Death And Denial

The massacre in Orlando was horrific. “Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

The words are those of John Donne. The thought reminds us that we are all united – or should be – in our humanity, and all equally vulnerable to its loss. There is no protection against inhumanity if we choose to view it as inevitable feature of our condition. And if we choose to hide from it, the bell will toll for us all.

But there are steps we can take to limit its effects if we do not bury our heads in the sand; we can minimize the risk if we recognize it and correctly identify it. If, however, we use such calamities as tools to promote political ideas, rather than as teaching tools that can help us avoid recurrences, we ensure their repetition. If we find that struthious behavior is useful for shielding ourselves against truths we don't want to accept, we're likely to seek false solutions to problems that we don't want to consider. And Orlando is an example of this reality.

Although it is unclear to me why the murders of attendees at a gay club by another frequenter of that club should be mourned as a hate crime against the LGBTQ community, that is the narrative that is being promoted by too many of our leading figures and by too many of the organs of the media. According to an editorial in today's New York Times (June 15, 2016) , “the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear [and the perpetrator] was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians.”

The shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS and had already evaluated other possible sites, but these facts are omitted in the editorial. They would detract from the message of political correctness that the paper promotes. And they would remind us of our county's enemy which they fear to identify.

There is no denying the fact that a gay bar was chosen for the action, but the idea that notwithstanding the perpetrator's own sexual status, and his other actions and claims of allegiance, the shootings took pace there as a “hate crime” against gays can only be viewed as a distraction from the truth. Our President refuses to suggest that there is a stream of Islam that poses a threat to the present time and modernization, and to the existence of non-Muslim societies. He and his followers, including those in the press nationally and internationally, eschew such language as “radical Islam,” “Islamic terrorism,” and “jihad,” claiming that acknowledgment of such ideas will only strengthen the movement, since it will suggest that we are prejudiced against Islam, and that we take seriously the menace its violent stream poses. As we should.

For too long our government has tried to downplay any threats by those who oppose us, even to the point of seeking our downfall, while we court them and attempt to force our friends to defer to their demands. We are careful not to “[do] the terrorists' work for them” by confronting their hostility. We are less careful in our accusations against those who oppose gun control and those who promote homophobia. We have no concern that we are strengthening them by our naming and vociferously berating them.

Perhaps the reasons for our actions have little to do with the ostensible problems – at least as they are understood on the surface. Perhaps our greater fear is of terror, and refusal to name it is a denial of its existence. If we ignore it, it will go away. And reminding the voting public that the threat exists is counterproductive to the President and those with a similar political agenda – especially during campaign season.

Favoring and publicizing issues that will appeal to a large and sympathetic bloc, however, is a much more desirable goal at this time, and, for those seeking a “heritage” and friends, a far more profitable approach. “Preaching to the choir” is always a winning tactic.

At least it's a winning political tactic. It's certainly less likely to benefit our nation as a whole. Dividing our nation as the President, and both candidates for his job, have done, will ultimately result in our diminution. We have already lost prestige around the world and contributed to a willingness of other nations to ignore our needs and to follow the course of acceptance of evil. It's easier than opposing it – unless there are negative political consequences. And it's easier to accept the political aid of a “squeaky wheel” with increasing support by “fair-minded” advocates who feel virtuous by doing so. There's no need for them to worry about other problems that way.

Harsh and unfiltered words by one political candidate won't solve the problem, but neither will its conscious avoidance by the other. The longer we deny the threat, the more likely we are to face it. And then the bell will toll for us all.