Inspired by Miguel's wish list for what kind of candidate he would vote in the upcoming US election I want to say something about one of the issues he mentioned: social security.
I am not a fan of the German social security system (anymore). It is just too expensive. We are in the middle of a painful reform process.
Some people think we should abandon a federal system of social security altogether. Maybe we should leave it to the individual citizen to take care of building up his retirement funds, choosing med insurance, doctors, hospitals, schools,... whatever. I think, however that this is not as fair as it sounds.
Of course, I don't like the idea that a hard working tax payer finances a 24/7 vacation of others.
But being able to choose in the social security sector is a good thing only if you have equally good options to choose from.
I don't think that is the case in any country in the world. Therefore I think that some sort of government spending is required to ensure the constitutional rights, especially equal opportunities. The old German system was too expensive, had some loopholes, needed reform. I doubt that the new German system will be perfect, I hope it will be better than the old one but I am not sure.
But I am sure that a social security system that is not based on solidarity in the broadest sense violates the principles of democracy and can eventually lead to its downfall. It doesn't even need a revolution for that. Social peace is important to make sure that the state is supported by its people. Government systems that don't have the support of its people become powerless and will eventually vanish.
I am convinced that a solidarity-based social security system is a prerequisite for social peace. And social peace is a prerequisite for a democracy.
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Monday, June 28, 2004
East Berlin, West Berlin
I was also asked to say something about cultural differences between East and West Berlin.
I am from the West, my girlfriend is from the East. I live in Reinickendorf, she lives in Hellersdorf. There are like 30 km between us.
Are there still differences?
Yes, while Berlin is definitely growing together, this is not happening with the speed most people hoped.
Many people in former West Berlin feel like they gave a lot of money to people who wouldn't work with enough effort, therefore the East appears to them as a money swallowing bottomless pit. This is - of course - doing East Berliners injustice. What is true, however is that many people in former East Berlin needed some time to adapt to West German way of life. Of course many of them don't want to. And that is totally fine. People in East Germany didn't revolt in order to become just like West Germans, they revolted in order to gain similar liberties and similar standard of living. While remaining with a different cultural identity is no big deal in one's spare time it was expected of them to assimilate in work life because (no matter whether it is sad or not) West Germans run the show economically.
On the other hand many people from former East Berlin are disappointed with what happened after reunification. They hoped to gain the standard of living of West Germans of their generation. Instead they lost their jobs because the East German industry couldn't compete well enough and many of them became welfare cases. They wanted to work and felt like 2nd tier citizens when they saw that they didn't get the chance to contribute. The problem wasn't always the bad state of East German industry. Often times Western companies received government money for transforming East German companies into a modern industry. The outcome was often the opposite: Managers bought the companies, took the money from the government and then let the East German economy die. It was an easy way to get rid of competition.
Again, there are two sides, however. Large parts of the economy are productive now after releasing like 90% of their work force.
When you look at Berlin today, yes it is growing together. There are parts where it is hard to determine whether they belonged to the East or to the West. On the other hand the differences can not be overlooked either. They also translate into election results. The socialist PDS party which had goverened the GDR under its original name SED for 40 years gets a large share of votes in East Germany. In Berlin it has enough votes to form a coalition government with the SPD.
It has been widely discussed in Germany whether the PDS would be a passing phenomenon or not. Well, I can't judge on that. My estimate is that it will remain influential as long as there are people who are not content with capitalism. This may be a long, long time.
Another thing to cultural differences is the phenomenon of "Ostalgie" a word play from Nostalgie, meaning a romantic image of what life was like in the GDR.
So special Ostprodukte are being bought again, movies are being made about how fun it was to be young in East-Berlin, and so on.
Famous movies of that sort are "Sonnenallee" (a comedy) and "Good Bye, Lenin" (a more serious comedy about the months of change in 1989/90).
While both movies made tons of money in Germany the second one is very successful internationally, as well. You can get it on amazon.com. (Btw, I recommend both.)
Finally, I would like to stress that I am not an expert in all of this. I am just reflecting some of the things I notice in everyday life. If you have questions or differing opinions, I 'll be glad to read and respond to them.
I am from the West, my girlfriend is from the East. I live in Reinickendorf, she lives in Hellersdorf. There are like 30 km between us.
Are there still differences?
Yes, while Berlin is definitely growing together, this is not happening with the speed most people hoped.
Many people in former West Berlin feel like they gave a lot of money to people who wouldn't work with enough effort, therefore the East appears to them as a money swallowing bottomless pit. This is - of course - doing East Berliners injustice. What is true, however is that many people in former East Berlin needed some time to adapt to West German way of life. Of course many of them don't want to. And that is totally fine. People in East Germany didn't revolt in order to become just like West Germans, they revolted in order to gain similar liberties and similar standard of living. While remaining with a different cultural identity is no big deal in one's spare time it was expected of them to assimilate in work life because (no matter whether it is sad or not) West Germans run the show economically.
On the other hand many people from former East Berlin are disappointed with what happened after reunification. They hoped to gain the standard of living of West Germans of their generation. Instead they lost their jobs because the East German industry couldn't compete well enough and many of them became welfare cases. They wanted to work and felt like 2nd tier citizens when they saw that they didn't get the chance to contribute. The problem wasn't always the bad state of East German industry. Often times Western companies received government money for transforming East German companies into a modern industry. The outcome was often the opposite: Managers bought the companies, took the money from the government and then let the East German economy die. It was an easy way to get rid of competition.
Again, there are two sides, however. Large parts of the economy are productive now after releasing like 90% of their work force.
When you look at Berlin today, yes it is growing together. There are parts where it is hard to determine whether they belonged to the East or to the West. On the other hand the differences can not be overlooked either. They also translate into election results. The socialist PDS party which had goverened the GDR under its original name SED for 40 years gets a large share of votes in East Germany. In Berlin it has enough votes to form a coalition government with the SPD.
It has been widely discussed in Germany whether the PDS would be a passing phenomenon or not. Well, I can't judge on that. My estimate is that it will remain influential as long as there are people who are not content with capitalism. This may be a long, long time.
Another thing to cultural differences is the phenomenon of "Ostalgie" a word play from Nostalgie, meaning a romantic image of what life was like in the GDR.
So special Ostprodukte are being bought again, movies are being made about how fun it was to be young in East-Berlin, and so on.
Famous movies of that sort are "Sonnenallee" (a comedy) and "Good Bye, Lenin" (a more serious comedy about the months of change in 1989/90).
While both movies made tons of money in Germany the second one is very successful internationally, as well. You can get it on amazon.com. (Btw, I recommend both.)
Finally, I would like to stress that I am not an expert in all of this. I am just reflecting some of the things I notice in everyday life. If you have questions or differing opinions, I 'll be glad to read and respond to them.
Turkish people in Berlin
I have been asked to say something about Turkish people in Berlin (in response to my comment on May 1st riots and that they have nothing to do with the Turkish community)
So I thought about Turkish people in Berlin. The first answer is quite striking, I don't know that many.
Most of them live in other parts of Berlin: Kreuzberg, Schöneberg, Wedding, Neukölln (all parts of former West Berlin). I live in Reinickendorf. (Northern part of former West Berlin) When the Turkish people came as foreign workers during the 60s they came into neighborhoods with more affordable rents. To a large extent they still live there.
So the few Turkish people I know, don't live in these areas:
1. A colleague of my mom. I played with his kids (same age as me) when we where young
2. My doctor. He graduated from medical school in Istanbul before coming to Germany. He lives around the corner.
3. A classmate. In my graduation year from highschool we were 128 graduates. One of them was Turkish.
On the other hand, there are areas in Berlin where turkish people are the majority. However, I would not see those areas as ghettos or slums. I have accidentally come through a slum in Chicago and have been through some less nice neighborhoods of LA, I don't see any areas in Berlin that could compare.
These days talking about people who pray to Allah is often connected to radical Islamism. There are many mosques in Berlin and Islamism is an issue. However, Berlin has worse problems than Islamism. While some German girls are afraid to walk through Wedding by night, I am not. I actually feel more threatened in other areas of Berlin like Marzahn or Hellersdorf. These areas in former East Berlin are notorious for skinheads and neo-nazis.
In summary,
a lot is left to do to integrate foreign people better into our community while not making them abandon their cultural identity. It is tough and both sides need to increase their efforts. However, the Turkish community in Berlin always has been and still is a valuable part of Berlin culture.
Even the Nazis eat Döner Kebab. (famous Turkish fast food, first made in Berlin and nowhere else to be found cheaper or better than here)
So I thought about Turkish people in Berlin. The first answer is quite striking, I don't know that many.
Most of them live in other parts of Berlin: Kreuzberg, Schöneberg, Wedding, Neukölln (all parts of former West Berlin). I live in Reinickendorf. (Northern part of former West Berlin) When the Turkish people came as foreign workers during the 60s they came into neighborhoods with more affordable rents. To a large extent they still live there.
So the few Turkish people I know, don't live in these areas:
1. A colleague of my mom. I played with his kids (same age as me) when we where young
2. My doctor. He graduated from medical school in Istanbul before coming to Germany. He lives around the corner.
3. A classmate. In my graduation year from highschool we were 128 graduates. One of them was Turkish.
On the other hand, there are areas in Berlin where turkish people are the majority. However, I would not see those areas as ghettos or slums. I have accidentally come through a slum in Chicago and have been through some less nice neighborhoods of LA, I don't see any areas in Berlin that could compare.
These days talking about people who pray to Allah is often connected to radical Islamism. There are many mosques in Berlin and Islamism is an issue. However, Berlin has worse problems than Islamism. While some German girls are afraid to walk through Wedding by night, I am not. I actually feel more threatened in other areas of Berlin like Marzahn or Hellersdorf. These areas in former East Berlin are notorious for skinheads and neo-nazis.
In summary,
a lot is left to do to integrate foreign people better into our community while not making them abandon their cultural identity. It is tough and both sides need to increase their efforts. However, the Turkish community in Berlin always has been and still is a valuable part of Berlin culture.
Even the Nazis eat Döner Kebab. (famous Turkish fast food, first made in Berlin and nowhere else to be found cheaper or better than here)
Saturday, May 29, 2004
No Love Parade in 2004
Well, it is not really news anymore: There will be no Love Parade in Berlin this year. Although many attempts had been made in order to save this festivity the organizers couldn't find a way to finance it.
The Love Parade is the largest Techno Party on the planet. Still... for those who have never heard of it(I don't know where you have been for the past ten years), here is a history of the event.
Anyway, the Love Parade has always been controversial. While many people supported it because it brought tourists to town (about a million for the weekend during the best years of the event) others stressed the negative effect on Berlin's parks. The parade route led right through the Tiergarten (sort of the equivalent of New York's Central Park for Berlin).
Garbage and urin from several hundred thousands of techno lovers wasn't really good for flora and fauna.
I didn't enjoy the event very much. But that is mostly connected to the fact that I don't like techno music.
A few years ago - right before Love Parade weekend - I was riding the subway when a few rhimes came to my mind. Since it was boring to sit in the train I tried to make a poem out of them.
When I had reached my destination I just had to write them down. The poem is meant to be a little funny. I didn't want to insult any techno fan. Ok, here it is. (I never translated the poem, sorry):
Der Raver
Jedes Jahr zur Sommerszeit
Im Juli macht er sich bereit,
Damit er durch Berlin nun tanze.
Love Parade - so heißt das Ganze.
Ob die Sonne scheint, oder ob's regnet,
Mit Enthausiasmus reich gesegnet
Erträgt der Raver Hitz' und Nässe,
Solang nur aufgedreht die Bässe.
Erblickt er eine schmucke "Sie",
Schluckt er Red Bull und Ecstasy,
Um für den Balztanz fit zu sein.
Natürlich sagt sie da nicht nein.
Im Tiergarten, so in der Mitte,
Sie pfeifen auf die gute Sitte
Und geben sich der Liebe hin;
Der Raver mit der Raverin.
Doch... leider hat er's nicht geahnt:
Der Freund der Raverin, er bahnt
Den Weg zum Liebespaare sich
Und schlägt den Raver fürchterlich.
Halbtot liegt er am Wegesrand,
Die Mutter hätt' ihn kaum erkannt.
Und doch er freut sich - das ist klar -
Auf's nächste Mal, in nächsten Jahr.
The Love Parade is the largest Techno Party on the planet. Still... for those who have never heard of it(I don't know where you have been for the past ten years), here is a history of the event.
Anyway, the Love Parade has always been controversial. While many people supported it because it brought tourists to town (about a million for the weekend during the best years of the event) others stressed the negative effect on Berlin's parks. The parade route led right through the Tiergarten (sort of the equivalent of New York's Central Park for Berlin).
Garbage and urin from several hundred thousands of techno lovers wasn't really good for flora and fauna.
I didn't enjoy the event very much. But that is mostly connected to the fact that I don't like techno music.
A few years ago - right before Love Parade weekend - I was riding the subway when a few rhimes came to my mind. Since it was boring to sit in the train I tried to make a poem out of them.
When I had reached my destination I just had to write them down. The poem is meant to be a little funny. I didn't want to insult any techno fan. Ok, here it is. (I never translated the poem, sorry):
Der Raver
Jedes Jahr zur Sommerszeit
Im Juli macht er sich bereit,
Damit er durch Berlin nun tanze.
Love Parade - so heißt das Ganze.
Ob die Sonne scheint, oder ob's regnet,
Mit Enthausiasmus reich gesegnet
Erträgt der Raver Hitz' und Nässe,
Solang nur aufgedreht die Bässe.
Erblickt er eine schmucke "Sie",
Schluckt er Red Bull und Ecstasy,
Um für den Balztanz fit zu sein.
Natürlich sagt sie da nicht nein.
Im Tiergarten, so in der Mitte,
Sie pfeifen auf die gute Sitte
Und geben sich der Liebe hin;
Der Raver mit der Raverin.
Doch... leider hat er's nicht geahnt:
Der Freund der Raverin, er bahnt
Den Weg zum Liebespaare sich
Und schlägt den Raver fürchterlich.
Halbtot liegt er am Wegesrand,
Die Mutter hätt' ihn kaum erkannt.
Und doch er freut sich - das ist klar -
Auf's nächste Mal, in nächsten Jahr.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Standards of morale, family values, bigotry?
Politics very often is a morale issue. Whether it is having an affair with a White House intern, or accepting money from anyone who would finance your campaign....On other occasions it just comes down to portraying a "healthy" family life.
Just this morning i watched a rerun of a Jack and Jackie Kennedy documentary. There had been so many rumors about JFKs love affairs around but the tabloids didn't really pick them up.
So back then there have been double standards on morale issues. The president could do what he liked, without much fear of the press.
Times had changed by the 90s. In 1998/99 you just couldn't get away from yet another story of Clinton's sex life when zapping through the channels.
(ok, I am exaggerating. You could switch to the disney channel)
So are double standards done? Is it that people are more accepting of behavior that does not conform to traditional family life?
Well, yes. In parts. There is a vivid gay community. Interracial relationships are being accepted. But wait.... not really, right?
How many hate crimes against gays every year?
How many countries where being gay is illegal?
How many countries where Bill and Monica would have gone to jail for their particular practise?
How would you feel as a white walking with your black girlfriend through a black neighbourhood?
How would you feel walking with her through small town suburbia instead?
Or as a black:
how good are your odds that your white girlfriend's parents would like you from the start? without prejudice?
Ok, people are more open about sex, true. But not everywhere and not under all circumstances. We don't have to go to far-away countries for that. To my knowledge the Federal Republic of Germany was never ruled by a single.
Or the U.S.: has there been a not-married president? If so, he probably was a widower.
Is someone who is single less fit to be in a public office?
Politicians still feel the pressure of portraying healthy family values.
I like family! Having a wife and a few kids is how I see myself within the next ten years. It may be safe to say that a majority of people share visions like that. But are we open enough to accept people who disagree not only on a private level (friends) but also on a political level(Heads of State)?
I will believe that we are an open society as soon as a single-mom can gather enough votes to become Chancellor, Prime Minister, or President.
For Germany, things may be on the move right now. We will have a new President next week. But the office only has representational functions. Furthermore the female candidate Prof. Gesine Schwan is not expected to win. Also, she was married but her husband passed away.
(I like her, I attended her class on Hobbes and Rousseau when she taught PSCI at my University in the late 90s)
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify, I am not talking about a representational office but one of executive power.
How is it in your home countries? Is it realistic that anyone can be elected?
Just this morning i watched a rerun of a Jack and Jackie Kennedy documentary. There had been so many rumors about JFKs love affairs around but the tabloids didn't really pick them up.
So back then there have been double standards on morale issues. The president could do what he liked, without much fear of the press.
Times had changed by the 90s. In 1998/99 you just couldn't get away from yet another story of Clinton's sex life when zapping through the channels.
(ok, I am exaggerating. You could switch to the disney channel)
So are double standards done? Is it that people are more accepting of behavior that does not conform to traditional family life?
Well, yes. In parts. There is a vivid gay community. Interracial relationships are being accepted. But wait.... not really, right?
How many hate crimes against gays every year?
How many countries where being gay is illegal?
How many countries where Bill and Monica would have gone to jail for their particular practise?
How would you feel as a white walking with your black girlfriend through a black neighbourhood?
How would you feel walking with her through small town suburbia instead?
Or as a black:
how good are your odds that your white girlfriend's parents would like you from the start? without prejudice?
Ok, people are more open about sex, true. But not everywhere and not under all circumstances. We don't have to go to far-away countries for that. To my knowledge the Federal Republic of Germany was never ruled by a single.
Or the U.S.: has there been a not-married president? If so, he probably was a widower.
Is someone who is single less fit to be in a public office?
Politicians still feel the pressure of portraying healthy family values.
I like family! Having a wife and a few kids is how I see myself within the next ten years. It may be safe to say that a majority of people share visions like that. But are we open enough to accept people who disagree not only on a private level (friends) but also on a political level(Heads of State)?
I will believe that we are an open society as soon as a single-mom can gather enough votes to become Chancellor, Prime Minister, or President.
For Germany, things may be on the move right now. We will have a new President next week. But the office only has representational functions. Furthermore the female candidate Prof. Gesine Schwan is not expected to win. Also, she was married but her husband passed away.
(I like her, I attended her class on Hobbes and Rousseau when she taught PSCI at my University in the late 90s)
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify, I am not talking about a representational office but one of executive power.
How is it in your home countries? Is it realistic that anyone can be elected?
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Talked to a priest yesterday night
I had a post a few days ago (April 9th) in which I wondered if I could call myself a Christian/Catholic because I have my issues with the Gospels.
Last night I talked to a catholic priest about some of them. Really casual atmosphere because we where playing cards at the time.
I asked about Jesus' birthplace, why he was called of Nazareth and not of Bethlehem. Related to that I wanted to know why Jesus is from David's kin if only Josef was from his kin and Josef wasn't the father of Jesus.
He pointed out that the jewish society of the time didn't really care about biological fatherhood. Instead, it was important if a man accepted a born child as his own. (I think that this was quite common in many societies of the ancient world)
Therefore it didn't matter if Josef biologically was the father of Jesus. Jesus is from Josef's (and David's) kin because Josef accepted him as a son. Along the same line Josef didn't need to have a biological connection to David. Being from the same town is being from the same tribe/family.
But in general he said the whole childhood of Jesus is rather unclear. He says that the Gospel writers probably didn't have clear accounts of his childhood but wrote them down because "it must have been this way". Since they believed that Jesus was the messiah they found it obvious that his childhood had to have included all the elements that had been prophecied.
The priest summarized it like this: the childhood stories are not to be taken literally, they are not historical facts in todays sense of the word. But they are no forgery either. At the time of writing they were just the most plausible explanation.
A third point came up but we couldn't go into detail on it because we got distracted by our cards. That was whether Jesus could be called a pacifist or Christian religion could be called pacifist in general. He said that Jesus wasn't a pacifist in our sense of the word.
That reminded me of a discussion i have had with Miguel last year. You can find it in my archives under March 27th 2003: "Is God blessing America?" in the comments. ( I don't know how to link to specific articles in my archives, sorry)
Unfortunately the priest couldn't explain his thoughts any further last night but I will ask for his detailed opinion when we meet again next week.
Last night I talked to a catholic priest about some of them. Really casual atmosphere because we where playing cards at the time.
I asked about Jesus' birthplace, why he was called of Nazareth and not of Bethlehem. Related to that I wanted to know why Jesus is from David's kin if only Josef was from his kin and Josef wasn't the father of Jesus.
He pointed out that the jewish society of the time didn't really care about biological fatherhood. Instead, it was important if a man accepted a born child as his own. (I think that this was quite common in many societies of the ancient world)
Therefore it didn't matter if Josef biologically was the father of Jesus. Jesus is from Josef's (and David's) kin because Josef accepted him as a son. Along the same line Josef didn't need to have a biological connection to David. Being from the same town is being from the same tribe/family.
But in general he said the whole childhood of Jesus is rather unclear. He says that the Gospel writers probably didn't have clear accounts of his childhood but wrote them down because "it must have been this way". Since they believed that Jesus was the messiah they found it obvious that his childhood had to have included all the elements that had been prophecied.
The priest summarized it like this: the childhood stories are not to be taken literally, they are not historical facts in todays sense of the word. But they are no forgery either. At the time of writing they were just the most plausible explanation.
A third point came up but we couldn't go into detail on it because we got distracted by our cards. That was whether Jesus could be called a pacifist or Christian religion could be called pacifist in general. He said that Jesus wasn't a pacifist in our sense of the word.
That reminded me of a discussion i have had with Miguel last year. You can find it in my archives under March 27th 2003: "Is God blessing America?" in the comments. ( I don't know how to link to specific articles in my archives, sorry)
Unfortunately the priest couldn't explain his thoughts any further last night but I will ask for his detailed opinion when we meet again next week.
Friday, April 09, 2004
Easter weekend - am I religious?
Traffic jams all over Germany... People want to travel... I won't. But I will go to the movies tonight. I was very reluctant at first but tonight I will watch "The Passion of the Christ". It is a little strange to watch that movie on the day we remember as Jesus' crucifiction day.
However, I have been curious about the movie, so today might be as good as any day to watch it.
I like Mel Gibson's attempt to be as authentic as possible. I like the idea of filming in Aramaeic and Latin. From seeing the trailer I am a little disturbed by the accent of Pontius Pilate. Doesn't sound like the Latin I learned in school. Anyway, I don't wanna judge before I have seen the whole thing. The spirit of attempted authenticity will probably also show in the amount of violence, blood and gore.
But how authentic can it be?
Firstly, we know today that The Romans didn't drive nails through people's hands and feet because they are too weak to support the whole body weight. Instead the Romans used the wrists and ankles. But in Mel's trailer they do it the "traditional" way. But anyway, tat is only a detail.
Secondly, and more importantly, how authentic is the source? How authentic is the bible?
Mel Gibson's main point in his strive for authenticity is that he tells the exact story of the scriptures. But is this really how it happened?
I have my thoughts about the authenticity of the bible. It seems like I cannot forget for one second that I am a historian. We are tought to critically read and interpret our sources. When reading the bible I can't help but applying the concept of critical reading to it as well.
Some examples that puzzle me: (I apologize in advance for not quoting my sources here exactly as historians should. This due to the fact that I am only brainstorming right now. I will check my sources later, though. If any reader can assist me, I would be grateful)
1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Why is he called Jesus of Nazareth and not of Bethlehem? Bethlehem is the town of David. And a king would have to be from David's kin. So maybe, people told the "legend" of Jesus being from Bethlehem in order to make him fulfill the prophecy. That he would be the king of the Jews coming from the town of David.
2. Let's say, he is from Bethlehem, though. So the prophecy would fit. Or wouldn't it? Because why are they in Bethlehem in the first place? Because it is the town of Josef not the town of Mary. So if anyone is from David's kin then Josef. But Jesus isn't Josef's son. Mary was a virgin when being pregnant with Jesus. So, how can Jesus be from David's kin then? How can he be the King of the Jews prophesied?
