Over the past couple of weeks, our lunchtime discussions have often included the newest news and updates about the Mosque on Ground Zero. Basically, the remaining members of the United Notions believe that those building (or more accurately, renovating) the community center have rights to be there. And then an article came out that some found insightful.
These are my thoughts on the matter:
Hmmm. I can see what Krauthammer is saying, and I think that, on some level, he has a point. I liked the following section, especially:
“America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.”
It is true that we can’t build whatever we want wherever we want. And there are lots of reasons (whether they be financial, environmental, or otherwise) why we can’t build.
I guess my problem, then, lies with the idea of hallowed ground. Maybe I just lack the reverence that I should have for a piece of land where something happened. That could definitely be true. I mean, I understand why there isn’t a “commercial tower over Gettysburg” or a “convent at Auschwitz,” but I don’t necessarily see those pieces of dirt as hallowed. I’m not sure that the land itself is holy and sacred.
And that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in memorials; I do. Absolutely. I think we should remember people who died and respect their memories. But that doesn’t mean, to me, that construction, prayer, entertainment, eating, or whatever else should necessarily be halted on that acreage. It seems like a lot of land would just go to waste and a lot of living souls could not thrive because they are concerned about where something horrible took place.
And to take a step back even farther, it seems like there have been so many horrible things happen in the world’s history that most places we live on should be considered hallowed, by Krauthammer’s estimation. I don’t mean to diminish what happened on 9/11, but is it really so different than other horrible, awful acts that people have committed in the past x-thousand years?
Now I know a lot of this is moot – since it isn’t even a mosque and it isn’t even on Ground Zero. But I felt compelled to put in my two cents about the article that both Pat and Scott seemed to believe has the most compelling argument for why the community center should not be built. It looks like the anti- folks need to go back to the drawing board.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Insecure about Responsibility
Pat brought in an interesting article for discussion today. After reviewing retirement plans, Roth IRAs, social security, and the values we put on today's experiences versus saving for retirement, I felt like I had a better understanding of social security, and I am interested in re-evaluating my perspectives on the issue. You see, I have only been introduced to these issues by means of my parents, who, as far as I know, believe that it is an individual's responsibility to plan for retirement and not rely on the government to supply checks to cover the costs of living (mortgages, health care, medications, food, and any extras). Then again, I assume that everyone who has paid into social security wants to get paid, so I guess my understanding of my parents' politics/practices might be cloudier than I originally thought. Regardless, I will continue to think about where I stand on this interesting topic, especially since I a) want to be taken care of in my old age, b) don't want to wait until I am 65 to start living, and c) dislike that I am currently in the red as far as my retirement investments go.
I welcome thoughts about this topic, especially because I find myself wavering about personal vs. government responsibility.
After this discussion, Scott showed us a video about a climber named Ryan McDermott who scaled Stoert's Ridge in under 10 minutes. It was pretty amazing. No ropes, no climbing equipment, no belayer.
It was then that Scott asked if McDermott would be responsible if someone attempted to beat his time and ended up perishing in the attempt. Both Pat and I shared a gut response: heck no. But I think all of us agree that if that did happen, McDermott might be justified in feeling bad about it, even if he wasn't responsible for it.
Immediately, I was reminded of a discussion that I had as an undergrad regarding whether authors were responsible for the actions of their characters, the ideas that they communicate, the ideologies they spread. I remember that the original conversation started with whether a mystery or horror author could be held responsible for a murder committed by his/her reader, and it turned into something larger. We talked about an author's responsibility in the spreading of ideas - ideas of revolution, ideas of strength, ideas of hate and violence, ideas of love. The topic got big pretty quick.
And then my mind jumped to discussions that I have had recently regarding video games and their effects on gamers. In my arguments, I have cited the Bobo doll experiment where children who saw violence were more likely to exhibit violent behavior, and I have previously placed responsibility on both parents and video game makers (and raters) for the effects they have on the development of children. I have also argued that violent, racist, and misogynistic games are harmful to society; they normalize those ideologies, make light of them, make them entertaining. In the past, I have put responsibility (and blame) on video game makers (and movie makers who do the same thing).
