A Certain Lack of Gravity

You know I gotta say something, right?

I've been sitting on this one, trying to organize my thoughts carefully before writing something down and putting it up for the world to see. But I think I've figured out what I want to say, and I hope to do so with an economy of words, rather than through my usual explosion of prose.

To make it short, I have very little sympathy for these people. I hate to say it, but that's the way I honestly feel.

No one deserves to die this way, and the Taliban are assholes. But those are constants in this equation – this, we already know. In the end, the only people directly responsible for the hostages' present predicament are the hostages themselves.

Dude – posing in front of the "Please stay the fuck out of Afghanistan unless you really, really have to go" sign and effectively giving fate the middle finger...even non-Christian folks surely would have too much of a healthy fear of God to go that far.

But that's the point, now in'nit? They have an over-developed sense of matyrdom; or the belief that the rules of the City of Man don't apply to them, given that they think the Hand of God will keep and protect them, even if they walk in front of a moving train.

Hey, that's fine – if you're not dragging your country and the rest of the world into a diplomatic and ethical mess because you've been swigging at the Kool-Aid too long. The way I see it, one's journey into heaven isn't going to be barred by not walking into the Valley of Death in the middle of a war zone, in a country that already has many religions – that, oops, mostly aren't Christian, and have expressly forbidden the teaching of said religion there. At the threat of your life, by gunpoint, written out in expressed warnings, again and again.

In the unfortunate event that they are killed, I frankly don't think anyone who approved of them going in the first place – friends or family – has much moral ground to stand on in demanding the early withdrawal of Korean troops. You know, lots of journalists and other workers were over there doing whatever they felt they had to do, but took what they did and their situations with a certain gravity, a knowledge that they knew the risks, which they accepted and tried to minimize by keeping a low profile, respecting the culture (or at least doing the required do-diligence to reduce risk for themselves and all in their party); these people were not much of a step above arrogant, ethnocentric, ludicrously self-deluded tourists-as-missionaries who justified their stupidity and arrogance with spreading God's word.

Don't get me wrong – I respect anyone who chooses to do so. But ignoring all reasonable warnings from both the host and even your own governments, running around in a bus all together without the security arrangements that are considered basic to anyone operating there, and blatantly engaging in missionary work while treating the whole thing like a trip to Disneyland – arrgh!

That's beyond stupid, beyond irresponsible, and eminently selfish.

If and when anyone loses their lives in that group over there, I unfortunately have to say that I have little sympathy in my heart for them, because my soul has been wrenched enough when I saw the look of horror on the face of one of the men beheaded by insurgents a few years ago; there are few things in my life I regret seeing – that video is one of them.

What sticks out in my mind, as this emotionally exhausting war has dragged on and on, claiming victims on all sides, is the fact that the people who go before them in death at the end of a sword wanted to live and showed it by taking precautions and accepting the challenges and risks inherent to what they were doing.

This is the very definition of courage, and I reserve a special respect for people such as Daniel Pearl, who have risked (and sometimes lost) their lives to get the story out, or Jean Chung, the Korean photojournalist who just won a prestigious award for her work in Afghanistan, who is smart, knows her environment, and has the fundamental respect for where she is such that she stays as safe as possible while doing what is inherently dangerous work.

What these deluded missionaries are engaged in is an exercise in profound stupidity and arrogance, which unfortunately just might get them killed. No one wants them to die; but I'm sorry to say that I'll reserve my grief and emotion – what little there is left at this point in this gruesome war – for people who actually give a shit about their lives and don't treat what they're doing like a game.

And for anyone who wants the Korean government to withdraw troops on behalf of these nincompoops who literally up and walked right into the middle of the line of fire and basically handed the Taliban a kiloton of leverage – tell it to Daniel Pearl's wife, or the other people who lost their lives and behaved like they gave enough of a crap about what they were doing to treat their own lives, as well as the work they were engaged in, with enough respect to go about doing it properly, meaning, in a way far less likely to get them killed, or at least used as hostages. I'd like to hear what people like Daniel Pearl's wife thinks of these people, who seem to take their lives – or, at least, the situation they're walking into – for a joke.

Comments

[Aaron]

Thank you for writing what needed to be written. I've long taken umbrage at the "I know what's right for you" attitude of missionaries and, while I wouldn't wish the Taliban on anyone, it is hard to muster much sympathy when folks go and get themselves into such a fix as this.

I recall a news story of a few years ago out of Taiwan, wherein a Christian fellow went to the Taipei Zoo and got it in his head that the lions needed converting. He jumped in, begged the cats to repent for their sins and got mauled for his efforts. The lions, as far as I know, remain heathens.

This Taiwanese man was, if memory serves, a diagnosed nutcase. What's the excuse of Afghan 23?

[Blahblah]

"What's the excuse of Afghan 23?"

Gee, I don't know...Maybe they wanted to get a head start so that they'd get the lion's share of the converts and keep all the potential benefits--ideological and/or financial--for themselves? Or maybe they naively thought that it would and could only be an experience that would look good on their resumes?

[Kushibo]

CONTENT DELETED FOR IMPERSONATING USER

[Blahblah]

Looks like the legitimate aid organizations are are quite upset about their reckless behavior.

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200707/200707240017.html

[BRian]

I couldn't agree more...

[John]

I thought Koreans at home tended to live in enough of a bubble as it was.....

[Joseph Steinberg]

Daniel's mother, Judea, wrote this article, "Back to Focus", for TNR (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070702&s=pearl070307). She takes a swing at moral relativism, which ironically lies at the heart of these Christian aid workers' beliefs:

I used to believe that the world essentially divided into two types of people: those who were broadly tolerant; and those who felt threatened by differences. If only the forces of tolerance could win out over the forces of intolerance, I reasoned, the world might finally know some measure of peace.

But there was a problem with my theory, and it was never clearer than in a conversation I once had with a Pakistani friend who told me that he loathed people like President Bush who insisted on dividing the world into "us" and "them." My friend, of course, was taking an innocent stand against intolerance, and did not realize that, in so doing, he was in fact dividing the world into "us" and "them," falling straight into the camp of people he loathed.

This is a political version of a famous paradox formulated by Bertrand Russell in 1901, which shook the logical foundations of mathematics. Any person who claims to be tolerant naturally defines himself in opposition to those who are intolerant. But that makes him intolerant of certain people--which invalidates his claim to be tolerant.

The political lesson of Russell's paradox is that there is no such thing as unqualified tolerance. Ultimately, one must be able to expound intolerance of certain groups or ideologies without surrendering the moral high ground normally linked to tolerance and inclusivity. One should, in fact, condemn and resist political doctrines that advocate the murder of innocents, that undermine the basic norms of civilization, or that seek to make pluralism impossible. There can be no moral equivalence between those who seek--however clumsily--to build a more liberal, tolerant world and those who advocate the annihilation of other faiths, cultures, or states.

Which brings me to my son, Daniel Pearl. Thanks to the release of A Mighty Heart, the movie based on Mariane Pearl's book of the same title, Danny's legacy is once again receiving attention. Of course, no movie could ever capture exactly what made Danny special--his humor, his integrity, his love of humanity--or why he was admired by so many. For journalists, Danny represents the courage and nobility inherent in their profession. For Americans, Danny is a symbol of one of our very best national instincts: the desire to extend a warm hand of friendship and dialogue to faraway lands and peoples. And for anyone who is proud of their heritage or faith, Danny's last words, "I am Jewish," showed that it is possible to find dignity in one's identity even in the darkest of moments. Traces of these ideas are certainly evident in A Mighty Heart, and I hope viewers will leave the theater inspired by them.

At the same time, I am worried that A Mighty Heart falls into a trap Bertrand Russell would have recognized: the paradox of moral equivalence, of seeking to extend the logic of tolerance a step too far. You can see traces of this logic in the film's comparison of Danny's abduction with Guantánamo--it opens with pictures from the prison--and its comparison of Al Qaeda militants with CIA agents. You can also see it in the comments of the movie's director, Michael Winterbottom, who wrote on The Washington Post's website that A Mighty Heart and his previous film The Road to Guantánamo "are very similar. Both are stories about people who are victims of increasing violence on both sides. There are extremists on both sides who want to ratchet up the levels of violence and hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this."

Drawing a comparison between Danny's murder and the detainment of suspects in Guantánamo is precisely what the killers wanted, as expressed in both their e-mails and the murder video. Obviously Winterbottom did not mean to echo their sentiments, and certainly not to justify their demands or actions. Still, I am concerned that aspects of his movie will play into the hands of professional obscurers of moral clarity.

Indeed, following an advance screening of A Mighty Heart, a panelist representing the Council on American-Islamic Relations reportedly said, "We need to end the culture of bombs, torture, occupation, and violence. This is the message to take from the film." The message that angry youngsters are hearing is unfortunate: All forms of violence are equally evil; therefore, as long as one persists, others should not be ruled out. This is precisely the logic used by Mohammed Siddiqui Khan, one of the London suicide bombers, in his videotape on Al Jazeera. "Your democratically elected governments," he told his British countrymen, "continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people ... . [W]e will not stop."

Danny's tragedy demands an end to this logic. There can be no comparison between those who take pride in the killing of an unarmed journalist and those who vow to end such acts--no ifs, ands, or buts. Moral relativism died with Daniel Pearl, in Karachi, on January 31, 2002.

There was a time when drawing moral symmetries between two sides of every conflict was a mark of original thinking. Today, with Western intellectuals overextending two-sidedness to reckless absurdities, it reflects nothing but lazy conformity. What is needed now is for intellectuals, filmmakers, and the rest of us to resist this dangerous trend and draw legitimate distinctions where such distinctions are warranted.

My son Danny had the courage to examine all sides. He was a genuine listener and a champion of dialogue. Yet he also had principles and red lines. He was tolerant but not mindlessly so. I hope viewers will remember this when they see A Mighty Heart.

[Joseph Steinberg]

BLATANTLY ANTI-SEMITIC COMMENT DELETED, IMPERSONATED USER, IP BANNED

[mjw]

are you kidding? pure scum? a bit rich, don't you think?

[Richard]

If only Roh would say:
The Republic of Korea offers a reward 0f 2 million dollars for the arrest and conviciton of those responsible for the kidnapping of its citizens. In addition, I have authorized the dispatch of a combat brigade of 3000 troops to be deployed In Afgnaistan to assist NATO.
These troops will take an active part in NATO operations and will see combat.
As a civilized nation and a member of the world community we can not sit by and watch the people of Afghanistan be held prisoner of the these bandit elements.

[Christian]

Is the article of the mother of Daniel Pearl a kind of Sokal Affair again, or what?

As a theorist in computer science, I ought to say that the continued usage of a result in formal logic, litterally or metaphorically, in a non-mathematical field, like sociology or anthropology, is an intellectual deception:

This is a political version of a famous paradox formulated by Bertrand Russell in 1901, which shook the logical foundations of mathematics.

Too many French postmodernists have already tried to sold to the public the Godel theorem to prove whatever they wanted (see Regis Debray about religions for example).

(By the way, the date should be 1902, according to Joan Weiner, author of Frege Explained.)

This cancels out any credibility in the text. It is even more a problem that Russell wrote about tolerance in his philosophical works... But a cliche is always best for the world to read, I guess.

[Hwarang]

"If only Roh would say:
The Republic of Korea offers a reward 0f 2 million dollars for the arrest and conviciton of those responsible for the kidnapping of its citizens. In addition, I have authorized the dispatch of a combat brigade of 3000 troops to be deployed In Afgnaistan to assist NATO.
These troops will take an active part in NATO operations and will see combat.
As a civilized nation and a member of the world community we can not sit by and watch the people of Afghanistan be held prisoner of the these bandit elements."

MJW, I agree that'd be nice, but I have a hard time imagining it happening. Each sentence you posted was exponentially less probable than the one before it.

[Hwarang]

I apologize -- that was Richard's post, not MJW.

[Rain Man (from Budapest, Hungary)]

I have been a reader of this blog for several years now. I check in with you, Michael, whenever I have a chance, wherever I am in the world. As a long-term resident (15 years) of Korea, I find that your observations are usually just spot-on, and your sincere passion for your subject just beams right out of the computer screen -- even in moments of scathing, molten criticism. But this posting is the dog's balls, the real deal: it really blows away any other commentary being made on this subject so far. Thank you for your bravery. (And thanks for, as you admitted, digesting things a few days first before beginning your trenchant, judicious rant: I didn't need the usual raincoat when facing the spittle emanating from my computer screen that normally attends your most passionate posts!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

But seriously, there are a couple of points which you raise here, so frankly, which the media is just not saying so boldly, and need to be said:

1. Just as you say, these kids were on a summer fling, with heavy missionary bent. The media and government are saying it was just honest do-gooding, with no other program. Yet the facts alone destroy this made-for-media myth, this fig-leaf to cover the shame of the Protestant elders who flung them out there. They are described as "nurses and teachers," but in a 7- or 10-day planned "excursion" into a deadly war-zone, what continuity of either medical care or teaching could be expected to be accomplished? You yourself are a teacher: How much English penetrates in seven days? And their itinerary assumes a heck of a lot of moving along in their chartered bus: I guess they brought their students and patients along with them! That fact ALONE lays bare that stanky media red herring that they were doing simple volunteer work. Yet the media does not pick this up? I hope that people like you and serious-thinking folk in the mainstream media will lay bare the flagrant lie that this is. (Of course, I understand that the gov't and media may need -- FOR THE TIME BEING -- to put out this scent to dispel the Talibans' wrath, so the kids aren't offed on the spot. If so, OK, no problem: the compassion of expedient means. But if the myth continues after their safe return/miserable demise, then we know that it was, all along, a sop thrown to the myth-making media by people more interested in protecting their church asses -- legally, socially, politically, morally, what have you -- than anything else.)

2. I don't know if you got a look at the Saem Mul Church website in the early hours of this. If you didn't, I encourage you to get your hands on the "captures" of the foreign missions pages that seem to be floating around out there, as I've read that it has since been drastically changed. But when I saw the whole "rah-rah-rah" advertising to rouse young people into this sort of missionizing, I wanted to puke -- literally. Under the title of foreign mission programs such as "Rejoice! Afghanistan," they had this glossy, exuberant, utterly crass appeal to their Korean youths' obvious wish to go out in the world and do good (and, if possible, get some good pix and stories for their Cyworlds). (If they had titled this program, "Allahu, Akbar! Afghanistan" -- well, then, I'd be able to buy their whole "we're sensitive to other cultures, we love Afghanistan" crap.)

The point here is, the level of manipulative, utterly disingenuous behavior aimed at rousing their congregants' passions. This stuff was really almost evil. It was all polish and pizzazz, using youth-y words and emotions to hook these kids into what turns out to be work too dangerous even for battled-hardened soldiers.

My point is, the church leaders who sponsored this whole thing -- and by connection, sponsor like-minded projects in dozens of countries through literally hundreds of churches -- should be held to account. I and many others would appreciate if some sort of presentation of this crass manipulation of susceptible, romantic young peoples' hearts and souls for the sake of church/organizational glory could be exposed. Because it must. These kids were literally thrown into the maws of death by clean and coiffed gentlemen (cf., the pastor of their church, with trained half-bow of the head, "apologizing" in his air-conditioned office) for whom missions are, in the current Korean church (read: Protestant), the new "sacred cow." The big pastors become bigger, the unknown churches become known, when they can raise up these programs, garner huge donations (donations in most Protestant churches are focused around amassing holy war chests for mission), bring back STUNNING FOOTAGE of Korean young people doing hymns among dusty-colored colored helpless races. Korea -- as you well know, and have abundantly expressed -- is intoxicated with its new-found orientalism: the most popular programs on TV are stars going to far-off, destitute lands to have fumbling exchanges and weird eating experiences with the (again, nearly always) "well-tanned" locals.

I don't know why NO ONE is talking about it, but for Korean churches nowadays, they get their "self-signifying" power by showing how much more capable and equipped and functioning and richer than the "Other" that they are either a) having a beautiful young Korean singer or actress traipse with a "native" in some local or contrived stunt, the local "Other" unknowing and even confused but the camera capturing the "Other's" innocent (read: ignorant) fascination, nevertheless, with this Korean thing which is so beautiful and confident and free and has cameras and microphones. (It screams back to the homeland viewer: "Look! We're not poor anymore! We're not connected to that history of abject destitution fed us by our 'halmoni.' We're a liberated, 'in'-people!! It's these unfortunates -- how interesting they are!!"; or b) doing these loud mission programs where Koreans can show (and there's film of it! by God! is there ALWAYS a camera there to take in their Christ-likeness!!) that they are a developed country, a rich country, able to compassionately condescend just as fearlessly as their white overlords did before.

3. FUNDING. Michael, who paid for this trip? My gut feeling -- reading how they had travelled to several countries to avoid detection by the Korean gov't, which opposed their trip -- is that people that age don't have a whole hell of a lot of disposable cash laying around to fund evasive airplane trips. I don't know. But what I'm trying to say with this, what my gut is saying -- and it's not trying to just look for conspiratorial stuff, or be petty -- is that this trip MUST have been funded, in whole or in part, by the church that sent them. It would have been from funds raised for missions. My point is that this would completely show a) legal exposure on the part of church authorities; and b) [more darkly] that the argument (above) that these kids were just lassoed up as cannon fodder for the reputations of elder church-statesmen who could always trumpet (and each congregation DOES) the greater numbers that THEY are sending than this or that other church.

