3/7/13
2/9/13
Lisa Kristine Talks About Modern Slavery
Photojournalist Lisa Kristine had been studying indigenous cultures for nearly 30 years when she first began to realize that slavery and human trafficking occur all around her.
Of course she already knew the slave trade exists. Almost everyone knows that. It's the world's biggest open secret.
Kristine did not know, however, that over 27 million individuals worldwide are held captive and misused - that they are, sometimes for minor debts, enslaved in brutal conditions. I had no idea the trade was so pervasive, either - that the number of slaves working globally nearly equals the number of people who live here in Canada.
They are treated as disposable, of course, because for each one that dies another can easily be acquired.
We, as a people, tolerate the slave trade in part because many of the goods we enjoy - in particular, those that come cheaply - are the fruits of unpaid labor. We know that if slavery were to end, our economy and our relationships to other human beings would have to change drastically.
Nonetheless, this step must be taken if we, as a people united, are to continue in our quest for advancement. For so long as slavery and brutality endure as major fixtures of the global economy, we - all of us - are hobbled in our attempts to ensure a better future for our kids.
There are already so many people who have said, "Enough"; individuals who work as abolitionists. Hopefully their efforts will eventually bring the rest of us to a tipping point such that we boycott the goods being produced by known slave-owners.
May that time come soon.
Of course she already knew the slave trade exists. Almost everyone knows that. It's the world's biggest open secret.
Kristine did not know, however, that over 27 million individuals worldwide are held captive and misused - that they are, sometimes for minor debts, enslaved in brutal conditions. I had no idea the trade was so pervasive, either - that the number of slaves working globally nearly equals the number of people who live here in Canada.
They are treated as disposable, of course, because for each one that dies another can easily be acquired.
We, as a people, tolerate the slave trade in part because many of the goods we enjoy - in particular, those that come cheaply - are the fruits of unpaid labor. We know that if slavery were to end, our economy and our relationships to other human beings would have to change drastically.
Nonetheless, this step must be taken if we, as a people united, are to continue in our quest for advancement. For so long as slavery and brutality endure as major fixtures of the global economy, we - all of us - are hobbled in our attempts to ensure a better future for our kids.
There are already so many people who have said, "Enough"; individuals who work as abolitionists. Hopefully their efforts will eventually bring the rest of us to a tipping point such that we boycott the goods being produced by known slave-owners.
May that time come soon.
2/8/13
Viktor Frankl: The power of believing the best in others
Most folks are perfectly capable of living down to others' expectations of them. That's easy. It's when people are called to over-reach what they believe of themselves that things become harder.
Of course it's wrong!
Unfortunately – or perhaps not; I actually can’t tell – I've had to spend the last few months sifting through the skeletons in my own closet. This is part of the reason why I was so intrigued by the experiences of Megan and Grace Phelps Roper, about whom I wrote yesterday.
On May 3, 2009, I wrote an open letter – it’s now located behind a members-only wall, unfortunately – to a moderator (Mr. Mannn. Gee, I wonder if he's ashamed of something?) at an allegedly Christian board (Rapture Ready – LOL!) who banned me for life when I bluntly informed him that condoning torture is grossly unethical and unchristian as well.
Though what Megan and Grace did at WBC differed in both degree and kind from what torturers in prison camps do, it’s almost eerie to me just how alike their reactions had been when they first realized their activities were wrong.
My response to having been banned from the board in question was to develop the following post. I am reposting an edited version of the material, which initially appeared at FSTDT.com, because it provides insight concerning how someone – especially an individual conditioned to acts of cruelty – can live for so long with the cognitive dissonance of knowing better, doing worse, and still thinking the outcome is worth inflicting sometimes unbelievable amounts of damage to other people.
Torture is not only ineffective and morally repugnant, but it also leaves those individuals responsible for such acts with scars that run so deep that no amount of time can soften them. In other words, for every individual on every side of a situation such as that which existed in Abu Ghraib, there is no coming back. Here’s a cliché, but true: Things seen can never be unseen, and nor can things done be undone.
Oh, and those of you who don’t like foul language might want to skip this post – although I hope, ultimately, that you don’t:
I hate - no, loathe - everything you stand for, and I think you're a fawning, contemptible, sniveling, boot-licking little coward who willingly shoves his head up the asses of various war criminals until the lack of oxygen causes brain damage. That's the only possible explanation for your rancid stupidity, you seeping, open pustule on the darkest part of the ass of humanity.
Let's talk turkey, chicken.Several psychologists – including, perhaps chiefly, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen out of Spokane, Washington – were hired by the CIA to put together an effective interrogation program. Like practically everyone else hired through the Bush administration, however, these men had no relevant experience. Instead, they were paid $1000 a day to crib techniques from Soviet-era torturers and repackage them for sale to the US military.
Their tactics included water-boarding and the use of so-called “stress positions” – both considered torture when the “bad guys” do it.
And of course their lack of direct experience was ultimately no excuse. They were by no means ignorant of basic human psychology, and they must have known they were helping create a toxic environment where personal responsibility and proper oversight took a back seat to pointless acts of brutality.
Abu Ghraib wasn’t the result of a breakdown in command or a failure to plan. The cruelty envisaged there wasn’t merely a defect, an accident, or a bug; it was a feature of this “enhanced interrogation” program created by your ideological fuck-buddies.
The atmosphere at Abu Ghraib was meant to be far worse than merely “unpleasant” and the young guards were conditioned, by their environment, by the procedures they were counseled to follow, and by the tacit approval of cruelty among their superiors, to treat prisoners as less than human.
Not only were they criminals and abusers, but they were patsies as well, blamed for something military advisers and superiors not only allowed but encouraged.
Philip Zimbardo, a professor Emeritus of Psychology at Stanford University, and architect of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, spoke out on behalf of the guards after the initial scandal broke. He claimed that Col. Thomas Pappas, the ranking officer at Abu Ghraib, was mentally unfit to control his subordinates. (As I said above, though, I don’t think Pappas’ mental state would have mattered much in the outcome – except there wouldn’t have been photographic evidence had he been more in-touch with the retarded orgy of cruelty going on under his command.)
Yes, indeed; if Mitchell and Jessen – and keep those names in mind, because hopefully they’ll end up in the prisoners’ dock on trial for war crimes – knew anything at all about their field of specialization, they would have been familiar with Zimbardo and his experiment.
Because you're a complete idiot, Mr. Mannn, and likely have the attention-span of a brain-dead gnat, I'll give you a quick run-down of the prison experiment.
A few years after Zimbardo was scared straight, Pol Pot and his hordes of Khmer Rouge kinder-killers had enforced their “Year Zero” throughout Cambodia, and were well on their way to killing one in every four citizens through on-the-spot executions, famine, slave labor, and torturous imprisonment.
Of those who were imprisoned, an estimated 17000 (seventeen thousand) people were tortured and killed at Tuol Sleng (S-21). Only seven survived. One of them, Vann Nath, was preserved against death for his skill as an artist. His paintings are a record of life at S-21.
On January 7, 1978, he was arrested by the Khmer Rouge for, and I quote, “…violating the moral code of the organization of Angka.”
He didn’t know what the hell they were talking about: "I was very, very confused because they asked me what network of betrayal I was in and whom I had relationships with, but I was confused because they used live electrical wire on me and I fell unconscious a few times."
At least two of his paintings depict the controlled drowning of fellow prisoners. In one, the prisoner is hung from a winch on the ceiling by his feet, arms dangling, and lowered into a vat of water. In the other, a prisoner is water-boarded.
The methods used by the Khmer Rouge were less polished than what that US developed, but the tortures are alike in how they affect their victims. (Because a victim can be pulled back from the brink of death, assuming he doesn’t die of hypoxia despite efforts to save him, he can be tortured by controlled drowning again and again.)
In 2004, Rithy Panh, himself a survivor of Pol Pot’s brutality, made a documentary called S-21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine. This film featured two survivors of Tuol Sleng meeting with former guards and interrogators at the prison.
When the former guards were confronted directly by Nath for their parts in the murders, they all disclaimed any responsibility. They maintained they were too young to know better, and that they feared for their own lives.
John Pilger, from antiwar.com, described their encounter like this:
BAM! Now that sounds eerily familiar.
The US interrogation of prisoners at places like Abu Ghraib (and perhaps other foreign prisons, far more secret) differed from the actions of Khmer Rouge soldiers in degree. The genocidal intention wasn’t there, but a lot of the other elements were: young people working in a toxic environment intentionally created by their superiors, a total lack of personal responsibility or corporate accountability, the systematic dehumanization of prisoners, and, of course, torture. Lots and lots of torture.
Their superiors knew this was a bad mix. They counted on it. And the result: that acts of inhumanity look much the same regardless of when or why.
COMPARE...
WATER-BOARDING
Inquisition - Tuol Sleng - United States
STRESS POSITIONS
Buchenwald - Gitmo
IN-CELL
Tuol Sleng - Abu Ghraib
(More information about conditions at S-21)
Now, then, you can't blame Christianity for your being such a pathetic waste of carbon, Mr. Mannn, because other Christians condemn torture - whereas you...well, I think you fap to it.
In closing, you're a fucking liar. I thought lying breached one of the Big Ten. You might want to get right with your God, you toad.
So there you have it. And not only does torture often fail to produce anything useful, especially when balanced against the enormous human cost, but it can actually hinder legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts: Torture can and will produce false confessions.
The fact people - a lot of people - thought it necessary to have a 'public discussion' on this issue - as if there's actually more than one correct side, here - suggests a deep cancer eating away at some of the most important ethical principles of our society.
On May 3, 2009, I wrote an open letter – it’s now located behind a members-only wall, unfortunately – to a moderator (Mr. Mannn. Gee, I wonder if he's ashamed of something?) at an allegedly Christian board (Rapture Ready – LOL!) who banned me for life when I bluntly informed him that condoning torture is grossly unethical and unchristian as well.
Though what Megan and Grace did at WBC differed in both degree and kind from what torturers in prison camps do, it’s almost eerie to me just how alike their reactions had been when they first realized their activities were wrong.
My response to having been banned from the board in question was to develop the following post. I am reposting an edited version of the material, which initially appeared at FSTDT.com, because it provides insight concerning how someone – especially an individual conditioned to acts of cruelty – can live for so long with the cognitive dissonance of knowing better, doing worse, and still thinking the outcome is worth inflicting sometimes unbelievable amounts of damage to other people.
