R.P. BenDedek
American Democracy: True or False?
By R.P. BenDedek
May 3, 2005 - 10:39:00 AM

I read today the article Anonymity & Freedom of the Press, by Ken Anderson, and was feeling a bit sorry for him, perhaps empathizing with his frustration in dealing with the 'glib mouthed pretenders' of openness and honesty. I wished I could write something about the situation, but at the time, there were no words to express my ideas.

I have however just finished reading an article at TechCentralstation which in essence says it all. Before turning to that however, I want to quote from Ken's article. He writes:

• "The most recent attack has been over our policy of printing anonymous letters to the editor ... and ... have criticized our policy of publishing letters from people who have opinions to offer but would rather remain anonymous. If not so that they can attack them, why are they so interested in knowing the identity of anyone who disagrees with them? Why is an opinion any less valid because the author doesn't want his name attributed to it? The publisher and editor of the Community Press have insinuated that our practice of publishing anonymous letters violates some media code of ethics that we were unaware of".

Now Ken's article was a pretty good 'apologetic' for his position, but here I want to concentrate on his implication that there might be something sinister behind the calls for identity disclosure.

In an article entitled: Bulls#@* and the Academic Left by James D. Miller, an issue is discussed, wherein the identities of those on either side of the debate are known. Mr. Miller writes:

• "Along with Bill Kristol and Ann Coulter, David Horowitz recently had a pie thrown at him while he was speaking to a college audience. In response to the pie-throwing incident Larkin wrote, "[Horowitz] also thinks you should go on college lecture circuits where you can use incendiary rhetoric to turn civilized venues into the Jerry Springer show, and then descend into fits of indignant self-pity when someone responds with a pie to your face." (If Horowitz had been a lesbian feminist and the pie thrower a fundamentalist Christian, Larkin would probably have been fired from Stanford for making this remark.) Larkin seems to believe that Horowitz deserved to get smacked in the face with a pie. Now imagine that you're a student in Larkin's class and have read a few of Horowitz's books and agree with many of Horowitz's points. Would you feel that your grade would suffer if your papers made Horowitz-like arguments?"

This one paragraph portrays the disgusting reality of the world in which we now live (a reality that I have also experienced in two different types of religious universities).

Firstly, it is pointed out that the protagonists inherently blame the speaker David Horowitz, for this incident, because he dared to speak out against a particular issue. The life lesson we learn here is that one should not go against the status quo, and that being the case, you yanks should get rid of your political system and go back to being a colony of England. If that is a 'too severe' remark, then let's drop it a notch, and say that you should get rid of your democratic system, for such a system fundamentally results in continuous changes to the political status quo, and this does not even touch upon the issue of freedom of speech and thought.

Secondly, the protagonists, must inherently believe that one's 'civility' is neither a personal choice nor a moral value, but is conditional, flowing and ebbing according to whether one's 'feelings' are being appropriately 'affirmed'. In other words, civilised society remains civil if it is in fact a civilised society, but what can be seen from this article, is that the agitators in the audience are not civil, not respectful, and not decent. "Just as I got so angry that I could explode, a pie just appeared out of nowhere in my lap. Taking it as a sign from above, I threw it!"

Thirdly, reference to the lesbian feminists and Christians, demonstrates that in a society where equality and non discrimination is the alleged 'norm', it is anything but the 'norm'. It is in fact quite discriminatory, abusive, and unequal.

Fourthly, and here is where we directly touch upon the issue of anonymity, the reality of modern "democratic, non discriminating, equal opportunity and respect for all" life, is a sham. EVERY university student knows what NOT TO WRITE in their assignments, if one does not want a particular examiner venting his/her personal anger through the grading system.

Anyone who would call this a lie, needs to pull their head out. I attended a Christian college, where, my assignment relating to a guest speaker, was thrown in my face by a lecturer, because I used the word 'bastard'. I pointed out that as indicated, I was directly quoting the guest lecturer. This was denied. I demanded that the lecturer check with the other students, only to be told that I was walking on thin ice and could be expelled. It may have helped that I was not 'One of them'.

In a liberal catholic university, I was required to give one section of a collaborative presentation. The grade for the presentation was to be equally shared. So upset was the feminist lecturer by something I said, that contrary to government rules and regulations, she changed the grading system specifically for our group, so as to give me a 'fail' for this part of my overall assessment.

We do not live in a nice world. As Ken pointed out, if there is a legitimate point to be made, a legitimate question to be asked, a legitimate issue to be discussed, the names of the persons involved are irrelevant, UNLESS ONE IS OPERATING FROM WITHIN A HIDDEN AGENDA. As Ken Anderson is the one allowing the anonymous letters, if an accusation of 'hidden agendas' is to be raised, it must first be raised as an accusation against him.

When a critic's identity becomes the focus, rather than the issue being criticised, one must ask 'why?'. There will always be times when 'identity' might have legitimate bearing, and legitimate persons are aware of this, and do not 'hide' from that. Generally speaking though, while providing one's name is irrelevant to the issue at hand, providing it can lead to undesired outcomes, not all of which are sinister.

My name for instance is a pseudonym. There are reasons for using it, none of which are sinister. My name is so 'peculiar' in Australia, that anyone with it can be identified positively as a member of my family. The last thing I want for my family members, is to suffer what my siblings and I suffered as children. While our parents were not famous, they were well known. We could go nowhere and do nothing, without being identified as not only 'THEIR' children, but as the nieces and nephews of my Maternal Aunt's husband, the grandchildren of my Maternal Grandfather, the relatives of my Maternal Great Uncle, and the relatives of my Paternal Great Aunt. It was positively suffocating, not to mention the scorn of our peers because we were dubbed 'nice, obedient and respectful children!'

Additionally, I also come from a family that is 'well known' throughout the world, for a variety of Academic reasons. It is a given that anyone in the world with my family name, is descended from the ancestor who gave us our family name. (You even have some in the USA, plus one up and coming bright star in Canada).

Reasons for anonymity are not always 'suspicious'. However, as the TechCentralStation article cited above indicates, the world is full of people who do not believe in free speech. Rather, it is a world full of controlling people hell bent on making sure that no one stands in their way, and who will do anything they feel like to vent their anger; always making sure that the blame for their obnoxious behaviour falls squarely on the person who is the object of their hatred.

When an issue is an issue, it is an issue, and the identities of the people raising that issue, are irrelevant, unless there is an issue of malice IN the issue. In that case, there are legal means to remedy the situation.

Genuine people don't need to bully, and while genuine people should have nothing to hide, this is a malicious world we live in. UNFORTUNATELY!

R.P.Bendedek

Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com

R.P.BenDedek is the pseudonym of the Author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' (www.kingscalendar.com), and is a guest columnist at Magic City Morning Star News. An Australian, he currently teaches Conversational English in China.

King's Calendar Social Commentaries.

The King's Calendar is a chronological study, of people and events listed in the Bible, Josephus, and The Damascus Document of the Essenes. It both confirms and challenges many cherished concepts in relation to Biblical Infallibility and Bible History, The Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Josephus, the Reign of Nebuchadrezzar, Moses and the Exodus, Jeremiah's Seventy year prophecy of the Babylonian Exile, Daniel's Vision of Seventy weeks, and discrepancies between the Septuagint and Masoretic Texts of the Bible.