I am guessing that there are grains of truth in both viewpoints (hopefully more than a grain in the positive stories) and the problem lies in setting up such a strict dichotomy. Thing is, wstera, that whether we are intentionally terrorizing or slaughtering (which I do not believe we would do) it probably makes no difference. When I read that article, I heard only very frightened people trying to make sense of terrible things in their lives. I try to imagine these families in their homes listening to guns and missiles and helicopters, seeing death and blood on the streets as they are forced to flee their town, knowing they are under siege either by or because of a foreign power. How can we expect them to be sophisticated and knowledgeable enough to make political distinctions as to who is doing what? I think that's expecting too much given their backgrounds; we have been The Great Satan for a very long time.
It reminds me of a story Corrie ten Boom told after an experience she had traveling in Europe after the war. A well-known Christian speaker, she was searched and questioned rudely in an airport and found herself indignant at being so treated. After all, she was a Holocaust survivor, a famous Christian figure. Didn't they realize that?
And then it dawned on her that well, no, they didn't; they had no reason to know how honest and trustworthy she was. Spiritual hubris at worst, and just a failure to see another's POV at best.
Our hubris is that we are just so sure we are doing the Right Thing, we fail to understand that not everyone gets it, or agrees. :)
JMO. |
