All Comments (11)

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/t/

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/t/

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/t/

Martin Luther King was challenging society and willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, non violently, in the hope of raising human consciousness. I suspect he knew of the depth and fury of opposition that awaited him.

Jimmy Carter helped forge a lasting peace between Egypt and Isreal. Alerted Americans to the costs of unbridled energy use and benefits of conservation. I suspect that he may be as close as people will get to see how a Christian would manage the most powerful nation on earth in challenging times. Isn't it ironic that Christians under Jerry Falwell's moral majority were instrumental in his political defeat?

Al Gore also went against the grain choosing courses that challenged American perceptions and creed. Promoting multilateralism, sustainable developement, gun control and prudential fiscal management. He withstood the Supreme Court 2000 electoral decision with equanimity and grace. Like many, I suspect, that our loss was greater.

Real winners and losers discernment may take time.

RE:

Another Bible Belt Baptist for Peace

By Robert Parham

Al Gore became the third Baptist to win the Nobel Peace Prize, joining Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Martin Luther King in 1964.

How is it that three sons of the Bible belt have each won the world’s most prestigious award for their advancement of human rights, peacemaking and now earth care?

The Bible is surely part of the answer, the role Scripture has played in shaping their moral vision and values...
-------------

WESTERN UNIVERSALISM

"Color cannot be understood except in relation to the person who perceives it," physicist Pierre Demers wrote in the Foreword to the book entitled "Bill A Ri And There Was Light !" in http:www.contact-canadahaiti.ca.

He clearly confirms the relevance of this essay.

First of all, in fact, we thought it would be useful to consider the civilizational (politico-religious) attitude of the West toward the Blacks, before pointing out the deficiencies of present-day science, which is predominantly Western, in its perception of the Black Universe.

The Western political attitude toward the Blacks has for many centuries been determined by the perverse ruler-servant, master-slave, exploiter-exploited relationship. In order to normalize its policy of enslaving Blacks, Judeo-Christian civilization went so far as to use Christianity to legitimize what today we generally call "crimes against humanity", such as the racist slavery peculiar to the West. That situation was facilitated by the fact that the monotheistic religion, which had originally been universalist, soon limited its horizons to the boundaries of the Western world, while the other peoples — which it thought it had attracted — seemed to find themselves there in spite of themselves. Some might wonder whether the abandonment by the West of Christian universalism does not explain that inability of Judeo-Christian civilization to adopt a universalist attitude, not only in the political but also in the scientific realm.

As a matter of fact, present-day science, dominated for a few centuries by the West, can hardly claim to be "universal", since it is so deeply affected by the Westerners who perceive it. These people have — as we all know — lost any authentically universalist dimension. Did they not, by using and misusing the Bible, attempt to prove the superiority of Western Whites over Blacks and other colored peoples, limiting there too the vast universalist horizons of science to the very boundaries of the West? Everything seems to indicate that science is no longer universal; it is "Western", with all the consequences that implies for humanity and, in particular, for the Black world.

In other words, the Western approach, the Western way of thinking, is far from being scientific, neutral and objective; it is subjective and distorting. Such subjectivity and distortion manifest themselves still more obviously, as we have seen, in the realm of colors, and more specifically when dealing with the concept of "black". One must therefore bring into play the social sciences — history, sociology, psychology, psychoanalysis, political science, etc. — to understand that Western handicap. Indeed, as soon as it has to deal with "black", Western reasoning vacillates, making room for the irrational and its array of fantasies.

The author of the Foreword to this book, a physicist, under went a conversion in 1974, where by he would from then on wholly devote himself to the study of colors. He says that he has been attracted more and more strongly by the multidisciplinary and deeply human nature of the study of colors. He states that the "rational comprehension of colors cannot have the necessary depth, unless all the sciences are called upon: chemistry, biology, physiology, physics, and mathematics". He even insists: "Once more the human aspect intervenes. Man is both the creator and the necessary vehicle of all sciences. It is doubly true that there is no rational knowledge of color outside of mankind." He thus admits, as we do, though in a roundabout way, that the present understanding of colors leaves much to be desired. Is it not strongly influenced by the dominant contemporary civilization, polluted so long by prejudices against peoples of color, especially Blacks?

Such a serious Western handicap obviously hinders the forward march of universal science as well as that of all mankind. Both are victims of a racist — and therefore anti-scientific, selfish and limited — vision of the world. The case of Haiti, to use an example with which we are very familiar, is a symptom of the non-universalistic attitude of those who rule the world — the Westerners. Although it may still be possible to scientifically correct the erroneous vision of "blackness" fairly quickly, it is much more difficult to improve human behavior from one day to the next, since mentalities evolve rather slowly. In the meantime, we cannot help being aware that the West keeps dragging around its heavy burden of anti-Black prejudice, and that attitude is detrimental to both the Western and Black worlds.

That unfortunate situation has already been denounced by the legitimate "Ex-President" of Haiti, Jean Bertrand Aristide. Reacting courageously to the position of (Former) Pope John Paul II vis-à-vis the Haitian problem,with a feeling of indignation, in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on September 29, 1992, he reproaches the fact that "being rejected by all the states of the world, these criminals — the (late) Haitian putschists — have nevertheless been recognized by the Vatican, the only state that has elected to give its blessing to crimes it should have condemned in the name of the God of Justice and Peace." He also appropriately asks a rather legitimate question: "What would the Vatican’s attitude be, had Haiti been inhabited by white people?" He also wonders: "What would the attitude of Pope John Paul II have been, had Haiti been Polish?" Better still, in another speech delivered in Washington in January 1993, he unambiguously denounces the perpetuation of the political and economic domination of his country:

"Will Haiti, at the threshold of the 21st century, two hundred years after the Declaration of Human Rights, keep living, as it did in the 18th century, in a master-slave relationship, only the appearance of which has really changed, since 80 percent of the people live in abject conditions, being deprived even of the right to education, without speaking of the most basic freedoms?"

