TW: Just sayin'...
From Andrew Sullivan:
"It's on the rise:
'Unlike in the West, creationist beliefs are not associated in the Muslim world with religious fundamentalism, but instead are often espoused by members of the mainstream intellectual elite - liberals, by their own lights, who see the expansive, scientific-sounding claims of creationism as tracing a middle way between the guidance of religion and the promise of modern science. Critics of the movement fear that this makes it more likely that creationism will find its way into policies there, especially when the theory of evolution is portrayed among Muslim thinkers, as it often is, as an instrument of Western intellectual hegemony.'
Drake Bennett points a paradoxical reason for that rise:
'[T]hose places where the theory of evolution is seen more warily, the fact that there is a creationist debate at all can be seen as a sort of progress - a symptom at the very least of a newfound interest in science. In the most conservative parts of the Muslim world, creationism isn't a political or philosophical force because it doesn't need to be - there aren't enough people who believe in evolution, or have even been exposed to it, to require a counter-doctrine.
The rise of Islamic creationism, then, may be a sign that more of the Muslim world is at least wrestling with the idea of evolution, and more broadly with the power of scientific explanations. Much though it may alarm Western scientists, creationist thought may offer people an acceptable point of entry into a science-driven world.' "
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/creationism-in-the-islamic-world.html#more
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
An Interesting Interpretation Of American Society
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
(via the Sullivan blog)
TW: This piece of "art" provides an intriguing interpretation of individual symbols of the American experience (the contrast between those in the lower left v. lower right in particular). I cannot say that I concur with this view but again I believe this piece represents the views of a significant minority of Americans, who vote like the rest of us, and is a fairly good synopsis. The tricky part, of course, would be reconciling the centerpiece of the work to those who do not hew the same philosophy. Furthermore, while the piece pays respect to civil rights activities of the 1960's, I would wonder where representatives of more contemporary issues like say Harvey Milk etc. are.
(via the Sullivan blog)
TW: This piece of "art" provides an intriguing interpretation of individual symbols of the American experience (the contrast between those in the lower left v. lower right in particular). I cannot say that I concur with this view but again I believe this piece represents the views of a significant minority of Americans, who vote like the rest of us, and is a fairly good synopsis. The tricky part, of course, would be reconciling the centerpiece of the work to those who do not hew the same philosophy. Furthermore, while the piece pays respect to civil rights activities of the 1960's, I would wonder where representatives of more contemporary issues like say Harvey Milk etc. are.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Should Schools Close On Muslim Holidays?
TW: This is the kind of story that can get folks riled. Then again perhaps fundamentalists would like the idea of more religious holidays. Christian traditions are deeply embedded within our schedules even within our theoretically secular schools. Obviously in most geographies Christians remain and will remain the strong majority population. However, in certain districts Jewish children represent a substantial minority, if not majority. With the growth of Muslim (and perhaps other religious orientations), certain local populations are starting to attain sufficient size to request their own accommodations.
Places like NYC given its melting pot status are somewhat unique in that they have significant minorities across several faiths unlike say Dearborn, MI, which is majority Muslim at this point.
To me the Hillsbourough, FL solution outlined below would be my preference. I have a simple metric for religious integration into the secular world. If it works and reconciles for all faiths, it is probably fine. If it does not, then perhaps it is a problem.
From Wall Street Journal:
"Muslims groups here are pressing city officials to close public schools on two of the faith's holiest days, just as schools do for major Jewish and Christian holidays...Muslim groups have asked the city to cancel classes on Eid Ul-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, and Eid Ul-Adha, which marks the end of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.
New York is one of many public-school systems now struggling with appropriate ways to recognize religious holidays for a diverse population. An estimated 100,000 Muslim children are enrolled in New York City schools, about 10% of the enrollment.
The matter has taken on a political aspect as Mr. Bloomberg, seeking a third term as mayor, has steadily courted the endorsement of a slew of ethnic groups. One city councilman said Muslims might withhold their votes if the mayor doesn't heed their wishes...
The mayor often says children need to be in school more, not less, and that establishing more holidays would encourage every religious group to demand that their holy days be recognized...
Other states have found a workable approach. Dearborn, Mich., where nearly half of the 18,000 students are Muslim, is believed to be the first city to close school on Muslim holy days, a spokesman said. Several cities in New Jersey now close school on the holy days.
After Muslims asked for school closings in Hillsborough County, Fla., the school board in 2007 approved a secular calendar that doesn't commemorate any religious holidays for the 189,000 students. Schools remain open on Good Friday, a Christian holiday, even though many students are absent, said Linda Cobbe, a spokeswoman. "There are so many religions we don't want to single out one or two," she said.
...New York City schools close on major federal holidays, as well as the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur. School recesses are scheduled during Christmas, Good Friday, Easter and Passover. City schools permit children to stay home on days when they are celebrating a religious holiday..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125297372149610431.html
Places like NYC given its melting pot status are somewhat unique in that they have significant minorities across several faiths unlike say Dearborn, MI, which is majority Muslim at this point.
To me the Hillsbourough, FL solution outlined below would be my preference. I have a simple metric for religious integration into the secular world. If it works and reconciles for all faiths, it is probably fine. If it does not, then perhaps it is a problem.
From Wall Street Journal:
"Muslims groups here are pressing city officials to close public schools on two of the faith's holiest days, just as schools do for major Jewish and Christian holidays...Muslim groups have asked the city to cancel classes on Eid Ul-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, and Eid Ul-Adha, which marks the end of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.
New York is one of many public-school systems now struggling with appropriate ways to recognize religious holidays for a diverse population. An estimated 100,000 Muslim children are enrolled in New York City schools, about 10% of the enrollment.
The matter has taken on a political aspect as Mr. Bloomberg, seeking a third term as mayor, has steadily courted the endorsement of a slew of ethnic groups. One city councilman said Muslims might withhold their votes if the mayor doesn't heed their wishes...
The mayor often says children need to be in school more, not less, and that establishing more holidays would encourage every religious group to demand that their holy days be recognized...
Other states have found a workable approach. Dearborn, Mich., where nearly half of the 18,000 students are Muslim, is believed to be the first city to close school on Muslim holy days, a spokesman said. Several cities in New Jersey now close school on the holy days.
After Muslims asked for school closings in Hillsborough County, Fla., the school board in 2007 approved a secular calendar that doesn't commemorate any religious holidays for the 189,000 students. Schools remain open on Good Friday, a Christian holiday, even though many students are absent, said Linda Cobbe, a spokeswoman. "There are so many religions we don't want to single out one or two," she said.
...New York City schools close on major federal holidays, as well as the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur. School recesses are scheduled during Christmas, Good Friday, Easter and Passover. City schools permit children to stay home on days when they are celebrating a religious holiday..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125297372149610431.html
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Integrating Islam Into the West
TW: What to do when parents object to liberal democracy? Some folks like the concept of managing schools locally with minimal federal or outside participation. What happens though if the locals wish to create an environment which rebukes some of our most cherished ideals? I suppose here the folks below would be shunted off to private schools with a religious orientation.
From Economist:
"n recent years, a growing number of schools in Antwerp...have banned outright the wearing of Muslim veils and headscarves by female pupils. Karin Heremans, headmistress of the Antwerp Atheneum (a prestigious sort of secondary/high school) tried another approach. Ms Heremans is described in the local press as a champion of cultural diversity in the school system, who fought for nine years for the right of her pupils to wear headscarves if they wished. She wanted her state school to be a place of “inclusive neutrality”, in which religions are not excluded from the curriculum but “cohabit” with it. She took seriously the idea of Antwerp as a diverse city, which it certainly is: a large and growing Muslim community co-exists with a smaller but highly visible Hassidic community, a fairly radicalised nationalist Flemish white population and a rather tolerant, intellectual bourgeoisie.
...Alas, as her school became a rare place where veils were permitted, in addition to girls taking refuge in her liberal policies came girls from families dominated by radical Islamism. Instead of being a beacon of tolerance, her school became a “ghetto” in the words of one supporter. The proportion of headscarf-wearing girls went from 50% to 80% in three years, and girls who did not wear scarves found themselves under stronger and stronger pressure to cover up. The school found itself “targeted” by Islamist hardliners who began questioning certain lessons, school excursions, and trying to block the organisation of mixed gender parents’ meetings,
...Finally, when term began this month, she banned the headscarf. She described this as a “difficult and frustrating” decision.
...It is a bad idea to draw broad conclusions from a single case. By instinct, I am strongly secularist, as it happens. I quail a bit at the French solution, ie, banning all headscarves in all schools, by law.
...I do not share the doomy predictions of the Eurabia crowd. Europeans are not sleep walking into the abandonment of western civilisation. They are trying to work out how to adapt to fast changing societies, and they have their eyes wide open. And societies have always evolved. Immigrants in previous centuries and decades have prompted remarkably similar fusses, and are now well integrated. Young Spanish women did not have much freedom in the villages of their native Andalucia, 50 years ago.
Yet the arrival of traditional, pious immigrants in Europe does clearly test the liberal values that I hold dear. In short, how should a liberal, tolerant society protect the rights of a less liberal minority in its midst? Anyone with a quick answer to that one, I would suggest, is a fraud or a demagogue."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2009/09/muslim_headscarves_the_controv.cfm
From Economist:
"n recent years, a growing number of schools in Antwerp...have banned outright the wearing of Muslim veils and headscarves by female pupils. Karin Heremans, headmistress of the Antwerp Atheneum (a prestigious sort of secondary/high school) tried another approach. Ms Heremans is described in the local press as a champion of cultural diversity in the school system, who fought for nine years for the right of her pupils to wear headscarves if they wished. She wanted her state school to be a place of “inclusive neutrality”, in which religions are not excluded from the curriculum but “cohabit” with it. She took seriously the idea of Antwerp as a diverse city, which it certainly is: a large and growing Muslim community co-exists with a smaller but highly visible Hassidic community, a fairly radicalised nationalist Flemish white population and a rather tolerant, intellectual bourgeoisie.
...Alas, as her school became a rare place where veils were permitted, in addition to girls taking refuge in her liberal policies came girls from families dominated by radical Islamism. Instead of being a beacon of tolerance, her school became a “ghetto” in the words of one supporter. The proportion of headscarf-wearing girls went from 50% to 80% in three years, and girls who did not wear scarves found themselves under stronger and stronger pressure to cover up. The school found itself “targeted” by Islamist hardliners who began questioning certain lessons, school excursions, and trying to block the organisation of mixed gender parents’ meetings,
...Finally, when term began this month, she banned the headscarf. She described this as a “difficult and frustrating” decision.
...It is a bad idea to draw broad conclusions from a single case. By instinct, I am strongly secularist, as it happens. I quail a bit at the French solution, ie, banning all headscarves in all schools, by law.
...I do not share the doomy predictions of the Eurabia crowd. Europeans are not sleep walking into the abandonment of western civilisation. They are trying to work out how to adapt to fast changing societies, and they have their eyes wide open. And societies have always evolved. Immigrants in previous centuries and decades have prompted remarkably similar fusses, and are now well integrated. Young Spanish women did not have much freedom in the villages of their native Andalucia, 50 years ago.
Yet the arrival of traditional, pious immigrants in Europe does clearly test the liberal values that I hold dear. In short, how should a liberal, tolerant society protect the rights of a less liberal minority in its midst? Anyone with a quick answer to that one, I would suggest, is a fraud or a demagogue."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2009/09/muslim_headscarves_the_controv.cfm
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Camp Quest
TW: A Christian group "berates Camp Quest for drumming a “hopeless” world view into young minds", of course the same could be said the other way could it not?
From Economist:
"...Camp Quest, a network of summer camps for secular kids...In most ways, it is like other summer camps. Kids aged 8 to 17 share cabins in the woods. During the day, they paddle canoes, shoot arrows, go swimming and explore nature. At night, they chat beneath the stars. Like other summer camps, Camp Quest satisfies a demand that springs from America’s combination of very long holidays for children and very short ones for their parents. Unlike other camps, it is staffed entirely by humanists.
They are not pushy or preachy, but scepticism flavours nearly everything they do. Lunch comes with a five-minute talk about a famous freethinker. Campers are told that invisible unicorns inhabit the forest, and offered a prize if they can prove that the unicorns do not exist. The older kids learn something about the difficulty of proving a negative. The younger ones grow giggly at the prospect of stepping in invisible unicorn poop. There’s a prize for the tidiest cabin, too, because “cleanliness is next to godlessness”, jokes Amanda Metskas, the director.
Campers are not told that there is no God; only that they should weigh the evidence. They learn about the scientific method. An amateur biologist invites them to gather creepy-crawlies from a nearby pond. They are told how sensitive each species is to pollution, and asked to work out from this how polluted the pond is. They find several critters that can survive only in clean water, and conclude that the pond is in good shape. The kids are encouraged to explore ethical questions, too. The more argumentative ones sit in a clearing and debate the nature of justice.
The kind of people who send their kids to Bible camp are appalled. Answers in Genesis, a Christian fundamentalist group, berates Camp Quest for drumming a “hopeless” world view into young minds. But a humanist camp is less about indoctrination than reassurance that it is all right not to be religious; that it is possible to be moral without believing in the supernatural. Nearly all the kids at Camp Quest say they find it comforting to be surrounded by others who share their lack of belief. Many attend schools where Christianity is taken for granted. Many keep quiet about their atheism. Those who don’t are sometimes taunted or told they will burn in hell.
Atheists are broadly disliked in America. Only 5% of Americans admit that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified black presidential candidate, but 53% say they would shun an atheist. That makes the godless less popular than Muslims, Mormons or gays. Granted, the proportion of Americans who say they might vote for an atheist has doubled in the past half-century, and the polls are muddied by those who do not know what an atheist is.
...The lonely 1 in 12...Although America’s atheists are not loved, they are not persecuted. Hate crimes against them are almost non-existent....Of course, the fact that atheists are practically invisible makes them less vulnerable. A neo-Nazi can easily identify a synagogue or the Holocaust museum in Washington. But how do you spot an atheist? The guy you see walking a dog on Sunday morning could be planning to go to evensong.
Many atheists opt to remain in the closet, except perhaps with their closest friends. It is the path of least resistance. Deny the existence of God and you may be challenging your neighbours’ most deeply held beliefs. That could get you ostracised, so why risk it? Yet living in the closet has costs. Christians have their beliefs constantly reinforced by neighbours who proudly and openly share them. Atheists often wrestle with their consciences alone, even though they are perhaps 8% of the population.
...Isolation matters especially when it comes to bringing up children, a tough task at the best of times. Christian parents can call on a vast support network of churches, Sunday schools, Bible camps and incidentally religious organisations such as the Boy Scouts. Atheists have precious little to compare with this. Small wonder the kids at Camp Quest seem so cheerful."
From Economist:
"...Camp Quest, a network of summer camps for secular kids...In most ways, it is like other summer camps. Kids aged 8 to 17 share cabins in the woods. During the day, they paddle canoes, shoot arrows, go swimming and explore nature. At night, they chat beneath the stars. Like other summer camps, Camp Quest satisfies a demand that springs from America’s combination of very long holidays for children and very short ones for their parents. Unlike other camps, it is staffed entirely by humanists.
They are not pushy or preachy, but scepticism flavours nearly everything they do. Lunch comes with a five-minute talk about a famous freethinker. Campers are told that invisible unicorns inhabit the forest, and offered a prize if they can prove that the unicorns do not exist. The older kids learn something about the difficulty of proving a negative. The younger ones grow giggly at the prospect of stepping in invisible unicorn poop. There’s a prize for the tidiest cabin, too, because “cleanliness is next to godlessness”, jokes Amanda Metskas, the director.
Campers are not told that there is no God; only that they should weigh the evidence. They learn about the scientific method. An amateur biologist invites them to gather creepy-crawlies from a nearby pond. They are told how sensitive each species is to pollution, and asked to work out from this how polluted the pond is. They find several critters that can survive only in clean water, and conclude that the pond is in good shape. The kids are encouraged to explore ethical questions, too. The more argumentative ones sit in a clearing and debate the nature of justice.
The kind of people who send their kids to Bible camp are appalled. Answers in Genesis, a Christian fundamentalist group, berates Camp Quest for drumming a “hopeless” world view into young minds. But a humanist camp is less about indoctrination than reassurance that it is all right not to be religious; that it is possible to be moral without believing in the supernatural. Nearly all the kids at Camp Quest say they find it comforting to be surrounded by others who share their lack of belief. Many attend schools where Christianity is taken for granted. Many keep quiet about their atheism. Those who don’t are sometimes taunted or told they will burn in hell.
Atheists are broadly disliked in America. Only 5% of Americans admit that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified black presidential candidate, but 53% say they would shun an atheist. That makes the godless less popular than Muslims, Mormons or gays. Granted, the proportion of Americans who say they might vote for an atheist has doubled in the past half-century, and the polls are muddied by those who do not know what an atheist is.
...The lonely 1 in 12...Although America’s atheists are not loved, they are not persecuted. Hate crimes against them are almost non-existent....Of course, the fact that atheists are practically invisible makes them less vulnerable. A neo-Nazi can easily identify a synagogue or the Holocaust museum in Washington. But how do you spot an atheist? The guy you see walking a dog on Sunday morning could be planning to go to evensong.
Many atheists opt to remain in the closet, except perhaps with their closest friends. It is the path of least resistance. Deny the existence of God and you may be challenging your neighbours’ most deeply held beliefs. That could get you ostracised, so why risk it? Yet living in the closet has costs. Christians have their beliefs constantly reinforced by neighbours who proudly and openly share them. Atheists often wrestle with their consciences alone, even though they are perhaps 8% of the population.
...Isolation matters especially when it comes to bringing up children, a tough task at the best of times. Christian parents can call on a vast support network of churches, Sunday schools, Bible camps and incidentally religious organisations such as the Boy Scouts. Atheists have precious little to compare with this. Small wonder the kids at Camp Quest seem so cheerful."
Sunday, June 28, 2009
To Burqa Or Not To Burqa
TW: You would be hard pressed to find someone more adamantly secular than me. But I find things like banning burqas counter-productive and destructive. The above cartoon frames the challenges of the state determining acceptable expressions of taste, morality and religion. A burqa to me is not an attractive expression of religion, taste or morality but that is me. In the U.S. we tend toward permitting individuals to make these decisions within limits of safety and certain moral constraints (i.e. prancing around nude in generally restricted).If the state intervenes regardless of the grounds, it opens a pandora's box best left closed in my opinion, where does it stop? Furthermore, I suspect like most cultural bans, folks will only be motivated to embrace the use of the burqa as a protest if for no other reason.
From Economist:
"...Now Nicolas Sarkozy has sparked another by calling the burqa, a head-to-toe Islamic garment, “a sign of subjugation…of debasement” that is “not welcome on French territory”.
