by michael | Nov 18, 2023 | news
Mr. Musk;
It is ironic that you are “deeply offended by ADLs [Anti-defamation League] messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind.”https://www.timescolonist.com/search?search=on&q=musk
What do you mean by this statement?
- Is everything after the words ‘deeply offended by ADLs messaging’ placed there to balance your primary intent to protest what you believe is ‘anti-white’ messaging?
- If so, then your primary intent is to state what you think is anti-white racism by ADL, an organization that counters racism. A piece of evidence that that is your actual intent is your tweet back to person A, ‘that you have said the actual truth’.
- Your response was to person A’s,“accused Jews of hating white people and professing indifference to antisemitism.”
- Let’s look at that statement. First, ‘Jews’ come in all human shapes, sizes, skin-colour, mental capabilities and ethnic backgrounds. So do Jews promote hatred of one such group; white people? Second, it is absurd to state and agree with, ‘that Jews are indifferent to antisemitism’. ‘Antisemitism’ is an invented word from a racisthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr in the 19th century and, to the main point, aimed at Jews. So did you intend to state, like person A, that Jews hate themselves? Also then, do all Jews everywhere and at all the times hate white people and everyone else? The implication of your statement implies that Jews hate the rest of humanity, one of those antisemitic tropes used against Jews. These are implications of person A’s statement and your response. So, what are you saying? What is your intent here?
- It is naive for ‘X’s CEO to state that ‘everyone should just STOP being discriminatory’. And, ‘X’s decision to label certain posts as ‘sensitive media’ and that ‘X’ combats antisemitism and discrimination’. That ‘X’ allows antisemitism (and any other hate speech) on the platform either shows that you and ‘X’s CEO are ignorant of what ends up on the platform or turn a blind eye to them. Which is it? Ignorance or hypocrisy?
- Back to your offendedness. Your willingness to allow extraordinary kinds of hate expressed on ‘X’, all of it offensive in a visceral manner to many others, as opposed to your middle class, white, ‘I am offended’, is mere reaction, emotion without substance. How both person A, and yourself, made your statements were not only inarticulate, and clumsy, but were made without any evidence. It is also hypocritical for you to think others should care about your being offended when you don’t care if anyone is offended by what place on ‘X’.
- Spare us the excuse that ‘there is no room on the platform’ to produce nuance about any statement. If that is the case, then ‘X’ is a platform for opinion, not discourse which means all that it accomplishes, except monetization, is voices shouting at each other. Some opinions are banal and harmless, therefore irrelevant; the statements you and person A made are not harmless; banal yes, because they are so full of errors and omissions, it is embarrassing.
- Let’s have it Elon; where is your evidence to show any accuracy in your statement or person A’s statement which, when you referenced, reveals your approval?
- No evidence? Then read a few books, and not just ones that affirm your prejudices. A billionaire could afford a few books, maybe even a few university courses. But I suppose it’s easier to hide behind a wall of money and lawyers than to defend yourself and be accountable for your own words.
- And think a little more carefully about how you have allowed ‘X’ to mutate. And talk to a few experts on communication and hate and pay attention to what is happening outside your silo.
- Billionaires are not experts at everything.
by michael | Nov 1, 2023 | news
Why did Hamas attack Israel now?
On October 7, that is the question I asked. There must be, I thought, something going on that would start a new peace process or some kind of rapprochement toward a kind of life where the people of Gaza, Israel, Palestinians and more of its neighbours. And then, behold, there is such a reality. In fact, there are three.
But before we see that, what would people like Hamas do if they could no longer play war games with other people’s lives? Go back to school and learn about the wider world of humanity, rather than constant chewing on hate? Its individual members could do whatever they might wish within their gifts, aside from killing babies and using innocents to protect themselves.
Prof. Yair Hirschfeld penned the three processes to which me referred, (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yair_Hirschfeld) He, “is an Israeli lecturer at the University of Haifa. Hirschfeld was a key architect of the Oslo Accords in 1993. He was born in Vienna and has been a strong supporter of the two-state solution, and has urged the Palestinian National Authority and the Israeli government to accept some form of this solution.” He is also connected to the Wilson Center in the U.S. (https://www.wilsoncenter.org).
The title of his short piece is, The Cause of the War Was a US-Lead Struggle for Peace.
“During the months, weeks and days before the Hamas terrorist attack, three complementary peace efforts were underway:
- The USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia were negotiating a regional peace understanding;
- The European Union started at the UN an intense dialogue with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Jordan combined with a parallel separate dialogue with Israel and the Palestinian Authority aimed at creating the national infrastructure for Palestine as part of a wider regional stability building effort; and
- An unofficial Israeli-Palestinian dialogue aimed at reaching first territorial understandings for Palestinian state-building aimed to change realities on the ground, restart a process of mutual trust-building and pave the way for the renewal of a well thought out peace-building process.
On the global level, the multi-layered peace effort aimed at normalizing relations between Israel, Malaysia, and Indonesia would bring most of the Arab and Muslim world into the Abraham Accords. This effort threatened the interest of Hamas, particularly of its military wing, as well as the interests of Iran, its proxies, and Russia and became the motivation for Hamas to start this war.
So, Hamas cannot consider any solutions that would allow people the choice of hope or, to put it from a line in the Tanach: ‘…they shall sit every man [all people] under his own vine and fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.’ By its brutal acts of murder, Hamas has manipulated Israel into responding as it is, make use of Palestinian people for Hamas’ own gain, other Arab states who, while refusing to damn Hamas as they damn Israel, were trying to establish something of a step or two toward coexistence and have manipulated various other countries and voices into supporting them by joining in the damnation chorus. How does it feel to be manipulated?
Good people from all sides of this multi-generational killing process, who can see the other as human, for the sake of their own countries, families and especially their children have to beat back the forces like Hamas who kill because it gives their lives meaning, but the opposite for everyone else.
by michael | Oct 15, 2023 | news
A blooded, ragged soldier, the remains of a dirty cloth tied around a forearm, crusted human juice covering half of it; wide, terrible eyes and handgun moving left to right, up and down, seeking targets. Limping through the wreckage of a contested city, the whines of bombs and whistling bullets sizzling a few blocks away stopped, a non-sound at which he no longer wonders.
The soldier hears something else, a noise out of place; akin to a thin shaft of light streaking past cracks in the dark. He makes his way toward it, shoving cement pieces and broken wood away from the new sound.
He moved a last…
A human sound, a tired whimpering, a bloodied toddler. It was lying in a smashed crib, the bottom holding the child up, its blankets tossed aside. An unbroken piece of flat wood had protected it, fallen on top of its crib. As the soldier pulled the last pieces of rubble away, its light mewling stopped, its bright eyes locked onto his. A pause. Little arms reached out. The soldier stumbled back, as if confronted by a horror too visceral to be grasped with a single look, gun still in hand, pointed at this sprout of an enemy.
And that is the question.
Technically enemies, that soldier and this child share everything human: copper in the blood, physical attributes, reason. But it is still an enemy, or the progeny of an enemy, whose parents might have been the ones who ordered their soldiers to strike everywhere at once.
Or they are out there right now, looking to kill for their team and not be killed by the other team, acting on their rights for revenge.
Or they could be scientists working on weapons that kill at a distance, so that foot soldiers marauding through streets could mop up (amazing how banal language can make killing seem).
Perhaops they are comfortable intellectuals sitting on modern stoas, expostulating sophistical philosophy or even theological justification for how their team has a right to cleanse their world of the human-like vermin that threaten them.
They might have been innocents-even protestors: weak, herd-like men and women whose justification for being alive is based on their ability to produce more males who will become the next generation of warriors to continue the ‘magnificent splendour’ of war as glory and the making of MEN (thank you dear Friedrich). These may be dead already, buried in the rubble around the toddler-thing.
So, what are the options?
Do what a detached Russian soldier (captured and interviewed) related; that he had blown a Ukrainian toddler’s head off because it was crying. Should this soldier follow that brave, human male and eliminate some whore’s whelp before it grows up and kills some of the soldier’s people in another generation, repeating the mantra of ‘me and mine’ or ‘you and yours’ ?. There is no middle ground.
Perhaps he could leave it there where feral dogs or humans would allow his, possibly, problematic conscience some relief, making him feel better about himself and his duty.
Or does he pick it up, cradle it, take it away, and risk one of his team members holding it by the feet and killing it in the time-honoured manner of bashing a head on rock; perhaps, in doing so, he would also risk himself for turning into a squeamish female, as to treat this little protoplasmic thing as human.
Because if a soldier stops, blanches from inhumanity, snaps awake and away from detachment, he or she can no longer be a soldier.
If the soldier can see this thing as human and not as an enemy that must be exterminated, hope for an end to the ‘my tribe or yours’ – win or lose, everything or nothing might just come to birth, and grow.
If so, what would generals do for a living? Something useful, like art or dressing hair? How would war profiteers make money? What would politicians do with their military toys?
How then would the rest of us live?
