Assumptions, Ideologies, and Horrible Actions: Some Thoughts on the Reactions to the Attacks in Norway

Even after such a horrific tragedy, it’s still sometimes comedians who manage to convey the most appropriate responses.  Stephen Colbert, in the Colbert Report segment Norwegian Muslish Gunman’s Islam-Esque Atrocity, shows that some people in the media made unwarranted assumptions about the terrorist who perpetrated the attacks in Norway.  The part when he says, “Just because Norway’s confessed murderer is a blond, blue-eyed, Norwegian-born, anti-Muslim crusader doesn’t mean he’s not a swarthy, ululating madman” beautifully sums up the point that horrible actions can be committed by people of any race, nationality, or religion.  In response to the desperate attempt by some to continue blaming Muslims even after Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and admitted to  committing the crime, Colbert hilariously asks, “Which is more plausible:  That a non-Muslim did this or that al-Qaeda has developed Polyjuice Potion?”[1]  Jon Stewart, in the Daily Show segment called In the Name of the Fodder, responded to to the prevalent “Breivik is not a true Christian” argument.  He pointed out that there is a double standard whereby certain reporters are quick to believe that attackers who claim to be Muslim really are Muslim, while claiming that attackers who claim to be Christian aren’t really Christian.  Stewart also says that he would be fine with people distinguishing between attacks done in the name of religion and members of the religion if that standard was applied equally, instead of only being applied to Christians.[2]

In a similar vein, over at The Wall of Separation (the blog of Americans United for Separation of Church and State), Kurt Ostrow writes about the way that the religious right here in the US advocates discrimination against Muslims.  He also shows that well-known religious-right figures only half-heartedly condemn attacks committed by non-Muslims, especially if the attacker was motivated by a hatred of non-Christians and people on the political left, looking desperately for excuses.[3]  It is disturbing to see the way in which the reactions to attacks on innocent people are different based on the religious beliefs of the attacker.

There are also those who, while being horrified by and condemning the attack, still found a way to bring the conversation back to Islam, cautioning against forgetting the problems of Islam.  One such person, whose response to this tragedy frustrated me, was Sam Harris.  He wrote a blog entry called Christian Terrorism and Islamophobia, in which he expresses that he is uncertain if the attacker was a Christian, pointing out various writers who were mentioned by the attacker who are not Christian.  He also writes that Islam is worse and that the attack, ironically, will make it more difficult to talk about the problems in Islam since people will bring up Islamophobia.[4]  While I cannot know for certain the internal workings of anyone’s mind, and cannot therefore say with certainty what the attacker’s thoughts are, it is important to mention that just because someone is not the same kind of Christian as many others is not a reason to say that they’re not Christian.  More importantly, however, I must ask this:  If attacks by Muslims that seem to be based at least partially on religious belief should motivate us to look at Islamic beliefs more closely, instead of endeavoring to change the topic, why should an attack by a non-Muslim not motivate us to likewise look more closely at the beliefs of the attacker, rather than changing the topic to another group?  Why should only some ideologies that are responsible for harming people be examined while harm caused by other ideologies is used as an excuse to change the subject to a different ideology?  (Also, incidentally, if an attack by someone who expressed hatred of Muslims — followed by assumption by people in the media that the attack must have been committed by a Muslim — is not an appropriate time to bring up Islamophobia, what is an appropriate time?)

One person who does advocate looking closely at Christianity in this case is Professor Susan Brooks Thislethwaite (of Chicago Theological Seminary), who advises Christians in When Christianity becomes lethal to think seriously about connections between Christianity and violence, specifically the theological perspectives that may lead Christians to justify such hatred and violence.  She writes, “It is absolutely critical that Christians not turn away from the Christian theological elements in such religiously inspired terrorism. We must acknowledge these elements in Christianity and forthrightly reject these extremist interpretations of our religion. How can we ask Muslims to do the same with Islam, if we won’t confront extremists distorting Christianity?”[5]  I think there is great value in actually thinking about the content of one’s beliefs, rather than just insisting that anyone with a different interpretation is not a true believer.  Holding one’s own ideology and group to the same standards as one holds for others is difficult to do, so I have respect for people who point out to members of their own belief system that it is not right to dodge problems rather than addressing them.

Christopher Hitchens (a frequent critic of Islam who I sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with) wrote an article titled A Ridiculous Rapid Response, in which he asked, “Do the extreme jihadists and their most virulent opponents really have a symbiotic relationship?”  (This is something I’ve wondered about as well, as the actions of those who hate each other seem to demonstrate an almost mutually dependent relationship.)  He writes about the irresponsible assumptions made about this attack and states,

So-called “experts” should have been ashamed to reverse-engineer the motive from the modus operandi, rather as Steve Emerson had done in Oklahoma by stating that the maximization of violence was “a Middle Eastern trait.” A pale Christian rider from ultima Thule with a private view of the Book of Revelation may also be said to be infected with “Middle Eastern traits” of the sort that hell has not hitherto boasted.[6]

The traits found in extreme ideologies and their members are not restricted to people from any one country, race, or religion.  The attempt to guess that an attack must have been perpetrated by a member of a particular group based on invalid assumptions about the groups that have certain traits (rather than basing conclusions on evidence) is hasty and ill-advised.

Ultimately, the issue that comes up whenever someone takes a horrible action is what influenced them to do such a thing.  JT Eberhard wrote a blog entry in which he argues that the attacker was indeed a Christian.  The main important point I took away his from his entry was the following:  “Christians commit horrors.  Muslims commit atrocities.  And yes, atheists also can be delegates of evil.  The poison that infects them all is an unreasonable belief about something, erroneously convincing them that their actions are somehow beneficent or acceptable.  Unreasonable beliefs, inaccurate beliefs, prompt people to do unreasonable, sometimes wicked deeds.”[7]  His statement, I think, expresses succinctly that the more general problem is any kind of unreasonable belief, which can lead to horrible actions, because people erroneously believe that their horrible actions are justified.

Susan Jacoby, in a recent article in her column The Spirited Atheist, addresses those who deny the influence of non-evidence based ideologies, writing,

Of course, right-wing Christian fundamentalists are as bent on insisting that their religion has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a terrorist act committed by a man dedicated to a new Crusade as many liberal multiculturalists (both religious and secular) are on insisting that terrorism has nothing to do with the “real” Islam. Give it up, apologists for irrationality. Non-evidence based ideology, whether religious or ostensibly secular, always has something to do with this kind of pathology.

 In addition, Jacoby cautions against making quick assumptions and acknowledges that many other factors can also play a role.

A lot of people jumped to a lot of unresearched conclusions in the 24 hours after the attack and a number of writers are still doing it. This time, however, they’re seizing on Christian fundamentalism and Islamophobia as the ideological villains.

It is undeniable that extreme religion-based ideology (most often Islam in the past decade) plays an integral role in the vast majority of terrorist acts. Recognizing that other emotional and cultural forces may also be involved could only aid us in identifying prime suspects before they turn their deadly, irrational fantasies into reality.[8]

The aim of any reasonable and feeling person after such horrible attacks should be to support efforts to prevent such attacks in the future — efforts which include determining what causes them.  What contributes to the corruption of a human mind, until it becomes capable of thinking that such violence is acceptable?

In this time, we can say that we stand with Norway and feel their pain; moving forward, it is necessary for us to realize that our feelings of sorrow should compel us to action which will improve our planet, which will create a better world for ourselves and our descendents.  This better world can only exist if we think about the causes of horror and try to address them.

#

Acknowledgements

Much thanks to the people I linked to and/or quoted.

I found the video clip of The Colbert Report via Else Marie (a.k.a. mrsweasley on Tumblr),[9] who reblogged it from Arina (a.k.a. warningdontreadthis on Tumblr).[10]  I found the video clip of The Daily Show via Krisko Isackson (Godless Liberal on Xanga).[11]

#

Edits/Additional Recommended Reading

Michelle Goldberg has an article in The Daily Beast (of 24 July 2011) called Norway Killer’s Hatred of Women, in which she writes about the combination of Christian nationalism and male superiority that Anders Breivik expressed in his manifesto.  (URL:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/24/norway-massacre-anders-breivik-s-deadly-attack-fueled-by-hatred-of-women.html)

Thanks to Ophelia Benson of Butterflies and Wheels, who mentioned Goldberg’s article in a Notes and Comments Blog entry.  (URL:  http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/we-will-re-establish-the-patriarchal-structures/)

Edit/Correction (as of 18 August 2011)

I initially incorrectly credited the video clip In the Name of the Fodder to Stephen Colbert.  It is actually a clip of Jon Stewart from The Daily Show.  I offer my sincerest apologies; I get the two of them mixed up sometimes.  The mistake has been fixed.

---

References

[1] Colbert, Stephen.  Colbert Report:  Norwegian Muslish Gunman’s Islam-Esque Atrocity.  Posted on 25 July 2011 at the Colbert Nation website.  Retrieved on 26 July 2011 from http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393042/july-25-2011/norwegian-muslish-gunman-s-islam-esque-atrocity.

[2] Stewart, Jon.  The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:  In the Name of the Fodder.  Posted on 27 July 2011 at The Daily Show website.  Retrieved on 29 July 2011 from http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/in-the-name-of-the-fodder.

[3] Ostrow, Kurt.  Norway’s Sorrow:  Why Is It So Hard For The Religious Right to Denounce Evil?  Posted on 28 July 2011 at The Wall of Separation.  Retrieved on 29 July 2011 from http://blog.au.org/2011/07/28/norway’s-sorrow-why-is-it-so-hard-for-the-religious-right-to-denounce-evil/.

[4] Harris, Sam.  Christian Terrorism and Islamophobia.  Posted on 24 July 2011 at Sam Harris’s Blog.  Retrieved on 27 July 2011 from http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia/.

[5] Thislethwaite, Susan Brooks.  When Christianity becomes lethal.  Posted on 25 July 2011 in the On Faith section of The Washington Post.  Retrieved on 28 July 2011 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/norway-attacks-when-christianity-becomes-lethal/2011/07/25/gIQAPRw5YI_blog.html.

[6] Hitchens, Christopher.  A Ridiculous Rapid Response:  Why did so many experts declare the Oslo attacks to be the work of Islamic terrorists?.  Posted on 24 July 2011 at Slate.  Retrieved on 26 July 2011 from http://www.slate.com/id/2299959/.

[7] Eberhard, JT.  Convict the killer – convict unreason.  Posted on 23 July 2011 at What Would JT Do? (WWJTD).  Retrieved on 28 July 2011 from http://wwjtd.net/?p=1326.

The link has been changed to http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2011/07/23/convict-the-killer-convict-unreason/, because JT Eberhard’s blog What Would JT Do? is now at Freethought Blogs.

[8] Jacoby, Susan.  Media know-nothings first declare Norwegian terrorist Muslim, then Christian.  Posted on 27 July 2011 at The Spirited Athest column at The Washington Post.  Retrieved on 27 July 2011 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/spirited-atheist/post/media-know-nothings-first-declare-norwegian-terrorist-muslim-then-christian/2011/07/27/gIQAb132cI_blog.html.

[9] Marie, Else (a.k.a. mrsweasley).  Posted on 27 July 2011 at mrsweasley’s Tumblr.  Retrieved on 27 July 2011 from http://mrsweasley.tumblr.com/post/8102563092/warningdontreadthis-norwegian-muslish-gunmans.

[10] Arina (a.k.a. warningdontreadthis).  Posted on 27 July 2011 at warningdontreadthis’s Tumblr.  Retrieved on 27 July 2011 from http://warningdontreadthis.tumblr.com/post/8102502372.

[11] Isackson, Krisko.  For those pissed at my post about Norway (+ Edit).  Posted on 28 July 2011 at Godless Liberal’s Xanga.  Retrieved on 29 July 2011 from http://godlessliberal.xanga.com/753496483/for-those-pissed-at-my-post-about-norway–edit/.

Thinking of and Standing with Norway

 The attacks in Norway on 22 July 2011, like any such death and destruction in the world, make us wonder if there is in fact hope for a good future for humanity.  Last year, on the ninth anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks, I posted an entry about the feelings of confusion and fear that are the result of such horrible actions.[1]  Then, as now, there is a feeling of near speechlessness inside me, because no words seem adequate to express the horror.