Mr Sarkozy’s comments came after a group of deputies, led by André Gerin, a Communist, had called for a parliamentary inquiry into the wearing of the burqa, with a view to a possible ban. This would mean in all public places, since it is already banned in state institutions under the 2004 law. The deputies called burqas “veritable walking prisons”.
France’s strict secularism, entrenched by law since 1905, keeps religion firmly out of the state sphere. There are no religious studies (let alone nativity plays) in state schools, nor may public workers sport the headscarf. The government denies that such policies constrain religious freedom or are especially aimed at Islam. France welcomes private Muslim schools. Mosque-building is widespread. The 2004 headscarf ban outlawed “conspicuous” religious symbols of all faiths. Yet there are growing worries about the spread of hard-line Islamism in the heavily Muslim banlieues.
...In fact, few women wear the full garment in France. But mayors of cities with big Muslim populations report a steady increase in numbers, due not to immigration but to its adoption by French-born women—often from North African countries where the burqa is not traditionally worn.
Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the official French Council of the Muslim Faith, has suggested that the inquiry would itself stigmatise Islam. A ban might be misunderstood abroad, and not only in the Muslim world. In his recent speech in Cairo, Barack Obama said that “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit—for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”
Not so, say many French politicians—including such prominent Muslims as Fadela Amara, the cities minister. The founder of a women’s-rights group, Ms Amara has called the burqa “a coffin that kills individual liberties”, and a sign of the “political exploitation of Islam”.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13925890
Monday, May 18, 2009
Whatever Folks....
TW: I really do try to restrain my heathen tendencies on the blog, but sometimes I just cannot help myself.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Advice From an Obamacon
TW: Unless you are political junkie you probably have not heard of Doug Kmiec, he is an Obamacon and constitutional attorney. He made waves with his support of Obama not only due to his Republican background but his strong involvement with the Catholic church. He publicly sparred with some of the Catholic hierarchy post-endorsement. This was a meaty interview so I will break it into a couple of posts. This one focusing on Obama and religion. Certainly evangelicals and doctrinaire religious figures get much attention but there is a different strain of religious figures who focus on other aspects of their religion than abortion opposition, gay marriage and literal biblical interpretations.
From Economist:
"...[Obama will be on stage at Notre Dame with] Father Theodore Hesburgh, aged 92, Notre Dame's president emeritus. Father Hesburgh's service on the US Civil Rights Commission from the late 1950s until 1972 (when he was dismissed as chairman by Richard Nixon) broke the back of racial separation in America. The third president will be Notre Dame's current leader, Father John Jenkins, whose academic integrity stands forthright against partisan conservative forces within the American Catholic church that today operate more with intimidation and fear than persuasion and charity.
In campaigning for the presidency, Mr Obama refused to follow the opposition’s consistent ploy of using religious differences as a tool of division. To that end, the president would do well to take a page from the campaign and encourage the graduates to bring their faith into the public square, while being careful not to assume that their religion will always be given preference.
Reflecting upon the university’s storied history, the president ought to remind the graduates that those who harbour doubt about our ability to address the corruption and self-centredness that caused our great economic engine to sputter; or those who question whether we can meet the health needs of the uninsured; or those who doubt whether we can honour, even in these times of terror threat, our devotion to liberty as well as international standards of due process and humane treatment, should come to Notre Dame to understand what it means “to believe” in the things that really matter.
I am certain the president believes, notwithstanding the overheated language of the demonstrators who will no doubt be present in unrepresentative number, that a genuine effort to translate one's religious belief in a civil and accessible manner will aid the pursuit of common ground even over the most difficult terrain.
The issue of abortion is indeed the rockiest terrain. There is no prudence in soft-pedaling his genuine difference with the church, though at any commencement–especially this one–I would advise the president that there is also no reason to dwell on it either. It would be fair for him to point out that while he deeply respects the Catholic perspective on life, the view that life begins at conception is not shared by all faiths, and the religious freedom to which the nation and the Catholic church is committed means this difference cannot simply be wished away. If Mr Obama really wants to wax philosophical, he might add that whatever difference exists is not a denial of the reality of moral truth, but the difficulty in its shared know-ability.
...the president never seems to tire from the search for common ground. He clearly should reiterate his view that nothing prevents all sides of this ethical clash from affirming the gift of human life–even though in different ways. For example, the president has been keen on reducing the economic and social causes that undermine the choice for life, and he shouldn’t be shy about saying how he is going about doing so.
...[Economist]: How do Republicans win back people like yourself–religious voters who favoured Mr Obama in the last election–without alienating religious conservatives?
Mr Kmiec:
• Find ways to do more than criticise; if you don’t like the president’s health-care proposal, demonstrate the efficacy of your own, not merely the supposed flaws in his.
• For the sake of the Nation, and the peace of the world, be appropriately sceptical of new or enlarged military commitments (viz, Afghanistan and Pakistan). Iraq is what started the GOP on its downward spiral and the fact that a sour economy allowed unjustified military involvement to recede as an issue in 2008 does not mean four years hence it will not loom large again.
• Stop talking about criminalising abortion if you don’t mean it; either vigorously sponsor this path, or find another.
• Find ways to involve all Americans in the party, especially members of the hard-working Hispanic population. They are naturally inclined to favour the family-friendly ideas of the GOP, so it is a shame that Republicans are obsessed with building border fences and overstating the problems of immigration.
...• On matters of faith, simply be true to America’s history: of all the dispositions that would secure our prosperity, said Washington, religion is indispensable. Where absolute religious belief contradicts changes in the cultural order like abortion or embryonic stem-cell research, and there is no discernible consensus to bring resolution, be open to the possibility of withdrawing government altogether."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/six_questions_for_douglas_kmi.cfm
From Economist:
"...[Obama will be on stage at Notre Dame with] Father Theodore Hesburgh, aged 92, Notre Dame's president emeritus. Father Hesburgh's service on the US Civil Rights Commission from the late 1950s until 1972 (when he was dismissed as chairman by Richard Nixon) broke the back of racial separation in America. The third president will be Notre Dame's current leader, Father John Jenkins, whose academic integrity stands forthright against partisan conservative forces within the American Catholic church that today operate more with intimidation and fear than persuasion and charity.
In campaigning for the presidency, Mr Obama refused to follow the opposition’s consistent ploy of using religious differences as a tool of division. To that end, the president would do well to take a page from the campaign and encourage the graduates to bring their faith into the public square, while being careful not to assume that their religion will always be given preference.
