Letters to the Editor
Buffalonian
Published Letters: 371 Editor's Choice: 74
-
Shakee:
[Read the article: "Amazing Grace"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't mean to question or condemn the religious based motives of anyone per se. I believe Christianity has served as a motivation for some of the world's greatest reformers and equally for some of its greatest villains. Slave owners, after all, justified themselves quite easily by pointing to the numerous statements supportive of slavery in both Testaments.
My view is that there were more genuinely motivated players in this drama than Wilberforce, namely the Quakers who were the guiding force behind the movement and most especially Thomas Clarke.
Moreover, my point about self-centrism is that it is inherently dangerous as a motivational strategy. You are right that I do think that self-centered people's "motives and good deeds are less pure because they only do it to save their souls."
I am more comfortable with someone who is motivated by empathy for others rather than self-interest. Wilberforce could feel sorry for slaves, but consistently opposed labor organizing which would eventually do so much to help the poor in England. Wilberforce's egoism didn't permit him to identify or empathize with the 6 year old working in a coal mine in Wales and therefore backed business interests his whole career to the detriment of the poor.
MLK was moved to try to right the wrongs of segregation by his religion. He also eventually saw that he could not protest the oppression of African Americans without also protesting American policies in Vietnam. They were part and parcel of his Christian world view.
In contrast, fundamentalists today can treasure the life of the unborn so much that they shoot doctors or blow up clinics or support a man who has unleashed death across the middle east for personal profit and vendettas.
So, in the end, I trust and respect people who do what I consider to be the right thing more when it is for selfless reasons or because they simply support the equality of all members of the human race. This is not simply a 'secular progressive' position, it is also my position as a practicing Christian dedicated to Jesus' vision of peace, social justice and the brotherhood of all humakind.
You are certainly entitled to personally not care about the motivations of Wilberforce. As a professional historian however, I am concerned that we undermine any sort of hagiography and that we look at historical people as the imperfect and venial beings that we all are and always have been. Wilberforce wasn't a saint. He was a man who did some good things and some awful things. To me, that's much more interesting.
-
One more thought...
[Read the article: "Amazing Grace"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just wanted to add that perhaps the difference is akin to what Catholic dogma teaches about confession of sins.
If a Catholic confesses and repents of his sin because he doesn't want to go to hell, that's okay and the sin is forgiven, but it is an imperfect confession because it was motivated by fear of punishment.
In contrast, if one commits a sin and repents because it was wrong and was offensive to God, that's better. It is not simply fear of punishment, but it's one's love of God and humanity (as God's creations) that motivates. That is a perfect confession.
So maybe my whole take on it should be blamed on Sr. Margaret in the 7th grade for explaining Catholic dogma to me in this manner.
-
Cui Bono?
[Read the article: Is "Howard Kurtz" a software program?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The question that should be asked is who benefits from the presence of these comments? The rabid right. If they didn't exist, they would have to plant them. And perhaps some of them were planted by trolls in disguise.
What I don't understand is why when this is brought up, the representatives of the left don't simply have a cache of equally vile things said on neocon boards or blogs or radio transcripts? It is not like they're in short supply.
Everytime Kurtz or Malin says something, shouldn't the question be "How do you feel about Frank Gaffney's call for the execution of US Congressmen?" and then not let them off the hook until they either answer or denounce him.
-
Rock Stars and Generation X
[Read the article: Did Gen X kill the rock star?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was born in 1970, which puts me smack dab in the middle of Gen X or right at the end, depending on who does the counting.
First of all, the whole notion of a "generation" is a ridiculous concept with no inherent meaning. remember: we were the wannabe yuppies/Alex Keatons of the world in the 1980s who had turned our backs on our parents' hippy idealism and then when the economy went south, we became the slacker/Ethan Hawke character in Reality Bites, although two years previously we were lumped together as the Ben Stiller character.
Kurt Cobain wasn't the voice of a generation. he was the voice of a fad that was marketed to nth degree by MTV. Wow, isn't Kurt cool to wear a "corporate rock magazines suck" tshirt on the cover of Rolling Stone! The irony is so deep! We must be so together and smart to get it.
On rock stars, eh, fuck 'em. Who needs them? The last stadium show I went to was in about 1995, and I should have stopped 2 or 3 years previously, I just wasn't smart enough to realize it at the time. Really, is there anything more contrived and soulless than a stadium show, which seem to be a prereq for rock stars? I can't imagine it.
Good riddance. Maybe I'm just old, but i'd prefer to sit around with three friends and our crappy guitar skills, singing off tune and drinking beer than spend a penny to go watch a concert where I can either see that tiny speck on the stage or watch him in technicolor on the jumbotron. no thanks.