Thinking After Crisis

News and analysis…

Largely overshadowed in the American media by the Eric Massa soap opera, on March 8th there was a tragic massacre in Jos, Nigeria of several hundred people. Coming out of this horrific event are questions about ethno-religious conflict, addressing religious differences in circumstances of tension, root issues of political and economic inequality, and most importantly how to overcome differences to see others as human beings.

Alas! A Blog | I did not know about how deeply my friend’s fear, mistrust, and hatred of the Muslims in Nigeria ran until after our friendship was well-established. She says she feels this way only about Nigerian Muslims, not about people who follow Islam in general, and I believe her, and she tells stories about her own experiences in Nigeria and the experiences of the people she knows to justify herself. The fact that she makes this distinction, of course, suggests that the issues at stake are not really religious, but the fact that they are expressed religiously–in terms of spirituality and morality and the one true path to God–makes it hard, even just between the two of us, to get at what those stakes really are; and then I think about the way our invasion of Iraq and ousting of Saddam Hussein made space for the Sunni and Shia to go at each other’s throats–check out this NPR interview with Deborah Amos about her new book, Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East–and even the Israeli-Palestinian struggle over the status of Jerusalem, which is so often played out in religious terms. And when I think about how may more examples I could list, I cannot help but feel that maybe it’s all, always, political; maybe the god or gods all these people fight over is just a way of not having to take responsibility for their own politics, their own desire for power, their own inability to share, their own fear of everything that makes them vulnerable; maybe the need to make your religion the only true one is nothing more than fear and cowardice, and we all know how thin the line is between the coward who cowers and the coward who becomes a bully.

It has been a very long time, since I was an undergraduate in fact, that I have known personally someone who could place her or himself so easily, so firmly, so absolutely, on one side of this kind of divide and so thoroughly forget that the other side is also inhabited by people; and yet even as I write that, it would be dishonest of me not to own up to the fact that I too once stood with Israel, as a Jew, in strictly religious terms, in a way that denied the humanity of the other side.

That we all have this capacity within us is by now a cliche, but how do you learn to accept that impulse in someone who has become your friend? Because if you cannot accept it–which is not the same thing as approving of it, or allowing it to go unchallenged–then there can no longer be a real friendship. This is the question that I am confronting.

Global Comment |Nigeria is one of the world’s major oil producers and seventh largest exporter, yet many of its citizens live in abject poverty. The Niger Delta region of the country, home to the nation’s oil, is synonymous with violence and the kidnapping trade. Tribal and religious divides continue to claim lives, the most recent being the January Jos riots, where over 300 people died.

Thanks to the Christmas Day “Crotch Bomber,” as Umaru Farouk Abdulmutallah is now popularly known, Nigeria on a terrorism watch list, making life extremely hard for Nigerians as they travel. Lest we forget, Nigeria is internationally perceived as one of the most corrupt nations in the world. We are also known as 419ers, i.e. email scammers.

Following the Abdulmutallah incident, the US was quick to add us to the terrorist watch list, yet there was no president or representative to speak for us. A few members of the senate threatened to sever ties with the US, and that was laughed upon.

Keep in mind that we have a rich cultural heritage, and have made some great contributions to the world of art and culture. From the ‘Benin Bronzes’ to Chinua Achebe, Wole Soyinka, Ben Okri and, from my generation, Chimananda Ngozi Adichie, we have made our mark. However, when it really counts, what we are really known for is instability.

I have watched the recent political dance in my country of birth with excitement, shame, and a sense of anger. Again and again, 150 million people have been continuously let down. It seems some part of the population have become so used to it, they excuse the bad governance or else get blindly religious about it, saying, ‘God will make things better.’ I am tired of this unending hope and hunger for real change.

Get Religion | The most frustrating element of all of this is that there is no clear way to establish facts in this conflict, a journalistic nightmare in which the integrity of both the regional and national government agencies (and the military) is in question. It is also clear that economic and ethnic factors are crucial. Yet, on the ground, the language and the imagery is primarily religious.

If you doubt me on that, check out this vivid report in the Wall Street Journal. The language is enough to make anyone shudder in a pew:

“At a mass burial Monday in Dogo Nahawa, site of the worst violence, angry residents talked of revenge as they gathered around a large pit and scattered dirt on several dozen charred and bloodied bodies, some brought from neighboring villages. When an infant was lowered into the pit, women broke out in wails.

A village chief chastised area youth for not being ready to fight. “This is a lesson,” the chief said. “Now is the time for everyone to wake up. Elders are calling you youths to come out.”

An elderly woman prayed at the edge of the burial pit, chanting. “By God’s grace we will enter their villages and kill their women and children,” she repeated.”

Horrors. Clearly it is impossible to write about this story — in a nation that is literally divided in half by religion — without dealing with the religious elements.

It is also crucial, whenever possible, to put names on these “rights groups” when they are quoted providing facts about attacks in the past and present. Some of these groups are neutral and some of them are not. We are, literally, dealing with facts and numbers that are leading to bloodshed.

Reuters |Residents of Dogo Nahawa, Zot and Ratsat, about 15 km (9 miles) south of the central city of Jos, buried dozens of bodies including those of women and children in a mass grave on Monday following the attacks, which they blamed on Muslim herders.

The raids were in apparent retaliation for four days of violence around Jos, the capital of Plateau state, in January which killed several hundred people, many of them in an attack on the mostly Muslim settlement of Kuru Karama.

“Better security is clearly vital but it would be a mistake to paint this purely as sectarian or ethnic violence, and to treat it solely as a security issue,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said.

“What is most needed is a concerted effort to tackle the underlying causes of the repeated outbreaks of ethnic and religious violence which Nigeria has witnessed in recent years, namely discrimination, poverty and disputes over land.”

The latest unrest at the heart of Africa’s most populous nation comes at a turbulent time, with Acting President Goodluck Jonathan trying to assert his authority while ailing President Umaru Yar’Adua remains too sick to govern.

NY Breaking News | Issues behind Nigeria Massacre: The latest Nigeria massacre has rattled the whole world.They have been termed “communal clashes,” or “religious conflict” but economic and political issues are the actual cause. Thin lines of differences lie between religious, ethnic, political, and economic divisions in Plateau State, owing to which they reinforce each other. Muslims in the state are from Hausa- or Fulani-speaking nomadic groups, most of who are herdsmen by occupation or do trivial businesses.

