Opinion/Editorial
Intolerance
By Alan Hainkel
Events in our world recently have brought to mind a single word: intolerance. It is this word that has driven the attacks on the United
States and, in some ways, has also driven our response. I'm not saying that everyone feels this way, but large numbers of people do and it's, at best, disturbing.
We've learned that someone wrote a letter to the hijackers, in copies found in the luggage of one of the hijackers at the airport in
Boston and at the crash site in Pennsylvania. The letter was part prayer book, part instruction manual. It told each of the hijackers how they were to prepare themselves for the attack, making sure that
they were clean, as well as their clothes and shoes, and that they should make sure they were not followed to the airport. They were told that they were doing God's work and that, by carrying out this
mission, they would be earning everlasting life in paradise.
We've also probably seen and heard people who say we should bomb all the Islamic holy sites in response to the attacks, even the ones in
Israel and Saudi Arabia, two of our closest allies in the Middle East. People that say we should bomb all the Muslims back to the Stone Age. People that are so full of righteous indignation that they
can't see straight, saying "How could they attack us?"
Both of these views are driven by intolerance. Intolerance for those who are different from ourselves. The hijackers, using an extreme
view of Islam, attacked our way of life. Those who would have us attack all Islamic holy sites, are they really any different? I can understand being angry. I can understand wanting to find those
responsible and bring them to justice. I can not understand, however, those who would attack Islamic holy sites simply because of the ethnic background of the hijackers.
From what I've read about Islam, it is a religion that preaches peace and love for your fellow man. As it is practiced by the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan, however, it is a very restrictive code of laws. Women are not allowed in schools or the workplace. Men are jailed if their beards aren't long enough. Foreign aid workers, including
two Americans, are on trial for allegedly preaching Christianity. The punishment, if they're convicted, ranges from deportation to death.
Christianity is also a religion that preaches peace and love for your fellow man. Yet, Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson sat on
Robertson's television show, The 700 Club, and pointed their fingers at pagans, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and People for the American Way, among others. They placed the blame for the attacks on
them, saying that it was God's punishment for trying to "secularize" this country. They've since apologized, Falwell saying that his remarks were uncalled for and unnecessary, but not wrong.
It is views like Falwell's that are behind Proposal A, on the November ballot in Kalamazoo. For those of you who don't know what
Proposal A would do, it would basically change the city charter to allow legal discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people on the basis of their sexual orientation. People who support this
initiative say that homosexuals are lying to the public, that they are not born "like that and can be "cured."
For people who believe that people would "choose this lifestyle," I usually have one question. "What, are you nuts?" Why would anyone in
their right mind purposely choose a lifestyle that can lead, in some places, to getting beaten or killed? Why would someone choose a lifestyle where people can fire you from your job, kick you out of
your apartment or otherwise deny you the American dream because of who you love?
Supporters of this proposal openly acknowledge that their ultimate goal is a statewide law banning what they call "special
rights" on the basis of sexual orientation. I can honestly say that if that were ever to happen, I would move out of Michigan. I love the state and I feel that I'm at home here, but if such
discrimination were allowed to be practiced here, I would leave. I can't, in good conscience, live in a place that would openly discriminate against a segment of the population.
In an essay he broadcast on September 22nd, National Public Radio's Scott Simon, the host of Weekend Edition Saturday, took Revs.
Falwell and Robertson to task for their comments, comparing them to the mullahs of the Taliban, people who follow a God that seemed to approve of death and destruction. It ended with this question: "If
your plane were hijacked, who would you rather sit next to? Righteous reverends who would sit back and say 'This is God's punishment for gay Teletubbies' or the gay rugby player who lays down his life to
save others. And, by the way, which person seems closer to God?"
It seems a prudent question.
Back to Front Page
|
|