3. Last sunday in mass the priest explained to the kids what made Jesus different from your usual king. (Because people courted Jesus as if he were a king). The priest said among other things that Jesus chose to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey out of humility, modesty. A normal king would have had a noble steed. Then a few minutes later the according part from the scripture was read and it said that Jesus told his disciples to go to a village and borrow a donkey from a peasant because he needed it to fulfil the prophecy of the king of the jews coming into Jerusalem on a donkey.
That hit me like a hammer. So the bible basically said that Jesus strategically chose to borrow a donkey for propaganda effects. (Sharply contrasting the reason the priest gave to the kids just minutes earlier)
These are only three points that make me wonder sometimes if I can be christian if I raise these kind of questions? I think I lelieve in God and Jesus. But I am a very sceptical person. Because of my doubts I haven't been to church for about 8 years. But a few weeks ago I decided that I wanted to give it another shot. There is a great priest in my church. I am going to ask my questions to him. Maybe it will be good to hear what a theologist has to say on those matters.
EDIT:
I CHECKED THE BIBLE FOR SOME QUOTATIONS: I FOUND THE STORY FROM MY THIRD POINT IN MATTHEW 21
However, I have been curious about the movie, so today might be as good as any day to watch it.
I like Mel Gibson's attempt to be as authentic as possible. I like the idea of filming in Aramaeic and Latin. From seeing the trailer I am a little disturbed by the accent of Pontius Pilate. Doesn't sound like the Latin I learned in school. Anyway, I don't wanna judge before I have seen the whole thing. The spirit of attempted authenticity will probably also show in the amount of violence, blood and gore.
But how authentic can it be?
Firstly, we know today that The Romans didn't drive nails through people's hands and feet because they are too weak to support the whole body weight. Instead the Romans used the wrists and ankles. But in Mel's trailer they do it the "traditional" way. But anyway, tat is only a detail.
Secondly, and more importantly, how authentic is the source? How authentic is the bible?
Mel Gibson's main point in his strive for authenticity is that he tells the exact story of the scriptures. But is this really how it happened?
I have my thoughts about the authenticity of the bible. It seems like I cannot forget for one second that I am a historian. We are tought to critically read and interpret our sources. When reading the bible I can't help but applying the concept of critical reading to it as well.
Some examples that puzzle me: (I apologize in advance for not quoting my sources here exactly as historians should. This due to the fact that I am only brainstorming right now. I will check my sources later, though. If any reader can assist me, I would be grateful)
1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Why is he called Jesus of Nazareth and not of Bethlehem? Bethlehem is the town of David. And a king would have to be from David's kin. So maybe, people told the "legend" of Jesus being from Bethlehem in order to make him fulfill the prophecy. That he would be the king of the Jews coming from the town of David.
2. Let's say, he is from Bethlehem, though. So the prophecy would fit. Or wouldn't it? Because why are they in Bethlehem in the first place? Because it is the town of Josef not the town of Mary. So if anyone is from David's kin then Josef. But Jesus isn't Josef's son. Mary was a virgin when being pregnant with Jesus. So, how can Jesus be from David's kin then? How can he be the King of the Jews prophesied?
3. Last sunday in mass the priest explained to the kids what made Jesus different from your usual king. (Because people courted Jesus as if he were a king). The priest said among other things that Jesus chose to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey out of humility, modesty. A normal king would have had a noble steed. Then a few minutes later the according part from the scripture was read and it said that Jesus told his disciples to go to a village and borrow a donkey from a peasant because he needed it to fulfil the prophecy of the king of the jews coming into Jerusalem on a donkey.
That hit me like a hammer. So the bible basically said that Jesus strategically chose to borrow a donkey for propaganda effects. (Sharply contrasting the reason the priest gave to the kids just minutes earlier)
These are only three points that make me wonder sometimes if I can be christian if I raise these kind of questions? I think I lelieve in God and Jesus. But I am a very sceptical person. Because of my doubts I haven't been to church for about 8 years. But a few weeks ago I decided that I wanted to give it another shot. There is a great priest in my church. I am going to ask my questions to him. Maybe it will be good to hear what a theologist has to say on those matters.
EDIT:
I CHECKED THE BIBLE FOR SOME QUOTATIONS: I FOUND THE STORY FROM MY THIRD POINT IN MATTHEW 21
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Is God blessing America?
It seems that in American politics the presence of God is always neccessary. I noticed that American patriotism is to a large extent connected to a religious aspect. Basically, God blessed America.
While I have been aware of this connection for quite some time, yesterday I gave special thought to this issue. I watched a documentary about the "new religious right" which formed in the US in the late 1970s and gained great impact on the presidencies of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, sen. Of course, the notorious issue of abortion was addressed in this film. This was fairly interesting, but it was merely the starting point from were my thoughts took off.
We all know of the WASP phenomenon. For decades (if not centuries) there has been one requirement every American politican had to fulfill in order to have a great career: He had to be a White Anglo Saxon Protestant. JFK was the first and only non-protestant President of the US. Well, he was catholic.
It seems to me that today the denonination is not that important anymore. But in order to be successful, one still needs to portray the image of piety. Hence all kinds of Christian rhetoric is found in political speeches.
This is extremely interesting because of the fact that in no other western democracy state and church are so clearly seperated institutionally. I mean, there are no religion classes in school, for example. The tolerance of other religions is much greater than overhere in Germany. An Organisation like Scientology is considered a sect here, in America it is a church.
So despite of this obvious freedom of religion, every politician needs to address God and Christian belief. Whenever the feeling of patriotism needs to be addressed you won't have to wait for a long time until God's blessing will be mentioned. Even on dollar bills Amercia portrays its christianity: In God we trust.
Generally, there seems to be a feeling that America is God's own country.
Why?
Actually, the bible says that the Jews are God's chosen people. Well, Jesus was a Jew. It seems logical from that point of view. Why America? Probably because of the founding fathers. Every school kid in the US learns how they came to this country in order to live in freedom. That they came to America because of the intolerance in England.
My HIS 212 (American Culture) prof at WMU put it differently. They came over the Atlantic because THEY were intolerant. They came because they were christian fanatics.
Maybe this explains why patriotism has been connected to religion in the US from early on. At least the founding fathers were the first WASPs.
In times of war, God seems to be referred to even more often than usual. Clearly, God wants Hussein to be removed from power. Does he?
Is America God's tool to create and preserve world peace? Is war the Christian way to achieve such things?
The pope disagrees. In the middle ages it was the papacy who called for crusades. Now it is calling for peace.
This war in Iraq is clearly not motivated by religion (at least for the coalition troops). Still there is this Christian rhetoric. Why does America want God as an ally in this war?
Pacifists are not taken seriously, these days. They are seen as naive idealists, far away from the brutal reality of the world.
That may be true. However, Jesus was a pacifist. How can any Christian believe that God could justify war? Apparently, more bible study groups are neccessary, especially in the White House.
While I have been aware of this connection for quite some time, yesterday I gave special thought to this issue. I watched a documentary about the "new religious right" which formed in the US in the late 1970s and gained great impact on the presidencies of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, sen. Of course, the notorious issue of abortion was addressed in this film. This was fairly interesting, but it was merely the starting point from were my thoughts took off.
We all know of the WASP phenomenon. For decades (if not centuries) there has been one requirement every American politican had to fulfill in order to have a great career: He had to be a White Anglo Saxon Protestant. JFK was the first and only non-protestant President of the US. Well, he was catholic.
It seems to me that today the denonination is not that important anymore. But in order to be successful, one still needs to portray the image of piety. Hence all kinds of Christian rhetoric is found in political speeches.
This is extremely interesting because of the fact that in no other western democracy state and church are so clearly seperated institutionally. I mean, there are no religion classes in school, for example. The tolerance of other religions is much greater than overhere in Germany. An Organisation like Scientology is considered a sect here, in America it is a church.
So despite of this obvious freedom of religion, every politician needs to address God and Christian belief. Whenever the feeling of patriotism needs to be addressed you won't have to wait for a long time until God's blessing will be mentioned. Even on dollar bills Amercia portrays its christianity: In God we trust.
Generally, there seems to be a feeling that America is God's own country.
Why?
Actually, the bible says that the Jews are God's chosen people. Well, Jesus was a Jew. It seems logical from that point of view. Why America? Probably because of the founding fathers. Every school kid in the US learns how they came to this country in order to live in freedom. That they came to America because of the intolerance in England.
My HIS 212 (American Culture) prof at WMU put it differently. They came over the Atlantic because THEY were intolerant. They came because they were christian fanatics.
Maybe this explains why patriotism has been connected to religion in the US from early on. At least the founding fathers were the first WASPs.
In times of war, God seems to be referred to even more often than usual. Clearly, God wants Hussein to be removed from power. Does he?
Is America God's tool to create and preserve world peace? Is war the Christian way to achieve such things?
The pope disagrees. In the middle ages it was the papacy who called for crusades. Now it is calling for peace.
This war in Iraq is clearly not motivated by religion (at least for the coalition troops). Still there is this Christian rhetoric. Why does America want God as an ally in this war?
Pacifists are not taken seriously, these days. They are seen as naive idealists, far away from the brutal reality of the world.
That may be true. However, Jesus was a pacifist. How can any Christian believe that God could justify war? Apparently, more bible study groups are neccessary, especially in the White House.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Some signs of hope to end this war quickly?
Well, yesterday I expressed my pessimism about the overall outcome of this war. Militarily, it will be a victory for the coalition, however costly it may be. My concern was about the effect this war might have on the Middle East region.
Today, some news indicate that the Iraqi population may not unite in defense. We can not know for sure, but at least british information suggests that there is some kind of an uprising in Basra against the iraqi forces.
Noone can confirm that, yet, because the coalition is not in Basra. Maybe there is an uprising, maybe not. Maybe there was a revolt but iraqi troops ended it. We don't know.
