world affairs
so i've been thinking a lot lately, what with the london bombings, the current state of the war in iraq, clay leaving on his six month deployment, tadd's friend's boyfriend being killed in afghanistan...
but i just didn't know what to write about the subject.
while i am worried about the lines that have blurred on 9/11, iraq, saddam hussein, al qaeda, muslims, terrorism; and how they all seem to be jumbled together by the media and our president, i found solace in a salman rushdie editorial that i printed out after 9/11, entitled "Fighting the Forces of Invisibility." i found it while going through some old materials from school.
i thought i'd share some of it, that you might be interested in reading it.
the full article can be read here, but my favorite part is the end.
"The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims. (Islam is tough on suicides, who are doomed to repeat their deaths through all eternity. However, there needs to be a thorough examination, by Muslims everywhere, of why it is that the faith they love breeds so many violent mutant strains. If the West needs to understand its Unabombers and McVeighs, Islam needs to face up to its bin Ladens.) United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are for but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer. Suicidist assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I'm against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list -- yes, even the short skirts and dancing -- are worth dying for?
The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them.
How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared."
but i just didn't know what to write about the subject.
while i am worried about the lines that have blurred on 9/11, iraq, saddam hussein, al qaeda, muslims, terrorism; and how they all seem to be jumbled together by the media and our president, i found solace in a salman rushdie editorial that i printed out after 9/11, entitled "Fighting the Forces of Invisibility." i found it while going through some old materials from school.
i thought i'd share some of it, that you might be interested in reading it.
the full article can be read here, but my favorite part is the end.
"The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims. (Islam is tough on suicides, who are doomed to repeat their deaths through all eternity. However, there needs to be a thorough examination, by Muslims everywhere, of why it is that the faith they love breeds so many violent mutant strains. If the West needs to understand its Unabombers and McVeighs, Islam needs to face up to its bin Ladens.) United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are for but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer. Suicidist assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I'm against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list -- yes, even the short skirts and dancing -- are worth dying for?
The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them.
How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared."
posted by amanda @ 12:37 PM
1 Comments:
At 7/27/2005 11:07 AM,
amanda said…
yes, i agree with you. but note he did list 'disagreement' as one of the things that matters....i think that would take into consideration the evolvement of our own standards.
ah, skorts. so functional.
Post a Comment
<< Home