Lessons In Democracy

I don't recall ever reading William Saletan in The Slate before, but there's a great piece that was posted on Monday called When is a state not a state? When it's Palestinian. Saletan does a superb job dismantling the Bush administration's "vision" for a Palestinian State. Here's an exerpt:

"Normally, when you grant people statehood, you deal with the leaders those people have chosen. Not in this case. "Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders," Bush said today. Naturally, Bush demanded this more amenable government in the name of democracy. He also asked the U.S.-friendly dictators of various Arab countries, whose statehood he doesn't dispute, to "work with Palestinian leaders to create a new constitutional framework and a working democracy for the Palestinian people."

It always amazes me how the "leaders of the Free World" and the champions of Democracy seem to have no qualms about pressuring other countries to change their democratically elected leadership. 'Course in some cases, those elections are a sham, but then again, does anyone remember Florida? Still, the audacity! Imagine if some other country, say France or China, demanded that Americans choose a new leader? Come to think of it, since the financial and foreign policies of the US have such direct impact on so many nations around the globe, maybe we should have a say in US elections? People having input into the issues that profoundly effect their lives ñ isn't that a large part of what democracy's about?

And all of this talk about setting up states, like kids drawing chalk lines on the sidewalk. The Jews get a state, displacing the Palestinians, and 40-some years later, the powers that be decide that maybe the Palestinians need a state too. So let's just draw some lines and everybody will live happily ever after. Yeah, that's worked wonderfully in the past. Hasn't caused any turmoil in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, The Balkans, Africa, Ireland, Korea, Vietnam...

And then there's today's decision by a Federal US Appeals Court that the US's Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. It only took ~50 years for someone to reach the conclusion that the phrase "one nation under God" (the "under God" part was added in 1954) isn't consistent with a constitution that champions freedom of thought and freedom of religion (which would also include the freedom not to have a religion). The decision states, in part: "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

Naturally, nobody during the McCarthy 50s was going to challenge that wording, but to me it always seemed like such an obvious manifestation of state-sanctioned religion in a "free" society. But, as with prayer in school, I'm sure it will be hotly contested and probably end up in the Supreme Court, or whatever the next judicial stage would be.

Of course, we certainly aren't immune to that sort of thing up here. I can recall being at several public gatherings which seemed to be attended by people who were likely of many different ethnicities and faiths and belief systems, and what do the organizers do at the beginning?: they ask us to bow our heads and recite the Lord's Prayer! Hello?!

In a similar vein, at work a short time ago I had to proofread a section of our video magazine, and one of the VHS (DVD?) video titles was "The Bible... In The Beginning". The copy describing it read as follows: An all-star cast brings to life the inspiring stories and adventures that have made the Old Testament the most remarkable and dramatic document in the history of man. Includes theatrical trailer. My colleague who writes the video copy, didn't see anything wrong with this (it was likely copy which we picked up from our US parent company). But I try to keep my radar tuned to pick up the US-centric pov ñ e.g., wherever possible, I edit references to "the civil war" and "the President" to "the U.S. civil war" and "The American President", etc. ñ and here the Judeo-Christian-centric pov was just too much. I may yet be convinced that the Old Testament is "the most remarkable and dramatic document in the history of man", but I'm willing to bet that there are other sacred texts, mythologies and stories that would give it a run for its money. Norse Mythology? Greek/Roman Mythology? The Vedas? Probably lots of other creation myths, legends and cosmologies from cultures around the world.

So I edited it to read "one of the most remarkable and dramatic documents in the history of man." And I felt much better. Just doing my bit, changing the world, one mass-marketed VHS tape at a time.

Look at me, gettin' all political 'n' stuff!