Tag Archives: Jews

Politics, the Religious Right and Books

Interesting discussions have come up of late about “Left Behind” books. I hadn’t even heard of these before but it seems they’re tales written by and for the Christian extreme right, the fundamentalists, and portray apocalyptic views. Mostly the earth opens and people are tossed down to Hell, usually by Jesus. Errr…excuse me? Jesus? Wasn’t he the guy that said love thy neighbor and if you are without sin, you can throw the first stone? Wasn’t it Jesus who preached compassion and love and all that stuff?

I’m just amazed at fundamental right-wing Christians who follow these views portrayed in such fantastical books and then try to say they’re loving and compassionate. To me it doesn’t seem that you should be separating good works and compassion by race, gender or religion. Love thy neighbor stands even if he is a Muslim or she a Buddhist, or gay. You don’t pick and choose who to love equally.

Now, over in some of the Middle Eastern countries we have views just as extreme about wiping out unbelievers, smiting them and therefore, even if you blow yourself up, you’ll get to Heaven. Their way is the only way and everyone else is a heathen.

So let me get this straight. Christians believe that Jesus is the messiah and God the supreme being. Muslims believe that Mohamed is the prophet and God the supreme being. Jews believe in no prophet (I hope I have this right) but that God is the supreme being. And um…isn’t this the same God for all three of these branches of the same monotheistic religion?

So, when you die, whether you blow yourself up in holy righteousness taking down “those sinners,” or whether you’re blown up by some right-wing fundamentalist, you’re still going to end up in the same Heaven? The Heaven that will have black and white and brown people, men and women, gay and straight, Jews, Muslims and Christians?

Oh and isn’t converting by the sword or the gun kind of pointless, because someone will say what they must to survive but don’t you want the belief to be in their heart and soul, not just on their lips? It seems to me (who is not Jewish, Christian nor Muslim) that a little compassion and loving thy fellow being might just make conversion a bit more sincere.

Fundamentalists, no matter which religious paint brush you color them with, are scary creatures. Why? Because they’re so afraid of views that don’t agree with their own, that there might possibly be more than one right path, that they will do anything to tamp that down. Anything, like shoot doctors who perform abortions, bomb those who aren’t following their view, trashing religious buildings that they see as offensive. They believe that everyone who isn’t of their religious viewpoint are godless heathens and therefore evil, ready for Hell. The same fundamentalists who think invading Afghanistan was the correct thing to save people from the right-wing Taliban, are often the same, that if they had their ways would be pushing their religious views onto everyone else. (Not that the religious subjugation of so many people didn’t need to be addressed.) Take Sarah Palin, who believes she is on the right path because God is paving it for her. Well, then, her God-given right will mean that she’ll be less likely to listen to other evildoers if she ever holds more power than she already does.

Recent discussion on one writer’s list has ranged from disbelief that these Left Behind books would be listed under SF and fantasy, to others saying where else would you put them; they’re completely fantastical. Whichever it is, I can say one thing. If it is one God for Jews, Muslims and Christians and therefore one Heaven, I think I’d rather stay down here and be Left Behind then end up with all the Evangelicals and Jihadists. Heaven must be a pretty scary place.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, fantasy, life, politics, Publishing, religion, science fiction, spirituality, Writing

Sports, Politics, Tibet and the Olympic Torch

There has been a great deal of furor over the Olympic torch in recent weeks. Furor for and against the Olympics being hosted by China, by people protesting, by the Chinese, by the Tibetans. I’ve heard various people including athletes and a former torchbearer say that politics shouldn’t be mixed with sports, especially the Olympics.

One person has pointed out that by pitting nations (not individual athletes) against each other, it is in fact politics from that point of view. Some of these arguments say that positive reinforcement, by showing that the world will embrace them, support them (?), will bring the Chinese around to practicing better human rights.

Well, let’s travel back in time to the Olympics of 1936 in Berlin. Sure, Berlin was awarded the event in 1931 (a political move to bring them back into economic stability after the WWI defeat) before Hitler took power. A boycott was discussed and protests held in many countries. Russia never attended but didn’t until 1952 and more countries participated than in previous years. This was in part because of the spreading notoriety of the Olympics. In the end, individuals boycotted, including some Jewish athletes. Jesse Owens, a Afro-American, competed and won four golds, no doubt galling Hitler.

But did the support of the Olympics actually serve in any sort of positive reinforcement and change in Hitler’s attitude? No. He used it as propaganda, in other words, for politics, to spread his message and take note how meek the world was in making any sort of overt stand. He went on to bring about World War II, killing record numbers of Jews, Roma and homosexuals.

There have been some arguments that protests should have been made sooner, not now at the running of the torch. Yet people would not have as great a voice. Here the voice is saying (as it did with Bush’s invasion of Iraq of recent years) that it does not approve, no matter what various countries’ leaders say or do. The people do not approve. Sure some will support it, but it is not as peaceful as the Olympics in Turin was.

Many athletes indignantly argue that the Olympics is no place for politics, that they’ve trained hard to get to this point. Some countries are already barring their athlete from speaking out, some will not make that restriction. Will the 2008 Beijing Olympics be used for politics? It already is.

Let’s not forget the Tianamen Square protests of 1989 and the 200-3,000 killed, depending on whose reports you want to believe. What were those protesters armed with against tanks and machine guns? Let’s not forget China’s unwarranted invasion of a peaceful neighbor, Tibet in 1950. Of course, there is some dispute again as to whether China ever gave up its sovereignty over Tibet.  And even though the Dalai Lama has agreed to Chinese authority as long as he is given autonomy over cultural and spiritual rule, the Chinese still ferociously call him liar and leader of the protests.

Will China use the Olympics for politics? Absolutely. They want the world to think they’re being better to their people whether in Tibet or China. Whether they are; actions speak for themselves. I doubt that they will actually change their ways much to please the world. It is only the economic revolution that they hope to bring about in their country that might do that change but a trade embargo against China is a complex thing.

Still, the most disturbing aspect I see here is that of people, whether athletes or officials stating that their area remain pure and untampered by politics. Let’s break this down into a more simpler framework. If you were being oppressed, beaten, subjugated and not allowed to do the things you found central to your way of being, would you want help? Of course. If someone said, well I guess I see the bruises and cuts and the guy pointing the rifle at you but I’m going to a birthday party and that should not be touched by politics, how would you feel?

If your country was invaded, your friends and family being murdered or disappearing, would you feel so good about the world if the nations said, well yes, we don’t really agree with the abuses this country is perpetrating against you but we want to have a gala party there anyway, how would you feel?

It seems to me this is partially what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. It wasn’t happening elsewhere so it continued until it got out of hand (not that one life taken is not getting out of hand). People are often happy to turn their backs on wrongs if they don’t affect them. A blind eye does not make one less complicit. If you disapprove of China’s rule of Tibet and the subsequent protests and abuses of the protesters but go and make a statement that’s fine. If you approve of China’s tactics and go, well that’s fine. If you disapprove and you go to the Olympics, then you are a hypocrite, no matter if you compete or not.

There isn’t a country in the world that would stand up to China militarily for that would lead us into WWIII. They’re just too mighty, and they know it. So how do you protest? You object to the Olympics in Beijing, you start a trade embargo (No small thing when everything from food to fabric to toys comes cheaply from China.) I know it’s not so black and white as some aspects I’ve stated here but people really need to put themselves in others’ shoes and say, if this was done to me, would I like how individuals and nations are acting?

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, politics, Writing