Sam Weaver
A few thoughts on hate...and tyranny, Part II
By Sam Weaver
I often make bold, vague or controversial statements with little or no explanation in this column for the sole purpose of drawing response/input/discussion from readers. This device has been effective. I have made countless new friends and "enemies"*, and have learned a great deal from both! Learning from my beloved readers — agree or disagree! — is really the main purpose of this column.
As I was composing what quickly became my last article, the fifth paragraph was originally intended to be that device — two bold if not "controversial" statements that would draw reader response. [NOTE: I usually plan, outline, research and think & pray about every article that I write. The last one is the very first one that I have written, typed and submitted all in one sitting. It took me longer to type it than it did to write it. I am virtually a "hunt-and-peck" typist. Trained hens type faster than I.]
As I continued writing, I saw a greater opportunity for the use of this device. I added a "NOTE" and a promise to paragraph #5 in my last article that I would back up my statements with evidence in "my next article or two — or three." Again, please stay tuned. The evidence will be forthcoming.
In the seventh paragraph of my last article, I not only employed my tried-and-true device, I more or less set a trap to weed out my collectivist responders. I wrote: "Americans, en masse, began to catch on when strong rebuke (sans any physical violence) against radical Islamists was called 'racism,' 'hatred' and/or 'bigotry' against all Muslims."
I sort of expected a virtual torrent of responses to that one sentence. Perhaps I'm impatient. Maybe it is too soon. Or, maybe — sigh! — the progressive bloggers have lost interest in me. I suppose they are focused on real threats to their power and control such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the Great One, Mark Levin. Can you really blame them?
I figured that I would have had at least a handful of emails by now that went something like this:
"You @$$%*ii! Was your head totally in the ?#<'!~& sand or up your @$$ over the last 10 years? Have you not heard about the wars [sic] in Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you not know how many Muslims we [sic] have murdered [sic] during the last decade?"
My response would have been very polite, respectful and tailored specifically to address the concerns of the individual correspondent. Let's assume that the correspondent said exactly — nothing more and nothing less than — what I transcribed in the above paragraph.
My response would have been something like this:
Dear Sir (or Madam),
I must apologize. I am guilty of setting a trap for you. I must with regret respectfully inform you that you have fallen into my trap. You have revealed to me that you are a collectivist.
Right off the bat, you assumed that I was talking about the aftermath of 9/11. I was not, although the same truth basically applies. In my statement, I had in mind the reaction of many individual Americans to the proposed "Ground-Zero Mosque." You made an assumption. That's OK! We all make assumptions. Making assumptions does not necessarily make you a collectivist.
Collectivists cannot see individuals; they only see groups.
It is true that as a nation (collectively) we, the people of the United States via our representatives in Congress under the War Powers Act and Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution, made the decision to go to war first against Afghanistan and the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, and later against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The American people overwhelmingly supported the first war resolution. Even a majority at the time, favored the second resolution against Iraq.
War is hell. Despite the best of intentions and billions of taxpayer dollars invested in R & D for technologies and tactics to prevent them, civilian casualties do occur in war**.
As individuals, American citizens did not react violently in any way to the heartless, insensitive proposal by Muslims to erect a mosque (promoted as an "outreach center") a couple of blocks away from "Ground Zero." Please think about this for one minute! What would happen if a group of American citizens who claimed to be Christians acting in the name of God and for his purpose demolished important financial buildings and severely damaged a very important military building in Saudi Arabia or Iran? Then, eight or nine years later, an American Christian proposed to build a church — in the name of "outreach" — just two blocks from the site where nearly 2,000 innocent Muslims were murdered. Americans would be appalled. Muslims, especially in Saudi Arabia (or Iran) would be apoplectic! They would band together as a whole and would not rest until the infidel was dead!
Also, think for just one minute about this: Even after 9/11, there were only a handful of documented cases of physical violence against Muslims in the United States. Just like the evil act of Jerod Loughton in a Safeway parking lot in Tucson, Arizona on that fateful and horrific Saturday morning, those evil deeds against Muslims were committed by madmen — sociopaths. They were not made by conservatives or anyone who reveres the Judeo-Christian ethic.
I ask you sir (or madam), with all sincerity and respect: Who makes the better and wiser decision? Is it the rational and moral individual — or is it the collective?
Please think about this for more than just two or three minutes and get back to me. I value your thoughtful opinion.
