I understand David's point. But at the moment I am so disillusioned with
politics
that I am ignoring the while shooting match. At least I am with respect to
DC
and our major parties. There is nothing in national politics for me. At
least
there isn't, as I perceive things, at this time..
However, I get Ernie's point very well, it is --with important
qualifications--
my own view. Yet Chris is very right. The real world is what it is. You can
make a statement of principle based on the deepest convictions, but
what happens when you deal with actual people ? I'll tell you--
Everything is messy. Or unruly.
----------------------------
Story time.
I have been attending Pacifica forum for most of the entire academic year
at the U of O.
a free speech group that meets on campus. The group , anywhere from 20 to
30 including
guests or the curioushas show up on any given day, has about 15 regulars,
and
maybe 5 of them are anti-Zionist to some extent, or considerably in two or
three cases.
But free speech means, by definition, sometimes needing to listen to views
that you
don't agree with. In return, those whose views you dislike listen to
you. Each is
free to debate the others, and disagreements are part of the normal order
of things.
One of the group is Valdas Analauskas, a Lithuanian dissident in the
Soviet era
who had a measure of fame in the US at one time for his courage in
standing up
to the Russians. That is, while he simply doesn't have the reputation of
Solzhenytsin ,
this comparison isn't too far off the mark. Smart as hell, and outspoken
for his
primary cause, Lithuanian nationalism.
That kind of cause is hard to categorize in an American context, needless
to say,
and the result is that he is regularly mis-characterized as something he
is not.
We have talked and get along very well. We genuinely respect each other
although
each of us sometimes disagrees with the other.
Some other background would be helpful --and, yes, I will get to Ernie's
point
soon enough.
The forum has been in local news lately , generating controversy primarily
because
of the anti-Zionists and the opposition to them on the part of several
local Jewish
people. While most days, that is, when any of the anti-Zionists speaks,
the outcome
is no worse than a tempest in a teapot. Or there is no tempest at all.
Most talks
by anyone are the equivalent of academic lectures based on someone's
research.
And most have nothing to do with Zionism or anything related.
The objective is always to be controversial, which also fits in with my
personal philosophy,
even if we don't necessarily get the kind of public reaction we think we
deserve.
Anyway, some speakers are anti-Zionist, and tonight ended in a lot of
hard words ,
with accusations flying around the room. Alas, a woman named Dawn was the
speaker tonight,
she sometimes has this effect on people, and she decidedly is one of the
anti-Zionists
With several people from Hillel in attendance the result in the end was
fireworks.
The founder of the group, Orval, is someone who recently celebrated his
93rd birthday.
Yes, 93, not a typo. About him a few words are in order.
He is semi-incapacitated despite his great efforts to always be at his
best.
He is also a professor emeritus from the university ( he has a law degree )
with an anti-war / pacifist / activist background as a Quaker. That he may
or may not
be relevant to today's world is another matter, but if I was 93 and did
half as well
as he does I'd be gratified. He admires Gandhi, he is mildly anti-Zionist
himself, but is
committed to free speech. Really unusual, in other words, altogether
unclassifiable.
He is also the founder of the Eugene Symphony Orchestra and the man who
wrote the Eugene City Charter once upon a time.
Another of tonight's cast of characters was Sam Dotters-Katz, the
president of
the U of O student body., Jewish, and a Lefty. Deborah Bloom also is
important,
although she was not present today She is Jewish, too, but sort of a
conservative.
She is a campus activist and someone who writes frequently for local
publications.
Not present as well, he seldom is, is another emeritus U of O member.,
George Beres,
formerly the head of publicity for the university athletic department. He
potentially
could take Orval's mantle next year, or whenever, since the forum's access
to
the U of O is by way of faculty ( or equivalent ) sponsorship. As far as
I am concerned
that would be a disaster since he is so anti-Zionist that there is little
to differentiate him
from outright anti-Semitism George and I, although we are civil to each
other,
are sworn enemies. About which, I seriously doubt anything can be done.
and, with no question at all, now is NOT the time to try, especially
since I have already given it a good try not that long ago.
Sometimes, as Jesus said, you've got to shake the dust from your feet and
move on.
This is my evaluation, and it really is not open for discussion.
But there are other enmities about which a lot might be done, which
is the whole point of this story and what follows.
This sets the stage.
It has been my hope for several weeks now to try and generate support for
making the forum a permanent part of the university scene as a hard nosed
free speech group under guidance of a small board of directors with a
charter
to ensure that it would always be "centrist" ( in an RC sense ) so that
speakers
would always be, on balance, representative of as many points of view as
feasible, Right, Left, and "other." Valdas and I strongly agree on this
approach
since, clearly, Orval won't be around forever.
So, with all of this on the table, how does one go about implementing the
rules that Ernie outlined in his essay ?
One thing is for sure, the only good way to proceed is to attempt to be
smart
about your approach. This I attempted to do in an e-mail to Sam
Dotters-Katz,
the student body president.
We talked after the forum and agreed to exchange e-mails.
He also criticized me, unfairly I think, for not taking his side in his
dispute
with Valdas during a volley of exchanges during the meeting. At that moment
I was trying to sort things out and had not arrived at a good way to think
about
my very mixed emotions, including some introspection about Katz'es position
since, on the surface, it could have been interpreted as the moral high
ground.
The "letter" to Katz has been slightly edited simply to exclude a couple
of extraneous passages, but otherwise is virtually the original version.
Parts admittedly are self serving, but how to express a strong viewpoint
that needed expressing, without doing so, was not possible
Besides, if you are gong to cite Abraham Lincoln, he also was a tireless
self-promoter, in case you didn't realize this unarguable fact.
Anyway, the story is what I hope you will find fascinating.
Here are two contraries, anti-Zionists and Zionists,
and how do you bridge the gap ? How do you give due consideration
to both groups of real people ? As I have learned, despite profound
disinterest in issues of Zionism / Anti-Zionism as of less than a year ago,
each side has legitimate grievances.that I had never been aware of.
I hope you will find the letter worth thinking about.
Billy
================================================
Sam :
Your desire to turn Pacifica Forum into a morality play is understandable.
Its just that I don't think that is the best approach to take. Of course,
I have my reasons for saying this.
I stick up for people who stick up for me, we can start with that.
In the past PF has done exactly that. When no-one else gave me an
opportunity
to speak publicly on controversial topics, the forum did, starting with my
expose
of a former friend , Newt Gingrich, something eventually broadcast on CTV
but which the press still has not acknowledged.
Whether this still is true I do not know, but until recently PF has
welcomed
my presentations, including strong comments on two occasions in which
I criticized Islam uncompromisingly. In the past Rev Dan Bryant and the
City Club
have done everything possible to make sure that I had no opportunity at
all
to offer public criticism of Islam. Despite the fact that I am a former
teacher
of Comparative Religion.
Alas, my views are not Leftist party line in character.
And as we both know, the Left has no use for free speech.
The contemporary Left hates free speech, except for Lefties.
Which I say with deep regret as a past member of YPSL, the
Young People's Socialist League and; after that, as a
Democratic voter for half of my adult life.
This is not an endorsement for the Right. The economic views of
most Rightists are a bad joke, and on issues like evolution the Right
is crazy, if you want my candid opinion. This is said to make a point.
I am a political, Independent and no-one should expect me to side with
the Left just because I have serious disagreement with the Republican
Party.
This means that the kind of "Us vs Them" situation that developed
at PF on Friday evening was not at all an interest of mine.
What was going on ? I don't really know. But if I heard correctly
that Dawn's ex-husband is Jewish, that would explain all kinds of things,
especially her fixation ( obsession ) with the theme of Zionism.
Apparently
she has created an elaborate set of justifications that "explain" what
went wrong in her marriage of over 25 years . I can tell you that each
and every time she speaks to the group, eventually the subject becomes
a referendum on Jews.
What is the remedy ? What is a good remedy ?
Things "must" end in a shouting match ?
You are right to stick up for yourself and for other Jews.
