This can't be good...
From Pat
Comments: Mr. Moore. I don't have your special insight, but this
can't be good . . . "Too Rich" . . . What the hell
does that mean?
Friday, Sept. 13, 2002 1:08 p.m. EDT
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien's suggestion
during a TV interview Wednesday that the U.S. is partially to blame for
the 9/11 attacks has officials on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border
fearing a "meltdown" in relations between the two countries. In remarks
carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Company as part of its 9/11
anniversary coverage, Chretien seemed to be saying that the U.S. got
what it deserved on 9/11.
"You cannot exercise your powers to the point of
humiliation for the others," he told the CBC. "That is what the Western
world - not only the Americans, the Western world - has to
realize."
Chretien added that the West "is getting too rich in
relation to the poor world" and that...
To read the rest of this article, go to http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/9/13/130450
Hi Pat,
This has been a hot topic in Canada since Mr.
Chretien's comment, which was actually recorded back in July, was
recently rebroadcast.
He also said much the same thing at the United Nations
this month.
Chretien has announced that he will step down in early
2004, and after accomplishing little of note in his nine years in power
(his government did manage to balance the budget after decades of
gushing red ink, but that was mainly thanks to Chretien's arch rival
and Finance Minister, Pul Martin, who he fired last May), he is now
scrambling to establish a "legacy" during his long lame duck tenure.
For a lifelong Liberal who was first elected to Parliament in the early
1960s, that means hewing to the left and political correctness.
You may have correctly inferred by now that I'm no fan
of Jean Chretien, who I consider to be an intellectual lightweight,
although I concede that he's a clever politician.
Jean Chretien's one-time political mentor Mitchell
Sharp remarked in a CBC radio interview in 1993 that he didn't think
Chretien "has ever had an original thought in his life." Indeed, it is
difficult to remember a single memorable piece of legislation Jean
Chretien steered through Parliament under the many cabinet portfolios
he held under other Liberal Prime Ministers. Ideologically Jean
Chretien appears not to stand for anything, other than that he "loves
Canada" and that the Liberals are the natural "government party?"
According to Maclean's Magazine editor Anthony
Wilson-Smith, Jean Chretien not only hates to lose, but hates to admit
it when he does. Smith reported a while back that when Mr. Chretien
hits a bad shot in golf, he will accept the penalty, but also
frequently insists on dropping another ball and hitting it from the
same lie, just to prove he can do it.
Canada's baffling infatuation with Mr. Chretien is
perhaps explained by American philosopher Richard Weaver in "Ideas Have
Consequences," where he describes "the adulation of the regular fellow,
the political seduction of the common man, and the deep distrust of
intellectuals, whose grasp of principles gives them superior insight.
This society may even pay tribute to the exemplar of easy morals, for
he is the 'good fellow,' who has about him none of the uncomfortable
angularities of the idealist." Certainly, idealism and intellectualism
are not qualities the "common man" needs to worry about in Jean
Chretien.
However, rest assured that a lot of Canadians are
upset about Chretien's unfortunate remarks on CBC and at the UN.
Charles
Art - Dueling Civilizations
From: Phillip Blancher
Dear Sir,
I am a Canadian and not ashamed of the fact that many think the US
is partly to blame. However my letter is not to go into the Proxy wars
that the CIA used countries to fight, and so on. The point of my letter
is to congratulate you on a well written
piece. One of my college art professors once said.
Whatever you create is only art if you manage to get
people to hate it and people to love it. So long as you have a
combination of the two, your item will be talked about, and that is the
point of creating art, and the definition of art.
Sir, your piece was art!
Thank you for the insightful piece,
Phillip
Hi Phillip,
Glad you enjoyed the article. I'm humbled by your
effusive approbation.
Charles
Dueling Civilizations
From Julian Skidmore
Hello Charles,
As a British Christian, I find it always encouraging to hear your
Christian standpoint. Having read an interpretation of the Qur'an, I
must agree with you about the overall consensus of what the book
teaches and advocates. Under Islam, life would be tough for Christians,
and, unfortunately, tougher still for people without any Semitic faith.
I agree there really is a deep clash between an Islamic view of life
and a Christian view (and for that matter a faithless view).
Nevertheless, if I may make a couple of comments. Basically I think
it's worth pointing out the difference between Islam and being a Muslim
- the primary difference being that if the Gospel message is right
about people, then it is right about Muslims, too, and therefore
Muslims (though like everyone else, fallen) are still made in the image
of God - and from a Christian view, still capable of being reached by
Jesus. These things are known.
Secondly, it's worth remembering what Jesus said about retribution
and revenge: "Love your enemies, Bless those who curse you, Pray for
those who persecute you." Jesus himself being God's ultimate symbol of
justice by giving up his life, even for the sake of his enemies,
praying for us while he died.
Yet to my shame I have found that the west (or at least the Western
media) and even the church (almost) is silent when considering this as
an appropriate response. Or am I wrong? Does the Canadian/US
media/church contain a lot of "loving your enemies" rhetoric? Does it
contain any? Or did Jesus only intend that message for kids and Martin
Luther King? Is "loving your enemies" a good antidote for Islamaphobia,
on the grounds that the Muslims you see in your local neighbourhood
aren't your enemies and are therefore deserving of just as much love?
Or did I imagine the bit in 1 John where it says "there is no fear in
love, perfect love drives out all fear."?*
To finish - thanks again for your occasional Christian articles in
Low End Mac and your forthright stance.
God bless, from Jules @P.
* er, I'm not trying to imply you don't take Jesus seriously when it
comes to loving your enemies, I'm just wondering whether you think the
west or the church in the west is noticeably silent in this regard.
Hi Jules,
I hope that my comments on this topic have not been
broadly misconstrued as a demonization of Islamic people.
I unreservedly affirm that Jesus died for Muslims as
much as for anyone else, and that God loves everyone equally. I don't
know very many Arab/Muslim people personally, but the few that I have
gotten acquainted with I genuinely liked, despite disagreement on
political and theological issues.
There is an unfortunate tendency in our time, which
has been nurtured and fostered by the political correctness
enthusiasts, to equate negative critique of ideas or ideologies or
behavior disagreement with "hatred."
To answer your question, at least here in Canada, I
would say that many churches emphasize "love your enemies" to a fault,
in the sense that they discount the significance of real theological
dissonance, and the fact that Christianity teaches that repentance must
precede forgiveness, and that if we take the Bible at its word, then a
"one religion is just as true as another" notion simply will not do.
However, that doesn't justify hating or denigrating adherents of other
religious convictions as individuals.
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
