A rather interesting link I found through a friend.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/allahu-akbar-michael-bloomberg-tells-ramadan-audience-we-are-all-muslims/
Obviously such a controversial comment will lead to a lively discussion. I will save the entire Mosque controversy for another time. But what I find interesting is the assumption by Bloomberg that all religions are the same. He does not mean he is a Muslim in that he prays five times a day and fasts during Ramadan. He is implying that all religions lead to a generalized sense of peace and acceptance. Nice thoughts. But is he on solid ground.
Now I get to be a troublemaker. All religions are not the same. And to imply such is an insult to those religions. It is intellectually dishonest to state that the monotheism of Islam is the same as the atheism in Buddhism. The Jehovah God in Judaism is quite different than the Adam-God advocated by Mormons. When we state that all religions are the same we rob them of the distinctive attributes they can offer to society and generally replace those attributes with our own values. We are in essence using religion to validate our own beliefs. Those of you with some sociological understanding will recognize some of Durkheim's argument about religion as a way to create culture cohesion in my assertion.
Bloomberg is not alone in pushing this notions that all religions are the same. But it is more emotional and political desire than cognitive wisdom that drives this idea. But we need to stop doing this. Let each religion speak for itself. Look at the good and the bad of each faith. Let us not merge all the faiths into some mushy pot of oatmeal. Many who would never tolerate such cultural assimilation as it concerns racial groups freely accept it as it concern religious beliefs. Those who belief want to keep their distinctions and it is an insult to try to take that away.
Of course if we accept the religious distinctiveness of Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc. then we have to recognize the possibility that some of these religions may be more violent than the others. Perhaps another aspect driving this need to merge all religions together is our PC need to avoid such unpleasant realities. We rather pretend that all religions produce the same level of functional and dysfunctional behaviors. But that is once again putting our head in the same for the sake of ideological purity. So it is honest to ask the question of which religions tend to produce the most violence. But I have stirred enough trouble for now. Only can cause so much trouble in a given blog. But maybe soon in future blog I will take an honest look at contrasting propensities for different religions to create violence.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Why are Christian Colleges so White?
Christianity is suppose to be a religion for everyone. But is it well documented that Sunday morning is one of the most segregated time of the week. If Christianity is suppose to serve everyone then why can not people come together when they worship?
That is a question that more than a few theologians and scholars have been wrestling with. But I have another question that many have not thought about. It is one thing if Christians of different races worship in different places. After all there are many ways Christian worship can be organized and clearly some of these differences are linked to race-based cultural variations. But why are Christian colleges more racially homogeneous than other colleges. Education is needed by people of all races. People who worship a God that is not a "respecter of person" should not segregate themselves when it comes to getting an education should they?
I do not believe that Christians tend to create racially homogeneous colleges because of racism. Rather this is a good example of how our society is racialized in such a way that we reproduce the racial separation that we have seen in the past. We do this by where we live, who we marry and where we go to school. Christians have some cultural barriers that make it worse, but in reality they often just reflect the larger racial values in our society.
This is actually a question that I have studied and now have a book out on the subject. It is called Neither Jew nor Gentile and it has been published by Oxford University Press. In that book I not only look at the dynamics that create this racial segregation but also suggest some possible solutions. (One of my complaints of social scientists is that we are good at documenting problems but lousy at finding innovative solutions). If this is something you are interested in then check out the book. Here is a link where you can find it.
That is a question that more than a few theologians and scholars have been wrestling with. But I have another question that many have not thought about. It is one thing if Christians of different races worship in different places. After all there are many ways Christian worship can be organized and clearly some of these differences are linked to race-based cultural variations. But why are Christian colleges more racially homogeneous than other colleges. Education is needed by people of all races. People who worship a God that is not a "respecter of person" should not segregate themselves when it comes to getting an education should they?
I do not believe that Christians tend to create racially homogeneous colleges because of racism. Rather this is a good example of how our society is racialized in such a way that we reproduce the racial separation that we have seen in the past. We do this by where we live, who we marry and where we go to school. Christians have some cultural barriers that make it worse, but in reality they often just reflect the larger racial values in our society.
This is actually a question that I have studied and now have a book out on the subject. It is called Neither Jew nor Gentile and it has been published by Oxford University Press. In that book I not only look at the dynamics that create this racial segregation but also suggest some possible solutions. (One of my complaints of social scientists is that we are good at documenting problems but lousy at finding innovative solutions). If this is something you are interested in then check out the book. Here is a link where you can find it.
Okay so this is a little bit of a shameless plug. Yeah trouble-maker tries to sell his stuff too. But hey it is my blog and you are getting what you paid for. I will try to make the next blog a little less commercial.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The King
It is official. King James is no more. For those of you who have been living under a rock or have no knowledge of basketball I am of course talking about LeBron James. We have had to suffer the drama of where he is going as a free agent. And we got the answer. He got off his throne (which never really existed since he never won the title).
You see the great ones build their championships where they land. They convince others to come and play with them. That is the legacy of Magic, Jordon, Bird, Duncan and (I hate to admit it because I hate him) Kobe. LeBron decided that he would let Wade build the championship team. It does not matter if the Heat win the next 10 titles. They will be Wade's title and James just came to help. No King is just a helper.
I know it is easy for me to tell James to do since I never had such talent myself and was not faced with such a decision. It seems to me that one title in Cleveland when he is clearly "the man" is better than 3 or 4 with the Miami Heat. I guess I am a traditionalist when it comes to sports. I like athletes to stay put and remain in touch with their city. Oh for the good ol days.
No earth shattering, trouble-making declarations here. Taking a brief break from that. But just wanted to have my say on the whole LeBron situation. Will move on the more "meatier" issues with the next post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
You see the great ones build their championships where they land. They convince others to come and play with them. That is the legacy of Magic, Jordon, Bird, Duncan and (I hate to admit it because I hate him) Kobe. LeBron decided that he would let Wade build the championship team. It does not matter if the Heat win the next 10 titles. They will be Wade's title and James just came to help. No King is just a helper.
I know it is easy for me to tell James to do since I never had such talent myself and was not faced with such a decision. It seems to me that one title in Cleveland when he is clearly "the man" is better than 3 or 4 with the Miami Heat. I guess I am a traditionalist when it comes to sports. I like athletes to stay put and remain in touch with their city. Oh for the good ol days.
No earth shattering, trouble-making declarations here. Taking a brief break from that. But just wanted to have my say on the whole LeBron situation. Will move on the more "meatier" issues with the next post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Hitler!!!!
Okay. Some, but not all, of the Tea Party people are just plain stupid. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iowa_obama_billboard.
I mean what are they thinking putting up a billboard comparing Obama to Hitler. Where are the six million Jew Obama has killed? Has Obama tried to invade France lately? These people are getting grief and deserve it. I especially like how some of them state that they are just trying to make an anti-socialism message (Remember that Hitler was head of the National Socialist Party). Come on. If they only had Stalin up there then they at least have a shot of pulling off that fiction. Everyone knows the images that come up when you put that murder with the funny mostache on a billboard.
I was reading the article just waiting for the punchline. You know that the Democrats decided to put up the billboard and then blame the Tea Party. Nope. Some people in the Tea Party actually thought this would help their cause. They probably just swung a bunch of votes towards Obama. If the Democrats are smart they will just get out of the way and let the Republicans form their circular firing squad.
But I can not let the Democrats go without pointing out a bit of hypocrisy on their part. I seem to remember that when Bush was president that Hitler's name came up as well. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2513. Oh yeah. I really like how all the minions rush to defend the Bush and Hitler comparison that the teacher made. Correct me if I am wrong but I do not remember Bush killing off Jews either.
How about a moratorium on comparisons to Hitler for the next, say, 100,000 years. If someone actually sets up real death camps and tries to exterminate a race then okay maybe we can life that moratorium. Until then we have enough real issues without engaging in this type of hyperbole.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
I mean what are they thinking putting up a billboard comparing Obama to Hitler. Where are the six million Jew Obama has killed? Has Obama tried to invade France lately? These people are getting grief and deserve it. I especially like how some of them state that they are just trying to make an anti-socialism message (Remember that Hitler was head of the National Socialist Party). Come on. If they only had Stalin up there then they at least have a shot of pulling off that fiction. Everyone knows the images that come up when you put that murder with the funny mostache on a billboard.
I was reading the article just waiting for the punchline. You know that the Democrats decided to put up the billboard and then blame the Tea Party. Nope. Some people in the Tea Party actually thought this would help their cause. They probably just swung a bunch of votes towards Obama. If the Democrats are smart they will just get out of the way and let the Republicans form their circular firing squad.
But I can not let the Democrats go without pointing out a bit of hypocrisy on their part. I seem to remember that when Bush was president that Hitler's name came up as well. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2513. Oh yeah. I really like how all the minions rush to defend the Bush and Hitler comparison that the teacher made. Correct me if I am wrong but I do not remember Bush killing off Jews either.
How about a moratorium on comparisons to Hitler for the next, say, 100,000 years. If someone actually sets up real death camps and tries to exterminate a race then okay maybe we can life that moratorium. Until then we have enough real issues without engaging in this type of hyperbole.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Happy Birthday America
I confess that I am not the most patriotic person around. It is sometimes hard to celebrate the Fourth when you are an African-American because your people were not freed at that time. Nevertheless, some good things did happen with the Declaration and I should be happy about that.
In a few months I will have a book (co-written with Micheal Emerson) come out that deals with racial issues. In it we argue that Americans of different races have to find common values to rally around, even as we continue to appreciate our cultural differences. The example we gave is the value of freedom that is found among Americans of different races.
Then today I attended a multiracial church. In that church they did some of the normal "Rah-Rah America" that you get on July Fourth. But then the pastor talked about the value of freedom and how we should appreciate it. Since the pastor is preaching to a multiracial congregation he had to find a value that is important to people of different races and still have a unifying message on our country's birthday. Is it a coincidence that he choose the value of freedom? I think not.
Well anyway I will blog more about that book when it is closer to coming out. But it is always nice when you get verification of your ideas from an outside source. Hope everyone enjoys the Holiday!!!!
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
In a few months I will have a book (co-written with Micheal Emerson) come out that deals with racial issues. In it we argue that Americans of different races have to find common values to rally around, even as we continue to appreciate our cultural differences. The example we gave is the value of freedom that is found among Americans of different races.
Then today I attended a multiracial church. In that church they did some of the normal "Rah-Rah America" that you get on July Fourth. But then the pastor talked about the value of freedom and how we should appreciate it. Since the pastor is preaching to a multiracial congregation he had to find a value that is important to people of different races and still have a unifying message on our country's birthday. Is it a coincidence that he choose the value of freedom? I think not.
Well anyway I will blog more about that book when it is closer to coming out. But it is always nice when you get verification of your ideas from an outside source. Hope everyone enjoys the Holiday!!!!
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Consistancy - Part 3
Okay so its a game. Political opponents do not have consistent values but rather they are playing a game with one another. Sort of a one-upsmanship between the two parties. If you are a Republican then the same acts that you consider corruption when it is a Democrat you find a way to justify it when a Republican is guilty. The same is true for Democrats when they catch Republicans and yet protect their own. As long as we know it is a game then we can deal with it right?
Well maybe. The problem is that both sides are concentrating so much on winning instead of supporting their values that they have to demonize each other to win. So now Republicans are all over Obama for his spending. But when they had the government they spend money like crazy. So much for the value of small government. It is about demonizing Democrats. And Democrats were all for going after Clarence Thomas for sexist comments. But when President Clinton is accused of worse actions than we even dreamed about for Thomas they put up the best defence since the Steel Curtain. So much for the value of eliminating sexual harassment. I guess we should only use it to demonize Republicans.
Ultimately this is bad for us as Americans. We learn to hate one half of the country instead of merely disagreeing with them. We can not have rational discussions about issues and we certainly can not compromise with the enemy. We get stuck in our camps and worry more about winning the game rather than doing what is right in our country.
No wonder I have so little faith in our political system. I have given up hoping that they do what is right. I just hope they do not mess things up and make our situation worse.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Well maybe. The problem is that both sides are concentrating so much on winning instead of supporting their values that they have to demonize each other to win. So now Republicans are all over Obama for his spending. But when they had the government they spend money like crazy. So much for the value of small government. It is about demonizing Democrats. And Democrats were all for going after Clarence Thomas for sexist comments. But when President Clinton is accused of worse actions than we even dreamed about for Thomas they put up the best defence since the Steel Curtain. So much for the value of eliminating sexual harassment. I guess we should only use it to demonize Republicans.
Ultimately this is bad for us as Americans. We learn to hate one half of the country instead of merely disagreeing with them. We can not have rational discussions about issues and we certainly can not compromise with the enemy. We get stuck in our camps and worry more about winning the game rather than doing what is right in our country.
No wonder I have so little faith in our political system. I have given up hoping that they do what is right. I just hope they do not mess things up and make our situation worse.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Consistency - Part 2
Okay so we know that both conservatives and liberals are inconsistent in their political philosophy. Neither side attach their political positions to a consistent value. If you disagree with this assertion then please read my last posting. So why do conservatives pick their set of political positions and why do liberals pick their set of political positions?Republicans state that they are driven by the value of small government and yet support governmental intrusion on the issue of abortion. Democrats state that they are driven by the value of individual choice, except when it comes to where we send our kids to school. So I do not accept that these political parties are driven by these values. Something else must be driving them instead.
I suggest that political ideology is socially constructed. Since political ideology is not tied to some consistent value then to some degree it is made up and almost accidental. A certain set of political issues arise and one political party takes one side of the issue. This obligates the other side to take the other side of the issue. The reason why conservatives feel the way they do about a political position is because other conservatives have defined it as "conservative." The same thing happens for liberals. In their own political circles conservatives gain prestige by showing others how "conservative" they are. Same for liberals. Then we get entrenched into our harden political positions without even thinking about why we have them.
Here is an example. Remember a few years ago when Democrats were filibustering the judicial nominations of President Bush. The conservative position was that this filibustering is not in keeping with the original intent of the government. The liberal position was that judicial nominations are too important to allow the majority to run over the minority party. Now that Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate the Republicans are talking about filibustering President Obama's Supreme Court nomination if he or she is too liberal. Now the same argument the Republicans were using a few years ago the Democrats are using and vice versa. It is some eternal value each party is using. I think not. It is political opportunism to find a political issue that helps to make the other side looks bad.
So often politics is just a game and not about real values. I guess that would be alright if we just accept it as a game. In games sometimes you win and sometimes you lose (come on Spurs!!) but life goes on. Unfortunately, the stakes are quite higher when we are deciding about politics which effects our laws. Furthermore there is even a more destructive aspect to this process. But this post is getting too long. So I will look at that aspect in my next post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
I suggest that political ideology is socially constructed. Since political ideology is not tied to some consistent value then to some degree it is made up and almost accidental. A certain set of political issues arise and one political party takes one side of the issue. This obligates the other side to take the other side of the issue. The reason why conservatives feel the way they do about a political position is because other conservatives have defined it as "conservative." The same thing happens for liberals. In their own political circles conservatives gain prestige by showing others how "conservative" they are. Same for liberals. Then we get entrenched into our harden political positions without even thinking about why we have them.
Here is an example. Remember a few years ago when Democrats were filibustering the judicial nominations of President Bush. The conservative position was that this filibustering is not in keeping with the original intent of the government. The liberal position was that judicial nominations are too important to allow the majority to run over the minority party. Now that Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate the Republicans are talking about filibustering President Obama's Supreme Court nomination if he or she is too liberal. Now the same argument the Republicans were using a few years ago the Democrats are using and vice versa. It is some eternal value each party is using. I think not. It is political opportunism to find a political issue that helps to make the other side looks bad.
So often politics is just a game and not about real values. I guess that would be alright if we just accept it as a game. In games sometimes you win and sometimes you lose (come on Spurs!!) but life goes on. Unfortunately, the stakes are quite higher when we are deciding about politics which effects our laws. Furthermore there is even a more destructive aspect to this process. But this post is getting too long. So I will look at that aspect in my next post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)