Reflecting upon the university’s storied history, the president ought to remind the graduates that those who harbour doubt about our ability to address the corruption and self-centredness that caused our great economic engine to sputter; or those who question whether we can meet the health needs of the uninsured; or those who doubt whether we can honour, even in these times of terror threat, our devotion to liberty as well as international standards of due process and humane treatment, should come to Notre Dame to understand what it means “to believe” in the things that really matter.
I am certain the president believes, notwithstanding the overheated language of the demonstrators who will no doubt be present in unrepresentative number, that a genuine effort to translate one's religious belief in a civil and accessible manner will aid the pursuit of common ground even over the most difficult terrain.
The issue of abortion is indeed the rockiest terrain. There is no prudence in soft-pedaling his genuine difference with the church, though at any commencement–especially this one–I would advise the president that there is also no reason to dwell on it either. It would be fair for him to point out that while he deeply respects the Catholic perspective on life, the view that life begins at conception is not shared by all faiths, and the religious freedom to which the nation and the Catholic church is committed means this difference cannot simply be wished away. If Mr Obama really wants to wax philosophical, he might add that whatever difference exists is not a denial of the reality of moral truth, but the difficulty in its shared know-ability.
...the president never seems to tire from the search for common ground. He clearly should reiterate his view that nothing prevents all sides of this ethical clash from affirming the gift of human life–even though in different ways. For example, the president has been keen on reducing the economic and social causes that undermine the choice for life, and he shouldn’t be shy about saying how he is going about doing so.
...[Economist]: How do Republicans win back people like yourself–religious voters who favoured Mr Obama in the last election–without alienating religious conservatives?
Mr Kmiec:
• Find ways to do more than criticise; if you don’t like the president’s health-care proposal, demonstrate the efficacy of your own, not merely the supposed flaws in his.
• For the sake of the Nation, and the peace of the world, be appropriately sceptical of new or enlarged military commitments (viz, Afghanistan and Pakistan). Iraq is what started the GOP on its downward spiral and the fact that a sour economy allowed unjustified military involvement to recede as an issue in 2008 does not mean four years hence it will not loom large again.
• Stop talking about criminalising abortion if you don’t mean it; either vigorously sponsor this path, or find another.
• Find ways to involve all Americans in the party, especially members of the hard-working Hispanic population. They are naturally inclined to favour the family-friendly ideas of the GOP, so it is a shame that Republicans are obsessed with building border fences and overstating the problems of immigration.
...• On matters of faith, simply be true to America’s history: of all the dispositions that would secure our prosperity, said Washington, religion is indispensable. Where absolute religious belief contradicts changes in the cultural order like abortion or embryonic stem-cell research, and there is no discernible consensus to bring resolution, be open to the possibility of withdrawing government altogether."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/six_questions_for_douglas_kmi.cfm
Sunday, April 26, 2009
When Mullahs And Bishops Dictate
TW: As you know, I am big on separation of church and state. I am also skeptical of dogmatic moral absolutes and those who seek to impose them on others. I am not sufficiently articulate in religion to get too specific on scriptures etc. but from my view there was a time when a more vanilla, bigger tent form of religion pre-dominated whereby the literal believers and the less confident believers co-existed more or less harmoniously.
The contemporary trend seems regardless of creed towards a less big tent more dogmatic form of religion. Concurrently, many religious leaders are increasingly active politically again an evolution that has gained speed over the past thirty years. Religious dogmatism and separation of church and state do not mix well at all. While I respect the particular religious dogmas or at least the right to have them, when those dogmas are inserted into my governance I get queasy and as necessary will act to counter them with as much passion as the believers.
Strident mullahs, rabbis, pastors and priests and their adherents are setting up tensions that will be increasingly challenging to reconcile. Those carving out and defending more and more immovable moral structures will inevitably clash. Furthermore moderates will tend towards less involvement within those organizations leading potentially towards a vicious circle of increasingly intolerant and ultimately divisive institutions who seek only those blindingly "with them".
From LA Times:
"...None of this impresses antiabortion hard-liners such as Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. Earlier this year, when Sebelius vetoed another measure that would have allowed a third party to seek a court order restraining a woman from obtaining an abortion -- even if it was necessary to save her life -- Naumann forbade the governor to receive Communion unless she changed her views.
...For conservatives who've been trying for years to pry Catholic voters out of the Democratic Party, the Holy Grail of political advantage is a long-sought clerical edict that would prohibit any Catholic officeholder who ever has cast a pro-choice vote from receiving Communion. From there, it would be a relatively small step to extend the ban to any Catholic who has voted for a pro-choice candidate. Catholic Democrats would be forced to choose between their party and their church.For years, most bishops -- though unswervingly pro-life -- have avoided such an either/or moment, not least because, on the vast majority of issues apart from abortion, their social agenda coincides more closely with the Democrats than the GOP. But time is gradually changing the character of the American Catholic hierarchy. The generation of pastoral, politically savvy bishops and cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI and John Paul II in his early years -- the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington come to mind -- are aging and passing from the scene.
In their place a new, more brittle and ultramontane group of bishops appears willing to elevate the abortion issue over all others. That's important because in the past, when more conservative bishops have forbidden Communion to Catholic officeholders, some cardinals -- McCarrick and Mahony in particular -- have declined to enforce the ban. Now, however, the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington, Va., have said they expect Sebelius to obey her local bishop's order if she moves into their sees. If conservative activists can persuade enough local bishops to do to, say, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Christopher Dodd what Naumann has done to Sebelius, the long-sought national edict is a fait accompli.George W. Bush's former advisor on Catholic affairs, Deal W. Hudson, said this week that Wuerl's and Loverde's acquiescence in denying Sebelius the sacrament "will send the message to other bishops that if they choose to pronounce members of Congress from their dioceses unfit for Communion, their authority will be respected in D.C. and across the Potomac in Virginia. The ramifications are enormous." This is a nasty business with serious implications, and the bishops might want to consider where they'll find themselves if even their own co-religionists come to believe they're in the business of dictating officeholders' actions rather than forming consciences."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
The contemporary trend seems regardless of creed towards a less big tent more dogmatic form of religion. Concurrently, many religious leaders are increasingly active politically again an evolution that has gained speed over the past thirty years. Religious dogmatism and separation of church and state do not mix well at all. While I respect the particular religious dogmas or at least the right to have them, when those dogmas are inserted into my governance I get queasy and as necessary will act to counter them with as much passion as the believers.
Strident mullahs, rabbis, pastors and priests and their adherents are setting up tensions that will be increasingly challenging to reconcile. Those carving out and defending more and more immovable moral structures will inevitably clash. Furthermore moderates will tend towards less involvement within those organizations leading potentially towards a vicious circle of increasingly intolerant and ultimately divisive institutions who seek only those blindingly "with them".
From LA Times:
"...None of this impresses antiabortion hard-liners such as Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. Earlier this year, when Sebelius vetoed another measure that would have allowed a third party to seek a court order restraining a woman from obtaining an abortion -- even if it was necessary to save her life -- Naumann forbade the governor to receive Communion unless she changed her views.
...For conservatives who've been trying for years to pry Catholic voters out of the Democratic Party, the Holy Grail of political advantage is a long-sought clerical edict that would prohibit any Catholic officeholder who ever has cast a pro-choice vote from receiving Communion. From there, it would be a relatively small step to extend the ban to any Catholic who has voted for a pro-choice candidate. Catholic Democrats would be forced to choose between their party and their church.For years, most bishops -- though unswervingly pro-life -- have avoided such an either/or moment, not least because, on the vast majority of issues apart from abortion, their social agenda coincides more closely with the Democrats than the GOP. But time is gradually changing the character of the American Catholic hierarchy. The generation of pastoral, politically savvy bishops and cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI and John Paul II in his early years -- the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington come to mind -- are aging and passing from the scene.
In their place a new, more brittle and ultramontane group of bishops appears willing to elevate the abortion issue over all others. That's important because in the past, when more conservative bishops have forbidden Communion to Catholic officeholders, some cardinals -- McCarrick and Mahony in particular -- have declined to enforce the ban. Now, however, the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington, Va., have said they expect Sebelius to obey her local bishop's order if she moves into their sees. If conservative activists can persuade enough local bishops to do to, say, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Christopher Dodd what Naumann has done to Sebelius, the long-sought national edict is a fait accompli.George W. Bush's former advisor on Catholic affairs, Deal W. Hudson, said this week that Wuerl's and Loverde's acquiescence in denying Sebelius the sacrament "will send the message to other bishops that if they choose to pronounce members of Congress from their dioceses unfit for Communion, their authority will be respected in D.C. and across the Potomac in Virginia. The ramifications are enormous." This is a nasty business with serious implications, and the bishops might want to consider where they'll find themselves if even their own co-religionists come to believe they're in the business of dictating officeholders' actions rather than forming consciences."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
When "Big Government" Really Intrudes
TW: Anti-abortion groups constantly seek ever greater restrictions on abortion. In this piece, we see Kansans seeking to open the door for doctors to be prosecuted even when they are seeking to protect the life of the mother. To me this is "big" government, where the state is inserting itself in place of the judgment of a doctor. Presumably the anti-abortion groups would argue the state would merely be acting on behalf of the unborn. Therein lies a crux, the mother has rights, the doctor is exerting judgment and rights and the unborn has certain rights or interests as well. The state adjudicates but regardless of the outcome the state is involved.
And if the state's outcome should lead to the rights of the mother and private doctor being subsumed to a state mandated right on the behalf of the unborn, the state will have truly exerted profound power.
Conservatives argue that they are for "small" government but in this case they are advocating a very aggressive intrusion of the state or government into the lives of the mother and patient. We can define big government in many ways but those on the right who claim the mantle of "small" government are from my view wearing blinders when it comes to this and numerous other social and cultural matters.
From LA Times:
"When Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius this week vetoed another in the seemingly unending series of restrictive abortion bills her state's Legislature churns out, it guaranteed that her confirmation as secretary of Health and Human Services would become a battleground in the increasingly nasty campaign being waged against officeholders who are both Catholic and Democratic.
Politics in Kansas has long been poisoned by extremism on both sides of the abortion question. This latest bill is one of a number that Sebelius, who is not a lawyer, has been advised to veto as unconstitutional. The measure would have amended an existing statute on late-term abortions, which Kansas permits after the 21st week of pregnancy only if the mother is at risk of death or severe physical or mental injury. The amendment would have required far more detailed reporting by physicians and would have allowed prosecutors who disagreed with the doctor's judgment to file criminal charges. Husbands who objected to the abortion would have been allowed to file civil suits.
"A physician acting in good faith to save a pregnant woman's life, and using his or her best medical judgment, should not be subject to later criminal prosecution," said Sebelius, explaining why she vetoed the bill. She is a practicing Catholic who personally opposes abortion. She argues, however, that such opposition does not relieve her of a legal obligation to veto legislation she thinks is unconstitutional.
In 2006, Sebelius said: "My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation." The governor contends that other approaches, particularly adoption incentives and better public health programs, are more effective, and she frequently notes that the number of abortions in Kansas has declined 10% during her six years in office..."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
And if the state's outcome should lead to the rights of the mother and private doctor being subsumed to a state mandated right on the behalf of the unborn, the state will have truly exerted profound power.
Conservatives argue that they are for "small" government but in this case they are advocating a very aggressive intrusion of the state or government into the lives of the mother and patient. We can define big government in many ways but those on the right who claim the mantle of "small" government are from my view wearing blinders when it comes to this and numerous other social and cultural matters.
From LA Times:
"When Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius this week vetoed another in the seemingly unending series of restrictive abortion bills her state's Legislature churns out, it guaranteed that her confirmation as secretary of Health and Human Services would become a battleground in the increasingly nasty campaign being waged against officeholders who are both Catholic and Democratic.
Politics in Kansas has long been poisoned by extremism on both sides of the abortion question. This latest bill is one of a number that Sebelius, who is not a lawyer, has been advised to veto as unconstitutional. The measure would have amended an existing statute on late-term abortions, which Kansas permits after the 21st week of pregnancy only if the mother is at risk of death or severe physical or mental injury. The amendment would have required far more detailed reporting by physicians and would have allowed prosecutors who disagreed with the doctor's judgment to file criminal charges. Husbands who objected to the abortion would have been allowed to file civil suits.
"A physician acting in good faith to save a pregnant woman's life, and using his or her best medical judgment, should not be subject to later criminal prosecution," said Sebelius, explaining why she vetoed the bill. She is a practicing Catholic who personally opposes abortion. She argues, however, that such opposition does not relieve her of a legal obligation to veto legislation she thinks is unconstitutional.