This point is made effectively more important when one reads that the leader of this church, the good reverend, is founder and head of the pseudo-non-denominational Korean People's something-or-other NGO thing that arranged this trip, to give non-religious cover for them to slip into areas where they are plainly "Christiana non grata."

Again, this point about funding for the trip, if a good and courageous reporter or blogger could dig up, would go a long way to EXPOSING THE COVER OF HOW KIDS ARE SENT AS CANNON FODDER for the greater glory and fame of their leaders, paid for by their leaders, to bring good images and stories which further gild their leaders' image and standing in the broader Christian community, and in Korean society;

4. The issue I raised above about Korean churches -- through missionary work to the dusty-colored ones -- being at the vanguard of this chic and sexy new reverse Orientalism that's happening throughout Korean consciousness, in so many other areas. (But you'll notice how the "talents" and singers who do the stuff for those godawful programs are also, invariably, prominent members of these Kangnam churches.) Does anyone want to look at that? And how this "missionary work," is, in fact, just the Orientalist's masturbatory self-joy, the revelation of the power and the perfection and the righteousness of his own image?

5. The issue of "foreign missionary work" versus "DOMESTIC missionary work." It is no accident that these churches send youth abroad during summer vacations, as much as possible, when isn't that our beloved rainy season? Isn't that the season of typhoons and flooding on grand scale, where military battalions are called in to clean up and especially FEED and provide MEDICAL ATTENTION and HOUSING to the displaced, here in "uri nara"? Now, I know that a good number of churches do this already, as do many Buddhist temples. But why not have these youth, passionate to ameliorate the world's suffering, be on standby (the "chang ma" is an entirely, specifically predictable event) as corps to help? I heard that Koreans in the number of some 14,000 are heading to overseas missions, the bulk of that during the summer months? Why not working on the homefront? (and here's the money shot) Because it would not present their churchmen overseers with the sexy camera footage, the glossy shots of the prostrate "Other," desperate for Korean power, the photographic material which can then be shown to congregations eager to dispel their own suffering image of THEMselves, and willing to donate dearly for that image's immediate erasure!

6. The issue of how this group was TOLD by the government not to go, and the government even somehow prevented their departure, etc., causing the church to threaten a lawsuit for infringing on their civil rights! And yet now -- and here's the point -- these organizations which are FULLY and WHOLLY EXEMPT from paying taxes to Caesar have now cost Caesar (and me and you) huge amounts. The fact that people SO reliant on "otherworld" power are suddenly clinging to the "this-world" boot of the necktie types toiling away down in Kwanghwa-Mun!

Achhh, I could go on. And I may have to, later. But I am not sure if this comment will go through, anyway -- I have never, EVER commented on a blog before in my life! So I'm not sure if you'll see this.

But I would hope that people like you and the Big Hominid and the Marmot would get down on some of these points and really STIMULATE SOME NOISE. So that this terrible manipulation of young people by their elders STOPS. You guys might be contributing, in some ways (I DO believe it, actually) to saving other people's lives, if this can be prevented from ever happening as "normal" practice again.

[seouldout]

Spot on, Rain Man. It was little more than a vanity & fund-raising project for the leaders at the expense of those whose youthful exuberance and reckless abandon led them to conclude that facing the unconverted would bring them closer to Jesus. Helping the homeless at Seoul Station and volunteering at orphanages doesn't impress the members nor open their wallets. Gotta build me a church that rivals that big one on Yoiudo.

[Hugh]

My first thought after hearing this was "What kind of outrageously negligient parents let their 21 year old daughter go on a christian missionary tour to a muslim war-zone country?" Because you know, in the Korean context, you know these kids had their parents permission.

[Andre]

I have to disagree with you . If it's their calling ( which you probably might not believe because you yourself aren't Christian) then I would say go do it.

[Blahblah]

Rain Man,

Their trip was planned to have lasted a week, a week and a half tops? I've gotta agree, it appears the main intent was to produce pictures of the kids 'roughing it with the locals'.

[John]

Any sign of wanting money is a concession if that is the case.I said to my wife that's a hopeful sign...

No-one wants to see them die.

