Many in the political right wing are advocating for more racial profiling, or at least cultural profiling. Think Progress explains why these approaches don't work and why we should instead use behavior profiling.
Wonderful news from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. The Danforth Foundation has made a huge financial contribution to create a specialized Center on Religion & Politics. Former U.S. Senator John Danforth was instrumental in making this possible. The following is from the Center's press release, which was issued last month:
$30 million endowment gift from Danforth Foundation funds creation of center
Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2009 — Washington University in St. Louis is establishing a scholarly and educational center that will focus on the role of religion in politics in the United States, according to Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton.
“The establishment of the John C. Danforth Center on Religion & Politics reflects the legacy of Jack Danforth and his belief in the importance of a civil discourse that treats differences with respect,” Wrighton said in making the announcement Dec. 16 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
“The center will serve as an ideologically neutral place that will foster rigorous, unbiased scholarship and encourage conversations between diverse and even conflicting points of view,” Wrighton said.
“Knowing that religious values and beliefs can either encourage or undermine civility, the center and its educational programs and scholarly research can provide a bridge between religious and political communities and will inform new kinds of academic explorations focusing on the relationships between the two. We think that’s a worthy goal.”
The creation of the center, which includes the recruitment of five new faculty members with endowed professorships, is being made possible by a $30 million endowment gift from the St. Louis-based Danforth Foundation. It is believed to be the largest gift of its kind made to a university to fund such an academic center.
The center opens January 2010 and will convene public conferences and lectures to address local, state and national issues related to religion and politics and also will offer an educational program in religion and politics, including an interdisciplinary undergraduate minor in religion and public life.
The new faculty appointments will be in the area of American religion and politics and will complement the work of scholars already on the Washington University faculty in the departments of history, anthropology, literatures and religious studies. The new faculty members will hold joint appointments between the new center and existing academic departments.
The center will attract visiting scholars to St. Louis and create opportunities for interaction with Washington University faculty, students and members of the St. Louis community. It also plans to publish and disseminate proceedings of conferences and results of studies by faculty, visiting scholars and students of the center.
“Historically, the responsibility for this kind of dialogue has most often been left to universities with religious connections,” said Danforth. “But great non-sectarian institutions like Washington University combine rigorous academic standards with traditions of civil conversation, and that’s why this is the perfect place for such a center. Few issues are more critical to the well being of a democracy than how religious beliefs — or the denial of such beliefs — co-exist with civic virtue and of how the ‘truths’ of the one are made compatible with the toleration and good will required by the other.”
The Columbia Missourian (based in Columbia, Missouri), provides additional context:John Danforth, 73, of St. Louis, has often been at odds with others in the GOP because of his concerns about the influence of the Christian right. In newspaper columns, speeches and in a book, he has argued that Christian conservatives have focused on divisive issues that polarize Americans.
Washington University Chancellor Mark Wrighton said the center in St. Louis will reflect Danforth's belief "in civil discourse that treats differences with respect."
"The center will serve as an ideologically neutral place that will foster rigorous, unbiased scholarship and encourage conversations between diverse and even conflicting points of view," Wrighton said.
This is a wonderful development. Washington University is a first-rate center of scholarship, and there might not be a more important topic in these times. Here is yet more information on the new Center, from Washington University's website. I very much like the motto for the Center: "Common ground for civil dialogue."Better be careful what you say about religion in Ireland. That you might insult someone is the least of your worries. You could get fined, assuming that a judge actually upholds this ridiculous (and ridiculously vague) law. The U.K. Guardian reports:
[The new law,] which was passed in July, means that blasphemy in Ireland is now a crime punishable with a fine of up to €25,000 (£22,000). It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".I wonder if I could be fined in Ireland for insulting the most powerful American God: Mammon? The Guardian article notes that the Irish Constitution prevents those who don't believe in God from serving as judges or as President. For more, see Michael Nugent's post here.
Glenn Greenwald dissects a "solution" to the attempted bombing of a Northwest airliner coming from the Right Wing of the political spectrum. How barbaric right wingers are to suggest that we "kill them all," even people from Yemen who are innocent. And how ignorant to fail to understand why many people from Yemen are angry with the United States. Greenwald correctly points out the absurdity of the claim that they hate us for our "freedom."
I think we've almost reached the end of an extraordinary ten years or so. Immense amounts of information that should have been public has been kept private. Consider, for instance, eight years where the Bush administration classifying almost anything controversial to be "secret." More recently, we've seen the supposedly transparent health care debate become shaped by opaque dealings because, for instance, Big Pharma and the White House. We continue to see the Federal Reserve successfully prevent tax-payers from learning the inner-workings of an extremely power organization, the actions of which affect us all. But there's more to this decade than secret things that should be public. It's public things that should be secret, and I think this second phenomenon is well-illustrated by the following video: What should, for all intents, be a private moment, the marriage proposal by a pleasant-seeming fellow to his weather channel forecaster girlfriend, has been turned into a public spectacle. I'm sure that no one meant any harm, but as I watched this, it was as clear as can be that I didn't belong there. This should have been a private moment between the two lovebirds, but the decision to broadcast what appeared to be a surprise proposal (from her standpoint) just couldn't be resisted. The draw of the limelight was just too alluring. And proposing in public warped the situation in several major ways. She seemed to be willing, but was she really? Did she really want to make her lifetime commitment, and the tremble of her voice, a spectacle for numerous people who had actually tuned in only for the weather? And consider what this sort of thing does to the viewers. Watching this exchange turned me into a voyeur. Did you feel that way too? Here's more information on this TV proposal. Nor is this private-things-made-public situation unusual. Anyone turning on TV these days (TV is foisted upon us in waiting rooms, airports, stores, and even the courthouse where I served as a juror two weeks ago) sees numerous what-should-be private moments, including families airing out their dirty laundry on TV. We also see it on numerous blogs--I've read one where the woman advised the world that her husband is a drunken bum and that she's going to leave him--she wrote this to total strangers before telling him. You can also get a regular dose of what-should-be-private information just by browsing Facebook or, better yet, MySpace. And the mainstream media simply just can't get enough of what should be private family matters regarding politicians, actors, musicians and, of course, athletes. So there you have it. We are simultaneously seeing a continuing explosion of public private things and private public things. This just can't be healthy.