...or at least reactionary boneheads who cry foul just because it's cool to cry foul.
So Marshall University accepted a million bucks in order to establish its BB&T Center for the Advancement of American Capitalism. They accepted the money from Branch Banking & Trust under the condition that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged be "required reading" in a course on "the fundamentals of capitalism" (according to a Bloomberg.com article by Matthew Keenan available here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=as6BR0QV4KE8&refer=home)
The CEO of BB&T says the book is the best defense of American Capitalism he's ever read and he just wants to make sure it remains part of academic discussion.
Funny, though I love Rand's books, when I first read them, I never knew there was any controversy about them. I didn't see them as philosophical or economical or political or about any "isms". They were just cool stories about cool heroes with both admirable and not so admirable qualities. As far as I was concerned back in high school, all this crap about her morals or her politics didn't exist. She was a writer of fun books to read.
I still believe that.
And while I think it's pretty trashy of Coca-Cola or other corporate sponsors to all but own public schools in exchange for a pittance of a return of the the tiniest percentage of their profits on products that are as addicting as most illegal narcotics, asking that a book be one part of a larger curriculum doesn't sound like like much of a concession to me.
For one thing, BB&T doesn't stipulate what anyone says about the book, only that it be read. Basically all they're asking is that one additional perspective be added to a much larger discussion. Students and professors can take from and contribute to that discussion as they wish. I really don't understand the controversy. Well, OK, I do get the notion that a donation with strings is more like a bribe, but so what. Have you seen tuition increases lately? The schools who joined Marshall in taking advantage of the BB&T offer could say no, but given the relative innocuity of the condition, it seems amazingly illogical for them to do so simply on the grounds of some artificially derived moral.
Ironically (to me anyway) logic (as a moral) is one of the evil philosophies Rand takes fire for espousing. How bat-shit illogical is it that capitalists would criticize taking cash simply because it is given on the condition of having to read a book? I can see insanely stereotypical academic types complaining. That's their job, but why would anyone else? If you're a student, go to some other school without a big new business department. If you're a local employer looking for new MBAs, hire from some other school where the discussions in B school prohibit inclusion of certain ideas. That always leads to more well rounded graduates. And hey, if you want some viewpoint that you feel contradicts Rand's to be included as well, offer up your own million.
BB&T didn't ask that other books NOT be taught, just that one book be included. The English teacher in me tells me that's more like a good suggestion than a condition or attached string. It's a freaking BOOK, not some plug and play port into a student's (or anyone else's) hypothalamus. I think the best comment I heard about it is that you can't propagandize students. Granted, the guy who said that is likely to become the head of the new department at Marshall, but it's true. The country may buy propaganda for several years, but the microcosm of the nation that is a student body is a lot quicker to realize they've been duped and a lot more vocal about it once it's discovered. They tend to be a lot more skeptical of crap fed to them from authority figures as well. That same department head went on to say that they only accepted the money and the condition because the condition didn't stipulate what they discussed about the book, only that it be read. Had there been some hidden agenda, the project would have been doomed from the start by both the officials to whom it had been proposed as well as by the students on whom such a hidden agenda would have been perpetrated.
What really gets me though, is the whole notion that Rand or anyone else's ideas, written on a page, represent any kind of threat to anyone. If the concerns about this kind of threat were ever accompanied by a balanced thought from the other perspective, they'd almost certainly result in real intelligence. Unfortunately, they always stop well short of that.
Luthy
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Religious fanatics in Texas?! WHAT?!
This is pretty easy pickins, I know, and it almost NEVER happens... more than annually anyway. But it's a tough call for me to reach any kind of conclusion on it. I wasn't there. I don't know the facts. The case hasn't been tried on Fox or C-Span yet, so I really can't say for sure what might be going on down there.
After all, I'm as much for government staying out of my life as the next guy. On the other hand, government should provide some basic services and protecting children is one of them. In my humble opinion.
So for now, I'm going to assume the folks who filed the complaint alleging child abuse did so because they truly believed it was happening. (I know, I know, just like people who bomb abortion clinics) BUT, I'll assume that because they didn't just rush in with guns blazing, but rather, followed the law, filled out the paperwork, and allowed the wheels of justice to turn, ever so slowly, that the folks who filed the complaint were semi-reasonable. (or is it unreasonable to wait on the system when you believe kids are in danger?) BUT I'll assume that as part of due process, others with less personal interest in the case including judges, law enforcement officers and elected officials signed off on the complaints and pursued them with the diligence of a reasonable human, and that brings us to where we are today.
167 kids were removed from a fort - a literal fort - where they'd been shut off from just about every aspect of modern American society. Say what you want about modern American society, if you live here, you should have access to it. Now for the hard part. One of the LDS women described the raid in which the kids were removed as similar to what "Russians" or "Nazis" did. (Sounds like she could use a little more exposure to current events) There's some truth to that. Armed men raided a homestead (fort), pushing women to the side and taking children. That does sound a lot like terrorism.
But the really tricky part is that in their minds, these self-described fundamentalist LDS Churchgoers (I won't call them Christians just yet) were only doing what their faith told them was right. Or at least within their rights. According to their interpretation of the Bible, the way they lived was cool. And they do believe the Bible offers the guidance for their way of life. (Ok, NOW I'll call them Christians) Granted, they've dropped the violence of the Old Testament, and the lessons to be learned, but their beliefs, though slightly appended by more modern "prophets," are based in the New Testament. Fundamentalist LDS folk are LDS folk and LDS folk are New Testament Christians.
So, how does faith help solve this matter? And if it doesn't, then it's part of the problem. In the case of the 167 kids in Texas - abused or not? Drop the religious protection, and the choice is clear. Raid the place. It's a cult fortress. But put it back in the context of a religious organization, and it's no longer as easy to decide. There are religious freedom rights to consider, and those rights require absolutely no logical justification other than being called a religion.
So there you go. Our nation, founded on protecting religious freedom, is now damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we interfere on behalf of a 15 year old girl who may or may not want to be married to and bear the children of a 50 year old man with several other wives, we're fascists. If we don't interfere, we may be violating that 15 year old's basic human rights... so we're... fascists.
Sounds like a pretty easy decision to make like that... err on the side of caution, eh? But toss the religous argument into the mix and it's no longer easy. So by my moral standard (that which causes human suffering is bad/immoral) interfering is the way to go. While we may violate someone's religious beliefs, that alone doesn't directly cause suffering, and they'll have their day in court. If we're wrong, their lifestyle/religion will be restored. But if the girl really is being abused, held against her will, raped, then not interfering is condoning the abuse and furthering the suffering. That's wrong. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, eh?
I've read that one of the pre-cursors to the fall of an empire is that the empire becomes more "liberal" and its citizenry grows lazy, taking the fruits of the empire for granted. It's true, except for the liberal part. Because liberal means willing to consider other perspectives, making an effort to understand other points of view as long as those points of view can be defended with sound logic. That's not lazy. And requiring a logical justification isn't liberal or "secular." It's actually a lot of work requiring a lot of faith in the person espousing that other perspective. What's lazy is taking for granted the fact that a few key words absolve one from having to argue or defend one's position. That is decidely not liberal, not logical, and in the case of the Fundamentalist LDS folk in Texas, all the justification they need to maintain their compound.
Luth
Out
After all, I'm as much for government staying out of my life as the next guy. On the other hand, government should provide some basic services and protecting children is one of them. In my humble opinion.
So for now, I'm going to assume the folks who filed the complaint alleging child abuse did so because they truly believed it was happening. (I know, I know, just like people who bomb abortion clinics) BUT, I'll assume that because they didn't just rush in with guns blazing, but rather, followed the law, filled out the paperwork, and allowed the wheels of justice to turn, ever so slowly, that the folks who filed the complaint were semi-reasonable. (or is it unreasonable to wait on the system when you believe kids are in danger?) BUT I'll assume that as part of due process, others with less personal interest in the case including judges, law enforcement officers and elected officials signed off on the complaints and pursued them with the diligence of a reasonable human, and that brings us to where we are today.
167 kids were removed from a fort - a literal fort - where they'd been shut off from just about every aspect of modern American society. Say what you want about modern American society, if you live here, you should have access to it. Now for the hard part. One of the LDS women described the raid in which the kids were removed as similar to what "Russians" or "Nazis" did. (Sounds like she could use a little more exposure to current events) There's some truth to that. Armed men raided a homestead (fort), pushing women to the side and taking children. That does sound a lot like terrorism.
But the really tricky part is that in their minds, these self-described fundamentalist LDS Churchgoers (I won't call them Christians just yet) were only doing what their faith told them was right. Or at least within their rights. According to their interpretation of the Bible, the way they lived was cool. And they do believe the Bible offers the guidance for their way of life. (Ok, NOW I'll call them Christians) Granted, they've dropped the violence of the Old Testament, and the lessons to be learned, but their beliefs, though slightly appended by more modern "prophets," are based in the New Testament. Fundamentalist LDS folk are LDS folk and LDS folk are New Testament Christians.
So, how does faith help solve this matter? And if it doesn't, then it's part of the problem. In the case of the 167 kids in Texas - abused or not? Drop the religious protection, and the choice is clear. Raid the place. It's a cult fortress. But put it back in the context of a religious organization, and it's no longer as easy to decide. There are religious freedom rights to consider, and those rights require absolutely no logical justification other than being called a religion.
So there you go. Our nation, founded on protecting religious freedom, is now damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we interfere on behalf of a 15 year old girl who may or may not want to be married to and bear the children of a 50 year old man with several other wives, we're fascists. If we don't interfere, we may be violating that 15 year old's basic human rights... so we're... fascists.
Sounds like a pretty easy decision to make like that... err on the side of caution, eh? But toss the religous argument into the mix and it's no longer easy. So by my moral standard (that which causes human suffering is bad/immoral) interfering is the way to go. While we may violate someone's religious beliefs, that alone doesn't directly cause suffering, and they'll have their day in court. If we're wrong, their lifestyle/religion will be restored. But if the girl really is being abused, held against her will, raped, then not interfering is condoning the abuse and furthering the suffering. That's wrong. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, eh?
I've read that one of the pre-cursors to the fall of an empire is that the empire becomes more "liberal" and its citizenry grows lazy, taking the fruits of the empire for granted. It's true, except for the liberal part. Because liberal means willing to consider other perspectives, making an effort to understand other points of view as long as those points of view can be defended with sound logic. That's not lazy. And requiring a logical justification isn't liberal or "secular." It's actually a lot of work requiring a lot of faith in the person espousing that other perspective. What's lazy is taking for granted the fact that a few key words absolve one from having to argue or defend one's position. That is decidely not liberal, not logical, and in the case of the Fundamentalist LDS folk in Texas, all the justification they need to maintain their compound.
Luth
Out
Monday, March 31, 2008
Three Freaking Years!?
I can't believe Blogspot hasn't kicked me off their servers by now.
Those who know me probably aren't surprised to know that I would gladly argue about anything for that long. Can you imagine what life would be like for my co-workers or my family if I didn't empty my spleen in this forum once in a while? Someone should do some research on the longevity of marriages where 'blogs are present. I suppose it's no more than a higher-tech diary, but there's got to be a research grant out there for some pot smoker to maintain his slacker/eternal student lifestyle by studying those effects. (I'm just trying to do my part to support academia)
I had the flu a few weeks ago and was stuck on the couch for four days. At the urging of my co-workers, I finally watched Saving Private Ryan during that spell. (yup, saw it for the first time last month) I gotta be honest here, I'm not a war movie fan, and this movie wasn't much more than a war movie... like a million others only with a bigger budget... to me. However, the character study made it better as did the fact that Cpt. Miller was an English teacher in his previous life.
I also looked back through this collection of three years of crap (Poup, technically). When I read the whining I included during my Iraq days and compared my job and circumstances there to Captain John Miller's experience in the movie, I felt like a real baby. I recently read the Bronze Star award citation that a family friend received in Vietnam and felt the same way. But as I read through Poup 2005, and 6 and 7, I was pleased to see a theme of hope (early on, anyway) and healthy doses of humor so as to not take myself too seriously, throughout. That helped a little. But what allows me to stand by what I wrote back then in my naive youth, was the real frustration at the meaninglessness of the war. That's what I whined about more than anything. And it isn't any less real regardless of the cozy comfort I was afforded in Iraq.
I can't help but think that I would have felt that frustration in Vietnam too. I'm sure many troops did. The fictional Captain Miller believed he was saving the world from the Nazis, and retaliating against the Japanese, so that probably helped him, but what was I doing? What were those guys in Vietnam doing? What has our 4000th OIF troop died for? That frustration was real regardless of the relative luxury I experienced in Iraq and since the questions still haven't been answered, I don't back away from anything I wrote then.
I was fortunate enough to never see actual combat. Bullets hit where I worked. Rockets landed weekly where I lived and worked, but I never went looking for it. In exchange for that relative safety, I had too much time to think about when that luck would run out and why we were all being subjected to this - especially those whose jobs took them out of the safety I had. I'm not saying active combat roles would be more fun (duh) I'm just saying it's probably a little easier to accept the propaganda... or even forget about the lack of an overall objective when your immediate objective is staying alive for another few mintues, and keeping your buddy alive while you're at it.
I hope no one ever interprets anything I've written here in a way that diminishes that individual mission (of staying alive) that combat troops in this or any previous war face(d). I hope I've made it clear that I truly believe the majority of troops on the ground do what they think is right whenever they can and I deeply respect the sacrifices those less fortunate than me have made. The vast majority of American troops are good people doing the best job they can under crappy circumstances, both physical and political and they deserve all the praise we can give them. I just wish we'd save that extreme commitment and willingness to sacrifice for a worthy cause. The safety of knowing that people like those I met in Iraq are on our side, defending our beliefs, is comforting. Knowing that if a real threat ever were leveled on this country those folks would stand between that threat and us, is a good feeling. If only we had the same level of effectiveness in identifying those threats.
Over the years I've also been encouraged by the ability of our nation's civilians to distinguish between the stupidity of this war and the obligation of its soldiers. Returning Vietnam vets deserved that and many didn't get it. In fact, given that today's force is entirely volunteer and many of the Vietnam troops were drafted, I think we kind of got it backward. But the point is, when troops enlist, they don't get the option of a signing statement. They don't get to pick one war to sit out. When their president calls them, they go. I've heard it said that were there a draft today, we might see the same reactions to the war that we saw during Vietnam. Perhaps that's true, but I'd like to think not. I won't waste much time on it cuz it's hard to compare when today's advice is to "go shopping."
When I went to OEF, I wasn't 100% sold, but I figured the rest would be explained to me and to the rest of the world later... on a need to know basis, that kind of thing. We'd shoved the Taliban back into Pakistan putting a serious dent in the future of Al Qaeda there (granted, we'd armed them a few years prior, but hey, how did we know they'd turn out to be such jerks.) We even curbed poppy production in Afghanistan, ensured their first free election in a long time, and were well on the way to handing the Afghanis their very own version of a democracy. Life was good. My involvement was mild, and I came home with a sense of having contributed to something.
Then we all but abandoned the Afghanis to invade Iraq. Between the bad intelligence, the brilliant exit strategy, the fact that we've pissed off and inspired more potential terrorists than we've killed, that my grandkids will pay for it, that we re-elected the genius who took us there AFTER we saw his plans unfold with our very eyes, and there are no signs of stopping it, well, you know the drill.
That still pisses me off. That frustration is still very real... for the 4000 of ours dead and for the 100,000 plus others and so I'll probably keep writing about it and lots of other things that piss me off. I hope I can keep writing about it until it stops.
I'm a pretty lucky guy. I get to write about the things that make me smile on occasion too and with my military retirement now counted down in months, there's a lot to smile about. Just imagine what kind of stuff I'll put here once I'm free of the bonds of the Uniform Code of Military Justice!!
Or when I find out my career field is under the stop-loss provision!
Anyhoo,
Thanks for sharing the ride with me. Make no mistake, I do this primarily for my own entertainment but, like sex, it's always more fun when others are involved!!
I look forward to further involvement.
Luth,
Out
Those who know me probably aren't surprised to know that I would gladly argue about anything for that long. Can you imagine what life would be like for my co-workers or my family if I didn't empty my spleen in this forum once in a while? Someone should do some research on the longevity of marriages where 'blogs are present. I suppose it's no more than a higher-tech diary, but there's got to be a research grant out there for some pot smoker to maintain his slacker/eternal student lifestyle by studying those effects. (I'm just trying to do my part to support academia)
I had the flu a few weeks ago and was stuck on the couch for four days. At the urging of my co-workers, I finally watched Saving Private Ryan during that spell. (yup, saw it for the first time last month) I gotta be honest here, I'm not a war movie fan, and this movie wasn't much more than a war movie... like a million others only with a bigger budget... to me. However, the character study made it better as did the fact that Cpt. Miller was an English teacher in his previous life.
I also looked back through this collection of three years of crap (Poup, technically). When I read the whining I included during my Iraq days and compared my job and circumstances there to Captain John Miller's experience in the movie, I felt like a real baby. I recently read the Bronze Star award citation that a family friend received in Vietnam and felt the same way. But as I read through Poup 2005, and 6 and 7, I was pleased to see a theme of hope (early on, anyway) and healthy doses of humor so as to not take myself too seriously, throughout. That helped a little. But what allows me to stand by what I wrote back then in my naive youth, was the real frustration at the meaninglessness of the war. That's what I whined about more than anything. And it isn't any less real regardless of the cozy comfort I was afforded in Iraq.
I can't help but think that I would have felt that frustration in Vietnam too. I'm sure many troops did. The fictional Captain Miller believed he was saving the world from the Nazis, and retaliating against the Japanese, so that probably helped him, but what was I doing? What were those guys in Vietnam doing? What has our 4000th OIF troop died for? That frustration was real regardless of the relative luxury I experienced in Iraq and since the questions still haven't been answered, I don't back away from anything I wrote then.
I was fortunate enough to never see actual combat. Bullets hit where I worked. Rockets landed weekly where I lived and worked, but I never went looking for it. In exchange for that relative safety, I had too much time to think about when that luck would run out and why we were all being subjected to this - especially those whose jobs took them out of the safety I had. I'm not saying active combat roles would be more fun (duh) I'm just saying it's probably a little easier to accept the propaganda... or even forget about the lack of an overall objective when your immediate objective is staying alive for another few mintues, and keeping your buddy alive while you're at it.
I hope no one ever interprets anything I've written here in a way that diminishes that individual mission (of staying alive) that combat troops in this or any previous war face(d). I hope I've made it clear that I truly believe the majority of troops on the ground do what they think is right whenever they can and I deeply respect the sacrifices those less fortunate than me have made. The vast majority of American troops are good people doing the best job they can under crappy circumstances, both physical and political and they deserve all the praise we can give them. I just wish we'd save that extreme commitment and willingness to sacrifice for a worthy cause. The safety of knowing that people like those I met in Iraq are on our side, defending our beliefs, is comforting. Knowing that if a real threat ever were leveled on this country those folks would stand between that threat and us, is a good feeling. If only we had the same level of effectiveness in identifying those threats.
Over the years I've also been encouraged by the ability of our nation's civilians to distinguish between the stupidity of this war and the obligation of its soldiers. Returning Vietnam vets deserved that and many didn't get it. In fact, given that today's force is entirely volunteer and many of the Vietnam troops were drafted, I think we kind of got it backward. But the point is, when troops enlist, they don't get the option of a signing statement. They don't get to pick one war to sit out. When their president calls them, they go. I've heard it said that were there a draft today, we might see the same reactions to the war that we saw during Vietnam. Perhaps that's true, but I'd like to think not. I won't waste much time on it cuz it's hard to compare when today's advice is to "go shopping."
When I went to OEF, I wasn't 100% sold, but I figured the rest would be explained to me and to the rest of the world later... on a need to know basis, that kind of thing. We'd shoved the Taliban back into Pakistan putting a serious dent in the future of Al Qaeda there (granted, we'd armed them a few years prior, but hey, how did we know they'd turn out to be such jerks.) We even curbed poppy production in Afghanistan, ensured their first free election in a long time, and were well on the way to handing the Afghanis their very own version of a democracy. Life was good. My involvement was mild, and I came home with a sense of having contributed to something.
Then we all but abandoned the Afghanis to invade Iraq. Between the bad intelligence, the brilliant exit strategy, the fact that we've pissed off and inspired more potential terrorists than we've killed, that my grandkids will pay for it, that we re-elected the genius who took us there AFTER we saw his plans unfold with our very eyes, and there are no signs of stopping it, well, you know the drill.
That still pisses me off. That frustration is still very real... for the 4000 of ours dead and for the 100,000 plus others and so I'll probably keep writing about it and lots of other things that piss me off. I hope I can keep writing about it until it stops.
I'm a pretty lucky guy. I get to write about the things that make me smile on occasion too and with my military retirement now counted down in months, there's a lot to smile about. Just imagine what kind of stuff I'll put here once I'm free of the bonds of the Uniform Code of Military Justice!!
Or when I find out my career field is under the stop-loss provision!
Anyhoo,
Thanks for sharing the ride with me. Make no mistake, I do this primarily for my own entertainment but, like sex, it's always more fun when others are involved!!
I look forward to further involvement.
Luth,
Out
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Other's interpretations of my thoughts on faith
My wife was surprised when I said I'd love to go see my daughter sing in the church choir she was recruited into while attending a practice with one of her friends. I was on the road when I learned of this, and my wife's email was something like, "I know how you feel about it, but I'm going to church if she sings."
I told her I was going too and I feel great about it. So I thought I'd clear up what I think are some misconceptions about my recently congealed thoughts on faith.
Churches do good things.
Fellowship alone is enough reason to perpetuate their existence. In fact, in spite of what I suspect a lot of people actually believe, fellowship drives church membership anyway. That's a good thing. It reminds us that there's more to life than just us... we're part of a bigger system and our thoughts, concerns, needs, sometimes pale to the groups'. Whether being part of the group just broadens our perspective of our own concerns or whether it actually leads us to a more enlightened view of the bigger world, it's a good thing. It offers a lot of ways to improve our lot... different ways for different folks. It's really a good thing.
Philanthropy is a natural result of this fellowship. And the cool thing about this natural result is that the power of the group is such that it oftens exceeds the power of even the most altruistic individual. Strength in numbers comes both in the form of more hands to fill sandbags before the river crests as well as in the brainstorm-like creativity of feeding off of one another to creatively solve problems that one might not come up with alone. What's not to like about that? In fact, when it comes to service, philanthropy and fellowship often go hand in hand. I don't need to explain the role churches have played in doing good work in this respect. I'm all for it.
Prayer too is a good thing for humans. I'll put in my plug here for the Trinity United Church of Christ... the one in my hometown, not the one in Chicago! It was there that I "learned how to pray." I learned that prayer is really about introspection. It requires one to assess needs - ours and those of others in our world, to be thankful for what we have, and to think about what we can do to make the world a better place. What's not to like? The unexamined life is not worth living and prayer is a great tool for such examination.
It provides the focus that only thorough, serious introspection allows. How many people wander aimlessly through life, just paying their bills, passing their time, regardless of their actual talents and abilities, simply because they don't take the time to do an inventory... they don't pause for introspection... they never consider who they are, where they are, or what they might be capable of. Prayer really does address this, and folks who do it regularly, I have to believe, make much more progress toward self-actualization than those who don't. If only they sought such examination on their own rather than because they think they owe it to someone or something else.
So prayer, fellowship, and philanthropy are all good things, right? I have no argument with them and, at least in our society, they're all most readily associated with church. Churches do a lot of good things. There, I said it.
BUT... you knew that was coming, right?
It's my belief that each of these activities is inherently good. Service, Fellowship, introspection all have intrinsic value. Doing them is good for the sake of good, not because you expect the favor to be returned, not because you believe in kharma, not becuase you seek the approval of some ultimate authority, and not in exchange for everlasting life. In fact, performing these acts under the canopy of a church builds in the notion of reward... the notion of ulterior motive. Doing these things because your church expects you to, and promises you some reward cheapens the acts. I'm not suggesting there are no purely altruistic churchgoers, but by definition, faith offers a reward thus tarninshing the pure altruism associated with the actions.
Even if you could convince me that these acts, when performed by a church, are done without the thought of the church's promised reward - which you can't - there also exists the idea of the acts being accompanied by a price. The price of accepting the kindnesses of the church is also accepting the church's rules. No one will doubt the works of Mother Theresa in helping the poor throughout the world. Her personal sacrifice is without question and her actions speak loudly in support of her motivation - God's reward. Not only does this mean that her motivation was not truly altruistic (by definition), but she also adhered to policy that harmed as many people as it helped in order to be faithful to her religion. When condom distribution could have saved the lives of millions, she combined the message against it with her acts thus convincing her subjects that condoms were morally wrong, thus playing a small, but real role in spreading disease and death. Likewise, her church's beliefs regarding the subjugation of women were perpetuated by her actions, associated with her good deeds, and accepted by her subjects. Mother Theresa's lifetime of great service was inextricably combined with a lifetime of spreading ill-conceived "morals" which have perpetuated some of the most inhumane conditions that still exist throughout the world. This is only because her good work couldn't be separated from the message her church sought to spread. Her good works were a package deal... they came with a price.
Finally, consider how much more effective these good works might actually be if there were a way to spread them without having to associate them with mythical gods and strange, inexplicable, irrational rules. Differing interpretations of the Bible lead to divisions among different faiths. When introduced to instrinsically good acts through one of those faiths, one accepts the divisions and the rules, often to the point of not performing works one would formerly have believed were intrinsically good. If instead of using faith to convince people that altruism were inherently good, we could simply allow our individually chosen version of altruism to bring us together - without the baggage of ill-conceived "morals" or mythical creatures, how much more good work might we do? Granted, there would still be disagreements regarding which altrusitic acts were most useful, but we could toss the "my God is better than your God" crap right off the table and get to the real discussions, and solutions much more quickly. If science were allowed to proceed without the yoke of religious restrictions, how many diseases might we have cured? If protecting muslims throughout the world didn't dominate US foriegn policy over the last 20 years, how much more sense might our response to 911 might have made? If opposing sects of Islam wouldn't martyr themselves in order to eliminate the others, how much more stable might the middle east be?
We don't need the baggage of religion to forward the value of introspection, philanthropic service, and fellowship. The value of these things is inalienable and as such, independent of any religiously derived restrictions. The sooner we all admit that, the more effective we can become in those pursuits. Take prayer for instance. (I purposely left this out of the above treatment of prayer in order to say it now) If you didn't learn how to do it formally, like I did, you might think that uttering the words is enough... then you sit back and wait for God to make it so. Ironically enough, my church taught me that that's not how it works. My church taught me that waiting around for God to make the changes we can effect only makes the wait longer. Okay, the teacher didn't use those exact words, but I learned my action was a vital part. Faith, in general, however comes with the notion that our role is minimal and we can sit back and just leave it to God. It's worse than that in some cases... the Apocalypse not only urges us to just sit back and be powerless, it tells us we're all powerless to the impending DOOM! How can that possibly serve the purpose of mankind? What progress will that bring in our lives? How is it even remotely moral to follow that advice?
We don't need the baggage of faith to know that that which reduces human suffering is good aka moral. That which does not, is bad, aka immoral. That which actually causes human suffering, well, do we really need a church to judge that?
Churches do some good things. As humans, we could do better by dropping the baggage, removing the causes of violent division, and moving on. I'm not proposing outlawing churches, or a new version of the crusades or anything like that. I'm just making it my mission to lay out the process that led me to this conclusion. If I can save a few of those around me from wasting their lives, and getting closer to realizing their potential contribution to humakind, then I'll feel pretty good about it. In the meantime, I might attend a church function or two, if I believe the greater good can be served by doing so. I don't consider it joining the enemy, just the price of doing business. All I'm asking is that we do what we all know we can to reduce that price and make doing the right thing more affordable for everyone.
Luth,
Out
I told her I was going too and I feel great about it. So I thought I'd clear up what I think are some misconceptions about my recently congealed thoughts on faith.
Churches do good things.
Fellowship alone is enough reason to perpetuate their existence. In fact, in spite of what I suspect a lot of people actually believe, fellowship drives church membership anyway. That's a good thing. It reminds us that there's more to life than just us... we're part of a bigger system and our thoughts, concerns, needs, sometimes pale to the groups'. Whether being part of the group just broadens our perspective of our own concerns or whether it actually leads us to a more enlightened view of the bigger world, it's a good thing. It offers a lot of ways to improve our lot... different ways for different folks. It's really a good thing.
Philanthropy is a natural result of this fellowship. And the cool thing about this natural result is that the power of the group is such that it oftens exceeds the power of even the most altruistic individual. Strength in numbers comes both in the form of more hands to fill sandbags before the river crests as well as in the brainstorm-like creativity of feeding off of one another to creatively solve problems that one might not come up with alone. What's not to like about that? In fact, when it comes to service, philanthropy and fellowship often go hand in hand. I don't need to explain the role churches have played in doing good work in this respect. I'm all for it.
Prayer too is a good thing for humans. I'll put in my plug here for the Trinity United Church of Christ... the one in my hometown, not the one in Chicago! It was there that I "learned how to pray." I learned that prayer is really about introspection. It requires one to assess needs - ours and those of others in our world, to be thankful for what we have, and to think about what we can do to make the world a better place. What's not to like? The unexamined life is not worth living and prayer is a great tool for such examination.
It provides the focus that only thorough, serious introspection allows. How many people wander aimlessly through life, just paying their bills, passing their time, regardless of their actual talents and abilities, simply because they don't take the time to do an inventory... they don't pause for introspection... they never consider who they are, where they are, or what they might be capable of. Prayer really does address this, and folks who do it regularly, I have to believe, make much more progress toward self-actualization than those who don't. If only they sought such examination on their own rather than because they think they owe it to someone or something else.
So prayer, fellowship, and philanthropy are all good things, right? I have no argument with them and, at least in our society, they're all most readily associated with church. Churches do a lot of good things. There, I said it.
BUT... you knew that was coming, right?
It's my belief that each of these activities is inherently good. Service, Fellowship, introspection all have intrinsic value. Doing them is good for the sake of good, not because you expect the favor to be returned, not because you believe in kharma, not becuase you seek the approval of some ultimate authority, and not in exchange for everlasting life. In fact, performing these acts under the canopy of a church builds in the notion of reward... the notion of ulterior motive. Doing these things because your church expects you to, and promises you some reward cheapens the acts. I'm not suggesting there are no purely altruistic churchgoers, but by definition, faith offers a reward thus tarninshing the pure altruism associated with the actions.
