Latest news with #Faustian
Atlantic
3 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Don't Degrade Church With Politics
In a court document filed earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service quietly revealed a significant break with long-standing practice: Churches will no longer risk their nonprofit status if clergy endorse political candidates from the pulpit. The change stemmed from a lawsuit brought against the agency by evangelical groups that argued that the prior ban on church involvement in political campaigns infringed upon their First Amendment rights. Their victory, though, may turn out to be a Faustian bargain: Churches can now openly involve themselves in elections, but in doing so, they risk becoming de facto political organizations. What may appear to be a triumph over liberalism could in fact be a loss, the supersession of heavenly concerns by earthly ones. Churches have long been divided over the proper role for religion in American politics. One approach has been to militate against the separation of church and state, insofar as that distinction limits what churches can do to exercise power in society. The IRS change, along with several others by the Trump administration, will soften that barrier, allowing churches to take on a much more pronounced role in electoral politics. Another approach has been to operate within the confines of that separation—which has produced some very noble results: a norm of discouraging churches from turning into mere organs of political parties, and an emphasis on forming the conscience of believers rather than providing direct instructions about political participation. A conservative 30 years ago might have preferred that latter approach, or at least said so. Back then, members of the right complained that Black churches frequently gave political endorsements or raised funds for electoral campaigns, and that the IRS neglected to enforce its now-eliminated ban, known as the Johnson Amendment. Yet by 2016, that dynamic had reversed, leading Donald Trump, then still a presidential candidate, to court the coveted right-wing evangelical vote by vowing to destroy the amendment once in office. A number of religious leaders took the implications of that promise and ran with them— an investigation by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica published in 2022 found that plenty of evangelical churches were offering endorsement despite the rule. The hope in paring down the Johnson Amendment is apparently that church endorsements will influence the outcome of elections in the right's favor. Elizabeth Bruenig: Progressive Christianity's bleak future But there's little reason to believe that church endorsements will do much in the way of persuasion. American churches have already undergone so much liberal attrition that, in practice, many right-wing evangelical pastors will be instructing their congregations to vote for candidates most members already intend to vote for. To the degree that broadly conservative churches retain some liberal members, endorsing right-wing candidates seems like just the thing to alienate them, which is a loss for those congregations as well as for the faith as a whole. Church intervention in particular electoral races is an efficient polarization machine. For that and other reasons, this policy shift doesn't really offer any benefits to Christians qua Christians. Providing political endorsements makes churches susceptible to powerful campaign tactics: PACs, for example, will have incentives to fund churches that reflect their agendas, meaning that pastors' livelihoods could come to depend on contorting their religious beliefs to suit political interests. Politically active congregants will also have good reason to lobby their pastors for certain endorsements, another source of pressure for church leaders to say that supporting a particular candidate is the will of God. And the practice of offering endorsements prioritizes accepting specific instructions from church leaders over cultivating Christian values and methods of reasoning that allow the faithful to determine which candidates to support for themselves. (Indeed, the Christian religion itself seeks to cultivate those very things for that very reason, rather than providing an itemized list of every behavior to perform and every behavior to avoid.) This is apparently why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement that Catholic clergy will still decline to make political endorsements. 'The Church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the Gospel,' the release read, 'so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good.' That is a much more logical way for church leaders to proceed. Dictating which candidates to vote for is at once presumptuous, assuming much more about God's judgment than can rightly be accounted for, and also nihilistic, assuming that churchgoers are so ill-formed in their faith that they can't be trusted to figure out the right answers to these earthly, prudential questions. Granting the imprimatur of the faith to ordinary charlatans—the most common breed of politician—is ill-begotten, and borders on sacrilegious.