But you may wish to consider that this is not all that you are doing.
You are also seeking to turn things into a referendum on anti-Semitism
That is, you took Dawn's bait. Hook, line, and sinker. That is exactly
what she wants.
My experience with Dawn --and believe me I have confronted her
more than once about her obsession-- is to simply ignore her
anti-Zionist spiels.
They aren't productive.
Who I think is potentially dangerous is George Beres But he has only
attended PF a grand total of 3 or 4 times in the 2008 - 2009 academic year
How much of a threat he really represents, therefore, may be moot.
There is one other infrequent attendee who is , IMHO, over the line
into anti-Semitism. But, again, since he has chosen to stay away most
of the time, it seems to me that he isn't a meaningful factor.
As for Orval, well, some allowances are in order. True, he has a
conspiratorial outlook about an assortment of subjects, but there is a
remedy to his stands on various issues, namely, use the forum to
speak out and take another view than his. Or than Dawn's, or
anyone else you think is off base.
Orval has repeatedly offered the floor of the forum to any informed
representative
of the Jewish community who is open to the idea.
About a month ago Deborah Bloom approached me personally and asked if she
could address PF to explain the Israeli view of the conflict with the
Palestinians.
I immediately thought that was a great idea. So, I talked with all the
relevant
people , starting with Orval, and made sure that Deborah would be invited
to speak.
I was glad to do so. I have little sympathy for the Palestinian cause even
if,
about some particulars, they have valid points. I would have liked to
have heard
Deborah defend the Israeli position, not only to become better informed
myself,
but hopefully to do some educating of those who need it the most.
Deborah was given her choice of two dates to speak to PF . After repeated
e-mails
asking her to confirm one of the dates, there was no reply. So much for a
good part
of my credibility with the group. When all was said, she didn't care.
All of which is a long way to get to the question that I wanted to ask you
before I wrote a single word .
How much do you care about my credibility with the group or about
my free speech rights ? I'll guess that the answer is zero, not at all.
Why didn't I speak out ?
Two answers to that question, to give it some serious thought
( 1 ) Valdas had made a strong overture to Jews when he spoke to PF
in February, not many weeks ago. This was ignored. Instead, on Friday
evening
various people made it a point to dredge up something he said a year ago ,
to hit him
over the head with.
Valdas made a significant peace overture and it was ignored and
treated as if he never said it. I found that inexcusable.
Yes, as Valdas knows --we have talked about this-- maybe I'm not a
Judeophile,
but I am always open to seeing good things among Jews and open to
meaningful
friendships with Jews. Yes, some Jews may be bad apples, but that is life.
Those that are , deserve rebuke, but I doubt if you would disagree.
And are Jews the only group in the world to be persecuted for perceived
shortcomings ? Not hardly. I know better than that since my worldview
is as much Asian centered as it is Western, and in the East it is the
overseas
Chinese who are the frequent target of sometimes murderous
and genocidal animosity. And Hindus have been killed
in the tens of millions over the centuries by Muslims.
But Valdas is far more than his letter of over a year ago, and to judge him
just by that e-mail is to do him a great injustice. I also know better than
that , I respect his intelligence and education far too much for
any such thing. But if all you want to hear is something he said in early
2008,
then what result are you looking for ? You want to pick a fight ?
Then what do you expect in return ?
Maybe if Dawn had not been the presenter the whole drift of things
would not have gone there, but she is the kind of person she is and
she was successful,in goading you and others .
( 2 ) Dan Bryant has not only de facto censored me on his own, but what he
does
as a leader in this town he sometimes does in collusion with his rabbi
buddy.
Would either of them lift a finger to guarantee my rights to free speech ?
Of course not, the question is rhetorical.
But would you ? Hopefully I am completely wrong about this,
but I don't think you would lift a finger either. As long as
Sam Dotters-Katz has freedom of speech , all is well,
but if someone else is denied the same freedom, so what ?
This being the case, or presumed case, just what do you expect me to do ?
Go along with the standard Us vs Them line ?
--------------------------------------------------------------
You had the freedom to publish a very strong criticism of PF in the Emerald
[ the official student newspaper at the university ] a month or so ago.
That article, while it did not mention me by name, obviously referred to
me,
personally, as part of your criticisms.
I went to the offices of the Emerald and talked with Ashley, the
editor-in-chief.
Given the criticism of PF and myself I asked if the Emerald would
publish a reply
written by myself, ...... as a published writer with the skills necessary
to present
a rational case. She agreed and on the 19th she received my article.
Here it is, the 24th. Maybe she will yet publish the piece. But it now
looks
unlikely. Therefore, it was OK for you to criticize me as well as PF, in
print,
and it was also OK for me to be denied any chance to defend myself and
the forum ?
As I said, maybe Ashley will publish the article sent to her, eventually
But can I count on it ?. This does not seem to be a good bet, does it ?
I was supposed to jump up and agree with you unreservedly ?
I don't think so.
If there was any real life concern for my rights, well, that would be
a very different matter. If I see any real world evidence that you
or Deborah or anyone else gives a damn for my rights, there
are any number of things I might say in strong opposition to
anti-Semitism As it is, with no-one in the Jewish community doing
anything at all on my behalf, I sometimes speak up
in opposition to anti-Semitism.
For now , that is all the motivation I have.
So, maybe the next time you make a self righteous stand about this
you just might like to consider that you are hardly someone who
is morally pure. You aren't, even if you want to think that you are
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely
Billy Rojas
An unusual -- even radical-middle! --- take on the question...
http://emergingpastor.com/2009/04/23/PublicOrPrivateFaith.aspx
I've recently been challenged to think about whether our faith should
be a public or private affair. To generalize both positions:
Some people advocate that our faith should be a public as possible.
That we should shout it from the rooftops and insert it into all parts
of life, whether it's wanted or not. These people advocate a faith
that not only informs the conscience but writes public policy.
Advocates of private faith believe we should keep our faith out of
public life, off the T.V., out of politics and some even go to the
extreme that it would be wrong to evangelize or even speak to another
person about our faith in case we accidentally convert them.
I learned early on in my life that when confronted with two extremes
we are more than likely missing the point. It seems a tool of the
Devil to push us towards the extreme ends of the spectrum on any issue
and not allow us to be reflective or nuance in our positions and
reply. I take that position here.
Sure, the Bible talks about private faith, Jesus encouraged us to pray
locked up in the pantry, but he also commissioned us to go into all
the world and live lives of public example. So what are we to do? How
should we live our faith?
Let me advocate this, we should not have either a public or a private
faith, rather we should have a personal faith.
A personal faith is one that shy's away from boycotts of specific
groups and instead builds relationships with people who they hold
differing opinions on.
The motivation of that statement is, as a pastor, emerging or
otherwise, you will be asked to stand up and denounce many groups of
people, many activities and even products and services. One week a
congregant might ask you to speak out against homosexuality and gay
marriage, the next week it's drug users, and the week after it's
prostitutes.
It's ironically easy to mount the high horse when talking about these
issues, be it an inclusive or an exclusive response. There are those
extremes again. When asked to address a difficult topic, a default
response is to saddle up and denounce a group or through[sic] the
church doors open and say all are welcome.
A personal faith does something different, it seeks to intentionally
build relationships with those we are being called to single out, and
an emerging pastor will lead those who follow them to do the same.
By way of example, I used to have a very slanted view of prostitutes
and prostitution. I was very against prostitution but I also held the
prostitute in very low esteem, something not someone, and certainly
not a person worthy of my time.
Since then I have made an effort to meet those in the trade; firstly
to see them as people and then to understand why they are where they
are and what help I may offer to them. Doing so has not made me regard
prostitution favorably, if anything it has made me even more angry
about it, because of what it does to the practitioners.
A personal faith, one that built a relationship with this marginalized
group helps me to love them without loving what they do.
So instead of setting up groups of people as our enemy, let us do as
Abraham Lincoln suggests and destroy our enemy by making them our
friends.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at
http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
