J Rob's House of Opinions

Links to Other Places

Check out Central SC Pipe and Cigar Smokers Group

Click to join cscpipesmokers

Links

• Conservababes
• The Grand Old Party
• Land of the Free
• Michael Graham
• Michelle Malkin
• The Dawn Patrol
• Pro-Life Blogs

The Alma Maters of Me and Mine.

Glenn Reynolds Says

"J Rob is a menace and must be destroyed!"

Proud Member of the Alliance

The Alliance

Osama bin Laden, Jedi Master

As an unapologetic Star Wars geek, I have a message for my fellow conservatives who refuse to see Episode III: Revenge of the Sith because they’re bothered by George Lucas’ politics:

If you think his politics are offensive, wait until you see his writing and directing.

The only reason Episode III is getting good reviews is because it’s being compared to Lucas’ horrific work in episodes one and two. I’ve seen porn movies with more realistic dialogue than you’ll find in Mr. Lucas’ films, and which generally made more sense.

So if you’re looking for a reason to skip Revenge of the Sith, there are plenty of them — Hayden Christensen’s acting is a great one — but don’t make the mistake of taking the “politics” of the movie seriously. It’s not worth it.

Yes, there are liberals out there who see reflections of the Bush administration’s foreign policy in the Star Wars saga. At the art house grand opening I attended, the left-leaning audience murmured approvingly when Natalie Portman’s character intoned, “This is how liberty dies: with thundering applause.” And yes, I’ve seen the MoveOn.org ad urging that we save the Republic from the Revenge of the Frist.

But it’s all nonsense. The politics of Star Wars simply don’t fit the politics of the War on Terror, unless you’re really, really stupid.

And speaking of George Lucas …

When asked directly about the “Darth W” comparisons, Mr. Lucas was honest enough to point out that he wrote the original nine-part Star Wars saga during the Vietnam era. “When I wrote it [Sith], Iraq didn’t exist,” Lucas said.

But then he went on to connect the dots himself, warning that “throughout history, leaders have used threats from outside as a means of wresting greater control over their country, dimming democracy … I hope that situation never arises in our country. Maybe the film will awaken people to this danger.”

Mr. Lucas added: “The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we’re doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.”

They’re not just unbelievable, George. They’re total fantasy.

To make the Iraq equals Vietnam mathematics work (note that Lucas, like liberals everywhere, always leaves out Afghanistan), you have to believe that we’ve lost the war in Iraq; that the elections never happened and the Sunnis haven’t decided to join the political process; and that Iraq will be less free in the future than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Does anyone believe that, even in Hollywood?

Then there’s the idea that the Evil Empire of Emperor Palpatine represents the Evil America of George W. Bush. To make this parallel work, you have to believe that somebody inside the American government is, a la Darth Sidious, secretly conducting a fictitious war against his own country as an excuse to expand the government’s power.

This only makes sense if you believe that 9/11 was government-invented fiction, that there is no terrorist threat and never has been. Is anyone irrational enough to believe that?

OK, OK. Other than Michael Moore, does anyone believe it?

Sure, Anakin echoes the Bush doctrine when he tells Obi-Wan, “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy,” but in the case of al Qaeda, there really IS an enemy. If you don’t believe me (or George W), ask the thousands of people injured in the first World Trade Center bombing or the subsequent bombings of our embassies, war ships and barracks before Sept. 11, 2001.

I suppose it’s possible to believe that all these attacks were orchestrated by the CIA or the Mossad. Hey, if you can believe Ewan McGregor is going to age into Alec Guinness before Luke Skywalker turns 20, it’s possible to believe just about anything.

And by the way, if the Bush haters are right and W is Darth, doesn’t that make al Qaeda the Jedi? And so Luke Skywalker is … Osama bin Laden?

This is the revealing point of the whole Star Wars/Bush wars worldview: To be a George Lucas liberal means believing that all violence is equal. A hundred thousand imperial storm troopers take over the Republic and end democracy; a hundred thousand American soldiers topple a dictator and bring democracy — whatever. To the enlightened Hollywood Left, it’s all the same.

The fact that America’s military actions in Iraq brought an end to the violent, brutal, terror-fostering regime of Saddam Hussein is irrelevant. America is powerful. America uses force. America is the Evil Empire. Period.

Murder, slaughter, self-defense, democratic revolution — really, once the bullets start to fly (or the blasters start firing, if you prefer), what’s the difference, right? Darth is W is Hitler is Churchill is FDR. The only difference among Iraq or Normandy Beach or Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown is the color of the uniforms.

That is, if you believe the politics of Episode III. If you cheered when Obi-Wan assured us that, “Only the Sith think in absolutes.”

I prefer the politics of the original Star Wars, when idealistic young friends risked death to do the right thing, and the murderous Darth Vader was merely “a master of evil.”

In that world, as in the real one, there are some actions that are absolutely good and absolutely evil, and you don’t need George Lucas to tell the difference. Even if he could.

FIRST COMMANDMENT: The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn, that is, to change and grow in the perception and understanding of reality, and then to act accordingly. Minimally, the very fact that I learn that my dialogue partner believes "this" rather than "that" proportionally changes my attitude toward her; and a change in my attitude is a significant change in me. We enter into dialogue so that we can learn, change, and grow, not so we can force change on the other, as one hopes to do in debate--a hope realized in inverse proportion to the frequency and ferocity with which debate is entered into. On the other hand, because in dialogue each partner comes with the intention of learning and changing herself, one's partner in fact will also change. Thus the goal of debate, and much more, is accomplished far more effectively by dialogue.

SECOND COMMANDMENT: Interreligious, interideological dialogue must be a two-sided project--within each religious or ideological community and between religious or ideological communities. Because of the "corporate" nature of interreligious dialogue, and since the primary goal of dialogue is that each partner learn and change himself, it is also necessary that each participant enter into dialogue not only with his partner across the faith line--the Lutheran with the Anglican, for example--but also with his coreligionists, with his fellow Lutherans, to share with them the fruits of the interreligious dialogue. Only thus can the whole community eventually learn and change, moving toward an ever more perceptive insight into reality.

THIRD COMMANDMENT: Each participant must come to the dialogue with complete honesty and sincerity. It should be made clear in what direction the major and minor thrusts of the tradition move, what the future shifts might be, and, if necessary, where the participant has difficulties with her own tradition. No false fronts have any place in dialogue.

Conversely--each participant must assume a similar complete honesty and sincerity in the other partners. Not only will the absence of sincerity prevent dialogue from happening, but the absence of the assumption of the partner's sincerity will do so as well. In brief: no trust, no dialogue.

FOURTH COMMANDMENT: In interreligious, interideological dialogue we must not compare our ideals with our partner's practice, but rather our ideals with our partner's ideals, our practice with our partner's practice.

FIFTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant must define himself. Only the Jew, for example, can define what it means to be a Jew. The rest can only describe what it looks like from the outside. Moreover, because dialogue is a dynamic medium, as each participant learns, he will change and hence continually deepen, expand, and modify his self-definition as a Jew--being careful to remain in constant dialogue with fellow Jews. Thus it is mandatory that each dialogue partner define what it means to be an authentic member of his own tradition.

Conversely--the one interpreted must be able to recognize herself in the interpretation. This is the golden rule of interreligious hermeneutics, as has been often reiterated by the "apostle of interreligious dialogue," Raimundo Panikkar. For the sake of understanding, each dialogue participant will naturally attempt to express for herself what she thinks is the meaning of the partner's statement; the partner must be able to recognize herself in that expression. The advocate of "a world theology," Wilfred Cantwell Smith, would add that the expression must also be verifiable by critical observers who are not involved.

SIXTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant must come to the dialogue with no hard-and-fast assumptions as to where the points of disagreement are. Rather, each partner should not only listen to the other partner with openness and sympathy but also attempt to agree with the dialogue partner as far as is possible while still maintaining integrity with his own tradition; where he absolutely can agree no further without violating his own integrity, precisely there is the real point of disagreement--which most often turns out to be different from the point of disagreement that was falsely assumed ahead of time.

SEVENTH COMMANDMENT: Dialogue can take place only between equals, or par cum pari as the Second Vatican Council[1] put it. Both must come to learn from each other. Therefore, if, for example, the Muslim views Hinduism as inferior, or if the Hindu views Islam as inferior, there will be no dialogue. If authentic interreligious, interideological dialogue between Muslims and Hindus is to occur, then both the Muslim and the Hindu must come mainly to learn from each other; only then will it be "equal with equal," par cum pari. This rule also indicates that there can be no such thing as a one-way dialogue. For example, Jewish-Christian discussions begun in the 1960s were mainly only prolegomena to inter- religious dialogue. Understandably and properly, the Jews came to these exchanges only to teach Christians, although the Christians came mainly to learn. But, if authentic interreligious dialogue between Christians and Jews is to occur, then the Jews must also come mainly to learn; only then will it too be par cum pari.

EIGHTH COMMANDMENT: Dialogue can take place only on the basis of mutual trust. Although interreligious, interideological dialogue must occur with some kind of "corporate" dimension, that is, the participants must be involved as members of a religious or ideological community--for instance, as Marxists or Taoists--it is also fundamentally true that it is only persons who can enter into dialogue. But a dialogue among persons can be built only on personal trust. Hence it is wise not to tackle the most difficult problems in the beginning, but rather to approach first those issues most likely to provide some common ground, thereby establishing the basis of human trust. Then, gradually, as this personal trust deepens and expands, the more thorny matters can be undertaken. Thus, as in learning we move from the known to the unknown, so in dialogue we proceed from commonly held matters--which, given our mutual ignorance resulting from centuries of hostility, will take us quite some time to discover fully--to discuss matters of disagreement.

NINTH COMMANDMENT: Persons entering into interreligious, interideological dialogue must be at least minimally self-critical of both themselves and their own religious or ideological traditions. A lack of such self-criticism implies that one's own tradition already has all the correct answers. Such an attitude makes dialogue not only unnecessary, but even impossible, since we enter into dialogue primarily so we can learn--which obviously is impossible if our tradition has never made a misstep, if it has all the right answers. To be sure, in interreligious, interideological dialogue one must stand within a religious or ideological tradition with integrity and conviction, but such integrity and conviction must include, not exclude, a healthy self-criticism. Without it there can be no dialogue--and, indeed, no integrity.

TENTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant eventually must attempt to experience the partner's religion or ideology "from within"; for a religion or ideology is not merely something of the head, but also of the spirit, heart, and "whole being," individual and communal. John Dunne here speaks of "passing over" into another's religious or ideological experience and then coming back enlightened, broadened, and deepened. As Raimundo Panikkar notes, "To know what a religion says, we must understand what it says, but for this we must somehow believe in what it says": for example, "A Christian will never fully understand Hinduism if he is not, in one way or another, converted to Hinduism. Nor will a Hindu ever fully understand Christianity unless he, in one way or another, becomes Christian."

I'm glad there are people like you out there who have the ability to recognize a joke when they see one and laugh at it without shame. People who believe that if there is a God, he probably doesn't care that much if they laugh at someone else's misfortune once in a while. I'm not saying you should go out and make a habit of laughing at cripples and retards,[emphasis added] but if you slip up every now and then, you probably won't go to hell for it.