Scroll.in
22-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Scroll.in
Sunday book pick: In ‘The Famous Magician', Argentinian writer César Aira weighs literature in gold
'Magic, he said, was very limited, limited to itself: it was what it was and nothing more.' Argentinian writer César Aira's 2013 novella The Famous Magician begins with the musings of a writer who resembles Aira in many ways. 'Past sixty and enjoying a certain renown', the writer feels he has 'already read too much' and there's nothing new that he really wants to read. In addition to this, he has hit a writer's block. But neither concerns him too much since he's past the age to worry about money and in his semi-retirement stage has mercifully realised that he has saved up enough. A Faustian dilemma One morning, when he's at a secondhand book market that he frequents, he meets Ovando, a 'fat, scruffy man, somewhere in between forty and fifty' whom the narrator (César) considers the 'residue of residue' of real booksellers. While he was predisposed to ignoring Ovando, something peculiar happens that morning which shifts César's sense of reality. Ovando suggests that he can 'bend' the laws of physics. Taking it as ramblings of a madman, the narrator jokes with him and shows him the different ways that he can mess with the laws of physics. Putting an end to the banter, he transforms a cube of sugar into pure, solid gold. He doesn't stop here – Ovando offers to take César under his wing. But there's a condition: he must give up writing. And what about reading, César enquires. Ovando solemnly says, 'It's a waste of time and dangerous for the purity of the soul.' Both reading and writing have to go. César is in a real Faustian dilemma: Should he surrender his soul? After years of 'laboriously' writing fiction and 'sweating away like Sisyphus', an opportunity of 'magical instantaneity' has finally arrived. César doesn't want to lose out on it but he's sceptical about giving up Literature. He decides to consult his friends (also intellectuals) and his wife, who is away. He'll have to email her. Even as the possibility of becoming a magician looms in his mind, he's not free of mundane obstacles such as the internet that stops functioning when he has to write to his wife or the work that demands his attention. His friends are intrigued by the offer but immediately shoot it down. The clause is too ridiculous – reading is harmful and that was why it was so 'cherished'. Moreover, his friends were no strangers to magic. One of them rubs a pencil stub between his fingers and transforms it into a Montblanc Bohème. This discovery saddens César, who rues that he has 'never lived'. All he has done is read and write and enjoyed the devotion of a handful of writers – 'a simulacrum of real life.' As he considers the offer and waits to hear back from his wife (who is wiser than Hegel!), César has to take a short trip to Egypt for a literary event. At the airport, he is subjected to humiliating interrogation and he starts to worry about how strict rules for international travel were stopping artists from playing rogue, an element essential for creating fantastic art. Sweating away like Sisyphus Too caught up in real life, César almost forgets Ovando's offer. The deadline has come and gone, and César has to give an answer. César, despite saying he has given up writing, cannot stop thinking about the many sleights of hand and tricks that he has employed in the course of his literary career to write fiction. He had polished rough ideas into shiny themes and plots. In fact, he has become so good at it that he is knowledgeable enough to teach and formulate theories. Like his friends and Ovando, he is also creating magic, albeit slowly and at great personal frustration. Over time, the gold cube loses its sheen and so does the Montblanc pen, whose nib becomes dull. And yet, it is César's laboriously constructed fiction that generates new meanings and ideas with every read. And much like magic, it demands the suspension of belief and an implicit trust in the written word. In The Famous Magician, author César Aira considers the entanglements of fiction and reality, including the tremendous power that an author holds in creating the world of make-believe while borrowing liberally from real lives. Between Ovand's transformation of sugar into gold and the narrator's concocting elaborate stories, the line between magic and creative power begins to fade. While the author's 'magic' is there for his readers to see – concrete and sure, the same cannot be said for Ovando's trick.
