I Begin to Understand...
Hard to admit, but I suppose I've been, if not exactly wrong, then wrong, exactly!I've experienced an epiphany. Where before I simply could not understand, now I begin to realize I've been offered a glimpse into the truth. It's not easy to admit one has been wrong about an idea when one has been so adamant that the answer to the conundrum is as simple as it seems. Who was that wise man who admitted to the world that "nothing is as simple as it seems"? I don't think cows are given to jumping anyway, so why depict a cow jumping over the moon in any event?
I read a column in today's local newspaper written by a regular columnist by name of David Warren. You don't know him? Too bad. Or too good as the case may be. I generally think it's a good thing not to know of or to read his columns, but occasionally his rantings and ravings give way inexplicably to logic and a column that finds favour with my feverish brain. I should have known better. I do know better. Why on earth would I ever have felt, from time to time, that he was edging very close to expressing an opinion similar to my own.
Of which I am now suitably ashamed, feeling completely chastised by my own nagging sense of idiocy. Can anyone who assigns the highest order of responsibility to One On High be trusted in any event? Most particularly one who has been known through the public venue of a newspaper to rant unceasingly about the increasingly-unforgivable godlessness of the West? Well, perhaps a more intelligently rational soul than I would have known better. Am I too trusting, too willing to hold out an olive branch of patience in the belief that people can, if they truly wish, dust off that cerebrum from its forgotten shelf and use it from time to time? Everyone makes errors in judgement and I am no exception.
Back to today's commentary by the esteemed writer, David Warren. He makes reference to the two Fox News journalists captured in Gaza who had agreed, under threat of their lives, to publicly announce their conversion to Islam. In exchange for which, recorded on video, they were granted their lives. Bad boys, they. Likely more for the poor judgement involved in placing themselves in harm's way to begin with; not, in my estimation, by taking the low road of abjuring their life-long religious beliefs in exchange for their lives.
Not so according to Mr. Warren, for he states:
"Let us be clear on one fact. Such videos have serious consequences. They are used as a powerful propaganda weapon across the Muslim world, to show aspiring fanatics how spineless Westerners are. And that video in particular was priceless,for the degree of prostration it exhibited.Fair enough, for it was with distaste that I read some of the comments attributed to the then-rescued captives myself. But to condemn them for saving their lives by the not-too-difficult-under-the circumstances device of "pleasing" the nasty demands of their captors goes beyond what I would expect of anyone. To do otherwise would be to anticipate that the same death-wish for martyrdom affects those two news agents as appears to have diseased their captors.
"I refused, in that column, (making reference to an earlier condemnatory column he had written) to take the easy way out, to lard it with empathy for the captives' plight, and other concessions to moral relativism - let alone to add the excuses the captives themselves have made, on behalf of their captors and the society that encourages them."
Yet, David Warren goes even further:
"But if I capitulated, from fear of pain and death, I would be deeply ashamed of what I had done. And this shame would haunt me for the rest of my life. I would not be appearing all smiles on TV I would not be accepting the accolades of my colleagues, and I would surely have the decency to contradict anyone who dared call me "brave" for saving my own skin.So Mr. Warren would embrace death in defiance of his would-be killers, for the sake of Christ, in the name of his One True Deity. How is that any different from the point of view of Jihadists who embrace death in the name of Allah? True, he would never have initiated hostilities, he would never have placed himself in the position of abductor and potential murderer, but in my opinion he is a quick one-step behind those poor ignorant Muslims who deem it their religious duty to give up their lives for Allah.
"And if I had, in that moment of cowardice, denied Christ, I'd be praying for forgiveness as Judas should have prayed. Unless, like his, my soul had been broken by the gravity of my act."
What about the sacredness of life itself? Are we not to preserve life by any and all means? Does the God of the West demand no less of us? Yes, surely this is a moral, ethical dilemma. The same strictures that forbid the deliberate taking of a life should also come into play to forbid the giving up of a life. Unless the fervour of religious zealotry demands otherwise. Is that religion, is that obeisance to the word of god, or is it ego, pride speaking now?
That said, I believe there is a place for bravery of action, defiance of the odds, a willingness to face death for a cause that is just. Faced with the intent of an intractible regime intent on murdering people simply because of who or what they are, for example. That's on the macro scale. On the micro scale, there is a time and place to intervene, even when one's own life then comes into mortal danger, when one witnesses a deadly attack on another human being and takes steps to circumvent that design.
Bear in mind that true courage demands instant response. Nothing particularly courageous about weighing one's odds of survival in the case of the two Fox newspeople facing an hostile and deadly group of Islamists. Merely a matter of practicality in the exercise of daily living in dangerous places on earth.
Mr. Warren further asserts..."recall that our whole civilization stands or falls on what you decide. Do you, do we, have the courage to hold our spiritual fortress? Or will we, in the time of trouble, give everything away?"
Is he speaking of humanity? Does he speak for humanity? Do theistic beliefs dominate our actions and reactions to the point that we lose the ability to act with full humanity? As human beings should we not attempt to relate openly to the thoughts and feelings of other human beings? Would we be more capable of so doing without the intervention/interruption of religion? Was religion advanced as a means of ensuring that we remain adamantly apart; separate and hostile?
We will never advance as human beings for the betterment of the world as long as these divisions deliberately place barriers between us for understanding, acceptance and peace. The alternative does advance another agenda, but it is one humans have followed for far too long and with always-disastrous results. History repeats itself ad nauseum.
But, take cheer: we're also destroying our very geographic environment, so it's heads or tails which will come first...a complete and universal environmental shut-down or the elimination of humankind through the ultimate nuclear show-down.
Cheerful, aren't we?
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, September 03, 2006
<< Home