សាលា ចំណេះដឹង មូលដ្ឋាន

Basic Knowledge Academy

សេចក្តីផ្តើម, ទិដ្ឋភាពទូទៅ INTRODUCTION / OVERVIEW

គ្រូបង្រៀន៖ លោកស្រី សេង ធារី (បរិញ្ញាប័ត្រ ផ្នែកវិទ្យាសាស្ត្រ នយោបាយ អន្ដរជាតិ ពីសកលវិទ្យាល័យ ចចថោន នៅវ៉ាស៊ីនតោន ឌីស៊ី; បណ្ឌិតច្បាប់ ពីសាលាច្បាប់ នៃសាកលវិទ្យាល័យ មីឈីហ្គែន, ហើយ ប្រហែល ជាជនជាតិខ្មែរ ដំបូងគេ ដែលបាន ប្រលងជាប់ គណៈមេធាវី ក្នុងរដ្ឋ ញូវយ៉ក)។ គាត់ មានបទពិសោធ ការងារ យ៉ាងស៊ីជម្រៅ និងទូលំទូលាយ នៅកម្ពុជា ចាប់តាំង ពីឆ្នាំ ១៩៩៥ (បង្រៀន នៅក្រសួងយុត្តិធម៌, ធ្វើការ ក្នុងវិស័យ ឯកជន នៅក្រុមហ៊ុនច្បាប់ អាមេរិក, ដឹកនាំ អង្គការ សិទ្ធិមនុស្ស ជាច្រើន); ហើយ សរសេរ ជាទៀងទាត់ អំពី បញ្ហា សង្គម, នយោបាយ, និងច្បាប់ សម្រាប់ ការបោះពុម្ពផ្សាយ។ គាត់ បានធ្វើដំណើរ ទៅគ្រប់ខេត្ត នៃប្រទេស កម្ពុជា យ៉ាងហោចណាស់ ៣-៤ ដង សម្រាប់ ការងារ, ច្រើនទៀត ក្នុងការដើរលេង។ គាត់ បានធ្វើដំណើរ ទៅកាន់ប្រទេស ជាច្រើន រាប់មិនអស់ នៅលើពិភពលោក, ទីក្រុងជាច្រើន ច្រើនដង។

Instructor: Ms. Theary C. Seng (International Politics degree from Georgetown University, Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School)

ប្រវត្តិរូបសង្ខេប | Curriculum vitae

អ្នកចូលរួម៖ មានមួយណា ក៏បាន—អាយុ ពី៥ ទៅ ១០០ឆ្នាំ; យល់ ភាសាខ្មែរ; មានបំណង ចង់រៀន/ចង់ដឹង; អ្នក ដែលគ្មាន ធនធាន/លុយ; ពលករ ចំណាកស្រុក នៅ ថៃ, ម៉ាឡេស៊ី, កូរ៉េខាងត្បូង, និងទីផ្សេងទៀត; លើកទឹកចិត្ត ឱ្យក្រុមគ្រួសារ ទាំងមូល មើល និងរៀន ជាមួយគ្នា, ហើយ បន្ទាប់មក ពិភាក្សាគ្នា, មុនគេង ឬព្រឹកថ្ងៃអាទិត្យបន្ទាប់ ពេលញ៉ាំ អាហារព្រឹក។

Participants: Ages 5 to 100 who understands Khmer and desires to learn/know, Encourage the whole family to watch and learn together, and afterward discuss with each other before going to sleep or the next Sunday morning at breakfast.

ថ្លៃសិក្សា៖ ឥតគិតថ្លៃ | Tuition: Free

More here...

...

The ABA / Clooney Foundation Report, 1 June 2021

...

I will be a regular panelist of CNRP America every Friday morning at 8:30 a.m. (Phnom Penh time) on its Facebook LIVE broadcasting.

...

...

Happy Khmer New Year

“The colors do not add humanity to these faces,” said Theary Seng, a survivor of the Khmer Rouge who has written a book about her childhood experiences. “Their humanity is already captured and expressed in their haunting eyes, listless resignation, defiant looks.”

The inhumanity, she said, was in Mr. Loughrey’s “inexplicable adding of makeup and a smile, as if to mock their suffering.”

...

It was between 95-100 degree F almost every day in March. Now, we are in advent of the real inferno, April.

...

...

Celebrating International Women's Day

Monday, 8 March 2021

Mathrubhumi Weekly

(Correction: Sunday night, 7 March 2021 at 8 p.m. Cambodia time)

Wounded Apsaras

...

My Guru for this Age

Andrew Sullivan

...

It’s Time to Talk About Violent Christian Extremism

There’s a “strong authoritarian streak” that runs through parts of American evangelicalism, warns Elizabeth Neumann. What should be done about it?

