Turduckin
Turduckin
- Flag burning: The burning of a nation's flag is a harsh protest against the actions of its people or their government. In the Islamic world, the burning of the American flag is more common than it is in the US, but in this country, it is the last bastion of civil condemnation--it is a step short of violence. As a pacifist, it becomes the ultimate demonstration short of standing the line under fire from police or, heaven forbid, daring an invading army to plow through a million civilians. What amuses me is that any Flag Burning Amendment must include the language that The First Amendment is hereby amended as follows. In the American religion of patriotism, this is tantamount to amending the Bible in Christianity.
- Cross burning: The primary problem with cross burning comes generally when someone trespasses on private property in order to commit their demonstration there. Cross-burning has been used as a threat for so long in this country that people generally don't like it at all. But I'm sure that if I hit the heavy metal circuit devotedly enough, I can within the space of a year catch one or two shows at which crosses are burned. Admittedly, the presence of the KKK confuses the debate, but people ceased being willing to think reasonably about the KKK a long time ago, and with good reason. When the KKK lights up a cross on George Dubya's lawn, I think the public will look less angrily upon cross burning.
- Book burning: What is ironic about book burning is that it is generally a protest against the publication or permission of a book. The protest, in the US, at least, amounts to asserting that the First Amendment is only available to some--those of like mind to the burners. It is similar to a PTA protest that occurred in the Salem-Keizer, Oregon school district when I lived a state south of here. A Christian woman demanded the removal of a book--Robert McCammon's Demon Walk from the school library because it violated her rights. Now, the argument was tenuous to begin with, but essentially went like this: Even though McCammon did not praise Satan, he presented a character named Demon who was not evil, a condition which runs counter to Christian tradition. Thus, her First Amendment rights were violated by a government endorsement of anti-christian ideas. Her right to free speech, to be represented by a public institution, could only be respected by the removal of the book and the cancellation of that same right for the author. It was a paradoxical notion: "I have my rights only when others do not have theirs."
I'm led to believe the following issue might be at play:
- What you seem to be objecting to: That people should not be allowed to burn books, crosses, &c.
- What I am actually saying: That an inherently problematic condition needs to be considered--Is the Christian's (in this case) First Amendment right or idea of free speech impinged by the existence of the same rights in others?
And what makes it important to the larger issue is the seemingly paradoxical device at play. It recurs as a pattern in fundamentalist engagement with the political method: We are only equal if Christians are better.
And this is why the fundamentalists are losing ground. More of them can yell it louder, but people are officially getting sick of putting up with it. People are generally smart enough to not forcibly silence them, but after a while, if they can offer no new ideas, it should suffice to note their objections for the record and get along with more important things than deciding whose equality is greater or lesser than the next guy's.
It is, specifically, about the problems inherent in demanding respect for one's own rights through the suspension of those rights in others.
Beyond that, such a point is only important to the topic because of other expressed positions. To be honest, I'm surprised at how much play the point is getting.
Consider: Twisted Sister's Under the Blade Lp was banned for sale in the United States for several years. (Of the two copies I've owned over time, one was an Italian import complete with a warning that it can't be sold in the US ... heh.) Now, the best I can explain it to you is that I can't figure out why this album was banned. Compared to Eminem, this album is a Sunday School primer. Nearest I can tell you is to find the nearest metalhead to you who still listens to Twisted Sister and ask him to play the album for you in its entirety. And the whole time, think, "This album was banned." And why? For offending the sensibilities of conservative, Christian Americans. I mean, Twisted Sister was subpoenaed by the US Senate! At stake were common American, Christian-derived "values". My favorite part of the story, however, is that Twisted Sister never let anyone forget what happened. Their albums stayed scary. Well, except for that last one. But they kept shooting back the whole time. And yes, they found themselves in that odd moment of realizing that the only way to accommodate the rights of others was to forfeit their own. And really, would you give up your right to free speech just so someone who condemns you can feel secure in theirs?
Any number of things can characterize it well. Go read through the old Bob Larson tantrums about rock and roll, compare his notes on lyrics with the actual songs (Dio's "All the Fools Sailed Away" is a great example) and wonder why he strives to be so dishonest. Realize that he doesn't know the songs he's complaining about, and wonder why he's complaining. Why are books like Are You There God, Its Me Margaret? (Judy Blume), Bridge to Terabithia (Katherine Paterson), or A Wrinkle in Time (Madeleine L'Engle) objectionable? And what do those criteria matter to the point that they are among the most frequently-challenged books (most frequently demanded to be censored)? How is it that school policies are modified in detrimental manners (e.g. sex ed) in order to accommodate Christian complaints? I once lived in a "clothing optional" town, where special legislation had been written specifically to allow women to go topless at the very least. Now, my question is Why do we have to write special legislation to allow anyone to go topless or naked? Whence comes such a standard of indecency that a woman cannot show her breasts in public?
None of it really makes sense when I stop to examine it. Fundamentalism, perhaps according to its somewhat academic definitions bears some theoretical possibility, I suppose. But none of it explains the public representation of meddling and exploitation. The laws of the US are for everybody. Well, in theory. Poppy Bush didn't like atheists, and Dubya seems to think the laws aren't for Muslims, so .... But I think you understand what I'm after. There is the faith on paper, and then there is the living experience. That living experience is a bizarre idea of reality at present. The poor representation offered by the fundamentalist wing does stain the whole name of Christianity, especially in the US.
thanx much,
Tiassa
Turduckin
Of course they should. I submit that the issue is not about the act of protest in and of itself, but rather the implications. Consider, please, a simple comparison:
- Flag burning: The burning of a nation's flag is a harsh protest against the actions of its people or their government. In the Islamic world, the burning of the American flag is more common than it is in the US, but in this country, it is the last bastion of civil condemnation--it is a step short of violence. As a pacifist, it becomes the ultimate demonstration short of standing the line under fire from police or, heaven forbid, daring an invading army to plow through a million civilians. What amuses me is that any Flag Burning Amendment must include the language that The First Amendment is hereby amended as follows. In the American religion of patriotism, this is tantamount to amending the Bible in Christianity.
- Cross burning: The primary problem with cross burning comes generally when someone trespasses on private property in order to commit their demonstration there. Cross-burning has been used as a threat for so long in this country that people generally don't like it at all. But I'm sure that if I hit the heavy metal circuit devotedly enough, I can within the space of a year catch one or two shows at which crosses are burned. Admittedly, the presence of the KKK confuses the debate, but people ceased being willing to think reasonably about the KKK a long time ago, and with good reason. When the KKK lights up a cross on George Dubya's lawn, I think the public will look less angrily upon cross burning.
- Book burning: What is ironic about book burning is that it is generally a protest against the publication or permission of a book. The protest, in the US, at least, amounts to asserting that the First Amendment is only available to some--those of like mind to the burners. It is similar to a PTA protest that occurred in the Salem-Keizer, Oregon school district when I lived a state south of here. A Christian woman demanded the removal of a book--Robert McCammon's Demon Walk from the school library because it violated her rights. Now, the argument was tenuous to begin with, but essentially went like this: Even though McCammon did not praise Satan, he presented a character named Demon who was not evil, a condition which runs counter to Christian tradition. Thus, her First Amendment rights were violated by a government endorsement of anti-christian ideas. Her right to free speech, to be represented by a public institution, could only be respected by the removal of the book and the cancellation of that same right for the author. It was a paradoxical notion: "I have my rights only when others do not have theirs."
I'm led to believe the following issue might be at play:
- What you seem to be objecting to: That people should not be allowed to burn books, crosses, &c.
- What I am actually saying: That an inherently problematic condition needs to be considered--Is the Christian's (in this case) First Amendment right or idea of free speech impinged by the existence of the same rights in others?
And what makes it important to the larger issue is the seemingly paradoxical device at play. It recurs as a pattern in fundamentalist engagement with the political method: We are only equal if Christians are better.
And this is why the fundamentalists are losing ground. More of them can yell it louder, but people are officially getting sick of putting up with it. People are generally smart enough to not forcibly silence them, but after a while, if they can offer no new ideas, it should suffice to note their objections for the record and get along with more important things than deciding whose equality is greater or lesser than the next guy's.
It has nothing to do with that; I'm almost disappointed in your suggestion. Rather, it's just that I can call a spade a crow, a buck a jigaboo, and this fundamentalist interpretation of equality paradoxical.
It is, specifically, about the problems inherent in demanding respect for one's own rights through the suspension of those rights in others.
Beyond that, such a point is only important to the topic because of other expressed positions. To be honest, I'm surprised at how much play the point is getting.
Consider: Twisted Sister's Under the Blade Lp was banned for sale in the United States for several years. (Of the two copies I've owned over time, one was an Italian import complete with a warning that it can't be sold in the US ... heh.) Now, the best I can explain it to you is that I can't figure out why this album was banned. Compared to Eminem, this album is a Sunday School primer. Nearest I can tell you is to find the nearest metalhead to you who still listens to Twisted Sister and ask him to play the album for you in its entirety. And the whole time, think, "This album was banned." And why? For offending the sensibilities of conservative, Christian Americans. I mean, Twisted Sister was subpoenaed by the US Senate! At stake were common American, Christian-derived "values". My favorite part of the story, however, is that Twisted Sister never let anyone forget what happened. Their albums stayed scary. Well, except for that last one. But they kept shooting back the whole time. And yes, they found themselves in that odd moment of realizing that the only way to accommodate the rights of others was to forfeit their own. And really, would you give up your right to free speech just so someone who condemns you can feel secure in theirs?
Any number of things can characterize it well. Go read through the old Bob Larson tantrums about rock and roll, compare his notes on lyrics with the actual songs (Dio's "All the Fools Sailed Away" is a great example) and wonder why he strives to be so dishonest. Realize that he doesn't know the songs he's complaining about, and wonder why he's complaining. Why are books like Are You There God, Its Me Margaret? (Judy Blume), Bridge to Terabithia (Katherine Paterson), or A Wrinkle in Time (Madeleine L'Engle) objectionable? And what do those criteria matter to the point that they are among the most frequently-challenged books (most frequently demanded to be censored)? How is it that school policies are modified in detrimental manners (e.g. sex ed) in order to accommodate Christian complaints? I once lived in a "clothing optional" town, where special legislation had been written specifically to allow women to go topless at the very least. Now, my question is Why do we have to write special legislation to allow anyone to go topless or naked? Whence comes such a standard of indecency that a woman cannot show her breasts in public?
None of it really makes sense when I stop to examine it. Fundamentalism, perhaps according to its somewhat academic definitions bears some theoretical possibility, I suppose. But none of it explains the public representation of meddling and exploitation. The laws of the US are for everybody. Well, in theory. Poppy Bush didn't like atheists, and Dubya seems to think the laws aren't for Muslims, so .... But I think you understand what I'm after. There is the faith on paper, and then there is the living experience. That living experience is a bizarre idea of reality at present. The poor representation offered by the fundamentalist wing does stain the whole name of Christianity, especially in the US.
thanx much,
Tiassa