They are considered strong supporters of the opposition All Nigeria People’s Party. The People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which is in power both at state and national levels, has the allegiance of Christian Berom, Anaguta, and Afisare groups that traditionally have been farmers. With national elections due next year, the national government finds it tough to check the violence out of a fear that actions may estrange its potential political groups.

Any dispute turns into a religious riot at once in Plateau State. Sometimes hatred of Christian farmers against the Hausa-speaking Muslims’ coming from the North in search of grasslands for their animals takes the shape of a dispute over land. Again, craze for power also falls prey to religious bias. Muslims and Christians live in separate areas even in the state capital Jos.
This Muslim Christian conflict in the state has been because of power craze. Power corridor allows you access to enormous money, and so your community also gets share of it. Around 80% of Nigeria’s GDP runs through the state and local government channels. Therefore, to cling to power, one often takes detour by triggering ethnic or religious hatred or pushing people out of home to stop them voting.

And Nigeria’s classification of citizens between “indigenous” and “settlers” makes the situation severe. In Plateau State, this system creates local divisions as well. The Hausa-speaking Muslims are often referred to as settlers. These “settlers” are barred from taking up certain state positions, which gives rise to hatred among some who find violence the only way out.
 

Best of the web…

Women Flyers Honored 65 Years After WWII Service  | CNN

Some 65 years after their service, a group of former civilian women pilots whose unheralded work was key to helping the U.S. effort in World War II were honored Wednesday with the Congressional Gold Medal.

Fewer than 300 Women Airforce Service Pilots are still alive. About 175 of them, along with thousands of family members, traveled to Washington for the ceremony at the Capitol.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted that the event had one of the largest crowds ever gathered inside the Capitol.

Deanie Parrish, a WASP who joined in 1943 at the age of 21, thanked members of Congress, those in attendance and members of the media.

“I believe this is the day that when the people of America no longer hesitate in answering, ‘Do you know who the WASPs are?’” she said to the crowd filled with old and young alike. “It’s because of the media that that will happen.”

Ban the Box: People With Convictions Deserve a Second Chance  |  Alternet

On March 8, Governor Richardson signed legislation making New Mexico the second state in the nation to “ban the box.” This victory lays the groundwork for other states to proactively address the need of people being released from jail and prison to find work and truly rebuild their lives. Employment is a key factor in preventing recidivism and this law offers an innovative solution to not only save precious taxpayer dollars, but also save lives and keep families together.

Senate Bill 254 “bans the box” by removing the question on public job applications asking if a person has a criminal conviction. By eliminating the box, people with convictions can be considered on equal status with other job applicants, instead of being immediately labeled and dismissed as a “criminal” unfit for the job. The law is very clear that public employers still have the right to ask about convictions status, but only during the finalist interview process. Employers can also perform criminal background checks if it is relevant or required for the position.

MySpace, HerSpace: Daughters of Generation Facebook  |  Mona Eltahawy

Mona Eltahawy from paul daugherty on Vimeo.

Pondering Dialogue…

Seeing as you, my readers, are checking out a dialogue organization website I can only guess you share my interest in this particular issue. Working from this shared interest, I want to ponder on what it means to dialogue with others in a meaningful way, and  how dialogue is being promoted and carried out, (particularly interfaith dialogue).

These last few days I have attended a serious of lectures by religious scholar Stephanie Saldana, author of the lovely book “The Bread of Angels”, and active proponent of religious dialogue.  When retelling her  experiences as a Christian woman in the Middle East and her deep appreciation of Islam, Saldana made an observation about the nature of dialogue, “Dialogue is like marriage counseling…”. That it is only after you have built a deep relationship with someone over time that you can truly engage in dialogue where you bring up issue that you deeply struggle over and disagree upon instead of sticking to your comfort zones of similarities.

I found it interesting to compare this conception of dialogue to those put forth by Xenia members in the “What is Dialogue” video series, (which can be found here). For myself,  dialogue is not dependent on time. It is possible to know someone for years without ever having had a deep exchange just as it is possible to meet someone once and have a life changing experience with them. Indeed one of my own such experiences was an evening-long conversation at a local cafe with a elderly gentleman from West Texas. While we came from very different backgrounds and belief systems, we were able to see each other as human, sit down, and struggle together over issues which often send people into screaming matches. It is this seeing each other as human which I feel lies at the very heart of dialogue. While it often takes time to see others in such a way sometimes, it is an immediate realization which shocks one to the core.

However, instead of focusing solely on what it means to be in dialogue with others, a topic which I feel has been well covered by others within the Xenia Institute,  I instead wish to turn our attention to the ways we try to promote dialogue and organize “dialogue events”.

During her visit Saldana offered a critique, which inspired this blog, on the way major dialogue events are often conducted. As she explains from her own experiences, formal dialogue events are generally structured as a panel or meetings where the speakers, who have never met before, talk about issue of unity. The problem is that the panelists often do not end up engaging over the issues, rather they attempt to answer the questions from their tradition’s official stance instead of interacting with each other. Moreover they are put into the position trying to represent an entire tradition when they are just one person. Finally, as such events generally invite an “official” representative of a religion  instead of average practitioners, it is often the case  that women and members of submovements are left out of these formal dialogue opportunities.

For the most part I would agree with this critique. From my own experiences with interfaith dialogue events (and their political equivalent: the “bi-partisan discussion”) there is often a frustrating lack of deep engagement going on. Rather people tend to talk to each other instead of with each other. Moreover, at such events I often feel as though people focus more on discussing dialogue and why it is important rather than actually engaging in it. I don’t necessarily believe this lessens the value of such events, just that they accomplish a different level of conversation, which is still  important for encouraging future discussion. If personal dialogue is like marriage counseling which takes place after deep acquaintance, than dialogue panels are like the awkward first date which might lead to more promising things.

Still I feel that we need to start considering different models for “dialogue events” and new ways of facilitating dialogue within communities, for example, during formal events trying to focus on individuals as being part of their tradition rather than as being representatives of said tradition. One might also structure dialogue events to meet over an extended time in more personal settings, (such as Xenia does with its dialogue groups). Finally, for dialogue to occur there must be respect toward the other: a seeing them as they are rather than what you assume… But this does not mean dialogue must be harmonious or even particularly friendly at times. Perhaps groups might try to go beyond the unifying aspects of dialogue often employed to keep people polite and let members emphasize their difference even if it is challenging to others.

