Public Intellectuals--Are they simply after fame or justice?

Ralph Emerson said it best. “The public intellectual is the world's eye. And he communicates his ideas to the world, not just to fellow intellectuals.” Emerson A public intellectual, in my mind, is not necessarily someone who has graduated from a prestigious school and has simply decided to speak his mind on whatever topic he deems to be important. A public intellectual is an all around individual, who discusses the needs of the average individual; he/she is an individual who tries to bring about change for the public. She is not an individual who's goal are to sell you many books as possible, but to bring about enlightenment to the masses. Emerson states, “ the intellect is a person who embodies all dimensions of human potential and actuality-- the farmer, the professor, the engineer, the priest, the scholar, the statesman, the soldier, the artist. Emerson So from my understanding, a public intellectual needs to present him/herself as an individual who is knowledgeable about issues concerning the poor, the middle class and the wealthy; an individual who knows what is important to people and what needs to be done.

Defining what a public intellectual is can be very controversial. When I think of public intellectuals I think of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth and Martin Luther King. When I read articles stating that Ann Coulter is among the top 100 public intellectuals, I think to myself, “Are we really out of influential individuals that we have resorted to putting a sexist, bigot, racist woman on the list.” We all remember Ann Coulter's comment against presidential candidate John Edwards. She states, “ I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word “faggot.” Coulter Another favorite incident occured, right here, on the USC campus. I watched her speech inside Annenberg School of Communication. I remember her implying we should nuke every country that gets in our way, similarly to how we “shut up the Japs.” Now if this isn't wan intellectual speaking, than I dont know who else would be classified as one? I mean come on!

The way I look at it, society needs to praise those individuals who want to bring about peace and harmony. All Ann Coulter represents is dividing up the country against those who are “true Americans” and those who are not. Who is she to divide up millions of people just because of what they believe in? She doesn't propagate change. She doesn't represent average individuals like myself. She doesn't stand up for my rights as a female. She doesn't believe in my right to vote as a female. I'm sorry, but, no matter how many books she has sold, she is not a public intellectual. Ann Coulter is simply out there to make money. Just because she worked for the Senate Judiciary doesn't mean squat if she's ignorant of concerns for the common folks like me. I don't despise her because she is conservative, I despise her because she is useless.

Observing the other side of the ideological perspective, we find Michael Moore. Now he may not have gone to Cornell, but he seems to be more intelligent than someone who simply blurts whatever idiotic thing comes to their mind. Michael Moore, to me, is an individual who tries to reach out to the public. With his documentary Sicko, he uncovered insurance issues that pertain to more than half of this country. He even received an Oscar nomination for it. Moore He took a chance. He made a film. He criticized the elite for not taking drastic measures. He discussed a topic that was important to the public. That's a public intellectual!

Personally, I can't give you a specific reason why some are regarded as public intellectuals, while others are not. What are the specific topics that need to be discussed in order to attract the attention of the public? Is it the issue of health insurance? Is it the issue of education? Is it the issue of poverty? What I perceive to be important might seem irrelevant to the next individual. The public intellectual needs to tackle issues that a majority of individuals can relate to. And I don't want an intellect commenting on some meaningless celebrity who has been caught driving under the influence, or which type of perfume attracts the male figure. Some topics should just be left alone. I don't care if you've discovered the perfect way to apply lip liner so your lips look full. I care about someone who is going to discuss my personal rights, my health coverage, education, the safety of my home and so forth. Another issue that conerns me is just because you've received a BA does not give you the authority to call yourself a public intellectual. Don't go around writing a book on how to save the Middle East, if you don't even know what countries belong in the Middle East.

Religion and Politics

Society has mistaken religion with faith. The way I distinguish religion is by attributing it to a church or institution. However, faith is an entirely different matter of subject. Someone who has faith does not necessarily mean they are religious. Faith is one's beliefs of values, morales, of how they look at their surroundings, and how they see themselves as playing a role in a very diverse world. When government and state's discuss separation of church and state, I believe there is a misrepresentation. This should simply mean that the Church should not have the authority to interfere with state business and vice versa. However, we all know that they both go hand in hand. Gandhi said, "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." Church vs State

One needs to realize while there might be a separation between church and state, there will never be a separation between faith and politics. One's faith, not necessarily meaning they are Christian or Muslim, determines their morales, their beliefs and how they look at government. There are many Christians who are anti abortion and there are many Christians who are pro choice. We cannot directly say that the Christian Church has influence on the state in regards to abortion laws. Taking the Catholic Church as an example, the church might condone abortion, but the state is not going to change it's status just to abide by the Church Institution's perspective.

When I hear people saying religion and politics should not interfere I always wonder what kind of a nation that would look like. Don't misunderstand me, I don't want my church making up laws, but I'm just skeptical of whether there will be enough people to ignore what the Church states. Growing up, being taught right from wrong, my parents never said, "As a Christian, you should do this and that." The religious affiliation was never even a factor. It was my faith in humanity that played a role. It was my faith as a moral individual do to right upon others, not because my church told me, but because of what I believed in.

The way I look at it is that most religions preach the same ideals; justice, freedom, respect towards one another, honor and loyalty. And in some sense, I want a government that is moral, that offers freedom to everyone, that offers loyalty to its citizens and so forth; not because they are Christian or Muslim or whatever, but because they are citizens of the United States. One noteworthy quote that President Bush stated was, "I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. " BUSH

The quote in itself, whether he believes it or not, is essentially significant into our understanding of how religion and faith will always be present in our society. I don't find it necessarily a bad thing when religion is used in trying to bring peace, but when religion is used to justify violence, then that's when everything becomes tricky Not one religion advocates killing. Some might say that the fundamental Islamists advocate that, but we must also not forget the Christians who were responsible for the many lynchings of African American individuals. We cannot, as intellectuals, generalize these actions by hungry driven individuals to the entire religion.

Noam Chomsky comes to my mind when reading about news articles that tend to generalize everything by one incident. In his "Clash of Civilizations” thesis on the power of religion he states that "religion is the central motivating factor in political tensions today." Chomsky It is a sad outcome where religion, the power of faith, the power of peace, the power of eternal happiness brings suffering to many people of all shades of colors. Whether one wants to admit it or not, religion plays a vital role in politics. It plays a vital role in war policies, it affects our economy, it effects every single one of us. Now I would want religion to be present to solve problems, not to create them. Am I being too optimistic for asking a favor like that?

While wanting religion to be present in solving every day problems, I definitely do not want it to force its rules and regulations on me. The liberals in essence are accurate in fearing that the Christian Right might interfere with their usual powers if they obtain higher power. In Stephen Mack's article, ClericIntellectual, Peter Beinart states,

"what liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through
the prism of theology, and there’s something dangerous in that. And
they’re right. It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when
you make public arguments, you have to ground them—as much as
possible --in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of
different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise you can’t persuade
other people, and they can’t persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there
must be a common political language, and that language can’t be
theological."

In essence, it is a necessity to keep religion and politics separate. Having one specific religious institution in control is going to isolate the rest of the community. There needs to be a separation of church and state. While I am not saying individuals in power should not be associated with a specific religion, they should NOT endorse their own religion over the other. They should NOT infer that their personal religion is superior compared to the rest. They should NOT create domestic or intetnational policies issuing attacks on other religions. They should NOT take away women's rights just because their religion condones abortion. Religion and state are two different sects. They should not interfere. They can coexist but should never intertwine.