You want, if possible – and there is no more insane “if possible” – to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it – that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible – that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? - Friedrich Nietzsche
I was watching the World Series tonight and thinking on the concept of suffering. In the 7th inning, as the Texas Rangers jumped out to a 7:4 lead, the camera panned to shots of the Cardinal faithful. They were hanging on to the last vestiges of hope – a fervent wish that their team would somehow, someway triumph. Afterwards, I saw the Rangers’ fans, with the look of utter shock and dismay, desperately seeking an answer to two blown leads and ultimately, a loss. I asked myself, where is the constructive benefit of that suffering to those fans?
As a teacher, I’m in a strange position. My job is to push my students beyond their preconceived limits to reach new heights. In order to do this, there is a certain amount of suffering that comes into play. Every year, I have those students who relish in the suffering and come through at the end. Then, I have those students who are repelled by any difficulty in their studies, but search it constantly, even contrive it, in their daily lives. I’m left with a group of students who live on drama and suffering, not as a tool to overcome it but as a way of wallowing in it. Seldom is the suffering over anything of importance, certainly not in the long run.
I’m charged with trying to teach the importance of suffering as a way of enduring, as Nietzsche would later explain. My subject is history and its greatest value is placing our lives in context. However, if I cannot convince students to endure a bit of suffering that some perceive in studying history, they can never appreciate nor fully understand what could exist on the other side of effort and stress. Without going through the distress of pushing through a difficult historical or mathematical concept, they will never truly value its importance. For Nietzsche, the suffering creates a moment of clarity and one that defines character.
Suffering and its importance is seen beyond Western ideals and more than the musings of controversial German philosophers. The humanity of Jesus was tied to his suffering – his time spent in the desert was meant to be a trial, a test. His ability to endure the suffering, the temptation was a part of his identity and his connection to man. Suffering also connects us to our fellow man. Can we truly be a sympathetic people without having a frame of reference with regard to other’s tribulations? To the Buddhists, there is a belief that the idea of suffering is one to overcome in order to achieve happiness. The ability to endure and to overcome suffering is the path towards enlightenment.
And so, my thoughts return to those fans. If they are true fans and not bandwagoners, they know the history of their team. The Cardinal fan understands what it means to see their team struggle, scrimp and scratch their way to a World Series – the ultimate baseball prize. For the Ranger fan, they know the decades of futility and unfulfilled hope. They know their history and they know suffering. For the Cardinal fan, they know the reward such suffering can bring. The Ranger fan is yet to know but is there not a lesson from which everyone can learn? Tomorrow, my students will talk about it but will they truly understand it? We, as adults, have an obligation to impress upon our young the lesson of Nietzsche – the notion of suffering and the character it creates.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Need for a New (Albeit Modified) Ataturk
In the wake of World War I, the Ottoman Empire was wiped from the pages of history for its supporting role of the Central Powers. As a result, the Allies sought their own piece of the Turkish dinosaur. France and Great Britain carved up the old Fertile Crescent along the lines of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), with the British overseeing much of Iraq, Jordan and Palestine and the French overseeing Syria and Lebanon, as well as portions of modern-day Turkey. Meanwhile, the Italians and Greeks made a grab for land around Constantinople. However, from the Turkish military sector emerged a skilled commander named Mustafa Kemal, known in history as Ataturk.
Throughout the early 1920s, Ataturk pushed back the Greek forces, including ethnic Greeks who had settled in Turkish territories. He then pushed through a series of reforms that were considered fairly radical. He implemented a new Latin alphabet and allowed women to have the right to vote. But, his most daring set of reforms was the secularization of Turkey. He went after religious orders and nationalized property held by religious organizations. In the schools of the new country, a secular curriculum was put in place and Sharia law was replaced with one modeled after Western Europe. Islam was delegitimized as a governing force and symbols of the faith, notably the veil, were outlawed. In his efforts, Ataturk was brutal and unrelenting, particularly towards the Kurds, but he was able to reverse centuries of historical precedent to bring stability and democracy to a country possessing little experience with either. In the aftermath, Ataturk, who died in 1938, became a national hero.
Today, Turkey has Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A far cry from Ataturk (except, sadly, his attitude towards the Kurds), he has recently brought Turkey to the point of conflict at various levels. He seems to be going out of his way to destabilize the region. First, he is operating under the false impression that he does not need Europe – saying the continent needs him more. This is seen in the widening gulf between the European Union and Turkey over admission of the latter into the former. Turkey’s economy is extraordinary but I wonder what would happen if some European countries revoked the guest worker program and forced hundreds of thousands of unemployed Turkish nationals to their native land (there are two million in Germany alone)? I don’t foresee countries doing that but I can see an end to the program. This would be a new weight on the Turkish economy that could undermine Mr. Erdogan’s policies.