At times like this, there is mourning, and we wonder how anyone could do such a thing, such a vile act.  Is there something so wicked within the hearts of humans that such violence will always be with us?  Such violence happens so often, and even when it seems like we have moved forward and created a better society, there is still violence, jarring us.  There are tears and sadness and pain and dread almost unimaginable.  All the symbols in the world — the candles lit in memory, the flowers placed on graves — seem unable to convey the sharpness of the pain, but they do provide us humans a way to express the nearly inexpressible.

To the people of Norway, there is nothing to say except that all decent people are saddened by the tragedy that has happened in your country, that we are thinking of you.  It is important to remember in times like this that there are still good people in the world, that there are those who will be there to help the injured and grieving, those who will keep believing that humanity and society can be improved, rather than giving up in despair.  Humanity is capable of great acts of destruction, but it is also capable of great acts of compassion.  And it is often in response to such tragedy by the worst of humanity that we see the best of humanity stand up and offer a helping hand to those who are hurting.

Live on in hope by responding to such hate with love.

---

References

[1] Sharmin, Ani.  The Approaching Thunder and the Return of Tranquility:  a blog entry in remembrance of September 11, 2001.  Posted on 11 September 2010 at The Eternal Bookshelf.  Retrieved on 29 July 2011 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/thunder-and-tranquility-911-anniversary/.

Eradicate Hate, Not Literary History: Censoring words is not the right way to fight against racism

Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a very controversial book, even after more than a century.  According to the American Library Association,[1] it was the fifth most frequently challenged book in the 1990s[2] and the fourteenth most frequently challenged book in the 2000s.[3] This book, along with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, is a beloved classic, but both are often controversial due to the fact that they contain racial epithets.

It seems the book has come under a more subtle, yet still dangerous, form of censorship.  The publisher NewSouth Books is going to release a new edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer in February.  In this new edition, the word “nigger” will be replaced with “slave” and the word “injun” will be replaced with “Indian”.  Alan Gribben, an English professor at Auburn University in Montgomery, suggested this idea to the publisher, because he was hesitant to read the racial epithets aloud.  He thought that perhaps the book would not face as much opposition, and more people would be willing to teach it, if the words were changed.[4] While I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for the teachers who say they have a difficult time figuring out how to teach classic works that contain questionable language, I think that changing the words is wrong; it is both ineffective as a way to discourage racism and is also a dishonest alteration and misrepresentation of the words of an author.

We live in a society in which racism still exists, so it is understandable that a racial epithet still carries with it a rather strong sting.  We cannot see these words in a completely historical manner, because we know that there is still discrimination against African Americans and Native Americans today.  I feel a strong hesitation to speak or even type such epithets, even though I know I am talking about the words, rather than using them to insult another person.  It can feel intimidating if a student is one of a few people in the class of a particular group, and an epithet in a book is referring to the group that they are a part of.  Censoring these words, however, is not going to make the problem of racism go away.  One of the ways in which racism thrives is by people denying that it exists.  There are those who support discrimination outright and those who pretend that it is no longer a problem.  There are those who pretend that acknowledging the existence of minority groups is “politically correct”, when it is really just an acknowledgement of reality.  There are those who make clearly racist comments and then claim that they are not racist.  We should oppose racism, and we cannot do that if we don’t talk about it or refuse to admit that it exists.  Instead of removing words from books, instead of denying our bad history, we should make it clear that racism is not acceptable.  We should call out and condemn those who promote hatred and discrimination.

Literature can teach us great things, if read and taught properly, and the integrity of a text is important if we want to examine and study its content.  Even a book in which a character expresses discriminatory ideas can be valuable to read.  Although a book may contain epithets, it can allow us to see the clear wrongness of discrimination, the harm that it causes.  We can see the cruelty of discrimination and feel sympathy for those who are being hurt by it.  I remember reading Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, a book which is also controversial for similar reasons, and it has a message against discrimination, despite the fact that there are racial epithets.  On this alteration of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Dr. Sarah Chuchwell, of the University of East Anglia, is quoted (by Benedicte Page in The Guardian) as saying,

The fault lies with the teaching, not the book.  You can’t say ‘I’ll change Dickens so it is compatible with my teaching method’.  Twain’s books are not just literary documents but historical documents, and that word is totemic because it encodes all of the violence of slavery.  The point of the book is that Huckleberry Finn starts out a racist in a racist society, and stops being racist and leaves that society.  These changes mean the book ceases to show the moral development of his character.  They have no merit and are misleading to readers.  The whole point of literature is to expose us to different ideas and different eras, and they won’t always be nice and benign.  It’s dumbing down.[5]

Students should not be underestimated; they see the world around them.  They are capable of understanding that a book contains ideas that we now know are wrong, even though people in the past wrongly thought they were okay.  They are also capable of understanding a book written by an author of a different race or with characters of a different race.  Perhaps a better way to create a curriculum that is more reflective of our diversity is to include books with diverse authors and characters.  It can be frustrating (and embarrassing) when the only book in the school curriculum with a minority character is a book in which the minority character is being treated badly.  Instead of removing books, why not encourage students to read more books and a greater variety of books?  Accuracy, honesty, and a willingness to read books by those who are different from us are a better way to combat discrimination than an editor’s pen.

---

References

[1] The American Library Association’s official website can be found at http://www.ala.org/.

[2] 100 most frequently challenged books:  1990 – 1999.  American Library Associated.  Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedbydecade/1990_1999/index.cfm.

[3] 100 most frequently challenged books:  2000-2009.  American Library Association.  Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedbydecade/2000_2009/index.cfm.

[4] Bosman, Julie.  Publisher Tinkers With Twain.  Published at The New York Times on January 4, 2011.  Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/books/05huck.html.

[5] [Quote of Dr. Sarah Churchwell, as reported by Benedicte Page] Page, Benedict.  New Huckleberry Finn edition censors ‘n-word’.  Published in The Guardian on Januray 5, 2011.  Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/05/huckleberry-finn-edition-censors-n-word.

Unsurprisingly Infuriating Comments and Their Antidotes: Secularism, Not the Pope, Deserves Support

Introduction

The Pope’s recent visit to the UK resulted in both protests against and defenses of him and his visit.  Given the actions of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church — its insistence that members must follow some very questionable doctrines and, added to that, the scandal in which many church officials were found to be sexually abusing children and others found to be protecting the abusers from justice — this response was not surprising.  Catholicism is simultaneously both an important belief for many around the world, giving them comfort and hope, and a source of great harm to many around the world.

