, or speaks a certain language/with a certain accent? By my definition one or any combination of those certainly constitutes racial profiling. But that part aside, the law would have given Arizona police forces the power to hold suspected illegal immigrants - that is, those that are presumably innocent because they haven't been found guilty, persons not officially arrested, much less charged with anything - indefinitely until their legal status is determined. This effectively strips that person of any remnant of due process of law that is given to them by the Constitution, or if you argue that illegal immigrants aren't entitled to constitutional rights, the due process of law that is a basic human right according to the Declaration of Human Rights as ratified by the United Nations.
There are a TON of arguments that would point to the fact that this law is such a contradiction to the Constitution that it never should have been passed. Most of the arguments I've heard in favor of the bill are that the Feds aren't doing their job and the states are sick of it. Still, the Feds don't do a lot of things well (remember the budget, energy, Afghanistan, etc crises?) and the states aren't taking action on those issues. This, to me, points to an underlying current of xenophobia that borders on racism in our country today. It's not a new problem, by any means, but just the most recent face. And that's something that we need to get over if we're going to be able to function as a State.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Watered-Down Human Rights
The United Nations General Assembly is going to vote soon on whether or not to make clean drinking water a human right. If passed, 'clean drinking water' would join the ranks of previous legislation declaring "life, liberty, and security of person", the ability to appear as a person before the law, torture, and the freedom from arbitrary arrest (among others) as passed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It seems pretty obvious to me that water should be a basic human right. People need it to survive! The nature of human rights is always the topic of a debate, and before you know it you're debating cultural relativism and who deserves what, but I think we could all agree that if humans need three things to stay alive, their life, their liberty, and enough water to perpetuate their lives is necessary. Education, shelter, even freedom from being imprisoned before knowing why - those are things that no human should have to live without. Water - that is something that no human can live without.
Oddly enough, the United States, Canada, and Australia are opposed to this motion. Of course, cost is involved. Imagine the cost of the purification systems and the infrastructures that would be necessary to bring everyone clean water! How expensive would that be?
But wait - cost comes before having clean water? I think that in any nation composed of living, breathing, drinking, rational human beings, everyone would be willing to contribute a few extra bucks to make sure some grade school-aged kids have water that isn't contaminated with human waste. Cost shouldn't be an issue - if there is one good reason to raise taxes, it isn't to bail out enormous banks, it's not even to buy million dollar helicopters, but it is to make sure everyone has clean water to drink.
There was a story on the radio last night about a family in Southeast Asia who needs to buy all of their drinking water because the other supply they draw from is in fact contaminated with human defecation. "No," the mother said, "We only bathe ourselves and wash our clothes with that water. It's not safe to drink." Pardon me and my bleeding heart, but no company should control a family's right to have access to clean drinking water. Even if the legislation does go through the UN, that family will still have to wash their bodies and clothes in contaminated water! Why add insult to injury by making them spend what little income comes in on clean drinking water?
This, to me, is the equivalent of having some people pay personal bodyguards to ensure their prolongment of life everyday, or some huge company that sells clean air - there might be safety someplace else, or there might be clean air across the ocean, but for now, you're going to have to pay to preserve your life or breathe this air that hasn't been polluted beyond safe use. It just doesn't seem right!
So let's hope that clean water does end up on the list of human rights. Let's hope that countries, our own United States included, will reconsider not wanting to spend a few million dollars installing drinking fountains and faucets in places that need them. Let's hope that the United Nations can muster the votes to pass the motion, and the resources to enforce it, to make sure than everyone is officially entitled to something as basic as staying healthy and alive.
It seems pretty obvious to me that water should be a basic human right. People need it to survive! The nature of human rights is always the topic of a debate, and before you know it you're debating cultural relativism and who deserves what, but I think we could all agree that if humans need three things to stay alive, their life, their liberty, and enough water to perpetuate their lives is necessary. Education, shelter, even freedom from being imprisoned before knowing why - those are things that no human should have to live without. Water - that is something that no human can live without.
Oddly enough, the United States, Canada, and Australia are opposed to this motion. Of course, cost is involved. Imagine the cost of the purification systems and the infrastructures that would be necessary to bring everyone clean water! How expensive would that be?
But wait - cost comes before having clean water? I think that in any nation composed of living, breathing, drinking, rational human beings, everyone would be willing to contribute a few extra bucks to make sure some grade school-aged kids have water that isn't contaminated with human waste. Cost shouldn't be an issue - if there is one good reason to raise taxes, it isn't to bail out enormous banks, it's not even to buy million dollar helicopters, but it is to make sure everyone has clean water to drink.
There was a story on the radio last night about a family in Southeast Asia who needs to buy all of their drinking water because the other supply they draw from is in fact contaminated with human defecation. "No," the mother said, "We only bathe ourselves and wash our clothes with that water. It's not safe to drink." Pardon me and my bleeding heart, but no company should control a family's right to have access to clean drinking water. Even if the legislation does go through the UN, that family will still have to wash their bodies and clothes in contaminated water! Why add insult to injury by making them spend what little income comes in on clean drinking water?
This, to me, is the equivalent of having some people pay personal bodyguards to ensure their prolongment of life everyday, or some huge company that sells clean air - there might be safety someplace else, or there might be clean air across the ocean, but for now, you're going to have to pay to preserve your life or breathe this air that hasn't been polluted beyond safe use. It just doesn't seem right!
So let's hope that clean water does end up on the list of human rights. Let's hope that countries, our own United States included, will reconsider not wanting to spend a few million dollars installing drinking fountains and faucets in places that need them. Let's hope that the United Nations can muster the votes to pass the motion, and the resources to enforce it, to make sure than everyone is officially entitled to something as basic as staying healthy and alive.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Natural Disasters and Man-Made Governments (And Vice Versa!)
Amidst the roars of the TEA Party and demands for smaller government, it seems that when a natural or man-made disaster hits, states go running for the Feds. If the government is really too big, perhaps the states should handle own problems rather than blaming the government for taking too long (Bobby Jindal). If the government is really too big, states should take some autonomy for themselves and prove their point - that the states can do things on their own.
I understand the argument for states' rights. I've studied it for years and subscribe to a bit of it myself. But states should stay away from biting the hand that feeds them. They are a part of a successful, functioning union of over 50 entities, they are able to create their own laws and collect their own taxes, they even have their own elections. The only rule they have to follow is in Article VI, Clause 2 - and that says don't mess around with contradicting the Federal government. Simple enough, it seems. But, this points to a discussion of the natural functions of sovereign governments - what are they there for? To govern, obviously, but maybe more. The TEA Party likes to complain about it, it seems that the other side likes to make it bigger, but is there a middle ground? I don't think either side has it quite right.
There have been lots of theories thrown around about why governments exist. James Madison is quoting in saying, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary," and Thomas Paine with, "That government is best which governs least." This points to a small government that leaves a lot of control and power with the people (or states) and is one which the TEA Party would probably advocate first. However, there are others such as Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli that advocate a Leviathan or Prince that rules with an iron fist. This would suggest a strong, almost tyrannical government (if it subscribes to the Machiavellian theory that it is better to be feared than loved) that neither side would promote. Even still, history suggests some kind of mix is necessary - The Articles of Confederation bombed because there was not enough power, yet the American and French revolutions (among several others) were fought on Enlightenment ideals opposing excessive government power.
The Federalist system that the United States implemented with the Constitution creates a perfect theoretical mix of liberty and states' rights with order and federal power. The states have their autonomy and can do pretty much whatever they want except make their own money and treaties (and there are ways around the "no treaties" thing), but the Federal government and the laws it makes/enforces are still the "Supreme law of the Land." It's the perfect compromise. But nothing is perfect, much less remains perfect. So now some are complaining that the Feds are usurping power from the states (we've heard that for 200 years), and it's looking more like a Unitary style of government, as opposed to Federal. That is obviously not the case. Still, some states are passing laws that are clear violations of the 14th amendment by implicitly promoting racial profiling, others are passing laws that exempt their citizens from a national healthcare system - if you ask me, that's one step short of firing on Lincoln's supply ships headed to Fort Sumter. No one can agree on the proper proportions of Federal/State power. And now that the Federal government is exercising more power themselves (see previous post), the States, as represented by the TEA Party, are reacting swift and strong.
I have no complaints about protesting. I have no complaints about protesting an increasingly larger and more obtrusive government. But I do have complaints about inconsistencies. The oil spill this summer, Katrina in 2005 - these are two examples of how states will not survive without people, money, and management from the Federal government. And those who protest the government's interference in states' affairs as a blanket issue should think twice about how much they really want the states to be in control.
I understand the argument for states' rights. I've studied it for years and subscribe to a bit of it myself. But states should stay away from biting the hand that feeds them. They are a part of a successful, functioning union of over 50 entities, they are able to create their own laws and collect their own taxes, they even have their own elections. The only rule they have to follow is in Article VI, Clause 2 - and that says don't mess around with contradicting the Federal government. Simple enough, it seems. But, this points to a discussion of the natural functions of sovereign governments - what are they there for? To govern, obviously, but maybe more. The TEA Party likes to complain about it, it seems that the other side likes to make it bigger, but is there a middle ground? I don't think either side has it quite right.
There have been lots of theories thrown around about why governments exist. James Madison is quoting in saying, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary," and Thomas Paine with, "That government is best which governs least." This points to a small government that leaves a lot of control and power with the people (or states) and is one which the TEA Party would probably advocate first. However, there are others such as Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli that advocate a Leviathan or Prince that rules with an iron fist. This would suggest a strong, almost tyrannical government (if it subscribes to the Machiavellian theory that it is better to be feared than loved) that neither side would promote. Even still, history suggests some kind of mix is necessary - The Articles of Confederation bombed because there was not enough power, yet the American and French revolutions (among several others) were fought on Enlightenment ideals opposing excessive government power.
The Federalist system that the United States implemented with the Constitution creates a perfect theoretical mix of liberty and states' rights with order and federal power. The states have their autonomy and can do pretty much whatever they want except make their own money and treaties (and there are ways around the "no treaties" thing), but the Federal government and the laws it makes/enforces are still the "Supreme law of the Land." It's the perfect compromise. But nothing is perfect, much less remains perfect. So now some are complaining that the Feds are usurping power from the states (we've heard that for 200 years), and it's looking more like a Unitary style of government, as opposed to Federal. That is obviously not the case. Still, some states are passing laws that are clear violations of the 14th amendment by implicitly promoting racial profiling, others are passing laws that exempt their citizens from a national healthcare system - if you ask me, that's one step short of firing on Lincoln's supply ships headed to Fort Sumter. No one can agree on the proper proportions of Federal/State power. And now that the Federal government is exercising more power themselves (see previous post), the States, as represented by the TEA Party, are reacting swift and strong.
I have no complaints about protesting. I have no complaints about protesting an increasingly larger and more obtrusive government. But I do have complaints about inconsistencies. The oil spill this summer, Katrina in 2005 - these are two examples of how states will not survive without people, money, and management from the Federal government. And those who protest the government's interference in states' affairs as a blanket issue should think twice about how much they really want the states to be in control.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Politicization of Politics
I don't know if it is just because I am too young to have paid much attention to the goings on of Congress before, or if this is a new trend, but it seems to me that, at least in my memory, Congress is suffering from a deep rift along party lines. It seems to me that politics in Washington are becoming more and more politicized. Of course, the reason we have two parties is to express two different points of view and represent a much broader scope of opinions than would one party. Also, our two party system exists to avoid the fifty-odd or however many parties functionally exist in Italy. But still, a two party system seems like it is set up to face off and now it seems like it has - and badly. We should have listened to George Washington when he told us, "You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these [political divisions]; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection." I'd say!
I'm not going to claim that there have never been parties so split against each other or that the two parties have never disagreed with each other more. That would not be true. But right now the Democrats and Republicans seem to be stuck in a childlike and frankly obnoxious habit of erecting barriers around their own beliefs and refusing to budge from their ideological buttresses. I have my own ideas on how we got here, too.
One would be foolish to not label President Obama as charismatic. Or a mesmerizing orator. Or just kind of a cool, basketball-playing, late night talkshow-appearing, not quite (yet?) saxaphone-playing, rockstar President. All politics put aside, I think we can give him that. However, it would also be foolish to say that Mr. Obama's personality did not play a major role in the 2008 election. I'm not saying that the ridiculously high percentage of voter turnout was composed of swooning Obama-philes, but it definitely played a role. In addition was the dump of an economy, quagmire of a military conflict, and the general unpopularity of the preceding two-termed administration. Obama did - and still does - remind the American public of how poorly things were when he took office, painting the circumstances in a similarly frightening fashion as your typical Salvador Dali painting. Needless to say, that is pretty radical. And so were then-Senator Obama's remedies.
The election of 1932 pitted Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover against Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, but it was really much more than just an election. It was a competition between two different philosophies of the nature of a federal government. Of course, FDR won that election (and the next one, and the next one, and still the next one) and instituted his New Deal, which was a 180 degree turnaround from the Dual style of Federalism that had governed Federal/State relations since 1787. Here, the government spent what it didn't have to jumpstart the economy. I'm not saying the McCain/Obama faceoff was as dramatic as the Hoover/Roosevelt, but the concept is similar. Of course, Obama was elected and within the first 2-3 months Congress wrote and Obama signed a lengthy stimulus bill into law. This was a continuation of Bush Jr's bailout plan - on steroids. Billions of dollars going towards federal projects and efforts to improve the economy, as well as keeping businesses' heads above water. And similar to what happened in 1934 during the New Deal, people didn't like it. This very liberal action prompted a very conservative reaction which now includes the TEA Party movement. I think the main reason Obama was able to push his bill through Congress so quickly was because a) He told people it would work and they were convinced, and b) The economy was truly in a pretty bad state. But still - the American populace was very trusting of our new President and the plans he had campaigned on in 2008. Now that a politician was actually carrying through on his promises, people supported him and Obama enjoyed a comfortable honeymoon period. We see more of this, of Obama reacting to poor circumstances by passing legislation - The Healthcare bill this past winter, and the sweeping Financial Overhaul bill this week. Not to mention the period in which General Motors became Government Motors and the other corporations kept afloat by enormous bailouts. And this was all possible with the popular mandate Obama received giving him the green light to go ahead with these very liberal economic measures. This would not have been possible without a reason to pass these bills (the poor economy) and the popular mandate to do so (largely influenced by Obama's charismatic persona).
