A Catholic website for the modern reader
Apartheid
In the Image of...
31/08/20 15:36 Filed in: Image of God | Humanity
More than one religious tradition holds that all humans are created in the image and likeness of God. Although not specifically cited, that is the reason that the Declaration of Independence states “all men (sic) are created equal.”
But how can all people be created in God’s image if we look so different? Why are all people not white? After all, God is an old white man with a long white beard. A little less jolly than Santa Claus, but clearly more loving and joyful. Of course that concept sounds silly. It should. But it is at the heart of white supremacy.
From the halls of the Third Reich to South African Apartheid to the Trump White House, white people rule (d), sometimes even corrupting the Sacred Scriptures to support their air of superiority. In fact, if the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC were painted any other color, it is unlikely that Trump would have ever run for President. The Pink House, The Black House, certainly the Blue House, even the Red House would not have been so appealing. But back to that "image of God" thing.
It is commonly held that simply the process of being created, results in another image of God. But I wonder. Should we not first determine what makes someone human? After all, we do not claim that any of the other animals are created in God's image. Only humans. So it is a fair question and it is not too difficult to look backward and conclude that some of the most notorious people in history were not really human. I’m not speaking of imperfections or even sinfulness. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. But consider.
Would anyone really argue that Adolf Hitler was human? Not only did he drag the world into unimaginable war for the sake of his own ego, he implemented the Final Solution resulting in the murder of six million Jews.
Hitler’s counterpart in the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin, a man whose rise to power would shame Machiavelli. That ascent was was both manipulative and lacking in loyalty—at least on Stalin’s part. His exercise of power was directly responsible for the death of some 20 million Soviet citizens. Despite his brilliance, Stalin’s disregard for human life makes it difficult to assign him the designation of “human."
Farther to the East was Mao Zedong. Like his predecessors in Germany and Russia, he brooked no opposition. His supposed acceptance of criticism lasted only a few months, long enough to identify and then persecute some 500,000 plus intellectuals. His vision for a post-agricultural, industrialized China, a world power on equal footing with Russia and the United States, resulted in the death of more than fifty million Chinese.
Each of the men mentioned above lacked compassion. They were ruthless and vindictive. Indeed they were devoid of basic humanity. An argument can rightly be made that they were not created in the image of God.
There are many imitators on today’s world scene. Most of them, however, lack the oratorical skill of a Hitler, the intellectual rigor of a Stalin or the world vision of a Mao. But what they all have in common are insatiable egos, a distortion of reality and, most importantly, a lack of humanity. Whether that person is a Putin or a Kim or a Maduro or a Trump. Yes, sad as it is, we must include the current American president.
What kind of human being would rip children, some as young as toddlers, from their parents and hold them in cages? Well, a Hitler would. What kind of human being would dismiss nearly 200,000 preventable deaths, all the result of his own incompetence, with the phrase “It is what it is?” Well, a Stalin would. What kind of human being would stoke racial violence and threaten democracy? Well, a Mao would. And Trump has done all that without oratorical skill, intellectual rigor, and clearly without a social vision.
This is not an exercise in curiosity. There is an election coming up and democracy is at stake. When we cast our ballots we must ask ourselves what kind of president we want. Trump has an out of control ego; he is ruthless and vindictive; he demands loyalty but offers none; he embraces evil as long as that evil likes him; he claims to support law and order but praises lawless violence—if the perpetrators like him. Trump has no appreciable intellect and no integrity. Hell, Trump has no humanity.
Anyone who has the slightest flicker of faith must confront the reality that Donald J. Trump was not created in the image and likeness of God. That seems to narrow our choice this year.
But how can all people be created in God’s image if we look so different? Why are all people not white? After all, God is an old white man with a long white beard. A little less jolly than Santa Claus, but clearly more loving and joyful. Of course that concept sounds silly. It should. But it is at the heart of white supremacy.
From the halls of the Third Reich to South African Apartheid to the Trump White House, white people rule (d), sometimes even corrupting the Sacred Scriptures to support their air of superiority. In fact, if the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC were painted any other color, it is unlikely that Trump would have ever run for President. The Pink House, The Black House, certainly the Blue House, even the Red House would not have been so appealing. But back to that "image of God" thing.
It is commonly held that simply the process of being created, results in another image of God. But I wonder. Should we not first determine what makes someone human? After all, we do not claim that any of the other animals are created in God's image. Only humans. So it is a fair question and it is not too difficult to look backward and conclude that some of the most notorious people in history were not really human. I’m not speaking of imperfections or even sinfulness. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. But consider.
Would anyone really argue that Adolf Hitler was human? Not only did he drag the world into unimaginable war for the sake of his own ego, he implemented the Final Solution resulting in the murder of six million Jews.
Hitler’s counterpart in the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin, a man whose rise to power would shame Machiavelli. That ascent was was both manipulative and lacking in loyalty—at least on Stalin’s part. His exercise of power was directly responsible for the death of some 20 million Soviet citizens. Despite his brilliance, Stalin’s disregard for human life makes it difficult to assign him the designation of “human."
Farther to the East was Mao Zedong. Like his predecessors in Germany and Russia, he brooked no opposition. His supposed acceptance of criticism lasted only a few months, long enough to identify and then persecute some 500,000 plus intellectuals. His vision for a post-agricultural, industrialized China, a world power on equal footing with Russia and the United States, resulted in the death of more than fifty million Chinese.
Each of the men mentioned above lacked compassion. They were ruthless and vindictive. Indeed they were devoid of basic humanity. An argument can rightly be made that they were not created in the image of God.
There are many imitators on today’s world scene. Most of them, however, lack the oratorical skill of a Hitler, the intellectual rigor of a Stalin or the world vision of a Mao. But what they all have in common are insatiable egos, a distortion of reality and, most importantly, a lack of humanity. Whether that person is a Putin or a Kim or a Maduro or a Trump. Yes, sad as it is, we must include the current American president.
What kind of human being would rip children, some as young as toddlers, from their parents and hold them in cages? Well, a Hitler would. What kind of human being would dismiss nearly 200,000 preventable deaths, all the result of his own incompetence, with the phrase “It is what it is?” Well, a Stalin would. What kind of human being would stoke racial violence and threaten democracy? Well, a Mao would. And Trump has done all that without oratorical skill, intellectual rigor, and clearly without a social vision.
This is not an exercise in curiosity. There is an election coming up and democracy is at stake. When we cast our ballots we must ask ourselves what kind of president we want. Trump has an out of control ego; he is ruthless and vindictive; he demands loyalty but offers none; he embraces evil as long as that evil likes him; he claims to support law and order but praises lawless violence—if the perpetrators like him. Trump has no appreciable intellect and no integrity. Hell, Trump has no humanity.
Anyone who has the slightest flicker of faith must confront the reality that Donald J. Trump was not created in the image and likeness of God. That seems to narrow our choice this year.
Full Circle: Apartheid Returns to America
The word apartheid was never used in America to describe the era of segregation, nor was it used to describe race relations in general. It is a word sprung from the heart of the Afrikaans language to express a deep-seated prejudice against non-white South Africans, primarily blacks. What many do not know is that the South African system of Apartheid was directly modeled on the American system of segregation.
During its 40-year history, Apartheid came to be vilified as one of the most despicable institutional government policies of the modern world. Even before formally establishing this horrendous system, South Africa created legislation known as “pass laws” to regulate the movement of non-whites. These laws required non-whites to carry passbooks that proved they had a right to travel within certain areas of the country.
Not only an implement to control the movement of non-whites within an area, these pass laws were also used to keep them completely out from others. For example, Indians were not allowed in the Orange Free State (one of the four provinces that comprised South Africa before the new constitution was established in 1996).
The United States of America became the recipient of a dubious gift from the U.S. Supreme Court in late June. Apartheid has returned to the nest. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the Court’s decision on the Arizona anti-immigration law (SB 1070).
Given that Apartheid was such a disaster in South Africa, the chick was clever enough to return masquerading under a new name: Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182. Admittedly, it is not as simple or catchy as Apartheid, but it is just as effective.
It is true that the Supreme Court does not incorporate the word Apartheid into its decision. But that is just an insidious affront to the intelligence of U.S. citizens—or an acknowledgement of the lack thereof. It is almost as if they know, or inherently suspect, that their decision is a violation of human rights, dignity and justice.
It has almost become trite and tiring to reference Emma Lazarus’ poem at the foot of the Statue of Liberty whenever immigration comes up for debate. And yet, that poem should be as foundational in American life as the Constitution, itself. For, not unlike the Declaration of Independence, the poem enlists words of profound beauty to enshrine the values that define the new America. Values that underpin the Constitution and make it possible. Indeed, the poem appeals to and calls forth our better selves.
Most people find familiar the lines beginning with, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” They are the great rallying cry, proclaiming to all the world: Here lies a land of freedom and equality. We have always struggled to live up to the challenge. Sometimes we simply refuse to heed the call. Three sentences earlier in the poem, we read about the statue herself: “From her beacon-hand glows worldwide welcome.” That simply is no longer true.
Some might suggest that poetry is not law. Fair enough. But we are not just a nation of law. The constitution was not created in, nor does it exist in, a vacuum. If poetry espouses the values upon which the law is founded, then the law should reflect back those same values. On this point the Supreme Court failed.
The issue at hand is not whether someone entered the United States legally or illegally. If officers can demand papers when they stop someone, then people who are here legally will not be afforded the rights that are legitimately theirs. Let us at least be honest about two things. First, just as in the South Africa of old, the only people who will be questioned will be people of color. Secondly, the United States is no longer a land where everyone is welcome.
As the right wing xenophobes in more and more states seek to turn this national disgrace into law, the courts become the only recourse for a society seeking to regain its moral balance and sanity.
The justices on the Supreme Court swore to uphold the Constitution. Perhaps they should look not just to the letter of the law, but the principles that breathe spirit into the law.
During its 40-year history, Apartheid came to be vilified as one of the most despicable institutional government policies of the modern world. Even before formally establishing this horrendous system, South Africa created legislation known as “pass laws” to regulate the movement of non-whites. These laws required non-whites to carry passbooks that proved they had a right to travel within certain areas of the country.
Not only an implement to control the movement of non-whites within an area, these pass laws were also used to keep them completely out from others. For example, Indians were not allowed in the Orange Free State (one of the four provinces that comprised South Africa before the new constitution was established in 1996).
The United States of America became the recipient of a dubious gift from the U.S. Supreme Court in late June. Apartheid has returned to the nest. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the Court’s decision on the Arizona anti-immigration law (SB 1070).
Given that Apartheid was such a disaster in South Africa, the chick was clever enough to return masquerading under a new name: Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182. Admittedly, it is not as simple or catchy as Apartheid, but it is just as effective.
It is true that the Supreme Court does not incorporate the word Apartheid into its decision. But that is just an insidious affront to the intelligence of U.S. citizens—or an acknowledgement of the lack thereof. It is almost as if they know, or inherently suspect, that their decision is a violation of human rights, dignity and justice.
It has almost become trite and tiring to reference Emma Lazarus’ poem at the foot of the Statue of Liberty whenever immigration comes up for debate. And yet, that poem should be as foundational in American life as the Constitution, itself. For, not unlike the Declaration of Independence, the poem enlists words of profound beauty to enshrine the values that define the new America. Values that underpin the Constitution and make it possible. Indeed, the poem appeals to and calls forth our better selves.
Most people find familiar the lines beginning with, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” They are the great rallying cry, proclaiming to all the world: Here lies a land of freedom and equality. We have always struggled to live up to the challenge. Sometimes we simply refuse to heed the call. Three sentences earlier in the poem, we read about the statue herself: “From her beacon-hand glows worldwide welcome.” That simply is no longer true.
Some might suggest that poetry is not law. Fair enough. But we are not just a nation of law. The constitution was not created in, nor does it exist in, a vacuum. If poetry espouses the values upon which the law is founded, then the law should reflect back those same values. On this point the Supreme Court failed.
The issue at hand is not whether someone entered the United States legally or illegally. If officers can demand papers when they stop someone, then people who are here legally will not be afforded the rights that are legitimately theirs. Let us at least be honest about two things. First, just as in the South Africa of old, the only people who will be questioned will be people of color. Secondly, the United States is no longer a land where everyone is welcome.
As the right wing xenophobes in more and more states seek to turn this national disgrace into law, the courts become the only recourse for a society seeking to regain its moral balance and sanity.
The justices on the Supreme Court swore to uphold the Constitution. Perhaps they should look not just to the letter of the law, but the principles that breathe spirit into the law.