----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 10:03 AM
Subject: RE: Songs L3
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Dan Minette
>
> [snip]
>
> > Do you think that things like equality for women, tolerance of different
> > religions, civil liberties, elected governments, etc. is evil?
>
> Heavens, no. To that point, the author of The Battle Hymn of the Republic
> would be aghast at the way women are treated in Islamic culture. I am
> trying to speak out only against the illusion of self-righteousness and
the
> hateful language and actions that arise from it. Those (not you) who
> interpret that as wholesale condemnation of the United States
misunderstand,
> but it is to be expected, as it is the same kind of misunderstanding as
I'm
> criticizing.
>
I think that, in these trying times, there may have been tremendous
misunderstandings between many of us on the list. I think that it might be
necessary for us to more clearly state areas of agreement before going into
areas of disagreement. I know you have stated those areas, as has Gautam.
In difficult times, its easy to miss those statements..and we might need to
repeat and even shout how we agree.
>
> > Well that's true. But, I think that expecting Americans to have no
anger
> > after such an incident us very unproductive.
>
> I certainly didn't mean to suggest either that others shouldn't be angry
or
> that I'm not angry myself. I am afraid, however, of what we might do in
> anger. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that what I reject is
the
> self-righteousness that I hear in angry words. I'm not surprised, though,
> that what I wrote didn't come out that way, so I want to thank you for
> pointing it out. I know myself well enough to know that I err on the side
> of fearing anger in any form, so I need to try especially hard to
> distinguish legitimate human anger from self-righteousness that turns into
> hatred and unwarranted violence.
>
Thank you for your kind words.
> > But, speaking of forgiveness now is highly inappropriate.
>
> You brought it up, not me. I spoke of not losing hope for peace and
> reconciliation, even as we hold terrorists accountable for their actions.
>
Well, remember forgiveness comes in the Sacrament of Reconciliation for
Catholics...yea I'm a Presbyterian Elder, but I'm a Catholic too. So,
immediately, when I saw reconciliation, I saw the need for forgiveness as a
step in reconciliation. Maybe we use the words differently.
> > I'd also like to throw out one possibility. Talking with friends who
> > immediately turn to what we've done wrong, I've gotten the sense that
some
> > of this talk is a coping mechanism. If we are to blame, then we have
> > control...we can prevent future attacks.
>
> That's an interesting thought and I suspect quite accurate. On the other
> hand, it's not fair to equate rejection of self-righteousness with blaming
> ourselves. We need to hang onto our national conscience these days
without
> lapsing into passivity.
>
Personally, I think the best way to address that is twofold. Show respect
for the Arab Americans and Muslim in our midst: and be clear that we have no
reason to hold the people of Afghanistan and Iraq responsible.
>
> It is impossible for us to behave properly! That is what
self-righteousness
> forgets.
>
It does. And I agree that self-righteousness is a dangerous sin..one that
every one of us can fall prey to. But, I honestly think that the anger of
someone who's been attacked towards the attacker is not really a
manifestation of self righteousness. While I'll agree that hating bin Laden
is unchristian, I wouldn't worry much as long as that stays focused. (Being
angry at him is extremely appropriate.) I am heartened by the fact that
those that do generalize the anger and hate are being portrayed very poorly.
Dan M.