Spectator
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
How the ‘experts' got the grooming gang scandal so wrong
At this stage we can't predict what the government's new grooming gangs inquiry will say. But one thing is overwhelmingly likely: many will feel the heat. This includes police who stood back in the face of clear patterns of child sexual exploitation by young Pakistani men to avoid racial tension; social workers desperate not to offend their largely unassimilated Muslim clients; and councillors and politicians who said 'move on, nothing to see here' because of fears that Muslim voters might disown anyone who rocked the multicultural boat. With few exceptions, academics were some of the keenest to suppress discussion about groooming gang abusers' origins or ethnicity Even more interesting, however, is the light all this this has thrown on academia. With few exceptions, academics were some of the keenest to suppress discussion about the abusers' origins or ethnicity. Any reference to this, it was constantly said, risked spreading anti-Muslim racism, distracting attention from more important problems, 'racialising crime', ''othering' South Asian men' and characterising them as 'folk devils'. Paper after paper, seminar after seminar, was devoted to pushing variants on these themes. At first sight this looks odd. Police and social services at least had an incentive to make their jobs easier; so too politicians anxious about their voter base. But academics with no skin in this game? Why should they engage so hard in support of one side? Partly, one suspects, this may be due to the university environment. Ten years ago, a survey found 77 per cent of academics backed Labour, the Lib Dems or the Greens. Only 11 per cent were for the Tories. Today, the figure is possibly even more skewed. This doesn't just mean many academics are instinctively likely to support an approach based on racial identity politics. More seriously, all articles have to be peer reviewed. Peer reviewers within the humanities professoriate are only human. With the best will in the world, one suspects an article trying to minimise the relevance of ethnicity in favour of other factors is likely in practice to get an easier ride. But there is more to it than this. Few admit it, but there is something of a Faustian pact between universities and their state funders and providers of research grants, built on the fiction that in the humanities as much as in traditional sciences the state is investing in cutting-edge advances in knowledge. As a result, today's humanities academics, especially young ones with careers to make or lose, are pressured not only to produce more papers, but also to make their publications 'innovative', and in addition to strive for what is referred to as 'impact', a somewhat protean term that essentially means getting noticed by the great and the good. There are, put bluntly, big brownie points in getting called before a parliamentary committee or quango. The resulting incentive is baneful and perverse. Far from encouraging people to take a sober look at subjects like the sex grooming figures in Rochdale or Oldham and propose low-key, possibly unpalatable, measures to deal with them, the ambitious academic is much better advised to take a different, radical, line – indeed, the more radical the better. Much more attractive to university managers is the construction of new narratives based on theories of the impact of systemic racism or racist media, or on abstract notions of the 'othering' of particular groups. And there is the bonus that if you have radical ideas you're more likely to gain impact by being invited to address that parliamentary committee. This isn't necessarily to criticise the academics concerned. As often as not they have little choice but to promote their increasingly abstract and abtruse theories (many of which are intellectually dodgy owing to their tenuous link with empiricism and regular adoption of incomprehensible and conclusory jargon, but that's another story). But this phenomenon does have one very important result. Fifty years or so ago academics commanded a natural respect. If a professor pronounced on a social problem, with a few exceptions what they said was probably understandable to a layperson, soundly anchored in empiricism, and demonstrative of common sense. This was what made people take notice and take what they said seriously. Today, academics increasingly sound like just another part of the progressive commentariat, albeit with an annoying habit of unashamedly using increasingly esoteric words and, when challenged, insisting that it's not surprising we can't understand their high-powered science. That is their right. But there is also another side to this. If academics go down this road, they have little if any right to respect for their opinionated ramblings, and no particular claim to be listened to by government. We can only hope that the members of the grooming gang inquiry have the good sense to keep this in mind, and treat the earnest pronouncements of the new professoriate with the pointed scepticism they deserve.
Los Angeles Times
11-06-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Marquis Who's Who Honors David Hawk for Contributions to Corporate Rehabilitation and Environmental Strategy
Marquis Who's Who honors David L. Hawk for his leadership in corporate rehabilitation, sustainable business strategy and environmental advocacy. With a distinguished career spanning academia, corporate consulting and environmental policy, Dr. Hawk has influenced global business practices and challenged conventional models. Dr. Hawk's academic and professional journey reflects a deep commitment to system science, business ethics and sustainable corporate development. He earned a Doctor of Philosophy in system science and international business from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. He also earned master's degrees in architecture and city planning from the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor's degree in engineering from Iowa State University. Dr. Hawk's work in corporate strategy and environmental policy has made a lasting impact across multiple industries. As director of the Center for Corporate Rehabilitation, he has spent two decades helping organizations