(no subject)
[Following a comment posted in czaria's journal.... (& also a discussion I had with Manuela's boyfriend recently.)]
The fact is we are willing enough to praise freedom when she is safely tucked away in the past and cannot be a nuisance. In the present, amidst dangers whose outcome we cannot foresee, we get nervous about her, and admit censorship.
[from E. M. Forster, The Tercentenary of the Areopagitica]
To have faith requires courage, the ability to take a risk, the readiness even to accept pain and disappointment. Whoever insists on safety and security as primary conditions of life cannot have faith; whoever shuts himself off in a system of defense, where distance and possession are his means of security, makes himself a prisoner. To be loved, and to love, need courage, the courage to judge certain values as of ultimate concern - and to take the jump and stake everything at these values.
[from E. Fromm, The Art of Loving]
Now I don't think this would mean we should throw over-board all reason and common sense, but the question remains, how do you fight people who are willing - happy, even - to die for what they believe in anyway? Personally I think a little honesty and faith in what we believe in (or supposed to believe in) would go a long way. Probably not with the fanatics, but in the greater scheme of things the violent minority isn't the problem: the real problem is always how many people are willing to look away, if not quietly approve and support, and I think with them we're losing credibility fast, if we ever had it in the first place.
Dictators like Saddam Hussein violate human rights, but every single time the western world uses human rights as a cover for military and/or economic imperialism, every time something like what happened in Iraq happens, the very concept of human rights is hollowed out just a little more.
And it's not just that. We ought to be able to offer something as an alternative to violence and extremism, but is it really so wrong, if it is perceived that all we have to offer is superficial consumerism, when we're willing to look on when rights we supposedly cherish are slowly taken away, if not willingly given up, in return for some questionable safety?
Obviously I'm not suggesting to pitch christian extremism against islamic extremism, but what about the humanitarian values in theory our constitutions and societies are based upon... freedom, justice, equality, human rights. It's not about being all over the place, trying to fix things; it's mainly about practicing what we preach. If in a democratic state (in theory, if sadly not always in practice) everyone is equal before the law, how can we justify double standards in international law? No law-giver can place himself above his own laws and still expect to be called a democrat.
Ahem. Stepping down from the box now.
[ETA: just remembered this one... what they say about human nature never changing... it's true. *sigh*]