Yo! Muslims! You Had Best Read History--Yours And Ours

Islamic societies have never been big on history.  They tend to be worse in consulting the past than even Americans.  Islam qua Islam argues against the study of history alleging that there was nothing worth knowing of the past before the arrival of the Prophet and that, since the revelations, nothing is worth knowing other than the lives of exemplary Muslims who merit study due to their living lives of faith, virtue, and conquest.

In a major way this absence of any pervasive understanding of the past, the history of Muslim societies and polities as well as that of the West, is pivotal in the rise of fear driven violent political Islam.  Muslims have felt with great accuracy for many years that people in the West have mocked and derided them and their faith, have presented one dimensional stereotypes, have trivialized, marginalized, and patronized Muslims generally and Arab Muslims in particular.

The pervasive feeling of deprecation and the sense the West has ridden roughshod over the desires, needs, aspirations, and, most importantly, dignity of Muslims and Muslim majority states has fueled the fear which has propelled violent political Islam to its status today--the greatest single threat confronting not only the West but the globe.  Even though most of the insults have been both unintended and inadvertent--such as the portrayal of Arabs as lascivious sheiks on horseback carrying off beautiful (presumably) Christian maidens to their harems--or the more recent all Arabs are dark, sinister terrorists--the effect upon even Westernized, multilingual European and American educated Muslims has been hurtful.  Hurt breeds fear.

Fear inevitably expresses itself in attempts to coerce respect from the disrespectful, acceptance from those who have been disdainful, or at least anxiety on the part of the contemptuous.  None of this, none of the dynamic which has resulted in the current global insurgency mounted by those whose antidote to fear is the espousal of violent political Islam would have been necessary had only Muslims understood their own history and possessed some knowledge of that of the West including the Great Satan, the US.

There is an old cliche to the effect that those who do not learn from history are condemned to relearn the lessons of history from their own mistakes.  Like all cliches this one contains a sizable grain of truth.  Had Muslims taken a look at the sorry blood soaked record of the Christian West in which the people of the word took recurrent counsel of their fears with the result that war became the normative condition of life for centuries, they might have concluded that regardless of the positive effects ultimately created from the windrows of corpses, there was no need for Muslims to repeat the process.

Had Muslims coupled the study of the European record with an examination of the long years of the Ottoman Empire, they might well have concluded, with accuracy it should be added, that their religion had given a base for a period of remarkable peace, noteworthy internal tolerance, and an environment of tranquility which may not have resulted in the technological and organizational advances of Europe and the US during the same time but did provide an acceptable quality of life for the vast majority of Muslims living under Ottoman sway.  The history of the Ottoman Empire as well as the lands and people on its periphery provide a powerful argument in favor of the contention that Islam was superior to Christianity as practiced in the West.

As the flames of Muslim conquest faded to cool ashes and stability under an admittedly ramshackle empire, the main feature of life that ensued was the preeminence of the mystical,  inward looking, liturgy rich Sufi school with its emphasis on inner peace being reflected in interpersonal harmony, charity, compassion, and empathy.  The "wordless" approach of the Sufis brought interpersonal peace quite unlike the "wordy" Christian understanding with recurrent wars over the precise words, doctrine, and dogma which defined a particular group.

If the primary goal of any religion is the assurance of a better state of inner and outer peace, a community exhibiting compassion, empathy, and charity as well as the feeling on the part of the believer that the will of the deity is being followed, the Islam of the long centuries between the end of the Western crusades and the encroachment of the West less than two centuries ago passes the test by any standard.  If the same standards are applied to the Christian West, the assessment must be that Christianity failed.

It is true that the West drove technological development, mastered new forms of governmental process, invented the essentials of modern economics, created entirely new forms of social, political, and economic organization while the Muslims were static in all these areas.  But, it deserves noting that stasis or a very slow pace of change are normative across the entire sweep of human history to the extent that the Western explosion following the Seventeenth Century is without precedent or equal.

It is true that wherever and whenever the West has placed its heavy foot on a traditional society, the results have been severely disruptive particularly so when the traditional society reacts by attempting a forced draft emulation of the West.  On occasion--think Japan and China--the arrival of the West and the response to that arrival has been bloody and destructive.

The wise Muslim might benefit from examining the history of the consequences of the encounters with the West experienced by both Japan and China as well as the immediate aftermath of the encounters.  Then this hypothetical wise Muslim might ask if he wanted his people, his society, to go the same route or is there a better way, a way which takes the best from Muslim history in a way which allows features of Western origin to be absorbed and employed with greatest benefit.

In considering the history of the relations between Japan and the West following the mid-Nineteenth Century, it is important for our hypothetical Muslim student to consider the history of the US, in particular how the US embodies in concentrated form the predominant feature of the Christian West, a feature which was the necessary product of centuries of war, wars of religion and nation.  That feature is simply a capacity for what can be best called "absolutism."

In the real world of history, the term "absolutism" means that the US, to an extent which may surpass the standard set in Europe, pursues victory in war with an intensity which almost surpasses description.  As the war in the Pacific demonstrates clearly, the American people once roused, will fight with a degree of ferocity and resolve which is either most admirable or most despicable depending on one's point of view.  We showed in the Pacific war a willingness to dehumanize the enemy of the highest sort.  This tendency to absolutism not only rests close to the surface of the American public, it is what gave US troops the capacity to win against what normally would be considered unbeatable odds.

When the absolutist button is pushed, the Americans and Europeans (particularly the British) have demonstrated time after time a willingness to use virtually all means necessary to win.  Our hypothetical Muslim student might wonder at what point the button marked "absolutism" will be pushed in today's conflict with the practitioners of armed political Islam.  He might wonder if the redress of fear will be worth the ultimate butchers' bill if the Americans are pushed too far.

History also shows that the American public is slow to reach the absolutist point, but it always gets there, if pushed long and hard enough, particularly by people whose behavior is inexplicable to most Americans.  This was evident in the war with Japan.  Before that it was part and parcel of the centuries of war against the Native Americans.  A close reading of the record of these wars should convince any observer that the Americans have a limit which cannot be crossed without great and negative consequences.

The historically literate Muslim would have a unique vantage point.  From this point he can easily see the greatness of his own faith over a long sweep of time.  He can see as well the potentials of seeking to out do the West using only the tools of the West.  He can understand the risks being taken by the adherents of violent political Islam, risks which will be widely distributed on Muslims generally.  He can (or should be) see the potential benefits of combining the inner directed faith of the Sufi understanding with desirable features of Western provenance such as democracy, an independent judiciary, the concept of the King's Peace, an open press and so forth.

In short, the historically aware Muslim would be in a perfect position to meld the best of his faith tradition with the most worthy of Western products for the good of all both Muslim and non-Muslim.  But none of this is  possible for those Muslims whose awareness of the past is limited to fear producing Western insults and slights no matter how unintended.  The historically blind are condemned to undercut the interests of their own people and empower the most implacable enemies of Islam in the West.

It is far better to hit the books and get smart than it is to build a bomb and get dead.  Words to the wise.

The (Not So) Ugly Face Of Nationalism Haunts Europe--Again

The European Union is once again facing crisis.  Well, more than one crisis to err on the side of accuracy.  The better known one, the crisis which attracts all the ink both real and virtual as well as the attention of those great beasts collectively named "The Market," is the one involving another round of EU bailouts.  The lesser volume crisis attracted the attention of EU chief magistrate, Herman van Rompey, who delivered a speech last week in which he equated the growing scepticism concerning the Union with an explosive and destructive increase of the dreaded creature from the depths of hell: nationalism.

The Eurocrats of Brussels are contractually obligated to put loyalty to the structures of the Union over national affections.  Even elected national officials are required to put the interests of their governments and people subordinate to the needs and policies of the One Big Union.  Beyond those obligations there is a sentiment abroad in the "elites" of Europe to the effect that the days of the petty nation-state are over, replaced by the One Great Society and Polity called "Europe."

The presumptions of the Euro-fanatics have prevailed even when the great hordes of the unwashed, the hoi polloi, have made it clear--as in the famed case of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty--that they want no truck with a supranational entity, another and quite suspect layer of government.  Whenever the voices of the lesser orders have shouted loud and clear, "No!," the Eurocrats and Euro-fanatics have simply changed the rules and insisted on another turn at bat, another chance to assure that the peasants get it right.

The rolling thunder of default crises which have and continue to strike the Eurozone have had the net effect of engendering an ever greater distrust in the minds of the peoples of Europe regarding not only the legitimacy of the fiat currency, the Euro, but of the political scheme which resides behind it.  Greeks have quite literally taken to the streets in opposition to the dictates of the Eurocrats which accompanied the bailout of the Greek deficit mess.  The same has occurred in Spain and Portugal.  And, threatens in Ireland.

The Irish, who are not noted for a lack of national identity and pride in that identity, have already made it plain to the Lords Protector of the EU that infringements on sovereignty are unacceptable.  The demands made by Brussels that the Irish restructure their corporate tax rate as a part of the price of Eurozone assistance is over the edge.

Imagine that, a government seeking to protect low corporate tax rates!  What is happening in Dublin?  Has the Irish parliament been taken over by a branch of the Tea Party movement?

No.  The Tea Party has remained safely confined on this side of the Atlantic.  Rather, the Irish government is well aware of the depth of hostility held toward the EU by the average Irish voter.  The government is also aware that raising the corporate taxes would be akin to severing the Irish financial jugular.  Also, comments from members of the Dail hint strongly that even the Irish political hoi olligoi is not immune to the powerful attractions of nationalism.

Even in Germany and France, the two strongest proponents of economic and political potency through international cooperation--that is, through the mechanisms of the EU--have been showing an increasingly steep tilt toward national primacy.  German taxpayers are not thrilled at the prospect of paying for Greek or Spanish or Portuguese policies of social spending largess.  The French, who have long believed that government exists only to strip the individual of his last sou and final shred of liberty, are more and more willing to see the One Big Union as being the worst malefactor in these twin threats.

Herman van Rompey is far from being alone in seeing a direct line connecting doubts about the efficacy and legitimacy of the EU to the rise of aggressive nationalism and its inevitable handmaiden, war.  Of course, van Rompey and the others of his ilk are as wrong as a cat barking.

Austria is a member in good standing of the EU.  Neighboring Switzerland is a complete non-participant in the One Big Union.  Yet the Austrian army is not mobilized on the border ever vigilant, waiting for the Swiss legions to pour across.  Nor is EU member Sweden deploying enhanced border protection against the nocturnal commando raids from non-member Norway.

Somehow, go-it-more-or-less alone Norway and Switzerland among others have managed to elude the embrace of the Union while not becoming aggressive exemplars of the sins of nationalism.  As Mr van Rompey must know in his more rational moments, there is no necessary tie between primacy of loyalty to one's home country and pursuit of that country's national interest and warfare.  The EU is not a necessary mechanism for the restraint of nationalism.  It is not a requisite for peaceful intercourse among the several European states.

The long ago precursor of the EU, the European Iron and Coal Community, was a creation, or, more accurately, a reaction to the extremes of economic and political competition which had laid the foundations for both parts of the Great European Civil War of the early and mid Twentieth Century.  The original concept actually was formed before German tanks rolled across the Polish border and was well rooted in a proper but narrow interpretation of the conditions which had brought World War I.

The initial Iron and Coal Community worked well.  It worked so well that it quickly expanded into the Common Market.  The Common Market, as the name makes explicit, was a customs union.  As such, it worked to the mutual benefit of its members.  But, as it was a limited institution, it made no claim upon the primary loyalties of individual Europeans.  It made no political demands.

Even in its limited role, the Common Market did not enjoy universal approbation.  French farmers, Italian factory workers, German industrialists all found more than a few reasons to oppose the Market.  Nonetheless, the Market was reconceptualized as a political as well as economic institution.  Leaving aside all the fits, starts, zigs and zags, the Common Market ultimately morphed into the EU.  Along the way, the Eurozone was fabricated, a common currency without the mechanisms of a central bank or an aggregate device of economic governance.

In both its initial and later, Lisbon Treaty based form, the EU was the creation of the political and opinion molding elites of the member states.  The people of Europe were not consulted.  At no time other than the Irish referendum did the hoi polloi have a seat at the table.  This was not oversight.  It was intentional as the self-appointed sophisticates of the elites did not trust their own citizens.  That was true at the beginning; it is true today.

The EU in both its dot one and dot two forms were crammed down the collective throats of Europeans generally in a manner identical to the passage of Obamacare here.  Not surprisingly, the peasants have not been pleased, with the result there is a strong current of resentment, a strong desire to vomit the cram down back in the faces of those who did the cramming.

The current and continuing deficit contretemps has given both a motivation and a focus for those who feel strong discontent with the Union.  The Eurocrats are well aware of this.  The European Parliament as well as the executive entity have attempted to deflect the worst effects of popular rejection by developing a series of ploys which can be seen as a European version of the American federal government's technique of unfunded mandates.  The idea is to displace both responsibility and political blame to the national governments, which are required by the Union to undertake unpleasant and expensive actions.

Nifty, heh?  By displacing all unpleasant and politically costly actions onto national governments, not only is the EU held harmless but is actually enhanced.  Popular anger directed at national governments can be massaged to become support for the Union.  The EU regime can be portrayed credibly as the savior of the common man in a way resembling the elevation of the US federal government as a moral pinnacle compared to the reactionary state governments during the salad days of the civil rights movement.

Whether the Eurocrats will win is both unclear and debatable both as to probability and longer term effect.  Should the stresses on the Eurozone cause the collapse of the Euro as a credible circulating medium, the shock waves will not be good for the Union.  However, should the Union fail, the failure will be limited to the overreach of entering the sphere of politics, of power over the lives of individual citizens of European countries.  In effect, this would mean the Union would revert to the days of the Common Market.  It is arguable that this would be a very real benefit for Europeans both as individuals and as nation-states.

As President Obama meets with leaders of the Union's member states (for a scheduled two hours) on the sidelines of the NATO conference, he might be advised to consider that the EU and his administration are staring failure in the face for the same reason.  Both he and the Eurocrats held the views and convictions of the average citizen in contempt.  Both he and they refused to accept the voice and views of the citizens, listening only to like minded members of their respective elites.

Or to put it very simply: Both President Obama and the Euro-fanatics forgot that the common citizen, the hoi polloi had minds--and votes--of their own.  Both Mr Obama and his counterparts in Europe must now pay the price.  And, so Mr Obama has.  And so they will.

Turkey And The EU--It Is About History--And Religion

The Islamist leaning government of Turkey is in a bit of a snit over the choice of Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as the President of the European Union. The job which is relatively lacking in any semblance of real power went to the colorless Belgian since both France's Nicholas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel wanted it that way. (Who said nationalism is dead and buried, even in the EU?)

The hair up the Turkish nether region is the consequence of some remarks made by Van Rompuy five years ago regarding the pending application of Turkey for membership in the EU. Not to put too fine a point on it, Van Rompuy is against membership.

The Belgian, who most days has the texture and piquancy of an undercooked Belgian waffle, took the position that the admittance of Turkey would dilute, perhaps even pervert, the fundamental values of the Union. These values, Van Rompuy observed, were "also the fundamental values of Christianity."

This unexceptional, historically valid point is what sent the Turks of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) into their fast boost exoatmospheric trajectory.

It probably didn't help that the Belgian also commented, "Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be a part of Europe."

Not that the Turks haven't tried over the centuries. Just think, "Walls of Vienna." The efforts by the Ottoman Empire, by the Sultan of the Sublime Porte, to extend the sway of Koran and scimitar to Eastern and Central Europe were neither peaceful nor absent a religious as well as a political motive.

The current peaceful attempt by Turkey to "invade" Europe may have economic considerations, but it is also informed by both religion and politics. Given that the AKP seems dedicated to rolling back the secularization initiated by Ataturk gives greater weight to Van Rompuy's views.

There is a fair measure of irony in the words of the AKP's Deputy Chairman for External Affairs, Suat Kiniklioglu, during the course of his interview with the Manchester Guardian. "What is even sadder is that he (Van Rompuy) is making that argument on the basis of the supposed Christian values of the Union. The values we (the Turkish government) envisage are of democracy, transparency, human rights, and the rule of law."

Duh. Just who does the AKP parliamentarian think invented, developed, and died for these values?

Each and every one of the listed values are products of the European historical dynamic. Yes, there are those who can argue that Islam, the Koran, Muslim history can show a dedication to at least the rule of law--provided it is Sharia solely. Yes, there are those who can point to carefully selected and parsed quotes from the Koran to show concern over at least some "human rights."

The same exercise in intellectual masturbation can be undertaken with, for example, the Soviet Constitution adopted in the shadow of show trials and lethal purges during the late Thirties as the Smiling Dictator, Joe Stalin, directed the combined productions. The take away is simply that words can be real pretty--and equally meaningless.

What counts is the effect of the words. The actions taken on their behalf, under their imperatives. What matters is taking the words and making them realities in the street. The history of Europe is a record of taking high sounding words and transforming them from lifeless symbols to street actualities by blood, persistence, and the passage not of years, nor decades but generations, centuries.

While the influence of Judaic thought, Judaic concepts of justice, of law, of duties are far more present in the European cultural matrix and have exercised far greater power on the evolution of European trajectories than many good "Christian" Europeans have cared to admit over the long, long centuries, the primary root of European values are, as Van Rompuy stated, those of Christianity.

The process by which secularism as the leitmotif of government emerged in Europe was one driven by religion. This paradox germinates in the profound ambition on the part of legions of Catholic Popes to be supra-national secular rulers using the force of religious belief as their primary weapon to subjugate or at least control the nascent national rulers of the several coalescing European states.

Secular government must proceed the full flourishing of democracy, transparency, genuine respect for the rights and dignities of the individual as well as the rule of impartial law. It is ironic to say the least that it was Christian ideas, Christian ideals, Christian values which provided the basis to successfully oppose a Christian political institution with theological roots and imperatives--the Catholic Church--so as to bring about the triumph of the secular state.

(It must never be forgotten that organized religions of all stripes are political institutions. That is to say organized religions, even if lacking a centralized and hierarchical structure, pursue political power--defined as the authority, the capacity to materially and directly affect the perceptions, beliefs, and thus the behavior of adherents. Or even non-adherents. But, this is a subject for another post.)

While Christianity, its theology, its many belief systems, carries the seeds of its own removal from institutional political authority, Islam does not. Unlike Christianity, Islam is a total system in which there is no split between the faith and politics, the creed and the legal system, the doctrine and economic activity, the strictures and science. There is no possibility of a state being simultaneously secular (and thus extending benefits, privileges, immunities and rights to all citizens equally) and authentically Islamic. There is absolutely no daylight between the faith and the polity, the community of believers and the community comprising the society.

To put it bluntly: There is no room for the Second Amendment or at least that part relating to the relationship between church and state in the Koran. In the sayings and deeds of the Perfect Man, Mohammad. In Islam.

The Turkish yowls prove that the shoe fits. That the reality, the history of Van Rompuy's comments pinch.

Fortunately M. Van Rompuy is not alone in his views. They are shared by both M. Sarkozy and F. Merkel. They are shared by many, many Europeans even if deprecated by members of the EU's elites, the chattering class, the academics, the Euro-philes for whom the hoi polloi of the many, many streets of Europe are nothing but rude bumpkins, rough peasants, unenlightened, unwashed masses.

In the West, in the US, the notion of "tolerance" like that intellectual perversion of Einstein's mathematics, "cultural relativism," has been raised to the level of a fetish. Our self-appointed elites wave the fetishes of "tolerance," "diversity," and "cultural relativism" while accusing those who do not worship the fetishes as "xenophobic," "Fascist," or simply "prejudiced," "Islamophobic."

It can only be assumed (hoped) this phase of self-loathing will pass before more harm is done by its lamentable existence these past few decades. The West, the US, has much to be proud of, many profound (and profoundly Christian rooted) accomplishments to celebrate.

Not least of these are the very values espoused by the AKP Deputy Chairman of External Affairs: democracy, transparency, human rights, and the rule of law. And, the one he didn't mention but is basic to the others: the triumph of the secular state.

Human "Rights" Versus History--And Reality

A few days ago the European Court of Human Rights made a decision which boggles the mind of anyone even dimly aware of the sweep of history in that tight little region. The Court's action is one more example not only of "hard cases make bad law," but also of the contemporary phenomenon of fearing to give "offense" to supposed "sensitivities."

The case arose from the "offense" taken by an Italian citizen of Finnish nativity. She alleged that the presence of crucifixes in some of the schoolrooms attended by her two children violated her rights of parental control. When the case was first filed in a local Milan court it was dismissed. The woman was undeterred in her search for justice and filed her case with the Strasbourg based Human Rights Court.

The Strasbourg crew ruled in her favor ordering the Italian government to pay several thousand Euros to the woman as damages. The Court did stop short of ordering the Italian government to pull the crosses out of the schools. But, the firestorm of protest and outrage with which the Italians greeted the decision could scarcely be increased had the Court gone to that extreme.

