“One thing all these fundamentalisms have in common is that they are, ultimately, reactionary. They exploit identity not as a starting point to connect with the rest of humanity but an end point, from which the rest of humanity is excluded. Devoted to eternal and exclusive truths, they brook no dissent and tolerate no debate. What matters most to fundamentalists is not what you do but who you are. Regardless of how many good deeds you perform, a Christian fundamentalist will only recognize you as a fellow human being up to a certain point unless you too are a Christian fundamentalist – beyond that you are just one more sinner.
For fundamentalists insist that we privilege just one identity above all others all the time. Since this is not how most of us live our lives, we tend to ignore them. The price for breaching their codes, they warn us, is banishment; the prize for conforming to them is belonging. But since, under normal circumstances, they are not a part of a community to which most of us would want to belong and they have no power to deliver on their threats, they have nothing we want or fear.” – Gary Younge, “How to fight reactionaries” – The Guardian Weekly – August 25-31, 2006
Younge makes some excellent points here. Christian fundamentalists have a hard time realizing that the moral umbrella they are living under isn’t inclusive, and in fact it is not representative of anything taught to Christians in the New Testament. I am no fundamentalist, but I admit to having looked at someone before and labeling them as “just one more sinner”. This passage from Younge’s recent article is broad, but I am going with this in a political direction. If someone disagrees with fundamentalists they instantly condemn that person and scream at the top of their lungs, “Traitor!”
This sounds a lot like Donald Rumsfeld when someone suggests a troop withdrawal timeline for the war in Iraq. He often comes up with answers that skirt around the issue by relating the ongoing quagmire to an unprecedented event in the middle of the last century that is in no way related to the current quagmire, but Rumsfeld has said before, “I don’t do quagmires.” For Rumsfeld, a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq “would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis.” This poor illustration not only fails to bring to light the sense of urgency for a resolution in Iraq, but by saying this Rumsfeld has shattered a number of previous statements. Before those are brought in, let us try to categorize the last Rumsfeld quote for what it is: a prediction, a statement concerning foreign policy, diplomacy, and certainly the issue he is addressing is a predicament, therefore a quagmire.
How are we supposed to take this man seriously after we have heard all the following come out of his mouth? “I don’t do predictions.” “I don’t do foreign policy.” “I don’t do diplomacy.” And, “I don’t do quagmires.”
Asked in February of 2003, how long the conflict in Iraq would last, Rumsfeld made another prediction, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
It is clear that Rumsfeld hasn’t known the answers to many of the questions that have come his way in the last four years. He has been quoted as saying, “If I know the answer I’ll tell you the answer, and if I don’t, I’ll just respond, cleverly.” Answering cleverly would show skill and resourcefulness. The answer would also be marked by wit and ingenuity. Try again, Donald.
Here is another passage I highlighted from today's Guardian.
“A "bingo wing" is an unattractive wobbling underarm, seen on bingo players as they wave their arms around excitedly.” - Emine Saner, Thursday August 31, 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment