A little tolerance
Can anyone jump on a bandwagon faster than a politician, no matter how shoddy or rickety the wagon might be? That, of course, is rhetorical.
One of the problems of jumping on bandwagons is the possibility of looking foolish. If one wants to make a fool of oneself, it's really no one else's business. If, however, in the process of leaping onto the popular wagon, that person makes an entire state look foolish, then it becomes the public's concern.
Such is the case with the embarrassing episode of last week that had 24 state legislators going on the record in refusing to accept a complimentary copy of the Quran. That bandwagon has quickly neared its occupancy capacity.
It all started when heretofore relatively unknown Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, bristled at an offer by the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council to give each legislator a copy of the Muslim holy book as a centennial gift.
Duncan took offense and refused the gift. It didn't take long for six more lawmakers to join and then another 10 and then another seven. The dudgeon was high.
Speaking for himself and, I suppose, the rest of the protesters, Duncan proclaimed, "Most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology."
Well, he's right about that. Most Oklahomans certainly don't want to kill innocent women and children. I, however, think that saying "most Oklahomans" is conservative. I'll go out on a limb and say that 99.9 percent of Oklahomans are opposed to killing women and children.
By the way, many of those "most Oklahomans" are Muslims. Some are Jewish. Some are even Wiccans. Contrary to what Rep. Duncan believes or wishes to be true, not all Oklahomans are Christians.
We have to assume that Rep. Duncan has read his Bible (or at least parts of it) and in the process ignored history (the history in books that are not the Bible).
Put aside for a moment the instructions of God to Joshua, for instance. He could peruse the history of the Crusades -- not the current one, but the ones in the Middle Ages. Or he could take a look at a Christian Germany's handling of their "Jewish problem" during World War II. That's just for starters.
Even if he has read most of the Bible, he surely can't argue that it is a completely tolerant work. He might want to make a reread of Genesis or Exodus or Job or almost any other of the Old Testament books.
Of course, Duncan's Christianity deals mostly with the New Testament. Which brings me to a pet peeve. Why do some Christians, at least some who profess to be Christians, always take offense and make it a point to remind critics that they base their faith on the New Testament, then quote Old Testament verses when they need them (i.e. Leviticus, when they feel the urge to condemn gay couples to hell or even stone them to death as the book instructs)? Make up your mind.
There are 149 members of the Oklahoma Legislature. Thankfully, most do not agree with the 24, at least not at this writing but there is still room on the bandwagon before this reaches print.
To make this even more distasteful, it reeks of politics. It's easy to pounce on a minority (Hispanics, for instance, but that's another column). And making a public display of rejecting the Quran is an easy way to get some votes. It's also despicable, but it's, sadly, not unusual in the world of politics.
Duncan and his cabal have fallen into the ignorant trap of believing that everything in the Quran is evil, hence, all Muslims are evil.
Are there radical Muslims who interpret the Quran to meet their terrorist needs? You bet.
Are there zealous Christians (or followers of most any other religion) who interpret the Bible or their book of choice to meet their radical needs? Yes (again, see Leviticus).
The problem with religion is that there are far too many religious "leaders" and followers who simply won't accept the concept that another religion is legitimate. Isn't it just possible that all of them are right? Or wrong?
Why is opening one's mind so scary, so foreign to some people? So, which is the inerrant word of God or Allah or Jehovah or Yahweh? The Bible, the Quran, the Torah? And what about Rah, the sun god? Or Zeus?
I have often written in this space that the public schools should consider teaching the Bible as history and literature. The actions of the Duncan gang convince me that I am on the right course and maybe that course should be extended to the Legislature.
How about a little tolerance from the anti-Quran folks at the Capitol? How about some common courtesy? How about remembering what your mother told you about accepting gifts: Even if you don't like the socks your uncle gave you, say thank you and be polite anyway.
C'mon, a little diversification won't hurt you. A little tolerance. Or how about just plain politeness?
You don't really need or want the kind of votes that intolerant behavior attracts, do you? Unfortunately, that, too, is rhetorical.
