Democracy is freedom of choice -- not America's choice

Editor's Note: Some form of this piece of work most likely will appear in the DM tomorrow morning. Enjoy the unrevised version.


We went to Iraq to supposedly bring peace and democracy to the people after their years under Saddam’s rule, right? So when the constitution is written and elections take place, what happens? Somehow the American government gets it in its head that Iraq did everything wrong because we don’t like what happened. That wasn’t our place to say that. Our constitution begins with “We the people,” talking about the American people -- not the British people or the Iraqi people or anyone else. The same thing applies to Iraq. “We the sons of Mesopotamia” refers to the Iraqi people – not the American people. It was not our choice to make.
The same principle applies to the Palestinian elections, when Hamas came to power. The Bush administration has repeatedly pushed for more democracy in the Middle East. But when results happened that Bush and company didn’t like, they screamed that it wasn’t democracy and that the whole process was flawed. Now, the democratic process is not without its problems. We’ve seen plenty of evidence of that. In fact, honestly, I highly doubt a perfect form of government exists because there are always flawed human beings in the mix.
I’m all for freedom of choice, even if I don’t personally like that particular choice. Choosing something means thinking for oneself in order to conclude that one makes the right decision. Freedom of choice is nothing without freedom of thought. Choosing a path also means living with that path and learning from the mistakes that arise. Mistakes are a part of life and I would argue that they are a vital part of life. Personally, we’re to learn from our mistakes. The governments of the world should therefore do the same. America itself did not begin as a perfect nation and will remain imperfect.
I’m not suggesting – and certainly not asking – that anyone agree with the selection of Hamas as leaders of the Palestinian Authority. After all, they are the ones who live there and have a better understanding of what they want and what they need their governments to do. All we know is what we get from the media – it is almost always secondhand news. They have to live with the everyday ramifications of their choice. But in a way, we in America live with their choice as well, just as the nations of the world are affected by our political choices.
I don’t agree with the decision myself. I think that Hamas’ international reputation as terrorists has led them to be in the position they’re in right now. I also think that they should disarm and begin to work toward peace before they’re allowed to take power. By working toward peace, I don’t mean that they should have a list of demands (such as withdrawal to the 1967 borders) that Israel should simply comply with, saying as Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas party prime minister, did in a Newsweek interview this week, “It all starts with Israel.” I mean they should sit down and work through the process with Israel like a rational political entity. Ideally, there will be two independent states at the end of the process.
But I defend the right of the Palestinians to make their own choices. If they think Hamas will get things done, then by all means, elect them to office. Give them a chance. We in America do the same thing when we vote. We elect the people we think will do the best job. Of course, there are limits to their freedom, especially when that freedom impinges upon the freedom of a nation like Israel.
Does this mean that the rest of the world should sit back and let things happen? Not necessarily. The rest of the world should help with a peaceful transition anyway they can, not by withdrawing monetary support from the Palestinian Authority and not by refusing to work with the government as if it doesn’t exist. Haniyeh, the new Hamas party prime minister, conducted his telephone interview with Newsweek from the refugee camp in which he lives with his family. Israel and America refused to deal with the PA after the elections. Bad choice, guys. The European Union has agreed to give $143 million to the PA before the government turns over to Hamas. They need this money; they need help. They need our support – but not our enforcement of decisions upon them – now more than ever.

Christians and Universities

Editor's Note: Just so you know, I'm a reformed conservative (though a small sliver of conservative elements remain) as well as a recovering Southern Baptist. The turnaround came during my college years, but the "liberal bias" had nothing to do with it. I simply learned to think for myself.

Free Republic had this article up for our enjoyment today. I wasn't going to say anything, but I just get tired of the whole "conservatives have to lie to pass" bit running around about our universities. Even when I was conservative, I never had to lie. You know why? It never came up in the first place. And it's not like the professors didn't know that I was conservative, I write for the newspaper. I even scared a few and gained the respect of a few during my tenure. Many of these professors that stand in front of a classroom and say hateful things about conservatives, Christians, etc., don't deserve to stand in front of a classroom and teach. They probably have another ax to grind as well or don't want to be at that university to begin with. But the classroom is not the place for any kind of agenda: political, religious, or otherwise. You're there to learn objectively. The professor shouldn't espouse one and the student shouldn't espouse one. What I mean by espouse is one shouldn't do in politics what proselytizing is for religion. The proper way for the flow of ideas is what Dr. Harrington calls the "food for thought" theory. Just throw out what you think as an option, not as absolute truth with everyone becoming wrong, going to hell, etc. If there's any proselytizing going on, it's often with the conservatives themselves.

Why I'm ranting now, I don't really know. I've done a column on this. I guess I'm just loosening up my brain for my column due on Tuesday.

I don't know why they want to complain. I guess it's because they know that their children are being exposed to different ideas, which one would think that the children would be able to think for themselves and accept or reject whatever they want. Their small worldview is being challenged and they don't like it. I'm not saying threatened, because I don't support threatening what others believe (yes, this one's for you, Ann Coulter), or calling people names (again, for Ms. Coulter).

To be honest, I still call myself an evangelical. Evamgelical as in the real meaning of the word and as compared to charismatic Christians, not as in Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. I don't subscribe to their brand of evangelicalism. I believe that Christianity -- taught and practiced correctly -- is the right way. What I don't believe is forcing it down people's throats, just putting it out there and then trying to live my life in accordance to what I believe.

P.S. Ann Coulter was at Indiana University yesterday -- read this story to find out just how outrageous she is. Unfortunately, no pictures for us to confirm her as really being a man.

Mosques, Religion, and Objective Media

I'm sorry, but calling yourself a "religion of peace" when some of its more radical (i.e., pissed off) adherents go out and blow stuff up isn't fair, to say the least. Maybe fair isn't the word I'm looking for. I will, however, be fair and say that Christianity can't call itself a "religion of peace" either. Unless, of course, one doesn't count events such as the Crusades, etc. I don't think there really is a "religion of peace," politically speaking. Theologically speaking, they are all intended to bring peace to the individual believer.

Erin mentioned in the last post that no one's objective, certainly not the two of us. I get paid to be unobjective, for crying out loud. But to me, and this may just be my opinion, but the media (thank you, Dr. Watt, for pointing out that media is plural, singular -- medium) should at least try to maintain some standard of objectivity. Leave the opinions to the op/ed writers (such as myself), bloggers, and talk show hosts. Below, I give you fair readers here two covers of the attack on the Golden Mosque in Baghdad. There's just something about the language -- and I'm not talking about the Arabic, which I'm leaving for Erin. There's just a difference between "gunmen" and "militants" to me. It's different to the dictionary too: militant means "Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause." Aren't the Iraqis always called militants? I forgot, this is Fox, which supposedly represents American interests. They only like white people. That's not "fair and balanced." That's "racist and bigoted."

Now I'm white and I suppose I benefit from this, but that doesn't make it right!!!! Bigotry is just wrong all the way around because, eventually, it will come back to haunt you. In these situations, I often think of this quote by Rev. Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." Speak up for those who have no voice, or you may find that you will no longer have a voice.

But back to the point (how ever did I get a job at the DM?), the media tend to stereotype whole groups of people. If I pulled some of these stunts on my academic work, I'd either fail or get cursed at. The media are paid to relay facts to us, where we can make up our own minds. America isn't as stupid as you might think, give us a chance.

Wait, many of us did vote for George W. Bush in 2004....


Links:
CNN's coverage of the attack on the mosque
Fox News' coverage of the same attack