If you have never walked along a flagstone path or some trail on which there was a big stone that everyone used to step on to reach a higher level, the concept of a stepping stone might be lost on you. My parents used the concept regularly. They would talk about accomplishing something as a 'stepping stone' or as a means of going higher or getting better or becoming more significant. "His appointment as secretary will be a stepping stone for him to someday be president."
In the course of history the study of the paths or means men have used to become President of the United States is fascinating. However, one of the ironies of history and life itself is that the Presidency itself can be a mere stepping stone to the place where someone can be their true best. For William Howard Taft usethe Office of President was a stepping stone to the job some say he always wanted--Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In more recent times, Jimmy Carter stepped quickly from Governor to President. His status as an ex-President and world figure was the stepping stone he needed to touch the lives of millions through the work of Habitat for Humanity.
Perhaps we are at a point in history when our current President needs to see his present Office as a four-year stepping stone to a job for which he is better suited--the next Commissioner of the National Basketball Association. Again, yesterday, he proved he is more capable of entertaining on a basketball court than he is in leading our Nation. And what an irony this pick-up game was: even on a basketball court our President continues to prove that whatever room he walks into or whatever court he walks on, he's the least qualified. Who do you think the wounded troops really wanted to see play ball, LeBron or the President?
I don't know what David Stern's--the current NBA Commissioner--future plans are, but there is a successor in waiting. One more using the Presidency as a stepping stone to something else.
David, if your reading this, do the Nation a favor, retire in 2011. It could be a win-win for everyone--well, except for the NBA.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
A Mosque at Ground Zero?
The question of building of a Mosque near Ground Zero in New York City is a hot topic. The debate is a good one. However, here's a decision that has to be made beyond zoning requirements and legalities.
Granted, if the shoe was on the other foot, a Christian Cathedral or Jewish Temple would not be allowed to be built near any Islamic holy site. But their inequities and biases are not ours to debate and consider in making this decision. Let's take the higher road.
Should a mosque be allowed to build near Ground Zero? NO.
Sensitivity goes both directions. For moderate Muslims who want to show 'good will,' the sensitivity of their 'peaceful faith,' and build a mosque near Ground Zero to demonstrate it, no. There are other properties in NYC--many no doubt no much further away--where a mosque could be built and send whatever message about their faith they wish to send to whoever might be listening. But building near Ground Zero is deliberate and totally insensitive act to what happened here. It is a slap in the face to all who lost family and friends in the 9/11 act of war that was perpetrated by radical Muslims acting out of faith on all Americans.
The Japanese never sought to repair ill-will against Americans during World War 2 by building a shrine at Pearl Harbor. To my knowledge the USA hasn't built any such shrine to send a message or peace and good will to the people of Japan in or near Hiroshima, either. We certainly did a lot to rebuild Japan post-WW2, but not this.
Building a mosque near Ground Zero is ill-conceived and insensitive. You would think the furor over the idea ought to send a clear message to the Muslim community that this idea is not in any one's best interest--for healing the past or building a future in which we can all live in freedom and peace.
Sensitivity an common sense must rule the day on this.
Granted, if the shoe was on the other foot, a Christian Cathedral or Jewish Temple would not be allowed to be built near any Islamic holy site. But their inequities and biases are not ours to debate and consider in making this decision. Let's take the higher road.
Should a mosque be allowed to build near Ground Zero? NO.
Sensitivity goes both directions. For moderate Muslims who want to show 'good will,' the sensitivity of their 'peaceful faith,' and build a mosque near Ground Zero to demonstrate it, no. There are other properties in NYC--many no doubt no much further away--where a mosque could be built and send whatever message about their faith they wish to send to whoever might be listening. But building near Ground Zero is deliberate and totally insensitive act to what happened here. It is a slap in the face to all who lost family and friends in the 9/11 act of war that was perpetrated by radical Muslims acting out of faith on all Americans.
The Japanese never sought to repair ill-will against Americans during World War 2 by building a shrine at Pearl Harbor. To my knowledge the USA hasn't built any such shrine to send a message or peace and good will to the people of Japan in or near Hiroshima, either. We certainly did a lot to rebuild Japan post-WW2, but not this.
Building a mosque near Ground Zero is ill-conceived and insensitive. You would think the furor over the idea ought to send a clear message to the Muslim community that this idea is not in any one's best interest--for healing the past or building a future in which we can all live in freedom and peace.
Sensitivity an common sense must rule the day on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)