How profound and serious these questions are!

Has not the West, in its relations with the "peoples of color", always supported rulers who are docile slaves to itself, but tyrants to their own peoples? This was the case in Haiti, first of all with the dictatorship of the Duvaliers, and recently with the military putschists of the September 30, 1991 coup. Obviously, Aristide does not at all correspond to the "master-slave, slave-tyrant" model. Therein lies the explanation of the West’s ambiguous attitude regarding his return in 1994 to perform his legitimate presidential functions.

The Western attitude concerning President Aristide and his country is doubtless characterized by the deep hypocrisy which dictates the behavior of the Western leaders. In fact, after paying lip service to the exiled leader and his cause while still consolidating the illegitimate military power in Haiti, all of a sudden Westerners, fearing a possible massive Haitian immigration, showed a serious interest in the return to power of the legitimate President, Jean Bertrand Aristide. Nobody was fooled: the sudden humanitarian gesture of the American President, William Jefferson Clinton — or more precisely, of the American establishment — far from having been dictated by universalistic principles, seems rather to have resulted from what we call "Western politico-cultural fantasies" concerning Blacks. The Haitian refugees or "Boat People" were landing on American shores in increasing numbers. Were not those refugees seen by American politicians as a veritable "black tide" about to "pollute" the American "whiteness"? The so-called humanitarian considerations claimed on that occasion undoubtedly are due more to cultural fantasies than politics.

Suddenly, the legitimate Haitian leader’s charisma and credibility were perceived as a last hope against that "black tide" which
"White America" prefers to keep in Haiti, away from U.S. shores. Is that not a prelude to irrational behavior with regard to Western policies toward world migrations and the inevitable meeting of the "colored peoples" with the civilization of Judeo-Christian societies?

Be that as it may, like present-day science, whose universalism is now quite questionable, does not the reality of Western world politics distance itself from universalism to plunge into a quasi-particularism aiming only at the promotion and supremacy of the White world? President Aristide is right when he quotes the universalist Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, who states that "the visible opens our eyes to the invisible". Science, just like color, cannot be understood outside of the person who perceives it.

Lucien BONNET

Thank you for welcoming me.
SEE: "Bill A Ri And There Was Light!"
in http://www.contact-canadahaiti.ca

This article was first published in the Montreal daily, Le Devoir, on March 30, 1993, under the title: Science et Réalité (Science and Reality). It was also published in its entirety in La Presse, another Montreal daily, on April 23, 1993, under the title: Haiti versus les phantasmes politico-culturels occidentaux (Haiti versus Western Policito-Cultural Fantasies).

One of your readers here claims the Peace Prize is Swedish. That is not true. The Norwegian Parliament chooses the selection committee (Norwegian) which selects the winner. All the other Nobel Prizes are indeed Swedish, but not the Peace Prize.

One of your readers here claims the Peace Prize is Swedish. That is not true. The Norwegian Parliament chooses the selection committee (Norwegian) which selects the winner. All the other Nobel Prizes are indeed Swedish, but not the Peace Prize.

It is a SWEDISH prize not Norwegian prize set by Alfred Nobel.

If it is true that Mr. Gore's love and paternalistic feelings for the earth were influenced early on by Baptist teachings, then why are the Baptists, and especially the southern Baptists, so thoroughly hostile to environmental guardianship?

Mr.Gore says he learned the "purpose of life" in Sunday school. But he surely did not learn from Baptism that the purpose of life was championing environmental causes. This was a result of his own interpretations. There was something in him, innate--a love of life and the physical earth--that drew its inspirations from even unlikely sources.

Perhaps all of us, and surely myself, who were aware of a special love for the universe around us in our childhoods, were inspired by someone, or by a class in school, or by a toy, book or television program.

The only "religion" that I know may teach a reverence for environmental husbandry is the Unitarian Church.

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing from the Word of God"(Romans, 10:17)
Dear Brother in Christ,
Greetings from Pakistan.
I am Maclord Masih from Pakistan . I have studied your web site, and I found it the most wonderful site to get right to the True Word of God. I found that all your material is full of knowledge concerning development of religious faith. Living in Pakistan we Christians is to face many obstacles to get the access to the Word of God. Most of the people in Pakistan are not capable to understand the English language. It’s because our national language is Urdu. My suggestion for you is to create your material in my language of Urdu and Punjabi also. It will bring lots of blessings of the Word of God for the Pakistani and Indian Urdu and Punjabi speaking people. For that purpose I as a translator will bring your material into Urdu languages and into Punjabi language as well. Although it will take your low expenses as well, as fund for the Word of God to reach out to the deserving people. As a translator I will take the expenses that will be spending just for the Word.
“There is nothing more precious than to red and listen the Word of God into your own language."
Sincerely,
Maclord Masih (Pakistan)

Meanwhile, a terrible war rages on in Iraq. And a prize for peace is given again to those unassociated with stopping the war. Yes, the environment is a virtuous cause and yes, Mr. Gore's contributions are immense. Yet, shouldn't a "Peace Prize" be given to those struggling for and acheiving peace? I believe that it should. The argument connecting Gore's efforts to peace are interesting, yet they fail to address meaningful change in the midst of war. There are those on the ground in Iraq struggling for peace in the midst of terrible chaos. Can we recognize and reward them? Or do we have to than turn a blind eye on them for another year?