Troops are advancing fast towards Bagdad, that is encouraging. Only the sandstorm seems to slow down the advance. Two things concern me, though.
1. pictures of thousands of Iraqis living in Jordan who come back home in order to fight.
2. the valiance and courage that Iraqi troops show near Bagdad.
Referring to my first point: These people in Jordan can watch Jordan TV. They are not limited to Iraqi propaganda. They decide to go back home to defend Iraq. This may be an indication of the effect that this war has on the arabic world, in general. Although most arab governments side with the coalition, their population seems to side with Saddam.
Referring to my second point: I watched CNN about an hour ago. An embedded journalist reported out of the sandstorm close to Bagdad. He said that this storm makes it impossible to advance. On the positive side it makes you basically invisible, as well. He reported that one can see only about the next 40 meters.
Still the convoy was under attack from Iraqi vehicles. The Iraqis were shooting with their machine guns at the tanks. The bullets cannot penetrate the tanks. Still Iraqis kept attacking. Their attack was cut down by the convoy. Basically Iraqi troops didn't have a chance. They were coming in pick up trucks!! The reporter was amazed by the outstanding courage of the attackers. He mentioned that twice in his 90 second statement.
So if the morale of iraqi troops is really that good, then guerilla warfare may trouble this country for a long time even after Bagdad is secured. Also, the main battles are still ahead, I think. Bagdad will probably be heavily guarded.
Unfortunately, I cannot quote the source, but yesterday a german news station reported that according to US military experts the fight for bagdad may cost the US 3000 lives.
For a war, this is a small number. But it is significant, nonetheless. I am not sure if the American public has been prepared for that.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
The war in Iraq is affecting our daily lives. It sure affects mine. I am watching more of the news lately. Unfortunately, I get three different opinions by watching three different stations.
CNN basically suggests that all is well. German news stations are reporting on much heavier resistance than the invading troops may have expected. The BBC has been kind of vague on this lately.
CNN basically suggests that all is well. German news stations are reporting on much heavier resistance than the invading troops may have expected. The BBC has been kind of vague on this lately.
However, it seems to me that the media is beginning to realize now, that there will be little cheering and more bullets waiting for the "coalition forces".
As sad as this is, I wonder why the American public is surprised about it. How could anyone expect Saddam's troops to surrender just like that? No matter if his troops like Saddam or not, they love their country. Therefore, they defend it against invasion. It seems like CNN is slowly adjusting its news coverage, gently preparing the public for more and more casualties. Basra, the city which was claimed to by under coalition control about three days ago, is now a military target. What about the inhabitants? They are as civilian as they were yesterday. It has been naive to think they would welcome invading forces. The Shiites there feel decieved by the US for not supporting them in their struggle with Hussein in 1991.
We were lead to believe that this war would be one of little civilian casualties. Also, we were lead to believe that this war would be swift and welcomed by the people of Iraq. That prooves to be far from accurate, right now. The strategy apparently underestimated Iraq. There is no point in complaining about the guerilla warfare tactics, Iraq apllies. If you face an invasion and are relatively ill-equipped the Geneva convention becomes less of a priority. The Iraqi army is pulling back into towns and wearing civilian clothes... well, this is the only strategy Iraq can take apart from surrendering or dieing. The Iraqi army would lose terribly in the open desert. In towns, the technological advantage of the US/GB forces is not as important. Also, by bringing the war to the towns and cities, Iraq achieves an objective that might be crucial to the overall success of the war. Iraq is uniting its people against "invaders". The reason is obvious. In order to defeat Saddam's fighters harder strikes will be neccessary. Strikes on towns, on cities, therefore also on civilians. Take some pictures of parents crying for their children into the equasion and you get a mood of hatred towards America. Eventually Iraq will be defeated militarily. But isn't the goal of this war to fight, weaken and defeat terrorism?: Didn't Mr. Bush set this goal? This war is about to increase muslim terrorsim. Already, violent outbursts erupt in other arabic countries. The population of the arabic world (except in Kuwait) sides with Saddam. This is sad, but it was to be expected. There are many reasons to be against this war. Some of them are connected to pacifism. I understand that the "hawks" won't agree on them. But what about the current situation? Isn't this war increasing the threat of terrorism? I am so surprised that "hawks" did not follow this argument and opposed war on this ground. I oppose the war because I think it will not help to achieve the ultimate goal: the defeat of terorism.
The bottom line is, we can expect many more casualties in the comnig days and weeks, soldiers and civilians. The American public has not been ready for that. It feels like cheap propaganda to declare Basra a military target now. Now, we have to bomb the people we are coming to liberate. Let's face it: the American strategy to win the people is going to fail. Just before the war started, Mr Bush said that this war could help to achieve long lasting peace in the region and help to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict.
It may be, however that the exact opposite will happen: the whole region in chaos and new waves of terrorism rolling...
I am not very optimistic, right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