Some Unsurprisingly Infuriating Comments

In what can be described as an extremely unsurprising event, Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech at Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and said something hateful and offensive.  Despite mentions of peace, human rights, honesty, respect, and fair-mindedness, it is clear from the speech as a whole (and please do read the entire thing, as it has the amazing quality of being both incorrect and impressively frustrating) and his decisions and actions that his ideas about what is right, honest, and fair are divorced from reality.  He mentions good values briefly but then demonstrates bad values through his words and actions.  In his speech he emphasized Britain’s Christian history (which is true enough, although this has had mixed results, with much that is unjust due to favoritism towards Christianity and religion in general) and then went on to criticize “atheist extremism”, claiming that “the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society”.  He also said,

“Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the two billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world.”[1]

For this, he has been criticized (in addition to the criticism he was already facing for coming to Britain for a state visit and for many of the other policies and actions of the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church).

In addition to this, Cardinal Walter Kasper has been criticized for his comment, “When you land at Heathrow you at times think you are in a Third World country”.  He’s apparently upset (among other things) about an argument about whether British Airways staff members should wear Crucifixes.  He has also said that does not believe that it is likely that women will be priests in the Church, at least not in the next couple of hundred years.  Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, pointed out — correctly, I think — that Cardinal Kasper is just upset that people aren’t obeying the Vatican.[2] I would additionally point out that complaining about Crucifixes while supporting wide-spread discrimination against women is a demonstration of messed up priorities.

If this wasn’t enough, Bill Donohue (who can always be counted on to demonstrate how horrible one can become if one strives to always defend a certain individual or organization, regardless of individual’s bad actions or the organization’s ridiculous policies) has demanded that if the Pope is expected to apologize for the actions of Catholics, then the British Humanist Association should apologize for the actions of atheists.[3] My guess is that he is upset about Andrew Copson’s response to the Pope’s speech, although Dobson already didn’t have a very high opinion of secularism or atheism prior to this event.  It has apparently escaped Donahue that, while the Catholic Church has a hierarchy and rules that one must follow to be a Catholic, there isn’t a hierarchy or rulebook one must follow to be an atheist.  While being a Roman Catholic means, by definition, that one is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, being an atheist or humanist does not mean one has to be a member of the British Humanist Association (or any other association).  A person cannot take an action and accurately claim that it is an official teaching or dogma of atheism, but a person can take an action and accurately claim that it is a teaching of the Church.  It has also apparently escaped him that the things which the Pope has been asked to apologize for are specific immoral actions that were either endorsed by Church teachings or immoral actions that were hidden by the hierarchy.  One would not ask the Pope to apologize for Catholic bank robbers, because people aren’t taught to be bank robbers by the Church and because great numbers of bank tellers are not coming forward claiming that priests robbed their banks while Church officials hid the crime.  However, one might ask the Pope to apologize when, for instance, the teachings of the Church cause harm to women’s health or when the Church hierarchy participates in hiding abuse against children.  Personally, I think an actual improvement in Church beliefs and rules would be better than just an apology.  An apology by the Pope followed by more hate seems to be the easy way out.

Hearing and reading offensives statements made by various religious leaders (including the Pope) and their defenders (such as Bill Donahue) is such a common occurrence that the main aspect making it newsworthy is the fact that people still believe these horrible ideas and respect the religious leaders who make them.

The Antidote:  The Response

So what is the antidote to this?  What should the response to the Pope be?  We should most definitely not respond with violence or hatred, but rather show through our words and actions that secular values and actual human rights (not the distorted version which the Roman Catholic Church promotes) are superior to religious values.  We should criticize the Church for its horrible actions and emphasize real human rights.

The British Humanist Association’s Chief Executive Andrew Copson said the following:

The notion that it was the atheism of Nazis (who were mostly not atheists in any case) that led to their extremist and hateful views or that somehow fuels intolerance in Britain today is a terrible libel against those who do not believe in god. The notion that it is non-religious people in the UK today who want to force their views on others, coming from a man whose organisation exerts itself internationally to impose its narrow and exclusive form of morality and undermine the human rights of women, children, gay people and many others, is surreal.[4]

These are the words to which Bill Donahue was presumably responding, and the really damning thing about them (for the Church) is that they are true.  It is important to point out that it is highly hypocritical and ridiculous of religious leaders who routinely champion discrimination and human rights violations to claim that people who believe in secularism and equal rights are targeting religious groups for discrimination.

Making his point clear right from the beginning, Richard Dawkins delivered a speech titled Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity in which he mentions the many ways in which the Pope and the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church are harming people.  The list is long and shows that the Church’s horrible actions are numerous and serious — not just a matter of occasional mistakes.  (Dawkins also makes a good point that if the Church is going to count every person who is technically a member of the Church, regardless of the person’s agreement or disagreement with the Church’s policies, when bragging about how many Catholics there are around the world and in the UK, then they have to also admit that horrible people like Hitler were also Catholic.)[5] Ratzinger’s membership in the Hitler Youth was horrible, although I have to admit that it is an unreliable indicator of his personal views, since it was required; many people who didn’t support the Nazi Party had to pretend they did in order to keep themselves alive.  His actions as an adult, however, cannot be given the benefit of the doubt.  Ratzinger is and has been in positions of power for a long time.  Concerning his actions while a member of the leadership of the Church, he cannot say that he was child who was required to take certain actions by law; he is in fact a person in a position of power who is now telling other people what to do.  His willingness to continue the horrible policies of the Church, teach lies, and spread hate is worthy of condemnation, and there is no excuse.

The effect that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have on its members is evident from some of the testimonies that former Catholics make about their time as members of the Church.  Miranda Celeste Hale wrote a blog entry titled A dirty little girl, her head hanging in shame that should make a person doubt the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is moderate or loving or kind.  She describes her experience with confession and the feeling of guilt that Catholicism taught her to have.

Although I left Catholicism fifteen years ago, on occasion I still catch myself wondering what I need to do in order to rid myself of the guilt, shame, and feeling of dirtiness that, in one form or another, is almost always my companion. I sometimes find myself feeling frustrated: why, I wonder, can’t someone just tell me what penance to do? I obviously no longer think in terms of sin or feel the need to go to the confessional, but the desire for absolution remains, like an itch that cannot be scratched.

