EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
The quiet dark of the Dallas suburb was suddenly shattered by George’s terrible screams. Laura leaped out of the Emperor sized bed, pulling the printed silk bathrobe around her as she quickly turned to her pale husband. “That dream again?” she asked, in her soft southern drawl. “Yeah. Yeah it was. Can’t get over it, Laura.” Laura spoke soothingly, as she placed her arm around his trembling shoulders. “The mirror dream again” she said, with an air of finality. “What can it mean?” George demanded. “I get up, walk across the room, and as I get closer, I see Osama bin Laden where I should be seeing me! I end up staring right up in his face, when I should be staring at me!” I wonder if this has ever happened. I think Osama Bin Laden and George Bush have some interesting things in common, and that their similarities are what can make us so uncomfortable with President Obama’s reaching out to the Muslim world, especially Iran. I’m not trying to compare them completely, and I’m not justifying what bin Laden has done. Not at all. But I do think we should look at the two and consider the potential mirror image of their approaches. David Loy wrote, “The views of Bush and bin Laden are mirror opposites. What bin Laden see as good - an Islamic jihad against an impious and materialistic imperialism - Bush sees as evil. What Bush sees as good - America, the defender of freedom - bin Laden see as evil. They are two different versions of the same holy-war-between-good-and-evil.” To be honest, the first time I read this quote I was a little blown away. “How dare he! Can he be serious?” Then President Obama spoke at Cairo and I heard the responses, some thoughtful, many a little bit nuts. I read a recent blog on this website that again called into doubt our President’s personal claim to be a Christian, simply because he quoted from the Koran. Isn’t that what the Pharisees did? Didn’t that make Jesus pretty ticked off? And I thought again about the quote by Loy. Maybe he was on to something. Bush defined America’s fight against terrorism as the “war on terror” and he also couched it as the war against Islam. He made it good versus evil, the Bible versus the Koran, the Christians against the Muslims. He originally called the war “a Crusade.” He put Iran into the neat and tidy category of a member of “the axis of evil,” as bin Laden made the United States the “great Satan.” Two ideologues, willing their people on to fight, by drawing caricatures of the other side. In the heat of the moment, it was hard not to get caught up in the fever. So now we have a new President who is taking a new tack. He does not approach with a cartoon in his hand, ready to accuse. He begins with a verse from the Koran, to identify with those he is speaking to. He remembers his own experiences with Islam, in Kenya, in Indonesia, and in America. He acknowledges Muslims as people who have contributed to the world and who will not be held hostage by a few. Not an enemy, but a community of fellow humans to be respected and engaged. That is quite a step for some of us. Maybe it happened too fast. But ultimately, what is more biblical? What gives dignity? What works towards peace? What acknowledges humanity? To put it in evangelical vernacular, what would Jesus actually do? |
Comments
Mark,
I'm going to have to disagree very strongly. Isn't it a bit extreme to compare any US president to bin Laden? Doesn't that lower the level of dialogue in this country?
Also, when did former President Bush ever describe the war on terror as a "war against Islam"? When did he ever say that it was about "the Bible versus the Koran," or "the Christians against the Muslims?"
On the contrary, here are some quotes from Bush that I've taken from an Islamic website:
Sept. 17, 2001: "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
Sept. 28, 2001: "[I know] that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. "
Nov. 19, 2001: "America is made better by millions of Muslim citizens. America has close and important relations with many Islamic nations."
Sept. 10, 2002: "Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It's a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It's a faith based upon love, not hate."
These quotations were taken from http://www.submission.org/George_W_Bush/islam.html
Can't we come together and agree not to compare our leaders to terrorists simply because we don't like their policies? Can't we agree that we should express our dissagrements with our leaders with respect instead of demonizing them? Can't we all acknowledge people's opinions as they really are instead of misrepresenting them as this article does?
Guest, first, thanks for the comment. I really appreciate when anyone responds to a blog I post, as I feel like the real purpose of Conversant Life begins when we dialogue, not when I post.
I appreciate the quotes from President Bush. The cynic in me notes that he made those statements at the beginning of anti-muslim backlash after 9/11. Remember those days? Terrorist plots were in the air and we were all waiting for the second strike. Thankfully, it did not come. But because of other rhetoric (certainly not just from Bush!) and a natural reaction to being attacked, there was a lot of anti-muslim anger in the air. I'm glad that he tried to defuse it, even if he incited it on some level with his policy approach.
I guess the important issue for me that you raise is your perception that I was trying to compare President Bush to a terrorist because I don't like his policies. Really, that was not my intention. The comparison I was making was in their world view, a view of "good verses evil," black and white differences. What some call a "bi-modal view," in that everything is broken down into opposites.
Part of why I wrote the blog was because of the fact that I can certainly fall into this as well. In fact, I think our media promotes this, as bi-modal approaches create viewers more committed to one network (Fox vs MSNBC) and more reliable demographics mean higher prices for commercials.
Does this make any sense? I wrote this largely because of the reaction I saw to Obama's speech (including on this site) that seemed to be based in bi-modal thinking. "He's not a Christian because he quotes the Koran" kind of stuff. Being bi-modal is easy, but not really based in truth.
Thanks again for the comment. What do you think?
Mark, thank you for responding to my post! I do sort of see what you mean. Claiming that Obama isn't a Christian simply because he's quoted from the Quran is absurd. But I think this bi-modal way of thinking has other incarnations as well, such as the "Obama is good, Bush is evil" view. If we're going to criticize Bush for labeling terrorism evil because that's "bi-modal," shouldn't we also criticize those who label Bush evil for being "bi-modal" as well?
But while bi-modal thinking can definitely oversimplify things, it's not always bad. It can help us to bring moral clarity to issues such as the genocide in Darfur, the mass rape that's occuring in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, and yes, the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Wouldn't you agree that all of these things are evil? And if they're not evil, then what is?
First, your first paragraph made me blink about four times. You are absolutely right, and I think I fall into that mode of thinking. Ouch! I need to think hard about that. Thanks.
And yes, I do believe there can be acts that are evil, but they are also reside in a very complex context that requires more than a black/white response. Forgive me for pointing towards Obama again (I really am going to work on that!), but his speech in Cairo seems to me to be a great example. He moved the US beyond bi-modal, by giving the speech, by delivering it at the seat of Islamic scholarship, and by connecting his own experience (and America's) to Islamic life. It really was a game changer. And yet, those three qualities are exactly what some screamed about. I suspect that they did because they were still thinking in a bi-modal way, when President Obama was thinking in a more expansive way.
What do you think? And thanks again for posting! This is what Conversant Life is supposed to be about.
Mark, thank you. I commend your humility and receptiveness to my comments and I appreciate your response.
As to President Obama's speech in Cairo, I'll first admit that I didn't watch the whole thing. I did however see a little of it, I looked over a transcript of it, and I read about it in the news. While I don't think he addressed the issues of human rights (such as in Darfur) and religious freedom (such as in Egypt itself) enough, on the whole I think it was a good speech. I think it was a savvy and prudent diplomatic move to give it. He was wise to take advantage of his personal connections to Islam, something his predecessor couldn't have done. I sincerely hope it improves relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world.
Thanks. So much to learn in life!
I guess time will tell, as with so many things. Hoping and hoping for the best.