Now that Congress and the President have been able to pass these left wing pieces of legislation, however, the right wing has acted out - big time. Like I mentioned, the whole TEA Party movement is largely a function of the stimulus package and other such spending programs, and the party lines have been distinctively drawn. Also - since when does it take a near super-majority to pass a bill in the Senate? I'm afraid my future government students won't believe me when I say it takes a simple majority of a quorum to pass a bill, because all of the recent votes have required 60 (Democratic) voters. The filibuster is a tribute to the Senate's devotion to the tradition of free speech, and is a powerful threat against a bill. However, when it is abused as it has been by the Republican Senators, it tends to devalue the tool and put up an annoying barrier in front of government efficiency and getting bills through the whole process. Also, the cloture vote, which takes a proposal by 16 Senators and a vote of 60, was also a rare occurrence, another tribute to the devotion to free speech. But now, since Republican Senators have adopted the filibuster as a favorite in their right-wing backlash to left-wing policies, Democrats are forced to counter with abusing the cloture. Now all votes in the Senate have been defined by party, and who has enough votes to filibuster or block it.
To add to the equation, the economy is still a dump. We still have our military in what many people see as a losing battle. And Obama is still trying to push through huge pieces of legislation (financial overhaul) and still has super-ambitious ideas, e.g. end childhood hunger by 2012. Only now, he has lost a lot of that popular mandate he had earlier in his term. His approval ratings are low, the economy is still horrible, and we're seeing more of the same spending legislation that we saw last year. Some are getting fed up with this, but others are still stringent supporters. Since the two sides are so polarized, they have to fight to make their case, which results in stiff and loyal opposition to whatever the other side has to say or proposes in Congress. It's my theory that a lot of the programs (stimulus package, healthcare, etc) got pushed through because Obama was able to use his becoming personality to convince voters and his party that it was the right thing to do. Now things still aren't going so great, so people are not as gung-ho about the President as they once were, the Democrats in Congress are just as gung-ho about their legislation, and the opposition has countered with a ferocious negative response.
So much for a twenty-minute time limit. I've spent breaks and lunches for three days trying to straighten out my thoughts and still haven't done that great of a job. But let me try to summarize in one concept:
For every political action, there will be an equal and opposite political reaction. Now we have conservatives and liberals gnashing teeth at each other because neither side is willing to listen to the other (the Republicans really thought it was a good idea to protest extending unemployment benefits? I understand the point they made about "Where is this money coming from?!" - but do not make a political statement at the cost of the unemployed in a huge recession), much less provide bi-partisan support for a bill. Some may say that the Democrats started it all with leftist economic measures. Some may say Republicans started it with a fast retreat to the far right. Either way, I'm looking forward to the day when we can meet somewhere in the middle, and bills aren't decided by a stagnant numbers of seats.
I'm not going to claim that there have never been parties so split against each other or that the two parties have never disagreed with each other more. That would not be true. But right now the Democrats and Republicans seem to be stuck in a childlike and frankly obnoxious habit of erecting barriers around their own beliefs and refusing to budge from their ideological buttresses. I have my own ideas on how we got here, too.
One would be foolish to not label President Obama as charismatic. Or a mesmerizing orator. Or just kind of a cool, basketball-playing, late night talkshow-appearing, not quite (yet?) saxaphone-playing, rockstar President. All politics put aside, I think we can give him that. However, it would also be foolish to say that Mr. Obama's personality did not play a major role in the 2008 election. I'm not saying that the ridiculously high percentage of voter turnout was composed of swooning Obama-philes, but it definitely played a role. In addition was the dump of an economy, quagmire of a military conflict, and the general unpopularity of the preceding two-termed administration. Obama did - and still does - remind the American public of how poorly things were when he took office, painting the circumstances in a similarly frightening fashion as your typical Salvador Dali painting. Needless to say, that is pretty radical. And so were then-Senator Obama's remedies.
The election of 1932 pitted Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover against Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, but it was really much more than just an election. It was a competition between two different philosophies of the nature of a federal government. Of course, FDR won that election (and the next one, and the next one, and still the next one) and instituted his New Deal, which was a 180 degree turnaround from the Dual style of Federalism that had governed Federal/State relations since 1787. Here, the government spent what it didn't have to jumpstart the economy. I'm not saying the McCain/Obama faceoff was as dramatic as the Hoover/Roosevelt, but the concept is similar. Of course, Obama was elected and within the first 2-3 months Congress wrote and Obama signed a lengthy stimulus bill into law. This was a continuation of Bush Jr's bailout plan - on steroids. Billions of dollars going towards federal projects and efforts to improve the economy, as well as keeping businesses' heads above water. And similar to what happened in 1934 during the New Deal, people didn't like it. This very liberal action prompted a very conservative reaction which now includes the TEA Party movement. I think the main reason Obama was able to push his bill through Congress so quickly was because a) He told people it would work and they were convinced, and b) The economy was truly in a pretty bad state. But still - the American populace was very trusting of our new President and the plans he had campaigned on in 2008. Now that a politician was actually carrying through on his promises, people supported him and Obama enjoyed a comfortable honeymoon period. We see more of this, of Obama reacting to poor circumstances by passing legislation - The Healthcare bill this past winter, and the sweeping Financial Overhaul bill this week. Not to mention the period in which General Motors became Government Motors and the other corporations kept afloat by enormous bailouts. And this was all possible with the popular mandate Obama received giving him the green light to go ahead with these very liberal economic measures. This would not have been possible without a reason to pass these bills (the poor economy) and the popular mandate to do so (largely influenced by Obama's charismatic persona).
Now that Congress and the President have been able to pass these left wing pieces of legislation, however, the right wing has acted out - big time. Like I mentioned, the whole TEA Party movement is largely a function of the stimulus package and other such spending programs, and the party lines have been distinctively drawn. Also - since when does it take a near super-majority to pass a bill in the Senate? I'm afraid my future government students won't believe me when I say it takes a simple majority of a quorum to pass a bill, because all of the recent votes have required 60 (Democratic) voters. The filibuster is a tribute to the Senate's devotion to the tradition of free speech, and is a powerful threat against a bill. However, when it is abused as it has been by the Republican Senators, it tends to devalue the tool and put up an annoying barrier in front of government efficiency and getting bills through the whole process. Also, the cloture vote, which takes a proposal by 16 Senators and a vote of 60, was also a rare occurrence, another tribute to the devotion to free speech. But now, since Republican Senators have adopted the filibuster as a favorite in their right-wing backlash to left-wing policies, Democrats are forced to counter with abusing the cloture. Now all votes in the Senate have been defined by party, and who has enough votes to filibuster or block it.
To add to the equation, the economy is still a dump. We still have our military in what many people see as a losing battle. And Obama is still trying to push through huge pieces of legislation (financial overhaul) and still has super-ambitious ideas, e.g. end childhood hunger by 2012. Only now, he has lost a lot of that popular mandate he had earlier in his term. His approval ratings are low, the economy is still horrible, and we're seeing more of the same spending legislation that we saw last year. Some are getting fed up with this, but others are still stringent supporters. Since the two sides are so polarized, they have to fight to make their case, which results in stiff and loyal opposition to whatever the other side has to say or proposes in Congress. It's my theory that a lot of the programs (stimulus package, healthcare, etc) got pushed through because Obama was able to use his becoming personality to convince voters and his party that it was the right thing to do. Now things still aren't going so great, so people are not as gung-ho about the President as they once were, the Democrats in Congress are just as gung-ho about their legislation, and the opposition has countered with a ferocious negative response.
So much for a twenty-minute time limit. I've spent breaks and lunches for three days trying to straighten out my thoughts and still haven't done that great of a job. But let me try to summarize in one concept:
For every political action, there will be an equal and opposite political reaction. Now we have conservatives and liberals gnashing teeth at each other because neither side is willing to listen to the other (the Republicans really thought it was a good idea to protest extending unemployment benefits? I understand the point they made about "Where is this money coming from?!" - but do not make a political statement at the cost of the unemployed in a huge recession), much less provide bi-partisan support for a bill. Some may say that the Democrats started it all with leftist economic measures. Some may say Republicans started it with a fast retreat to the far right. Either way, I'm looking forward to the day when we can meet somewhere in the middle, and bills aren't decided by a stagnant numbers of seats.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
बुरका बुरका बुरका
Today the lower house of the French government approved a ban on all face-covering items of clothing in public. Not only has this forced the shamed French national soccer team to take the brown bags off of their heads, but was poignantly passed to prevent an incredibly small number of Muslim women from wearing their burkas. To clear up some definitions, a "burka" is a Muslim garment worn by women that covers their entire body, from their hair and face down to their ankles. "Incredibly small number" refers to the total of around 2000 French Muslim women who actually wear the burka. What the law essentially says is that if you are caught wearing this burka in public, you will be escorted home by the police and fined 150 Euros. If you are a man caught forcing a woman to wear the burka (as the case may be in more fundamentalist households), the financial penalty is slightly more severe. So although the wording of this law is generic, it is very clear that it targets Muslim women and men. In defense of the law, I have heard arguments made that this act is a gesture of the French government towards the empowerment of women and destruction of forced submission to male domination as mandated in some Islamic interpretations. Another reason is for the public safety - these garments are rather loose and since the wearer's identity is unknown due to the covering of the face, a male could theoretically adorn a burka loaded with explosives. In addition to that, the argument has been made that those who wear burkas are more likely to subscribe to a fundamental belief in Islam, which would also lead to a literal interpretation of the Qur'an, and more violent means of communication. As logical as that may unfold, it is still a bit of a stretch given the history of men wearing burkas to mask explosives. Which to my knowledge, does not exist.
We would never-ever-in-a-million-years see this passed in the United States, of course, because of our beloved First Amendment right to the freedom of religion. Considering the fact that the burka is a part of these French citizen's bona fide religion, the American government does not have the power to prevent them from practicing it. And what a blessing that is! That means that public school teachers can wear cross necklaces, DMV employees can wear yarmulkes, and the President can end his oath with, "So help me God," and we do not have to worry about the government telling us that we cannot. But this isn't the United States - it's France.
France has an interesting history with religion. Prior to the French Revolution in 1789, the French royalty enjoyed a perverted marriage with the Catholic Church. They were more or less synonymous, with the King taking orders from Rome and Church officials enjoying privileged benefits only the royalty could offer. Of course, since the distribution of wealth was so slanted against the Third Estate, there was a common disdain towards the Bourbon family, and the corrupt Catholic Church. When the French revolutionaries executed the King and Queen and dismissed the unpopular monarchy, they also tried to cleanse their country of the crooked Church. This legacy still appears in France today, as we see the concept of laïcité, or freedom FROM religion. The French revolutionaries pushed so hard for absolute equality (they seemed to ignore the inevitable occurrence of a hierarchy inherent to democracy) and absolute consent among the people. Any dissent was punished with the guillotine, and is known as the Reign of Terror. This included religion. Not only was any political dissent discouraged, because it was breaking away from the perfect form of anti-monarchy government, but so was expression of religious sentiment.
As a result of this history and efforts to recognize absolute equality among the French, we see common religious symbols being outlawed in France, so as to not even show religion, much less promote it. Since the American revolution was about channeling debate, not punishing it, we have a different kind of freedom, and are able to show our religion, so much as the Federal or State governments don't prohibit or promote it.
We would never-ever-in-a-million-years see this passed in the United States, of course, because of our beloved First Amendment right to the freedom of religion. Considering the fact that the burka is a part of these French citizen's bona fide religion, the American government does not have the power to prevent them from practicing it. And what a blessing that is! That means that public school teachers can wear cross necklaces, DMV employees can wear yarmulkes, and the President can end his oath with, "So help me God," and we do not have to worry about the government telling us that we cannot. But this isn't the United States - it's France.
France has an interesting history with religion. Prior to the French Revolution in 1789, the French royalty enjoyed a perverted marriage with the Catholic Church. They were more or less synonymous, with the King taking orders from Rome and Church officials enjoying privileged benefits only the royalty could offer. Of course, since the distribution of wealth was so slanted against the Third Estate, there was a common disdain towards the Bourbon family, and the corrupt Catholic Church. When the French revolutionaries executed the King and Queen and dismissed the unpopular monarchy, they also tried to cleanse their country of the crooked Church. This legacy still appears in France today, as we see the concept of laïcité, or freedom FROM religion. The French revolutionaries pushed so hard for absolute equality (they seemed to ignore the inevitable occurrence of a hierarchy inherent to democracy) and absolute consent among the people. Any dissent was punished with the guillotine, and is known as the Reign of Terror. This included religion. Not only was any political dissent discouraged, because it was breaking away from the perfect form of anti-monarchy government, but so was expression of religious sentiment.
As a result of this history and efforts to recognize absolute equality among the French, we see common religious symbols being outlawed in France, so as to not even show religion, much less promote it. Since the American revolution was about channeling debate, not punishing it, we have a different kind of freedom, and are able to show our religion, so much as the Federal or State governments don't prohibit or promote it.
