The "Other" in Paris, Ferguson, Staten Island and Cleveland        


Harry T. Cook

By Harry T. Cook
1/16/15
 

Thirty-six years ago, the Detroit Free Press -- in those days a pretty decent newspaper -- gave me the chance of a lifetime by hiring me to cover the field of religion. Its top editors apparently trusted my years of immersion in its history and literature as well as its various contemporary states of being.

 

They knew that I had studied extensively in the area known as comparative religion so that I was familiar with the lineaments and substance of the dominant belief systems across the globe -- though the editors were more interested in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, since those three related traditions were and remain the major religious presences in the paper's circulation area.

 

One of the smarter executives understood that the paper needed to pay closer attention to Islam, and not only by publishing the annual boilerplate, "It's Ramadan Now." So I was turned loose to discover Michigan's Islamic community -- or communities, as it turned out. I soon made a friend in the late Mohamed Jawad Chirri, a Shiite imam who introduced me to several of his mosque's families -- one with whom I was invited to eat an evening meal during that year's Eid.

 

In latter years, I have come to know and respect two of the most eminent imams in the Detroit area. Each has made it clear that the Islam they have known from birth, that they studied in their years of training and that they now preach is a religion of peace. They quote copiously from Qu'ran passages that are redolent of the same irenic sentiment as may be found in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

 

Both imams have publicly and repeatedly denounced the Paris massacre as well as the hostage taking at the kosher market there. A member of one of the imams' congregations told me that what happened at Charlie Hebdo was the act of xenophobes who happened to be Muslims. There was an important insight.

 

Indeed, The Other is always perceived by the xenophobe to be the enemy. And passages in both Hebrew/Christian and Muslim scripture not only allow but can be interpreted as advocating, even urging the killing of the enemy.

 

Here is a passage from the Hebrew scripture (II Samuel, chapter 22), which depicts the great King David singing a song of victory to Yahweh:

 

"I have called upon Yahweh, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies ... I pursued them and destroyed them ... I consumed them and struck them down, so that they did not rise. They fell under my feet."

 

Here is a similar passage from Qu'ran: "And when the doom shall light the enemies, we will cause a monster to come forth out of the earth, and cry to them, that they have not believed our signs. And on that day we will gather out of every nation a company of those who have gainsaid our signs ... and doom shall light upon them for their evil deeds ... and shall be flung face downwards into the fire."

 

Thus it is with perceived enemies if there is no rational interpretation of ancient texts, if there is, instead, the perception that they are being spoken in the moment by the regnant deity thereby giving license to those eager to obey them in the most extreme way.

 

Religions' scriptures aside, The Other is ever and always at best feared and oppressed and, at worst, outright killed.

 

Our former Free Press colleague, Isabel Wilkerson -- whose "The Warmth of Other Suns" tells how descendants of slaves migrated to the north -- had an opinion piece ("When Will the North Face Its Racism?") in the New York Times within a week of the Paris massacre. In it, she made the case that the children and grandchildren of the Great Migration are still perceived by many whites as The Other, if not The Enemy.

 

It is an uneasy thing to associate the depredations of the Paris massacre with the shooting of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice (the 12-year-old Cleveland child with a pellet gun) and the deliberate strangulation of Eric Garner, all by white police officers. However, there are similarities.

 

In the Ferguson incident, I think it can be said that Officer Darren Wilson was slow-witted and piss-pants scared by young Mr. Brown, principally because he was The Other. What was the excuse in Cleveland -- the biggest city in an open-carry state? In Staten Island, it seemed -- but not to a grand jury -- as if Officer Daniel Pantaleo had indulged in unnecessary -- and fatal, as it turned out -- cruelty maybe because, what the hell, Garner was The Other and, as such, expendable if not worthless. Ditto Brown and Rice.

 

"Thou shalt do no murder" -- except when you're after The Enemy, The Other. That was Paris last week. For the sake of what's left of our civic integrity, we are required to consider whether or not it was also the case in Ferguson, Staten Island and Cleveland -- hoping against hope that it was not.

 


Copyright 2015 Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
 


Readers Write
Re essay of 1/9/15 One Nation Divisible
 
 

Nicholas Molinari, Brick, New Jersey:

What is known as the Holy Scriptures is a conglomeration of countless ancient oral traditions passed on for hundreds if not thousands of years, finally sewn together roughly onto papyrus, parchment and ultimately print-on-paper. Those scriptures became a library of books embracing many genres. One of those conglomerations is called the Bible. All major religions are similarly founded upon and/or fortified by holy and inspired "Words of God/gods." Even a cursory reading of these "Holy" Scriptures exposes many of the writings to be fertile ground for human divisiveness; rich fertilizer for hatred; a deceptive catalyst and toxic incendiary for a harvest of violence, wars, genocide. Of course, therein are provided also the requisite justifications for bloodletting of humans by humans in the name of God/gods. If the God/gods of these scriptures can facilely flip back and forth from friendship-and-protection to embitterment-and-rejection of his/its own people; and if that Divinity -- creator of all people -- can blithely mandate the destruction of his/its enemies without remorse; how can we ordinary human beings possibly coalesce around our common humanity, mutual needs and aspirations for a peaceful world? The Scriptures themselves are the basis for much if not most bloodletting in human history; territorial invasions; exterminations of the Other whoever that Other might be; Crusades and Inquisitions; perpetual Jihad; a large number of European wars; a few of our own wars of choice; terrestrial and celestial glories and rewards of Christian and Muslim martyrdom; and countless other aberrations from rational and common sense norms of human justice and cooperation. Is my theory too pessimistic?

 

Rabbi Larry Maher, Parrish, Florida:

During civil rights days, I spoke at a public meeting. The meeting began with those present reciting the Pledge. I stopped in the middle and refused to continue. I have never said it since. It simple isn't true. I think it should be rewritten so that it becomes ASKING for liberty and justice for all. Many years ago, one of the national magazines carried an article in which the writer made the same point and suggested it be redone.

 

Harvey H. Guthrie, Fillmore, California:

I close my lips tightly when "under God" comes up in the pledge, as I also do when the confession is left in the liturgy during Christmastide and Eastertide. I also agree with the substance of this essay -- populism engages in numerous irresponsible last gasps.

 

Tom Hall, Foster, Rhode Island:

Right on! Since we're all in this together, requiring a Buddhist or a nontheist Christian to say "under God" while attesting loyalty to our country is as unjustifiable as using public funds to subsidize schools that inculcate speculative religious doctrines.

 

Karl Sandelin, Kalamazoo, Michigan:

Thank you for this perspective! There is hope!

 

Jerome Ewing, Sandy Spring, Georgia:

So are you saying that we should drop the "one nation, indivisible" as well as "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? Maybe. I'm not sure that we are a republic anymore, either. More like an oligarchy.

 

Darlene Robinson, Grand Island, Nebraska:

One of your best essays, and right on target. I worry that we are approaching another secession crisis. Texas makes noise about that.

 

Stephen Caldwell, Bangor, Maine:

The governor of this state is a joke and would welcome being freed from the Union and unions, as well. Politics has become a madhouse.

 

Barbara Newsom, Lexington, Kentucky:

There are some states I wouldn't mind if they left the country. They would soon find themselves poor and defenseless, which would serve them right. All this is far, far away from what I learned in school as a child about this wondrous nation and its indivisible nature.

 

Paul Golliher, San Antonio, Texas:

As a Roman Catholic, I always believed that the Knights of Columbus was the main reason "Under God " got in to the pledge and it steered me away from them forever. (My local Council would not let a black candidate in as a member alongside me the one time I was ready to join in my small hometown in southern Illinois so that too was a factor in my reticence.) Maybe I gave them too much credit but it was the time of Senator McCarthy, a "good" Catholic, who was fighting "Godless Communism," a Knights' hard rock position at the time. 

 

Martha O'Kennon, Albion, Michigan:

One thing that went missing (except for our moral compass) when the pledge of allegiance was doctored up is that school kids now don't know the line that went "one naked individual."

 

Karen Weaver, Waterford, Michigan:

I am happy to hear you report the news of the Muslim support for those who cannot pay their water bills. However, I cannot understand why the Muslim voice is not heard in an organized way against the acts of terrorism currently making the headlines. Can you ask your local imam friends?

[Editor's Note: At your suggestion, I will approach one of them to write a guest essay on the subject.]

 

Edward Kleinfelter, Brooklyn, New York:

I am assuming that the "52 sets of opportunity" to run for office was meant to indicate the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. If so, thanks for remembering those people. If not, you just flunked civics -- or math. Or both.

 

Adrian Bauer, Ashland Ohio:

And I thought I was the only one who went silent at the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. I always find it insulting when it is presumed that you are Christian.

 

Doreen Lawton, Northville, Michigan:

Another great essay. When reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, I too do not say the words "under God" for the same reasons.

 

Carolyn Ouderkirk, New York City, New York:

Hear, hear! LOVE starting a morning reading one of your essays. I'm always cheered.

 

Fr. Tom Jackson, Tyler, Texas:

As always, a great message, and I even learned that we were fellow students at Longfellow School in Royal Oak!

 

Karen Davis, Royal Oak, Michigan:

I, too, remember saying the original version of the Pledge and how confused I was to have to change it for a reason never explained. I, too, drop the added phrase when necessary. So it is with full agreement that, in commenting on today's essay, I say right on!

 

Fred Fenton, Concord, California:

President Obama first came to fame with a speech in which he declared there is no red America or blue America there is the United States of America. He held to that view through most of his first term as President, and may still hope against hope that it is so. Unfortunately, it is not. This nation is today more seriously divided than at any time since the Civil War. "One nation indivisible" remains a hope and a dream, something to work for. It cannot be a reality until racism, sexism, and economic disparity are greatly diminished. What candidate in 2016 is likely to speak honestly about these problems and actively pursue remedies if elected? You cite Jeb Bush's opposition to Common Core on the basis of states rights. He has until recently been a chief backer of the Common Core. In other words, Jeb is in the great American tradition of saying anything to get oneself elected. He is pandering to the Republican base. He cannot be trusted to believe what he says. No wonder so many Americans have given up on the political process. 

 

Tracey Martin, Phoenix, Arizona:

During my early elementary years, I, too, stood to recite that same pledge, perhaps with a bit more urgency than did you. We were, indeed, one nation indivisible. We were at war in Europe and across the blue Pacific. After which, the Rooseveltian consensus maintained the unity necessary to remain one nation, albeit frightened rather quickly into hiding under the belief in some god. Thanks to that god, consensus is fraying if not crumbling. We're still one nation. Indivisible? Not so much.

 

Jim Gualdoni, Commerce Township, Michigan:

Particular words of the Pledge don't bother me. I don't do the Pledge at all. I'm not about to pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth, nor to a man-made government for which it stands.
 

What do you think?
I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at revharrytcook@aol.com.