Last night when NBC announced that Obama had won the election, I found myself getting pretty choked up.  In some ways, my reaction reflected my feelings about the man, and the way that he's gotten me to care about and respect the ideal of the Presidency in a way that I haven't since I was a small child.  And that's no small thing--I, like most of the adults I know, have been very jaded about the entire political process for almost as long as I can remember.  Still, I think the bigger part had to do with Jason, and what this election will mean to him.

I looked down at my son, asleep in his mother's arms, and realized that, as far as he will remember, a black man will always have been elected President of the United States.  And it struck me how different a world he will live in than I have lived in, how different his views will be from mine because of the different basic assumptions of life he'll have.  When I was small, I did believe that I could grow up to be anything, even President.  But as I grew up, I came to see that in many ways and for many people, the promise of America is an empty promise, that there are limits to what we may accomplish that have nothing to do with the limits of our ability.

I thought to myself about the way that Jason will grow up thinking about his country and his world, and realized that he has more of a chance than I had to hold onto that optimism.  And that's a truly beautiful thing.  And, beyond optimism, he really is coming into a world that has more opportunity in it than the one I was born into.

Later, I watched John McCain's concession speech, and while I thought it was a moving and earnest speech, I did think he made one mistake.  "This is an historic election," he said, "and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight."  On the contrary, Senator--this election is one in which we can and should all take pride.

I recently received an email forward that really bothered me. Now, I'm not a big fan of email forwards in general but, for the most part, they're relatively harmless. However, rather than the normal message detailing some fictional email tracking system or inspirational (but also usually fictional) story about a cancer survivor, this one was all about spreading, in my opinion, xenophobia and bigotry. Now, before I say anything else, I need to make it clear to anyone who may know the particulars of this situation that I do not think that the sender is xenophobic or bigoted. On the contrary, he's one of the most generous and empathetic people I've ever met. Really, that made the forward all the more shocking.

The email describes an incident between a Michigan State University professor and a Muslim student group at that same school. Apparently, the student group had protested some political cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. In response, the professor in question sent the following email to the student group:

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey ), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France .

 

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.

Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

The originators of the email then go on to complain about the predictably outraged response by the student group and ends, as is usual for forwards, by requesting that you pass it on:

Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same. Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it. We are in a war. This political correctness is getting old and killing us.

Now, at first glance you might be tempted to agree with some of the things this professor is saying. Most people do, after all, think rape, murder, and terrorism are awful things, and rightly so. And I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who are tired of what may seem like endless frivolous protesting. But this is exactly why this sort of thinking is so pernicious and problematic.

Let's take a closer look at the situation being presented. First of all, let's notice that the group in question is a student group at an American university. Now, chances are that a fair number of this student group are not American citizens. But I would find it extremely surprising if I were to find out that there is not also a large portion of the group that are citizens. So, right off the bat, telling them to stop "troubling Americans" is at the very least narrow-minded. What does it take to be considered an American these days? Does practicing a different religion now mean that you're not an American? Or having a different ethnic background? What about being foreign-born or having foreign-born parents? Sounds like bad news for all the Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus out there. Heck, it's bad news for just about everyone--how many of us have no other "ancestral homeland," whether it's in the Middle East or Asia or Africa or Europe?

What about the issue that started the whole thing off in the first place, the offense taken at the cartoon. Well, there's certainly an argument that can be made that it was an overreaction. After all, political cartoons are supposed to be inflammatory and controversial, and maybe we should all be a little more thick-skinned about these things. But what if the situation were reversed? What if it weren't Muhammad but, say, Jesus that were being defamed? Maybe it wouldn't bother you, and in that case, more power to you. But, let's be honest, most people probably would be offended. Back in 1999 people were up in arms about a portrait of the Virgin Mary made out of elephant feces. If that was out of bounds, why isn't something like this? I'm all for the idea of people letting stuff like this go but only if it goes both ways.

Now let's take this line: "I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'" Here I might be slipping into the unreasonable realm of "political correctness," but if I'm wrong for thinking it's unacceptable to paint whole religions or races with the same brush, I'm fine with that. I mean, consider what your reaction would be if he said something like, "you greedy, money-grubbing Jews" or "you ignorant, dirty, violent, criminal blacks." Would that be OK? There are over 900 million Muslims in the world, more 3 million in the United States alone, it is clearly not possible to call them all terrorists and slave traders. More to the point, how many of the individuals in that student group--again, I remind you, a student group at an American university--have ever planted an explosive, raped a woman, or bought a slave? If we can really hold these students accountable for things that other members of their religion have done then nobody is safe--horrible injustices and atrocities have been committed in the name of every religion. (In the name of secular ideals, too, lest anyone think I'm just picking on religion.) By this professor's logic, I guess that makes us all rapists, slavers, and murderers.

Finally, there's this line: "This political correctness is getting old and killing us." Is it really the political correctness that's killing us, or is it the fact that we can't seem to get along with people and ideas that are different? Obviously, my opinion is the latter. I understand that political correctness may seem stupid or aggravating to many people, that it's a lot of work to retrain yourself to treat people the way they want to be treated instead of the way you're used to treating them. I understand that it's tiring and sometimes annoying to have to always put yourself in the other guy's shoes. But, really, isn't it worth it? Sure, maybe it's a bother to have to watch what you say and do, but don't you want people to look out for your feelings, too? Tolerance, ideally, is a two-way street--what's good for me is good for you, too.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to say what's on their minds. Just because I happen to think that this professor is small-minded doesn't mean that I think he shouldn't be allowed to express his opinions. But if more people spent some effort trying to understand each other instead of pounding their fists on the First Amendment, I think the world would be a much better place.

Last month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is unconstitutional to require schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, due to the phrase "one nation, under God." Shortly thereafter, it stayed the decision, and it is widely expected that the Supreme Court will overturn the case. The court's ruling was widely unpopular in both houses of Congress, generating such senatorial statements as "This decision is nuts, just nuts," and "If this decision is not overturned, we will amend the Constitution." Senate Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie declared, "We acknowledge the separation of sectarianism and state, but affirm the belief that there is no separation between God and state," for which he was lauded by the Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle. While I know that many, if not most, Americans soundly agree with the strong support for the retention of the "under God" wording, I can't help but feel a profound discomfort with the idea, and, since I am an atheist, just a bit of worry for my own future.

Now, don't get me wrong. I firmly believe in the rights of all people to hold and practice whatever beliefs or religions they like, so long as they do not harm other people. (Oh sure, I might argue with people that disagree with me, but I still believe that they should be allowed to have such beliefs.) You can't take people's beliefs away from them. Not only is it impossible, but it is pointless and cruel. However, embedded within that statement of my opinions, is the idea that people do not need to belong to monotheistic religions, or any religions at all.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That last part is known as the Free Exercise Clause. Part of the established interpretation of that clause is that "government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs." That was taken from the Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was prepared by the Library of Congress. That seems to pretty much sum it up, to my mind. And yet, despite that interpretation, we have people like George Bush, Sr. saying, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Even though the 6th Article of the Constitution states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States," we have people like George Bush, Jr., saying that he intends to appoint "judges who understand that our rights were derived from God."

What about the hundreds of Buddhist Japanese-Americans that were wounded or killed during World War II as part of the 442nd RCT (the most highly decorated unit in American history for its size and length of service), to say nothing of those non-Christian soldiers in subsequent and present wars? Are they no longer to be considered patriots, much less citizens? What about some of the founders of our great nation, like Jefferson or Paine, who, although they believed in God, rejected organized religion? What about people like me, who aside from being born and raised here by parents who were born and raised here, not only contribute to America through our jobs, but also hold the American ideal (read that as freedom) in our hearts? I guess I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I feel neither represented nor protected by a government that has neither understanding nor compassion for people like me. What makes our country great is that all people, regardless of race, religion, financial status or country of origin, have the same rights and freedoms under the law. That despite our differences, we can all be a part of something great (ever wondered what "E Pluribus Unum" means?). So rather than seeing this as an attempt to take something away from anyone (it's not, it's just saying that schoolkids shouldn't be required to say two words that weren't even in there 50 years ago), try to take this opportunity to understand that we aren't all the same, and that, rather than a weakness, this is a strength.

[Editor's Note: It's been pointed out to me that the phrase "E Pluribus Unum" actually refers to the union of the original thirteen colonies, and that applying it as I have done in this piece is a stretch. I'll let my wording stand as is, having noted the actual origins of the phrase; changing it at this point would feel dishonest to me.]

Considering the situation in the world today, and also how I spend my days[*], I could hardly fail to spend a lot of time thinking about the war. Don't let the name fool you, I'm a 100% home-grown, natural-born, red-blooded, all-American boy. I love this country, always have and always will, but just because you love someone doesn't mean you agree with everything he or she does.

Let me start by saying that I believe this war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to be completely justified and appropriate. I got picked on a lot in high school, and one of the truly valuable lessons I learned from this experience was that if you let someone take advantage of you, they will continue to do so. Simply allowing a terrorist attack on our soil to occur without retaliation would be an invitation for more violence.

However, I do not believe that the United States has the resources to take on the whole world at once. True, we are the most powerful nation, and we have allies. But both our power and our friends are limited. I was reading another writer's editorial about a month ago and he claimed that the days of a grand alliance like we saw in WWII are gone. By the year 2050, Europe is expected to have half the population of today. Much of the West is in decline, at least in numbers. This is what happens when civilization sets in: the birth rate falls. And our stance at the top of the world? You may think that we'll be on this peak forever, but I'm sure that the Egyptians, Romans, Mongols and British felt that way as well, in their respective heydays. The US has plenty of advantages, no doubt. High immigration gives us a stable workforce, unlike many European countries. Technology and innovation keep us productive and ahead of the rest of the world in terms of medicine, military and information. But to expect that we will be giants forever is folly.

So many people feel that once we are finished with the Taliban (and despite their tenacity we will finish them), we need to turn those tanks around and beat down the doors at Baghdad, then on to smash any other Arab nation that stands in our way. But the bottom line is, we don't have the resources to fight the entire Arab world. The column I mentioned earlier also mentioned that Islam will soon very likely be the most populous religion in the world (it is currently the fastest-growing), as well as the fact that the population booms happen in the third world, including the Middle East. What we need to do is not to win the war, but to find a way through this situation, to find a solution to this problem. A recent survey stated that, indeed, many people in Arab countries harbor bad feelings toward the US, but not blindly. They fear that we wish to impose our will, our government, our religion upon them. We need to show them that this is not true. The situation after the first World War should show us that conquest is not the answer. Crushing an enemy gives rise to a new generation of hatred. What we need is to eliminate not those who hate us, but the reasons for which they do. Only through solid communication and forging strong connections with the rest of the world will we find a path that leads to peace.

* If you know me, and since you're reading this, you most likely know what I do. If you don't know me, well, too bad, I'm not telling you. I mean, come on, I don't know anything about you, do I?