April 27, 2008

Under the influence of radicalism

"Empire resurrected and unapologetic, war without end, an undefined enemy that's supposed to be a rallying point for a new kind of energized jingoistic patriotism, unprecedented and unapologetic military expansion, white supremacy changing its form, but essentially intact, attacks on women and girls, violent attacks, growing surveillance in every sphere of our lives, on and on and on, the targeting of gay and lesbian people as a kind of a scapegoating gesture to keep our minds off of what's really happening." — William Ayers, self-described anarchist, former Weatherman bomber, friend and supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, describing his view of America in a 2007 speech. Audio at Powerline.

In the 60's, William Ayers and his current wife Bernardine Dohrn were leaders in the Weathermen, an ultra-radical group that preached revolution — the overthrow of the US government and its replacement by a communist society. They declared war on the United States and planted numerous homemade bombs against government facilities and police stations. Three of their own members died in an accidental explosion while building bombs.

Though Ayers and Dohrn willingly, even proudly, admit what they did, they were never prosecuted. The FBI used illegal wire taps to gain evidence against the Weathermen, evidence which was later ruled inadmissible.

Today Ayers and Dohrn are well-to-do college professors, "respectable" and still politically active. They sponsored the first fundraising efforts for Barack Obama's entry into Illinois politics and have continued to be close friends with the Obamas.

The question being asked by some on the right, a question my fellow Democrats are ducking, is this: What sort of influence has the Ayers-Dohrn radicalism had on Barack Obama's thinking? How will the radical ideas espoused by these former domestic terrorists shape Obama's presidency if he is elected? What payback has Obama promised Ayers-Dohrn for all their support over the years?

Put another way, who is influencing whom? Have Ayers and Dohrn convinced Obama that we are living today, in Dohrn's words "in the belly of the beast" and "inside the heart of the monster"? Or has Obama, an avowed Christian and church-goer, attempted to convince friends like Ayers and Dohrn that love, not violence, is the way to right society's wrongs?

Jesus was also friendly with people who had unsavory pasts. It was, in fact, one of the criticisms made against him, that he must be a sinner because he spent so much time with sinners.

You can tell a person by their friends, as the popular saying goes.

One of the twelve men Jesus chose to be his disciple was Simon the Zealot. We know very little about Simon, except that he stayed true to the commitment he made to Jesus. He was there in the upper room with the rest of the disciples in Acts 1:13, after Jesus had died and risen, waiting to be filled with the Holy Spirit, waiting for God to show him what was next. His life became subsumed in Jesus' life.

He is presumed to have been called Simon the Zealot because he was a member of a radical group just like the Weathermen. The Zealots were religious radicals, vehemently opposed to the presence of Roman authority in Jerusalem and committed to a violent remedy to the problem of Roman occupation.

Indeed, it is ironic that in one of the final scenes during Jesus' trial, Pontius Pilate offers to pardon Jesus, as it was his custom to free a political prisoner during the Passover observance. The crowd insisted that Pilate free Barabbas, instead. Barabbas was a prominent member of the Zealot movement and in prison for leading an insurrection against Roman authority.

If Simon joined Jesus' band of followers with thoughts of co-opting Jesus and persuading him to join in the Zealot's rebellion, Jesus ultimately turned the tables on Simon. By all accounts, Jesus persuaded Simon to abandon domestic terrorism and embrace a life of self-emptying service — a life centered in love, a love so powerful and inclusive that it transformed the lives of Jews and Romans alike.

ipak continue reading "Under the influence of radicalism"
posted by Charlie on April 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Permalink | print this!
comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | posted to Essays on Faith | Politics | Post-modern Culture

April 20, 2008

Framing Stories: Bias and Truth

In a dusty pueblo not far from Gallup, New Mexico, the Zunis were noisily celebrating the end of winter. Costumed dancers wearing animal-skin cloaks, feathers and shells hurried through the dark streets, their faces hidden behind colorful masks, their bodies painted in ancient designs. The dancers crowded into houses where they performed to the driving beat of drums, mimicking the movements and stories they had seen acted out year after year after year, since they were children.

Each of the dancers played the role of a spirit. Their dances retold ancient tales of the creation of the world, the rise of human-kind, the birth of evil, and significantly, the birth of the Zuni people and their long journey to that special part of New Mexico they call home.

These ancient traditions keep the Zuni anchored. They explain the nature of the world and the duties men and women have to themselves, their clan, to the Zuni people and the world. These rituals, and the belief system they illustrate, form a strong foundation that holds Zuni society in right order and balance by informing individual Zunis of the duties and attitudes that create harmony in life.

Just like the Zuni, every one of us adopts a framing set of beliefs that describe life's purpose and our duties to ourselves, our family, our nation and the world. These framing beliefs may have been handed down to us by our elders or adopted from the library of competing ideas that define modern secularism.

Framing stories establish our life agendas.

Whether we live by traditional stories or take the free market approach by acquiring stories of our own, once we have adopted a framing story, we think and act in ways consonant with that story. Our values, attitudes and actions will be rigorously predictable; they are simply new chapters written from the same book.

Framing stories can deceive us.

Commitment to a particular framing story persuades us to reject any truth that doesn't fit our framework. To preserve the integrity of our beliefs we may adopt a "don't confuse me with the facts" bias, rejecting any evidence that contradicts our story. Framing stories can illuminate, but they can also lead to provincialism and the soft bigotry of a closed mind.

There are lots of framing stories to choose from. "Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead for our sins" is the framing story I live out, but "there is no God" is another framing story that is, on its face, equally valid.

Democrats have adopted the "Bush is the worst president in history and has led us to rack and ruin" framing story, while Republicans embrace the "I don't agree with everything the President has done, but the country is in great shape" framing story.

One of Pope Benedict's framing stories is that all human life is sacred, as evidenced in statements like this:

All society, and in particular the sectors associated with medical science, are duty bound to express the solidarity of love, and to safeguard and respect human life in every moment of its earthly development...

Contrast that with the framing story adopted by many in the modern environmental movement, and famously articulated by Agent Smith in the movie The Matrix:

Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

biqc continue reading "Framing Stories: Bias and Truth"
posted by Charlie on April 20, 2008 10:19 AM | Permalink | print this!
comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | posted to Essays on Faith