Politico | 4 February 2021

...whether the time has come for a new wave of outreach to religious communities, this time aimed at evangelical Christians. “I personally feel a great burden, since I came from these communities, to try to figure out how to help the leaders,” says Elizabeth Neumann, a former top official at the Department of Homeland Security who resigned from Trump administration in April 2020. The challenge in part is that, in this “particular case, I don’t know if the government is a credible voice at all,” she says. “You don’t want ‘Big Brother’ calling the local pastor and saying, ‘Hey, here’s your tips for the week.’” Neumann, who was raised in the evangelical tradition, is a devout Christian. Her knowledge of that world, and her expertise on issues of violent extremism, gives her a unique insight into the ways QAnon is driving some Christians to extremism and violence.[...]

Neumann: ...With the pandemic, you had what was perceived to be government overreach; you had social isolation, which is a known risk factor [for extremism]; you had some people with a lot more time on their hands because they were not commuting, not taking kids to ballgames and not going to happy hour after work; you had economic stress — another known risk factor — as people lost jobs or moved to part-time status; you had people who lost loved ones. There was this great sense that people had lost control; our lives as we knew them had been upended.

People who had a strong, healthy sense of self or community were able to mitigate their isolation. But for individuals already on the cusp, this made them vulnerable. We use that word, “vulnerable,” to describe people who are not necessarily radicalized yet, but have factors in their lives that make it easier for them to move on a pathway towards extreme radicalized thought — and then, for a smaller subset, mobilizes them to violence." ...

Neumann: "For people who studied disinformation, it became clear that the call was coming from inside the house. That kind of primordial soup makes conditions ripe for vulnerable individuals to move into this space. QAnon is not designed to be logical; it’s designed to meet these emotional and psychological needs." [...]

Over the last year or so, a number of evangelical Christian leaders have shared their alarm at what they’re seeing with members of their churches being pulled into the QAnon world. You are a Christian raised in the evangelical faith. Do you see anything about the evangelical tradition that could make its believers more susceptible to QAnon?

I really struggle with this question. I’ve been trying to figure out how it is so obvious to me — and I don’t mean to pat myself on the back. I actually do read the Bible. Yet there are people who read scripture and attend church but are also die-hard into believing the election was stolen or have gone down the QAnon rabbit hole. What’s the distinction there? I find that hard to answer.

There is, in more conservative Christian movements, a strong authoritarian streak, where they don’t believe in the infallibility of their pastor, but they act like it; they don’t believe in the infallibility of the head of the home, but they sometimes act like it; where you’re not allowed to question authority. You see this on full display in the criticisms of the way the Southern Baptist Convention is dealing with sexual abuse, which is so similar to the Catholic Church [sex abuse scandal]. There is this increasing frustration that church leaders have [this view]: “If we admit sin, then they won’t trust us to lead anymore.” But if the church is not a safe place to admit that you messed up, then I don’t know where is — or you clearly don’t believe what you preach.

The authoritarian, fundamentalist nature of certain evangelical strands is a prominent theme in the places where you see the most ardent Trump supporters or the QAnon believers, because they’ve been told: “You don’t need to study [scripture]. We’re giving you the answer.” Then, when Rev. Robert Jeffress [a prominent conservative Baptist pastor in Dallas] says you’ve got to support Donald Trump, and makes some argument that sounds “churchy,” people go, “Well, I don’t like Trump’s language, but OK, that’s the right thing.” It creates people who are not critical thinkers. They’re not necessarily reading scripture for themselves. Or if they are, they’re reading it through the lens of one pastor, and they’re not necessarily open to hearing outside perspectives on what the text might say. It creates groupthink.

Another factor is Christian nationalism. That’s a huge theme throughout evangelical Christendom. It’s subtle: Like, you had the Christian flag and the American flag at the front of the church, and if you went to a Christian school, you pledged allegiance to the Christian flag and the American flag. There was this merger that was always there when I was growing up. And it was really there for the generation ahead of me, in the ’50s and ’60s. Some people interpreted it as: Love of country and love of our faith are the same thing. And for others, there’s an actual explicit theology.

There was this whole movement in the ’90s and 2000s among conservatives to explain how amazing [America’s] founding was: Our founding was inspired by God, and there’s no explanation for how we won the Revolutionary War except God, and, by the way, did you know that the founders made this covenant with God? It’s American exceptionalism but goes beyond that. It says that we are the next version of Israel from the Old Testament, that we are God’s chosen nation, and that is a special covenant — a two-way agreement with God. We can’t break it, and if we do, what happened to Israel will happen to us: We will be overrun by whatever the next Babylon is, taken into captivity, and He will remove His blessing from us.

