Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Sarah Palin

  • In Case of Murder, Attack Some Metaphors

    I haven’t yet commented on the shootings in Tucson. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, all of them, not just those in federal service. I’m concerned when people are killed because of senseless or unnecessary violence wherever that occurs. I don’t say this to diminish the importance of an attack on a member of congress. There is a special importance to such an attack, and we should be deeply concerned. This we ought to have done, but not to have left the other undone (Matt. 23:23).

    But how should we respond? Too frequently we look for some sort of law that is going to make us completely safe from such things. But such safety, like complete safety from terrorist attacks will remain elusive. We need to reflect soberly on what will actually accomplish useful goals. I’m perfectly happy with the idea of looking at the type of weapons available and the people who can legally purchase them, though we again need to make sure that any such restrictions actually accomplish their goal.

    But then there’s the attack on certain target maps, or on certain ways of talking about one’s opponents. I think there’s a good summary of the maps over at Unsettled Christianity. They aren’t just made by one side. That’s important. But even more important, in my view, is this: They weren’t intended to incite or encourage violence.

    We use violent metaphors in much of our speech. There is even the entire Christian metaphor of spiritual warfare. Though there are some that seem to miss the metaphorical side, or the fact that spiritual warfare is not “against flesh and blood,” the vast majority of those who use this language intend no violence by it. I don’t believe that New Testament writers intended any such thing by it either.

    Now Congressman Robert Brady (D, PA) has introduced a law to prohibit certain expressions regarding public officials. One of his particular concerns is the maps I referenced above:

    “You can’t put bulls eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,” Brady said. “I understand this web site that had it on there is no longer in existence. Someone is feeling a little guilty” (Source).

    I don’t know about feeling a little bit guilty. I’d rather say that, under the circumstances, the makers of the map though displaying it was in bad taste. That’s their decision.

    But making a law against metaphor, which is what this is, is not going to accomplish anything. It may make people feel like they have done something. It may make people feel more secure, but it shouldn’t. Some may think it’s insensitive to oppose something like this at a time like this. Proponents of such measures count on that feeling.

    But just because a law claims that it will make us safer doesn’t mean it will. No law will make us safe from craziness or evil.

    From the same CNN article:

    As for support for the bill, Brady said, “Why would you be against it?”

    Because it simply creates more laws without providing any more safety. Because it allows us to pretend we’re solving problems when we aren’t.

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Value of Basic Research (even in France)

    In the middle of a speech on commitment to special needs children, Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin chose to take a pot shot at some pork–research into fruit flies. It was a particularly good political shot, because the research is taking place in Paris, France, and obviously, “real” Americans don’t want to pay for anything that takes place there.

    Like many research projects, fruit fly research simply doesn’t sound very exciting. It makes a good political joke. And it’s a joke that works because too many Americans have almost no idea of the basic science that must take place before they can drive their cars, operate their computers, or generally have jobs.

    Responsible leadership would inform such people of just how essential basic research is. Leaders would examine the process and see just what benefits were intended, even if those benefits were only in developing the framework of scientific understanding in which all that technology, you know, the stuff we all have to have, is accomplished.

    But instead, Palin chose to make it a good joke about wasteful spending. I’m not going to go into detail, but it turns out the fruit flies being studied are abundant in Europe and are just starting to appear in California, and successfully handling this may well involve quite a number of people’s jobs in the future.

    Brighter people than I am have written up a few more details at Inside Higher Ed. List this as another strong reason why I simply can’t stomach the Republican team this year.

  • Religion and God Mocked in Campaign

    In an article titled Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage amendment, I found the following:

    Palin also claimed religion and God had been “mocked” during the campaign, although she offered no evidence to support that.

    “Faith in God in general has been mocked through this campaign, and that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and choose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit,” she said.

    (Note that CQPolitics cites portions of an interview released by CBN for this material.)

    And Governor Palin is right. Religion and God have been mocked in this campaign. In her case, it was done by many who don’t really understand the stream of Christianity to which she belongs. I too have been prayed for by people whose theology might not 100% coincide with my own.

    But it started much earlier, at least as early as the reactions to Barack Obama’s church, to his particular faith, and to his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Because Obama’s church is different, not like all those other churches, and it’s liberal, it’s OK to run down his faith and his associations. If it’s Sarah Palin, and a pastor who sends the crowds after a witch, that’s a misunderstanding. And indeed, I think it is a misunderstanding. But there is also a pretty substantial misunderstanding of Obama’s faith on the right.

    You see, folks like Sarah Palin cite “faith in God” as the issue. But if faith in God is the issue, why is anyone concerned with the accusation that Obama is a Muslim? I’ve encountered not a few Muslims in my life, and every one of them had an active faith in God. I certainly didn’t agree with them on much theology. In fact, I find very little in Islam that is attractive to me personally. But there are plenty of Muslims who are quite attractive personally.

    Of course, Obama must respond with the truth that he is a Christian. And it is a very important advantage in the campaign that he is a Christian with very specific things to say. One may disagree with his theology or the theology of his church, but it is hard to argue that he is not sincere and committed to his faith. But at the same time, I think that religion and faith in God are mocked rather severely by the simple nature of this debate.

    “Faith in God” becomes “faith in God as I define both ‘faith’ and ‘God’.” And that’s a rather sad thing.

    There is not supposed to be a religious test for office in the United States. Now that is a legal thing. It doesn’t mean that the voters cannot have such a test. And I think they do. Whatever the role of race in this campaign, I think religion has a very dangerous role. Does anyone doubt that if Barack Obama had to say “yes” when asked if he was Muslim, he would be in the position he is in now? Could he say that he is a loyal, patriotic American who also happens to be a Muslim? I doubt that would work.

    That’s because “faith in God” is not the issue. “Faith in God” is not what is being mocked. What is being mocked, at many times and from many angles is a faith that is different. When Palin said that Obama doesn’t see America in the same way that she and her audience did, she was underlining this difference.

    You may ask whether I don’t think I’m right about religion, and if so, why I shouldn’t state that claim. Yes, I have a bad habit of being pretty certain that I’m right. The struggle is not to believe that people with whom I disagree are bad because they disagree. The method is to encounter those people, listen to them, and try to understand how they work.

    Here’s the key: In my experience, they are not evil and they are often not that different from me. We may disagree on something I hold very dear. But on other subjects they are not bad people. They may worship differently, believe different things, consider different books sacred, and come from different ethnic backgrounds, but I generally find they don’t match up to my worst fears.

    The are merely choosing to “worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit.” Or was Governor Palin really saying that they (the ones who really have faith in God) worship Jesus in whatever manner they deem fit? Is it a case of any denomination (except the liberal ones) is OK, as long as they are Christians?

    But I think the greatest mockery of religion is an ongoing one, and that is the way in which we see public symbolism as an expression of real faith. A candidate in most cases must express some form of religious faith. Do they go to church? Do they trust in God? The political answer is “yes” and “yes.” It doesn’t matter what that means in their behavior; it only matters that the right words are said.

    This is the attitude that brings us disputes about monuments to the ten commandments. We are told that to reject the monument is to reject God, yet what goes on in the courtroom is not governed by the ten commandments. Many of the commandments are unconstitutional–just start reading with #1–and others are unenforceable. Do we think God is impressed by false labeling?

    Then there is the little slogan “In God we Trust” on our money. Some think it’s a national motto. Actually it’s a national joke. We don’t actually trust in God. In financial affairs we trust least of all. Do we suppose that God is impressed by the words as the bill is slipped into a dancer’s g-string or fed to a slot machine?

    I’d personally prefer that faith was kept a little more low key in our politics, simply because I think our current determination to have “people of faith” in public office is one of the greatest invitations to hypocrisy ever.

    We don’t trust in God, and if we behave as we have been, as Rev. Jeremiah Wright said in his inimitable way, God sure is not going to bless us.

  • On the Troubles of Candidates’ Children

    I wasn’t going to say anything about this, because I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with spreading the story any further, but now that it has been discussed in the mainstream media, such as MSNBC.com, I want to make a short comment.

    I married late, in my early 40s, and picked up a ready-made family. My children are wonderful, and so are my grandchildren. Before I married, I understood that raising children was more complex than my experience would let me understand. Since getting involved personally, I realize that it is more complex than anything I imagined that I hadn’t been able to imagine!

    In my opinion, the stories circulated about Sarah Palin (to which she has responded by revealing that her oldest daughter is pregnant) should not have been repeated without absolute proof, and even were they absolutely proven, there would considerations of privacy. There seems to be a desire to find a major smear to put on her, and this one apparently looked good to some folks.

    I personally don’t share many of Sarah Palin’s convictions. Because I don’t, I’m not inclined to vote for her. But I think that her children should be given privacy, and any problems they have should not be a topic for public discussion. But more importantly, I disapprove in the strongest terms possible of the desire to see people of convictions fail, even to the extent of bringing their children into it.

    I would hope that this story would go away. In my view, responsible journalism should make every effort to kill it, and the rest of us should not repeat the story.

    Update: Some notes on Obama’s response here. I think he has done well.