Photos of the Iraqi Prisoners

There are several things that are troubling about the famous photos. They are photos of Iraqis being humiliated just because they are prisoners. They are photos of prison guards doing the humiliating. They are photos of American and British soldiers doing the humiliating. They are photos of people humiliating people. It's pretty clear to me that I, as just another person, could find myself in either position.

I could find myself a prisoner being degraded and humiliated by my prison guards. I can imagine a set of circumstances coming to pass that would put me in the same position as the poor Iraqi prisoners. It's not very hard to imagine. I could find myself swept up in a mass arrest (oh yes, it could happen), and in a prison with guards that had no regard for me.

Equally troubling is that I could find myself a prison guard who is degrading and humiliating prisoners. Yes, I can imagine a set of circumstances coming to pass that would put me in the same position as the American and British soldiers turned prison guards. It's not very hard to imagine either. I could find myself in a position of power over other people, and believing myself to be better, degrade and humiliate them. The ability of power to corrupt is well documented, and I fear that I could fall victim to it just as easily as anyone else. Let's not say to ourselves, "I could never do that!" Because, if we deny the possibility of it, that's what allows it to come to pass. If I deny my capacity to act out of my dark and evil side, I push that dark and evil side even closer to exploding. Let's rather say to ourselves, "Yeah, it could be me in that picture, smiling and giving the thumbs up, but for the grace of God it's not." Let's acknowledge that yes even Americans can treat others as less than human. Let's not look at ourselves as some kind of beacon on a hill that gives only light into the world. Let's realize that we as a country and as individuals have our evil capacities too.

Now, one last point, and here's where it get even stickier. Those photos show women doing the humiliating. Let's get past the point of thinking of women as the bearers of all things peaceful and gentle in this world, and acknowledge that they too have evil capacities. When a nation denies its ability to act in evil ways, it brings forward that very capacity. Likewise, when a gender denies its ability to act in evil ways, it brings forward that very capacity. Women have pushed their ability to denigrate and humiliate off onto men, who have pushed their ability to be peaceful and gentle off onto women. Let's stop the bullshit, and acknowledge that we all have both capacities.

Mark Twain once said that George Washington's declaration of "I cannot tell a lie" was not the best. Twain said, "I'll do you one better than that, I can tell a lie, but I won't." That's a much more ethical and realistic declaration. Let's take this opportunity to recognize that we American can be just as brutal and malicious as anyone else, but also to say that we won't.
- posted by Marcos @ 3:05 PM (0) comments

 
It's a NOVEL Not History

I just left the beginning of the Deborah Norville show on MSNBC. Tonight's topic is The DaVinci Code. She has two authors on tonight. They have both written follow-on books about The DaVinci Code. It looked like she had one that was a "defender of the faith," and one that was a "defender of the code." The faith defender was carrying on about how the book is an attack on the church and Jesus, etc. It's a novel first and foremost. It's not a theological tome (it's much to readable for that), it's not an atheist diatribe against religion. It's a who-done-it. I know, because I've read it.

Yes, it does take some legends about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Holy Grail and weave them together into a very good story. Yes, anyone could have read about these theories or legends with just a little looking on their own. I know that because I had already read them. What makes it unique is that it brings many of them together with a good mystery. The legends themselves already had their believers, and they didn't need Dan Brown to attract adherents. It is a good mystery, and it's even plausible; but that's what makes for a good story. People have always been intrigued by Jesus and to a lesser extent by Mary Magdalene. But, that interest is not an attack on the Church or Jesus. It's genuine interest.

The two authors would not have their books published, and they wouldn't be on Deborah Norville if it weren't for Dan Brown and his book. What they're really doing is making the obligatory TV appearance to promote their own books. I would be interested to find out who the publisher is, and if it has any business connections to NBC or General Electric. Now that's the story here, not whether Dan Brown is trying to undermine Christianity.
- posted by Marcos @ 8:14 PM (0) comments

 
Does It Have to Be So...?

Whenever I begin to read about theology, I find myself frustrated after just a few paragraphs. What is it that requires theologians to write is such difficult language? Is the nature of God so difficult that it can't be expressed in everyday language? Now, honestly, I doubt that. I believe it is possible to translate the high-falutin language of philosophy and theology into regular speech. I also believe that none of the nuances or subtleties would be lost. Let's take an example: Paul Tillich, "God is the ground of all being." The ground is like the earth, right? And things grow out of the earth right? So, God is what we grow out of or grow from, right? What's so hard about that? Ground of all being, ha! Then we have his other one, "ultimate concern." This second example is worse. What the hell does that mean? Ultimate means the last in a literal meaning of the Latin word. I don't think he meant that God is last concern. Like, you're going to be concerned about everything else before being concerned about God. Okay, what else does it mean? Highest? God is the highest concern. Okay, I think that's a little closer. I guess ultimate can also mean most, so God is most concern. That one doesn't make so much sense. So, let's look at "concern." I have a concern means I care about something. Okay, now that's pretty good. So, God is my Highest Care. Concern also mean a worry. God is my highest worry. Hmm, not very good. Okay, let's go back to highest care. God is what I care about the most. Ooooo, that's getting pretty close, I think. What do I care about the most? My family? My health? My integrity? Well, that's pretty good, but wouldn't God include all those things, but also be more than that? Yeah, I think so. Okay, when Tillich says Ultimate Concern he really means all those things I care about the most and more. Let's see, now back to ultimate - we have those desserts in restaurants called the "Ultimate Chocolate Cake" or some such thing. In that case doesn't ultimate mean the best, the very best, no way to get better? So, we have the Very Best Care. That thing that we believe is the Very Best thing to Care about. Now, were getting somewhere!

Look back at this post and notice how long it is. I had to break it down (deconstruct) so much that it took about 20 or more lines. Wouldn't it have been just as easy for Tillich to say, "God is the Very Best Highest Most Important Thing to Care About"? I think so, but then I'm no PHD who has made a career of talking to and writing for other PHDs.
- posted by Marcos @ 8:37 PM (0) comments

 
Is the Threat of Punishment Necessary?

There is a view of humankind that says if left alone people will just kill, rape and pillage. Therefore, we must have laws which if broken will result in punishment. Is that what it takes? I'm not sure about the answer to that. For example, it's pretty clear that the threat of capital punishment doesn't keep people from committing murder. As a matter of fact, Texas is putting more killers to death than ever before, but it doesn't seem that murder rates are appreciably lower.

However, if you could take money from a bank without getting caught, would you? Probably yes. So, in this case at least the threat of punishment seems to keep people honest (if honest is the word to use). This notion of punishment goes beyond the grave, because, well, it has to. If I could steal from a bank without getting caught in this life, what's to keep me from doing it? Life after death and eternal punishment. That's mostly what Christianity promises. Many believers actually don't do wrong just because God would kick their ass when they die. Is that a reason to call oneself honest? I don't think so. I mean, what does it say about you that the reason you don't steal is punishment? It says that ethically you would do it, no problem, it's just that getting caught and sent to hell keeps you from it.

If you were really ethical you would do the right thing, because it's the right thing - not because you'll get punished otherwise. It's kind of like when Jesus said that loving your family and friends was no great deed, because "even the pagans to that." No, he said love your enemies, because it's the right way to live. Wow! He had a way about him didn't he? So, is the threat of hell necessary to make humankind act with honesty and respect toward one another? If it is, then we are little more than children morally. The results may be the same whether you do it out of fear, or out of it being the right thing to do, but the starting points couldn't be farther apart!

I believe we have the ability to do things for the right reasons, but that we often do the right thing for the wrong reason. It's certainly a different feeling on the inside of a person, if she doesn't take your car because she knows she'll get caught, rather than not taking it because it's not hers to use. One if a jealous, fearful, and angry feeling. The other is calm and peaceful. So, the really ethical choice should feel better. If it doesn't, then you're probably operating out of jealousy, anger, and fear of punishment.
- posted by Marcos @ 2:26 PM (0) comments