This article from the N&O will hurt your heart (assuming you have one). The Daily Tar Heel's article, not even 500 words long, will make you wonder if they even tried.

I'm white, so obviously I will never understand what it means to be black in this country. The "dual consciousness" that Du Bois described a hundred years ago in The Souls of Black Folk is captured by this passage:

One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.

I have to wonder if taking a "day off" from everything is the right way to commemorate someone's life so dedicated to active change.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

The rhetorical sledgehammer of anaphora aside, to me, that doesn't ask us to take a day off from work, file out of the classroom, close down businesses, grind everything to a hault. Is this holiday meant as a reflection on our progress? If so, that's all well and good, but isn't progress measured by action, not reflection?

I didn't live during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, so I can't say for sure whether we've made any real progress. What I can say is that I had no concept of race until kindergarten when we studied Black history during Black History Month. The special focus placed on achievements of African Americans led me to ask questions of my parents that I had never thought to ask before. "Why don't we celebrate a Spanish history month?" "Why don't we celebrate an Italian history month?" and yes, even this: "Why don't we celebrate a White history month?" I was taught by my public elementary school how to differentiate between races. Although, the argument could be made that if I hadn't learned it there, I would have eventually learned it elsewhere, with arguably more negative results. But that's all conjecture at this point.

I also find it funny that the NAACP employs a blitzkrieg tactic against town councils in an effort to rename a street in every city to "Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd". Everyone remembers the big stink last year when they changed the name of Airport Road. The town council felt better about themselves for doing something they could easily do in the name of racial progress. The businesses on Airport were angered by the added expense of changing their advertisements, listings, etc. to the new address. And to the average citizen, there was some confusion brought on by the fact that there was another street already called MLK not too far away.

What I'm trying to say in a roundabout way with all this rambling is that I don't think we do a very good job commemorating Martin Luther King Jr. What's the right answer? I don't know. There probably isn't one. I don't know if declaring a national holiday quite gets it. What happens tomorrow? We blink, and then go back to the same disinterested state we were in the day before. So as for me, I'm going to use today to catch up on reading for class and prepare for an upcoming Mock Trial tournament. Somehow, I think Dr. King would have wanted it that way.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

Dr. King's entire speech is available at http://www.mecca.org/~crights/dream.html

Sorry it's taken me a while to respond, but here goes,

If one such as Robertson believes that a Jewish Israel is dictated by God, then his vision of the future would be one free of appeasement. But more importantly, why do you use extremism in that manner? Isn't all religion extreme.

Brian called me on a major fallacy in my original post, namely, my failure to properly use the modifier "extreme." The term "extreme" itself doesn't carry any sort of connotation, it describes something as being to the farthest (or at least a very high) degree. So it would have been correct to refer to "violent Islamic extremism" or "violent Christian extremism" or "irrational extremism" in order to sufficiently create the grounds for a moral judgment to be made. I should know better. Point to Brian on this one, there is nothing wrong with "extreme" Islam or "extreme" Christianity--what's more "extreme" than dying for the world's sins?

Calling Robertson's view of the future "free of appeasement" leaves out a lot of details, however. It is a true statement; Israel could very well choose to not practice appeasement. That is the political state it would be in. But this does nothing to account for the quality of life in that state, or the stability of that state, or the progress towards better diplomacy in a volatile region. Perhaps Robertson accounted for these things, perhaps he didn't, but the fact of the matter is that the head of the state of Israel does have to account for them, as do leaders of the United States, European Union, United Nations, and any other state or organization for whom the region's political condition has any sort of impact.


Certain members of the religious right may be wrong at times. But to compare them to Islamic fundamentalists is off base.

Why? Is it inherently impossible for Christian fundamentalists to sometimes (notice sometimes) express similarities in method, rhetoric, and ideology to Islamic fundamentalists? Pat Robertson has, on multiple cited occasions, used his religious ideology as justification for violent acts committed upon those with whom he politically disagrees (Yitzhak Rabin) and as justification for misfortune befalling one with whom he politically disagrees (Ariel Sharon). Further, while not using religion as part of the reasoning, he personally advocated the assassination of a foreign head of state (Hugo Chavez), doing so on his religiously-themed news commentary show. Is it not fair to say that his argumentation might, as I stated earlier, demonstrate rhetorical and methodical similarities to the argumentations of some Islamic fundamentalists?

At any rate, I guess that one should expect more of a man of the faith. I firmly believe that one who preaches the creed of Christ should be expected to extol and exemplify reason, compassion, and peace as did Christ himself. Pat Robertson, at least in my estimation, did not do so in the case of Ariel Sharon and has a history of the same conduct. There are those who listen to him and follow him, and those who may not but are like-minded. This is what I find, a few days later and with a few days of objective thought on the matter, so disconcerting and disappointing about the whole episode.

but not really.

Usually I like to be light-hearted about things like death and religion because let's face it, I'm 19, probably won't die for a very long time, and those are two typically very serious things. But sometimes we pick the improper venues for expressing such light-heartedness. So I'll be serious (but only briefly).

There is a serious difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. But only in a modern sense. So Pat Robertson doesn't advocate suicide bombing in the 21st century, but Christian fundamentalism definitely has the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition to its name, both of which very much had this "death to the infidels" appeal. If you're not a cafeteria Catholic, then that means you embrace those and all other "negative" aspects of your religion's history, right?

And what about abortion clinics bombed in the name of Christianity? Are those not perversions of an otherwise peaceful faith? Start saying those things about Islam, and you might get labeled blasphemous, or at the very least, laughed at by people like Ann Coulter. I'm sure there are lots of Muslims who think suicide bombers are as they are: crazy, misguided--sometimes impoverished--individuals; we (the West) like to focus on those radical fanatics on the fringe because they make us feel better about our supposedly "superior" religion.

Obviously fundamentalist Islam and Christianity are different if only because the followers of the religions identify with their faiths differently. What I'm saying is that religion, especially fundamentalist religion, is inherently susceptible to being used incorrectly, and not how its founders/messiahs/God/Allah intended.

Now, I'm not gonna say that I don't think religion is wonderful, because I think it is. It takes this big abstract concept, God, and simplifies it into words and analogies that most people can understand, learn, and grow from. But if God is real, and if God is as they say (omnipotent, omniscient, infinite being), then He is so far beyond human comprehension, so far beyond the anthropomorphic features we ascribe to Him (vengeful, loving, angry God), that any attempt to define this God in any logical sense is an act of absurdity. How do you express God's Word in any of our own native tongues? I don't think you can. You can't even come close, unless, I suppose, and this is that bitter pill I stopped being able to swallow, you have that faith, that glow that I often times see around those Christians who I believe really figured it out. But at the same time, man being the imperfect thing that he is, will constantly mess up his interpretation of God's will, transfix his own selfishness onto the Word of God, and manipulate this pretty good thing, religion, into another one of his manifestations of power. THATS why our founding fathers pleaded the case for separation of church and state. NOT so they could get nativity scenes off public property or the words "Merry Christmas" out of advertising campaigns.

So to conclude, I admire you Brian for your faith just as I admire others for theirs. It's something I lost and have tried very hard to get back, especially last semester, without much success. As Vonnegut's eldest son wrote to him in a letter, "I've come to understand that we're all here to help each other through this thing, whatever it is." That gives me solace, I suppose, and at the very least a loose grasp on my sanity. And well, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, and yes, even Atheism--all of those faiths, the way I see it, they're there to help us help each other through this thing, whatever it is.

ps: just read through this again and realized i got way off topic so i'm addenduming it with this post script to apologize profusely for my undiagnosed ADD.

I've been pretty bad about posting consistently in here, but, it's a new semester, so let's start this off right with a smattering of opinions about the goings-on in the world.

First, Brian's defence of Pat Robertson makes me chuckle. Religious fundamentalism, the rigid in-your-face kind, no matter what the faith, is always humorous. Pat Robertson, poor guy, probably hasn't had an original thought in his life. Concerning the Israeli-Palestinian border conflict, it's like my father and grandfather have said, "They've been fighting each other over there ever since I was born, and for centuries before that, and they'll be fighting for centuries more after I'm dead. It's like they're job. They reach a certain age and someone gives them a gun. They can't help it, that's just life."

Fatalism is in the genes it seems.

Moving right along (about three countries to be exact), Iran keeps trying to develop nuclear weapons, despite the fact Bush keeps telling them that, "that ain't a good idea, boys."

Now, it bothers me enough that we have nuclear weapons of our own—after all, everyone makes mistakes, right? However, the idea of a theocratic government wielding the atom bomb is a little more than unnerving. Doesn’t that mean in theory if Allah tells them to drop it on someone, they've pretty much got to do it? Some people like to make fun of Bush for praying in the oval office, but those people have a constitution spelling out Islam, a religion, as their form of government. So much for that silly old western ideology of ours, you know the one: separation of church and state.

And so, maybe we never find the WMD in Iraq (everyone’s pretty much decided we won't). I think there's a much stronger case for war in Iran—one of Bush's Axis of Evil—but we've now set a horrible precedent in Iraq by setting such low standards for what necessitates a war.

Looks like diabetes is on the rise and soon to overtake cancer and heart disease as the biggest killers. Diabetes is somewhat genetic from what I understand, and there are many cases on both sides of my family tree, so this article did more than raise an eyebrow. But then again, if we weren’t so afraid of our own demise, maybe this wouldn’t be such a big deal? Americans spend more per capita than any other country on healthcare, and most of it is for ridiculous experimental procedures to extend our lives by a few meaningless months. Die with dignity, that’s what I say. It’s like that Kansas song: all your money won’t another minute buy

And how ‘bout them Tar Heels? I’m talking about the Lady Heels, led by Miss Ivory Latta. Nobody watches women’s sports, and my theory is that it’s because they’re more boring than their male counterparts. Well, UNC women’s basketball is fun to watch. They’re high-scoring and fast-paced. Actually, they remind me of a certain national championship team from last year.

Oh, and our boys upset State, which meant all my loser high school friends that went there got calls of “BOOYAH, IN YOUR FACE.” UNC still has yet to lose to that institution in either major sport (football and basketball) since I enrolled.

On Ariel Sharon:
"Hopefully, the news that the criminal of Sabra and Chatila has joined his ancestors is final...Hopefully, others (criminals like him) will join him too"
--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America,'"
--Pat Robertson

So, while they ostensibly oppose each other, perhaps the extremist religious right in both countries has more in common than they thought. Both men seem to oppose any sort of rational movement towards peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict (indeed, some members of both the Christian and Islamic religious right, as represented by Ahmadinejad and Robertson, choose to pursue dangerously nonsensical nationalism in relation to Israel and Palestine respectively).

Granted, I have come to expect no less from either. Ahmadinejad, after all, has already ridiculously denied the Holocaust and called for the elimination of Israel. But it is Robertson who is more disconcerting, because far too many Americans (true, any more than 1 is too many), for whatever inexplicable reason, treat his outlandish political statements as valued pronunciations. So, my thoughts on Robertson's pronouncement.

"God's land?" Should a fundamentalist not strongly hold that the whole planet was created by God and, thus, is God's land? Clearly Robertson means to indicate that the geographic territory of Israel/Palestine has some divine significance. But his poorly stated logic would lead to the conclusion that any political boundaries are invalid since they, after all, divide God's land (presumably) without His consent.

And what Robertson has against the EU, the UN, and United States is anyone's guess. "Blessed are the peacemakers?" Robertson's version of Christian theology must include a special definition of peace. And also grant him the ability to justify the deaths of those whom he disagrees with: in 1995 he made similar statements (to those made about Sharon) referring to assassinated Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin, and called recently for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Somehow he can make such violent, unforgiving, unprincipled statements and not laugh while using the honorific "Reverend" in front of his name.

What would Robertson's vision of the future be? One of bloodshed? Of massacre? One of total war driven by religious extremism? It seems quite arrogant for Robertson, who is certainly neither Jewish religiously, or Israeli in terms of nationality, to presume to have an expert opinion on the proper political and ideological conduct of Israeli politics (it should be noted that Sharon and his newly-formed, pro-peace centrist Kadima party were widely favored to win parliamentary elections in March). Robertson's (and Ahmadinejad's) vision of the future of the Middle East is a far more violent, more frightening one than Ariel Sharon ever dreamt up, even in his hard-line days, and certainly not in his gratifying and honorable later years of statesmanship. I can only have hope that Robertson's views are viewed by the public as critically as Ahmadinejad's are.

It makes intellectual and reasonable moderates and conservatives look foolish when extremists like Robertson spout off such poorly considered, poorly grounded ideas while purporting to be rationally thinking people.

And, needless to say, our hopes in the event of Sharon's incapacitation should be for future Israeli leadership which values peace, diplomacy, and compromise as did his government. It is a much better vision of the future for Israelis, for Palestinians, and for the peace-desiring international community criticized by Robertson.