Determined to make faith as difficult as possible, Kierkegaard preached the distance between the human being and God in order to thrust home the idea of God's unlikeness to the human, of his absolute and complete transcendence. God is the one before whom we are always in the wrong. Faith must be an immediacy, a leap of faith into the arms of God. Kierkegaard said that in relation to the absolute there is only one tense: the present. The absolute has no existence for those who are not contemporary with it. Each of us must face Christ absolutely and contemporaneously, as his disciples did, and in this meeting we must complete the act of faith. That the eternal truth has come into existence in time is a paradox-not a puzzle to be solved, but something to be accepted in faith. The centuries since the death of Christ have contributed increasingly to doing away with Christianity. The vast and powerful apparatus of "Christendom" is a lie; it is swallowed up by its own unaccountability and irresponsibility. Would any Lutheran have dared to make such statements at the historic Geneva gathering? OSTOEVSKY, TOO, had a vision of eternal life tive and to the strangest and the most terrifying of his Dostoevsky who can assist us to keep our ears sharp for formal language, pious abstractions and triumphalist phrases. The three sons of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy had little time for updating their ecclesiology and little interest in promoting a sort of sacred communalism. Only our new humanity in Christ is allembracing and touches each of us. In The Brothers Karamazov the young Markel, the brother of Father Zossima, exclaims: "Everyone is responsible to all men for all men and for everything. Life is paradise, and we are all in paradise, but we won't see it; if we would, we should have heaven on earth the next day." I submit that is what church unity is about. If only the joint statement had said less about the wide range of current collaboration and more on the role of the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches as functions of human community until the Kingdom arrives. A. J. van der Bent. Charm and the English literary creations the same gospel precept can be applied: Language Amendment "Whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." All the personalities created by the great Russian author are neither good nor bad, neither moral nor immoral, neither clever nor crass. They are only either humble or proud. For that reason not a single pre-eminent person can be found in all of Dostoevsky's novels. After a lifelong struggle, human beings find out at last that resurrection is the only answer to their lack of humility. The question of the proud and the humble reaches its climax in the legend of the Grand Inquisitor, as told in The Brothers Karamazov. Christ's simple answer to the long and passionate monologue of the cardinal of Seville, the head of the Inquisition, is a kiss on his aged, bloodless lips. Complete silence, understanding everything and forgiving all, is Christ's final judgment on his persecutor. Would any representative of the Orthodox churches have dared to address the papal company on the temptation of triumphalism and the collective pride of the Christian communion? No-Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky clearly would not have been good partners in the ecumenical dialogue. They would have confused, perhaps even shocked the advocates of Christian unity. Yet Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians need to hear and remind each other that the unity of the people of God is a qualitative unity because Christ is in agony for his church and humankind until the coming of the Kingdom; because we all need, our whole lives, to become Christians; and because we are all judged not according to the goodness of our hearts but by the degree of our pride. It is the ecumenical team of Pascal, Kierkegaard and 822 LONG WITH President Ronald Reagan, I'm con been in decline for some time now. But whereas the president attributes that decline chiefly to a weakness in armaments, I'm more inclined to find its cause in certain deficiencies in our culture. The proposed English Language Amendment is the latest exhibit in support of my case. Sponsored by Senator Walter D. Huddleston (D., Ky.), the amendment to the U.S. Constitution would make English the official language of the United States. Among its leading backers is a lobbying group called "U.S. English," headed by S. I. Hayakawa, who recently testified in support of the amendment before the Senate judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution. Now Hayakawa, in addition to being the former and very colorful U.S. senator from California, is also one of the world's most famous semanticists. Everything he has to say on the subject of language therefore ought to be listened to with respectful attention. But even Hayakawa nods, and I fear he fell sound asleep on this one. I DON'T DISAGREE with the contention of Hayakawa in having something very close to linguistic uniformity throughout its history. Nor do I disagree that we ought to strive to maintain that uniformity in the future. Linguistic divisions are among the most profound and disruptive that can affect any modern society. (Premodern societies seem to have had a soniewhat greater tolerance The Christian CENTURY for them; religious division was what they couldn't handle.) Look at Canada. Look at the Walloons and Flemish in Belgium. Look at the Basques and, to a lesser degree, the Catalonians in Spain. Look at the linguistic minorities in France. Look at Yugoslavia. And, above all, look at the Soviet Union, where repressive centralism is not just a matter of Leninist ideology or czarist nostalgia; it's a matter of holding together an empire of incredible linguistic diversity which might otherwise fly to pieces. I further agree with the scorn the proamendment folk heap on the concept of "biculturalism," which comes very close to being a contradiction in terms. Having a culture is not like having a suit of clothes or a pair of shoes. You can't put on one culture today and another tomorrow. Having a culture is more like having a personality. Certain kinds of schizophrenia aside, you can't have two of them at a time; you can't take off one and put another on as you shift from one activity or social setting to another in the course of the day. (I concede that, although the concept of biculturalism borders on logical absurdity, the intention behind it is often admirable. Proponents want to ease the transition from another language to English, to spare the newcomer the public shame that has often been associated with the language of the immigrant, to preserve the new American's capacity to relate to the culture of his foreign forebears, etc. All this is fine. And to accomplish these goals, bilingualism—a thing quite different from biculturalism, though sometimes confused with it—may or may not be an effective tool, depending on how and with whom it is used. All the same, biculturalism is the pet project of anthropological ignoramuses.) Having granted this much to Hayakawa and his friends, I nonetheless continue to believe that an English Language Amendment would be extremely unwise, both in itself and as a sign of even greater follies standing behind it. I won't press the objection that the United States hardly seems to be at the "crucial juncture" where Senator Huddleston imagines we stand, where "we can either continue down the same path we have walked for the past 200 years, using the melting-pot philosophy to forge a strong and united nation, or we can take the new path that leads in the direction of another Tower of Babel." Nor will I stress that the movement for the amendment is surrounded by a suspicious odor of anti-Hispanic prejudice. My real objection is that the amendment assumes that compulsion, not attraction, is the best way of spreading a language or a culture. It assumes that the model of effective missionary work is Charlemagne among the Saxons, not Paul among the gentiles. HERE IS an obscure essay by Matthew Arnold writ might profitably be consulted in this context. Arnold contrasts the attachment Alsatian Germans feel for France with the hostility Irish Catholics feel for England. Why the success of France? Why the failure of England? Arnold's answer is that the civilization of France has sufficient sweetness and light to make it attractive to out September 12-19, 1984 siders; the civilization of England, by contrast, is too narrow, rigid and unlovely to charm any but the English themselves. The Irish, for all their shortcomings, have too much soul to be taken in. Arnold held out the hope that if English civilization reformed itself, if it managed to get a healthy infusion of “culture" (in Arnold's special sense of that word), the Irish might give up their demand for home rule and come to live in fruitful harmony with their born-again English brothers and sisters. This hope, as the sequel demonstrated, was a vain one. Arnold's analysis, I suggest, might be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the United States today. We stand to the Third World, especially to Latin America, in somewhat the same relation England stood to Ireland a century ago. Less developed countries don't love us; and despite our obvious merits and good intentions, they exhibit a perverse contempt for our paternal solicitude and an unnatural passion to go their independent ways. Eventually of course, they'll come around; it is unthinkable that they should not. But in the meantime we have the obligation to use ample force and a certain amount of fraud to protect them from their notoriously self-destructive impulses. I won't go so far as to say that an absence of Arnold's "culture" is our critical deficiency, though it certainly wouldn't hurt if we had a little more of it. But if the Third World, especially Latin America, doesn't admire us as much as we'd like, or even as much as our interests as a great power dictate that they ought to, then perhaps there is something not fully admirable about our civilization at the moment. If we don't attract, maybe we're not attractive. While war, preparations for war, and veiled and open threats of war may be continuations of politics by other means, the possession of a charismatic civilization can be an equally effective instrument in achieving policy goals. To further our Third World policies-even more, to render ourselves capable of finding and choosing wise Third World policies-an examination of our cultural conscience is at least as much in order as an increase in defense spending. Which brings us back to the English Language Amend ment. If American culture possesses the magnetism_it clearly had once upon a time, newcomers will be more than eager to master English. They won't have to be driven to it kicking and screaming. On the other hand, if that magnetism has been lost, all the English Language Amendments in the world won't help. Quite the contrary, they will hurt. For they give the signal that we've lost not only our cultural attractiveness but our very will to conquer through attraction. It is, I suspect, no accident that this attempt-conceived especially with Latin American immigrants in mind-to make English prevail by compulsion, not attraction. should surface at a time when we have in Washington an administration which believes that it can make American political values prevail by compulsion, not attraction, in Latin America. The United States, I fear, is losing faith in its own charm. David R. Carlin, Jr 823 CORRESPONDENCE HENRY KANE ATTORNEY AT LAW 12275 S. W. 2ND AREA CODE 503 TELEPHONE 646-0566 June 13, 1984 Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Re: Proposed Constitutional amendment/statute to make English the official language of the United States Dear Senator Hatch and Members of the Subcommittee: The undersigned supports the principle of a statute or Constitutional amendment making English the official language of the United States. If a Constitutional amendment is deemed inappropriate, then I respectfully urge: (1) comprehensive amendment or repeal of federal statutes requiring or encouraging bilingualism (2) (3) (4) enactment of a statute making English the official language of the enactment of statutes encouraging and funding efforts of immigrants, enactment of statutes making a working reading and speaking knowledge I request that the following enclosures be made part of the hearing record on the proposal for a Constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the United States: (1) My Dec. 5, 1983 letter to The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon, accompanying a proposed (and rejected) article on the bilingualism issue (2) My Dec. 13, 1983 article in The Hillsboro Argus, Hillsboro, Oregon, titled "Hispanics here should learn English language" (3) Dec. 20, 1983 Hillsboro Argus article by Jose E. Solano in response (4) My Dec. 29, 1984 letter to John Tyner, III, a Beaverton attorney and an active member of a Police-Hispanic Relations Committee. There is much evidence that many Hispanic leaders reject the traditional concept that immigrants can keep their native language and culture, but must master a working reading and speaking knowledge of English and became familiar with American law and custom. The Oregonian recently published an article that said in part that "Anglo" or non-Hispanic high school students in Florida must learn Spanish if they wish to do business with the Hispanic community after graduation. In other words: "We won't learn English but you must learn Spanish." That attitude, unless changed or stemmed, will create grave problems in what is now the United States, e.g., parts of the United States will, in effect, became another nation. It is respectfully submitted that Congress should take some effective action before we become two nations speaking two languages, to the detriment of everyone. I request that I be placed on the mailing list to receive notice of future Sincerely, Mane Henry Kane encls. CC: Hon. Walter D. Huddleston HENRY KANE, Beaverton, OR, December 5, 1983. FORUM EDITOR, DEAR SIR: The enclosed article is prompted by long interest in the two official language problem, starting with my experience as a child in French-speaking Montreal, Canada. The last time I was in Montreal (to give a speech) the animosity caused in large part by the two official language requirement, was high. The Oregonian and other articles I have read indicate that Hispanic leaders seek to make Spanish an official language. Demands that the police learn Spanish state in effect that Hispanics have the right to retain Spanish as their role language, compel police to learn Spanish, but that Hispanics have no duty to learn English. The consequence would be the equivalent of the Canadian two-language problem. To my knowledge, Hispanics are the first immigrant group to evidence such an attitude. It is fortunate that Germans, our largest immigrant group, did not so insist! The Dec. 4, 1983 Ota-Enders article states that "the language barrier exists throughout Oregon's justice system." True. But to a large extent the Hispanics, especially the illegal aliens, created the language barrier by not learning English. Certainly the Oregon legal system should not be blamed. We have hundreds of thousands of American servicemen, their families and businessmen in West Germany. To my knowledge the U.S. has not insisted that German police learn American English. I am sending a copy of this letter and enclosure to Alan Ota. Perhaps a subsequent article will reflect that I am in error. I would be most happy to be found to be in error. And perhaps judges will ask a Spanish-speaking suspect: "What efforts have you made to learn the language, law and customs of the United States?" A prisoner who says "nothing" is entitled to little, if any, sympathy because he cannot understand English. Sincerely, HENRY KANE. |