(Oblige me briefly on today’s odd combination and thus creative frame of reference…)
While this is not a parenting blog, I have learned some things via parenting I otherwise would have missed. Let me be completely transparent: sometimes those lessons mean complete failure and falling flat on my face; it’s hard to parent consistently well.
There are moments I’m not proud of — times I’d like to take back… times I said the wrong thing, did the wrong thing, played helicopter parent, bulldozer parent, or some other odd role where I only served to get in the way. I meant well, but actions always speak louder than words.
The area in which parents arguably get most in the way is in discipline. No doubt that “a father only disciplines those he loves,” but sometimes our discipline fails to focus on what’s most important.
As the parent of multiple children, for example, one of the things I’ve had to learn is to deal with what’s current. If one of my sons makes a significant error in judgment, I don’t chastise the children who are uninvolved; I don’t bring up — nor nurse or rehearse — the previously forgiven sins of another. If one child behaves foolishly, I do not chide the other two. And if only one son is disobedient, I don’t focus my attention on the other children. When a parent fails to focus on what’s most important, we then fail to parent well.
As referenced in our most recent post, the Intramuralist is concerned with Pres. Obama’s focus on rooting out the seemingly increasing, radical Islamic terrorism. Less than 48 hours after a man in captivity was burned alive by the terrorists last week, the President used his public podium to compare the current violence to centuries-old Christian sins. I am struck by his contrast — how he spoke so intentionally specifically about the ancient perceived sins of Christians, while at the same time, he continued to speak so intentionally vaguely about current Islamic terrorism. The contrast is striking.
Obama will not utter the phrase, “Islamic terrorism.” He will not say “killing in the name of Allah.” In less than two weeks the White House is hosting a summit that was organized after the radical Islamic attacks in Paris. What’s it called? “A Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” In the 282 word, White House press release, there exists not a single reference to the Islamic adherence the terrorists continually proclaim.
Is Obama weak on terror? From this limited vantage point, I cannot discern such with certainty. I do believe, however — based on his consistent, continual omission of the Islamic faith the terrorists profess — that he is weak on rhetoric. After his comparison to the Crusades, my sense is his focus is off. My concern is not alone; it is shared across the political spectrum…
From NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell (never known for her conservatism): “You don’t use the word Crusades, number one, in any context right now. It’s just it’s too fraught. And the week after a pilot is burned alive, in a video shown, you don’t lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers. You have to deal with the issue that’s in front of you or don’t deal with it at all.”
From Thomas Ashbridge, a historian at the University of London in a statement to ABC News: “It is true to say, that by modern standards, atrocities were committed by crusaders, as they were by their Muslim opponents; it is however, far less certain that, by medieval standards, crusading violence could be categorized as distinctly extreme in all instances.” Ashbridge added that he doesn’t have a problem with Obama reminding the world that the Christian Church “advocated violence, and at times even encouraged its adherents to engage in warfare,” but to suggest a causal link between ISIS and the distant medieval phenomenon of the Crusades is “grounded in the manipulation and misrepresentation of historical evidence.” Obama’s focus is off.
Like I said, it’s hard to do this consistently well. Terrorism is undoubtedly difficult to effectively thwart. But let’s start by focusing on what’s most important — by speaking specifically about the current problem. Then let’s quit attempting to include the “other children.” Note: they are not involved.
Respectfully…
AR