Daylily
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
Father Neo recently asked some questions about why our nation seems so divided. There appears to be an ever-increasing chasm between what we might call the Left and the Right (although the terms are fluid and sometimes not useful) – is this divide real? Is it serious? Why is it there?
These are good questions to ask. My response:
1. It is on the surface, a good thing that we have these differences between us. We have this chasm because we are striving to oppose injustice, oppression – in short, what I’ll call “evil.”
The Bush-types out there perceive there to be a great threat from “terrorists” which some have defined as “Islamo-fascists.” And there ARE those out there who’d harm innocent people and standing in opposition to them is a good thing.
Those who distrust Bush and his invasion of Iraq do so because they believe Bush’s actions are possibly illegal and that they encourage, not discourage terrorism. And standing in opposition to that which is illegal and which would encourage terrorism is also good thing.
And so, this desire to set our faces against evil is a good, wholesome desire. BUT…
2. From there, too many of us have decided that because we’re standing against evil, those who disagree with us must be standing in support of evil.
3. And from there, it becomes relatively easy for many of us to speak ill of They That Support Evil, to twist their words (“He said he doesn’t trust Bush’s leadership. He obviously hates America!” “She said that it’s a good idea to try to understand WHY the terrorists are acting like they do. She obviously supports terrorism!”) - EVEN if the twisted words are patently false – and to generally demonize the enemy.
4. Once we’ve accepted that the “other side” are not merely brothers and sisters with whom we have a disagreement over vital issues, but they are in fact monsters or monster-supporters, then they become less than human.
5. Once the enemy is less than human, it becomes all that much easier to further twist their words and demonize them and even want to see them stopped, even with violence, EVEN with deadly violence. EVEN deadly violence that kills innocent bystanders in the process.
And so, even though the initial starting place of opposing evil is a good, if we allow that opposition to begin to allow us to demonize the other side, then we have taken steps down a twisted path that can lead to terrorism, that can lead to evil, that can lead to becoming that very thing which we had hoped to oppose to begin with.
Standing in opposition to evil is vital, but HOW we do so is more vital, yet.
What say ye?
18 comments:
Excellent post. I don't think we are QUITE so divided as red/blue state election maps seem to indicate. After all, it takes just 50% +1 to turn a state one color or another on an electoral map. Even in Texas, 40% of the people voted for Kerry (or, perhaps, against Bush) in '04. Every blue (Democratic) state has a sizeable red (Republican) minority and vice versa.
I also think that professional demagogues in both parties whose job is to "get out the vote" do things and emphasize things that push us farther apart rather than help us find common ground.
Good observations Dan. Very insightful. Most of the time we are on the same team, we just have to realize that.
Oh, wait. I mean... how dare you say such things! You are obviously a terrorist!!! You're with them!!!
I've never liked that "lol" thing so I'll just say, "Ha!"
Propaganda is essential to war. States at war engage in activities for which any non-state actor would be condemned, and they need to justify their behavior.
Take as an example the definition of terrorism. What's terrorism? Briefly, we can define it as the use or threat of force to achieve some political goal. This is a bad thing to do.
Of course, what was the invasion of Iraq? The very same thing. So "terrorism" is further defined as excluding actions taken directly by a government. Although the term "state-sponsored terrorism" is often bandied about, it is understood to be distinct from official acts.
But people don't really accept that distinction. Human beings are not prepared to acknowledge that it's okay to torture, to bomb, to threaten a population as long as a government is doing it. That doesn't fly. That's where propaganda comes in. The other side must be demonized, to be made into some subhuman monster unworthy of life, to justify the acts essential to war. Combatants and civilians alike, on either side of the conflict, must be convinced of the absolute necessity for whatever atrocities are contemplated.
Of course, a byproduct of that is that people who accept the propaganda will react very poorly to any suggestion that the war may not be justified or appropriate. Once you've accepted propaganda as true, war is the only response that you will consider appropriate. Because that's the point of propaganda. So it's inevitable that war will cause polarization between those who accept the government's premise and those who do not.
Which brings us back to, "He's not agreeing with me. He must be a terrorist or terr-symp!"
Nice contribution, Cat.
Catastrophile said: Briefly, we can define it[terrorism] as the use or threat of force to achieve some political goal.
I disagree. As a pacifist, I believe all violence is wrong, but not all political violence should count as "terrorism." An armed revolution in which the guerillas were very careful to engage ONLY the military forces of the state would not be terrorist. Nor would the military response if the soldiers engaged only the guerilla fighters.
Terrorism is the deliberate targetting of civilians and infrastructure to panic, demoralize or terrorize an enemy and thus achieve a political goal. Thus, whether a state power uses overwhelming military force in an indescriminate manner that kills more civilians than guerillas or whether a guerilla force uses suicide bombings, etc., what makes these actions "terrorist" is the disregard for civilian life.
Thus, America HAS engaged in terror tactics in Iraq, but it was possible to have invaded without that. (The invasion would still be wrong, IMO, but it wouldn't have been terrorist.) Likewise, the insurgency in Iraq could have been fought strictly against military forces and not be terrorist.
I'm against all violence, but I also think we have to be careful in our use of words. Otherwise we get situations like the present where "terrorism" equals anything the U.S. doesn't like and anything we do like, no matter how much it harms civilians, is not terrorism but "national self defense" whether American or Israeli.
All violence, and all war is wrong. Terrorism, whether used by governments or nongovernmental entities, is worse.
The problem is, I'm not sure that war has ever really been fought on the terms you describe. War has always been a crude, messy, and violent business, efforts to make it more "civilized" notwithstanding. Cities were burned, women raped, civilians threatened and their property stolen. Fear and destabilization have been tools in the warrior's arsenal for a good long time.
What changed in the 20th Century was man's ability to commit the same atrocities on a much larger scale.
I agree with you on the point that my definition of terrorism may have been too broad. At the same time, however, the people writing the definitions will usually apply the term as broadly as I do, especially if the rebel or insurgent force is fighting against them.
We'll you know how I feel about your post, Dan! Fabulous!
Getting back to your initial question of why the nation is so divided:
Is it possible that a "prince of this world" (Daniel 10:13: Ephesians 2:2) has stirred up divisions in the Body of Christ and in our nation?
This is not to say that your four points are not valid, and that I am not guilty of doing those four things and more (because I am), but if there is a spirit of division working in America, it means that most of us are agreeing with the "accuser of the brethern" about other Christians rather than with Jesus.
Maybe, we need to fight against principalities, powers, rulers and spiritual hosts.
Then, if we win the spiritual battles, maybe the light that you are trying so hard to give me, I'll finally see. And vice versa for you.
But then again, that requires prayer, fasting and love. And that's a lot of work.
I can Amen Bro. Larry's comment.
"Thus, America HAS engaged in terror tactics in Iraq"
Gawd! Very "level" of you, Michael.
I previously wrote: "Thus, America HAS engaged in terror tactics in Iraq"
"Daddio," with his nasty pointing finger that drives me nuts, objects to this statement. I have in mind: 1)Shock and awe bombing of Baghdad at the beginning of the war. Deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure is terrorist by definition. 2) The Battle of Falluja for same reasons as above. 3) Abu Ghraib and other prisons with similar treatment. 4) The growing number (or growing reporting) of rapes, wildings, anti-Iraqi bloodlettings, etc.
The terrorism of the insurgents, ex-Baathists, foreign fighters, etc. is not denied--nor excused. But I will judge the U.S. by the same standards of international law I judge all others with--no letting it slip by because this nation is my own. If anything, because I love this nation and want it to live up to its ideals, I'll criticize it harsher.
No apologies, "Daddio."
"But I will judge the U.S. by the same standards of international law I judge all others with."
That's a comp[letely untrue statement. You are equivicating the actions of the US military with those of murderous, civilian TARGETING terrorists. Shock and Awe, Michael, was levelled on the government palaces and political infrastructure. It targeted the Iraqi leadesrhip--NOT civilians.
When you show me photos (that are not photoshopped as many leftist photos tend to be nowadays) that gives evidence to a concerted effort by our military to decapitate its captives, I'll agree with you!
Until then--get real, dude!
I've been mulling over another term flung rather broadly by hawks and doves alike nowadays. Neo-conservatives, radical Islam and MoveOn.org all have been tagged with the label fascist. It's clearly a label neither side wishes to associate with itself and uses to demonize the other. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology, but not all authoritarian ideologies are fascist. It sure conjures up negative associations, though. Might have to blog on it...
D.Daddio said: "Shock and Awe, Michael, was levelled on the government palaces and political infrastructure. It targeted the Iraqi leadesrhip--NOT civilians."
And you know this Daddio because?
My son was there. He saw shopping malls and apartment buildings levelled into the stone age by shock and awe.
Would the eye witness of a soldier convince you?
Should we also ask Whither the great divide? Can efforts such as yours help overcome it?
Perhaps an even better question. I remain optimistic in spite of unrelenting reality.
Post a Comment