Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.This verse is perfect for the topic of this post, because I'll be discussing the example of Ward Churchill.
James 3:5-8
We have all heard by now about Mr. Churchill's comments, made shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Mr. Churchill likened those inside the towers, those who were killed in the attacks, including firefighters, policemen, and just folks there doing their jobs, to "little Eichmanns" (thus equating them to the Nazis) and he praised the "gallant" actions of the terrorists. I won't waste more time decrying what he wrote; better men and women than I am have already trodden down that path. Still, I have to wonder: what was his true motivation?Did he merely seek to shock? Or was he seeking publicity of some kind? Churchill has a history of rabblerousing, going back to links to the American Indian Movement in the 1970s. Could this be more of the same? (Of course, even Churchill's status as a Native American is suspect...see this post on Instapundit.com.)
It's OK to think these things, if that's your wish; you have only yourself and God to answer to for your thoughts. Saying them, on the other hand...well, the other side of the "rights" coin is "responsibilities". Ideas, and by extension words, have consequences. Perhaps, if we're held responsible for our actions, or in this case, words, we'll start to actually think before we speak again. That would be a nice change.
Now, to the consequences. Yes, I loathe and despise Churchill's callous, cowardly statements with every bit of my being, and he deserves every bit of criticism he gets. Part of me believes that he deserves to be fired, or at least shunned by everyone he works with (that's what would happen to me, if I made such statements at my job). He's a prime example of the kind of thought that continues to contaminate the American academic gene pool. It also makes me extermely angry that he has yet to apologize to the families of the victims whose memory is has slighted. However, firing him might not be the answer. Moderates and conservatives often criticize liberals for preaching tolerance of other viewpoints, but practicing tolerance of other viewpoints that agree with their own. If I hollered and screamed for Churchill's firing, I'd be no better than the liberals, and I refuse to stoop to that level. If I ever met him on the street, I'd be tempted to punch him in the nose, but again, I'd be a hypocrite. He's already lost most of his credibility through this; there's really very little more I could do that he hasn't already done to himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment