I was reflecting on the tactic of killing off someone because you want to disempower their ideas. We possibly saw this yesterday in Arizona, but we saw it last week also in Pakistan and it happens repeatedly. If the ideas have largely centered in one person, killing the person can kill the idea--or at least disempower it. In a strange way, this dynamic also applies to the pastor of a local church. If she has centered her ministry around herself, then it may fizzle after she leaves.
On the other hand, if the idea is truly held by the group, then others will immediately rise to take the martyr's place and may in fact be energized by martyrdom. This cuts both ways, whether the ideology is good or bad. Killing the leaders of Al-Qaeda, for example, may not in any way disempower their movement any more than killing Christians does in the stories we tell ourselves about Christian martyrs ("The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church").
So there are some ideas we would no doubt like to see disappear and there are some we would like to see transcend. If we want them to transcend, they had better be bigger than us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Ken,
I agree that people are threatened by "new ideas", because "new ideas" create conflict in one's personal "world". But, we must not undermine our free society, either, by our ambition, or desire to further an end that we don't know will "help".
I recognize that some think that educating those that are influenced by Al-Quaida might help undermine Al-Quaida's power/influence/ recruitment. But, we don't know this to be true, as one's ideology, culture and "brain" memory are too ingrained to change without long and constant exposure, as well as the indivdual's will to change. This has taken 16 years for me, and that is with my compliance, and certain painful/excluding experiences. Therefore, to tolerate and embrace Islam is affirmation of political ambitions, that want to implement an ideology upon the West. We cannot be duped by such a goal.
Take Aayan Hirshi Ali, for instance, she escaped a planned marriage, and her sister also escaped to the West. But, her sister went back into her "comfort zone", while Ms. Ali continued her pursuit of intellectual liberty! She talks about her struggles in her book. It is something she batteld greatly! So, can we "save our country" with such an "experiment"? Does everyone have the same intellectual developmental capacity as Ms. Ali? Has history shown that radicals become tolerant and moderated by such an endeavor? I don't think so, as prejuidice dies hard. And this prejuidice is ingrained within the culture, not just the individual within the culture. In fact, the indvidual does not exist apart from the culture, in their frame and this is the developmental stage of convention.
Just to ward off unnecessary reactions, I was only trying to talk about what happens rather than prescribe or say that certain things should or should not happen.
Sorry, Ken. I didn't mean to bring up "controversy". But, then, this is the subject of your blog entry, isn't it? Controversy, as to ideas?
There was a good commentary on YouTube from MSNBC on tolerance in a democracy. It challenged everyone to understand that our liberty is only as valuable as our tolerance (in so many words).
Because of the recent attempt to assassinate the Congresswoman from Arizona, it behooves all of us to watch our "hearts" as to our ideological commitments. The danger is when we really believe that something MUST be true. We cease, then, to be open....and tolerant of differences...
Correction, the MSNBC editorial was not on YouTube, but @ Olbermann: Violence and threats have no place in democracy
www.msnbc.msn.com
It would behoove all of us to recognize that all of our views (world) are only products of our minds/brains. And these views produce our values, which we identify with. We must understand that if we want to continue to live in a free society, then we must reciprocate tolerance toward diverse opinions and viewpoints, without resorting to violence. Otherwise, we will force government to intervene to bring about "social order" and "control" which is what anyone does not want that values liberty!!!
The last comment bothered me all day, because I am not saying that tolerance of everything should be affirmed in our society. Otherwise, I would not say that governemnt was to intervene to prevent harm, violence and chaos.
Government is not to be positively directed in our differences, but limited, only commanding when lawlessness has taken over, or something criminal is happening. We must NOT limit speech, or suggest that there is a politically correct view, when it comes to political opinions, otherwise, we will allow government power that will limit all of "the people". And we, the people will be left in the dark....
Post a Comment