And then there's the media. The media plays a huge role in how people think and act (I don't think I need to cite examples here), and I would say that it definitely has a responsibility to its public. I think the media shapes us - how we feel about different races and countries (and therefore where we want to put our money), how we feel about war (and therefore where we put our lives), how we feel about gender, sexual orientation, and age (and how we treat those people at home, in the workplace, and in our churches). And all of these feelings affect our votes and our day-to-day interactions on both a conscious and subconscious level. Huge responsibility.
So I guess what I am working though right now is where responsibility lies. Why do I hold the media and video game companies responsible more than McDermott and authors like Stephen King? If each of the examples that I have given inspire people to think and act in different ways (and, in fact, put people - themselves or others - in harm's way), then why do I not see them equally?
Perhaps it has something to do with my own values (for instance, I don't like video games but I do like books). Perhaps it has something to do with our (liberal Americans'?) propensity to hate big organizations (huge, rich corporations) and like the little guy. Maybe I am just inconsistent and need to re-evaluate where responsibility should lie.
I'm obviously still working through this and welcome any comments or further ponderings on the topic.
I welcome thoughts about this topic, especially because I find myself wavering about personal vs. government responsibility.
After this discussion, Scott showed us a video about a climber named Ryan McDermott who scaled Stoert's Ridge in under 10 minutes. It was pretty amazing. No ropes, no climbing equipment, no belayer.
It was then that Scott asked if McDermott would be responsible if someone attempted to beat his time and ended up perishing in the attempt. Both Pat and I shared a gut response: heck no. But I think all of us agree that if that did happen, McDermott might be justified in feeling bad about it, even if he wasn't responsible for it.
Immediately, I was reminded of a discussion that I had as an undergrad regarding whether authors were responsible for the actions of their characters, the ideas that they communicate, the ideologies they spread. I remember that the original conversation started with whether a mystery or horror author could be held responsible for a murder committed by his/her reader, and it turned into something larger. We talked about an author's responsibility in the spreading of ideas - ideas of revolution, ideas of strength, ideas of hate and violence, ideas of love. The topic got big pretty quick.
And then my mind jumped to discussions that I have had recently regarding video games and their effects on gamers. In my arguments, I have cited the Bobo doll experiment where children who saw violence were more likely to exhibit violent behavior, and I have previously placed responsibility on both parents and video game makers (and raters) for the effects they have on the development of children. I have also argued that violent, racist, and misogynistic games are harmful to society; they normalize those ideologies, make light of them, make them entertaining. In the past, I have put responsibility (and blame) on video game makers (and movie makers who do the same thing).
And then there's the media. The media plays a huge role in how people think and act (I don't think I need to cite examples here), and I would say that it definitely has a responsibility to its public. I think the media shapes us - how we feel about different races and countries (and therefore where we want to put our money), how we feel about war (and therefore where we put our lives), how we feel about gender, sexual orientation, and age (and how we treat those people at home, in the workplace, and in our churches). And all of these feelings affect our votes and our day-to-day interactions on both a conscious and subconscious level. Huge responsibility.
So I guess what I am working though right now is where responsibility lies. Why do I hold the media and video game companies responsible more than McDermott and authors like Stephen King? If each of the examples that I have given inspire people to think and act in different ways (and, in fact, put people - themselves or others - in harm's way), then why do I not see them equally?
Perhaps it has something to do with my own values (for instance, I don't like video games but I do like books). Perhaps it has something to do with our (liberal Americans'?) propensity to hate big organizations (huge, rich corporations) and like the little guy. Maybe I am just inconsistent and need to re-evaluate where responsibility should lie.
I'm obviously still working through this and welcome any comments or further ponderings on the topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