These are issues with which I have been struggling for some time as I work with what I hope to accomplish and learn by becoming involved in the dialogue movement. I feel it is important to occasionally take a step back and look at expectations, methods, and assumptions of  “encouraging dialogue” so as to understand how we have affected the world, to see what we need to do to remain true to the spirit of dialogue rather than being caught up in its ideals.

No Longer Protected.

News and analysis…

Anti-discrimination politics  is a surprisingly tricky issue, despite it being about the relatively basic idea that you don’t deny certain benefits or punish people based on skin- tone, ethnicity, gender, religions, sexual orientation, etc. However, there is the counter argument that you also shouldn’t protect certain groups based on these attributes. There is always a struggle on where we draw the line between anti-discrimination and minority protectionism. While there are certainly those who honestly oppose group-based legal protection out of the belief that it only causes more harm  in the long run, (through being sheltered rather than being viewed a equals under the eyes of the law),  there are also those who  hide their bias and bigotry under such arguments. One must wonder which is the case in Gov. McDonnell’s (VA) recent overturning of an order protecting gay and lesbian state workers. Here is a link to the memo.

TPMDC | Gay and lesbian state workers in Virginia are no longer specifically protected against discrimination, thanks to a little-noticed change made by new Gov. Bob McDonnell.

McDonnell (R) on Feb 5. signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination “on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities,” as well as veterans.

It rescinds the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan 14. 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a “fair and inclusive” administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination polity- and sexual orientation.

Human Rights Campaign |Gov. McDonnell first opposed protecting employees based on sexual orientation when he was Attorney General, arguing that the state’s discrimination policy should be defined by the legislature. His new order, which includes all previously protected categories including race, sex, religion and age – but not the previously protected category of sexual orientation – was signed on Feb. 5, but was first reported on Wednesday, Feb. 10. Current attorney general Ken Cuccinelli supports Gov. McDonell’s legal reasoning. The Governor has released a policy he recently sent to staff members and Cabinet secretaries indicating that his office would not discriminate “for any reason,” but his message could hardly be clearer: discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is not prohibited.

Hampton Roads | On Monday, McDonnell said that Kaine’s executive order on the subject remains in place, save the “sexual orientation” passage he objects to.He and Kaine jousted on the topic four years ago when McDonnell was attorney general – McDonnell argues that such employment policies are the province of the legislature, not the governor.

And he told reporters Monday his policy will remain what it was when he was the state’s top prosecutor – discrimination won’t be tolerated in the state work force.

“The only thing I care about is will they work hard, will they follow the vision that I’ve outlined for state government, will they have a servant’s heart, do they love Virginia and will they get results,” he said.

Box Turtle Bulletin | This action by their governor is an open invitation for supervisors or managers to fire or demote employees. And it is likely to happen.But what is even more likely to occur is abuse, harassment, and antagonizing of gay people. If a coworker calls someone a “damn pervert”, that’s not going to be punished. If the morning meeting is started by a daily f*ggot joke, there’s no recourse. If a state employee shares how they lost the paperwork of the “flaming queen in my line” to gales of laughter, that will not be illegal discrimination. And posting big signs quoting Leviticus or “protecting marriage” will not be an indication of a hostile workplace.

Outside The Beltway | Not a particularly surprising development.  McDonnell is an unabashed evangelical and social conservative and Virginia is, outside the DC suburbs where I live, a staunchly conservative state.

Further, McDonnell’s office issued a statement saying, “It shall be the policy of the office of the Governor to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace, encourage excellence by rewarding achievement based on merit, and prohibit discrimination for any reason. Hiring, promotion, discipline and termination of employees shall be based on qualifications, performance and results.”  One presumes that will in fact be the case.

Indeed, it’s difficult to see how the state government could win a suit in which there was blatant discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation regardless of the state of this executive order.   My sense, then, is that this is a sop to the base with no meaning.  It’s interesting, though, that this was done with so little fanfare that we’re just now hearing about it.

Best of the web…

In Cairo Trash City, School Teaches Reading and Recycling  |  The News Hour

For generations, the Zabaleen people have hauled away Cairo’s refuse and lived on the fringes of society. But thanks to an enterprising recycling school, the poor and mostly illiterate inhabitants of “Trash City” are receiving education and job training for the first time. Fred de Sam Lazaro reports from Egypt.

Dalai Lama ‘Very Happy’ With Obama Talks  |  Huffington Post

Report from a Pashtun Teen  |  On the Ground

Sher Bano is a 17-year-old Pashtun girl from Pakistan who spent last year as an exchange student in Evanston, Illinois, as part of the Youth Exchange and Study (YES) Program. She is now back in the city of Peshawar in the northwest of Pakistan, but is unable to attend formal school because of insecurity there. As a guest blogger, she’ll be writing about life in Pakistan from the perspective of a teenage girl who has spent time in the West.

One of my American friends once asked me if I traveled by camel in Pakistan. Needless to say, my answer was no. But Americans should know more about life in Pakistan than just this. Pakistanis as a whole are democratic, progressive and mostly secular in their attitudes; it is because of this that a religious party could almost never win an election here.

A New Film Genre: Terror Comedy?

News and Analysis…

The Sundance Film Festival is known for introducing provocative indie films which tend to disregard political correctness in the name of truth, love, beauty…and satire. This is certainly the case for British director Chris Morris’ film “Four Lions”, which is a self-described “terror comedy” about four would-be jihadis in living in Northern England. Like any satire is intended to do, the film has stirred up considerable debate about whether terrorism is an appropriate subject of humor and criticism on how terrorism (particularly when carried out by militant Islamic radicals), is discussed in the West. Here is some of what is being said….

Salon.com | Morris suggests that he is responding to a toxic Western combination of bigotry, ignorance and political correctness that has left us half-paralyzed by the threat of terrorism. If the Osama wannabes in his movie are thoroughly incompetent, the cops and politicians he shows aren’t much better. “I felt like there was an orthodoxy, in America but increasingly also in Britain,” he says, “where we’re drip-fed a party line about these subjects [Islam and terrorism] that everybody knows is nonsensical but nobody can really talk about. It just struck me that we’re not doing a good job, on any level, understanding these phenomena or addressing them. A movie isn’t, you know, a policy paper; I’m not making recommendations. But if it makes people ask themselves questions, then that’s all to the good.”

