Let's start with the first paragraph. She begins by claiming that President Obama does not even 'like' the United States. On its face, it is difficult to imagine that anyone believes that Obama does not even 'like' the United States much less love it. He has stated the opposite countless times. She must think that not only does he not like the US, he must be a liar as well, since she seems to know that he doesn't even 'like the free country that elected him' even though he says the opposite. Such an onerous first paragraph ought to make any reader wary.
Second paragraph. She attempts, very feebly, to defend this position by trying to connect Obama to other black Americans who, she supposes, do/did not like America. She only mentioned one of these scoundrels: Jesse Jackson (who opposed Obama, siding with Clinton). Somehow she construes that Ombama's recent encounters with Chavez and some Saudi king prove her point. I have been very courteous to many people of whom I think very little, but this does not make me any less strong in my convictions. Since when is civility, even long suffering civility, anything but a virtue? Such a loose defense of the first paragraph should make us even warier.
Fourth to sixth paragraphs. She claims that Obama is cooling our relationship with Israel while trying to warm up to the Arab world. She gives ZERO proof that Obama is treating Israel less well that previous administrations have. Not even the slightest anecdote. Has he announced cutting our aid $ to Israel (the single biggest recipient of all our aid)? No. Has he revoked any agreements? No. Has he said anything that would lead one to believe he is abandoning even a little bit Israel? Nothing that I know of. Sophomorically, Ms. Parker seems to believe, as would a junior high student, that one cannot try to foster friendships without dropping others. Her sparse logic is supposed to convince us that the United States is changing its values regarding Israel?
Values? Ms. Parker is either very sly with her semantics or very mistaken with them. She is confusing values with foreign policies. Whatever values moderate Christians and moderate Jews share, they are not very different from those espoused by moderate Muslims. The term Judeo-Christian as we consider the United States is merely historical. Jewish immigration to the United States took place entirely because Jews had no religious homeland at the time and this continent afforded them a opportunity greater than that from wherever they hailed. Muslims did not immigrate much at all to the United States until relatively recently. They were not much part of the immigrating world until conquered by European colonizers, and that is where they immigrated to.
The reason we support Israel to such an extent is because American Jews have numbers, lobby vigorously in Washington, and form major voting blocks in some areas. It is a matter of time before Muslims will be doing the same as their numbers grow. They have already begun. Some consider us a Judeo-Christian nation, but if it is so at any levle, it is because that is what history has given us, not based on religious inter-affection. (Consider centuries of Christian-Jewish animosity).
From there, and wow, it gets crazy, Ms. Parker explains why Christians and Jews are superior (what other word could I use?) to Arabs giving stats from Freedom House. She ignores political, historical, and tribal realities in all of the countries she cites.
These stats prove of course that our values are superior to theirs without any consideration of the complexities that create the realities she castigates. According to her, if Muslim countries are less well off, it is obviously because their Muslim values are not up to snuff. Precisely the opposite is true: we are a freer country than most of those cited specifically because the western world is in the processing of continually secularizing its values, freeing them from religious restrictions. Liberal Democracy as an ideal has little to do with Christian and Jewish religious values, history proves it. The Muslim Arab countries, indeed most Muslim countries as a whole, on the other hand, are clinging to their old and ridiculously outdated religious values or have movements that are using violence to attempt to force a return to more primitive times. They are less free precisely because they hold to their religious values.
In the United States, there are evangelical wackos who actually look forward to the bloodbath that would accompany Muslim countries attacking Israel so that Christ can return. I wonder if Ms. Parker might be one of these?
7 comments:
The article is essentially an opinion piece and opinion pieces rarely have a lot of references and data to back up any assertion made. You can see than from most any newspaper. Nevertheless, her assertions are weak.
However, her assertion that Obama does not like America is probably incorrect, but she should have added "...America the way it is now." Then she might have been able to make a case. If he likes it the way it is now, then why make any changes at all. Hence the hope and change meme.
I have no problem with Obama being cordial to despots either, but it remains to be seen whether Obama will adopt Theodore Roosevelt's version of the Monroe Doctrine, that being "Speak softly and carry a big stick." If I were president, that would be my approach.
Lastly, Doug correctly asserts that Star Parker has not backed up much as what she has written and that her arguments are weak and maybe even incorrect, but I suggest the same could be said about Doug's last statement in this post.
1. I do have a problem with Obama being too much of a buddy to despots of foreign countries that hate us. ie...Chavez. He tried to put him self in the lime light by buddying up with Obama (Chavez thrives to be in the limelight)but on the very next day Chavez said..."regardless, the U.S. is still an imperialist nation"...so he didn't think twice about keeping with his original agenda. I see no reason why we shouldn't keep with ours and "speak softly and carry a big stick". These thugs will not change their thirst for prominence on the international stage no matter what we do, so we shouldn't let our guard down.
2. Doug your statement that perhaps the Muslim world is less free because they hold to their out dated Muslim values is true. And it is true because their old out dated religion is clearly not God ordained. I highly disagree with you on the point however, that our country is more free because we are finally freeing ourselves from religion. Your take on that is very unfortunate in my mind. My feelings are that our country was established based on God given rights and principals. The whole idea of our democratic society is regligeous based....and that is what gave us that freedom to progress. Our righteousness is what made us a blessed nation. Our country is now turning from that as a result of the libral agenda that many are adopting..."give us more freedoms to do what we want. Losen our restrictions so we can behave how we want." These are morally degenerative behaviors and will bind us with sin and pride. And those ideas will be our downfall. I strongly believe that one of the reasons...(not the only one)we lost credibility in the international world is because the likes of Reagan and Bush administrations would not bow to these ideas to degenerate our country to coincide with what the rest of the world is doing. That is why the rest of the world don't like us....because we have maintained true to the righteous religeous principals that we were founded upon. When we decide to sucomb to the enticings of the rest of the world and highten our level of liberalism it will be at our own demise....and Chavez and the likes of him will have the last laugh at our downfall. I know quoting scripture to you would not be a defence or supporting document to you, but it is very clear to me as written in Ether 2: 8-12 that "this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ." The minute we secularize our religeon and "ripen in iniquity, the fullness of his rath shall come upon us." I dare say that Joseph Smith declared that in the final days, "the Constitution of the United States will be hanging by a thread." The picture looks very bleak to me. There is no way in the world you will ever convince me that secularizing our values (religeous beleifs)is why we are free.
For Alan, as for the last statement, that is why I said 'I wonder' regarding her religious take on this subject. I freely admit that I don't know, but I do wonder! That seems a fair thing to wonder about given her statements. If you are referring to my last two lines and not just my last statement, I would be happy to post some back up.
For Teresa, it is difficult for me to know what to say because, as a none believer, I am left with not much to say given we our assumptions of reality are so drastically different. But I can state that some of your assertions have been taken on my many much more eloquent and intelligent than me.
Among those assertions is one primary one that has already been the subject of volumes of rebuttals: The notion that our democracy is based on religion has been disputed often . The belief that I adhere to and that many historians support is that the founding fathers were secularists, probably deists who sought to distance religion from government. The idea that God established this nation for a variety of purposes is, of course, a religious idea. But with that idea come a world of philosophical and historical problems. Your beliefs are your beliefs, for me to counter your position would be tantamount to an attack on your beliefs which are religious, therefore on your religion. That is delicate ground. That is why I try to couch my statements in as much history as possible.
From my point of view, the notion that we are a particularly righteous is also disputed. The usurping of native lands and near subjugation of Native Americans, slavery, terrible racism from north to south, rank anti-catholicism, the mass destruction of heavily populated foreign cities (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden) as a means to wage war and many other core faults do not qualify us as particularly righteous. By these measures, many other countries are much more righteous than ours.
Canada, Norway, and Sweden come to mind.
I believe our good fortune (you call this blessings from God) come from the values of hard work, desire for money and personal material progress, and unmatched natural resources. These values are not by any means unique to any one religion or to religion at all. No doubt religions espouse and propagate great values, but they are not the unique purveyors or even creators of them, the best that can be said is that they serve to pass them on from generation to generation. But this is done just as easily without religion: observance of the golden rule suffices and is not Biblical.
I think that is the best I can do without appearing to be acrimonious. I can suggest a book, "Freethinkers" by Susan Jacoby.
I do sincerely thank you for beginning the discussion which serves to exercise all of our minds: a very noble thing! I hope all will chip in.
I am curious, why did this particular article catch your eye?
This article caught my eye because I happen to agree with her take on how Pres. Obama is being too chumy with foriegn leaders that are clearly anti-American. Chavez, which is one of the obvious ones. You said..."She attempts, very feebly, to defend this position by trying to connect Obama to other black Americans who, she supposes, do/did not like America. She only mentioned one of these scoundrels: Jesse Jackson" I can name a few others Henry Belafante(who is an actor, singer, social activist)...went down to Venezuela and cheered on Chavez's crowd of anti-american supporter encouraging their thoughts of US emperialism. I was there when he did it...and it was of no help at all to U.S. Venezuelan relations. There is Al Sharpton Jr. Although I see him more of a cival rights activist...he has said some pretty crazy things that tend to divide, not unite. I am not really up on the black leftest crowd...but I named a few more for you.
I guess we just differ on the religion bit. I beleive, you do not...so we will always have that divide, and thus little resolve of the issues.
True, we will not be able to reach agreement on a lot of things that are political or religious. But I am always interested in what people think and why.
You forgot the most recently famous one of them all, Jeremiah Wright! What a character!
Here's a good question for you, have you ever attended an African American gospel choir service, not just heard the choir, but been to the preaching? It can be electric. One of my fondest memories of attending a religious service is when I attended Glide Memorial (Methodist I think) in San Francisco.
I could feel the excitement when I entered and as I waited for the service to start, the frenzy began to build to the choir's music before the preacher ever entered the stage and when he did, people were standing, clapping, dancing, singing, holding each other and the sermon was fabulous (I hear a lot of sermons at school and on TV).
Religion fascinates me. It's music is phenomenal for the emotions that it can evoke. Last night, I attended a play that had a lot of background LDS hymn and primary music played live on piano. Every time I hear those old hymns on a a simple piano (not so much a choir), it really goes straight to my nostalgia chords and some times it chokes me up, I always like it.
I have been to a baptist meeting and and heard a pentalcol meeting from the doorway. Truthfully, both of them scared me. I just think the baptists were mean to me after the meeting when they found out that I was LDS and the pentacolstals were "feeling the Holy Ghost" in a way I had never seen before...throwing them selves on the floor...shaking, screaming, crying. You can imagine it was a bit overwhelming for this sheltered little mormon girl. I think I'll just stick with the peaceful way the Holy Ghost communicates with the Mormon. It suits me better.
And yes, you are right about what music can do for the soul and emotions. Music is a huge part of my life...not just church music, but secular music as well. It movitivates me when I go walking to keep up the pace, it soothes me when I feel frustrated, and it helps me to feel happy when I am sad. Music is a language all of it's own. It ranks right up there with the best of God's creations. It can be a huge influence. It can also influence for the bad if the lyrics are communicating degrading messages. There is a lot of that out there. By the way...I have a song that I am curious about message it is trying to communicate that I might share with ya'll in another blog and get your interpretation on.
Yeah! We agree! (Mostly!)
I've never been to a Pentecostal gathering. Dad did take me (and perhaps some of you, I don't recall) to a revival tent meeting when I was very young to expose me (us) to something different, I suppose. Otherwise, in the Episcopal tradition into which I am adopted, I attend funerals, marriages, and certain holy day celebrations according to Anglican way of doing things. I have a very close Jewish friend who has had us over for Passover and Shabbats. It's all fascinating to me.
Post a Comment