Saturday, November 21, 2009
On Potrayal of Dalit icons
Here is an article on Ayyankali written by Anoop kumar of Insight magazine.
My thoughts on " Your request is being processed... Frank Schaeffer: Anti-Obama Religious Rhetoric Is "Trawling For Assassins" (VIDEO)"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/frank-schaeffer-anti-obam_n_362151.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree with the phobic reaction towards obama's occupation of the highest american office by a sizeable portion of the american populace.
I am talking about the negative impact of the psalm as a message for somebody to carry out unlawful acts against the president. I find the statement that verse 8 was chosen as a coverup for verse 9 as a means of avoiding prosecution, to be of loose bearing. Prosecution is a possibility even if verse 8 is considered, as it is the part of the same paragraph as verse 9 just as you have said. Such an argument could possibly not hold a grain of salt if a counter argument could be given that most sentences in the bible are read independently of one another as a common practice. Now, if this is actually common practice, then assuming that the verse 8 was advertized in order to cause physical harm to the president seems wrong.
The psalm verses were actually in full public view, but it would not be too wrong to assume that even filthier dangerous sermons wishing wrongdoings to obama are given in many faith houses in america. Especially the one's in the south.
I am talking about cause and effect relationship that the advertising of the 8th verse really has. It is not like the advertisement of the 8th verse was really required to cause some nutcases to pick up the bible and actually read the rest of the verses and make up his mind about what has to be done to obama. This is because if such a guy believes in the bible, then he is already the member of a church and his church must already have inculcated in to his mind about the actions he needs to take and he wouldn't really require an advertisement to make up his mind.
I don't see a necessary correlation between the possibility of harm to obama and the psalm, even though the question of a malicious intent cannot be totally excluded.
As I have said before, I am not totally up to date with the political situation in America. I wrote my previous comment after going over the rachael maddow show clip. Ms. Maddow gave me an impression that these verses were just some propganda item, because they followed some clips of glenn beck and bill o'reilly which had nothing to do with harming of the president. Neither were alternatives towards prosecution talked about instead she brought a guest who seemed to bolster her standing that it was a religious tone of the present opposition to obama that was different from other oppositions of the president and somehow the segment seemed to link religious opposition, bill o' reilly and glenn beck to verses that talk about harming obama. When I didnt see any logical connections in the same and neither did I see any discussions on methods of persecuting the verse advertizers, it seemed that possibly ms. maddow herself didnt look at the verses being of actual harm to obama, but were more of an excuse as a propoganda item for a smear campaign against the right in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree with the phobic reaction towards obama's occupation of the highest american office by a sizeable portion of the american populace.
I am talking about the negative impact of the psalm as a message for somebody to carry out unlawful acts against the president. I find the statement that verse 8 was chosen as a coverup for verse 9 as a means of avoiding prosecution, to be of loose bearing. Prosecution is a possibility even if verse 8 is considered, as it is the part of the same paragraph as verse 9 just as you have said. Such an argument could possibly not hold a grain of salt if a counter argument could be given that most sentences in the bible are read independently of one another as a common practice. Now, if this is actually common practice, then assuming that the verse 8 was advertized in order to cause physical harm to the president seems wrong.
The psalm verses were actually in full public view, but it would not be too wrong to assume that even filthier dangerous sermons wishing wrongdoings to obama are given in many faith houses in america. Especially the one's in the south.
I am talking about cause and effect relationship that the advertising of the 8th verse really has. It is not like the advertisement of the 8th verse was really required to cause some nutcases to pick up the bible and actually read the rest of the verses and make up his mind about what has to be done to obama. This is because if such a guy believes in the bible, then he is already the member of a church and his church must already have inculcated in to his mind about the actions he needs to take and he wouldn't really require an advertisement to make up his mind.
I don't see a necessary correlation between the possibility of harm to obama and the psalm, even though the question of a malicious intent cannot be totally excluded.
As I have said before, I am not totally up to date with the political situation in America. I wrote my previous comment after going over the rachael maddow show clip. Ms. Maddow gave me an impression that these verses were just some propganda item, because they followed some clips of glenn beck and bill o'reilly which had nothing to do with harming of the president. Neither were alternatives towards prosecution talked about instead she brought a guest who seemed to bolster her standing that it was a religious tone of the present opposition to obama that was different from other oppositions of the president and somehow the segment seemed to link religious opposition, bill o' reilly and glenn beck to verses that talk about harming obama. When I didnt see any logical connections in the same and neither did I see any discussions on methods of persecuting the verse advertizers, it seemed that possibly ms. maddow herself didnt look at the verses being of actual harm to obama, but were more of an excuse as a propoganda item for a smear campaign against the right in general.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Should the Marathis really trust Raj Thackeray
Where did raj thackeray make so much money from. He is not the son of an industrialist after all. Neither was/is a maverick of the workings of the share market. Can the motivation of a guy who made money through non-hard work actually be trusted, even if the guy makes statements that strike an emotional chord with the majority of his followers. Movie actors also play parts in movies, but the characters they play need not represent their values in real life. When an individual commits a sin against society, corruption being one of them, can the individual in all honesty stand up to the idolatory representation of an impeccable character in public, in the depth of his heart. If he does make statements in public as a means of survival in a valueless society may be his motivations can be excused. But if he takes an initiative to represents stands that do strike an emotional chord with a section of a society that demand a change, from what they percieve as a source of oppression, real or imagined; in such a case can his motivations still be excused.
Mr Thackeray does seem to represent a case of corruption amounting to a sum of 300 crore rupees. If such an individual is the poster boy for saving the marathi's from real or imagined threats, does it not speak tomes about the progress that the marathi's will make under such a leadership.
When a person really believes in his motivations, no matter how evil they may be to the liberal at heart, the base emotion that produces the motivation can atleast be understood if analyzed from a viewpoint that take in to consideration the fallacies of human nature. But if the motivations expressed are not even true to the core fiber that make up the individuals sense of integrity, then the question that needs to be answered is; how big of a crime is it, if such motivations fuel the drives for freedom, sacrifice and everything else innocent and noble in the collective conciousness of the group to whom the motivations are directed. The nature of this crime should really be be pondered over by people who can think and who do believe in the non-relativeness of the evil of acts involving brainwashing of innocents.
Where did raj thackeray make so much money from. He is not the son of an industrialist after all. Neither was/is a maverick of the workings of the share market. Can the motivation of a guy who made money through non-hard work actually be trusted, even if the guy makes statements that strike an emotional chord with the majority of his followers. Movie actors also play parts in movies, but the characters they play need not represent their values in real life. When an individual commits a sin against society, corruption being one of them, can the individual in all honesty stand up to the idolatory representation of an impeccable character in public, in the depth of his heart. If he does make statements in public as a means of survival in a valueless society may be his motivations can be excused. But if he takes an initiative to represents stands that do strike an emotional chord with a section of a society that demand a change, from what they percieve as a source of oppression, real or imagined; in such a case can his motivations still be excused.
Mr Thackeray does seem to represent a case of corruption amounting to a sum of 300 crore rupees. If such an individual is the poster boy for saving the marathi's from real or imagined threats, does it not speak tomes about the progress that the marathi's will make under such a leadership.When a person really believes in his motivations, no matter how evil they may be to the liberal at heart, the base emotion that produces the motivation can atleast be understood if analyzed from a viewpoint that take in to consideration the fallacies of human nature. But if the motivations expressed are not even true to the core fiber that make up the individuals sense of integrity, then the question that needs to be answered is; how big of a crime is it, if such motivations fuel the drives for freedom, sacrifice and everything else innocent and noble in the collective conciousness of the group to whom the motivations are directed. The nature of this crime should really be be pondered over by people who can think and who do believe in the non-relativeness of the evil of acts involving brainwashing of innocents.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Language and Politics Part 6
Might be I am goin completely off topic here and possibly goin in a philosophical direction. But only tamil or possibly sanskrit (even sanskrit language does have a historical relation to caste based slavery) can actually fall in the purview of being a national language. Hindi comes from hindavi dialect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindavi a language that actually came in to existence to help the islamic invaders, communicate with the native indian populations.In some sense hindi can be tied historically to enslavement compared to regional dialects. The concept of a unified india even came about because of the british invasion. Finding unifying clues in pre britsh past of india, will always cause us to come up with loopholes as no motivations for an unified india do come up.
A case for solidarity on the national level centred around an emotional affection for hindi against a regional language does not necessarily stand the test for nationalistic fervor if analyzed closely.
The reason that people in the north speak hindi compared to south indian states has more to do with the regions being under stronger mughal influence. This influence decreased as one went away from Delhi. Hindi had more to do historically with easing the mughal control over their conquered areas, rather than an emotional drive for unification based around the concepts of a free india. The historical use of the language had more to do with unification of the mughal kingdom and well beings of the mughal elites than the welfare of the people in the kingdom.
It is a well known fact that hindi is scarcely spoke in the southern belt of india. Demanding that these states show a bias in their affection towards hindi is more of an artificial construct, because the people of these states have no emotional history towards the language and whatever monumental moments in the history of their civilization as a part of the indian subcontinent, which give the people an identity inculcated with values of freedom, liberty among other things were played in the regional language rather than hindi.
When the framework for the indian nation was being put forward, it was initially suggested that there be 2 national languages with 2 centres of power. One in the north and other in the south. The only reason that such an idea was given up was because it would be an impediment against the conception of an unified india. It was not a question of emotion, but a case of practicality. However formation of states did not serve as an impediment in this direction as the union constructed of states as a whole, would be stronger than any individual state in general.
Every nation by definition has a language tht it defines as the natinoal language. Hindi was chosen only because it was spoken by the majority of indians. However as I have talked about above suggesting an emotional bias for hindi compared to regional languages as a requirement for display of patriotism falls short on quiet a few levels.
A case for solidarity on the national level centred around an emotional affection for hindi against a regional language does not necessarily stand the test for nationalistic fervor if analyzed closely.
The reason that people in the north speak hindi compared to south indian states has more to do with the regions being under stronger mughal influence. This influence decreased as one went away from Delhi. Hindi had more to do historically with easing the mughal control over their conquered areas, rather than an emotional drive for unification based around the concepts of a free india. The historical use of the language had more to do with unification of the mughal kingdom and well beings of the mughal elites than the welfare of the people in the kingdom.
It is a well known fact that hindi is scarcely spoke in the southern belt of india. Demanding that these states show a bias in their affection towards hindi is more of an artificial construct, because the people of these states have no emotional history towards the language and whatever monumental moments in the history of their civilization as a part of the indian subcontinent, which give the people an identity inculcated with values of freedom, liberty among other things were played in the regional language rather than hindi.
When the framework for the indian nation was being put forward, it was initially suggested that there be 2 national languages with 2 centres of power. One in the north and other in the south. The only reason that such an idea was given up was because it would be an impediment against the conception of an unified india. It was not a question of emotion, but a case of practicality. However formation of states did not serve as an impediment in this direction as the union constructed of states as a whole, would be stronger than any individual state in general.
Every nation by definition has a language tht it defines as the natinoal language. Hindi was chosen only because it was spoken by the majority of indians. However as I have talked about above suggesting an emotional bias for hindi compared to regional languages as a requirement for display of patriotism falls short on quiet a few levels.
Politics of Language part 5
Both thakceray and azmi are builders. The bihari's huts occupy a large amount of land that are a gold mine for the builders. Forced evacuations are not possible, hence azmi as well as thackeray are making such a scary drama taking things to the other extreme, so that the bihari's flee from these places, giving the builders access to these lands. Azmi and Thackeray both have to gain financially from this. It is possible that there is even an understanding between the two on this issue. Both are kaminey in this sense. As I said, it is the jobless marathi youth that are an easy target for inculcating violent repsonses, and these issues have to addressed mroe than, just looking at the picture at its face value.
The issue is unemployment but raj thackeray is diverting the anger towards other emotional issues. Take a look at germany for example. It was crushed during the second world war, hitler used the suffering of the german and the anger they felt and channelized it in to the hatred against the jewish community. The primary issue is not hatred towards non-marathi speaking people, because as you yourself have seen, raj thackeray does not go about bashing industrialists or gujarati buisness, in the guise that they are better assimiliated in a marathi culture.
Raj Thackeray would never go about attacking unemployment as he does not have the soultion to the problem, neither does he really seem to gain from it. Diverting the attention to emotinoal issues and picking out a community that cannot defend itself is tantamout towards diverting frustations of joblessness and other issues in getting and inculcating a sense of accomplishment among the unemployed frustated youth, because communiites that cannot defend themselves can always be manipulated physically to suit the desries of venting frunstation from real issues.
Also your issue about working hard rather than cribbin for something may sound like a good principle but in effect does not work as a partical principle. As I said, if it was the case of haryana too, if people from other parts of india came and took away jobs that the people of haryana wanted, then they would react violently too. Hence the founders of the country talked about founding of states on teh basis of linguage and common culture. This was just not done to enhance administrative procedures. Otherwise we would have had conglomeration of states speaking various languages making up a state. Formation of states on the basis of language has primarily to do with efficient and set distribution of resources. Domination of jobs in a state, by peole from other states, goes against this emotion shared by every state, and is far from being an exception but is the norm.
You can have individual disagreements on this issue, but the fact that this mentality is present in most states that make up india, shows the acceptance of such a mindset by the states that make up the country and hence india as a whole.
Also if you claim that the thinking talked about above goes against nationalistic emotions, then you are mistaken. A philosophy goes against nationalistic emotions if it goes against root emotions held by people of the majority of the states, this is not the case in what I have talked about above.
The issue is unemployment but raj thackeray is diverting the anger towards other emotional issues. Take a look at germany for example. It was crushed during the second world war, hitler used the suffering of the german and the anger they felt and channelized it in to the hatred against the jewish community. The primary issue is not hatred towards non-marathi speaking people, because as you yourself have seen, raj thackeray does not go about bashing industrialists or gujarati buisness, in the guise that they are better assimiliated in a marathi culture.
Raj Thackeray would never go about attacking unemployment as he does not have the soultion to the problem, neither does he really seem to gain from it. Diverting the attention to emotinoal issues and picking out a community that cannot defend itself is tantamout towards diverting frustations of joblessness and other issues in getting and inculcating a sense of accomplishment among the unemployed frustated youth, because communiites that cannot defend themselves can always be manipulated physically to suit the desries of venting frunstation from real issues.
Also your issue about working hard rather than cribbin for something may sound like a good principle but in effect does not work as a partical principle. As I said, if it was the case of haryana too, if people from other parts of india came and took away jobs that the people of haryana wanted, then they would react violently too. Hence the founders of the country talked about founding of states on teh basis of linguage and common culture. This was just not done to enhance administrative procedures. Otherwise we would have had conglomeration of states speaking various languages making up a state. Formation of states on the basis of language has primarily to do with efficient and set distribution of resources. Domination of jobs in a state, by peole from other states, goes against this emotion shared by every state, and is far from being an exception but is the norm.
You can have individual disagreements on this issue, but the fact that this mentality is present in most states that make up india, shows the acceptance of such a mindset by the states that make up the country and hence india as a whole.
Also if you claim that the thinking talked about above goes against nationalistic emotions, then you are mistaken. A philosophy goes against nationalistic emotions if it goes against root emotions held by people of the majority of the states, this is not the case in what I have talked about above.
Politics of Language part 4
If its a question of love then Mr Azmi could just utter 4 lines in marathi as a token of love for the state that he is livin in, for the oath taking ceremony and we would be done. What this agitation against the Bihari's by the MNS gets to, is the mass migration of the Bihari's in to Mumbai and their politicization around an UP/Bihari identity.
America was never centred around the english language, there are however certain precepts that the americans do hold dearly, and these do get tested in the event of application for american citizenships. Indian states are fashioned around linguistic identities. It is not the right to work that is the problem, it is politicization of the Bihari's in mumbai around a non-marathi identity that is the problem.
Also as I have stressed, lumpenization of the jobless marathi dalit/obc/maratha youth that is the real source of the conflict. They see themselves at the non-receival of the fruits of a supposedly booming mumbai, the fruits of which reach only a chosen few. And this anger, frustation and a feelin of hopelessness gets chaneled by the likes of a raj thackeray in to responses that diverge from non-violent means of expressing of grievances.
You have similar issues in poor countries like russia, where white power movements are the norm. These issues shouldnt really be judged against the ethos of a middle class looking glass, because it causes one to really isolate oneself from the actual source of the problem.
America was never centred around the english language, there are however certain precepts that the americans do hold dearly, and these do get tested in the event of application for american citizenships. Indian states are fashioned around linguistic identities. It is not the right to work that is the problem, it is politicization of the Bihari's in mumbai around a non-marathi identity that is the problem.
Also as I have stressed, lumpenization of the jobless marathi dalit/obc/maratha youth that is the real source of the conflict. They see themselves at the non-receival of the fruits of a supposedly booming mumbai, the fruits of which reach only a chosen few. And this anger, frustation and a feelin of hopelessness gets chaneled by the likes of a raj thackeray in to responses that diverge from non-violent means of expressing of grievances.
You have similar issues in poor countries like russia, where white power movements are the norm. These issues shouldnt really be judged against the ethos of a middle class looking glass, because it causes one to really isolate oneself from the actual source of the problem.
Politics of Language part 3
It is not just working. It is having a domicile and voting, it is standing
for elections etc. (Put up illegal huts, getting fake ration cards etc are
other issues). I am not going to bengalru and going to talk about voting
there while at the same time not even speak kannada.
I can come to america and work, but once I file for citizenship, the main
benefit of which is to get the right to vote, I am required to show
knowledge of american history, the motivation behind which is to show how
much american I am by heart. If Bihari's are coming to maharashtra to seek
domicile and to vote and decide the working of maharashtra then it is not
so wrong to demand them to be of the marathi culture. Demand for fluency
in marathi is not so wrong of a demand under such a case.
We are one country at the same time we are one citizen's of a globalized
world, just as barriers based on nationalities get put up on the basis of
how people identify with their conception of nationhood, similarly within
a country barrier do come up on the basis of language, religion caste etc.
Taking sides on the basis of country, language, caste, religion etc does
not necessarily imply that the intent is on division. A prime example is
the preamble of "unity in diversity". The principle of which india was
founded. The wisdom for the working of the nation as emboldened in the
country's consitution emphasises the emotional/social/economic
satisfaction of the diverse entities/identities that make up the country.
Unity as a principle without regards to these ground issues is really
following in the directions of the unwise.
Also most of these issues get decided by voting. Descision making in the workings of the country is decided by the age factor rather than stuff that is leant at schools. What I do or wht I say is really immaterial. What I am expressing here is just how I see the country really works. The reason that raj thackeray is not getting arrested, does not have a necesssary bearing on congress trying to divide marathi votes in urban areas, but it has more to do with the growing unrest and lumpenism in urban centres that finds a channel of expression throug the likes of raj thackeray. Plainly labelling him as a divisor just amounts to considering one's opinion to be holier than thou, instead of actually understanding the problem in all its generalities and depth.
for elections etc. (Put up illegal huts, getting fake ration cards etc are
other issues). I am not going to bengalru and going to talk about voting
there while at the same time not even speak kannada.
I can come to america and work, but once I file for citizenship, the main
benefit of which is to get the right to vote, I am required to show
knowledge of american history, the motivation behind which is to show how
much american I am by heart. If Bihari's are coming to maharashtra to seek
domicile and to vote and decide the working of maharashtra then it is not
so wrong to demand them to be of the marathi culture. Demand for fluency
in marathi is not so wrong of a demand under such a case.
We are one country at the same time we are one citizen's of a globalized
world, just as barriers based on nationalities get put up on the basis of
how people identify with their conception of nationhood, similarly within
a country barrier do come up on the basis of language, religion caste etc.
Taking sides on the basis of country, language, caste, religion etc does
not necessarily imply that the intent is on division. A prime example is
the preamble of "unity in diversity". The principle of which india was
founded. The wisdom for the working of the nation as emboldened in the
country's consitution emphasises the emotional/social/economic
satisfaction of the diverse entities/identities that make up the country.
Unity as a principle without regards to these ground issues is really
following in the directions of the unwise.
Also most of these issues get decided by voting. Descision making in the workings of the country is decided by the age factor rather than stuff that is leant at schools. What I do or wht I say is really immaterial. What I am expressing here is just how I see the country really works. The reason that raj thackeray is not getting arrested, does not have a necesssary bearing on congress trying to divide marathi votes in urban areas, but it has more to do with the growing unrest and lumpenism in urban centres that finds a channel of expression throug the likes of raj thackeray. Plainly labelling him as a divisor just amounts to considering one's opinion to be holier than thou, instead of actually understanding the problem in all its generalities and depth.
Politics of Language part 2
Blaming raj thackeray for gundagiri is not understanding the problem. I wouldnt go about doing this gundagiri, because I have a lot to lose. There are these youths without jobs, they get troubled at their own homes for not having jobs , and then people like raj thackeray come along and... Read More offer these youth a sense of respect in their localities. They make income by taking hafta from shopkeepers. These jobless dalit and OBC youth who make up these raj thackeray coterie's have nothing to lose in invoking violence and that is why you have a breakdown of law and order even in the highest office in the state. Blaming raj thackeray for gundagiri is just pointing at the symptom rather than the disease of uneven growth in india cities.
If marathi's plan to go to tamil nadu and excersie the right to vote in the legistative assembly elections, I don't see it as really wrong to expect the marathi's there to speak tamil. Rajnikant is a marathi and he speaks tamil fluenty. It is a question of culture and not ethinicity.
Also talking about the commando's that were sent to mumbai obvioulsy their sacrifice is respected. The mahar regiment fighters (made up of marathi mahars in those days) had a big hand in sending the pakistani troops back during the battle for kashmir in 1947( sorry if I don't the proper year). General Vaidya who was the head of operation blue star was a marathi. But marathi's don't demand to stand in legistative assembly electins in kashmir or punjab for that matter. They don't demand to go there and vote. Neither do they demand to speak in marathi if they do get elected in to legistative assemblies in these parts of india. One marathi guy had recently got elected in to the karnataka legistative assembly and he was actually given a minsters position, but they removed him from the post once they realize the guy couldnt speak kanada. I don't see anything wrong in their desicion.
The problem with abu azmi is not that he wanted to give his oath in hindi. Please realize marathis in mumbai know hindi too and will speak it like every other person. Its abu azmi's to not say the oath in marathi that is the real problem. It is these bihari's and UP people who want to show their dadagiri and spit at marathi culture that is the real problem.
If marathi's plan to go to tamil nadu and excersie the right to vote in the legistative assembly elections, I don't see it as really wrong to expect the marathi's there to speak tamil. Rajnikant is a marathi and he speaks tamil fluenty. It is a question of culture and not ethinicity.
Also talking about the commando's that were sent to mumbai obvioulsy their sacrifice is respected. The mahar regiment fighters (made up of marathi mahars in those days) had a big hand in sending the pakistani troops back during the battle for kashmir in 1947( sorry if I don't the proper year). General Vaidya who was the head of operation blue star was a marathi. But marathi's don't demand to stand in legistative assembly electins in kashmir or punjab for that matter. They don't demand to go there and vote. Neither do they demand to speak in marathi if they do get elected in to legistative assemblies in these parts of india. One marathi guy had recently got elected in to the karnataka legistative assembly and he was actually given a minsters position, but they removed him from the post once they realize the guy couldnt speak kanada. I don't see anything wrong in their desicion.
The problem with abu azmi is not that he wanted to give his oath in hindi. Please realize marathis in mumbai know hindi too and will speak it like every other person. Its abu azmi's to not say the oath in marathi that is the real problem. It is these bihari's and UP people who want to show their dadagiri and spit at marathi culture that is the real problem.
Rumblings around politics of Language
This abu azmi got what he deserved. Couldnt he have just learnt 4 lines in marathi. He is getting voted in to a maharasthra state assembly for heaven's sake. Question is not about the right to speak hindi, the question is his reluctance to speak in marathi. 100 marathi people gave up their life for the formation of the state of maharasthra. Sending messages that the marathi language is irrelevant in mumbai or maharasthra is heresy. If a sonia gandhi can be demanded to speak in hindi, if she is representing the voice of indians on a national stage, it should not be so far from impossible to demand abu azmi to utter the oath in marathi.
Also even though maharashtrian may not support the methods of raj thackeray, his message does strike a rapport with majority of maharasthrian, hence the unexpected turnout in his favour in the recent elections.
The formation of states on the lines of language spoken, was not just to ease in administration, but because of the strong sentiments of the people of these states towards their linguistic culture. Acts that hint at disrespecting of these sentiments do result in violent outbursts.
Also even though maharashtrian may not support the methods of raj thackeray, his message does strike a rapport with majority of maharasthrian, hence the unexpected turnout in his favour in the recent elections.
The formation of states on the lines of language spoken, was not just to ease in administration, but because of the strong sentiments of the people of these states towards their linguistic culture. Acts that hint at disrespecting of these sentiments do result in violent outbursts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
http://mediamatters.org/bl
didn't know how such puerile stuff was published in a respected newspaper. This seemed to be the only useful information in the rachael maddow clip
The rachael maddow clip seemed to be biased. She started with views put up by glenn beck and bill o'reilly, which even though were emotional, have nothing to do with criminal acts against president obama.
Then we have Mr. Frank Shaffer ranting about this psalm sticker issue and the example of a single nutjob carryin a gun during a rally, as a rallying cause for a blood revolution against obama. That pslam 109.8 does not even talk about killing. I cant believe that all these idiot right wingies are buying psalm 109.8 shirts and actually believin they are wearing pslam 109.9 shirts.
Mr. Shaffer even talks about mini messages put up by fox news asking god to kill obama. Arent these just conspiracy theories.
then he compares these guys to the taliban that quote the koran out of context. But the taliban quotes, explicitly talk about killing. Psalm 109.8 does not talk about killing.
The bible is a text which is written as a word of hope for a society that was either a slave to the forces of nature or to other humans. It was written as a word of god for a society tht was at the recieving end of life's ordeals. If there are passages in the bible that talk about freedom from a dictatorial occupier, it is natural to expect wish of evil doings happening to this occupier in the same chapter. If in the 20th century people that believe in the bible actually use quotes from the book to express their frustations against their present leader, these frustations should not be considered evil just because these quotes lie close to the "harm inflicting" quotes in the bible.
There is always a possibility of misuse. But putting up a conspiracy theory which says that the right wingers in reality wanted to inculcate their followers in to the language of pslams 109.9 etc in disguise of psalm 109.8, seems quite like a silly propoganda item or atleast that is the impression that i got by the presentation made by Ms. Maddow and Mr. Shaffer
Mr. Shaffer keeps referring to his book, seems like he is rabble rousing just to advertise his book.