Sam
*As a Christian, I have no human enemies. If you disagree with me for any reason, I want to hear from you! I want to learn from your perspective. I want to know why I am wrong and why you are right! I do not choose my "enemies"; they choose me. They do this by saying, "You fool, there is no God." Or words to that effect.
**I was a strong supporter of "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Here's why:
In terms of radical Islamist terrorism, al-Qaeda has never been the greatest threat to America, her allies or her posterity. Iran is. Iran, backed by Russia and China, and through her surrogates such as Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah and Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, is the world's greatest and most prolific supporter, wielder, executor and harbor of/to terrorism. She is striving to become a nuclear power.
From a purely military perspective, I saw "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in one great light. I perceived it as a brilliant double pinchers movement. Successful operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq would flank (pin) Iran between Afghanistan & Iraq and Syria between Iraq on the one front and Lebanon & Israel on the other front.
I was too optimistic. I overestimated several factors. Four examples: 1) I overestimated the leadership abilities as commander-in-chief of George W. Bush. 2) I overestimated the resolve of the American people to achieve victory at all cost. 3) I overestimated the willingness of the people of Turkey to aid American military operations. 4) I overestimated both the ability and the resolve of the people of Lebanon to maintain their newly-found freedom. In all but one of the above, I was looking at groups (collectives), while at the same time disregarding the power and influence of individuals within those groups.
I also made a few underestimations. I underestimated the power and the ability of politicians, pundits, professors and even pastors to shape public opinion against the war.
One of my most admired, respected, thoughtful, kind and passionate correspondents is both a fellow Christian and a fellow Texan. He is against all war. I have learned from him and hope to learn much more. He, and many other individuals have strong objections to war that are rooted in principle and the Word and the Will of God.
I remained convinced, though, that the vast majority of those shaping public opinion against the "War on Terror" (not just the "separate 'wars'" against the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq) had a political (not a moral) objective. They wanted to defeat, politically, those in power (i.e., Republicans) for the sole purpose of regaining power for themselves.
If you disagree, please continue this conversation and explain to me why I am wrong. I can be wrong. I am often wrong! I will listen to your arguments, as long as you do not try to tell me that there is no Creator and Author of Law. Say that, and you have lost all credibility with me. I know Him. I know Him personally through Christ. There is no doubt!
Favorite recent link:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/marcus/110114
© Sam Weaver
January 21, 2011
I often make bold, vague or controversial statements with little or no explanation in this column for the sole purpose of drawing response/input/discussion from readers. This device has been effective. I have made countless new friends and "enemies"*, and have learned a great deal from both! Learning from my beloved readers — agree or disagree! — is really the main purpose of this column.
As I was composing what quickly became my last article, the fifth paragraph was originally intended to be that device — two bold if not "controversial" statements that would draw reader response. [NOTE: I usually plan, outline, research and think & pray about every article that I write. The last one is the very first one that I have written, typed and submitted all in one sitting. It took me longer to type it than it did to write it. I am virtually a "hunt-and-peck" typist. Trained hens type faster than I.]
As I continued writing, I saw a greater opportunity for the use of this device. I added a "NOTE" and a promise to paragraph #5 in my last article that I would back up my statements with evidence in "my next article or two — or three." Again, please stay tuned. The evidence will be forthcoming.
In the seventh paragraph of my last article, I not only employed my tried-and-true device, I more or less set a trap to weed out my collectivist responders. I wrote: "Americans, en masse, began to catch on when strong rebuke (sans any physical violence) against radical Islamists was called 'racism,' 'hatred' and/or 'bigotry' against all Muslims."
I sort of expected a virtual torrent of responses to that one sentence. Perhaps I'm impatient. Maybe it is too soon. Or, maybe — sigh! — the progressive bloggers have lost interest in me. I suppose they are focused on real threats to their power and control such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the Great One, Mark Levin. Can you really blame them?
I figured that I would have had at least a handful of emails by now that went something like this:
"You @$$%*ii! Was your head totally in the ?#<'!~& sand or up your @$$ over the last 10 years? Have you not heard about the wars [sic] in Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you not know how many Muslims we [sic] have murdered [sic] during the last decade?"
My response would have been very polite, respectful and tailored specifically to address the concerns of the individual correspondent. Let's assume that the correspondent said exactly — nothing more and nothing less than — what I transcribed in the above paragraph.
My response would have been something like this:
Dear Sir (or Madam),
I must apologize. I am guilty of setting a trap for you. I must with regret respectfully inform you that you have fallen into my trap. You have revealed to me that you are a collectivist.
Right off the bat, you assumed that I was talking about the aftermath of 9/11. I was not, although the same truth basically applies. In my statement, I had in mind the reaction of many individual Americans to the proposed "Ground-Zero Mosque." You made an assumption. That's OK! We all make assumptions. Making assumptions does not necessarily make you a collectivist.
Collectivists cannot see individuals; they only see groups.
It is true that as a nation (collectively) we, the people of the United States via our representatives in Congress under the War Powers Act and Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution, made the decision to go to war first against Afghanistan and the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, and later against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The American people overwhelmingly supported the first war resolution. Even a majority at the time, favored the second resolution against Iraq.
War is hell. Despite the best of intentions and billions of taxpayer dollars invested in R & D for technologies and tactics to prevent them, civilian casualties do occur in war**.
As individuals, American citizens did not react violently in any way to the heartless, insensitive proposal by Muslims to erect a mosque (promoted as an "outreach center") a couple of blocks away from "Ground Zero." Please think about this for one minute! What would happen if a group of American citizens who claimed to be Christians acting in the name of God and for his purpose demolished important financial buildings and severely damaged a very important military building in Saudi Arabia or Iran? Then, eight or nine years later, an American Christian proposed to build a church — in the name of "outreach" — just two blocks from the site where nearly 2,000 innocent Muslims were murdered. Americans would be appalled. Muslims, especially in Saudi Arabia (or Iran) would be apoplectic! They would band together as a whole and would not rest until the infidel was dead!
Also, think for just one minute about this: Even after 9/11, there were only a handful of documented cases of physical violence against Muslims in the United States. Just like the evil act of Jerod Loughton in a Safeway parking lot in Tucson, Arizona on that fateful and horrific Saturday morning, those evil deeds against Muslims were committed by madmen — sociopaths. They were not made by conservatives or anyone who reveres the Judeo-Christian ethic.
I ask you sir (or madam), with all sincerity and respect: Who makes the better and wiser decision? Is it the rational and moral individual — or is it the collective?
Please think about this for more than just two or three minutes and get back to me. I value your thoughtful opinion.
Sam
*As a Christian, I have no human enemies. If you disagree with me for any reason, I want to hear from you! I want to learn from your perspective. I want to know why I am wrong and why you are right! I do not choose my "enemies"; they choose me. They do this by saying, "You fool, there is no God." Or words to that effect.
**I was a strong supporter of "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Here's why:
In terms of radical Islamist terrorism, al-Qaeda has never been the greatest threat to America, her allies or her posterity. Iran is. Iran, backed by Russia and China, and through her surrogates such as Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah and Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, is the world's greatest and most prolific supporter, wielder, executor and harbor of/to terrorism. She is striving to become a nuclear power.
From a purely military perspective, I saw "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in one great light. I perceived it as a brilliant double pinchers movement. Successful operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq would flank (pin) Iran between Afghanistan & Iraq and Syria between Iraq on the one front and Lebanon & Israel on the other front.
I was too optimistic. I overestimated several factors. Four examples: 1) I overestimated the leadership abilities as commander-in-chief of George W. Bush. 2) I overestimated the resolve of the American people to achieve victory at all cost. 3) I overestimated the willingness of the people of Turkey to aid American military operations. 4) I overestimated both the ability and the resolve of the people of Lebanon to maintain their newly-found freedom. In all but one of the above, I was looking at groups (collectives), while at the same time disregarding the power and influence of individuals within those groups.
I also made a few underestimations. I underestimated the power and the ability of politicians, pundits, professors and even pastors to shape public opinion against the war.
One of my most admired, respected, thoughtful, kind and passionate correspondents is both a fellow Christian and a fellow Texan. He is against all war. I have learned from him and hope to learn much more. He, and many other individuals have strong objections to war that are rooted in principle and the Word and the Will of God.
I remained convinced, though, that the vast majority of those shaping public opinion against the "War on Terror" (not just the "separate 'wars'" against the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq) had a political (not a moral) objective. They wanted to defeat, politically, those in power (i.e., Republicans) for the sole purpose of regaining power for themselves.
If you disagree, please continue this conversation and explain to me why I am wrong. I can be wrong. I am often wrong! I will listen to your arguments, as long as you do not try to tell me that there is no Creator and Author of Law. Say that, and you have lost all credibility with me. I know Him. I know Him personally through Christ. There is no doubt!
Favorite recent link:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/marcus/110114
© Sam Weaver
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