The Italian Prime Ministers and many others noted sharply that the cross was far more than a purely religious symbol. They protested that the cross and the Christian religion of which it is emblematic are a part of European history which is integral and cannot be separated from all other aspects of the European past--and present.

The Geek has no personal dog in the fight. His religious preferences are both loose and varied. However, he is a historian by both education and propensity. As such he has both studied and taught the role of the Christian religion in all its many denominations in the weaving of the historical tapestry in both Europe and the US.

Indeed, the Geek's emphasis upon the critical role of religion, particularly the Protestant flavor in US history caused significant friction with his coworkers in the Grove of Academe. The importance of Protestant theology and its secular outgrowths in the American historical experience cannot and should not be understated, but this reality was seen by the vast majority of the academics at three universities as both unfortunate and unworthy of mention.

The reasoning for this anti-historical conclusion was (and is) difficult to fathom. At least some of the Geek's fellow professors did use a line of logic resembling that taken by the Human Rights Court: Religion should be excluded from the public square as it was (A) a matter of personal values, (B) a source of "offense" to those who do not share the religion, (C) without a complete silence on religion it would be impossible to construct an impermeable barrier between the secular state and the assorted communities of faith.

The Geek is a very strong proponent of the separation of faith and state. But, this does not mean eliminating either discussion of the role of religion in the historical development of a state or the abolishment of symbols emblematic of that reality.

The Christian religion in both its Catholic and Protestant forms is integral to the history of Europe generally and Italy in particular. Whether the elites of the European Union are comfortable with that reality or not is irrelevant. Whether the elites of the European Union are happy with the centrality of Christianity having defined the very nature of Europe is also irrelevant.

Far more relevant is the view held by most of the hoi polloi of Europe. That view is simply that Christianity is so central to the European identity as that has developed over the centuries that any attempt to extract it and its symbols serves to destroy both the power of the past and the identity of today.

A survey of the European media (including the "new" media) indicates that this view is prevalent from Ireland to the Eastern Marches of Poland and Slovakia. Implicit in this view is the understanding of the role of intangibles such as history and religion in history as a source of collective identity at a time of homogenization. The perceived triumph of transnational corporations, the seeming victory of transnational cultural products, music, TV, films, fast foods, shopping malls, combine to reinforce the centrality of symbols which contain historical resonance.

Like it or not, the crucifix is one of the most potent symbols in the establishment and heralding of community (and, often, personal) identity. The power of the cross in this very role is underscored by both the lawsuit itself and the Court's ruling.

The Court pointedly argued that the presence of crucifixes in classrooms might serve to discomfort people who were not adherents of the Christian faith as well as atheists. The Geek doubts that too many non-theists would be so perturbed as it takes a strong sense of personal identity and value to let go of the comfort blanket of faith and its expressions. So, the crux of the case is the fear that Muslims would find themselves offended by this particular symbol of European history.

The Geek makes this surmise on the following predicates. First, the record shows both in Europe and the US that few, if any, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, or others find themselves "offended" by the presence of Christian symbols ranging from towering spires to simple wooden crosses with or without a suffering human body. Second, Muslims alone have been pushing repeatedly for special protection against any symbol or word which they subjectively define as offensive or defamatory. Third, only Muslims have demonstrated a propensity to attack symbols or expressions they consider "offensive" or "defamatory" with physical violence.

In short, it seems quite probable that the Human Rights Court was influenced in its attempt to deny the reality of the past not only by the multi-cultural fads of today but also by an unexpressed fear of Muslim actions. Implicit in the Court's ruling was a genuflection to the fear that, unless placated, some Muslim or another would express personal outrage by perpetrating public outrage via the suicide bomb or some other expression of jihad.

Placation or appeasement by self-inflicted denial of one's own historical past and its direct connection to the present is a very short-sighted action. It is doomed to fail. Not only will the casting of a steak to the wolf not convince the critter to become a vegetarian, it excises the historical backbone of a community. A community like an individual cannot live long without a backbone.

The Italians and others are absolutely correct in flipping off the Court. By so doing they are acknowledging a great truth.

The community or the person who casts off his past is forsaking his future. The past is never dead and without the past being fully accepted it is not possible to have the solid base necessary to have a future.

The greatest human right of all, a right tossed in the ditch by the Court, is the right to have a past and express it in the present. After all, what are we, any of us, any of our communities, without a past?

And, if we do not know who we are and whence we came, how can we hope to have a future?