Who can deny that this is a form of child abuse? The mere act of writing this is making my hands shake and my stomach churn with anxiety. Fifteen years ago, I made the choice to leave Catholicism, something that, among the family and community I grew up in, just isn’t done. This choice was, without a doubt, the best and most liberating choice that I have ever made. However, I do not have a choice when it comes to the ever-present guilt, shame, and anxiety that resulted from my childhood religious indoctrination, and which, to varying degrees of intensity, will always be with me.

The Catholic Church loathes children. Loathes them. To the Church, children are Catholics first and humans second, and the lifelong trauma caused by childhood indoctrination is mere collateral damage in the Church’s battle against the outside world. As is so often the case, the Church unashamedly places their own interests above all other concerns, including the welfare (physical, emotional, and mental) of children. And an organization that despises and preys upon its weakest and most vulnerable members (who haven’t even chosen to be members) is undoubtably a force of great evil in the world.[6]

Whenever the Pope or a leader of the Church claims that the Church cares about families and children, remember those who have been hurt by the Church.  Whenever a person tries to claim that the children who were hurt were only a few, were the exceptions to the rule, remember that it is also the teachings and practices of the Church itself (not just the solitary actions of individuals) which are harmful.

Maryam Namazie also spoke at the protest.  In her speech she replied to the Pope’s assertion that we need the “corrective supplied by religion”, pointing out that religion’s attempt at correction leads to the kinds of atrocities which are committed today in countries run by Islam.[7] Attempts to enforce religious morality have resulted in horrors throughout human history, because what religions consider morality so often turns out to be bigotry.  When making decisions based upon religious dogma, a person can use the opinions of an imaginary deity to make up rules instead of actually taking people into consideration.

Susan Jacoby wrote about Pope Benedict XVI’s selective memory and martyrdom, pointing out that the Pope selectively cited only times when Catholics were martyred and left out times when Catholics targeted others for violence.  She points out that while there are great causes worth fighting for, the supernatural details and weird rules of religions are not among them.  She also points out that it is ridiculous for the Pope to complain about being made fun of.

Benedict’s basic message throughout his visit to the United Kingdom was that England has become a largely secular society and that the mission of his church is to challenge “aggressive forms of secularism.” It was in this context that he cited the names of Catholic martyrs. He might reflect that since secularists have been more or less in charge, no one has been drawn and quartered for professing a particular religious belief. But oh, how painful it is to be mocked![8]

One would think that that Pope would realize that the reason he is able to visit the UK and make his harsh remarks is because of the ideas of secularism, freedom, and equality; people of other groups cannot coerce the government into censoring him.

There is a video of some of the speeches made at the Protest the Pope Rally.  There are some impassioned words by various speakers, but especially moving and sad are the words of a lady speaking on behalf of abuse victims, expressing how they thought they were alone and are grateful that there are people who are willing to stand with them.[9] Who can look at those who have been abused and tell them that the Church is a good institution?  Who can honestly say that the Church should still be respected?

There are, of course, many Roman Catholics who disagree with the teachings on the Church and especially with its actions in response to the crimes committed by its clergy.  Back in May 2010, Greta Christina wrote Why Are You Still Catholic?, asking why people who disagree with the Church on so many issues (e.g. birth control, equal rights for LGBT people, gender equality) continue to support it.  She also points out that even if a person agrees with the Church’s policies on other issues, it is certainly wrong to continue supporting an organization that protects child abusers and child rapists from justice.  To continue supporting such an organization because of the comfort of religion, she argues, is to place one’s own comfort above the safety and welfare of children.[10] This is an argument I wish more people would make.  While the veracity of certain supernatural religious claims is a separate argument, the issue here is a person’s association with an organization which is hurting people.  There comes a point when one must say that, whatever benefits one has received from being a member of an organization, those benefits are not worth it if they come at the price of hurting others.

Also worth reading is Joan Smith’s In defence of modern Britain, an article in which she defends “modern, tolerant, secular Britain” against the religious bigots who criticize it for being a “culture of death”.  She point out that it is a much better place to live, with more equality, than countries ruled by religions.[11] (She was responding to Mr. Adamus, director of pastoral affairs at the diocese of Westminster, but her words are applicable in this instance as well.)  Despite all the claims made by religious leaders who want us to believe that religion must have much influence and power for a society to have morals, we actually find the opposite to be true.  It is when people have freedom — when one religion is not in charge and cannot force its views on others — that a society can become a better place to live.

Adam Lee sums this all up concisely.

I’ve got a brief question for Julian Baggini, William Oddie, and everyone else – atheist or theist – who’s bemoaned the lively protests of Pope Benedict’s visit to the U.K.:

Do you believe the pope is not guilty of helping to protect child abusers (and if so, how do you respond to this evidence) – or do you simply believe that, because he’s the pope, he should be immune from any consequences for his actions?[12]

Conclusion

We should remember that the goal is to have equal rights and justice — to live in a society in which each person has worth and in which people of one religion are not given preference over others.  In order to achieve this, it is important to speak up when a person or organization is taking actions which harm people, taking away equal rights, and preventing justice.  The response should not be censorship or violence; the response should be peaceful protest.  The response to words of unreasonableness and hate should be words of freedom and equality.  We can show that a free and secular society allows people with different beliefs to give voice to their views and make it clear that this is preferable to a theocracy which censors “blasphemy” and “heresy” while taking away rights and promoting injustices.

There are those who may argue that the criticism of the Church is really anti-Catholic bias and discrimination.  As I’ve written previously about Islam, there is a difference between discrimination and criticism.[13] Reasonable criticism is required,[14] and there has been plenty of it.  We should not dispute the rights of Catholics to practice their faith, but we should definitely be against any government support for a particular religion and also be willing to criticize the Church when its officials endorse actions which are harmful.

Those who profess to be shocked or upset by the opposition to the Pope ought to cease ignoring the world around them.  Why are we asked continually to consider the feelings of devout Catholics by people who ignore or minimize the experiences of those who have suffered serious harm due to the Church’s teachings and policies?  Is the anger and frustration with the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church really unexpected when so much of what the Church does harms people around the world, either by actually endangering their lives or making their lives more difficult?  Is it really expected that those who are harmed will continue to have a positive opinion of those who are harming them?  Our opinions of the Pope should not be completely divorced from the harsh reality of his actions.