What [threatens] that covenant? The moment we started taking prayer out of [public] schools and allowing various changes in our culture — [the legalization of] abortion is one of those moments; gay marriage is another. They see it in cataclysmic terms: This is the moment, and God’s going to judge us. They view the last 50 years of moral decline as us breaking our covenant, and that because of that, God’s going to remove His blessing. When you paint it in existential terms like that, a lot of people feel justified to carry out acts of violence in the name of their faith.

Now, here’s the caveat: Some of that fear is not out of thin air. There is a real “cancel culture,” where you see a mob mentality swarm on somebody who holds a biblically based viewpoint on, say, gay marriage, and you see someone forced out of a position or lose sponsorships or advertising. But they follow that to what they think is a logical conclusion — that eventually, pastors will not be able to preach against homosexuality or abortion, and if [they do], they’re going to end up arrested and unable to preach. I’ve heard that argument made multiple times over the last 10 years. The irrationality is the idea that there are no protections, that the courts wouldn’t step in and say, “No, the First Amendment applies to Christians as well.”

It tries to assert that they are losing power and must regain that power by any means necessary — which is why you can justify voting for Trump, so that we can, for God’s purposes, maintain this Christian nation. But that’s nowhere in scripture. Scripture, when it talks about what “Israel” is in the New Testament, it explains that it’s the church — which is not owned by any one nation; it’s a global church. And even if somehow you wanted to say that the American church is what [scripture is] referencing, [the Bible] tells us [to do] the exact opposite of what they’re talking about. We are told not to seek power. We’re told to be humble. We’re told to turn the other cheek. Jesus, in confronting Caesar’s representative at his trial, says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” “My fight is not here,” basically. Our purpose as believers is to be salt and light; it’s not to force everybody else to hold our beliefs.

To fix that, you really have to go back to scripture. You can’t just be like, “Christian nationalism is wrong.” You have to go back to what the Bible says, versus what you were taught as an American Christian, where it was so interwoven. It took me a while to even discover it. Once somebody pointed it out, [I was] like, “Oh, my gosh. I was taught that, and you’re right, that’s not correct.”

But it’s a very hard thing for people to [address], because it requires acknowledging that how you were raised or the people that you trusted either intentionally lied to you or were just wrong. It’s hard. It takes humility to go there. It’s a hard thing for people to recognize and escape from. But sadly, it’s a security issue that we have to address, because it has led to this. [...]

Politico: There was a big movement in the ’90s called Seeker-Friendly Churches. Willow Creek [one of the most prominent of these churches] did a self-assessment about 10 or 15 years ago, and one of the things that they found is while they had converted people to Christians, there was a lack of growth in their faith. They were not learning the scriptures. They were not engaged in community. They were not discipling anybody. And [Willow Creek’s] assessment was: We failed. We baptized some people, but they’re not actually maturing.

Neumann: One of my questions is: Are we seeing in the last four years one of the consequences of that failure? They didn’t mature [in their faith], and they’re very easily led astray by what scripture calls “false teachers.” My thesis here is that if we had a more scripturally based set of believers in this country — if everybody who calls themselves a “Christian” had actually read through, I don’t know, 80 percent of the Bible — they would not have been so easily deceived.

Neumann: Pastors, church leaders, faith leaders — when you frame it that way for them, the answers start to come: “Oh, we know how to do this.” Usually, pastors have done a lot of counseling or shepherding in their lifetimes. They know that you don’t approach people head-on with dogmatic arguments; that tends to not work. You need to recognize that there’s often something else going on that has made somebody vulnerable to being deceived, and coming out of that deception can be painful and humbling. But faith leaders — the good ones, at least — are perfect for that kind of work. So even though the particular topic itself may be different than they’re used to, they have many of the skill sets you need. [...]

Neumann: Your question is about the government. And I’m intentionally avoiding that — in part because, in this particular case, I don’t know if the government is a credible voice at all. They probably would do more harm than good. The best thing they can do is provide fact-based resources — for example, threat briefings to educate [ordinary citizens] on signs of individuals who might be radicalizing into violence. Providing that information would be helpful, but you kind of want there to be a cut-out. You don’t want “Big Brother” calling the local pastor and saying, “Hey, here’s your tips for the week.” That’s just going to breed more conspiracies. What can government do? Well, they’re resourced to help state and local governments, to do research, to identify best practices, to keep us informed about the threats, to give grant funding for prevention work. But those concepts are inherently built around the idea that it’s a multidisciplinary approach. And when we say “multidisciplinary,” it’s mental health, it’s human services, it’s education. The disinformation problem is not going away. We can build more resilience. We can put more guardrails in place. But it’s going to be a problem for us for a long time.

Previous | All Random Posts

All BLOGs