You are here: Home / 2007 / Archives for October 2007

Of course I question your patriotism!

By Laura on October 31, 2007

I just don’t get how anybody could boo at this:

It seems this was shown along with the previews before a movie, and a fair amount of the audience actually booed at it. The Cheerful Iconoclast questions the patriotism of those who booed. I question their patriotism as well. And I wonder at all the moral outrage that occurs when anyone’s patriotism is questioned. Why is that considered socially off-limits? If you happen to be a Saints fan – no wait… if you were a Saints fan then I would be questioning your intelligence. Let me try again. If you say you are a Colts fan, yet you seldom watch the games, and when you do watch them, you are unenthusiastic, make sarcastic remarks about Peyton Manning, mock the Peyback Foundation, and say “Hah!” in a “in your face” kind of way every time the other team scores, I question whether or not you really are a Colts fan. I think it’s a reasonable question at that point.It reminds me of the outrage when someone’s salvation is questioned. I know a person who swears she’s a Christian. She hasn’t been in church in nearly a decade and her bible has been packed away in a storage unit for over three years. She’s a big fan of The Secret as a plan to assure her happiness. She bragged about her recent spiritual enlightenment, citing The Secret and several other self-help and new-age tomes. When I asked how those ideas were consistent with the Christianity she still professes she became angry and defensive. She completely blew up, saying, “You just don’t question someone’s salvation. It’s just not done.” I missed the Christian etiquette class. Sorry. But I think, given the preponderance of the evidence, that the question is valid. (And no, I don’t roam the streets doing this, she brought up the topic of religion which made it fair game.)

What’s at stake here is the meaning of words. What is a Christian? What is patriotism? Questioning someone’s patriotism isn’t a breach of etiquette. It’s an attempt to define the concept. Probably about half the country think that dissent is a key indicator of patriotism, citing Thomas Jefferson for the concept. (In fact it was Howard Zinn who said it. Jefferson said that dissent is “a great evil.”) Based on Jefferson’s authority as they perceive it, “dissent” is part of how they choose to define patriotism. That is meaningful because that definition justifies their actions, which do have an effect. This is a concept worth fighting for.

Likewise for Christianity. A lot of the people in this thread think they are going to heaven. On what do they base their beliefs? How are they defining Christianity? For some people, Christianity is whatever they want it to be. While their ideas of what Christianity is will not affect me in the eternal sense, there are still repercussions for individuals and for Christianity at large. It is a biblical mandate for Christians to defend our doctrine, as in Jude 1:3-4. Fred Phelps calls himself a Christian. Do we accept him as such at face value, or do we question his doctrine and his salvation? It’s not rude. It’s necessary. Definitions matter.

The very act of believing something inherently indicates that you have analyzed that idea and found it superior to the other options. It’s a postmodern custom to say that we believe something and then implicitly deny our belief by saying that other things are equally true or that it doesn’t really matter. The recent Ann Coulter flap illustrated the problem well. Why would anyone consider this offensive?

Okay, I’m going to say it. I am a Catholic, and my vision of a perfect America would be that everyone was Catholic. I wish all Americans were Catholic. I wish all of our separated brethren, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Episcopalians, the Fundamentalists, the Evangelicals, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans – all of ‘em – were Catholic, because they’d be “complete” Christians – they would have the fullness of Christ and unity within the Church as Christ founded it, one, holy, catholic, apostolic and Eucharistic. Of course I want all the Protestants to be Catholic! After all, all they have now is the Bible – with missing books – and fellowship and potlucks! They just run around saying they’re “saved” but they don’t have the whole, complete experience of Christ!

They don’t have the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, in the flesh, in the Eucharist, coursing through their veins, and because I love my Protestant friends so much, I want them to have that – I want that for them, because I am a Catholic, and that means I am a “complete” Christian. We have it all, baby! Sacraments! Communion of Saints! Liturgy! Tradition! We’ve got John Chapter 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:26-29 and 2 Thes 2:15! Yaaaay!

Catholics should believe that their faith is superior to others; that should be part of the package, otherwise their choice to be Catholic is as meaningless as the decision to select chocolate or vanilla. While it’s possible for all known doctrines to be incorrect, it is impossible for all doctrines to be equally true. Believing that your own faith is superior doesn’t condemn anybody. People do not have the power to condemn anyone to hell. It’s simply not within our purview. I can speculate where other people might end up, but my speculations don’t have the power to effect change. Do I think the people who booed at the video are unpatriotic? Yes, indeed. My opinion, however, did not revoke their citizenship. At the same time that we are weakening the meanings of words by making every definition a fill in the blank question, we’re assigning an impossible level of power to those same words, and using that as an excuse to not debate them.

If people are so sensitive that they can’t bear an opposing view, the problem is with them. The more important a concept is, the more we ought to be duking it out and trying to get to the truth of it. But our society is falling into a pattern of shutting down debate on important topics by declaring that a) we’re all correct and b) it doesn’t matter anyway. This weakens our ability to reason and communicate, and superficial politeness is not enough of a gain to make up for those losses.

Filed Under: Christian Living, Other Blogs, Politics

I'm back… sorta…

By Laura on October 30, 2007

Good grief, haven’t I driven you people off yet?  I see from my stats that there are still several hundred people who come here on purpose every day – not via a search engine – even though I haven’t been posting regularly.  I’m honored.  Seriously.  And since you seem determined to show up anyway, I’ll try to make it worth your while.

I’ve been really out of sorts since L. died.  When they closed the coffin, I kept my eyes on her the whole time – I can still see the lid coming down on her.  Very sobering.  There is no more clear reminder than death of what’s really important.  Well, maybe one thing… I have a friend I love dearly, who has always been very tolerant of my faith.  She thought I was a fool, of course… it was one of my major flaws, but she put up with me because I don’t proselytize.  Several months ago she finally got curious, and after 35 years of not attending church, started attending church with me and started attending Alpha, a course my church conducts twice a year.  Seek, and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you.  I have always believed that an honest seeker cannot help but find God – because it’s God who gives us the impetus to seek in the first place.

For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers. But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

Now she’s not just my friend, but my sister in Christ.  God is so good.  And her salvation reminds me of the joy of my own, and how far He has brought me since then.

Things are very much in flux for me right now, and I have four posts that I just can’t seem to finish.  Honestly, nothing seems worthwhile to write about – it’s all a vapor and a thousand years from now no one will care.  Heck, a week from now by tomorrow, no one will care.  I’m thinking that if I keep this blog up a change of direction is in order.

Filed Under: Christian Living

PTSD and Military Discharges

By Laura on October 25, 2007

I’ve been slow to post on this because it’s an emotional issue for me, both as a war supporter and as someone who was diagnosed with PTSD and dissociative disorder many years ago. Henry Neufeld has two posts about PTSS/PTSD and how the military may be treating – or NOT treating – troops who have them.

After two combat tours in Iraq on a “quick reaction team” that picked up body parts after suicide bombings, Donald Schmidt began suffering from nightmares and paranoia. Then he had a nervous breakdown. The military discharged Schmidt last Oct. 31 for problems they said resulted not from post-traumatic stress disorder but rather from a personality disorder that pre-dated his military service.

It was the responsibility of the military to learn about any issues this young man may have had back in boot camp and during his advanced training. Once they sent him to Iraq, as far as I’m concerned the warranty ran out; they “own” that soldier and should be responsible for keeping him in good condition. And even if he did have a previously undiscovered pre-existing condition, it is safe to say that the job of picking up body parts in a war zone will have exacerbated it. That said, I’ll wait for more information before I condemn the military on this one. (Never let it be said that I can’t be taught.) If this story is accurate, there will be a LOT more information coming out – as there should be.

Henry also points out in a related post,

The figure given in the Newsweek article is that veterans care resulting from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be at least six times the official estimates. I can’t confirm the accuracy of those figures, but it does fit in with a constant refrain from these wars–they cost more than is projected, and the actual cost is extremely high.