Ideally, I hope that more people realize that it is a dangerous idea to place one’s faith in a particular dogma based on false information and to defend the actions of an organization regardless of the harm it does.  We should choose to support people based upon their actions; we should not just pick one person and defend that person dogmatically due to their job title.  If we choose to support people who are doing what’s right in the world and protest against those who are doing what’s wrong, we can move forward and create a better life for people everywhere.  Only then will we be able to say that we hold up a fair moral standard and actually make a better world.

#

Acknowledgements

I offer my thanks to the people I’ve quoted and referenced, especially those who have been speaking out in favor of secularism.

#

Edit (as of 18 February 2012)

This entry has been edited. I had referred to Britain as being “technically a Christian Nation” in the first paragraph of the second section, before mentioning the mixed results Britain’s Christian history has had, not realizing that while England has an established church, Scotland and Wales do not. The Church of England is the established church of England, and the Church of Scotland is the national church of Scotland. I should have looked it up before writing. Needless to say, my position on the importance of secularism remains the same.

---

References

[1] Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI).  Transcript of Speech at Holyroodhouse on September 16, 2010.  Retrieved on September 19, 2010 from http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/09/16/papal-visit-2010-popes-holyroodhouse-speech-full-text/.

[2] [Views of Cardinal Walter Kasper and Terry Sanderson, as quoted and explained by Owen and Gledhill] Owen, Richard and Gledhill, Ruth.  Pope flies into storm in UK after Vatican adviser complains of Britain’s atheism.  Posted on September 16, 2010 in The Austrailian.  Retrieved on September 19, 2010 from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pope-flies-into-storm-in-uk-after-vatican-adviser-complains-of-britains-atheism/story-e6frg6so-1225924703409.

[3] Donahue, William.  Atheists Must Apologize For Hitler.  Posted on September 16, 2010 at The Catholic League website.  Retrieved on September 28, 2010 from http://catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1978.

[4] Copson, Andrew.  Comment made in response to Pope Benedict XVI’s speech at Holyroodhouse on September 16, 2010.  Retrieved on September 19, 2010 from http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/647.

[5] Dawkins, Richard.  Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity.  Longer version of speech delivered at the Protest the Pope rally on September 18, 2010.  Posted on September 19, 2010 at Richard Dawkins site.  Retrieved on September 21, 2010 from http://richarddawkins.net/articles/521113-ratzinger-is-an-enemy-of-humanity.

[6] Hale, Miranda Celeste.  A dirty little girl, her head hanging in shame. Posted on September 19, 2010 at ex-catholic girl on Tumblr.  Retrieved on September 19, 2010 from http://excatholicgirl.tumblr.com/post/1150523758.

[7] Namazie, Maryam.  We don’t need the ‘corrective supplied by religion’.  Speech delivered at the Protest the Pope rally on September 18, 2010.  Posted on September 19, 2010 at Iran Solidarity.  Retrieved on September 22, 2010 from http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/09/we-dont-need-corrective-supplied-by.html.

[8] Jacoby, Susan.  Martyrdom, selective memory and Pope Benedict in England.  Posted on September 22, 2010 at The Spirited Atheist column of The Washington Post.  Retrieved on September 28, 2010 from http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/09/martyrdom_selective_memory_and_the_pope_in_england.html.

[9] [Various speakers] Protest the Pope Speeches — London Rally.  Posted on September 19, 2010 by TheNewsauce.  Retrieved on September 28, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPhKKutehyk&feature=related.

[10] Christina, Greta.  Why Are You Still Catholic? Posted on Greta Christina’s blog on May 25, 2010.  Retrieved on September 20, 2010 from http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/05/why-are-y.html.

The link has been updated to http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2010/05/25/why-are-y/, because Greta Christina’s blog is now at Freethought Blogs.

[11] Smith, Joan.  In defence of modern Britain.  Posted on September 2, 2010 at The Independent.  Retrieved on September 18, 2010 from http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-in-defence-of-modern-britain-2067886.html.

[12] Lee, Adam.  A Followup on the Pope Protest.  Posted on September 23, 2010 on Daylight Atheism.  Retrieved on September 28, 2010 from http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/09/followup-on-pope-protest.html.

[13] Sharmin, Ani.  On Everybody Draw Mohammad Day.  Posted on May 20, 2010 at Eternal Bookshelf.  Retrieved on September 20, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/on-everybody-draw-mohammad-day/.

[14] Sharmin, Ani.  Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism:  Some Thoughts on Park 51 and Islam [Part 3 of 3].  Posted on September 9, 2010.  Retrieved on September 20, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/arithmetic-and-criticism-part-3/.

The Approaching Thunder and the Return of Tranquility: a blog entry in remembrance of September 11, 2001

Today is the ninth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Despite my usual tendency to be wordy, I find myself unsure of what to write.  On occasions such as this, days when we remember the tragic events of the past, I feel that there is nothing I can say or write — nothing I can express — that would be appropriate or good enough.  Still, I feel the need to write something, to not have silence misconstrued as uncaring.

One of the most common questions I hear asked about tragic events such as this is, “Where were you?”  Perhaps that’s a place to start.  On that day, I was in second period English class, during eighth grade.  (I was thirteen years old.)  There was a phone call, and my teacher answered the phone.  She told us that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon.  We listened to the radio for the rest of the period, and some of the teachers didn’t have the heart to teach that day.

Yesterday, I found my (pen and paper) journal entry from that day.  It is in the form of a letter to God.  (I was a theist back then.)  With apologies for the writing abilities of my younger self, I want to share a few sentences of what I wrote on that day.  After relating the events that happened at school, I wrote, “At home Daddy, Mommy, [my brother] and I watched the news.  There was pretty much news on every channel.  Seeing footage of the plane going through the South Tower of the Twin Towers and of both towers collapsing really shocked me.  My heart hurt.  And it still does when I think about it.”  Later in the entry, I also wrote, “Please don’t let this turn into WIII [I think I meant to write ‘WWIII’ (World War III) - Ani], GOD.  We learn a lot about wars in school, but I’ve never lived through one.”  I remember thinking of the wars and other violent tragedies that we’d learned about in school.  They had always seemed so very far away, whether in time or space, and these attacks brought great fear into my heart.

It is difficult to find words appropriate for how I and many others felt on that day.  It was a mixture of fear, confusion, anger, and sadness.  Through it all, though, there was some hope as we saw that there were people who were willing to help others, to run into a disaster site to save others, to offer their help to those who were hurting.  I think Anne Frank said it better in her diary than I did in mine, when she wrote the following:

We’re much too young to deal with these problems, but they keep thrusting themselves on us until, finally, we’re forced to think up a solution, though most of the time our solutions crumble when faced with the facts.  It’s difficult in times like these:  ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality.  It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical.  Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.

It’s utterly impossible for me to build my life on a foundation of chaos, suffering and death.  I see the world slowly being transformed into a wilderness, I hear the approaching thunder that, one day, will destroy us too, I feel the suffering of millions.  And yet, when I look up at the sky, I somehow feel that everything will change for the better, that this cruelty too will end, that peace and tranquility will return once more.  In the meantime, I must hold on to my ideals.  Perhaps the day will come when I’ll be able to realize them![1]

It’s one of my favorite passages from that book.  I quote it not to compare the attacks to what happened to Anne Frank and millions of others, but rather because this passage captures how, when we look out into the world, it does not conform to our idea of what the world should be.  We see death and destruction.  We wonder why this happens and why there are people who would do such horrible things to their fellow human beings.  Don’t they understand?  Don’t they have a sense of right and wrong?  Don’t they know that the people who were killed had lives and loved ones, and that their loved ones cry for them as any human would?

All of this is scary for anyone to contemplate.  Being presented with an act of such horrible violence against innocent human beings and against my country brought this to the forefront of my mind.  I was confused, afraid, and sad; I know now that this was not just because I was too young but because this is how any human being would feel.

One day, perhaps, we and our descendents will look back on September 11, 2001 the same way we look back on other tragedies — with sadness, but with the distinct feeling that they happened so very long ago.  There are so many horrible events which happen every day, so much fear and destruction in the world, even today.  Each such horror is added to all the others, stretching back into the past like a chain of misery, blood, and tears.

And yet, despite all of this, all is not lost.  There is good in the world; there are people who help each other, who look out for one another, who speak up when others are hurting, who still their fear and risk their lives to save others.  As much hate as there is in the hearts of humanity, there is hope and love, too.  Living on consists of holding on to the idea that these last two will win out.

---

References

[1] Frank, Anne.  Entry dated Saturday, July 15, 1944 from The Diary of a Young Girl.  New York:  Anchor Books, a division of Random House, Inc., 2009, pg 333.

ISBN:  0385480334

The Dream: On the Anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous I Have a Dream speech on August 28, 1963, and today is the anniversary of this historic event.[1] This speech has become an important part of our history, with words from which we draw hope and inspiration when we ourselves seek to improve our country and our world.

There is hope in his words, a hope that America can live up to the promises of freedom and justice on which it was founded, as he says, “But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”  Being a part of a movement for equal rights requires a hope that justice can be achieved — that there is actually good to be found in the world and in one’s fellow human beings.  The great ideas of the past, those articulated by our ancestors, inspire us and we hope that those ideas will apply in the future to everyone and not just a few.  We hope that our fellow human beings will look upon those who are different from them and know that, despite the differences, we are all human.

There is perseverance in his words combining the knowledge that the fight will be long and difficult with the belief that it will all be worthwhile.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: “For Whites Only.” We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

It can seem at some times, as it must have to those who struggled so valiantly against the segregation and discrimination during the time of Rev. Dr. King, that the battle is everlasting and ongoing and that there are so many obstacles to overcome.  Yet, they knew that they could not live with such injustice, and so they knew that no matter how long it took, the fight was worth it.  Rev. Dr. King asserts that nothing less than justice and righteousness will be enough — that living with less than this is not acceptable, and that it is important to keep fighting on until that goal is met.  This struggle and perseverance is shared by anyone who is in any such movement for equal rights, as the process of changing human minds can take time, and it is why his words mean so much to us today, offering encouragement from a person who kept working for equality even when it was difficult.

There is a dream for the future in his words, the familiar excerpt describing a future in which we would love to live and for which we hope.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

His speech, and this section of it especially, is often quoted and often looked upon as a great moment in our nation’s history, as his words echo down the years in our minds and hearts today.  We look forward, as did those who were there that day, to a better future for all.  We look at all that has been accomplished thanks to their hard work and hope that we are contributing in any way that we can.  Even if we never see the perfect future that is envisioned, we know that Rev. Dr. King and the many who worked with him contributed greatly to moving humanity in the right direction and we hope that our species will continue to move forward, getting closer to the day when we all consider each other “sisters and brothers”.

While listening to a recording of the speech, one can hear the crowd clapping and cheering, motivated by his moving words.  Ultimately, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (though he was just a human) and this speech (though it was only a few minutes in the vast history of time and located in one tiny place in the vast universe) remind us of so much more.  They remind us of all of the anonymous people who were standing there that day and of all the people throughout human history who have likewise stood up to injustice.  Ultimately, such movements and struggles for justice are not about any one person or any few minutes of an important day, but about all of those people whose lives are affected daily by discrimination and whose lives are made better when justice prevails.

It is in them and in their hopes for a better future that the dream lives.

---

References

[1] King, Jr., Martin Luther.  I Have a Dream speech from August 28, 1963.  Text and audio found on American Rhetoric.  Retrieved on August 27, 2010 from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm.

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by proper legislation.[1]

It was on August 26, 1920 that the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was signed into law, expanding the right to vote to include women.[2] It is difficult to believe that this was only ninety years ago.  There were many people who worked hard to make this happen, and we should be grateful for all of their hard work.

What I have learned from the history of the United States is that there are people who realize that it is important to make the world a better place.  The whole point of the amendments to the Constitution is that we are still learning that rights belong to everyone — not just to one select group.  We can protest and speak out when we believe that our actions and laws are not in adherence to the principles of equal rights, freedom, and justice.  The Nineteenth Amendment is an example of a change to the Constitution which shows that our country is committed to learning from past mistakes and fixing them.  When we realize our past mistakes and stand up for a better tomorrow, we leave a better future for those who will come after us.

The struggle for equal rights has a long history and is still going on, all around the world, including in our own country.  It is important on occasions such as this to appreciate how far we have come, and to recognize how far we still have to go.  There are still people who see women’s lives and contributions as less important than those of men.  There are many women around the world who do not have the same rights we do here, and on this day we should remember their struggle and find ways to help them as we are thankful for those who paved the way for us.

---

References

[1] Amendment XIX.  Constitution of the United States:  Amendments 19-27 at the National Archives.

URL of the link:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html.

[2] The 19^th Amendment.  Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIX at the National Archives.

URL of the link:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendment_19.html.

The Fourth of July in Four Parts

Part I:  The Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[1]

Thus begins the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, dated exactly 234 years ago today.  The best known sentence in the Declaration is probably the second, that begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident” for its mention of a Creator that has endowed us with rights and is, therefore, sometimes the topic of conversation when the issue of separation of church and states arises.  Among these rights is the right of the people to abolish a government that is not based upon their consent in order to set up another one that is, so that they may have a government that will better secure their rights.  It is this right, that of abolishing a government that was not based upon their consent and was not securing their rights, which the American colonists were exercising.

When read in its entirety, the Declaration itself is a list of the grievances which caused many American colonists to conclude that they should become independent from the United Kingdom of Great Britain, a list of “causes which impel them to the separation” as the first sentence states.  It was not lightly or without thought that the colonists took on the task of rebelling against one of the most powerful nations of the world to establish their own country, but they did so because the situation had become thus that it was deemed necessary.

Part II:  What America Means (To Me)

It is not the boundaries of a nation or the blood of its people which make it great but the idea upon which it was founded and the ideas which are upheld by its people.

The Fourth is a day not only for clapping and fireworks, for cheering and flag-waving (though all of those things are indeed fun and wonderful and should be enjoyed thoroughly) but also for quiet reflection on the events which have brought us to today.  It is a time to consider not just the Declaration but also The Constitution of the United States,[2] which — among other things — explicitly lays out the rights which were mentioned previously, the rights which we must make sure are secure for the people.

It is a time for us to consider what we appreciate about our country, about its past and traditions, and what we dream about in its future.  To me, the idea of America is one of a place with identical rights for different people — a place where you don’t have to be the same to have the same rights as everyone else.  It is this idea — and not the size or power of the nation or the bloodlines of its leaders or people — which makes me happy to be an American.

As we move forward, we should look back and appreciate our history.  We should learn from the past in order to improve our future, keeping alive those ideas and traditions which have served us well and realizing when we have made (or are making) mistakes, in order to prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes in the future.  The course of time brings us new events, which may resemble events of the past in some ways and may be vastly different in others.  We each have (and will have) decisions to make about ourselves personally and about our country.  As we face new challenges, let us use the knowledge and experience we have gathered from history to inform our actions.

The foundation of our ideas is essentially important as we imagine new ideas for our country’s future.  Let the foundation of rights and liberty stay strong as we build the architecture of the future atop it, to better reach the heights of human capability.

Part III:  My American Family

Although I was born here in the United States, many of my family members are immigrants.  My father was in America for the bicentennial in 1976.  He says that when people ask him where he is from, he says that he is American.  He considers his move to America to be the beginning of a new life.  My mother realized that I, as a female, would have more rights and opportunities here than I would in the country in which she previously lived, and has always reminded me to take advantage of the education and knowledge available to me.

Both of my parents realizes the great opportunities they have because they live here, and I am enormously grateful that they moved here.  Learning about the history of America, and especially of the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights Movements, has inspired me to appreciate my life here and to do good works.  It has taught m that our actions can affect future generations, and that if we speak up against injustices now, we can ensure that future generations will have a better future.

Later today, I’m going to a family member’s home for a barbecue (one of those fun and wonderful things to be enjoyed thoroughly, as I mentioned previously), and I do so knowing that the many members of my family are grateful to live here.  I do so knowing also that there are many people around the world and even some within our borders who do not always share the equal rights to which we aspire.  It is then that I remember that we can speak up about these injustices and that with our rights we have the responsibility to make sure that these rights are the inheritance of not some, but all.

Ultimately, all of the ideas of freedom, equal rights, and liberty are not just American but rather human.  That is why, ultimately, there can be no skin color, country of origin, religion, or any other factor used to define what America is.  That is why I feel that I can be just as much of an American as anyone else.

Part IV:  A Letter to Our Friends in the UK

Dear Friends,

It has been more than two hundred years since our two great nations were one.  As I think back to the American Revolutionary War, I ponder the various ways in which our two countries and our histories have been inextricably linked.  Our Founders fought a war of independence against your country, due to the unfair actions of the government of the Kingdom of Great Britain.  Yet, many of the people who contributed to that effort were themselves originally from Great Britain or descendents of those who were.  One such person was Thomas Paine, who was born in England and later moved to the American colonies, the writer who wrote the important document Common Sense, urging the American colonies to rebel.[3] While wanting to be independent from the rule of its government, the colonists were inspired by the words and ideas of great people from Great Britain itself.

Since then, we have had many friendly alliances, in both war and peace, and have worked together in many ways.  We share a language[4] and many traditions.  The works of your great authors are taught in our schools.  America is my home, but I consider the UK a sort of historical homeland, a place which is the home of so many of the great writers and thinkers which have made a great impact upon our society and upon me personally.

The UK has made and continues to make great contributions to Western civilization, of which we as Americans are heirs, and I hope that both of our countries continue to make important contributions in the future, to build upon past ideas and revolutions to create a better world not just for ourselves but for everyone.  May we look back and remember both our successes and mistakes, so we may stay true to one of the ideals which I think we both share: that of building upon the ideas of great thinkers of the past, so that our efforts will yield greater accomplishments than were thought possible.

It is my hope that, in writing this letter, I am expressing gratitude for our history, for it has been a great one, with hopefully many more years of friendship ahead.

Sincerely yours,

Ani Sharmin

Happy Independence Day to my fellow Americans and Happy 4^th of July to Everyone!

---

Endnotes and References

 

[1] The Declaration of Independence.  (In Congress, July 4, 1776.  The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America)

URL of the link:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

[2] Here is a transcript of the original Constitution, a transcript of the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10), and a transcript of Amendemnts 11-27.

URL of the link to The Constitution:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

URL of the link to the Bill of Rights:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

URL of the link to Amendments 11-27:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

[3] Paine, Thomas.  Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Other Essential Writings of Thomas Paine.  New York:  New American Library, a division of Penguin Group (USA), 2003 edition, page i.

[4] excepting the usual astonishment at each other’s accents and spellings of the word neighbo(u)r