[Judea Pearl]

A friend bought my attention to you blog, for which I am grateful. You are very thoughtful, deep, inquisitive, and scholarly for an AAfrican-American.
I'm sorry If I spoke out of turn , but you are deep.
One of my friends is married to an African-American, and she says her husband is very deep.
But as for my son, he is a willing servant of the lord that unfortunately died for his cause, he worked for an institution that willingly played the devils hand on launching a war on an innocent nation that has already resulted in nearly a million deaths. And the mainstream media remains silent.
I pray that you keep you blog going, let people know what Danny was living for, and what a better world we can make for ourselves.

[Sonagi]

I'd like to see username "Judea Pearl's" IP address.

[Rain Man]

Dear Andre,

Thank you for your reaction, and thanks for visiting this blog, because I believe it's perhaps the frankest one out there, for people like us who share some interest in Korea and Korean issues. Getting guys like us to dialogue is one of its many uncountable virtues.

But your reaction is telling, and, whether you intended it or not, in fact reinforces EXACTLY the point which I believe this blog's owner was pointing to, and to which I humbly offered my own reactions. I have ZERO competitive sense, and if you knew me, you'd know, too, that there isn't a BONE of one-upsmanship in my body. So I do not reply to your comment out of those emotions at all: please believe me on this, and be patient with what I have to say:

You see, that short, pithy sentence which you wrote captures PRECISELY and ATOMICALLY the issue we are all looking at here, when you peel away all of the onion layers: whether it's smokin' hot babes like Hyo-Ree getting her politically-correct ethical street cred with the abased darkies in the bush as mere adjustable background, or these kiddies sent on missions which are so way, way, way out of their professional and emotional league that they even drove the kind of Korean-style, air-conditioned tour buses which literally SHOUT "Kidnap me! Kidnap me!" because (as other, long-term Afghanistan-based Korean aid orgs have stated in print this week) NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND and with ANY SENSE of the LOCAL SITUATION would E V E R ride on, and without informing local police authorities of their presence in the most dangerous area, and with no armed or semi-armed (think your local night watch guy at the A&P, if you need the force-element to be Ghandied down in keeping with the compassion of this English-teaching mission).

OK, this was a digression. But you get the point: Your line does EXACTLY the misplaced work -- and therefore, damage -- in an atomic, absolutely nutshell form that these situations all grow out of.

You wrote back to me:

"I have to disagree with you. If it's their calling (which you probably might not believe because you yourself aren't Christian) then I would say go do it."

Your quote, n'est-ce pas?

But I have a Master's degree in Theology, and Comparative Religion (from a pretty decent place, too).

This fact is not important, but is cited only because it reveals -- and stay with me on this, because this is the money shot -- the implicit ASSUMPTION contained in your take on my previous post. Just because one speaks as I or anyone else critiquing this sad situation might, or even express any critique whatsoever of these very difficult matters, one ASSUMES that "you yourself aren't Christian."

Now, my Christian background teaches me to have compassion, and furthermore, as one trained in semiotics at Yale, under the great Peter Demetz, no less, I can try to trap other potential nuances of meaning, however intended or unintended. Perhaps your "which you probably might not believe because you yourself aren't Christian" point MIGHT be less an assertion of your-fact than a mere subjonctive: You are holding that I MIGHT believe a certain way because I MIGHT not be Christian.

I'll be Christian about things, and hand you the better half of the loaf. I MIGHT think a certain way because I MIGHT -- only MIGHT -- not be Christian.

But it's an assumption, nevertheless, whether you perceive that with CERTAINTY or with a nuanced sense of doubt. It is still an assumption about one person's identity (and therefore values and bias and all that) BASED on what this person said. It is an assumption. Remember what the great Felix Unger said! "When you assume, you make and ASS of U and ME!"

So, your statement is that I think this way about this issue because I am this or am not that.

And yet you learn, now, that I am precisely NOT the POTENTIALITY which you so easily and, I believe, REFLEXIVELY identified me out to be: I am, in fact, a Christian, and one with an advanced degree -- from a Divinity School, not a faculty of just farty old academic Xtians!!

Bear with me, Andre, because I am taking great pains to be as clear as possible, not to prove myself right, but to serve this larger issue that the Metropolitician (did anyone ever wonder how he came up with THAT moniker? It doesn't match the hipness of his posts, or the savagery of his blade) rose up for us:

Here is the gist of this entire reply to your thoughtful comment (and as a good Christian, I DO beg your forgiveness for its length, but I did it this way to show you that I care about showing how your kind of reply is -- **WINCE** -- exactly the nano form of what we see going on with these poor 23 young folks) -- again, here's the gist:

People making assumptions about other people and their [religious/spiritual/social/cultural] identities only bring damage first, for whatever healing is purported.

I know it's a WAY easy shot, but we all know that my "soen bae nim" George Bush also believes it is his calling to bring such-and-such democracy and freedom to Iraq/Mid East. Yet, to his shrunken cortex, calling though it may be, we see the effect. (For the theological calling he himself -- and many, many in his camp -- believes, I refer you to the EXCELLENT EXCELLENT column by [David?] Brooks in last week's NYT, re: Bush's meeting with conservative columnists.)

But I'm taking you WAY off base here. I don't mean to bludgeon things.

You see, those kids and their ego-drenched mentors who have constructed this whole world-weary mess started the problem by first ASSUMING that the folks in Afghannie NEED a) their MTV? b) a BRAND NEW Wii!!!!!!! c) Hyo-Ree's latest swimsuit shots, or d) JESUS!

They ASSUME that (this is another word for BELIEVE, which I SHOULD use, but you see I NEED to keep channeling the spiritual grace of Felix Unger for this whole damned RANT!! (Do I not more resemble the Metroplitician than Michael Hurt himself, what with the absurd length, the jagged edge, and these fantabulously winded digressions?)

They ASSUME.

You see, I have NEVER, ever written a comment on a blog until that earlier one, and have obviously never participated in the vanity games that most follow-ups become.

But when I read your short sentence, it hit me like a gazillion tons of bricks: This is exactly the point that any sane discussion of the Taleban 23, or Iraq, or even the Pope's latest declaration must entertain: I (or someone else) says or thinks or BELIEVES or reasons like this, therefore I am, ipso facto, THAT. (And I'm still holding out that greater half of the loaf to you, buddy, on that whole subjunctive possibility contained in your grammar. But it still doesn't modify my claims IN THE LEAST about the operation of this kind of fatal assumption, lying beneath their words. C'mon, break bread with me, or rice, or beer -- whatever.

Andre, my friend, your thoughtful assay absolutely declares the SAME kind of assumption that led those kids there, bringing Jesus to a people already FULL and CONTENT (whatever we might THINK or judge of Talebanic Islam's shortcomings) and though I am TRULY NOT in any way equating you with my upperclassman Bush, led us to Iraq:

You believe this, so you must be such-and-such.

And there's the rub, my friend.

To quote St. Felix again: "When you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME."

And what I have said so far just shows how the linguistics of your assay contains the whole issue we are all thinking a great deal about here. I have not even TOUCHED the larger moral message that you raise: It's their calling, so I say go do it.

But what if that mission has now brought so much greater suffering not only to their families, but to the stress of the diplomats, the stress it adds to other, perhaps more well-meaning aid workers, who must pack up and leave, to people like Jean Chung, who must work in greater fear and trembling there, whenever she is "outed" as a Korean (i.e., now, a missionary, one who does not respect local flavors)? What if that mission has now stressed a good man like Hamid Karzai, put his struggling rump between a rock (the US, NATO, and their stated wish NOT to have hostage-brokering in their work, whatever we may think of that work) and a hard place (ever dealt with Koreans before? -- not to mention the tribal leaders he has to go up against to solve this avoidable mess). What about the suffering it brings when, if the good Christian kids DO get their ransom and/or 23 Taleban replacements and get to go back to handphone-land, the Taleban are further emboldened -- as they would be! hell, they got a faster return in a few days on a little effort than farming a couple fields of poppy for all that cash!! -- the Taleban go for another foreign aid worker?

My question is, Does your sense of this holy and salvific mission -- this "calling" -- take into account and have any responsibility for the painful string of cause-and-effect (read: SUFFERING) that it brings to others, from here on out?

(Plus, you can read in many, many places how Afghanies who DO attend these schools that the Christians set up are even further marked for death, and on a scale far-outstripping those who attend schools established by the UN, while the UN was still operating freely there?)

Anyway, 'nuff said. This ain't my blog. I'm so sorry to take up all of your time.

Thanks for the feedback, though, Andre.

Be well!

[Ecorn]

Perhaps its just the translation, but I'm pretty sure that this guy advocates giving the Taliban whatever they want in order to secure the relese of the hostages:

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/224988.html