Among the observations in “Four Lions” is the idea that the police and authorities are mesmerized by the most rigorous and conservative Muslims — the bearded and veiled set — who may strike Westerners as dangerous outsiders but are most often focused on the mosque, the Qu’ran and the many rules of daily prayer and observance. “What we don’t grasp too well is that there may be people who have extremely conservative views about the world, the separation of women, and the West, but who also abhor acts of violence,” Morris says. “We see a connection or a progression from Salafism to Wahhabism to, you know, Osama bin Laden, and while that exists, it’s simply not true that they’re all the same.”

Guardian.co.uk | It takes serious guts to poke fun at terrorists, sheer idiots or not, especially when their intended target is a place like London, where terror has reared its head so often and did so to devastating effect less than five years ago. So for this, Morris must be applauded as he tries to shed some light on an aspect of terror – the farcical cock-ups – that has slipped through the wall-to-wall media coverage of the past decade. But the switching back and forth from jihadi thriller to farce suggests Four Lions doesn’t really know what it wants to be. What emerges most completely though is a buddy movie about confused men who would struggle to organise a barbecue in their own back garden.

The Observer | Philip Roth once said that the extreme nature of contemporary experience had done the novelist’s work. To say that I found Morris’s film disquieting would be an understatement. I wondered whether it was funny, even when I did laugh. I also couldn’t decide whether the effort wasn’t somehow misguided, whether I shouldn’t conclude, reluctantly perhaps, that some subjects like jihadism can’t – and shouldn’t – be turned into jokes.

Clone Movie | It­’s a c­o­m­ed­y­. T­hat­ m­uc­h I k­no­w fo­r­ sur­e. A po­lit­ic­al c­o­m­ed­y­, in a way­, but­ m­o­r­e spec­ific­ally­ I suppo­se, it­’s a t­er­r­o­r­ism­ c­o­m­ed­y­. And­, need­less t­o­ say­ at­ t­his po­int­, it­’s a pit­c­h-blac­k­ sat­ir­e t­he lik­es o­f whic­h we r­ar­ely­ see. I’m­ c­er­t­ainly­ no­t­ m­ak­ing­ t­he c­o­m­par­iso­n, but­ F­o­ur Li­o­n­s has­ the balls­ o­f­ a Net­wo­­rk, a Dr. S­tra­n­gel­o­ve, and­ a M­*A*S*H­. P­ossibl­y­ al­l­ th­re­e­ fil­ms c­ombin­­e­d. Adje­c­tiv­e­s l­ike­ p­rov­oc­ativ­e­, in­­c­e­n­­diary­, au­dac­iou­s, an­­d sh­oc­kin­­g c­ome­ imme­diate­l­y­ to min­­d.

Is­ the­ wo­rl­d (O­K, is­ Am­e­ric­a) re­ady fo­r a bro­ad and withe­ring­l­y tre­nc­hant farc­e­ abo­ut Al­ Qae­da as­p­irants­ who­ s­c­he­m­e­ and bum­bl­e­ the­ir way into­ bl­o­wing­ up­ a L­o­ndo­n “fun run” m­aratho­n? A c­o­m­e­dy that s­atiriz­e­s­ yo­ung­ te­rro­ris­ts­ l­ike­ P­ol­ice Academ­y lampo­o­n­ed stu­pid po­lic­emen­? A slapstic­k f­ar­c­e in­ wh­ic­h­ su­ic­ide bo­mber­s ar­e (f­o­r­ lac­k o­f­ a better­ wo­r­d) th­e h­er­o­es?? I c­an­n­o­t o­f­f­er­ an­ o­pin­io­n­ o­n­ th­at, bu­t I c­an­ say­ th­at I’m gr­atef­u­l to­ atten­d f­ilm f­estivals, wh­ic­h­ is so­metimes th­e o­n­ly­ plac­e to­ f­in­d mo­vies th­is o­u­tr­ageo­u­sly­ “edgy­” … y­et po­wer­f­u­lly­ in­telligen­t.

Best on the Web…

California Councilman: “I’m a Proud Racist” |  Alternet.com

Yesterday, The Los Angeles Daily News featured a video of Santa Clarita councilman Bob Kellar informing a group of cheering protesters rallying against immigration that he is a “proud racist” who considers being called a radical a “compliment”:

We have got to wake up America. I know you guys are engaged and you understand. But I’m telling you this is serious. And if I sound like a radical, thank you. I consider that a compliment … The only thing I heard back from a couple people was “Bob you sound like a racist.” I said, “That’s good. If that’s what you think I am because I happen to believe in America. I’m a proud racist. You’re darn right I am.”

The Horror of Teen Motherhood | Broadsheet.

In recent weeks, teenagers in Milwaukee have been inundated with promos for the imaginary film on hip local radio stations, during the commercial break for popular shows like “American Idol” and in big-screen previews. All come complete with a gravelly male voice-over and a creeping orchestral soundtrack. The final trailer features the requisite shots of blood, a screaming woman and a pale, wide-eyed child straight out of “Orphan.” The general premise seems to be that a girl goes to a party alone, has sex with a boy, ends up pregnant, her father goes psycho, she has an excruciating labor, her child is, like, the devil’s spawn or something, he grows up to become some sort of delinquent and she has him arrested.

There is no denying that these campaigns are attention-grabbing — and with the seventh-highest teen birth rate in the country, the city can’t exactly afford to make a soft sell — but I get hung up on the hyperbole in the “2028″ ad blitz. The spots don’t talk contraceptives (although at least the Baby Can Wait site does) and portray sex as an inevitably horrific event….

Obama’s “Ice Cream Is Good” Resolution Fails In Senate |  Open Salon

President Barack Obama, hoping for a legislative victory that might jump-start his stalled domestic agenda, was stunned to learn that the Senate failed to pass his “Ice Cream Is Good,” non-binding resolution.

The final vote was 58 No, 42 Yea, with seventeen Democrats joining all forty-one Republicans in casting “no” votes.

The seemingly slam-dunk legislation ran into an unexpected perfect storm of special interest demands, costly amendments, and aggressive pushback from well-heeled cake and pie lobbyists…

Hijacking History, Part 2: The Texas Curriculum Hearings

In a previous blog, “Hijacking History,” I took on the subject of the Texas state curriculum for K-12 education (known as TEKS) and the implications of the proposed revisions to the curriculum that was to be presented to the State Board of Education (SBOE).  This new curriculum will not only determine what will be taught in Texas’ many public schools, but will also likely determine what is seen in new history textbooks throughout the nation.  (I explain this in more depth in my previous post.)

However, it is not just the revised curriculum that raises concern, but the highly pitched partisan battles that are taking place on the SBOE.  Various media outlets have covered the push by an ideologically conservative segment of the board to include standards that appear to better exemplify political and ideological positions than actual learning goals.  This January meeting was no exception, with the opening day hearings marked by controversy.  Brian Thevenot of the Texas Tribune describes the hearings:

As the State Board of Education grinded through testimony on Wednesday over its controversial social studies standards, much of the debate teetered on two basic fulcrums: teaching vs. indoctrination and patriotism vs. realism.

Scores of speakers, many affiliated with political organizations, ran complex issues of race and religion largely through those two filters for hours.

The importance of the curriculum decisions is evidenced by the sheer numbers of people arriving to testify before the SBOE.  Counts put the total near 130 speakers, far too many to be heard before the scheduled 6 pm adjournment.  Yet instead of extending the time for public comments, the board moved to adjourn for the evening anyway.  The Texas Freedom Network’s live blog reports on the events surrounding the close of the meeting:

6:13 – The board is getting angry comments from people who waited all day to testify. They’re demanding that the board continue hearing testimony. (We sympathize. After all, the board isn’t often asked to listen to their constituents on these issues.) A motion to extend the hearing fails on a tie vote. In the chaos, it’s hard to tell how all of the board members voted. But most of the “no” votes appear to have come from the board’s far-right faction…

6:18 – Now would-be testifiers are shouting in anger. More chaos. The chair, Gail Lowe, has to break a tie on a motion to adjourn the meeting. Could there be a clearer representation of the indifference some board members have for the concerns of their constituents? …

UPDATE: After adjournment, the state board’s five Democrats remained to continue listening to testimony from those who were unable to speak before the hearing ended. Many of the remaining testifiers were Latinos, some of whom had traveled from across the state to the hearing.

This crass indifference to the voices of many unheard witnesses is a testimony to the composition of the Texas SBOE.  Dominated by ultra-conservative ideologues who promote an ethnic insensitivity that is overtly racist, even if not overtly bigoted, a harrowingly nationalistic American exceptionalism that remains blinded to our history of injustice, inequity, and imperialism, and an unabashed Christian exclusivism, it should come as no surprise that they would have no compunction for those unfortunate enough to have been too far back in the witness line to speak before 6:00 pm.  While those members who continued to hear the testimony of the remaining witnesses are a credit to their elected office, the SBOE as a whole clearly turned its back on the democratic ideals its most hardened conservatives purport to defend.

Sadly, this is just another symptom of not only a failure of civility, but an utter lack of respect that appears to dominate our political landscape.  Sadder yet, this was only the first day of the meetings.

————

The Texas Freedom Network offered live blog coverage of the events of the January 13 hearings that you can find at the following:

Live-Blogging the Social Studies Hearing

Live-Blogging the Social Studies Hearing II

• Related link: Hijacking History

Hijacking History

I’d like to dedicate this blog post to Bobbie Tetley, my high school AP American History teacher who instilled in me a love of history, and even though I am on the eve of completing graduate school, she remains one of the most challenging, demanding, and respected voices not only of my educational career, but of my life.  Thank you, Mrs. Tetley.  – cwc

————

This first came to my attention through an action alert from the United Farm Workers, an organization I’ve become connected to through my denomination’s participation in the National Farm Worker Ministry.  I received an email asking me to “Stop Texas from erasing Cesar Chavez and Hispanics from school books.”  It provided information about an upcoming session of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) that will be voting on new curriculum standards for social studies for the state of Texas.  UFW asked me to compose an email to Gail Lowe, the chair of the Texas SBOE demanding that they not further marginalize the voices of Latina/os within the history curriculum.

This call to action is one that I’m only too happy to answer.  In case you weren’t aware, as the Texas curriculum goes (which is known as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills or TEKS), so goes the textbook publishers.  As the textbook publishers go, too often, so goes the nation.  Brian Thevenot offers his insights as to the importance:

Hijacking History  |  Texas Tribune

Following earlier clashes over curricula in other disciplines, the social studies debate will test whether the SBOE can cut through the fog of extremism and find a neutral mainstream. Though its appointees spent countless hours drafting the new standards, the board can toss or overhaul portions at any point, as it did with English standards in 2008 and science standards last year. And so a fifteen-member elected board dominated by social conservatives, few of them educators, will once again decide what will and won’t be taught in Texas public schools. Their influence will be magnified exponentially, as usual, because the content of textbooks in the lucrative Texas market drives what publishers peddle in other states.

Thevenot’s implication is clear: there’s even more at stake than the representation of Latina/os in the history curriculum.

The threat to Chavez’s inclusion in the curriculum is only one of many minority names that may be removed or downgraded to “recommendation” status in the curriculum.  Notable among the list of figures targeted for removal is Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and lawyer who successfully argued Brown v. Board of Education before that same court.

Lowe to guide education board through hot issues  |  AP

Two experts on a board-appointed advisory panel say Chavez, a civil rights activist who supporters say greatly improved conditions for Hispanic farm workers, and Marshall, who argued the landmark case that resulted in racial desegregation and was the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice, receive too much attention.

Panelist David Barton, an evangelical Republican activist who was appointed by Lowe, said Chavez “lacks the stature, impact and overall contributions of so many others.”

Social Studies “Experts” Don’t Know Much About History  |  Austin Chronicle

In another section on history studies, Peter Marshall downplays Thurgood Marshall as not being a “strong enough [example] in light of the multiplicity of persons who have impacted American history.”

…

“This has all been grossly misconstrued,” replied Peter Marshall in an interview with the Chronicle. “My point … is simply one of comparison. … If you’re trying to adduce examples for these guidelines of famous Ameri­cans that ought to be included in the teaching of American history, to pair those two men is silly. Chavez doesn’t begin to compare in terms of his impact on American history with Ben Franklin.” But he made it clear that his objections are also political. “My own personal guess is that the reason he was included in that is that it reflects the leftist bias of the people who wrote the guidelines last time. I don’t know; I don’t know who wrote them. But I’m suspicious of that. … In comparison with [other figures], Chavez doesn’t warrant much attention. … He’s just not real high on my list.”