navigate structural challenges, redefine leadership and adopt sustainable models. His career also includes serving as a senior advisor at China Construction America. In that role, Dr. Hawk played a key role in the company's expansion into infrastructure, helping its parent, China State Construction, grow from $30 billion to $200 billion per year. In academia, Dr. Hawk served as dean and professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, where he influenced the next generation of business and architectural leaders. He also held teaching positions in other schools, including Tsinghua University in China, the Stockholm School of Economics and Iowa State University. Dr. Hawk's expertise has made him a sought-after consultant for global corporations. Notably, he advised IKEA in the 1970s and helped the company select Philadelphia as a key U.S. location. Throughout his career, Dr. Hawk has challenged traditional leadership structures while emphasizing the need for self-regulation in organizations. He has also advocated for a more sustainable approach to corporate development. Dr. Hawk has long been an advocate for integrating environmental responsibility into its business development. His groundbreaking research work while at the Stockholm School of Economics launched an initiative examining the relationship between industrial practices and environmental degradation. The project drew interest from six governments and 20 corporations and solidified Dr. Hawk's reputation as a leader in sustainable business development. Dr. Hawk's writings, including 'Short-term Gain, Long-term Pain: Climate Change as a Faustian Tragedy?' highlight the risks of short-term corporate decision-making at the expense of long-term environmental stability. Dr. Hawk has delivered lectures worldwide, including presentations for China's Leadership Council. He remains a vocal proponent of corporate responsibility in addressing climate change. Dr. Hawk's latest work explores 'Dimensionality,' a conceptual model aimed at helping individuals and organizations better understand leadership, social structures and decision-making. His research challenges traditional frameworks and offers new ways to approach corporate governance and human interactions. Through his work at the Center for Corporate Rehabilitation, Dr. Hawk continues to guide organizations toward ethical leadership, sustainable growth and self-regulation. His influence extends beyond academia and corporate strategy. His contributions have positioned Dr. Hawk as an influential thought leader in business, environmental policy and corporate governance. About Marquis Who's Who®: Since 1899, when A. N. Marquis printed the First Edition of Who's Who in America®, Marquis Who's Who® has chronicled the lives of the most accomplished individuals and innovators from every significant field, including politics, business, medicine, law, education, art, religion and entertainment. Who's Who in America® remains an essential biographical source for thousands of researchers, journalists, librarians and executive search firms worldwide. The suite of Marquis® publications can be viewed at the official Marquis Who's Who® website,
News18
09-06-2025
- Politics
- News18
Delayed Polls, Secret Doha Talks: Yunus Wants To Keep Power At Any Cost
Last Updated: The Nobel laureate today stands like a moral pauper, begging for more time to transfer power, surrendering governance to jihadis, and trying to make wily deals in the backroom 'Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." American politician Robert G Ingersoll's 1883 quote about Abraham Lincoln today perfectly fits a man of much-smaller stature, Bangladesh's chief advisor to the caretaker government, Muhammad Yunus. Not only has he struck a Faustian deal with groups like Jamaat-i-Islami and Hizbut Tahrir, released from jail hardened terrorists and Islamists, and presided over the massacre of opponents and minorities, he is now willing to do anything to indefinitely delay elections and stay on in power. The Nobel laureate today stands like a moral pauper, begging for more time to transfer power, surrendering governance to jihadis, and trying to make wily deals in the backroom. Yunus is even willing to compromise Bangladesh's security and sovereignty by offering the American Deep State the Chittagong corridor. Dhaka is thick with rumours that the newly appointed and controversial NSA to the Yunus government, Khalil-ur Rahman, secretly met Tracey Ann Jacobson, chargé d'affaires at the Bangladesh US embassy, at the Sheraton, Doha. Right after, on Thursday, the Americans apparently also met in Qatar the Emir of Jamaat, Shafiqur Rahman. The meetings were about handing over to the US the Chittagong corridor, which leads to the Rakhine province. Yunus's grand play involves bringing together the Jamaat and students'-led NCP, stalling elections, and keeping the BNP (and the besieged Awami League) out of power. To that end, he has announced elections in April 2026, pushing it back from the previously discussed December 2025. Bangladesh observers say the new April date could also be a hogwash because it coincides with the Islamic holy month of Ramzan, which gives Yunus an excuse to further delay or freeze it. It will become increasingly difficult for the Yunus government to continue enjoying power without electoral accountability. The Jamaat and other Islamist groups plan to extract a much bigger price by infiltrating every institution and Islamise full-scale in the name of reforms. Never mind it is politically, constitutionally, and ethically fraught for an unelected interim government to implement major constitutional reforms without democratic legitimacy. Only such no-holds-barred tampering with the Constitution can keep Yunus in power or bring in the Islamist-backed student party NCP without holding free-and-fair elections. But the Bangladesh Army leadership and the major political parties have smelled trouble. The BNP is likely to launch a mass agitation soon against the Yunus government's unaccountable self-extensions. The courts may also spoil the party for Yunus and his newfound band of jihadi boys. Bangladesh is staring at a fiery summer and a turbulent monsoon. Abhijit Majumder is a senior journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. First Published:
