I would argue that even though the methodology of futurism is limited that it still matters greatly as we are inherently future-oriented people and so the notions of what the future might be like that are floating around in our noggins matter a good deal for our actions today.

Futurists are entrepreneurs who seek to change the notions floating around in people's noggins and hopefully cultivate a professionalism in how they do so.

So We will see!

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at July 2, 2006 12:00 PM in response to Futurism

I'm jealous of your approval ratings...;)

I agree that mandatory school prayer is wrong. I'm a Swedish Baptist Pietist and so I tend to draw quite a bit from Anabaptist thought on this regard and think that the Constantinization of Christianity in the 4th ctry CE was a terribly tragic development, although Church-state relations were bound to change after Xty peacefully became recognized as a legit religion, despite its controversial opposition to Emperor Worship and other empty rituals to "the gods".

I also agree that Judicial language shd be matter of fact and pragmatic and generally neutral on matters of faith, as part of the importance of commanding respect widely from society.

As for Congress, I think that informal norms would suffice. What matters more is that we do not give more authority to a politician for simply using the language of faith, apart from what they are saying.

To the extent this happens, it is more a reflection of more shallow habits of political deliberation/action among religious people than a problem with the inclusion of some such language in speeches.

The real problem, as it seems to me, is that we need to get the foot soldiers of the Religious Right to scrutinize their and their leaders' decisions more, rather than forward attack their use of the language of faith in their activism.
dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at June 29, 2006 9:11 AM in response to Obama, Religion and the Blog Reaction

Gotta disagree. Intelligent exposure may be timed better for later on in their lives... Early on, they are too impressionable.

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at June 29, 2006 8:46 AM in response to The Trouble With Culture-Bashing. . .

I don't think the Seperation of Church and State is that concrete or wall-like.

Practically speaking, it is our convictions that cause political changes and religious beliefs have often been and still are the source of many of these convictions.

More often it's more a matter of whether people are permitted to use their language of faith while in the public square since, for some people this is the language they are more eloquent with.

It's true that one can make absolutist claims to power with religious language, but the same can be done with secularist language as witnessed to by Marxist-Leninism in the Soviet Union.

We all need to learn to get along a bit better now.
dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at June 28, 2006 6:56 PM in response to Obama, Religion and the Blog Reaction

I think things were better before Cable gave us way too many options bundled together.

There's something to be said for sheltering children from aspects of "real life" that we may come to appreciate later on...

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at June 27, 2006 1:00 PM in response to The Trouble With Culture-Bashing. . .

You probably need to define better what specific media market one has in mind and look at percentages to get a better notion of changes in media concentration. I'm guessing it's a complicated situation.

For there also is the problem of local issues more prominent in local media getting crowded out by a greater reach of nat'l and int'l media news sources.

I think media deconcentration can also have its own follies inasmuch as it leads to politicians having more bargaining power in terms of who it reveals information to.

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at June 18, 2006 2:56 PM in response to How Concentrated Is The Media?

thankyou for replying.

I agree completely that people are being manipulated here. I was not suggesting that people in states that have legal marriages for gay people rescind that right. I do think that a defensive move can prove to be a good offense and do not share your judgment on the cruelty front, because I see legal marriage as mainly a formality, rather than a significant advance over gay civil unions and other rights/benefits. I also believe that marriage is more fundamentally a religious bond and that legal marriage is a relic from the medieval days with no separation of Church and State. I believe that all LGBT issues need to be approached with empathy if not full agreement with the analogies made with the civil rights movement. I also believe that if a gay couple have been faithful to each other for years, they shd be esteemed for that on the same basis as a straight couple would be.

So if the real point is to gain wider social acceptance(not simply the formality of legal marriages), then why not declare a temporary fast and focus, for strategic reasons, on other family-oriented issues that are currently being skirted over by the religious right and prove to the country and the world that being for gay rights does not mean being against family values?

Actions always speak much louder than words!

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at June 10, 2006 8:31 PM in response to Inhofe, "American Exceptionalism," and the Wackiness of the Academic Right

I guess I would suggest that this relates more to adoption by gay parents than whether they should be able to legally marry.

It also doesn't separate out whether it was the fact of having two parents of the same gender or perhaps the fact that the parents emphasized their sexual orientation in their self-identity that affected the children's development.

I know we are sexual beings from early on, but I don't think we need to dwell on that aspect of our nature from early on.

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at June 10, 2006 8:16 PM in response to Inhofe, "American Exceptionalism," and the Wackiness of the Academic Right

that is simply inane reasoning that does little to explain why there are significant differences in cultural norms for our sexual behavior.

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at June 10, 2006 8:11 PM in response to Inhofe, "American Exceptionalism," and the Wackiness of the Academic Right

I oppose legal gay marriages on the grounds that it is largely symbolic and causes more heat than light due to how homosexuality is both chosen and not chosen and yet we tend to see it either/or and thereby associate this particular political issue with a whole host of other issues via the cultural wars.

I am calling on gay-rights activists to fast from seeking legal gay marriages for seven years, during which they can press for more concrete and less controversial rights/benefits for LGBT(as well as the importance of empathy in all dealings with people different than us.) and maybe championing pro-family policies to win greater public sympathy.

I would love to see gay rights activists make it so that the less economically-productive partner has more legal protections against a divorce.

I think that given the complicated nature of homosexuality that all comparisons with the civil rights movement need to be qualified some and that it is of paramount import that we not let gay-marriages become a significant wedge issue in this coming election.

Anyone else with me on this pragmatic suggestion?

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

Posted at June 8, 2006 2:49 PM in response to Inhofe, "American Exceptionalism," and the Wackiness of the Academic Right