What About Pakistan?

The phenomenon of what I call selective compassion has always interested me. Americans and others fell all over themselves to help the Haitians after January's earthquake. The world responded after the tidal wade swept through South Asia a few years ago. But here's Pakistan, which has experienced a truly cataclysmic flood that has displaced millions of people throughout much of the country and more or less wiped out much of its agriculture. The U.N. reported that 90,000 children were in immediate danger of death. But how much reporting have we seen about it here? Has anyone put on a telethon for those people? Why don't we care?

Is it geography? Pakistan is the other side of the world, after all, not like Haiti. Is it "disaster fatigue?" Possibly. But I'm not sure either of those explains it. I think it's because it's Pakistan, next door to where we've been fighting a war, and we're not quite sure whether those people are really our friends.

List this one under Mike's impossible solutions to modern problems: We have 90,000 troops already in that region. Too bad we can't move a substantial number of them into Pakistan to help out those flood victims, though I guess we’ve sent a few. If theTaliban do a better job of helping out, whose side do you think the people in that country are going to be on?

I know, I know, that's not what we're over there for, and of course, the Pakistanis probably wouldn't care for the idea of U.S. troops on their soil. But I like to oversimplify complicated situations -- please forgive me.

The Mosque Thing, Take Two

It's shocking, some say, that the Muslims want to build an Islamic center a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Now, at least one activist has called for a moratorium on building mosques anywhere in the United States.

I've always operated on the principle that one shouldn't go where one isn't wanted. But I upset a few friends recently when suggesting that on those grounds, there would have been no Rosa Parks, no lunch-counter sit-ins, and perhaps, no civil rights movement.

The idea of an Islamic center near Ground Zero is offensive to many Americans, just the way those lunch-counter sit-ins offended many whites in the Deep South back in the 1950s and '60s. Not the same thing at all, some of you will say. Think of the 9/11 victims' families! It's just another liberal appeasement. But how liberal an idea is private property?

To be honest, I don't really want an Islamic center near Ground Zero, either. If I were advising those behind this project, I'd beg them to put it somewhere else, if for no other reason than to defuse this controversy. But the law doesn't require sensitivity to anyone's feelings--or even wisdom.

Most terrorists that we're concerned about lately seem to be Muslims, but only a minority of Muslims are terrorists. Do we object to locating a Catholic church near a park where children play because some priests are pedophiles?

Keep extrapolating from forbidding the building of mosques, and where do you end up? A new crusade against Islam? If you'll excuse me for a minute, I have to dig out my history book, but as I recall, the last one didn't go all that well for the Crusaders.

There, now I've said it.

Unwanted Guests

When I heard about the Islamic center proposed near Ground Zero, my first impression was: Why are people so dumb as to insist on going places they're not wanted?

My second impression was, well, with that attitude, there probably would have been no Rosa Parks, sit-ins at lunch counters, or the civil rights movement in general.

There, now I've said it.

The M Word (repeat)

To paraphrase the old Universal Pictures slogan from the 1930s, "A Good Blog Is Worth Repeating." This one goes back to Oct. 13, 2008, before the passage of California's Proposition 8. Reposting is about not having anything new to say -- but on this subject, I don't:

The M Word

The debate over same-sex marriage could be ended very easily by rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, if you don’t mind the Biblical reference. Just remove the word “marriage” from the law.

You may or may not accept the premise that a certain percentage of human beings are just wired gay, which I do, seeing as how that seems to be the case in mammals generally. But in the end, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a hardware or software issue, or even what Miss California thinks.

Your local county clerk would issue licenses for domestic partnership (or whatever you want to call it) ONLY, and these would have the full legal status that marriage has now. There would be no government-performed ceremonies (including judicial ones), so the religious or philosophical objections of clerk’s personnel or other officials would have no bearing – it simply would be none of their business.

In many religions, marriage is a sacrament, and that is its proper status. Churches and other religious or quasi-religious institutions should be free to perform gay marriage ceremonies, or not, and if marriage had no legal status, there would be no opportunity for lawsuits over this issue.

This all comes under the heading of my impossible solutions to modern problems, although I heard that someone is mounting a California initiative with very similar provisions. But frankly, I’m tired of listening to this debate. Boycotting a business that supported Proposition 8, in the middle of a recession, makes no sense. And is a straight marriage that lasts six months “better” than a gay marriage between two committed partners that lasts 20 years? Will gay unions really undermine the family unit as we know it? We should be celebrating and reinforcing the commitment, not the ceremony.

If we’re really committed to the separation of church and state, removing the word “marriage,” with all its emotional and spiritual accoutrements, from our legal codes would be a great place to start.

There, now I've said it.