Well, Newsweek has been wrong before; one notable example is the infamous Koran flushing story. But I’ll reserve comment pending further information except to say – a LOT of predictions about Iraq have been wrong, not just the cost of the war. Furthermore, Linda Bilmes, who made that estimate, is more than just a policy analyst. Given that she characterized Abu Ghraib as “the systematic violation of human rights practiced or permitted by authorities of the United States within occupied Iraq” I’m unwilling to take her at face value as a neutral source. More research is in order, and I don’t just mean this facile dismissal.

I completely agree with Henry when he writes,

I believe people from all across the political spectrum should be able to agree that we must take good care of our troops and our veterans.

This is an area that we all, whether we support the war or not, need to be diligent about – if it’s happening, we need to put a stop to it. Our troops deserve the best, and it’s our job to ensure they get it. I’m going to be researching what bills are out there with regard to funding health care for the troops, and if I find anything worthwhile, I’ll post it so we can all encourage our Congressional representation to support it.

For more information on PTSD, this Pentagon channel (I originally linked to it in April) is very interesting and there’s a good discussion on follow up for PTSD about ten minutes into the video:

The Pentagon Channel:
The Wounds Within
RECON
Exploring the debilitating condition of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. You’ll meet servicemembers whose physical battlefield injuries have healed, but yet emotional wounds linger on.

Filed Under: Wars and Rumors of Wars

Reality Checkpoint – a new internet verb, "calvan"

By Laura on October 25, 2007

An amusing story of the reporter from the Sacramento Bee who didn’t have the appropriate ID to get past a Green Zone checkpoint is making the rounds. It’s amusing because it so perfectly illustrates the media’s disdain for the troops – and in fairness, probably for everyone else as well – and the patience and professionalism of your average, everyday soldier. The reporter wrote,

With nothing to lose I decided to get pushy. [...] I made it known that I was jotting down his name.

My security man was struggling with a smirk on his face. He knew my plan. I was going to bully my way back into the Green Zone. [...]

When you’ve got nothing to lose, I told my security officer, you do what it takes. He nodded in agreement.

The reporter, bombarded with negative comments, replaced most of the offending post with this tepid, semi-literate non-apology:

(Yes, I’m obviously new to blogging. Somtimes I share too much. The blogosphere has reacted and pointed out my folly. Yes, I can be pushy. I can also be wrong. I’v’e edited this post — and have shut down the comment feature.)

I could have a good time fisking just those six sentences, not to mention the original post, but why bother? Aside from the fact that LGF and Ace have the original post saved so it will live in infamy, DocWeasel thinks that Bobby Calvan might be salvageable. And the classic gem out of all this, in my opinion, was commenter David Vogel’s response:

If I could offer a correction, you did not have “nothing to lose.” Fabritsio Kuattrokki, the Italian hostage who – “I will show you how an Italian dies” – while trying to tear off his hood and look into the eyes of the men who were about to put a bullet through his head, had nothing to lose.

You, sir, had nothing to fear. The hostage defied his murderers because he knew nothing he did could make the consequences any worse. The reporter antagonized an American soldier because he knew nothing he did would have any consequences.

The first is the act of a hero, the second the act of a child who feels brave for throwing pebbles at a well-trained guard dog.

Calvan had nothing to lose, because although he was attempting to face down and bully a man with a gun, he accurately assessed that he had absolutely nothing to fear from a United States soldier. Anyone who thinks the threat of “jotting down his name” is in any way comparable to a loaded, automatic weapon, must have an ace in the hole – otherwise he would be a complete fool. Bobby Calvan, whether or not he will ever admit it, was relying – with good reason – on the professionalism of a man he despised. That’s a reality check. Calvan weaseled his way through the checkpoint in Baghdad, but maybe he’ll go through this one the right way.

______________
Well, maybe he won’t. While I was writing this post, he apparently took down the entire website rather than simply shutting down commenting and posting an apology. Well, if you’re interested in reading the comments on the post, which were classic, click here for the PDF.
 click here to read the original post and all the comments at Docweasel.

The only question left at this point is what is the definition of the new internet verb, calvan?

The Violence Worker offers one:

To be Calvaned is to write something about yourself that you think is so great an your readers find is so despicable, that every commenter lets you know just how loathsome you really are. Usage: Joe’s post got him Calvaned big time!

Filed Under: Other Blogs
Next Page »