(no subject)

[sue_n_julia]

The news this week has really gotten me thinking. Topics include:

• Can you detest the behavior and policies of a country without being a bigot?



I believe so -- otherwise, I am anti-Anglo (as that's the closest ethnicity I can think of for the USA). I think ethnicity and nationality are quite separate things and shouldn't ever be confused.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a popular point of view where Israel is concerned. But not all Israelis are Jewish. Many are Palestinian and others are Arab. So, does deploring the policies and actions of the Israeli govenment mean I am anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab? No!

I do oppose the Israeli policies toward Palestinian and Arab citizens and residents. I think they are grossly unfair and create an underclass within a nominally democratic country. The USA went through that stage and the civil rights movement brought us out of it (mostly, but not quite totally). That doesn't make me anti-Semitic, just a rational thinking individual.



• Should NASA start changing its mental health evaluations to be ongoing for its astronauts because of the incident with Lisa Nowak?



I think we should wait for the jury to decide if she did anything. All the discussion is "did NASA miss anything" while forgetting that she hasn't been tried and found guilty! What if she's found innocent!!!! The news outlets seem to have forgotten that people are tried by a jury, not by the media. I think there is something about this story that isn't making sense -- we haven't heard the whole story yet. And until we do, any action is premature.

Now, should NASA consider implementing ongoing mental health evaluations for astronauts anyway? Probably -- after all, we don't really know what the potential effects of the pressure-cooker training program, the uncertainty about surviving any launch, and the intermittent deprivation of being on the planet can do.



• Should the religion of a candidate affect my vote? Conversely, should we be concerned with the religion of a candidate?



We have a country based on the philosophy of freedom of religion. Not that the Christian-right would have you think so. They are screaming about Mitt Romney as a Mormon running for president. I've heard one reporter state that there is a concern that he might try proselytizing from the Oval Office. Hmm, and Bush prating about his deeply held religious views doesn't -- especially when he talks about how God is with him? Maybe we shouldn't vote for any presidential candidate that holds any religious view out where we can see it.

Anyway, this has made for some heavy thinking this week.

S

Comments

[sister-devora.livejournal.com]

Actually, John Leland had this to say:

“Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion in choosing representatives. It is electioneering intrigue. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick dispatch characterize the men of your choice.”

http://blog.au.org/2007/02/02/dishonoring-john-leland-baptists-give-religious-liberty-award-to-bush/

[cellio]

I don't think opposing Israel makes one anti-semitic, any more than opposing Saudi Arabia makes one anti-Arab.

I'd much rather have a leader who's open about his religion; you know what you're getting that way. It's the subtler twisting of national policy that's worrisome.