Hi family and friends,
Terry and I have been discussing politics and religion, war and the bible, off and on over the last few months and he agreed that this discussion can be open to others. I thought the best way might be to start this private blog (invitation only) so all can read and contribute. Naturally, you are all encouraged to comment and add to the blog, add links to interesting articles, add pictures, etc. We don't plan to cause any fights, flame wars, alienation, or bad feelings among the family, but we do want everyone to be able to speak freely, be persuasive, advocate for your position, and not be deterred from communicating honestly. Also, with love and respect for others. I am sure many have well considered, hardened positions and beliefs that are not likely to change just because of this. However, hopefully some understanding of others' viewpoints will be a good thing.
As Terry says, "Let the games begin!".
Much Love, Michael
About Me
- SF Kid
- If you are reading this, you already know a lot about me. Just having a good time living in and enjoying San Francisco w/ my wonderful mate and family and heading off for travel adventures whenever we can. These blogs are kind of abandoned. Check out http://mycitylife.wordpress.com/ for more current writings and pics.
3 comments:
Hey Michael; I've never done this before, so I hope that this is where I can reply if & when the topic draws me in.
Great idea - I can't wait to see who "pops in" first.
This sure is a little box - I may have to learn to keep my comments a little shorter. (HeHe)
See Ya later - Love Terry
"Bomb Iran! Bomb Iran!"
(Tune: Barbara Ann, by the Beach Boys)--Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz)
The question for discussion is, "What do you think the odds of this administration bombing or invading Iran are? Are you for it? What do you think the likely consequences would be?"
But before I get to the debate issue, let me say that Mom always told me to avoid talking about politics and religion. Now, the Keenan Blog has lured me into those shark-infested waters. But doing it in a blog: that's good! I am enormously impressed by the opening salvos between Terry and Michael. I envy their comprehension, and the way they use words (the Irish have a term for their mix of bombast and disarming sweet talk: it's called "Blarney").
They have set out both sides of the issues with enormous clarity, while respecting each other's points of view. They both emphasize that at the end of the day, when the polemic dust has settled, they are, above all, loving brothers. Who can argue with that? The launching of this blog, in itself, is a demonstration of the trust and love the Keenans have for one another.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
--Abraham Lincoln
My extended family is very much like the Keenans. We are very close and loving, but we have similar religious/political divisions that produce an underlying tension. When we are together, we tiptoe around one another. We don't care what a stranger thinks, but In families that care about one another, it hurts when someone is not on your side. Disagreeing with a friend or family member on issues as emotionally charged as politics and religion often is taken personally, even though that's not the way it's given.
Now, Michael Keenan has come up with the magic formula for family harmony. The Keenan Blog seems like a wonderful way to get everything on the table, get it all out, let everyone vent his or spleen, say things without the risk of misinterpreting facial expressions or body language, maybe even agree on some points, for a change, and then, at family gatherings, talk about everything except politics and religion, since everyone has already heard all the arguments. What a way to relax and enjoy the turkey! The McDonald cousins could really use their own blog. We love one another a lot, but sit on opposite sides of the of the great, polarizing politics/religions divide. This leads to much indigestion around the Thanksgiving table. We try to avoid the hot topics, but something will always slip out, and unless someone jumps in with, "How about them Vikings?", arguments break out and feelings get hurt. Since we are Irish, maybe a McDonald Blog would cut down on all the fistfights (kidding), and we can just concentrate on our drinking, which makes us mellow and even more loving (not kidding).
It's always been my belief that a person's opinions are the least important thing about him or her. Opinions are based on underlying biases and the amount and type of information we all have. Opinions really don't tell you what kind of person you are.
"Shock and awwww!"
Now, to the debate issue. Here's my take on Iran:
Let me say at the outset that the question of this administration "invading" Iran is moot. We can't invade. We've used up all of our troops in Iraq, going after Saddam Hussein, who did not attack us, rather than pursuing Osama bin Laden, who did. And keep in mind that Iran did not have a role in 9/11, but actually helped us chase after Al Qaeda and the taliban in Afghanistan. So that leaves only bombing on the table.
Will the President bomb Iran? Let's pray not. First, it would be foolish, and second, even if bombing Iran could be justified, president Bush has bungled Iraq so badly that to think of him managing another war is a frightening prospect. A corporate executive who failed this miserably would be fired. Bush should be impeached, but that's not a good idea, because if he's kicked out, the country would be run by Darth Vader. For a long time, Bush got a free ride by intimidating the Democrats and the media by equating opposition to the war as not supporting the troops, or being unpatriotic. But the American people have regained their balance. A new poll shows that Americans overwhemingly disapprove of the job the president is doing in Iraq, with 68 per cent disapproving and 27 per cent approving. Most Americans (54 per cent) believe victory in Iraq is not possible and 55 per cent want to withdraw most troops by 2009. Finally, two-thirds of Americans now feel that considering costs vs. benefits, the war with Iraq was not worth fighting. So sad.
Part of the reason is that we seem to be bogged down in a war with no end, and people are tired of the deaths and draining of our resources, and also because the Iraq War was sold to us on false pretenses. Bush acted not in self-defense, but under the false notion that invading an Arab country--any country--would so shock and awe the Islamic terrorists that they would give up terrorism. But the "Mission Accomplished" banner soon became an embarrassment, when our troops bogged down after rolling quickly and triumphantly into Baghdad, with cameras rolling as the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled. Contrary to its intended purpose, the attack on Iraq has had the effect of actually strengthening radical Islam. Israel, although they really were defending themselves, made the same mistake in attacking Hezbollah. A good argument can be made for a ground offensive against Hezbollah, and a case can also be made for restraint. In any case, Israel's bombing campaign hasn't crippled Hezbollah, but it sure has made a mess in Lebanon, with much destruction and death. The result of Israel's course of action was not to intimidate Hezbollah but to strengthen it, as America did with radical Islam in Iraq. Now we want to take on another such adventure in Iran?
Let's put things in perspective. Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" and urged Americans not to give in to "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror." That was in Roosevelt's day. In our day, the administration and top GOP presidential candidates are trying to manipulate us with this same kind of fear-mongering. Yes, the president of Iraq is a nasty man, and it would be a bad thing if they acquired nuclear weapons. Latest polls show that while Americans are concerned about this, they are solidly behind economic/diplomatic efforts (73 per cent), with only 18 per cent favoring military action. And if economic and diplomatic efforts fail, 55 per cent are still against military action. Three out of four Americans are concerned that the U.S. will be too quick to use military force in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
We often hear that "If we don't stop Iran there, we will have to fight 'em here." But it's hard to imagine that Iran is on the road to world domination. It is a country with a Gross Domestic Product about equal to that of Connecticut and a military budget that is about the same as Sweden's. Do we really think that a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and an insubstantial military power--who are not even allies--represent a greater danger than Hitler or the Soviet Union? Al Qaeda is a ruthless terrorist organization, but there's no way it can destroy America, or take over the world.
And bombing? How many wars have been won by bombing? Do we really want to endanger more of our troops and drive up oil prices on such a dubious and doubtful enterprise, while at the same time creating even more terrorists?
Yes, Al Qaeda and Iran's nuclear program are real threats. But as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman put it, "Neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself--the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America's two great political parties."
Religious perspective
I have no background to discuss the Biblical arguments, and would not presume to disrespect another's religious beliefs. Suffice it that I come from a different religious persuasion, which is no better or worse than anyone else's core beliefs. I do believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, especially about loving your neighbor as yourself, and I am allied with the Apostle Paul when he listed the three top virtues as faith, hope and charity, with the greatest being charity, or love. I believe in the separation of church and state as the way to protect religious freedom.
I do not say this to denigrate the Bible, but just Google "Bible contradictions" to find list after list of contradictions and inconsistecies (and there are also articles listed that defend the Bible's consistency). Such questions are to be expected in a book that has gone through many translations. I am not qualified to make a judgment in this matter, because I do not read Hebrew and Greek, and especially because as a Catholic, I was not encouraged to read the Bible when I was growing up. We were told what it said, and that's all we needed to know. Many derive healing and comfort from the Bible. But why can't it be accepted as an amazing compendium of revelation and literature? And then take the rest on faith.
That being said, I have been disturbed by the rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party, which has made a handful of social issues--abortion, school prayer and gay marriage--their noisy centerpiece, drowning out the more substantive issues. Now, it appears that the grip of the far right Christians is loosening, with even Evangelist Pat Robertson supporting the social liberal Rudy Giuliani. The traditionally liberal issue of environmentalism is now on the agenda of many Christians.
But I am puzzled by the so-called "Dominionist" view that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns. I believe in religious diversity and freedom, and that the separation of church and state is the best protection for this freedom and diversity.
No offense, and I am not dissing those who believe in the Rapture (I'm not opposed to it, but I haven't quite made that leap of faith), but there seems to be a strange twist in the End Times belief. I am referring to the role of Jews in this belief, which says that Israel must rule the Biblical land in order for Christ to return. As a result, Christian fundamentalists have become some of the strongest supporters of Israel and the most vociferous opponents of Islam, even supporting Israel's most hard-line policies as a sign that the End Times are near. Ironically, it is my understanding that the End Times belief also says that the Jews must accept Jesus as the Messiah or be incinerated and left behind at the Rapture. When push finally comes to shove, there doesn't seem to be much in this for the Jews. Strange bedfellows.
Israel's attraction to the Rapture philosophy is understandable. As late as 2005, 400,000 Christian tourists were visiting Israel every year, making them a valuable source of revenue for Israel. And fundamentalist Christian political clout in America is good for Israel, from a strategic standpoint. The Christians are more likely to exert pressure on the American government to provide political, economic and military support for Israel. However, I believe that when you base public policy on Biblical interpretations, you're on a slippery slope. It is hard for me to believe that such interpretations will remain unchanging and are an unambiguous blueprint for the future. As theoretical physicist Mano Singham of Case Western Reserve University put it, "Secularism...may, in the long run, be what saves us all (in all countries) from governmental policies that are disastrous. Secularism leads to a reality-based world-view that is less likely to confuse wishful thinking with reality."
Well, that's about it, from Sauk Centre, except to say thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant and rave, if not rampage. I hold no conviction that I am right--this is just a view seen through my own glass, darkly, and a way for me to add more discourse to the discussion. I join Michael and Terry in a big, Barney-like group hug. So, thanks for inviting me to comment, and thanks for being Keenans, and their spouses, and their offspring, and anyone else I hope I didn't leave out in that wonderful clan. Thanks again. May the Lord give you peace. And Happy Thanksgiving.
Dakota Bill
Cousin Jon here, who is Dakota Bill?
Post a Comment