Monday, July 12, 2010
पोलिटिक्स इन थे वर्ल्ड कप
While watching and discussing the World Cup recently, I have found it fascinating how intertwined politics and sports can be. People praise soccer, FIFA, and the World Cup for uniting the world with a common love in sport, and bringing athletes and fans of every race, ethnicity, and nationality together - even more, in South Africa, a nation still recovering from the wounds of Apartheid and years of racial injustice. It is really an idealistic picture of a happy world community.
Still - is it not fascinating how much politics play a role in the World Cup and international soccer? On one level, team politics are huge. E.g. - France. One manager (apparently not popular in France, and as we have seen, not popular with the team) may or may not be blamed for France's embarrassing retreat from the tournament, and the entire team - especially the influential team captain - is arguably the laughingstock of European sports.
One level higher, FIFA politics have also made headlines during the 2010 World Cup. It is no secret that the officiating was less than perfect during the tournament; there were plenty of calls being made or missed that could have changed the face of the knockout round. But on top of that, FIFA has stubbornly refused to even entertain the idea of instant replay technology. Regardless of how one feels about the use of cameras in soccer (or baseball, or basketball, or even football), given the state of officiating in the world's most prestigious tournament, the idea is at least worth some time for discussion.
Even higher, national politics have played a role in the tournament! As a self-proclaimed political scientist, I find this fascinating. There are two examples that stick out to illustrate my point. First, the Nigerian president banned the country's team from international play for TWO YEARS as punishment for performing so poorly on the world stage. To dissect that a little, we have what boils down to a national recreational team being punished by the head of government in front of the world. Crazy! Since when does a soccer team represent anything official about a country? Could a weak soccer team represent a weak government? I understand that the team represents the country in front of the world, but let's put this in the bigger picture: every four years a selected number of teams compete in an international spotlight. It's a huge deal for roughly one month (one twelfth of a year, and one forty-eighth of the span between World Cups), then it's not really a huge deal anymore. Is a two year ban really necessary? Is it really that big of a deal? And even more shocking about the Nigerian situation is that FIFA, for all intents and purposes, vetoed President Goodluck Jonathan's decree to ban his team. So first the political leader puts the kibosh on international soccer, then the soccer organization puts the kibosh on the political leader...Who is in control?
The second example is France. French President Nicolas Sarkozy spent his time as head of state to scold the star forward Nicolas Anelka for not apologizing for critical remarks towards his coach. And the French Sports Minister (whose very position I find remarkable) was sent down to South Africa before one of France's final matches to shame the players into a victory, telling them that their behavior has embarrassed the French people and state, and something along the lines of - their kids won't think of them as heroes anymore. That seems a little drastic to me, no matter how truthful the statement may or may not have been. Needless to say, even forcibly tucking the team's tail between its legs didn't get a berth into the tournament. Like the Boston police may soon find out, shaming people into things doesn't often work.
All negative connotations with "politics" aside, there was one facet of this phenomenon that I thought was particularly interesting. That is the paradox between a global unifying factor in soccer, the clear divisions between fans and country lines, and the overall camaraderie among soccer fans. We've all heard how great the World Cup is because it brings the world together, but it also breaks the world apart, redefining country lines in an athletic sphere. What I mean by this is that national pride skyrockets during the World Cup. It is almost a rendition of the "Rally Around the Flag" phenomenon that occurs around national disasters, but through a more positive light. I've heard stories of people waving American flags after our victories, ESPN was broadcasting scenes of enormous crowds of people crammed into tiny spaces to watch the game with their compatriots on a big screen, and even stories of grand celebrations in the Basque-lands of Spain after their championship victory on Sunday! Since when are the Basques so proud to be Spanish?
Still, despite this heightened sense of national pride, there is certainly an amiable undercurrent of "world citizenship" at the World Cup - a fascinating way to interpret the politics of the World Cup and to give homage to the significance of the sport around the world.
Still - is it not fascinating how much politics play a role in the World Cup and international soccer? On one level, team politics are huge. E.g. - France. One manager (apparently not popular in France, and as we have seen, not popular with the team) may or may not be blamed for France's embarrassing retreat from the tournament, and the entire team - especially the influential team captain - is arguably the laughingstock of European sports.
One level higher, FIFA politics have also made headlines during the 2010 World Cup. It is no secret that the officiating was less than perfect during the tournament; there were plenty of calls being made or missed that could have changed the face of the knockout round. But on top of that, FIFA has stubbornly refused to even entertain the idea of instant replay technology. Regardless of how one feels about the use of cameras in soccer (or baseball, or basketball, or even football), given the state of officiating in the world's most prestigious tournament, the idea is at least worth some time for discussion.
Even higher, national politics have played a role in the tournament! As a self-proclaimed political scientist, I find this fascinating. There are two examples that stick out to illustrate my point. First, the Nigerian president banned the country's team from international play for TWO YEARS as punishment for performing so poorly on the world stage. To dissect that a little, we have what boils down to a national recreational team being punished by the head of government in front of the world. Crazy! Since when does a soccer team represent anything official about a country? Could a weak soccer team represent a weak government? I understand that the team represents the country in front of the world, but let's put this in the bigger picture: every four years a selected number of teams compete in an international spotlight. It's a huge deal for roughly one month (one twelfth of a year, and one forty-eighth of the span between World Cups), then it's not really a huge deal anymore. Is a two year ban really necessary? Is it really that big of a deal? And even more shocking about the Nigerian situation is that FIFA, for all intents and purposes, vetoed President Goodluck Jonathan's decree to ban his team. So first the political leader puts the kibosh on international soccer, then the soccer organization puts the kibosh on the political leader...Who is in control?
The second example is France. French President Nicolas Sarkozy spent his time as head of state to scold the star forward Nicolas Anelka for not apologizing for critical remarks towards his coach. And the French Sports Minister (whose very position I find remarkable) was sent down to South Africa before one of France's final matches to shame the players into a victory, telling them that their behavior has embarrassed the French people and state, and something along the lines of - their kids won't think of them as heroes anymore. That seems a little drastic to me, no matter how truthful the statement may or may not have been. Needless to say, even forcibly tucking the team's tail between its legs didn't get a berth into the tournament. Like the Boston police may soon find out, shaming people into things doesn't often work.
All negative connotations with "politics" aside, there was one facet of this phenomenon that I thought was particularly interesting. That is the paradox between a global unifying factor in soccer, the clear divisions between fans and country lines, and the overall camaraderie among soccer fans. We've all heard how great the World Cup is because it brings the world together, but it also breaks the world apart, redefining country lines in an athletic sphere. What I mean by this is that national pride skyrockets during the World Cup. It is almost a rendition of the "Rally Around the Flag" phenomenon that occurs around national disasters, but through a more positive light. I've heard stories of people waving American flags after our victories, ESPN was broadcasting scenes of enormous crowds of people crammed into tiny spaces to watch the game with their compatriots on a big screen, and even stories of grand celebrations in the Basque-lands of Spain after their championship victory on Sunday! Since when are the Basques so proud to be Spanish?
Still, despite this heightened sense of national pride, there is certainly an amiable undercurrent of "world citizenship" at the World Cup - a fascinating way to interpret the politics of the World Cup and to give homage to the significance of the sport around the world.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Introduction
I decided to join the influx of friends who have started blogs, and for a couple of reasons. First of all - I do not foresee these posts as being personal little sentimental portals for friends to see what I'm up to, but rather an insight into, as Andy Allen so magnificently phrased it, my own mind-thoughts. At work, I get to listen to NPR online all day if I want to. And this is great, because I get the scoop on a lot of the major news headlines, and really enjoy listening to the discussions which are more often than not fascinating. I've even gotten to write in to a couple and have my contributions read on-air. This leads me to the second reason - NPR doesn't read enough of my emails to sate my desire to share what I think. Hence, a blog.
The stupid title is derived from the time in which I get to write in the blog; after I finish a couple of sandwiches and am otherwise twiddling my thumbs during my twenty minute lunchbreak. I figure the remaining ten minutes will give me time to say what I would like to say in a reasonable amount of words, which will help me summarize my thoughts (that has proven to be difficult in the past, e.g. any time I tried to explain something to the ultimate team at Calvin) and make the posts a reasonable length for easier reading.
I like to think that I have interesting things to say about stuff that comes up in the news or in my mind. Ask Nora for a second opinion. But as I eat my own lunch food, I hope this will offer at least some brain food. Cheesy, I know. But with a label like Brown Blog Lunch, anything goes.
The stupid title is derived from the time in which I get to write in the blog; after I finish a couple of sandwiches and am otherwise twiddling my thumbs during my twenty minute lunchbreak. I figure the remaining ten minutes will give me time to say what I would like to say in a reasonable amount of words, which will help me summarize my thoughts (that has proven to be difficult in the past, e.g. any time I tried to explain something to the ultimate team at Calvin) and make the posts a reasonable length for easier reading.
I like to think that I have interesting things to say about stuff that comes up in the news or in my mind. Ask Nora for a second opinion. But as I eat my own lunch food, I hope this will offer at least some brain food. Cheesy, I know. But with a label like Brown Blog Lunch, anything goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)