Second, Mr. Erdogan is pursuing policies that could endanger the fragile stability in the entire region with two cases in particular – Cyprus and Israel. Of concern to the EU is his refusal of any Greek-Cypriot ships to enter Turkish waters or ports. Perhaps, Mr. Erdogan feels his country’s economy does not need their products but the actions seem to be based more on purposefully antagonizing Greek Cyprus on simply historical grounds. The resulting increase in tensions is avoidable. Yet, as problematic as the Cyprus situation is, it does not measure up to his stance on Israel.
The prime minister was the former mayor of Istanbul and is the head of the Justice and Development Party (AK), an Islamist party that has led some to fear, particularly when he came to power in 2003, of an ebbing of Turkey’s secular traditions. While his rule has not suggested an obliteration of said traditions, his stance with Israel seems a ploy to cater to his base. Israel has the right to protect its borders and inspect anything coming into its territorial waters. The fact that the flotilla advocates, a group attempting to run the blockade Israel has on shipments to Gaza, refuse to have their cargo inspected suggests the worst and has nothing to do with the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. They are the ploy and the flotilla, a Trojan horse. While the U.S. has encouraged Mr. Erdogan to ease back on the stance with regards to Israel, he has escalated by suggesting the next flotilla attempt would be protected by Turkish ships. Whether or not this is bluster, (the New York Times once referred to him as a “hothead,”) the implications are the same.
Ataturk, while progressive at home, was aware of the importance of good relations with his neighbors. His active role within the League of Nations (a precursor to the United Nations), his partnership within the Balkan Entente (1934) and his non-aggression agreement with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan in the Saadabad Pact (1937) shows his understanding of the importance of regional stability. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown the opposite. While conditions within the country have ameliorated since his ascension to the prime ministership, the same cannot be said beyond. Let us hope he is a student of history. If not, I fear for the region.
Throughout the early 1920s, Ataturk pushed back the Greek forces, including ethnic Greeks who had settled in Turkish territories. He then pushed through a series of reforms that were considered fairly radical. He implemented a new Latin alphabet and allowed women to have the right to vote. But, his most daring set of reforms was the secularization of Turkey. He went after religious orders and nationalized property held by religious organizations. In the schools of the new country, a secular curriculum was put in place and Sharia law was replaced with one modeled after Western Europe. Islam was delegitimized as a governing force and symbols of the faith, notably the veil, were outlawed. In his efforts, Ataturk was brutal and unrelenting, particularly towards the Kurds, but he was able to reverse centuries of historical precedent to bring stability and democracy to a country possessing little experience with either. In the aftermath, Ataturk, who died in 1938, became a national hero.
Today, Turkey has Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A far cry from Ataturk (except, sadly, his attitude towards the Kurds), he has recently brought Turkey to the point of conflict at various levels. He seems to be going out of his way to destabilize the region. First, he is operating under the false impression that he does not need Europe – saying the continent needs him more. This is seen in the widening gulf between the European Union and Turkey over admission of the latter into the former. Turkey’s economy is extraordinary but I wonder what would happen if some European countries revoked the guest worker program and forced hundreds of thousands of unemployed Turkish nationals to their native land (there are two million in Germany alone)? I don’t foresee countries doing that but I can see an end to the program. This would be a new weight on the Turkish economy that could undermine Mr. Erdogan’s policies.
Second, Mr. Erdogan is pursuing policies that could endanger the fragile stability in the entire region with two cases in particular – Cyprus and Israel. Of concern to the EU is his refusal of any Greek-Cypriot ships to enter Turkish waters or ports. Perhaps, Mr. Erdogan feels his country’s economy does not need their products but the actions seem to be based more on purposefully antagonizing Greek Cyprus on simply historical grounds. The resulting increase in tensions is avoidable. Yet, as problematic as the Cyprus situation is, it does not measure up to his stance on Israel.
The prime minister was the former mayor of Istanbul and is the head of the Justice and Development Party (AK), an Islamist party that has led some to fear, particularly when he came to power in 2003, of an ebbing of Turkey’s secular traditions. While his rule has not suggested an obliteration of said traditions, his stance with Israel seems a ploy to cater to his base. Israel has the right to protect its borders and inspect anything coming into its territorial waters. The fact that the flotilla advocates, a group attempting to run the blockade Israel has on shipments to Gaza, refuse to have their cargo inspected suggests the worst and has nothing to do with the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. They are the ploy and the flotilla, a Trojan horse. While the U.S. has encouraged Mr. Erdogan to ease back on the stance with regards to Israel, he has escalated by suggesting the next flotilla attempt would be protected by Turkish ships. Whether or not this is bluster, (the New York Times once referred to him as a “hothead,”) the implications are the same.
Ataturk, while progressive at home, was aware of the importance of good relations with his neighbors. His active role within the League of Nations (a precursor to the United Nations), his partnership within the Balkan Entente (1934) and his non-aggression agreement with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan in the Saadabad Pact (1937) shows his understanding of the importance of regional stability. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown the opposite. While conditions within the country have ameliorated since his ascension to the prime ministership, the same cannot be said beyond. Let us hope he is a student of history. If not, I fear for the region.
A Love Letter to Baltimore
I’m from Baltimore, Maryland. The city and its history and quirky nature shaped and formed my development. I’ve lived in the city and I’ve lived in the suburbs. I’ve eaten the coddies and I’ve devoured the crab cakes. I swam the waters and walked the trails. I’ve celebrated the ecstasy of the Orioles winning the World Series in 1983 and suffered the depression of my beloved Colts leaving for Indianapolis the next year. I’ve suffered the comments about Homicide and the characterizations of a city on decline – an antiquated member of the Rust Belt. I’ve heard it all but I know the truth. Baltimore is a great city and I’d like to tell a few of the reasons why the city stays with me to this day.
I’m in love with the neighborhoods and indeed, it is the soul of the city. I think of the Greektown where my parents took me to the shops and little eateries and they bought me my first komboloi or worry beads. As a kid, I was mesmerized by the different accents, different looks, different smells and different items for sale. Since those days as a small boy, even though I’m not Greek or particularly worrisome, I’ve always had my komboloi. It was the nature of these neighborhoods that have shaped my life – one in constant search for new ways, new ideas and new cultures to explore. To this day, accents fire my imagination and it was my upbringing in Baltimore that instilled that in me.
The fact that I’m a history teacher cannot be separated from my hometown. Likely the most important historical point of the city is Fort McHenry – the place bombarded by the British in the War of 1812 and the scene of the writing of the Star Spangled Banner. Fells Point is a neighborhood more known today as a chic hang out but this was once an area for the working man and the history surrounding the shipping industry in the city was based here. Even today, the area’s buildings and small alleyways are a reminder that this was once a residential area with a handful of bars and a multitude of dock workers. The first monument to the country’s first president is not in the capital but in Baltimore, in the historic Mount Vernon neighborhood. These places and others were the destination of many a field trip and in part, shaped my life and career.
And, I remember the food. I remember my father taking me to the Lexington Market – the largest indoor market in the United States. He would take me to a greasy spoon café near the back to get breakfast on Saturdays. It was fattening and, to the uninitiated, a bit gross but it was delicious – scrambled eggs and corn beef hash were the food of the gods. There was a great German restaurant called Hausner’s, known as much for its incredible art collection than its great food. I treasured the times in Little Italy eating at Chiapparelli’s or Mug's but always ending at the famous and wonderful bakery – Vacarro’s. Whatever you wanted, whatever cuisine you craved, it could be found in Baltimore.
To many, Baltimore is beleaguered by crime (though, what major city isn’t), overshadowed by sexier nearby destinations (Washington or Philadelphia) and home to a struggling baseball team. However, it is the city that molded me and a city that stays with me. It always will.
I’m in love with the neighborhoods and indeed, it is the soul of the city. I think of the Greektown where my parents took me to the shops and little eateries and they bought me my first komboloi or worry beads. As a kid, I was mesmerized by the different accents, different looks, different smells and different items for sale. Since those days as a small boy, even though I’m not Greek or particularly worrisome, I’ve always had my komboloi. It was the nature of these neighborhoods that have shaped my life – one in constant search for new ways, new ideas and new cultures to explore. To this day, accents fire my imagination and it was my upbringing in Baltimore that instilled that in me.
The fact that I’m a history teacher cannot be separated from my hometown. Likely the most important historical point of the city is Fort McHenry – the place bombarded by the British in the War of 1812 and the scene of the writing of the Star Spangled Banner. Fells Point is a neighborhood more known today as a chic hang out but this was once an area for the working man and the history surrounding the shipping industry in the city was based here. Even today, the area’s buildings and small alleyways are a reminder that this was once a residential area with a handful of bars and a multitude of dock workers. The first monument to the country’s first president is not in the capital but in Baltimore, in the historic Mount Vernon neighborhood. These places and others were the destination of many a field trip and in part, shaped my life and career.
And, I remember the food. I remember my father taking me to the Lexington Market – the largest indoor market in the United States. He would take me to a greasy spoon café near the back to get breakfast on Saturdays. It was fattening and, to the uninitiated, a bit gross but it was delicious – scrambled eggs and corn beef hash were the food of the gods. There was a great German restaurant called Hausner’s, known as much for its incredible art collection than its great food. I treasured the times in Little Italy eating at Chiapparelli’s or Mug's but always ending at the famous and wonderful bakery – Vacarro’s. Whatever you wanted, whatever cuisine you craved, it could be found in Baltimore.
To many, Baltimore is beleaguered by crime (though, what major city isn’t), overshadowed by sexier nearby destinations (Washington or Philadelphia) and home to a struggling baseball team. However, it is the city that molded me and a city that stays with me. It always will.
Friday, October 14, 2011
From Russia with Confusion?
I’m a bit surprised at how little Americans are aware of Russian politics. Much of my surprise is based on growing up during the Cold War. More so than any other country, I knew who the Soviet premier was, I was aware of what the Soviet Union was doing and in general, the happenings within Russia were more top of mind to the average American. Other countries and other peoples have now pre-occupied the American attention span. While Russia has escaped our consideration over the last decade or so, it has not stepped away from the international stage and therefore, still worthy of our time to read about and keep track of.
Russia is mired in various things at the moment. A Ukrainian court has jailed its former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for the crimes of overstepping her authority. Her crime was an oil pipeline deal with Russia that decidedly favored Moscow. Her prison sentence has been criticized by nearly everyone who has a stake in the oil supply, from the Americans to the Swedes, and Russia has declared the verdict “anti-Russian.” It can certainly be argued that the verdict has as much to do with Ms. Tymoshenko’s abrasive and combative personality, particularly with her political opponents. However, whether this deal goes through or not, the U.S. and its Western European allies will be greatly affected. The European Union has stepped up the pressure by suggesting the Ukraine is jeopardizing its potential candidacy into the EU. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich will have the chance to make amends when he meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev next week.
However, the biggest upcoming story out of Russia is the election in March 2012 that will, if reports are to be believed, return to the position of president, Vladimir Putin. The reason why this story should be of interest to the United States is what the move means for Russian democracy. As it is, Russia has proven quite obdurate over the last decade in actions against North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Worse, its rationale seems more to do with gumming up the works on the international scene than being based on any core beliefs or national interest. Now, the fear that international observers had with the presidency of Mr. Medvedev, a puppet that was keeping the seat of power warm until Mr. Putin could work around the Russian constitution, seem validated. What must the Russian people think? The Economist calls the situation farcical and it is hard to disagree with the assessment. This comes at a time when investors are leaving the country, government spending is up to make up the difference and oil revenue could certainly use the boost the Ukrainian deal would provide.
The Putin/Medvedev deal is not democracy – not even potential democracy. Granted, the U.S. took a while to improve their process but Russia seems headed in the opposite direction. What will the Russian people do when their frustrations with the economy are compounded by a shaky and disingenuous democratic system? Will they turn to something more radical and potentially dangerous or will they rise up to reiterate their demand for true democratic reforms? Whatever happens, it will be interesting and worthy of American attention.
Russia is mired in various things at the moment. A Ukrainian court has jailed its former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for the crimes of overstepping her authority. Her crime was an oil pipeline deal with Russia that decidedly favored Moscow. Her prison sentence has been criticized by nearly everyone who has a stake in the oil supply, from the Americans to the Swedes, and Russia has declared the verdict “anti-Russian.” It can certainly be argued that the verdict has as much to do with Ms. Tymoshenko’s abrasive and combative personality, particularly with her political opponents. However, whether this deal goes through or not, the U.S. and its Western European allies will be greatly affected. The European Union has stepped up the pressure by suggesting the Ukraine is jeopardizing its potential candidacy into the EU. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich will have the chance to make amends when he meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev next week.
However, the biggest upcoming story out of Russia is the election in March 2012 that will, if reports are to be believed, return to the position of president, Vladimir Putin. The reason why this story should be of interest to the United States is what the move means for Russian democracy. As it is, Russia has proven quite obdurate over the last decade in actions against North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Worse, its rationale seems more to do with gumming up the works on the international scene than being based on any core beliefs or national interest. Now, the fear that international observers had with the presidency of Mr. Medvedev, a puppet that was keeping the seat of power warm until Mr. Putin could work around the Russian constitution, seem validated. What must the Russian people think? The Economist calls the situation farcical and it is hard to disagree with the assessment. This comes at a time when investors are leaving the country, government spending is up to make up the difference and oil revenue could certainly use the boost the Ukrainian deal would provide.
The Putin/Medvedev deal is not democracy – not even potential democracy. Granted, the U.S. took a while to improve their process but Russia seems headed in the opposite direction. What will the Russian people do when their frustrations with the economy are compounded by a shaky and disingenuous democratic system? Will they turn to something more radical and potentially dangerous or will they rise up to reiterate their demand for true democratic reforms? Whatever happens, it will be interesting and worthy of American attention.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC
When is the melding of church and state ok? It could be decided soon by the Supreme Court. The Court, recently reconvening, is considering the case of Cheryl Perich, a former teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. She began her “official” capacity in the church as a lay person and later, as a faculty member of both secular and religious instruction. She even conducted chapel for the students from time to time. She fell ill in 2004 and was diagnosed as having narcolepsy, a condition that impacts sleep patterns and can caused involuntary sleeping during the day or at normal times of alertness. When she returned to the church, they had hired another to take her place. When she threatened to sue, the church stated that the potential litigation violated church beliefs that issues should be settled within, not from without, the church. If she pursued such action, she would be fired. She did and she was. Ms. Perich is declaring she was fired for threatening to “blow the whistle” by suing and she is being supported by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Most forceful in his initial impression of the case was the most senior member of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, who declared that the government had no business in determining the interest of the church. There is quite a bit of evidence to support this. Many court decisions have stated that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and an exemption in the EEOC regulations does not apply to church matters. For instance, the Catholic Church’s position of not allowing women as priests has never been challenged, a point that Justice Samuel Alito brought out in opening arguments.
As recently as 1993, the Court has ruled on the nature of government interference in church practices. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida was conducting animal sacrifices. The city, in an attempt to convince the newcomers they were not welcomed, passed several ordinances limiting to practice of animal sacrifice. The Court ruled in favor of the church, 9:0 with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority. In his decision, Justice Kennedy said the ordinances were unconstitutional because they singled out the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye. Justice Kennedy weighed in also on Ms. Perich’s case, saying he doubted the success of the claim. The argument could be made that, absent of other instances of government involvement of church affairs, the Lutheran church is also being singled out.
There is also judicial precedent on the idea that religious ideas can conflict with civil law. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Court ruled 5:4 that a former scout leader, who was dismissed because he was gay, could not sue the Boy Scouts. As a private organization, if it were forced to accept James Dale as a leader, its first amendment rights would be violated. The organization would be forced to send a message to its members of acceptance that goes against its core beliefs and values. For the Court to recognize Ms. Perich’s lawsuit would be to violate the core beliefs of the Lutheran Church.
This case is not about wrongful firing but whether the state can dictate who serves in a religious capacity. What is the proper course of action? As much as it is not the purview of the church to interject itself in the business of governance, so it should not be the purview of the government to interpret, rule on or interfere with the business of the church. The dictates of the faith are paramount and must be protected in a country that purports freedom of religion.
Most forceful in his initial impression of the case was the most senior member of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, who declared that the government had no business in determining the interest of the church. There is quite a bit of evidence to support this. Many court decisions have stated that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and an exemption in the EEOC regulations does not apply to church matters. For instance, the Catholic Church’s position of not allowing women as priests has never been challenged, a point that Justice Samuel Alito brought out in opening arguments.
As recently as 1993, the Court has ruled on the nature of government interference in church practices. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida was conducting animal sacrifices. The city, in an attempt to convince the newcomers they were not welcomed, passed several ordinances limiting to practice of animal sacrifice. The Court ruled in favor of the church, 9:0 with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority. In his decision, Justice Kennedy said the ordinances were unconstitutional because they singled out the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye. Justice Kennedy weighed in also on Ms. Perich’s case, saying he doubted the success of the claim. The argument could be made that, absent of other instances of government involvement of church affairs, the Lutheran church is also being singled out.
There is also judicial precedent on the idea that religious ideas can conflict with civil law. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Court ruled 5:4 that a former scout leader, who was dismissed because he was gay, could not sue the Boy Scouts. As a private organization, if it were forced to accept James Dale as a leader, its first amendment rights would be violated. The organization would be forced to send a message to its members of acceptance that goes against its core beliefs and values. For the Court to recognize Ms. Perich’s lawsuit would be to violate the core beliefs of the Lutheran Church.
This case is not about wrongful firing but whether the state can dictate who serves in a religious capacity. What is the proper course of action? As much as it is not the purview of the church to interject itself in the business of governance, so it should not be the purview of the government to interpret, rule on or interfere with the business of the church. The dictates of the faith are paramount and must be protected in a country that purports freedom of religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)