In their criticisms, both Barton and Marshall along with fellow expert panelist Daniel Dreisbach argue in favor of focusing more on the “Founding Fathers,” and specifically, their religious convictions.  This turn toward what I can only politely describe as a pernicious blending of American civil religion with a particularly aggressive form of evangelical Christianity presents a threat to our national history of religious tolerance and the growing pluralism of this nation of immigrants.  The opinions of the alleged experts are basically echoed by the current chairperson of the Texas SBOE, Gail Lowe:

Lowe to guide education board through hot issues  |  AP

“This country was founded on Judeo Christian principles and to say otherwise is to deny what is very unique about our country.”

Hijacking History  |  Texas Tribune

The question of American superiority likely will come up again at next week’s SBOE meetings, Lowe said. “The state board members had given them (committee members) clear direction in the spring that we wanted that concept included, so it’s surprising they voted it down,” she said. “We don’t have to tell students what to think, but any educated person should have learned about American exceptionalism.”

These attitudes of American exceptionalism, along with its silent partner Christian exceptionalism, are simply inconsistent with our history.  Advocates of this misconception that the “Founding Fathers” were all Christian conveniently forget that many of them were Deists, a theological proposition that evangelical Christians roundly deny.  I doubt that either of the aforementioned religious leaders on the panel would subscribe to the tenets of deism. (David Barton is the founder of WallBuilders and Peter Marshall is founder of Peter Marshall Ministries.)  Yet beyond the religious realm, we often fail to see that American exceptionalism extends benefits to Americans who are white.  The exclusion of Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall in favor of James Madison or Andrew Jackson is obvious on its face: the replacement of two figures of color by two white figures.  Yet in Oklahoma the racial implications of featuring Andrew Jackson in favor of a person of color should become even clearer, as we cannot forget the man who defied the Supreme Court and unconstitutionally uprooted Native Americans in a forced march across the country to their “reservations.” We have to be reminded that “American exceptionalism” all too easily morphs into “white exceptionalism,” the apathetic and unthinking accomplice of white supremacism.

This curriculum meeting should present as a moment for pause.  Yes, we may soon see a flood of deficient U.S. history textbooks that represent a narrow, rather sectarian point of view.  However, as a barometer of attitudes and currents within our nation, it indicates the presence of religious supremacy, structural racism, ethnic bigotry, and international indifference.  To make matters worse, groups and individuals exhibiting these attitudes are often belligerent, self-confident, and self-righteous; offering an understanding of dialogue that looks more like the evangelism of conversion than the engagement of conversation.  If the Texas SBOE approves these very narrow and ahistorical changes to the social studies curriculum in their meeting tomorrow, it will be a travesty on history.  The fact that so many people continue to hold to these inaccurate and dehumanizing ideals right now is a travesty on humanity.

————

As a note of gratitude, I am indebted to the Texas Freedom Network for their extensive coverage of the curriculum changes in their state.  Hats off to them for all of the good work they do on behalf of not only Texans, but the rest of us as well.  I also want to extend my thanks to Brian Thevenot for his article of the same name, whose title I have selfishly co-opted as my own.

Also, if you’d like to send in your comments at the last moment, you can still link here to the United Farm Workers advocacy page and email your comments to SBOE chair, Gail Lowe.

Church, State and the Common Good

If I would’ve started a pool as to what issue would be the first to catch my attention in this new year, my money would not have been riding on church and state.   That is, at least, until I discovered what may seem like a relatively obscure action of taken by the Board of Aldermen from my hometown of Centralia, MO.  In their final meeting of 2009 they discussed three proposed ordinances that would have amended the city code’s non-discrimination protections to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation,” a change that I welcome and support.  Unfortunately the meeting ended with a failure to pass the proposed changes by a vote of 4-2. However it wasn’t the inaction of the aldermen that concerned me; it was the religious activism on the part of a local pastor.  Here’s an excerpt of coverage from the local newspaper:

One speaker, for example, was Larry Lewis, interim pastor of the Centralia [First] Baptist Church. Suggesting he spoke for “Centralia’s faith community,” he said the ordinances violated the separation of church and state and would, among other things, give the city’s stamp of approval to those lifestyles. “This would be divisive when this community needs healing.”

This prompted me to look into the proposed ordinances for myself, and I was disappointed but not surprised to discover that the language of the bills included very specific exemptions for churches and other religious institutions and organizations.  (I write more about this at my own blog.)  The claim that the bills violated the separation clause was nothing more than political grandstanding designed to provide a supposedly “legal” cover for the public moralizing of an exclusivist religious perspective.  In actuality, this no-holds-barred attempt by so-called Christian interests to codify their own morality proved to be the greater threat to the separation clause.  In instances such as this, the dual meaning of “separation of church and state” is too often forgotten.  The first amendment not only protects religious institutions from encroachment by the state, but protects the state, and by extension its citizens, from the encroachment of religion.

I discovered that I wasn’t alone in this new year’s concern.  As I wrote about the moral tyranny of religion in local politics, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State wondered about similar issues at the national level.  They recently posted a report offering a look at President Obama’s record on this issue after one year.  Their findings aren’t nearly as gleeful as those on the Religious Right might have you believe:

There’s no denying that when Obama took office, many who stand guard on the church-state wall breathed a sigh of relief. The previous eight years had been difficult ones, and there was a sense that things had to get better because they really couldn’t get any worse.

…

But that doesn’t mean everything Obama has done has pleased advocates of church-state separation. Indeed, the Obama record on church and state is mixed. One year later, it’s a good time to step back and assess his record so far.

Lifting up Obama’s decision to open federal funding for stem cell research and inclusion of minority and non-religious voices in his speeches and public functions as highlights, this report goes on to address areas of concern.  Noting the President’s rather ambiguous record regarding appointments to federal judgeships, including the appointment of Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the report goes on to raise real questions with regard to the administration’s positions concerning faith-based initiatives, school voucher programs, and church/state cases being pursued by the Department of Justice.  While I don’t necessarily share these concerns to the same extent that Americans United might, I do think they make legitimate points about Obama’s record on the separation between religion and politics.

Yet, as important as these collisions between religion and politics are, I’m left with a troubling question: If we are to honor the non/religious pluralism of our contemporary society, how do we effectively work to promote the common good?  And perhaps even more importantly, how do we even determine a common good?  While it should be apparent that I support the liberal (lowercase “L”) ideal of tolerance, I’m not blind to its problems.  Ethicist and scholar David Hollenbach perhaps describes them best:

In public life, all encompassing understandings of the common good must be subordinated to the importance of tolerance.  A live-and-let-live ethos thus leads to what John Dewey once called an “eclipse of the public.”  The good that can be achieved in the shared domain of public life is hidden from view as protection of individual, private well-being becomes the center of normative concern.

(David Hollenbach, The Common God and Christian Ethics, 10)

In an age of religious and nonreligious sectarianism, competing political visions, and outright discord and distrust, how do we seek out a vision for the shared good?  The health care debate that spanned the entirety of 2009 really exemplifies the difficulties we face.  The cries of nationalized health care and “death panels” drowned out the voices of reason for a rational public discussion.  And to make matters worse, this non-debate effectively silenced discussions on other important issues such as the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, apprehension, detainment and trial of suspected terrorists, and the plight of the poor, which extends to far more basic concerns than health care.

It is my hope for 2010 that we as a nation will work to find some means for engaging in national discussions that don’t automatically degenerate into shouting matches and propaganda wars.  Yet looking back at 2009, I’m left to wonder if we can actually summon the ethical wherewithal to make that hope a reality.

Obama to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ But When?

Analysis …

President Obama again pledged to end the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law at the Human Rights Campaign fundraising dinner Saturday. While the latest Nobel Peace Prize recipient’s support to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military received support, he also received criticism for failing to provide a timetable on when that repeal would happen. Obama’s speech came the day before National Coming Out Day; that was also the day when thousands of gay activists marched in Washington, D.C., for GLBT rights.

HotAir |  “All it would take to end it is an executive order.  Obama is, after all, the Commander in Chief.  Obama wants Congress to take the heat for this as well, though, and has passed the buck on the issue since his first day in office.  What’s more, on this issue, Obama has it right.  DADT served a useful purpose in showing that gays can serve honorably in the military, but the time has come to end it.  Unfortunately for his cheering throngs at the HRC dinner, Obama doesn’t have the courage of his own convictions to take that step himself. In other words, these sound an awful lot like his other promises — which Jim Geraghty reminds us always come with expiration dates.”

Andrew Sullivan @The Atlantic |  “Look: I didn’t expect these issues to be front and center given his appalling inheritance; I know he has many other things on his plate; I didn’t expect the moon; I didn’t believe he would do any of this immediately; I understand that the real job is for us to do, not him, and that most of the action is in the states. And I remain a strong supporter of him in foreign policy and in the way he is clearly trying to move this country past the ideological divides of the recent past. But the sad truth is: he is refusing to take any responsibility for his clear refusal to fulfill clear campaign pledges on the core matter of civil rights and has given no substantive, verifiable pledges or deadlines by which he can be held accountable. What that means, I’m afraid, is that this speech was highfalutin bullshit.”

Balloon Juice |  “Could someone please tell Andrew Sullivan and the rest of the crowd that the last President, a fellow named Bush, dedicated his administration to openly persecuting homosexuals through the FMA and through ballot initiatives in tight races in 2004 all while his Justice department refused to hire and even fired gays and lesbians or anyone who had any ties to organizations that might associate with gays and lesbians. The President before him, a Democrat by the name of Clinton, passed DADT and signed DOMA. Now, you have a President who not only campaigned on and has stated repeatedly that he will work to end DADT, DOMA, and any number of other issues important the cause, but who went to the HRC, proudly took the podium, and advocated his support for their cause in front of the entire nation. And the result? He’s getting shit on for not doing things fast enough.”

Pandagon |  “This was a well-crafted, oddly familiar address if you’re a political junkie, because it felt like a stump speech, a post-election speech and a WH LGBT photo op address patched together. I understand his support for equality; what I didn’t hear is that civil rights of human beings are any more important than any other political issue he faces. That correcting a grievous wrong affecting the lives of American taxpayers he wants support from on other issues is ok to shuffle down in the pile of issues. Honestly, it’s good to know where you stand—statements of support without any timelines at this stage in the game is frustrating and very informative. But it doesn’t mean we won’t continue to press for them, no matter what Barney says.”

The Daily Beast |  “The real question for gay-rights supporters is whether anyone should be surprised by the administration’s inaction given Obama’s public opposition to gay marriage. In Maine, opponents of marriage equality are handing out flyers with quotes from the president, who has cited his “Christian values” as the motivation for supporting civil unions instead of marriage. In the run-up to the election, the hope was that he was concealing his true feelings in order to get elected. But the fact that gay-rights organizations and activists settled for this shows how far behind the political process trails the culture. The president and the gay lobby may wake up soon and find that, as the president said of Republicans at the Democratic National Convention, the ground has shifted beneath them.”

Related link: Gay Rights No Longer a Fringe Issue  |  Global Post

News & Analysis …

Nearly One in Four Persons on Globe is a Muslim  |  Informed Comment

The Muslim world is the labor pool of the next century, and is also the custodian of much of the world’s fuel. New American crusades of the sort favored on the right of the Republican Party may finally induce imperial overstretch and deeply harm the US. Some 5 percent of the population cannot dominate by force 25 percent of the globe and what may eventually be 33% of the globe.

Obama’s strategy, of positive engagement, is the only viable way forward.

Stuff White People Do: Shuttle Between Whiteness and Ethnicity   |  Stuff White People Do

(Today) is Columbus Day in the United States. Like many other countries in “the Americas,” we still mark this day, officially and otherwise. Celebrations of the efforts of Columbus usually erase the horrors of what he and his men did to indigenous peoples, thereby erasing as well the indigenous peoples themselves.

Blinded by the Light  |  Miller-McCune

Plants, animals and humans developed with an internal clock — the circadian rhythm. It’s a 24-hour cycle that affects physiological, biochemical and behavioral processes in almost all organisms.

Civilization brought with it artificial light to homes in every village, town and city across the world, and as more buildings and factories came online, industrialization increased and the population continued to expand, our nighttime sky looked a lot like the day, changing our deep, dark sleep patterns and altering that 24-hour internal timekeeper.

With that, all living creatures’ lives changed in ways only now becoming clear to us.

The Scarlet A in Oklahoma  |  Political Animal

If you haven’t heard about the new abortion restrictions in Oklahoma, take a few minutes to watch this segment from “The Rachel Maddow Show” from the other day. (The segment on Oklahoma begins in earnest around the 2:12 mark.)

The Atlantic’s Tali Yahalom had a good item summarizing the problem this week: “A new Oklahoma law will require the details of every abortion to be posted on a public website.

Mothers — or would-be mothers, rather — will be prompted to answer 37 questions that range from her marital status and race to how many times she’s ever been pregnant.”

The Death — or Rebirth — of Journalism

Analysis …

A few weeks ago, former Republican presidential candidate, Arkansas governor and Chuck Norris fan Mike Huckabee reported on his Fox News program that journalism — the Fourth Estate and the watchdog of society — had met an untimely end, reduced at its death to “ink-stained drivel that smeared the pages of paper and the people who attempted to read it.” While Huckabee was mostly referring to his comments on various subjects that he claimed journalists had mangled, other bloggers and media observers have noted the decline of U.S. newspapers, which is one of the foundations of U.S. news. Can the newspaper industry be saved? Or is journalism growing beyond the ink-and-paper method of news delivery?

Mint.com |  “The newspapers used to make the news, now they are the news. Reports of their death may indeed be premature but there is no question they are dying. The recession hasn’t helped but the real story is a shift in the habits of American consumers and the emergence of a new generation that gets most of its news online and for free. Newspapers are struggling for both relevancy and revenue in every major US market (although some are certainly making valid efforts to compete and innovate in the digital world).”

Clay Shirkey |  “I think a bad thing is going to happen, right? And it’s amazing to me how much, in a conversation conducted by adults, the possibility that maybe things are just going to get a lot worse for a while does not seem to be something people are taking seriously. But I think this falling into relative corruption of moderate-sized cities and towns — I think that’s baked into the current environment. I don’t think there’s any way we can get out of that kind of thing. So I think we are headed into a long trough of decline in accountability journalism, because the old models are breaking faster than the new models can be put into place.”

Ethan Zuckerman |  “When the Rocky Mountain News folded, they sought support from their readers to continue with an online newsroom. Only 6% of readers said they’d pay to support that work, which the Rocky staffers took as a signal that their work was unappreciated. But that figure wouldn’t have shocked anyone in public radio. In that space, 6% support is quite good, not evidence that a model needs to be abandoned. We may need to reconsider how to support news around such models.”

Paul Graham |  “There have always been people in the business of selling information, but that has historically been a distinct business from publishing. And the business of selling information to consumers has always been a marginal one. When I was a kid there were people who used to sell newsletters containing stock tips, printed on colored paper that made them hard for the copiers of the day to reproduce. That is a different world, both culturally and economically, from the one publishers currently inhabit. People will pay for information they think they can make money from. That’s why they paid for those stock tip newsletters, and why companies pay now for Bloomberg terminals and Economist Intelligence Unit reports. But will people pay for information otherwise? History offers little encouragement.”

MoJo Blogs |  “Warren Hellman, the patron saint of the Best. Festival. In. San Francisco. Ever. is plunking down $5 million to seed the creation of what’s being called the Bay Area News Project, a journalism outfit that’ll be linked with KQED public radio and television, UC Berkeley’s J-School, and it looks like The New York Times.  Alan Mutter has the best summary of the deal, and Dave Cohn just put up a smart post about what he hopes Hellman’s project does. Lots of details still to be worked out, so I think it’s way too early to say much more than that I’m really hoping this works out.”

News …

• How investing in universal education around the world benefits the U.S. (Read more).
• The politics of the computer keyboard (Read more).
• Are Muslim women oppressed? Ask one! (Read more).
• Watch below: Jonathan Zittrain on how the Internet is made up of millions of disinterested acts of kindness, curiosity and trust (More info).

When Atheists Cry ‘Heresy!’

Analysis …

In late July, new atheism leader Sam Harris wrote an op-ed in the New York Times opposing the nomination of Francis Collins as director of the National Institutes of Health. Harris praised Collins’ scientific credentials, but said that his religious beliefs — Collins is a Christian whose book The Language of God attempts to find harmony between science and Christianity — should prevent him from heading one of the world’s foremost scientific research organizations. Harris wrote:

There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are counterintuitive. It is by no means obvious that empty space has structure or that we share a common ancestor with both the housefly and the banana. It can be difficult to think like a scientist. But few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion.

Are religion and science natural enemies? Or can they complement one another’s searches? Is Harris defending science from challenges that religion (or religion in the hands of fundamentalists) impose, or is he being as intolerant as those he accuses?

The Reality-Based Community |  “If someone objected to the nomination of a distinguished scientist to be director of the National Institutes of Health because the nominee was a Muslim or an atheist, we’d all call that objection by its rightful name: religious bigotry. When Sam Harris objects to the nomination of Francis Collins as NIH Director because Collins is an Evangelical Christian who has actual Evangelical Christian beliefs, that’s different … how, exactly?”

Friendly Atheist |  “I still think Collins is a good choice for the head of the NIH because I have faith he will not use his position to evangelize and he will do what is best for science to progress. While we’re at it, I also think Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum make a strong point when they write that atheists who say that science and religion are incompatible hurt the cause for science. But it’s not because the atheists are wrong. Instead, it’s because it’s just too hard a pill for most people to swallow.”

Religion Dispatches |  “It seems Harris’ accusations against Collins amount to this: Collins and Harris take opposing stances on a set complex philosophical questions about which reasonable people can and do disagree. This observation is hardly a basis for excluding Collins from the leadership of the NIH—unless, of course, one is ideologically aligned with Harris’ view in such a way that differences of opinion amount to intolerable heresy.”

Windows and Doors |  “The appropriateness of Dr. Collins’ nomination to lead NIH can be measured by the degree of consternation it causes ideologues from both the savagely secular and rabidly religious camps.”

Kingdom of Priests @BeliefNet |  “The issue: can science and religion be reconciled, or does it perhaps make a difference what you mean by “science”? Readers of this blog will know that I’ve shown how Francis Collins makes a mash of the very serious religious belief that human beings are made in the image of God. More on Collins and his insipid theology here.”

News & Analysis …

• Mideast commentator Juan Cole compares and contrasts Sarah Palin and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and finds that they have a lot in common (Read more).
• Why the U.S. government should follow California’s lead to make access to clean water a basic human right  (Read more).
• Chris Hedges talks with a Green Party candidate for President Obama’s former Senate seat about how the successes of some in the African American community can mask the structural inequalities that sill exist in the U.S. (Read more).
• Why the man who helped get the U.S. drinking age moved up to 21 now regrets that move (Read more).

Next Page »