grace.kindness.peace.disruption.pain.processing.rinse.repeat.have a nice day.

Today there will be two competing demonstrations (called "manifestations" here): one to say "yea government", the other to say "nay government". "Why today?", you might ask. Well it is the second anniversary of the murder of Rafiq al-Hariri (and yes, I just linked to Al Jazeera – Fox News eat your heart out). But no fear, Dave and I are located just outside of Beirut, and are no where near the "manifestations." Also, we're headed out of town today to go to south Lebanon. It will be good to get out of the city and see some of the countryside. Unfortunately, we won't be headed through Qana (biblically, Cana). I was really hoping to have a glass of wine there. A close second might be having a glass of wine in Baalbek, the location of a temple to Bacchus, the Roman god of wine.

Due to my travels, I don't think that I'll be able to update the blog until at least tomorrow evening here (noon-ish on Thursday for y'all). But please stay tuned …

Though I still have yet to see much of anything, the drive into town today stoked my curiosity. Traffic laws lax as they are, Lebanese hospitality comes through out on the streets just as it does inside buildings. The people I've met are extremely hospitable, offering tea, coffee, and assorted sweets, all of which I accept.

Our surroundings are, so far, a bit difficult to decipher. Apparently, there are several different areas of Beirut, separated by what separates most here in the Middle East: religion. We're staying in the Christian area of Beirut (which technically is not Beirut, but I have yet to figure out just exactly what that means). The Muslim areas of Beirut, I would imagine, are broken up into Sunni and Shi'ite. Being inquisitive as usual, I'm learning much.

Coincidentally, Dave and I are in room 911 of our hotel. I don't think that we are the only Americans staying in our hotel, but the shock of the coincidence is not lost on us or the hotel employees that ask our room number for food charges. We both chuckle in a "you've got to be kidding me" or "what are the chances of that" sort of way.

In case you did not hear, a bus exploded just outside of Beirut this morning. We are fine and far from the situation. Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Our hosts are making sure that we are taken care of and will be safe.

The keyboard switched to Arabic character for a while. Cool. ’?????? ????????

Beck on Saturday Night Live.

The words "consistent ethic of life" and issues surround them have come up fairly frequently over the past many months. Wikipedia, the ever-burgeoning source of information helps to define these words as:

The Consistent Life Ethic is an ethical, religious, and political ideology with the basic premise that "all human life is sacred", and that this calls for "a coherent social policy which seeks to protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, the unborn, the infirm, the refugee, the homeless, and the poor." Thanks Wikipedia.

In addition to those listed in the above quote, death row inmates also fall under the proposed "protection" of a consistent ethic of life. This category of individuals muddies the waters a bit. Standing up for the "innocent" is much easier to support. I believe that we, instinctually and more often than not, support the cause of individuals that cannot defend themselves as we consider acts of oppression wrong, if not evil. But what happens when the oppressor is in the position to "receive his due"? I always like when Superman bests Lex Luthor, but I'm not sure I would enjoy he and Lois riding/flying off into the sunset with Lex hanging from the gallows in the foreground.

Today I read an article by Shane Claiborne that added a little fuel to the discussion. The article discusses the execution of Saddam (sa-dam, c.f. G.H.W. Bush) in the context of a consistent ethic of life. It's worth a read.

I'll be honest here: I'm not exactly sad that Saddam is gone. In the midst of my ignorance on global politics, I thought it would have been "best" if G.H.W. Bush had "finished the job" back in 1991. Yet, while I don't exactly mourn the loss of Saddam, I do not find comfort in celebrating his departure. While his death will prevent him from causing any new events of harm, it does not recompense all those who have been harmed by him in the past. Indeed the pain of an individual caused by past transgressions will fester long into the future unless he forgives Saddam. I do not mean to trivialize the difficulty and complexity of such forgiveness, but it is the only way forward into a life free of pain. Otherwise the hate and pain will never diminish, whether or not the transgressor is dead. This truth applies whether the transgressor is a murderous dictator, an abusive parent, or the kid who stole your baseball cards in the third grade.

So yeah, no answers here, just a complex situation of hatred, forgiveness, pain, politics, and an absence of love. Read Shane's article and let me know what you think.