Operation Save America
I am so conflicted about this organization. I get so indignant when I read about the things they are doing -- their actions are totally and hideously inappropriate to me. They violate every aspect of respect, consideration, compassion and tolerance. They were the ones shouting at Ven. Rajan Zedji as mentioned in Rori's post, and they also are engaged in many similar campaigns.
Take this one for example: the "God is Going Back to School" campaign. OSA went to Harding High School in Bridgeport, CT on Friday Sept. 22, 2006. In their article on this action, they talk about how they passed out literature, Holy Bibles, wristbands and other tracts, and how "Each student had to go in through these front doors. We had access to about two thousand kids in forty-five minutes time."
The way this sounds, it seems like the only reason anyone listened to them or payed attention was because they HAD to; students weren't necessarily interested in their message, but because they had to go to school, they were forced to pass through the OSA crowd. Of course, they only mention the kids who love them and praise their efforts, and not the ones that tell them where to go, if you know what I mean.
I remember going to school in Rochester, NY, and having to walk through swarms of people holding up posters with huge images of aborted babies yelling slogans at us. Then at the end of the day, having to get on the RTS buses to go home, we had to do the same thing all over again.
As a future educator, though, what disturbs me most is what they say at the top of this webpage: "We are never more effective than when we take the battle to the very gates of hell -- the public school." I wonder, is it because public schools don't teach students to be intolerant of other religions, or to go out and heckle those who think and pray differently? Is that why they are the "gates of hell"? Or is it because public schools don't teach that "Jesus is the standard"? I hope to teach in these public schools, because I believe in them, and because I am largely a product of public schooling. The only sentiments of cynicism I might have toward public schools would come out of the last year and a half of research I've done on the No Child Left Behind Act.
I was talking to my roommate last night, and he wrote off OSA as fanatical lunatics, and I must admit, it's easy to do that. And while I couldn't disagree more with these people, I have to still accept that they are doing what they believe in. This is why I am conflicted. I want to write them off, too...and so badly, because they make me so furious. But they are entitled to say and do what they will, as long as it does not impinge on the rights of others. (To this extent, their ruthless action in Washington D.C. on the 12th is reeeeeally pushing it.) And as a part of RFP-USA, I am obliged to respect their religious sentiments, so long as they remain peaceful, even if I personally think they are totally betraying the tolerant teachings of Jesus Christ.
Argh.
5 Comments:
At 10:43 AM,
Alicia Allison said…
I understand what you are trying to say. However, I don't know if the word "respect" is the right one to use. Maybe tolerant would be a better word.
And they are entitled to say what they believe, but I really wonder that if these "christian extremist" groups in America could get away with it, they might in fact become more violent.
At 11:00 AM,
Rori Picker said…
Will and Alicia, you are getting into some really heavy questions here. Questions I am not sure any of us can answer here.
Where does hate speech fall into free speech? Where does your freedom begin to infringe upon my freedom? Can you freedom of speech override my freedom of religion? Does my freedom of religion demand that I infringe upon your freedom of religion? And the hardest question for me, do I have the right to say that your religion is wrong if it tells you to infringe upon my religion?
It is something we all have to grapple with, and will continue to grapple with, especially in the interfaith movement. We cannot pick and choose who counts as a member of a religion and who does not. I am disgusted by the actions of the members of Operation Save America, yet I cannot say they are not Christians. And if we wish to engage in a dialogue with Christians, do I need to include them as well? And if I do not include them, then is the dialogue simply a chat between people I have chosen and inherently not a real dialogue? And in that case, will we never make progress, and will my mission have failed before it has begun? And yet, if we decide then that we need to include such individuals at the table of dialogue, we open an entirely new Pandora's Box. If dialogue is discussion and not debate, respect and tolerance, then if we include them at our table, will our mission again be forced to fail?
If any of you have figured out any of these answers, please call me immediately. I think we all need to hear them...
At 4:57 PM,
Alicia Allison said…
To add to Rori's list of very good questions, do we think about/treat/react to "extremist" groups in each religion in the same way.
At 8:20 PM,
Will Brideau said…
I think these kinds of questions are great for propelling informed views and ideas about religion and its role/place in society. I really don't think that any of them have "an answer," but rather 7 billion answers -- one for each person. I'm dead serious about the world being simply (or not so simply) a collision of perspectives.
I have to believe that everyone internalizes religious fundamentalism/extremism in totally different ways, and the very definitions of words like "fundamentalist" and "extremist" are very precarious, and ultimately subjective. For this same reason, I become incredibly irate whenever I hear George Bush talk about the "War on Terror" as a fight between good and evil...such dichotomies are not only subjective, but also misleading and painfully simplistic.
This in mind, we see that even the language that we use can take on many different meanings, even unstable and confusing ones. For example, the words 'dialogue' and 'discussion' aren't necessarily synonymous. The 'cussion' in 'discussion' etymologically shares a root with 'procussion,' suggesting a more explosive, heated or conflicted way of speaking with another; dialogue presents a more tranquil mode of communication.
But that's not really what's at heart here.
Good point on respect vs. tolerance.
As far as the interfaith mission...I honestly think it might be a lost cause when it comes to organizations like OSA. They don't seem receptive to any amount of dialogue or openness, because right from the outset, if you think or believe differently from them, they see you as wrong, and themselves as right. And no one should be cajoled or forced into interfaith beliefs...that wouldn't be genuine or honest, and furthermore, the people doing the coercing would be guilty of precisely the same intolerance the coerced practice.
I don't presume to have all the answers...but I think these questions beg our persistent consideration, whether or not consensus is feasible.
"Ah, a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
At 2:14 PM,
Margaret Fuller said…
I find this discussion on OSA very interesting, because it makes me question how I perceive OSA, from my own Christian perspective. I think the best way of expressing what I think of them is "misguided Christians." I'm not going to say that they're NOT Christians, because who am I to say if they are or not? That kind of judgment is only in God's "jurisdiction." However, I do believe that they're misguided in a lot of their beliefs and practices, which is truly unfortunate.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home