Torture is not only ineffective and morally repugnant, but it also leaves those individuals responsible for such acts with scars that run so deep that no amount of time can soften them. In other words, for every individual on every side of a situation such as that which existed in Abu Ghraib, there is no coming back. Here’s a cliché, but true: Things seen can never be unseen, and nor can things done be undone.
Oh, and those of you who don’t like foul language might want to skip this post – although I hope, ultimately, that you don’t:
I hate - no, loathe - everything you stand for, and I think you're a fawning, contemptible, sniveling, boot-licking little coward who willingly shoves his head up the asses of various war criminals until the lack of oxygen causes brain damage. That's the only possible explanation for your rancid stupidity, you seeping, open pustule on the darkest part of the ass of humanity.
Let's talk turkey, chicken.Several psychologists – including, perhaps chiefly, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen out of Spokane, Washington – were hired by the CIA to put together an effective interrogation program. Like practically everyone else hired through the Bush administration, however, these men had no relevant experience. Instead, they were paid $1000 a day to crib techniques from Soviet-era torturers and repackage them for sale to the US military.
Their tactics included water-boarding and the use of so-called “stress positions” – both considered torture when the “bad guys” do it.
And of course their lack of direct experience was ultimately no excuse. They were by no means ignorant of basic human psychology, and they must have known they were helping create a toxic environment where personal responsibility and proper oversight took a back seat to pointless acts of brutality.
Abu Ghraib wasn’t the result of a breakdown in command or a failure to plan. The cruelty envisaged there wasn’t merely a defect, an accident, or a bug; it was a feature of this “enhanced interrogation” program created by your ideological fuck-buddies.
The atmosphere at Abu Ghraib was meant to be far worse than merely “unpleasant” and the young guards were conditioned, by their environment, by the procedures they were counseled to follow, and by the tacit approval of cruelty among their superiors, to treat prisoners as less than human.
Not only were they criminals and abusers, but they were patsies as well, blamed for something military advisers and superiors not only allowed but encouraged.
Philip Zimbardo, a professor Emeritus of Psychology at Stanford University, and architect of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, spoke out on behalf of the guards after the initial scandal broke. He claimed that Col. Thomas Pappas, the ranking officer at Abu Ghraib, was mentally unfit to control his subordinates. (As I said above, though, I don’t think Pappas’ mental state would have mattered much in the outcome – except there wouldn’t have been photographic evidence had he been more in-touch with the retarded orgy of cruelty going on under his command.)
Yes, indeed; if Mitchell and Jessen – and keep those names in mind, because hopefully they’ll end up in the prisoners’ dock on trial for war crimes – knew anything at all about their field of specialization, they would have been familiar with Zimbardo and his experiment.
Because you're a complete idiot, Mr. Mannn, and likely have the attention-span of a brain-dead gnat, I'll give you a quick run-down of the prison experiment.
AUGUST, 1971: Zimbardo executed an experiment designed to measure how people reacted upon being placed in artificial roles of dominance and submission. This study had been funded in part by the Navy, which was out to unearth the roots of systemic problems in its own prisons. (Yep! The US Military not only knew about the experiment, but helped fund the fucking thing, so of course they knew what would happen at Abu Ghraib.)
For an observational period of two weeks, volunteers - drawn in through a newspaper ad and selected for their psychological stability – were to adopt roles normally found in a prison environment. Some of these men were assigned as guards; others, as inmates.
Certain elements of humiliation - wearing smocks with no underwear, blindfolds, and leg chains for example - had been added to ramp up the experience. These were not standard procedures at most naval prisons, but were added to the experiment in hope that two weeks might reveal truths that took months to develop in a more ‘authentic‘ environment.
The “prison” assigned each inmate a number to be used instead of his name, so the process of dehumanization could be more quickly asserted and deconstructed. These volunteers had been warned about the possibility of facing verbal harassment and about the austere environment in which they’d live for the duration of their stay.
What happened next is the stuff of legend, and Zimbardo still receives considerable criticism for it 35 years later: Although a limit had been placed on what the “guards” could do to their charges - these people were given no instruction but that they were not permitted to physically harm the inmates - it took all of a day before even those boundaries were tested.
DAY ONE: Prisoners were subjected to tests of physical exertion and to the dehumanizing treatment outlined above, but each group had yet to slip completely into its role. Guards were assigned shifts, and permitted to return to their own homes while “off-duty.”
DAY TWO: Prisoners organized a revolt. The guards called for reinforcement from among fellow students who had been placed on-call for that purpose, and they armed themselves with fire extinguishers to break the uprising. These men actually hosed down their prisoners before entering each cell and stripping fellow students naked as a form of punishment.
Considering the experiment was only a day old by then, this behavior was remarkable – oh yeah, and creepy as shit. And even as the guards became more brutal in adapting to their positions, Zimbardo and his colleagues began to unconsciously take the posture of bona fide prison administrators.
The authors of this experiment were drawn into it and, instead of merely observing and recording the reactions around them, began seeing the prisoners as deserving of increasingly harsh treatment.
DAY THREE: Otherwise psychologically healthy young men were reduced to quivering masses of nerve, and a couple of them - student/prisoners - had to be removed from the experiment within the first couple of days. Zimbardo would later recall he felt some reluctance to let them go, since he believed they were conning him to get out of facing consequences they deserved.