In 2006, Sebelius said: "My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation." The governor contends that other approaches, particularly adoption incentives and better public health programs, are more effective, and she frequently notes that the number of abortions in Kansas has declined 10% during her six years in office..."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Clash Of Religion And Freedom Of Speech
TW: The UN Human Rights Council meeting is getting some press because folks like Ahmenijahad from Iran use it as a forum to spew bile. The meeting is important though as a forum by which countries seek to shape and define international treatment of human rights. A proposal is on the table to address what the proponents describe as "religious defamation". As this piece opines to adopt the resolution would open a pandora's box of law which could directly contravene some of the most precious notions of individual rights. These rights are at the core of Western liberal democracy.
The proposal seeks to open the door for blasphemy (use of religious symbols in a derogatory fashion) to be considered defamation. While some ardent Christians would certainly desire such measures for their own religion, the reconciliation of your blasphemy to my blasphemy to someone else's becomes highly contentious hence our system of largely excluding blasphemy from our legal system.
To me freedom of speech and separation of church and state are two of the most important attributes of our governance. To permit international organizations to veer away from these concepts goes to the heart of our governing philosophy. As the piece points out Western nations are not without their hypocritical application of blasphemy laws, those should be eliminated as well.
From Economist:
"AT FIRST glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger issues are at stake.
The resolution says “defamation of religions” is a “serious affront to human dignity” which can “restrict the freedom” of those who are defamed, and may also lead to the incitement of violence. But there is an insidious blurring of categories here, which becomes plain when you compare this resolution with the more rigorous language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in a spirit of revulsion over the evils of fascism. This asserts the right of human beings in ways that are now entrenched in the theory and (most of the time) the practice of liberal democracy. It upholds the right of people to live in freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest; to hold any faith or none; to change religion; and to enjoy freedom of expression, which by any fair definition includes freedom to agree or disagree with the tenets of any religion.
In other words, it protects individuals—not religions, or any other set of beliefs. And this is a vital distinction. For it is not possible systematically to protect religions or their followers from offence without infringing the right of individuals.
What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw? To judge from what happens in the countries that lobbied for the vote—like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan—they use the word “defamation” to mean something close to the crime of blasphemy, which is in turn defined as voicing dissent from the official reading of Islam. In many of the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has led the drive to outlaw “defamation”, both non-Muslims and Muslims who voice dissent (even in technical matters of Koranic interpretation) are often victims of just the sort of persecution the 1948 declaration sought to outlaw. That is a real human-rights problem. And in the spirit of fairness, laws against blasphemy that remain on the statute books of some Western countries should also be struck off; only real, not imaginary, incitement of violence should be outlawed.
Good manners, please; not censorship
...no state, and certainly no body that calls itself a Human Rights Council, should trample on the right to free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration. And in the end, given that all faiths have undergone persecution at some time, few people have more to gain from the protection of free speech than sincere religious believers..."
The proposal seeks to open the door for blasphemy (use of religious symbols in a derogatory fashion) to be considered defamation. While some ardent Christians would certainly desire such measures for their own religion, the reconciliation of your blasphemy to my blasphemy to someone else's becomes highly contentious hence our system of largely excluding blasphemy from our legal system.
To me freedom of speech and separation of church and state are two of the most important attributes of our governance. To permit international organizations to veer away from these concepts goes to the heart of our governing philosophy. As the piece points out Western nations are not without their hypocritical application of blasphemy laws, those should be eliminated as well.
From Economist:
"AT FIRST glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger issues are at stake.
The resolution says “defamation of religions” is a “serious affront to human dignity” which can “restrict the freedom” of those who are defamed, and may also lead to the incitement of violence. But there is an insidious blurring of categories here, which becomes plain when you compare this resolution with the more rigorous language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in a spirit of revulsion over the evils of fascism. This asserts the right of human beings in ways that are now entrenched in the theory and (most of the time) the practice of liberal democracy. It upholds the right of people to live in freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest; to hold any faith or none; to change religion; and to enjoy freedom of expression, which by any fair definition includes freedom to agree or disagree with the tenets of any religion.
In other words, it protects individuals—not religions, or any other set of beliefs. And this is a vital distinction. For it is not possible systematically to protect religions or their followers from offence without infringing the right of individuals.
What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw? To judge from what happens in the countries that lobbied for the vote—like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan—they use the word “defamation” to mean something close to the crime of blasphemy, which is in turn defined as voicing dissent from the official reading of Islam. In many of the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has led the drive to outlaw “defamation”, both non-Muslims and Muslims who voice dissent (even in technical matters of Koranic interpretation) are often victims of just the sort of persecution the 1948 declaration sought to outlaw. That is a real human-rights problem. And in the spirit of fairness, laws against blasphemy that remain on the statute books of some Western countries should also be struck off; only real, not imaginary, incitement of violence should be outlawed.
Good manners, please; not censorship
...no state, and certainly no body that calls itself a Human Rights Council, should trample on the right to free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration. And in the end, given that all faiths have undergone persecution at some time, few people have more to gain from the protection of free speech than sincere religious believers..."
Friday, March 27, 2009
Islam (Or Any Religion) And Freedom Of Speech
TW: I tread on religion fairly lightly on the blog for a variety of reasons but freedom of speech to me is in terms of societal needs a top fiver (right up there but quite at the same level as separation of church and state amongst others). Islam, the orthodox versions at least, appear to have challenges with two of my favored good governance attributes. Islamic countries in many respects have been shunted aside as an international player in organizations such as the U.N. etc. As their numbers and political influence grow, how will governments who do not agree with some of our Western beliefs intersect?
Btw I assume the U.S. (and hopefully France/UK) would veto the item should it actually pass.
From Economist:
"THE freedom to discuss religion critically was at the root of modern intellectual freedom. It is therefore both depressing and worrying to learn that the United Nations may be in the process of turning the "defamation" of religion into an offence. This would not only make a mockery of the United Nation's charter on human rights; it would mark a serious attempt to reverse the Enlightenment and everything that flowed from it. It would be good to have another Voltaire to summon up the appropriate outrage at this development.
...A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or 'defame' Islam.
...Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN's Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against "defamation" of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.
The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a "serious affront to human dignity" which could lead to "social disharmony", "violations of human rights" and "incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular". If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at "local, national and international levels" start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief"
Btw I assume the U.S. (and hopefully France/UK) would veto the item should it actually pass.
From Economist:
"THE freedom to discuss religion critically was at the root of modern intellectual freedom. It is therefore both depressing and worrying to learn that the United Nations may be in the process of turning the "defamation" of religion into an offence. This would not only make a mockery of the United Nation's charter on human rights; it would mark a serious attempt to reverse the Enlightenment and everything that flowed from it. It would be good to have another Voltaire to summon up the appropriate outrage at this development.
...A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or 'defame' Islam.
...Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN's Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against "defamation" of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.
The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a "serious affront to human dignity" which could lead to "social disharmony", "violations of human rights" and "incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular". If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at "local, national and international levels" start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief"
Monday, March 9, 2009
Losing My Religion
TW: Yes this post is partially an excuse to put up an R.E.M. video which is in and of itself sufficient basis. But it is a propos with new stats out today showing the evolution of religion in America, with non-believers growing rapidly. Yet they remain the one religious group with vast under representation in Congress. There is one non-closeted non-believer in Congress, Democratic representative from CA Pete Stark. I suspect there are others lurking in the halls.
(click on images to enlarge)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-rel-religious-america,0,5195094.story
Friday, January 30, 2009
Talk Is Weakness Or Is Talk Strength
TW: I completely concur with and like Economist's analogy on the conservative reaction to Obama's talk relative to the Muslim world. Why folks believe the slightest bit of humility is weakness rather than strength always perplexes me. Do Krauthammer et al. ever have alternatives to "fear and strength"?
From Economist:
"AS NIGHT follows day, conservative columnists have found Barack Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya "needlessly defensive and apologetic", in Charles Krauthammer's words. Never mind that Mr Obama did not apologise; he did say that mistakes had been made. Mr Krauthammer thinks that the wars on behalf of Muslim peoples in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq stand as all you need to know about America's real stance towards the Muslim world. He also notes Mr Bush's visit to Islamic centres and his declarations such as "Islam is peace".
Mr Krauthammer is right, if you only look at half the balance sheet. And if I only looked at the deposits, not the withdrawals, in my bank account, I would be a rich man. Inexplicable that my bank does not see it that way."
From Economist:
"AS NIGHT follows day, conservative columnists have found Barack Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya "needlessly defensive and apologetic", in Charles Krauthammer's words. Never mind that Mr Obama did not apologise; he did say that mistakes had been made. Mr Krauthammer thinks that the wars on behalf of Muslim peoples in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq stand as all you need to know about America's real stance towards the Muslim world. He also notes Mr Bush's visit to Islamic centres and his declarations such as "Islam is peace".
Mr Krauthammer is right, if you only look at half the balance sheet. And if I only looked at the deposits, not the withdrawals, in my bank account, I would be a rich man. Inexplicable that my bank does not see it that way."
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Rick Warren Invocator As Provocateur
From NBC:
"When liberals attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups (in this case, People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign). Just asking, but is anyone but People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign surprised that Rick Warren is going to give a prayer at the inauguration? Where was this outrage when Obama appeared at Warren’s Saddleback forum back in August? The difference may be that the forum came before Proposition 8 passed in California. As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to."
TW: I have posted several times on the theme of focusing on the policies not the people. This is a prime example. I really do not care for Rick Warren on several levels although he is in certain respects better than some of the evangelical leaders on the RIGHT. That is the crucial point, if Obama is to reach out in some form to the right-wing evangelicals, someone like Warren is going to be the vehicle regardless of how disdainful of certain Warren positions Obama or others may be.
Obama obviously could have chosen a more progressive evangelical but to what end? To express Obama's support for progressive policies, guess what we know that already. Politics is dirty, get used to it. This is not to say those opposed to Warren should applaud the appearance, they should not. But they would do well to remember the difference between implementing policy (Obama's job) and setting the policy agenda (activists of all persuasion's job with Obama being the arbitrator).
Btw many folks on the right are fired up as well, but for opposite reasons.
From CBN:
"...pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it. The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this..."
From a CBN commenter:
"I just lost a lot of respect for Rick Warren. How can someone who professes to be a Christian, put himself into a situation where other Christians would question him? Rick has done some good work however he just lost my respect."
TW: This is the intolerance of many "Christians" (and Jews/Hindus/Muslims/Atheists etc.) that drives me insane. This commenter does not have a monopoly on what Christianity means but thinks he does. Guys like Warren actually try to bridge the divides, in his case with a conservative slant for sure, but at least he shows up to talk.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx
Update: Joe Klein agrees with me and say it better than I did but then he gets paid more to say things than I do.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/
"When liberals attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups (in this case, People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign). Just asking, but is anyone but People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign surprised that Rick Warren is going to give a prayer at the inauguration? Where was this outrage when Obama appeared at Warren’s Saddleback forum back in August? The difference may be that the forum came before Proposition 8 passed in California. As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to."
TW: I have posted several times on the theme of focusing on the policies not the people. This is a prime example. I really do not care for Rick Warren on several levels although he is in certain respects better than some of the evangelical leaders on the RIGHT. That is the crucial point, if Obama is to reach out in some form to the right-wing evangelicals, someone like Warren is going to be the vehicle regardless of how disdainful of certain Warren positions Obama or others may be.
Obama obviously could have chosen a more progressive evangelical but to what end? To express Obama's support for progressive policies, guess what we know that already. Politics is dirty, get used to it. This is not to say those opposed to Warren should applaud the appearance, they should not. But they would do well to remember the difference between implementing policy (Obama's job) and setting the policy agenda (activists of all persuasion's job with Obama being the arbitrator).
Btw many folks on the right are fired up as well, but for opposite reasons.
From CBN:
"...pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it. The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this..."
From a CBN commenter:
"I just lost a lot of respect for Rick Warren. How can someone who professes to be a Christian, put himself into a situation where other Christians would question him? Rick has done some good work however he just lost my respect."
TW: This is the intolerance of many "Christians" (and Jews/Hindus/Muslims/Atheists etc.) that drives me insane. This commenter does not have a monopoly on what Christianity means but thinks he does. Guys like Warren actually try to bridge the divides, in his case with a conservative slant for sure, but at least he shows up to talk.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx
Update: Joe Klein agrees with me and say it better than I did but then he gets paid more to say things than I do.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)