*Love Calls Us to the Things of This World, Richard Wilbur
by michael | Jul 15, 2023 | news
A good debate is both honest and efficient when the disputants declare their biases, with enough nuance that can start the debate. A further step would be to a) produce evidence in favour of one’s bias and b) take account of contrary evidence.
Consider, for example, the world-wide debate concerning fossil fuels (Industry)- a kind of solipsistic fundamentalism (a bias) and climate denial.
My bias is based on various studies produced by scientists over multiple years.
- I accept that the effect of climate change on our planet is compounding year by year and in multiple ways. For example, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that emissions from fossil fuels are the dominant cause of global warming. In 2018, 89% of global CO2 emissions came from fossil fuels and industry. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/
- The Industry has fought against any attempt to address climate change. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/ and https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/everyday-actions/6-claims-made-by-climate-change-skeptics-and-how-to-respond/?c_src=MDS22VX&c_src2=22vvmmembcpc&creative=515229014072&keyword=global+warming+deniers&matchtype=b&network=g&device=c&gad=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlubBgcGRgAMVCA-tBh1RqAqZEAAYAyAAEgKLA_D_BwE and https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/
- Industry advocates tend to ignore questions and issues raised by such studies. Instead, they focus on perceived effects of reducing practices that compound climate change: e.g. cost to the consumer and the economy, cheap shots against those who are trying to find ways to mitigate the effects, reliance on a few biased -which never stated- papers or organizations (e.g. the Fraser Institute or some newspapers) or non-sequiturs that serve to misguide an incautious reader or obfuscate the serious issues. https://www.times-colonist.com/opinion/comment-canadas-economic-hara-kiri-will-have-little-impact-on-climate-change-7280736
In the article printed by the Times colonist (July 15, 2023, link above) these demonstrations of biased argument are evident. For example, the only substantive points by the author are the potential impact of measures adopted by governments to reduce Industry’s contribution to climate change; a narrow perspective. These take the form of mere statements or the quotation of alleged facts (which may or may not be accurate) but are not further elaborated upon.
Industry propagandists tend to refuse to come forward with potential solutions to either the need to reduce emissions or the impact on the economy because they would have to give up their feelings of victimization and admit that there are a number of serious issues involved: not just their concern, a biased approach.
The author also resorts to snide, irrelevant comments.
a) The ‘deeply socialist NDP’. In the 1930s,1940s and 1950s the world ‘socialist’ was used to scare people, implying that the term was a synonym for ‘marxist’. Almost half of American law-makers still confuse these words: https://rules.house.gov/bill/118/h-con-res-9. The NDP, formerly known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, was mostly made up of socially active Christians and jews. ‘Socially active’ is defined by the creation of and activities by the CCF in reaction to the Depression: 30% of Canadians were unemployed and 1 in 5 were looking for help in a country where there was virtually no help from government. What has developed since is a social democratic system of governance and a social contract where risk is spread over a population, to reduce negative impacts upon each individual and family. The author does not seem to know that he has been living in a social democratic country since he was born. Nor does he seem to realize that social democratic countries have been more generally successful than others whose commitment to mitigating risk to their population has been minimal. The author’s use of the word ‘social’ is not only non-nuanced but is a red herring used to deflect consideration of the claims he makes.
b) Without a nuanced statement comparing the different social experience (political and tax) between the US and Canada the author makes a number of claims about business investment, (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-business-investment-per-worker-in-canada-and-the-united-states-2002-2021) stating that the US is superior in this respect. But without adequate nuance, the reader is left without a clear basis upon which to accept tor reject the claim (by the Fraser Institute).
c) With respect to clear biases, the author makes an assertion to the effect that if all Canadian gas and oil-using vehicles were off the road for one year, Canada’s emissions thereby avoided would offset China’s emissions for 58 hours. OK. Where did this calculation come from? His own or by comparing two different data sets? Comparing the two countries in this context is at best ill-advised as, again, the author gives no context with respect to each country’s social, tax and and overall health. This reference is classed as a non-sequitur until more information can be provided.
d) The last point in regard to obfuscatory intent is the term ‘hari-kiri’. What was the point of this reference? At the end of the article he wrote that the original definition of this term was ‘disembowelment with honour’ and applies it to Canada’s Federal Government. Given the author’s bias towards Industry and his criticism of government one would think he would at least tweak the reference: ‘disembowelment with dishonour‘. This reference is another non-sequitur because it refers to an individual’s action, not a country.
by michael | Jul 15, 2023 | news
Along with other countries in the world, Canada has experienced a virulent fire season in 2023. It is absurd to call this demonstration of climate change a ‘season’. To do is so is to normalize these events. This enables us to anaesthetize ourselves to reality, which leads to the attitude of ‘ah well, can’t do anything about it, so let’s eat drink and be merry’.