DAY FOUR: Zimbardo was perfectly willing to counter rumors of an escape attempt by transferring the pretend inmates to an actual prison.
The overseeing psychologists suggested the guards use a backhanded kind of positive reinforcement in the form of a “privilege cell”. Special incentives were offered to prisoners who, not unlike the kapo in Nazi concentration camps, were amendable to helping the guards in their task of keeping the inmate population under control.
These special prisoners were allowed to bathe and brush their teeth, as well as eat desired food in the presence of other inmates. To sow distrust among that population, thus breaking any resolve for collective action against authority, guards then revoked those privileges and gave them to other prisoners.
These guards, meanwhile, had been brought closer together by the shared experience of having put down the revolt. At night, when they believed the cameras had been turned off, a few of them demonstrated genuine sadism in their interaction with fellow students.
DAY FIVE: Prisoners were forced to walk around blindfolded and shackled. They also cleaned toilets with their bare hands, and were denied “bathroom privileges” for minor infractions.
That night, Zimbardo’s girlfriend, Christina Maslach, dropped in on the prison to familiarize herself with the experiment. A newly minted psychologist just hired on at the University of Berkeley, Maslach had been asked to conduct interviews with the prisoners on the following day and wanted to look around ahead of time.
At first, Maslach, who was looking at security monitors to see what was going on, didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary. She even chatted with one of the guards, whom she found to be charming and open - that is, until she saw him interact with the prisoners from her closed-circuit perch:
"This man had been transformed,” she said. “He was talking in a different accent a Southern accent, which I hadn't recalled at all. He moved differently, and the way he talked was different, not just in the accent, but in the way he was interacting with the prisoners. It was like [seeing] Jekyll and Hyde. . . ."
Things only went downhill from there, and Maslach fought a wave of revulsion when she saw prisoners being led around with their heads covered by paper bags. One of the researchers poked fun at her for her timidity. After all, 50 people had come to observe the experiment without complaint - among them psychologists, friends of the students, a lawyer, and a priest - before Maslach alone had raised an objection.
DAY SIX: Even despite his own involvement, Zimbardo recognized the experiment had gone out of control and he shut it down.
Congratulations. You are now better informed, or at least more ethically inclined, than a pair of psychologists hired by the CIA and paid 30k a month for their “expertise.”
A few years after Zimbardo was scared straight, Pol Pot and his hordes of Khmer Rouge kinder-killers had enforced their “Year Zero” throughout Cambodia, and were well on their way to killing one in every four citizens through on-the-spot executions, famine, slave labor, and torturous imprisonment.
Of those who were imprisoned, an estimated 17000 (seventeen thousand) people were tortured and killed at Tuol Sleng (S-21). Only seven survived. One of them, Vann Nath, was preserved against death for his skill as an artist. His paintings are a record of life at S-21.
On January 7, 1978, he was arrested by the Khmer Rouge for, and I quote, “…violating the moral code of the organization of Angka.”
He didn’t know what the hell they were talking about: "I was very, very confused because they asked me what network of betrayal I was in and whom I had relationships with, but I was confused because they used live electrical wire on me and I fell unconscious a few times."
At least two of his paintings depict the controlled drowning of fellow prisoners. In one, the prisoner is hung from a winch on the ceiling by his feet, arms dangling, and lowered into a vat of water. In the other, a prisoner is water-boarded.
The methods used by the Khmer Rouge were less polished than what that US developed, but the tortures are alike in how they affect their victims. (Because a victim can be pulled back from the brink of death, assuming he doesn’t die of hypoxia despite efforts to save him, he can be tortured by controlled drowning again and again.)
In 2004, Rithy Panh, himself a survivor of Pol Pot’s brutality, made a documentary called S-21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine. This film featured two survivors of Tuol Sleng meeting with former guards and interrogators at the prison.
When the former guards were confronted directly by Nath for their parts in the murders, they all disclaimed any responsibility. They maintained they were too young to know better, and that they feared for their own lives.
John Pilger, from antiwar.com, described their encounter like this:
“…there is Poeuv, indoctrinated as a guard at the age of 12 or 13. In one spellbinding sequence, he becomes robotic, as if seized by his memory and transported back. He shows us, with moronic precision, how he intimidated prisoners, fastened their handcuffs and shackles, gave or denied them food, ordered them to piss, threatening to beat them with "the club" if a drop fell on the floor. His actions confront all of us with the truth about human "cogs" in machines whose inventors and senior managers politely disclaim responsibility, like the still untried Khmer Rouge leaders and their foreign sponsors.”
BAM! Now that sounds eerily familiar.
The US interrogation of prisoners at places like Abu Ghraib (and perhaps other foreign prisons, far more secret) differed from the actions of Khmer Rouge soldiers in degree. The genocidal intention wasn’t there, but a lot of the other elements were: young people working in a toxic environment intentionally created by their superiors, a total lack of personal responsibility or corporate accountability, the systematic dehumanization of prisoners, and, of course, torture. Lots and lots of torture.
Their superiors knew this was a bad mix. They counted on it. And the result: that acts of inhumanity look much the same regardless of when or why.
COMPARE...
WATER-BOARDING
Inquisition - Tuol Sleng - United States
STRESS POSITIONS
Buchenwald - Gitmo
IN-CELL
Tuol Sleng - Abu Ghraib
(More information about conditions at S-21)
Now, then, you can't blame Christianity for your being such a pathetic waste of carbon, Mr. Mannn, because other Christians condemn torture - whereas you...well, I think you fap to it.
In closing, you're a fucking liar. I thought lying breached one of the Big Ten. You might want to get right with your God, you toad.
So there you have it. And not only does torture often fail to produce anything useful, especially when balanced against the enormous human cost, but it can actually hinder legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts: Torture can and will produce false confessions.
The fact people - a lot of people - thought it necessary to have a 'public discussion' on this issue - as if there's actually more than one correct side, here - suggests a deep cancer eating away at some of the most important ethical principles of our society.
2/7/13
Megan Phelps Roper and her sister, Grace, walk away from WBC
It’s inevitable that some people would misunderstand the purpose of my website, therighttobewrong.net, seeing it as an organ to defend certain beliefs held by members of the Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka, Kansas).
I generally make an effort simply to present facts about the church and its stance, rather than trying to leaven this information with my own opinion concerning how members conduct themselves in public.
I do this not because I agree with the WBC – I don’t – but because I believe with an absolute fixity that Freedom of Speech is the cornerstone supporting every other kind of freedom we hold dear. One can see how the erosion of speech effects other rights and freedoms in countries such as Pakistan where being a journalist is a potentially lethal occupation, for example, or in China, where the government censors a great deal of information allegedly for the sake of public harmony.
We can also look to past dictatorships for examples of how, when freedom of the press was curtailed, other freedoms (such as protest and religion), as well as rights such as to a fair trial, would simply disappear.
If one is not permitted to speak his or her mind without fear of brutal reprisal, then the freedom of said individual no longer exists in any meaningful way.
This is why it is so vitally important to defend Free Speech for those who hold unpopular views. These are the very people for whom such safeguards are required most. Popular opinion scarcely needs that level of protection. It is in our collective treatment of unpopular opinion that we see how many people are truly committed to defending freedom for everyone.
That said, I am happy to hear it when someone leaves the Westboro Baptist Church. The fact I think church members should be permitted to protest near funerals and other events does not mean I actually agree with their doing so. And worse, their view of God as a preening monster is so off-kilter I can’t help but to feel at least a little pleased when a member looks WBC’s doctrine full in the face and decides it’s wrong.
Like their brother Joshua had done several years earlier, Megan Phelps Roper and her sister, Grace, have chosen to leave Westboro Baptist Church.
Reporter Jeff Chu knew Megan Phelps Roper as a true believer. 15 months after his having first met her, however, that had changed:
To walk away from that, knowing you will lose nearly everything you hold dear, takes more courage than a lot of people might guess.
Chu continues…
For some people – the ‘lucky ones,’ I guess – there comes day when something happens. It could be something major or something minor, but it’s cataclysmic all the same; an apocalypse of internal belief, when the veil is lifted and the individual realizes, “What the fuck am I doing?”
Of course Megan Phelps Roper tried to ignore her own doubts at first. Most people do. But she couldn’t run from them forever.
Regrets. Amends. Right. Wrong. These are not merely words; they’re points on a moral grid. Megan and Grace now face the unenviable task of trying to determine how best to navigate among these points while maintaining their own integrity.
Unfortunately, there is no cookie-cutter response to that question. The answer - the muddied, difficult answer – is at least a little different for everyone.
Thank God they had the right to be wrong.
Thank God they had the ability, and the courage, to finally walk away.
And, as Jeff Chu points out - a fact for which I, too am most grateful - thank God for second chances.
(Megan’s own reflections appear here.)
I generally make an effort simply to present facts about the church and its stance, rather than trying to leaven this information with my own opinion concerning how members conduct themselves in public.
I do this not because I agree with the WBC – I don’t – but because I believe with an absolute fixity that Freedom of Speech is the cornerstone supporting every other kind of freedom we hold dear. One can see how the erosion of speech effects other rights and freedoms in countries such as Pakistan where being a journalist is a potentially lethal occupation, for example, or in China, where the government censors a great deal of information allegedly for the sake of public harmony.
We can also look to past dictatorships for examples of how, when freedom of the press was curtailed, other freedoms (such as protest and religion), as well as rights such as to a fair trial, would simply disappear.
If one is not permitted to speak his or her mind without fear of brutal reprisal, then the freedom of said individual no longer exists in any meaningful way.
This is why it is so vitally important to defend Free Speech for those who hold unpopular views. These are the very people for whom such safeguards are required most. Popular opinion scarcely needs that level of protection. It is in our collective treatment of unpopular opinion that we see how many people are truly committed to defending freedom for everyone.
That said, I am happy to hear it when someone leaves the Westboro Baptist Church. The fact I think church members should be permitted to protest near funerals and other events does not mean I actually agree with their doing so. And worse, their view of God as a preening monster is so off-kilter I can’t help but to feel at least a little pleased when a member looks WBC’s doctrine full in the face and decides it’s wrong.
Like their brother Joshua had done several years earlier, Megan Phelps Roper and her sister, Grace, have chosen to leave Westboro Baptist Church.
Reporter Jeff Chu knew Megan Phelps Roper as a true believer. 15 months after his having first met her, however, that had changed:
“Forget what you know of the church,” writes Chu. “Just imagine what it is like to walk away from everything you have ever known. Consider how traumatic it would be to know that your family is never supposed to speak to you again. Think of how hard it would be to have a fortress of faith built around you, and to have to dismantle it yourself, brick by brick, examining each one and deciding whether there’s something worth keeping or whether it’s not as solid as you thought it was.” (Chu)He’s right.
To walk away from that, knowing you will lose nearly everything you hold dear, takes more courage than a lot of people might guess.
Chu continues…
“My doubts started with a conversation I had with David Abitbol,” shesays. Megan met David, an Israeli web developer who’s part of the team behind the blog Jewlicious, on Twitter. “I would ask him questions about Judaism, and he would ask me questions about church doctrine. One day, he asked a specific question about one of our signs—‘Death Penalty for Fags’—and I was arguing for the church’s position, that it was a Levitical punishment and as completely appropriate now as it was then. He said, ‘But Jesus said’—and I thought it was funny he was quoting Jesus—‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ And then he connected it to another member of the church who had done something that, according to the Old Testament, was also punishable by death. I realized that if the death penalty was instituted for any sin, you completely cut off the opportunity to repent. And that’s what Jesus was talking about.”
To some, this story might seem simple—even overly so. But we all have moments of epiphany, when things that are plate-glass clear to others but opaque to us suddenly become apparent. This was, for Megan, one of those moments, and this window led to another and another and another. (Chu)It takes a certain amount of fortitude to stand there day after day holding a sign and absorbing the taunts of passers-by. It takes more guts, even while neck deep in the mire one helped to create, to admit error – and not merely error, but gross error; error that caused injury to others.
Their lives had largely been scripted, and “now that we’re writing our own script, everything seems a lot more tenuous,” Megan says. (Chu)
For some people – the ‘lucky ones,’ I guess – there comes day when something happens. It could be something major or something minor, but it’s cataclysmic all the same; an apocalypse of internal belief, when the veil is lifted and the individual realizes, “What the fuck am I doing?”
Of course Megan Phelps Roper tried to ignore her own doubts at first. Most people do. But she couldn’t run from them forever.
Once a constant Tweeter, she hasn’t posted anything online since October. “I don’t know what I believe, so I don’t know what to say,” she explains. “I haven’t been ready to talk about any of this.” She’s only doing so now, and briefly, because, she says, “I was so proactive before and vocal about the church. My name means something now to others that it doesn’t mean to me. I want people to know that it’s not now how it was.”…
They talk to each other for hours each day, about religion, about God, about the Bible, about the future, about how to treat people, about “what’s right and what’s wrong—capital R and capital W.”
That raises the question of regrets and amends, for things they’ve said and signs they’ve held and judgments they’ve passed. “I definitely regret hurting people,” she says. “That was never our intention. We thought we were doing good. We thought it was the only way to do good. And that’s what I’ve always wanted.” (Chu)
Regrets. Amends. Right. Wrong. These are not merely words; they’re points on a moral grid. Megan and Grace now face the unenviable task of trying to determine how best to navigate among these points while maintaining their own integrity.
Unfortunately, there is no cookie-cutter response to that question. The answer - the muddied, difficult answer – is at least a little different for everyone.
Thank God they had the right to be wrong.
Thank God they had the ability, and the courage, to finally walk away.
And, as Jeff Chu points out - a fact for which I, too am most grateful - thank God for second chances.
(Megan’s own reflections appear here.)
2/5/13
FUCK! A Discussion
In November 2009, I wrote a post about a popular evangelical preacher named Paul Washer. He has, since I first published that article, become even more of a celebrity among those who feel, um, ‘disenfranchised’ by the slow creep of civil rights and by having to live among people who don’t share their particular worldview.
My post, “Ohhh, shock me harder, Paul Washer. Tell me how bad I am!” is, despite its age, one of the most often read on my blog. Years after I penned it, I still receive not only comments but e-mails about the content.
This post was one of the most substantive I have ever written for TRTBW, and yet more than a few of the respondents, rather than focusing on my argument, got hung up on a single instance of where I used the term, “Fuck” – or, more accurately “WHAT THE FUCK?” – in response to one of Washer’s persecution wank-fests.
Apparently I was not “In the Spirit,” and nor did I fit into a bunch of other Christianese jargon for having used a profanity in response to a story I found to be…well…utterly profane.
Those of you who have read the Bible should already know that the prophets of old often resorted to harsh language in dealing with what they considered to be evil. And while I do not count myself in their company, I see no reason to hold back on my own opinion when I, too, encounter something I think is evil and disgusting.
I believe Washer’s obsession with martyrdom is, to put it bluntly, fucking gross. I think his braggadocio concerning the death of a five-year-old boy was inexcusable.
His entire “shocking” sermon was, in my opinion, nothing but a self-serving showcase for how holy he believes himself to be – despite all his pious pretentions to be a dirty sinner like the rest of us Hell-bound dust creatures.
The way I see it, then, the word “fuck” was entirely appropriate in that context.
And quite frankly, I don’t give a fuck whether mealy-mouthed pearl clutchers - the sort of people who think starring out the ‘u’ in ‘fuck, for example, somehow makes the word less profane – think about how I use language on a blog that exists in part to defend free speech.
I don’t mind continued debate on this subject. In fact, I welcome it. But no, I will not change the content of that post – and certainly not for the childish reasons some posters have cited for why I should moderate my language.
In closing, fuck you Paul Washer, and fuck all the other Calvanistas who attribute monstrous attributes (such as the enjoyment of eternal torment) to a holy God.
My post, “Ohhh, shock me harder, Paul Washer. Tell me how bad I am!” is, despite its age, one of the most often read on my blog. Years after I penned it, I still receive not only comments but e-mails about the content.
This post was one of the most substantive I have ever written for TRTBW, and yet more than a few of the respondents, rather than focusing on my argument, got hung up on a single instance of where I used the term, “Fuck” – or, more accurately “WHAT THE FUCK?” – in response to one of Washer’s persecution wank-fests.
Apparently I was not “In the Spirit,” and nor did I fit into a bunch of other Christianese jargon for having used a profanity in response to a story I found to be…well…utterly profane.
Those of you who have read the Bible should already know that the prophets of old often resorted to harsh language in dealing with what they considered to be evil. And while I do not count myself in their company, I see no reason to hold back on my own opinion when I, too, encounter something I think is evil and disgusting.
I believe Washer’s obsession with martyrdom is, to put it bluntly, fucking gross. I think his braggadocio concerning the death of a five-year-old boy was inexcusable.
His entire “shocking” sermon was, in my opinion, nothing but a self-serving showcase for how holy he believes himself to be – despite all his pious pretentions to be a dirty sinner like the rest of us Hell-bound dust creatures.
The way I see it, then, the word “fuck” was entirely appropriate in that context.
And quite frankly, I don’t give a fuck whether mealy-mouthed pearl clutchers - the sort of people who think starring out the ‘u’ in ‘fuck, for example, somehow makes the word less profane – think about how I use language on a blog that exists in part to defend free speech.
I don’t mind continued debate on this subject. In fact, I welcome it. But no, I will not change the content of that post – and certainly not for the childish reasons some posters have cited for why I should moderate my language.
In closing, fuck you Paul Washer, and fuck all the other Calvanistas who attribute monstrous attributes (such as the enjoyment of eternal torment) to a holy God.
2/4/13
John Piper: "Irrespective of Competency"
I really don't have much to add to Fred Clark's take on one of preacher John Piper's latest statements. I more or less - usually 'more' - agree with both how Clark and his commenters are reacting to what Piper has to say.
Part of Piper's transcript:
Clark and his peeps respond here.
Part of Piper's transcript:
Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.
And collectively that is what society does — unless the men have all been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly.
Clark and his peeps respond here.
Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir, and what we can learn from it
Grammy Award-winning composer Eric Whitacre, who earned a Masters Degree in Musical Composition from Juilliard, is now perhaps best known for what he calls ‘the virtual choir.’
He draws in thousands of videos, submitted from around the world by people who pick up various musical parts of his compositions, and he arranges them together such that an effective harmony is formed from all these diverse sources.
People who have never met – in fact, people who might be enemies in another context – are all incorporated into a single work of art.
Whitacre’s projects are always forward-thinking and generally of high complexity, even despite the fact he had trouble reading music while working on his BA in Musical Education. He is now one of the best-selling classical composers of this generation, and will likely continue to be lauded for his work long after he dies.
One of his most recent virtual choir recordings, Virtual Choir 2.0, Sleep, involves over 2000 singers from 58 countries. His other projects have involved people from as many as 70 countries.
When listening to one of Whitacre’s virtual choir compositions, there is a sense that human cooperation may be possible in other ways as well. If something as ‘simple’ as music can draw so many individuals to involve themselves, as volunteers, in a single global venture, then there may yet be room for other endeavors – conversations, debates, construction projects.
Naturally such efforts would be more difficult because the people involved in them would actually have to interact with each other, whereas they essentially act alone in Whitacre’s choir - and yet his innovations have proved that people of good will can work together regardless of background; of differences in religion and in ethnicity.
Whitacre’s efforts do not erase the dividing line between cultures, but they do demonstrate just how permeable that line can be when people are drawn to a common goal. These efforts also demonstrate that, in contrast to other periods of history, the common goal need not be to defeat a formidable enemy or a scapegoat. It can also be to build a better world – one we would be proud to leave to our progeny.
He draws in thousands of videos, submitted from around the world by people who pick up various musical parts of his compositions, and he arranges them together such that an effective harmony is formed from all these diverse sources.
People who have never met – in fact, people who might be enemies in another context – are all incorporated into a single work of art.
Whitacre’s projects are always forward-thinking and generally of high complexity, even despite the fact he had trouble reading music while working on his BA in Musical Education. He is now one of the best-selling classical composers of this generation, and will likely continue to be lauded for his work long after he dies.
One of his most recent virtual choir recordings, Virtual Choir 2.0, Sleep, involves over 2000 singers from 58 countries. His other projects have involved people from as many as 70 countries.
When listening to one of Whitacre’s virtual choir compositions, there is a sense that human cooperation may be possible in other ways as well. If something as ‘simple’ as music can draw so many individuals to involve themselves, as volunteers, in a single global venture, then there may yet be room for other endeavors – conversations, debates, construction projects.
Naturally such efforts would be more difficult because the people involved in them would actually have to interact with each other, whereas they essentially act alone in Whitacre’s choir - and yet his innovations have proved that people of good will can work together regardless of background; of differences in religion and in ethnicity.
Whitacre’s efforts do not erase the dividing line between cultures, but they do demonstrate just how permeable that line can be when people are drawn to a common goal. These efforts also demonstrate that, in contrast to other periods of history, the common goal need not be to defeat a formidable enemy or a scapegoat. It can also be to build a better world – one we would be proud to leave to our progeny.
12/13/12
Tips on how to avoid making errors in judgment
I just want to share an interesting post that recently appeared over at 1-Minute Bible Love Notes: Rock, Paper, Scissors. The article contains seven strategies for helping to avoid bad decisions.
10/29/12
People Avoid the Road Less Travelled Because It's Hard
This post is about the testimonial video of Joy McClain.
She had vowed to wed a difficult man – a frightening man, and suffering from the disease of alcoholism.
Even despite his worst actions, she chose to keep her vow.
Her decisions and beliefs have likely earned her equal amounts of admiration and scorn. Nonetheless, she continued on with a frightening plan – a plan built on self-sacrifice and on an abiding love few would dare to emulate.
What makes this kind of testimony so controversial is that many woman – and I'm speaking specifically of abused wives and girlfriends here, rather than about other groups of victims and survivors – had tried to do the same only to be repaid for their effort with maiming or murder. Their children are obviously traumatized as well. (Leaving an abuser is often hard, in that said abuser might resort to intimidation and even overt violence to cow his victim.)
McClain acknowledges the truth of this in describing the three-year period of separation she set in motion when her husband became an immediate danger to her children and her. Indeed, she was not blind to the dangers of her plan, and she took every precaution she could to protect herself and her kids while at the same time still following a vow that meant more to her than her very life.
Joy McClain hoped in God and trusted that no matter what happened to her, all things would work together for good.
I in no way suggest that other spouses in abusive situations be so long-suffering as McClain. But the fact her husband eventually did change is evidence that kindness and love do have immense power:
An individual of good will – in this case, Joy McClain - may plant a seed deep within another person's hardened heart. If that seed is then watered, given nutrients, exposed to light, and carefully guarded as it grows, then it will become a fruit-bearing tree.
That kind of devotion; that willingness to love even the most unlovely, extending basic human kindness and dignity to those who least seem to deserve it – such an act could be world-changing. Each time something like this happens, the future – and I'm speaking here in a broader sense than merely tomorrow and among family – could be altered for the better in ways we may never understand.
This is why, even though one might question certain of McClain's choices, it is still important to study her example. One needn't be facing spousal abuse or anything else so dire to cultivate in themselves the kindness and humility she modelled.
I have often failed in this myself, and can find courage in her example that shames me.
NOTE: During the video, McClain mentions her being inspired by a document, the 30 Day Husband Encouragement Challenge, put out by a woman's Christian lifestyle ministry called Revive Our Hearts.
As with McClain herself, that document is worth studying, however you ultimately decide to use the knowledge.
She had vowed to wed a difficult man – a frightening man, and suffering from the disease of alcoholism.
Even despite his worst actions, she chose to keep her vow.
Her decisions and beliefs have likely earned her equal amounts of admiration and scorn. Nonetheless, she continued on with a frightening plan – a plan built on self-sacrifice and on an abiding love few would dare to emulate.
What makes this kind of testimony so controversial is that many woman – and I'm speaking specifically of abused wives and girlfriends here, rather than about other groups of victims and survivors – had tried to do the same only to be repaid for their effort with maiming or murder. Their children are obviously traumatized as well. (Leaving an abuser is often hard, in that said abuser might resort to intimidation and even overt violence to cow his victim.)
McClain acknowledges the truth of this in describing the three-year period of separation she set in motion when her husband became an immediate danger to her children and her. Indeed, she was not blind to the dangers of her plan, and she took every precaution she could to protect herself and her kids while at the same time still following a vow that meant more to her than her very life.
Joy McClain hoped in God and trusted that no matter what happened to her, all things would work together for good.
I in no way suggest that other spouses in abusive situations be so long-suffering as McClain. But the fact her husband eventually did change is evidence that kindness and love do have immense power:
An individual of good will – in this case, Joy McClain - may plant a seed deep within another person's hardened heart. If that seed is then watered, given nutrients, exposed to light, and carefully guarded as it grows, then it will become a fruit-bearing tree.
That kind of devotion; that willingness to love even the most unlovely, extending basic human kindness and dignity to those who least seem to deserve it – such an act could be world-changing. Each time something like this happens, the future – and I'm speaking here in a broader sense than merely tomorrow and among family – could be altered for the better in ways we may never understand.
This is why, even though one might question certain of McClain's choices, it is still important to study her example. One needn't be facing spousal abuse or anything else so dire to cultivate in themselves the kindness and humility she modelled.
I have often failed in this myself, and can find courage in her example that shames me.
NOTE: During the video, McClain mentions her being inspired by a document, the 30 Day Husband Encouragement Challenge, put out by a woman's Christian lifestyle ministry called Revive Our Hearts.
As with McClain herself, that document is worth studying, however you ultimately decide to use the knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
