In Part 2 of this journal we got God 'off the hook' by discussing varying views of the Passion Project. We came to the conclusion that God gave us free will, therefore making redundant the notion of "atonement". God is not a puppeteer who planned the death of his Son. Jesus' death was a reaction to the time in which he lived. We put the death of Jesus into context by reading the signs of the time. I found the discussion about the intrinsic value particularly interesting; there is nothing intrinsically holy about the cross for example, and if Jesus was stoned to death we'd probably have a different motif. This again highlights the importance of the relativist face of the Church. There seems to be so much emphasis on tradition and at times this muffles the real message, the spirit, of Christianity. In Part 3 we deal specifically with terrorism and the varying dialogues. It appears to me that a lot of the time this notion of 'tolerance' is bought up in relation to social justice issues. Tolerance for each other, or in other words those who are not the same as you. This is not necessarily a healthy concept. The word "tolerance" indicates that something or someone is merely being 'put up with' there is no effort and no sense of understanding or inclusion. In such a capitalist society we are constantly bombarded with advertising; images of the 'ideal'. We are indoctrinated, in a sense, so that we automatically know what is 'best for us'.
The 'War on Terror' throws our sense of self into stark relief. A political campaign of FEAR forces us to make the 'them' and 'us' distinction. Suddenly we are not thinking, we are just reacting. In doing this we are supporting a system that supports violence, and we are perpetuating the cycle.
Arguably the majority of people in Sydney would AUTOMATICALLY equate terrorism with Islam ... but not all ... a prominent Sydney businessman (also a Muslim) was quoted as saying "Islam was responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers about as much as Christianity was responsible for the Oklahoma bombings". When viewed like this we receive a rude dose of reality. It is so important to be capable of reading the signs of the time. It is even more vital however that we are critical of the context in which we read these signs. Sometimes the distinctions are not clear. For example; what is the difference between an Al Quida attack and a National Security assault? A guy on a push bike with a rocket launcher or a B52 drop bomb? We must question these results. We must question the answers we produce.
Politicians, economists and others couch their words to evoke the 'best for you and me' sentiment. We spoke briefly about the defence of the American Dream and how ironic it was that the majority of American's who were fighting the "War on Terror" come from such a low socio-economic background that the American Dream has and (if they make it home alive) will always be beyond them.
We must be aware and be able to 'deconstruct the text'. Patriotism is no good when the poorer half - the 80% majority - decide to stand up and say, "Move over, we're going to have some of that too"! Governments specifically fuel the fear that 'the dream' is going to be undone by terrorist activity to keep this in check. If we are serious about stopping Terrorism we must stop contributing to this notion of fear; the 'them' and 'us' mentality. We have to start talking the same language; with deaths on both sides - Christian ethics make no distinction - all death in circumstances such as war is horrific.
The concept of solidarity must remain strong. It must be a consistent movement towards equality, freedom and peace. These just concepts are heavily supported in the Catholic and Christian traditions; and in many other religions as well. Christianity provides a solid structure, that although at times is a little too out of touch, it is necessary for it to remain apart from other world structures, political, economic etc. Reading the signs of the time and being a consistent, understanding, loving entity give many people the faith, courage and support to continue in what is predominately a struggle for equality of self, family and way of life.
The 'War on Terror' throws our sense of self into stark relief. A political campaign of FEAR forces us to make the 'them' and 'us' distinction. Suddenly we are not thinking, we are just reacting. In doing this we are supporting a system that supports violence, and we are perpetuating the cycle.
Arguably the majority of people in Sydney would AUTOMATICALLY equate terrorism with Islam ... but not all ... a prominent Sydney businessman (also a Muslim) was quoted as saying "Islam was responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers about as much as Christianity was responsible for the Oklahoma bombings". When viewed like this we receive a rude dose of reality. It is so important to be capable of reading the signs of the time. It is even more vital however that we are critical of the context in which we read these signs. Sometimes the distinctions are not clear. For example; what is the difference between an Al Quida attack and a National Security assault? A guy on a push bike with a rocket launcher or a B52 drop bomb? We must question these results. We must question the answers we produce.
Politicians, economists and others couch their words to evoke the 'best for you and me' sentiment. We spoke briefly about the defence of the American Dream and how ironic it was that the majority of American's who were fighting the "War on Terror" come from such a low socio-economic background that the American Dream has and (if they make it home alive) will always be beyond them.
We must be aware and be able to 'deconstruct the text'. Patriotism is no good when the poorer half - the 80% majority - decide to stand up and say, "Move over, we're going to have some of that too"! Governments specifically fuel the fear that 'the dream' is going to be undone by terrorist activity to keep this in check. If we are serious about stopping Terrorism we must stop contributing to this notion of fear; the 'them' and 'us' mentality. We have to start talking the same language; with deaths on both sides - Christian ethics make no distinction - all death in circumstances such as war is horrific.
The concept of solidarity must remain strong. It must be a consistent movement towards equality, freedom and peace. These just concepts are heavily supported in the Catholic and Christian traditions; and in many other religions as well. Christianity provides a solid structure, that although at times is a little too out of touch, it is necessary for it to remain apart from other world structures, political, economic etc. Reading the signs of the time and being a consistent, understanding, loving entity give many people the faith, courage and support to continue in what is predominately a struggle for equality of self, family and way of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment