Simon Wiesenthal

At the ripe old age of 96, Simon Wiesenthal has passed away today. "I think he'll be remembered as the conscience of the Holocaust. In a way he became the permanent representative of the victims of the Holocaust, determined to bring the perpetrators of the greatest crime to justice," says Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

It's with a heavy heart that I hear this news today. Mr. Wiesenthal was a major influence and inspiration to me, both professionally and personally. For nearly sixty years (I think he officially stopped looking for hidden Nazis in '93), Wiesenthal has done the right thing. He decided to act, not out of self-pity or self righteousness, but rather because he continued to cling to possibility of God's existence. He, in the words of Emil Fackenheim, refused to "hand Hitler a posthumous victory" by turning his back on his faith, despite the horrors he witnessed, the trials he faced and the ridicule he endured.

The Age of Consent

I just finished reading The Age of Consent: The Rise of Relativism and the Corruption of Popular Culture by Robert H. Knight. As a long-time anti-relativist, I have to say this is a great place to begin if you are interested in the subject.

Knight does a great job of chronicling the history of relativism in popular culture, from Wagner to "Married with Children", especially focusing on the decline since the early 1970's. While often the pace is a bit brisk, Knight is able to hit the high (and low) points of the decline. The book tends to dwell on the symptoms of the decay: the propaganda of television, movies, music, the sexual revolution and art in general. Knight argues that the main agents of relativism are homosexual, feminist and New Age activists, who work to promote a "value-free" society. While Knight makes no specific suggestions on how to combat the problem, his final chapter is a laundry list of positive steps that have been made against relativism in popular culture.

On the negative side, I would have enjoyed a deeper explanation of what Knight though relativism really was. He makes a pretty good go of it, giving the reader (just?) enough insight into the relativists mindset to tell his story. I would have enjoyed a deeper explanation of the title. How exactly does "consent" play out in the corruption of popular culture? In all fairness, Knight is not trying to write a philosophical rebuttal to relativism, rather he assumes the reader already agrees that relativism is a corruptive force and then proceeds to highlight its common manifestations in a historical context.

Tolerance

I've been thinking more and more about this subject, and what my response to it should be. What does it mean to be "tolerant"? Does it mean accepting anything and everything that is presented to us, just because someone else holds it near and dear?

First, I need a good, common definition of what it means to be tolerant, and, after peeking around the Internet, I think that UNESCO's take on the subject seems to be rather typical and "authoritative". I'll be analyzing the four points of the "meaning" section of it's Declaration of Principles on Tolerance.

1.1 Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.

I believe it is imperative to understanding, not only one another but, life itself that we remain open-minded (more on that subject for another post) about other peoples of the world. We cannot pre-judge and we cannot assume our ways are indeed the best or even better than another's. It's clear to me that being different is not necessarily a bad thing and can almost always be a good thing. "Harmony in difference" is a great principle. Tolerance does, indeed, make peace possible. There are some controversial issues though in this paragraph that makes gives me pause that what is commonly called "tolerance" truly is tolerant.

1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States.

The values of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms for all should not be infringed; that seems reasonable as well. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this one. Again, it all sounds quite good on paper. Putting up with other people's foibles and idiosyncrasies is not the same as accepting them as true.

1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.

"Pluralism"? Rejection of "dogmatism" and "absolutism"? Here's the meat of it. I'm not entirely sure what is meant by these terms, especially considering the context. What if a culture is based on "dogmatism" and "absolutism"? How does one resolve the problem of conflicting values? My best take on this is to say that we shouldn't shove our own ideas down the throats of others. Fine and good. No one should be subjected to such things. But if I am to understand this to mean that we cannot have opinions that we feel are correct, even if it means others are wrong, then I find this intolerable (in a medical sense) at best and laughable at worst.

1.4 Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others.

Unless you are being "dogmatic" or absolutist, right? How do we determine "social injustice" if we are to be tolerant of other's ideas and actions? What if "to be as they are" is actually a bad way of living?

A distinction must be made here: there may be a difference between tolerating other's cultural and physical idocycracies (style of clothing, speech, skin color, etc.) and tolerating different ideas. For the most part, if I read it right, UNESCO's focus is on cultural and biological diversity. It seeks to give some breathing space between the experience of something different and any judgments about those differences.

The word "tolerance" doesn't seem to be the right word for what it commonly describes. Tolerance is a medical term. It is a decreased responsiveness to negative stimuli. It is the capacity to endure the effects of poison, viruses, mosquitoes or drug side effects. In short, it's the ability to put up with something that is abrasive, annoying, invasive or plain wrong, something that does not agree with you. It has nothing to do with being open-minded to the wonderful possibilities of something strange or even offensive. Thus, under this more reasonable definition, one cannot tolerate something that is already acceptable; one can only tolerate those things that are annoying, hazardous, painful, unacceptable or wrong.

On the other hand, I think it is a Christian duty to accept diversity in thought and action. It's clear to me--especially being married for fourteen years now--that playing to my strengths will not always be the best way of doing things. I have a responsibility as a Christian to love and accept all people, no matter how unlovable or strange they may seem, yet I have not obligation to accept any idea or point of view that strolls down the pike. In other words, as the folks over at The Rebelution blog point out, the most reasonable Christian position "dicates that one tolerate persons, not their ideas." Having opinions about other peoples' beliefs does not constitute imposing ourselves on them, rather it is a process of proposing alternatives in a compassionate manner.

It's my opinion that the common idea of tolerance may actually hinder the process of discovering truth. If I have to "tolerate" anything anyone thinks or says the way UNESCO appears to want, there may be times when I simply must be quiet (un-dogmatic?) about an issue. It does no one any good to assume that all ideas are of equal value.

A Sad Anniversary

Today marks the sixth anniversary of my mom's death. I still can remember almost every detail of that entire day, from getting a call from dad before sunrise, to my brother picking me up and driving over to the house I grew up in. I can recall talking with my sister in those pre-dawn hours as mom wanted to know what the big event was that all us kids were there. The conflicting emotions and the nearly insane paralysis that slowly overtook me throughout the day as mom slowly drifted away still reverberates in my mind. I remember when she finally went: how strangely calm I was when everyone else seemed so destroyed, just sitting at the end of the bed, slowly rubbing one of her feet. I remember the warmth of the sunshine when they wheeled her body out into the van and the gentle coolness that marked the end of a long, hot summer.

There's no doubt about it: my mom and I did not see eye to eye about a lot of things, and, even now, I have no idea what she really thought about me. Those last few years were filled with fights and arguments, mistrust and expectant silences. I suppose she always thought I was judging her and I was never sure when she might blow up. She was a hurting woman, filled with more self-doubt that even I could muster. She felt that forgiveness was weakness and "family" was the end all of existence. She cared too much about what others thought of her, and thought too little about her own life and behavior.

It's been a hard six years. My little brother and sister have been hit the hardest by mom's passing and I have worried about them more than anything. Fortunately, they seem to be growing up and letting the past strengthen them rather than let it anchor them in place. My other brother always seems to take everything in stride (unless you annoy him!). Dad has remarried and seems to be getting along just fine. For my part, I still harbor a bit of guilt about the way my relationship with mom never seemed to be as good as it was when I was kid. About the time I started reading and thinking on my own, mom didn't know quite what to do with me and, in turn, I didn't know what to do with her either. I could have found better ways of helping her to deal with her own struggles, perhaps.

I made my amends the day mom died, though by that time I have no idea if she could even hear me--she had slipped into a coma by mid-morning. I still pray that she heard me. I know since then, I have been much more caring about people, more able to empathize with others' pains and sorrows; that much at least can be said is a good thing and worth remembering on this sad anniversary.

September 11th

Today was the fourth anniversary of the September 11th attacks on New York City World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but, it can safely be said, I didn't really think about it until now (9:40 PM). Had I been thinking of tragedies, I would have been focused on my relations down in Mississippi and Louisiana today.

Rather than dwell on such things, I spent most of it with my wife's family, at Champoeg State Park. With such profound normalcy, on such a beautiful late summer day, it seemed a shame to give much thought to such things; it just didn't seem to be the right time. Rather, I B.S.'ed with my father-in-law about Web servers, ate KFC and blueberry pie and let the girls chase me around the park. That doesn't mean that I can't take time out now, to say a prayer for those still suffering from the terror attacks four years ago, or those currently displaced by the power of a hurricane.

In the third chapter of Ecclesiastes, we are told that "there is a time for everything and a season for every activity under heaven." God gives us each minute of our life. We have to decide how best to use it. Today certainly is a day to remember. For some of us, today could be used to mourn, if that's appropriate. Today is also a day to celebrate what we have, to enjoy our families, the start of the NFL season, bulb planting or whatever God has put in our hearts.

P. C. Language

I get such a kick out of how people use language and react to certain terms. I do not believe that "post traumatic stress disorder" is a better way of describing Shell Shock. I do not have "homophobia." (While I freely admit, I can be misanthropic from time to time, I have never been nor can I imagine a time when I might be afraid of the genus to which my species belongs.) And a "refugee" has no racial connotation.

Not so says the Rev. Jesse Jackson: "It is racist to call American citizens refugees," he said while visiting the Houston Astrodome on Monday. I suppose you could make a technical, legal argument against using the word "refugee" in the case of Katrina's victims. These people are not changing their citizenship status and, I'm guessing, most intend to return to their homes in the near future. It irks me though to think that a pretty good description of "people fleeing their homes in search of safety" is suddenly racist because the people in question just happen to be predominately black . . . ermm African-American.

Shock and Awe

I love the quote from John Updike, found over on Heigh-ho:

Our brains are no longer conditioned for reverence and awe. We cannot imagine a Second Coming that would not be cut down to size by the televised evening news, or a Last Judgment not subject to pages of holier-than-Thou second- guessing in The New York Review of Books.

It's true; it takes something like Katrina to really get our attention, doesn't it?

We live our lives under the delusion that we humans have total control over our circumstances. The comforts of modern life insulate us. Science can comfort us with elaborate explanations, predictions and cures. The law and Homeland Security will make sure we're safe. Our pastors, professors and politicians will hand down to us The Truth. But when something like Katrina hits, we see how thin that veil really is and we are left shocked by what have lost and awed by the powers that can sweep it all away.

When the something bigger, the government, our education, our strength and resourcefulness or even the All Mighty Dollar, gets swept away, what are we left to rely on? Jesus said,

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21

We are only shocked when we treasure those things that can be swept away.

Relief Effort Scams

I spent part of my day today helping to track down internet scammers who are taking advantage of the compassion of people wanting to help in the relief effort. I was extremely glad I got the phone call to help in this unique way. I say all this not to toot my own horn but to help sped the word about these lowlifes.

As with the tsunami last winter, people have begun to set up phony websites designed to bilk compassionate people of their money and other personal information. Not only are they stealing from the givers but, more importantly, they are stealing from the victims of Katrina. I pray that they make restitution and ask God for forgiveness. In the mean time, I will do my part to shut them down.

If you are planning on giving to a charitable organization, here's some advice on the how to avoid phishing scams. Also, consider giving to organizations you know well. I plan on giving to the Northwest Medical Teams, but you should always be cautious about giving online.