Internecine religious conflict returns to post-Mumbai India

Mumbia terror created a temporary sense of common ground among the religiously divided citizenry of India.

It’s over. Sumit Ganguly of Indiana University writes for Newsweek:

Religious violence and cultural parochialism are on the rise. Much of these forces seem to be fueled by the global economic downturn, which is bringing out the worst political tactics. In such a turbulent economic climate, scapegoating ethnic and religious minorities may well prove to be irresistible for those seeking to divert attention from serious questions of unemployment and growing economic disparities. Matters may become even worse as India’s national election approaches in May of this year. In attempts to solidify their political bases, political parties, regardless of their ideological orientation, may well start kowtowing to religious and cultural zealots. Several recent developments underscore the dangers that they pose for the well-being of India’s plural polity and society.

Ganguly holds the Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations and is an Adjunct Senior Fellow of the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles.

Read the rest here.

Refershing information change

Obama’s new Chief of Information Officer at the Office of Management and Budget, Vivek Kundra, said Thursday:

We need to make sure that all that data that’s not private, that’s not restricted for national security can be made public .

Thus he plans Data.gov, a Web site intended to “democratize data.” It is to give the public raw feeds of all the information the government collects.

Raw Congressional data

Mother Jones says Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) added to the massive spending bill a directive that “Congress and its affiliated organs – including the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office” – make their raw data available to the public:

If the Senate passes the bill with the provision intact, citizens seeking information about Congress’ activities—such as bill names and numbers, amendments, votes, and committee reports—won’t have to rely on government websites, which often filter information, are incomplete, or are difficult to use. Instead, the underlying data will be available to anyone who wants to build a superior site or tool to sift through it. “The language is groundbreaking in that it supports providing unfiltered legislative information to the public,” says Honda’s online communications director, Rob Pierson. “Instead of silo-ing the information, and only allowing access through a limited web form, access to the raw data will make it easier for people to learn what their government is doing.”

‘The Holy Father wants to save his children . . . ‘

Written by a nun at a convent in Rome as the darkness descended during World War II:

“The Holy Father wants to save his children, including the Jews, and orders that hospitality be shown to these persecuted people in the convents,” said a note found in the historical journal of the Augustinian Community of Santi Quattro Coronati.

It is a note about verbally delivered orders dated November, 1943, and tends to be exculpatory.

Limbaughism indeed

Limbaughism is all that currently remains of the once-Republican Party, gently submits Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics.

Twitter religion?

Twitter religion? [on our blogspot mirror site]

Anonymous blogging under fire and deserves defense

Anonymous blogging is part of a tradition of protective self-expression whose origins predate electronic communication, as an anonymous comment at Enid, Ok., pastor Wade Burleson’s blog eloquently explains:

All of this talk about anonymity has got me thinking. The term “coward” is sure getting thrown around a lot, and that is unfortunate. I wonder if anyone here has ever read or heard about the Marprelate tracts? They were written by (anonymous) Puritans in 1588-89 criticizing the abuses of Anglican bishops and clergy. They knew the consequences if they were discovered, but they could not remain silent. In fact, two men (both ministers) died (1 executed, 1 died in prison) because they were linked to the printing of the tracts. The printer, Waldegrave, had his press confiscated and was financially ruined. It is debatable whether or not the authors were ever really discovered. When the Anglican Star Chamber issued an edict in 1586 declaring that the Anglican church had the power to license and/or forbid all printing in the country, these men knew that they must speak out, but they didn’t necessarily want to die for it. After all, when a “trouble-maker” is discovered and dealt with (i.e. ruined by those in power that he critiques), then the criticism is silenced and people remain in the dark about the issues.

Read the rest here.

Anonymous blogging does permit the less powerful to constructively express themselves about the powerful. It does honorably trace its heritage to the anonymous pamphleteers, like those who wrote during the American revolutionary era.

Through anonymity authors may escape intimidation and other retaliation that would silence them and as was the case in 2007 with a New Jersey blogger, “daTruthSquad”, legal action is sometimes required to preserve their anonymity and thus their continued self-expression.

Demeaning anonymous self-expression as “cowardice” is in such cases merely additional pressure on the blogger to fall silent.

As gwfrink3 wrote at the time:

Democratic government cannot be well-conducted in the dark, and this anonymous author is casting good light.

Yet anonymity is sometimes required if one is to both make responsible contributions to public discourse, and also put bread on the family table.

Do we not protect the discourse itself by protecting this one blogger?

Frink recently argued the public service case for FBC Jax Watchdog .

Aware that like all examples (ourselves included) he is imperfect, we have defended him as well. Anonymity and all, the less powerful critic’s risk is real. Care is required.

We back up today on all of this not a single step.

Martin E. Marty on ‘Creation Care’

American Lutheran religious scholar Martin E. Marty writes about Evangelicals and the Environment:

This week I stumbled upon a little book which prompts a Sighting of one way some evangelicals are dealing with the environmental crisis and the future. It’s Lindy Scott, ed., Christians, the Care of Creation, and Global Climate Change (Pickwick), based on a conference at Illinois’ Wheaton College, often called the flagship evangelical liberal arts college-one of several flagships. The only “known” contributors are Wheaton President A. Duane Litfin and super-scientist and up-front evangelical, ex-Oxonian Sir John Houghton, who spoke and wrote on “Big Science, Big God.” The rest of the essays, reports, and proposals are from students and graduates of Wheaton and its kin and kind.

One of the essayists therein is student Ben Lowe, who copes with the issue of evangelicals shying away from environmental concerns. Marty relates some evangelical environmental hangups and hints at Lowe’s answers:

1. The environment isn’t really in crisis.” Lowe lists seven patent “degradations” of the climate, and agrees with Calvin De Witt that “the common agent…is human action.”
2. “Everything’s going to burn up anyway.” This is the word of the “Eschatology determines ethics” apocalypticists, whom he counters effectively.
3. “Fear of paganism, nature worship and panentheism.” This case is a bit blurry, and demands more careful examination than he gives it, but his report is accurate.
4. “Higher priorities: save souls, not whales.” This is the oldest standard evangelical put-down; Lowe and others in the book really take that one on, and down.

Creation Care has a growing following among Southern Baptists too.

Bread Blog’s 2009 offering of letters

From Bread Blog, something to consider:

Are you a Christian hipster?

Brett McCracken says Christian hipsters don’t like:

. . . megachurches, altar calls, and door-to-door evangelism. They don’t really like John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart or youth pastors who talk too much about Braveheart. In general, they tend not to like Mel Gibson and have come to really dislike The Passion for being overly bloody and maybe a little sadistic. They don’t like people like Pat Robertson, who on The 700 Club famously said that America should “take Hugo Chavez out”; and they don’t particularly like The 700 Club either, except to make fun of it. They don’t like evangelical leaders who get too involved in politics, such as James Dobson or Jerry Falwell, who once said of terrorists that America should “blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” They don’t like TBN, PAX, or Joel Osteen. They do have a wry fondness for Benny Hinn, however.

There’s a lot more.

[Thanks to dotCommonweal for this. ]