Jump to content

Talk:Philip Berrigan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.88.233.70 (talk) at 17:03, 15 December 2005 (→‎Why I removed "'illegal' non-violent" in the description of Fr. Berrigan's activities). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nobel Peace prize

  • Along with his brother Daniel Berrigan, he was for a time on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list for illegal, non-violent actions against war, and was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Being nominated for the Peace Prize is an honor, but it is not official and not necessarily prestigious. Any national legislator or about a third of the university professors in the world can make a nomination, and there have been as many as 140 some years. Nominators are requested to keep their nominations secret, so it's only those wishing publicity who make announcements. Altogether, I see no reason to keep it. No offense to the subject, this is a general Nobel Peace Prize "nominees" issue. -Willmcw 07:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Why I removed "'illegal' non-violent" in the description of Fr. Berrigan's activities

I removed this phrase to improve credibility. I hope the original author takes no offense and would consider my reason before replacing it:

The scare quotes around "illegal" attracted my attention; scare quotes are usually used to indicate that the author finds the quoted term contentious, and, in many contexts, suggest a belittling of someone who would use such a term. That pouring blood over government documents and burning public records certainly are illegal should be beyond contention. Whatever contention there is, I would think, would be whether such illegal activities may be morally justified.

I would also expect there would be serious contention over whether arson is non-violent. This is an example of a case where scare quotes might infer a belittling of the use of a word; since I don't have such an intention, I think it's best to just strike the adjective altogether.

The original article is sympathetic to Fr. Berrigan. I'm not trying to suppress the beliefs behind that sympathy. I *am* trying let the facts speak for themselves. The inclusion of the phrase I removed would make the sympathy *appear* to many to be based not on the virtue of Fr. Berrigan, but on a lack of objectivity.