But as demonstrated by the story below, our world is connected in such a way that a given event or set of events affect not just one nation but all of them (e.g. the greed and self-service of the Russian war upon Ukraine).
These fire-fighters coming to Alberta to help, reminds us that the growth of international cooperation and mutual concern can prove to be the future of human life, as opposed to the anachronistic hatreds and self-serving desires that threaten thousands of lives and the repetition of history. The nations that don’t understand this are on the wrong side of future history. Or they do understand, but only care about acting upon their private hatreds, revenge, or will to conquer.
It is more than tempting to despair of humanity but every time we acknowledge and celebrate the beauty of life and living and care about our world and the intent to value of every human life, we will take one more step towards that future.
Thank you to these firefighters and to South Africa.
Fantastic! South African fire fighters
by michael | Apr 5, 2023 | news
We read Philippians 2: 5-11 as the second lesson today, as we do most years on Palm Sunday. Why?
The short answer is: it is read to remind us of the central meaning of Christianity. That is, following the Nazorean messiah in humble service to others, a meaning which brings life to others and ourselves, a meaning to be pondered throughout Holy Week. That meaning is not, I might add, about whether or not the bones of Jesus and his family once existed in a few ossuaries in Jerusalem or not. It is also not about the ‘truth’ of Christian doctrine or belief (whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, or the objective, universal salvific nature of Jesus’ death on the cross). Such doctrines can always be argued about, dismissed, rejected out of hand by those who are not Christians or used by those who are Christians as bludgeons to beat other Christians into submission to their own egos and points of view.
To explain all that more fully there needs be a longer presentation.
This short section we read from St. Paul’s letter to believers in Philippi is in fact likely a hymn of praise about the (Nazorean) messiah. It may have been written by Paul and inserted into his letter. It may have been written by some one else whose text Paul immortalized by quoting it.
The whole hymn or poem is intriguing but there are some parts of it that are more so for our purposes than others. One theological perspective that has come out of it has been called the ‘kenotic’ theory. ‘Kenosis’ refers to the English words ‘emptied’ (himself). Paul and other early followers believed that the Christ/messiah was pre-existent, somehow ‘God’ or part of YHWH or in God, before he or it became the living man, Jesus of Nazareth. In this hymn, then, kenosis refers to the choice of the Nazorean messiah to abandon or empty himself of divine prerogatives and become a man. But it also refers to a self-emptying, of taking on the form of a servant, leading to death.
The writer has produced a theology of humbleness. He (she?) believes Yeshuah chooses to deny himself for the sake of humanity. Note that this notion of being a servant has nothing to do with the idea that a servant is a doormat or someone who allows himself or herself to be trampled. Nor is it about giving up one’s personal identity or individuality. Rather, it is about turning one’s self over to God, through messiah and ‘letting the same mind be in you that was in messiah’, rather than the mind and heart of the world around us. Elsewhere, Paul writes a complementary comment when he says ‘do not be conformed to this world but be transformed into the likeness of messiah’ (Romans 12:2).
So, someone might ask, what does this mean at a practical level, and how is it the very centre of Christian piety and trust? To answer that question we need to step outside the parameters of the reading and look at the words before and after the quoted hymn. What does Paul say? Some of the words before the hymn are these: ‘Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others’. Some of the words after are: ‘Do all things without murmuring and arguing, so that you may be blameless and innocent, children of YHWH without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation’. One would think that Paul had written these words directly to any of us in the Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Nazarene etc. etc. churches than to those few believers in Philippi two thousand years ago.
Paul’s concern about being like messiah, having ‘that same mind of messiah’ in each believer, that intent to be servants of others, that same sense of kenosis, of choosing self-emptying or self-denial over self- promotion is throughout Paul’s letters to Gentile believers. In one place he writes ‘Let love be genuine…’ In another he wrote, ‘Outdo one another in showing zeal…’ In Galatians he writes about ‘faith working through love’ being the only thing that counts. Elsewhere he writes ‘love does no wrong to the neighbour’; knowledge, words, reason, argument, all passes away, but not love. So, if the greater context of Paul’s quotation of this great hymn is the iteration to ‘have the mind of messiah’ as a servant of others and to act in humbleness for others, then I suppose the next question is: how is that done? Is it done through some sort of magical formula that only some have the wit, personal charisma, desire or will or (political mindfulness) grace to receive from God, or is it something more prosaic and difficult?
