Could it be that a current member of the U.S. Senate has a history of being a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Could it be that he was not merely a member, but actually a leader in the KKK, given the title "Kleagle"? Could it be that he would use the "N-word", a hateful racial epithet, in front of a reporter, not once, but twice, in the same interview? And why wouldn't that reporter, eager to make news, report about this?
Because the senator, Robert Byrd, from West Virginia, has some powerful friends: He has been photographed, smiling, with his arm around people like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, and other leaders in his political party.
To be sure, Senator Byrd claims that he ended his membership in the Klan. Maybe he did, but three years after he claims he stopped his membership, he was still writing letters to the leaders of the KKK, telling them that "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia ... and in every state in the Union." Why would the newspapers and TV media not report to the general public about these facts? Because Senator Byrd is part of the Democratic party, and with friends like Gore, Kerry, Edwards, and the Clintons, no reporter will take him on.
In the senate, he opposed civil rights legislation to ensure equality in the armed forces, and he led a strong opposition and filibuster to the Civil Rights Act, which was aimed at ensuring voting rights for African-Americans, among other things.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
David and ... ?
Archaeologists excavating the Philistine city of Gath have uncovered inscriptions with the name "Goliath" visible. The name, like the Philistines themselves, has its roots far away from the Semitic areas of the Ancient Near East; an Indo-European name, it came from an area probably near Greece.
The Philistines, known for their occupation of the Canaanite area, were actually new arrivals in the region, showing up there around 1200 B.C., when the other groups, such as Egyptians, Hebrews, Babylonians, and Canaanites, had been there for centuries already.
There is no way to prove that the Goliath in the inscriptions is the same Goliath who fought a battle with Israel's king David; the name may have been common at that time, and these inscriptions could refer to a different Goliath. The discoveries do, however, bring us one step closer to re-assembling the historical puzzle of the famous series of Philistine attacks on the Hebrews.
The Philistines, known for their occupation of the Canaanite area, were actually new arrivals in the region, showing up there around 1200 B.C., when the other groups, such as Egyptians, Hebrews, Babylonians, and Canaanites, had been there for centuries already.
There is no way to prove that the Goliath in the inscriptions is the same Goliath who fought a battle with Israel's king David; the name may have been common at that time, and these inscriptions could refer to a different Goliath. The discoveries do, however, bring us one step closer to re-assembling the historical puzzle of the famous series of Philistine attacks on the Hebrews.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Making the News, or Making it up?
How eager was Newsweek to print something that would make President Bush look bad? So eager that this popular news magazine, when it couldn't find anything damaging enough, resorted to fabricating stories. In 2005, Newsweek published a story about how interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay camp were torturing and humiliating the terrorists who were being housed there. The most graphic story centered around a prisoner who was forced to watch as a guard allegedly flushed a copy of the Qur'an down the toilet.
Obviously, the Qur'an (or Koran) is the sacred text of Islam, and the thought of it being abused this way would horrify any Muslim. This would indeed be a cruel act.
But it never happened. Within a week of publishing these stories, Newsweek was forced to admit that had been fabricated - that it simply was not true: a deliberate deception. What was the impact of Newsweek's lie?
In Islamic countries around the world, riots had already broken out, buildings and cars burned or otherwise destroyed, and at least seventeen people killed in the violence.
There are actually two stories here: the first story is about a group of reporters and editors who were willing to create a story and falsify facts when they needed them for political purposes. The second story is that even the unproven allegation of disregard for the Koran seems to be grounds to commit murder. People died because someone heard that something disrespectful had been done to the holy book of Islam.
What shall we say about the rioters, and their culture, which condones, and even celebrates, the wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book? The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Koran had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But to kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and then fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is disproportionate.
A few weeks prior to this incident, the government of Saudi Arabia had arrested forty Christians, and kept them jailed without bail, without any communication to the outside world, and without even explaining why they were arrested. The explanation finally given by the Saudi government was that these people had been guilty of discussing religious topics. Where was the proportionate response? Where were the thousands of people protesting about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and belief? Were there any riots or killings? No.
There is a cultural divide here: in North America, most citizens have been taught about peaceful and non-violent civil protest, so when someone called an "artist" chooses to insult the religious beliefs of millions by creating obscenities out of human urine and a Christian cross, or out of animal manure and a Bible, the reactions are not violent. Christians are offended and insulted, because this "artist" has deliberately worked to oppress their beliefs, but there is no violent reaction.
On the other side of the world, violence is seen as the logical response: we find cultures in which an innocent rape victim is stoned to death by the members of her village. Rioting and killing are seen as the appropriate way to respond to the idea that someone may disagree with one's religious beliefs.
Obviously, the Qur'an (or Koran) is the sacred text of Islam, and the thought of it being abused this way would horrify any Muslim. This would indeed be a cruel act.
But it never happened. Within a week of publishing these stories, Newsweek was forced to admit that had been fabricated - that it simply was not true: a deliberate deception. What was the impact of Newsweek's lie?
In Islamic countries around the world, riots had already broken out, buildings and cars burned or otherwise destroyed, and at least seventeen people killed in the violence.
There are actually two stories here: the first story is about a group of reporters and editors who were willing to create a story and falsify facts when they needed them for political purposes. The second story is that even the unproven allegation of disregard for the Koran seems to be grounds to commit murder. People died because someone heard that something disrespectful had been done to the holy book of Islam.
What shall we say about the rioters, and their culture, which condones, and even celebrates, the wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book? The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Koran had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But to kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and then fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is disproportionate.
A few weeks prior to this incident, the government of Saudi Arabia had arrested forty Christians, and kept them jailed without bail, without any communication to the outside world, and without even explaining why they were arrested. The explanation finally given by the Saudi government was that these people had been guilty of discussing religious topics. Where was the proportionate response? Where were the thousands of people protesting about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and belief? Were there any riots or killings? No.
There is a cultural divide here: in North America, most citizens have been taught about peaceful and non-violent civil protest, so when someone called an "artist" chooses to insult the religious beliefs of millions by creating obscenities out of human urine and a Christian cross, or out of animal manure and a Bible, the reactions are not violent. Christians are offended and insulted, because this "artist" has deliberately worked to oppress their beliefs, but there is no violent reaction.
On the other side of the world, violence is seen as the logical response: we find cultures in which an innocent rape victim is stoned to death by the members of her village. Rioting and killing are seen as the appropriate way to respond to the idea that someone may disagree with one's religious beliefs.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Would You Kill Someone Who Maybe Insulted Your Religion - But Didn't?
How eager was Newsweek to print something that would make President Bush look bad? So eager that this popular news magazine, when it couldn't find anything damaging enough, resorted to fabricating stories. In 2005, Newsweek published a story about how interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay camp were torturing and humiliating the terrorists who were being housed there. The most graphic story centered around a prisoner who was forced to watch as a guard allegedly flushed a copy of the Qur'an down the toilet.
Obviously, the Qur'an (or Koran) is the sacred text of Islam, and the thought of it being abused this way would horrify any Muslim. This would indeed be a cruel act.
But it never happened. Within a week of publishing these stories, Newsweek was forced to admit that the story had been fabricated - that it simply was not true: a deliberate deception. What was the impact of Newsweek's lie?
In Islamic countries around the world, riots had already broken out, buildings and cars burned or otherwise destroyed, and at least seventeen people killed in the violence.
There are actually two stories here: the first story is about a group of reporters and editors who were willing to create a story and falsify facts when they needed them for political purposes. The second story is that even the unproven allegation of disregard for the Koran seems to be grounds to commit murder. People died because someone heard that something disrespectful had been done to the holy book of Islam.
What shall we say about the rioters, and their culture, which condones, and even celebrates, the wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book? The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Koran had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But to kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and then fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is disproportionate.
A few weeks prior to this incident, the government of Saudi Arabia had arrested forty Christians, and kept them jailed without bail, without any communication to the outside world, and without even explaining why they were arrested. The explanation finally given by the Saudi government was that these people had been guilty of discussing religious topics. Where was the proportionate response? Where were the thousands of people protesting about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and belief? Were there any riots or killings? No.
There is a cultural divide here: in North America, most citizens have been taught about peaceful and non-violent civil protest, so when someone called an "artist" chooses to insult the religious beliefs of millions by creating obscenities out of human urine and a Christian cross, or out of animal manure and a Bible, the reactions are not violent. Christians are offended and insulted, because this "artist" has deliberately worked to oppress their beliefs, but there is no violent reaction.
On the other side of the world, violence is seen as the logical response: we find cultures in which an innocent rape victim is stoned to death by the members of her village. Rioting and killing are seen as the appropriate way to respond to the idea that someone may disagree with one's religious beliefs.
Obviously, the Qur'an (or Koran) is the sacred text of Islam, and the thought of it being abused this way would horrify any Muslim. This would indeed be a cruel act.
But it never happened. Within a week of publishing these stories, Newsweek was forced to admit that the story had been fabricated - that it simply was not true: a deliberate deception. What was the impact of Newsweek's lie?
In Islamic countries around the world, riots had already broken out, buildings and cars burned or otherwise destroyed, and at least seventeen people killed in the violence.
There are actually two stories here: the first story is about a group of reporters and editors who were willing to create a story and falsify facts when they needed them for political purposes. The second story is that even the unproven allegation of disregard for the Koran seems to be grounds to commit murder. People died because someone heard that something disrespectful had been done to the holy book of Islam.
What shall we say about the rioters, and their culture, which condones, and even celebrates, the wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book? The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Koran had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But to kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and then fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is disproportionate.
A few weeks prior to this incident, the government of Saudi Arabia had arrested forty Christians, and kept them jailed without bail, without any communication to the outside world, and without even explaining why they were arrested. The explanation finally given by the Saudi government was that these people had been guilty of discussing religious topics. Where was the proportionate response? Where were the thousands of people protesting about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and belief? Were there any riots or killings? No.
There is a cultural divide here: in North America, most citizens have been taught about peaceful and non-violent civil protest, so when someone called an "artist" chooses to insult the religious beliefs of millions by creating obscenities out of human urine and a Christian cross, or out of animal manure and a Bible, the reactions are not violent. Christians are offended and insulted, because this "artist" has deliberately worked to oppress their beliefs, but there is no violent reaction.
On the other side of the world, violence is seen as the logical response: we find cultures in which an innocent rape victim is stoned to death by the members of her village. Rioting and killing are seen as the appropriate way to respond to the idea that someone may disagree with one's religious beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)