Amy Sullivan: And in Other News...
Lost amid some of the understandably bigger headlines were a few stories that would have been remarkable in a normal election season. Up first, the country's first Muslim congressman has been elected in Minnesota. Keith Ellison, a lawyer and Muslim convert, won the seat held by longtime Democratic Congressman Martin Sabo. If I'm not mistaken, he is also the first U.S. representative who is not either Jewish or Christian. A step towards religious pluralism in Congress?
Also deserving of notice is the fact that ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage passed in five different states, by an average margin of 31 points. The fact that the federal minimum wage has not been raised in nine years is one of our country's biggest political shames. It's safe to assume the Speaker-to-Be Pelosi will try to change that come January.
Also deserving of notice is the fact that ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage passed in five different states, by an average margin of 31 points. The fact that the federal minimum wage has not been raised in nine years is one of our country's biggest political shames. It's safe to assume the Speaker-to-Be Pelosi will try to change that come January.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Wow. Same old crowd from several weeks ago. I ve got to give it to the regulars. The only thing worth reading on this blog is the main posts/articles. The insane are running the asylum. How can the Sojo supporters actually read these comments without their eyes rolling up inside their head and passing out? Let alone comment or respond back. Is it even productive to try and follow all the fringe arguments? Seems like at least one group on here is united the bloggers who think Sojourners is a defective element for change in society.
My observation thus far on how the number of REGULAR Sojo bloggers (on this blog) break down by category: Regular anti-Sojo bloggers high teens to low 20s Regular bloggers who agree with Sojourners - 10 or less Regular Sojourner Bloggers (a.k.a. Amy Sullivan, Rev. Wallis, etc.) 7 or 8
(oh goodie, love it when I get in from the beginning :). This should make for a valid representation.)>
Posted by: Frank | November 9, 2006 2:27 PM
I've got to say that I agree, Amy: "The fact that the federal minimum wage has not been raised in nine years is one of our country's biggest political shames.">
Posted by: Frank | November 9, 2006 2:30 PM
Amy said,"If I'm not mistaken, he is also the first U.S. representative who is not either Jewish or Christian."
I do not believe this. There must have been atheists and agnostics by now. I do know that Ellison is not the first anti-Semite, though.>
Posted by: timks | November 9, 2006 2:43 PM
I disagree Frank. I think if the minimum wage is going to be raised, it should be done at the state level since they are better in tune with conditions in their state. One size fits all means in actuality one size fits few or none.>
Posted by: timks | November 9, 2006 2:45 PM
The first non Christian/Jew? There were Unitarians clear back at the founding of the country. And do we consider Mormons Christian? Theologically no, but linguistically yes? Have any of the Asian congresspersons been Buddhist, Shinto, Anamist, or something else?
More to the point, how many of our politicians have held nominal church membership just to look safe to the voters?>
Posted by: Thomas | November 9, 2006 4:35 PM
timks
[One size fits all means in actuality one size fits few or none.]
How should the states do it? Within many of the states there is about as much variation in cost of living as across the nation. What would be a way to implement a better/just wage minimum?>
Posted by: Deryll | November 9, 2006 4:45 PM
I don't think Amy has done her research here. Ellison has a fiercely anti-Semitic past, and managed to get only half the vote in an EXTREMELY liberal district (the other votes were split evenly between the republican and the independent candidates).
Ellison says he's changed, but his change coincides with his political ambitions. Further, he does not represent any of the values Sojourners would support. I am ashamed to have him as my representative.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 9, 2006 5:02 PM
Thomas,
Unitarians have always been considered Christians. Also, religion is more than just a matter of cognition ("I believe X"). Cultural considerations are significant, which is why we should probably easily include Mormons as Christian. Nominality becomes irrelevant in this accounting.
Don't know about the Asian religions.>
Posted by: Matt | November 9, 2006 5:02 PM
Mahatma Gandhi was a Christian.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 6:25 PM
"How should the states do it? Within many of the states there is about as much variation in cost of living as across the nation. What would be a way to implement a better/just wage minimum?"
That's just it. It is a state issue that needs to be determined by the states.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 9, 2006 6:30 PM
[That's just it. It is a state issue that needs to be determined by the states.]
I'm asking for an idea as to how a state should do it. Kevin or Timks, how should, in your opinion, your states implement a minimum across different localities?>
Posted by: Deryll | November 9, 2006 6:42 PM
Justin--
"...and a Jew, and a Hindu, and a Musilim, and a Sikh..."
I'm paraphrasing his words. Go to the Gandhi website for the real quote.
Kevin--
So--anti-gay is okay, but anti-Semite is wrong?
Do me a favor--
Take this sentence (one you have used in various other threads on this blog)--
"Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry."
Now replace the word "Gays" with the word "Jews", and perhaps you'll get an idea of how disengenuous you sound attacking Ellison for his prejudices, when you have one or two of your own.
And you're ashamed of Ellison...
My point is--Prejudice is prejudice. It is wrong on general principle, no matter who it is against.
Which brings me back to the Gandhi quote (Thanks, Justin).
Do you think the world would be a better place if we as Christians took an honest appraisal of how disparagingly we treat the rest of the world's religions in general?
Gandhi did, and tried to find useful, nourishing ideas in all of them.
On our way to trying to behave in a more Christlike fashion, we might consider behaving more like Gandhi to be a logical step along the way.
It might be a more attainable short-term goal, since Gandhi was ONLY a man, unlike Jesus.>
Posted by: Matt Channing | November 9, 2006 6:45 PM
Well, a state that has particularly dramatic differences in cost of living might decide to defer to local governments. Or it might tie the minimum wage to local cost of living. Or it might create a county-by county schedule.
The point of letting the states take over minimum wage policy is that the states can try different approaches to their different problems and conditions. And if one emerges as clearly better than other states can emulate it.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2006 6:59 PM
Deryll - First, I don't believe that the country is no more varied than any individual state. As difficult as it may be to do at a state level, it is magnified at a national level. Given that it would be reached via debate and compromise the solution would in this case be one size fits few.
Second, if local legislators can't do it, why would we expect Congressmen to be able to do it who are further removed from the state?
Third, I don't believe the Constitution gives Congress these powers, but it doesn't prohibit the states from having these powers.
I think minimum wage legislation misses the boat, anyway. We ought to be working as hard as we can to eliminate or reduce the existing obstacles in the labor market that prevent job growth.
Who are we or anyone else to say what is a "fair" wage, anyway, if we aren't the ones who will be obliged to work at that rate if it turns out we're wrong?>
Posted by: timks | November 9, 2006 7:01 PM
Well to be fair Mormons calling themselves Christians is a recent invention of the church (as in the last 20 years.) Before that they saw themselves as different. It's hard to call them Christian when they don't believe he is the begotton son but one of many. I don't say this to belittle the mormon church. (Those days are over) but it has a long way to go in understanding the role of heaven in the lives of its believers and equality.
I think some unitarians I know would take offense to being labelled Christian but you are right they are.
Matt,
I agree w/ you completely about finding the universal truth in all world religions and using neutral practices to bring more union between the Godhead and the practioner. I plan on starting yoga in a few months, I have learned much from Native American worship practices regarding the great spirit and our connection to nature.
Sufi mystics are some of my masters, and they know more about Jesus than many evangelicals can hope to understand. Sufi mystics rock.
I am only now starting to understand the union of some Buddhist principles w/ Christianity. But as a practicing Christian mystic I have had the pleasure of seeing that all the great religions (and their mystical contingents)usually say the same thing. That message is love.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 9, 2006 7:59 PM
Gee...these comments seem more like a AoL chatroom, that actual commentary...
Anyway, I don't have a problem with a Muslim congressman being elected (as long as he was elected fairly).
It's better to have a Muslim in Congress than building a dirty bomb.>
Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | November 9, 2006 8:26 PM
So Kris,
Can we hear some of your commentary instead of really lame comments about a muslim winning the house?