Let me answer that question by talking about an ancient theological/philosophical problem which often erupted in rather un-saintly disagreement. This was the problem of the freedom of human will versus YHWH’s sovereignty. It goes along in the following manner: if YHWH is sovereign or king, or omnipotent etc, etc, then what becomes of human freedom and therefore what becomes of human responsibility?
Saint Augustine died in 430 c.e. He is one of the most well-known of the early Christian philosophers/theologians. His opponent on this matter was a British theologian named Pelagius who argued that human beings can and do choose, in freedom, to either accept or oppose YHWH without any interference or aid from God. Augustine believed that no one can come to YHWH or even make a move in that direction without God’s grace impelling them and aiding them on the way. Augustine’s view was in part based on the idea that original sin made human beings incapable of freely choosing, that is without God’s support, the path of self emptying or giving for others, the path of the cross. Pelagius, being of a more Celtic and Hebrew-like disposition, did not accept such a negative view of humanity and believed that there was original goodness in human beings, as well as ‘original sin’ (a complex and irrelevant that cannot be discussed here.
I have to say that I agree with Pelagius on this issue for a number of reasons, biblical and theological, but I chiefly am on his side in the debate because of one sentence that Paul wrote immediately after the hymn in Philippians: ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.’ Being a Christian, then, is a life-long task to achieve the humbleness of a servant, of a messiah figure who denies (at least part of the time) his or her own interests for those of others, one who self-empties for others, makes others first, one who sacrifices his or her love of self for love of the other. Here is a quote that summarizes Augustine’s rather extensive thought on this issue of love: “it is by the character of their wills, by the character of their dominant love, that men are ultimately marked.’
There is a Christian theology that is based upon magical thinking. It is the kind of thinking that states that ‘if we suffer now, we will reign later’, as the Anglican Lenten sentence for the breaking of bread implies. It is also seen in various hymns and other liturgical phrases. One hymn sung at this precise time in the year is Lift High the Cross. The standard refrain is, ‘Lift high the Cross/that all the world adore his holy name’. I propose a revision: ‘Lift high the Cross/that all God’s church, obey his sacred word’. It is also summed up in the idea that YHWH will take care of everything, with or without our own involvement, that YHWH has done it all (destroyed evil, secured salvation, etc, etc) in Jesus’ death on the cross and therefore you and I are only involved as Christians in a kind of mopping up exercise while we wait for Jesus to come back and the members of the church to be openly revealed as the true people of God. There are a number of concerns I have about such theology and one is that it is triumphalist and therefore the tendency has been for Christians to feel superior towards everyone else, or for some Christians to feel they are superior or better than other Christians (a direct contradiction to Paul’s words in this letter) but also because it does away with choice and therefore responsibility.
A better theology is this: that YHWH cannot force any human being to bend to YHWH’s will; else we would break and cease to be human. YHWH or God’s grace, to use an analogy, can lead us to the door but only we, of our free will can choose to walk through the doorway. And so we come to the reason why we read this hymn today on Palm Sunday: messiah chooses a mortal life and then once mortal chooses a path of self-denial, the role of a servant, so that other human beings might turn to the second of Augustine’s two loves: the love of YHWH and through the love of YHWH, the love of humankind. Christians, if they are true to the mind of messiah, choose precisely the same kind of path, not waiting or expecting that some magical act of YHWH will bring the kingdom into existence but instead use their freedom and their gifts to make choices that throughout their life’s journey lead to sacrifice of their will to YHWH’s grace for the sake of others. In this way we become either angels or devils, we choose the love of self which is only the instinct of our animal natures or we ultimately choose, ‘are marked by,’ as Augustine put it, the love of YHWH, which persuades us to turn to love other human beings.
If I were to sum all this up, it would be by means of the quip ascribed to St. Francis of Assisi: ‘preach the Gospel; if necessary, use words’.
It is here that the mystery of the cross and resurrection lies: that somehow in the death of this one man and his post-death life, his resurrection, we can find power/authority that leads to new life, both here and hereafter. But it can only be accessed by choice after choice after choice to put the other person first, to put another person’s interests first, or at least consider another’s welfare as important as one’s own and to be humble in service of others, to do all things without murmuring and arguing, as Paul put it.
If the Church, that is you, me, bishops, archdeacons, all of us, learnt how to do this, how to be Christians, so defined by Paul, then there is no argument or critique against the church that could possibly work because who can argue against goodness or love (chesed)? Who can argue against service? Who can argue against love of other? Self-denial? It is right here in this notion that lies the authority of the Christian tradition and the ability to change the world.
