tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post2839276352646090406..comments2024-03-24T11:30:08.199-07:00Comments on Can you believe?: A new commandmentJohan Maurerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-5352673862754742442007-03-09T23:07:00.000-08:002007-03-09T23:07:00.000-08:00IMAGINE A COUNTRY RUN BY PRE-TEENS. THAT'S AMERIC...IMAGINE A COUNTRY RUN BY PRE-TEENS. THAT'S AMERICA TODAY: http://deanberryministries.orgTRUTHMONGERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07815929040897361135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-52265501374195921052007-01-13T19:12:00.000-08:002007-01-13T19:12:00.000-08:00Nancy--I'm not sure I follow you. By "Americans," ...Nancy--I'm not sure I follow you. By "Americans," Leonard Pitts is referring to the U.S. nation ("It is paradoxical that the same nation that speaks seriously of electing Condoleezza Rice or Barack Obama to the presidency can also speak seriously of denying Keith Ellison his office because he is a Muslim") in the same limited and inaccurate way that many USA citizens use the word. I see no evidence that he's referring to Christians specifically. Anti-intellectualism and chauvinism in the USA have certainly not been confined to Christians. Nor have the forces opposing these tendencies within the USA only been non-Christians.<br /><br />In describing a national phenomenon, Pitts is admittedly painting with a broad brush. But when Pitts says that "there has always been a strain of intolerance in the American character, a reactionary streak that denies American values under the guise of defending them," he's not saying that all or even most Americans exhibit this strain--just that it has been present in our mix from the start. I also don't think he's setting up a dichotomy between "Americans" and "Muslims" (as if the categories normally don't overlap, or as if reactionary attitudes never occur among Muslims). To me, it <i>does</i> work "... to read his article with a broader notion of Americans...." And I would not want to say that all Canadians who, in my presence, have made cynical comments about bilingualism and multiculturalism are Christian.<br /><br />Comparisons between the USA and Canada may be useful. There are many government officials in the USA who are not Christian or Jewish, but our Congress is overwhelmingly dominated by at least nominal Christians and Jews. To what extent does the USA political culture influence the accuracy with which politicians report their affiliations, in comparison to Canadians? I wish I knew.<br /><br />See "<a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/faithfacts/2007/01/religious_affiliation_on_capit.html">Religious affiliation on Capitol Hill</a>" and "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501507.html">New Congress brings along religious firsts.</a>"Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-26960438246558330252007-01-13T14:11:00.000-08:002007-01-13T14:11:00.000-08:00I followed the link to Leonard Pitts' article on t...I followed the link to Leonard Pitts' article on the swearing in of Keith Ellison and the controversy. The spirit of Pitts' article was sound and sensible, but the language betrayed a we/they thinking that I found dismaying. <br /><br />He says there is a core of intolerance in Americans. And by Americans, he implicitly means Christians. If you try to read his article with a broader notion of Americans, you can't do it. Christians are the "we" and Muslims are the "they".<br /><br />Is there a core of intolerance among Americans (meaning all Americans)? Or is it just among right-wing Americans and fundamentalist Christian Americans? And how do people get away with using the word American as if it doesn't include these other groups? <br /><br />A journalist should know better. But these slips in language create the cultural concept backdrop for the popular prejudices of the right-wing classes. His article unwittingly does harm.<br /><br />Canada has had muslims in government for years now, and a whole lot of hindus and first-nations people as well. None of them swear on the bible. Even our Governor General refused to swear on the bible at her swearing in last year.Nancy Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14260235828442346455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-58487845326810311832007-01-12T22:40:00.000-08:002007-01-12T22:40:00.000-08:00Thanks for adding those links, Bill. I should also...Thanks for adding those links, Bill. I should also add one for <a href="http://www.mvfr.org/">Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation</a>.Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-80284105792975648052007-01-12T05:30:00.000-08:002007-01-12T05:30:00.000-08:00Johan, I applaud your comment, "We need to oppose ...Johan, I applaud your comment, "We need to oppose militarism, capital punishment, abortion, and every other deadly compromise, not from sentimentality, but because every time we end a life, it makes the next time easier." And the commentary surrounding it.<br /><br />This understanding is absolutely critical to the future of humankind. It is something I have been working on in my capacity as President of <a href="http://wwww.consistent-life.org/">Consistent Life</a>.<br /><br />My colleague <a href="http://www.rachelmacnair.com/">Rachel MacNair</a> (a Quaker), Vice President of CL and President of our research arm, the Institute for Integrated Social Analysis, has done some interesting work on the effects of committing violence on the perpetrators. The effects are similar across different circumstances for violence - soldiers, abortionists, executioners, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com