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 9, 2006 9:53 PM
"Now replace the word "Gays" with the word "Jews""
Gays are allowed to marry. You may not marry someone of the same gender. The rights are equal, the situations are not.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 9, 2006 9:53 PM
Kevin--
Ah, antics with semantics...
Don't be obtuse.
You know that I meant gays marrying members of the same sex.
And you're wrong on both counts. The rights are NOT equal, and the situations are not only not equal, they are so unrelated as to qualify as a non-sequitur.
In fact, to again parallel this to religion, the anaology for what you're suggesting would be the same as saying to a Jew, "You can marry, as long as you don't marry another Jew".
The way for most people, gay or straight, to marry meaningfully, is to marry someone who they love, and love in a way that contains a component of sexual desire.
Imagine yourself marrying someone you didn't love, or to whom you had no attraction.
Maybe as long as she was straight, the above criteria would be negotiable....
And furthermore, what's this "You" business?
I hope you're using it in an editorial fashion, and not automatically assuming you're speaking to a gay person, simply because you find it hard to believe a straight person could be so passionate about gay rights.
It's a litte more general. I think bigotry in general is useless.
You're not a Jew, but you rightly disapprove of Ellison's anti-semitism.
I'm straight, and I think to deny gays the right to marry who they choose is as poisonous as a "sundown law" or "separate but equal" schools.
All of them prevent us from recognizing an idividual's basic humanity, and the right as a citizen to be treated in a fair, compassionate and just manner.>
Posted by: Matt Channing | November 9, 2006 10:31 PM
"Ah, antics with semantics..."
That's precisely what you were guilty of.
"You know that I meant gays marrying members of the same sex."
Which is why you're analogy between jews and gays doesn't work.
"Imagine yourself marrying someone you didn't love, or to whom you had no attraction."
I wouldn't marry.
"And furthermore, what's this "You" business?"
Whether or not you are gay, you may not marry someone of the same gender.
"All of them prevent us from recognizing an idividual's basic humanity, and the right as a citizen to be treated in a fair, compassionate and just manner."
I disagree. We are permitted the pursuit of happiness, but that does not mean we must acknwledge whatever it is that makes you happy. I would argue that there are valid restraints on the right to marry.
There is a difference between a government not acknowledging something and government forbidding an action.
If we wanted to forbid homosexual acts, we would be on a the playing field you describe. However, we are defining how a government interrelates with an institution.
The institution has religious grounding, to the extent that it has any real meaning. Therefore, we have made certain efforts to observe the religious history of the institution.
You can make the case that this isn't the proper path, but simply comparing jews to gays is insufficient in making that case.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 9, 2006 11:25 PM
Of the several Unitarians I know (actually, they are "UU's" - Unitarian Universalists), I believe that none of them would say they are Christian; they understand Unitarian Universalism to be quite distinct from Christianity. Several do consider Jesus to have been a wise teacher.>
Posted by: Pam | November 10, 2006 12:07 AM
Actually Kevin gay sex is still forbidden in several states as they believe it's a states rights issue.
You can check out the history here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States
Yah I had some angry Unitarian friends but most and I do mean most are Christian.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 10, 2006 12:54 AM
Payshun,
You missed Kevin's entire point (one I was about to make as I read this discussion and he beat me to it). You missed the general principle with a specific example. Since the phrase "non sequitur" has been thrown around recently, yours is an example. Abolishing sodomy laws and acknowledging gay marriage are two completely separate issues.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 10, 2006 6:15 AM
HAC,
No I understood Kevins' point I just did not agree w/ the premise. I see very little difference between the eradication of sodomy laws and denial of gay marriage. For me they are part of the larger issues of discriminiation facing the LGBTQ community.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 10, 2006 5:58 PM
Payshun,
You don't see a difference between the 2 and I (and most of those who oppose gay marriage) do. That it where we differ, and I think it is quite a profound difference.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 11, 2006 8:06 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?