Even if you could convince me that these acts, when performed by a church, are done without the thought of the church's promised reward - which you can't - there also exists the idea of the acts being accompanied by a price. The price of accepting the kindnesses of the church is also accepting the church's rules. No one will doubt the works of Mother Theresa in helping the poor throughout the world. Her personal sacrifice is without question and her actions speak loudly in support of her motivation - God's reward. Not only does this mean that her motivation was not truly altruistic (by definition), but she also adhered to policy that harmed as many people as it helped in order to be faithful to her religion. When condom distribution could have saved the lives of millions, she combined the message against it with her acts thus convincing her subjects that condoms were morally wrong, thus playing a small, but real role in spreading disease and death. Likewise, her church's beliefs regarding the subjugation of women were perpetuated by her actions, associated with her good deeds, and accepted by her subjects. Mother Theresa's lifetime of great service was inextricably combined with a lifetime of spreading ill-conceived "morals" which have perpetuated some of the most inhumane conditions that still exist throughout the world. This is only because her good work couldn't be separated from the message her church sought to spread. Her good works were a package deal... they came with a price.
Finally, consider how much more effective these good works might actually be if there were a way to spread them without having to associate them with mythical gods and strange, inexplicable, irrational rules. Differing interpretations of the Bible lead to divisions among different faiths. When introduced to instrinsically good acts through one of those faiths, one accepts the divisions and the rules, often to the point of not performing works one would formerly have believed were intrinsically good. If instead of using faith to convince people that altruism were inherently good, we could simply allow our individually chosen version of altruism to bring us together - without the baggage of ill-conceived "morals" or mythical creatures, how much more good work might we do? Granted, there would still be disagreements regarding which altrusitic acts were most useful, but we could toss the "my God is better than your God" crap right off the table and get to the real discussions, and solutions much more quickly. If science were allowed to proceed without the yoke of religious restrictions, how many diseases might we have cured? If protecting muslims throughout the world didn't dominate US foriegn policy over the last 20 years, how much more sense might our response to 911 might have made? If opposing sects of Islam wouldn't martyr themselves in order to eliminate the others, how much more stable might the middle east be?
We don't need the baggage of religion to forward the value of introspection, philanthropic service, and fellowship. The value of these things is inalienable and as such, independent of any religiously derived restrictions. The sooner we all admit that, the more effective we can become in those pursuits. Take prayer for instance. (I purposely left this out of the above treatment of prayer in order to say it now) If you didn't learn how to do it formally, like I did, you might think that uttering the words is enough... then you sit back and wait for God to make it so. Ironically enough, my church taught me that that's not how it works. My church taught me that waiting around for God to make the changes we can effect only makes the wait longer. Okay, the teacher didn't use those exact words, but I learned my action was a vital part. Faith, in general, however comes with the notion that our role is minimal and we can sit back and just leave it to God. It's worse than that in some cases... the Apocalypse not only urges us to just sit back and be powerless, it tells us we're all powerless to the impending DOOM! How can that possibly serve the purpose of mankind? What progress will that bring in our lives? How is it even remotely moral to follow that advice?
We don't need the baggage of faith to know that that which reduces human suffering is good aka moral. That which does not, is bad, aka immoral. That which actually causes human suffering, well, do we really need a church to judge that?
Churches do some good things. As humans, we could do better by dropping the baggage, removing the causes of violent division, and moving on. I'm not proposing outlawing churches, or a new version of the crusades or anything like that. I'm just making it my mission to lay out the process that led me to this conclusion. If I can save a few of those around me from wasting their lives, and getting closer to realizing their potential contribution to humakind, then I'll feel pretty good about it. In the meantime, I might attend a church function or two, if I believe the greater good can be served by doing so. I don't consider it joining the enemy, just the price of doing business. All I'm asking is that we do what we all know we can to reduce that price and make doing the right thing more affordable for everyone.
Luth,
Out
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama lacking experience?!
Even if the title of this post were true, is that such a bad thing?
Some folks whose opinions I generally value mentioned they were a little leery of Barack Obama because he, their words, not mine, “came out of nowhere.” Another person, whom I don’t know as well, but generally have pretty good regard for, added that Glenn Beck had been running commercials calling Obama the anti-Christ for this very reason. As though Obama’s amazingly rapid rise could only be the result of some supernatural intervention.
Since I’m still, perhaps naively, excited about the prospect of a President Obama, this concerned me. These folks, while perhaps a little more educated than the general population, are as Joe-beercan as the people I know get. I thought about their words the whole way home from National Guard duty last weekend.
I put it out of my mind for a while, but the other afternoon, while waiting for my daughter to find out that she needs new glasses (along with orthodonture and a new wardrobe, especially shoes) I ran across an article in TIME comparing the experience of the top three candidates - McCain, Clinton and Obama. I wasn’t surprised to learn that Hillary and Barack are actually pretty close in actual experience. Granted, Hillary was first lady for 8 years, but as Chris Rock says, “My wife’s been married to me for as long as I’ve been a comedian, but she’s never been on stage. She’s not funny.” (or something like that) Take away those eight years in the White House, and they're actually pretty close.
So when it comes to actual experience, though some of Obama’s was only at the state level, he may not be fully loaded, but he definitely didn't come from nowhere. I guess what strikes me most about learning this, rather than just having a vague idea about it, is that his political experience places him well ahead of our current president. Let alone the successful business ventures Obama has been a part of, just one of which places him well ahead of our current president, but hey, it's too late to worry about that, and as I've made obnoxiously clear, I didn't vote for the guy. Back to Obama... if elected in 2008, he'd be the 19th (out of 43) most experienced president we've elected, according to an article in THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES.
To complicate the issue even more, the TIME article covered the idea that experience isn’t a magic bullet. Kennedy, Lincoln and both Roosevelts had relatively limited political experience. Kennedy even cited his lack of it in his confession of mishandling the Bay of Pigs invasion. Yet each of these candidates was fairly well received and remembered. Along the same confusing lines, each of them faced situations for which no amount of experience could have prepared them.
On the other hand, many of our worst presidents, Nixon, Ohio's own Warren Harding (who even admits he was a bad president) had tons of experience, which, in each of their cases, turned out to be called patronage from another perspective. Add the current discussions about super delegates whose job it was, at one point at least, to prevent such patronage-styled ascendancies, and you’ve got a million questions to answer before you can cast a semi-intelligent vote. Good luck with that!
It's sad for me now that the Republican party has capitulated to its weak slate. For a while there, I was really thinking that for the first time in my voting life, a Romney vs. Obama ticket would actually provide two good choices rather than the lesser of two evils. Yes, I joked about Ron Paul, and seriously like some of his ideas, but he's crazy. Although, I have to admit, I'd probably go ahead and toss my vote their way if he teamed up with Ralph Nader!
As far as the Dems go, I concede that Hillary seems to be a very capable politician with whom I agree on several of the bigger issues, but my decision was made a while back when Romney and Obama emerged as the only contenders who did NOT cast a vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Granted, Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, didn't get the chance to do so, but that was good enough for me at that point. Still is. And that's the issue that pushes Obama far ahead of Hillary for me.
I admire John McCain. He's one of few senators who has routinely put partisanship aside and hammered out compromises and solved tough fights in the senate. I appreciate his service to the country as a service member and as a senator, but his war vote and his strange support of the president who conned us into it are the deal breaker there. I just can't figure him out and I'm not willing to gamble given the recent past.
Obama, on the other hand, may have limited political experience, but that's one of his most endearing qualities given the past 25 years worth of presidents. I like the guy like I like what I've learned about Bobby Kennedy. He's an idealist with the charisma to get things done. Some of those same people mentioned at the start of this post fear that people like their backwoods friends might shoot Obama because of the color of his skin were he elected, and we'd have to start over again, but I'm going to give today's secret service more credit than that. Granted, it's hard to stop a mad man even if the madness stems from psychotic ignorance, but I think we're a little better at those kinds of things these days... and I think, again, perhaps naively, that those secret societies who may have perpetrated such an attempt in the past have suffered a bit of a brain drain over the years. I'll put my money on the secret service getting better enough to take them.
Anyhoo, let's all put our collective brain power into staying out of Iran now that Bush has driven out William Fallon... yet another respected-across-the-board expert (who fought against invading Iran) to leave this highly praised administration.
Oh, and at some point, we've got to continue to discuss mankind's developments on the religious front. I'll leave you with this unoriginal thought:
The Greeks and Romans marked a great leap forward in reason when they reduced the number of gods they worshipped from many to one. We're poised to leave as our legacy the final chapter in the age of reason by continuing that trend if only we can reduce the number one more time!
Luth
Out
Some folks whose opinions I generally value mentioned they were a little leery of Barack Obama because he, their words, not mine, “came out of nowhere.” Another person, whom I don’t know as well, but generally have pretty good regard for, added that Glenn Beck had been running commercials calling Obama the anti-Christ for this very reason. As though Obama’s amazingly rapid rise could only be the result of some supernatural intervention.
Since I’m still, perhaps naively, excited about the prospect of a President Obama, this concerned me. These folks, while perhaps a little more educated than the general population, are as Joe-beercan as the people I know get. I thought about their words the whole way home from National Guard duty last weekend.
I put it out of my mind for a while, but the other afternoon, while waiting for my daughter to find out that she needs new glasses (along with orthodonture and a new wardrobe, especially shoes) I ran across an article in TIME comparing the experience of the top three candidates - McCain, Clinton and Obama. I wasn’t surprised to learn that Hillary and Barack are actually pretty close in actual experience. Granted, Hillary was first lady for 8 years, but as Chris Rock says, “My wife’s been married to me for as long as I’ve been a comedian, but she’s never been on stage. She’s not funny.” (or something like that) Take away those eight years in the White House, and they're actually pretty close.
So when it comes to actual experience, though some of Obama’s was only at the state level, he may not be fully loaded, but he definitely didn't come from nowhere. I guess what strikes me most about learning this, rather than just having a vague idea about it, is that his political experience places him well ahead of our current president. Let alone the successful business ventures Obama has been a part of, just one of which places him well ahead of our current president, but hey, it's too late to worry about that, and as I've made obnoxiously clear, I didn't vote for the guy. Back to Obama... if elected in 2008, he'd be the 19th (out of 43) most experienced president we've elected, according to an article in THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES.
To complicate the issue even more, the TIME article covered the idea that experience isn’t a magic bullet. Kennedy, Lincoln and both Roosevelts had relatively limited political experience. Kennedy even cited his lack of it in his confession of mishandling the Bay of Pigs invasion. Yet each of these candidates was fairly well received and remembered. Along the same confusing lines, each of them faced situations for which no amount of experience could have prepared them.
On the other hand, many of our worst presidents, Nixon, Ohio's own Warren Harding (who even admits he was a bad president) had tons of experience, which, in each of their cases, turned out to be called patronage from another perspective. Add the current discussions about super delegates whose job it was, at one point at least, to prevent such patronage-styled ascendancies, and you’ve got a million questions to answer before you can cast a semi-intelligent vote. Good luck with that!
It's sad for me now that the Republican party has capitulated to its weak slate. For a while there, I was really thinking that for the first time in my voting life, a Romney vs. Obama ticket would actually provide two good choices rather than the lesser of two evils. Yes, I joked about Ron Paul, and seriously like some of his ideas, but he's crazy. Although, I have to admit, I'd probably go ahead and toss my vote their way if he teamed up with Ralph Nader!
As far as the Dems go, I concede that Hillary seems to be a very capable politician with whom I agree on several of the bigger issues, but my decision was made a while back when Romney and Obama emerged as the only contenders who did NOT cast a vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Granted, Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, didn't get the chance to do so, but that was good enough for me at that point. Still is. And that's the issue that pushes Obama far ahead of Hillary for me.
I admire John McCain. He's one of few senators who has routinely put partisanship aside and hammered out compromises and solved tough fights in the senate. I appreciate his service to the country as a service member and as a senator, but his war vote and his strange support of the president who conned us into it are the deal breaker there. I just can't figure him out and I'm not willing to gamble given the recent past.
Obama, on the other hand, may have limited political experience, but that's one of his most endearing qualities given the past 25 years worth of presidents. I like the guy like I like what I've learned about Bobby Kennedy. He's an idealist with the charisma to get things done. Some of those same people mentioned at the start of this post fear that people like their backwoods friends might shoot Obama because of the color of his skin were he elected, and we'd have to start over again, but I'm going to give today's secret service more credit than that. Granted, it's hard to stop a mad man even if the madness stems from psychotic ignorance, but I think we're a little better at those kinds of things these days... and I think, again, perhaps naively, that those secret societies who may have perpetrated such an attempt in the past have suffered a bit of a brain drain over the years. I'll put my money on the secret service getting better enough to take them.
Anyhoo, let's all put our collective brain power into staying out of Iran now that Bush has driven out William Fallon... yet another respected-across-the-board expert (who fought against invading Iran) to leave this highly praised administration.
Oh, and at some point, we've got to continue to discuss mankind's developments on the religious front. I'll leave you with this unoriginal thought:
The Greeks and Romans marked a great leap forward in reason when they reduced the number of gods they worshipped from many to one. We're poised to leave as our legacy the final chapter in the age of reason by continuing that trend if only we can reduce the number one more time!
Luth
Out
Monday, January 14, 2008
Colts, Titans get what they deserve
Before I even start, let me clarify that I'm among the many Browns fans who believe the Browns sealed their OWN fate this year by losing a winnable game to the Bengals. I do NOT believe the Colts owed them anything, nor am I bitter because the Colts kept the Browns out of the playoffs. The be clear, the Browns kept the Browns out of the playoffs and though the taste was on the tip of our tongues this year, I'll take a 10 and 6 season as a giant step in the right direction and wait happily for next season as I am so accustomed to doing as a fan of Cleveland sports all my life. The following rant has nothing to do with that.
Now it's time. Tennessee and Indy got exactly what they deserved this week. After all, they quit playing professional football THREE weeks ago! While the Giants and the Patriots left it all out on the field during their last regular season game, with absolutely NOTHNG to gain from it, the Colts and the Titans seemed to forget that they were millionaire professional athletes whose sole purpose on game day is to entertain fans. I don't know about you, but I rarely find watching towels being thrown in entertaining, although in this case, had the throwing of towels been literal perhaps it would have been more entertaining than the actual end of that game!
In the case of the Giants, their end of season effort clearly propelled them over Dallas last night. Coming off of a serious threat to topple the great Patriot dynasty, they pulled off a huge playoff win. The NY defense had no business holding Dallas to only 17 points and hanging the hopes for a playoff game on special teams and a hit or miss offense is not exactly a safe bet. But the Giants learned how important showing up for the end of season games can be. They came out ready, not as thoroughly rested as I'm guessing the Titans and the Colts hoped to be, and pulled it off. So Eli will be playing while Peyton watches... just like Peyton did for the second half of the last regular season game. Apparently he likes to watch. Good for him. He's got the entire off season to do it now. He, his teammates, and the Titans deserve it.
I had to get that out of my system.
Luth
Now it's time. Tennessee and Indy got exactly what they deserved this week. After all, they quit playing professional football THREE weeks ago! While the Giants and the Patriots left it all out on the field during their last regular season game, with absolutely NOTHNG to gain from it, the Colts and the Titans seemed to forget that they were millionaire professional athletes whose sole purpose on game day is to entertain fans. I don't know about you, but I rarely find watching towels being thrown in entertaining, although in this case, had the throwing of towels been literal perhaps it would have been more entertaining than the actual end of that game!
In the case of the Giants, their end of season effort clearly propelled them over Dallas last night. Coming off of a serious threat to topple the great Patriot dynasty, they pulled off a huge playoff win. The NY defense had no business holding Dallas to only 17 points and hanging the hopes for a playoff game on special teams and a hit or miss offense is not exactly a safe bet. But the Giants learned how important showing up for the end of season games can be. They came out ready, not as thoroughly rested as I'm guessing the Titans and the Colts hoped to be, and pulled it off. So Eli will be playing while Peyton watches... just like Peyton did for the second half of the last regular season game. Apparently he likes to watch. Good for him. He's got the entire off season to do it now. He, his teammates, and the Titans deserve it.
I had to get that out of my system.
Luth
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Led Zeppelin and the source of all knowledge
Boy did I ever miss that call about the BCS Championship! Not only did I not celebrate a victory, I didn’t even see most of the last half. That roughing the kicker penalty in the first drive of the second half was all I could stand. Ah well, as a northern Ohio football fan through and through, I’m not stranger to these words: next season.
I just got back from dropping off a neighbor girl who was hanging out with my daughters tonight. On the way there, the opening notes of Stairway to Heaven caught my ears as I scanned the local radio stations. I don’t know if it’s because I recently read the Rolling Stone article about the band’s London reunion/fundraiser and that planted some kind of seed or if it’s because my LPs have been in a box for about 15 years, but I was compelled to drive around the block a couple of times to hear the whole song, gradually turning up the volume until we pulled in the driveway just in time to hear Robert Plant’s final pleading cry.
I haven’t WANTED to listen to a Led Zeppelin song in a long time, but for some reason, it sounded pretty darned good tonight. In fact, I might dig out the one Zep CD I have just to make sure it wasn’t a fluke.
For a long time I’ve pulled a random CD off the rack and tossed it in my truck just to listen to something I haven’t heard in a while, but the closest to classic rock I’ve listened to was maybe The Clash or The Kinks. The desire to grab something like Aerosmith or AC DC just went away like my childhood love of macaroni and cheese after living on it through the college years.
Now that I think about it, the mac and cheese jones came back for a while too after my kids started liking it… peanut butter and jelly kind of worked that way too. Until I’d made both for my kids, I probably went close to a decade without even considering eating either of those two delicacies. I wonder if that’s why fashion trends always come back around too. One of the surest signs that something will come back is when some expert says it won’t.
When it comes to my musical likes and dislikes, I suppose I’m the expert, and I know classic rock suffered some dark days (in the case of my taste) after its resurgence on FM radio throughout my high school and college days. By then, most of my friends and I had just about had our fill and were really waiting for the next big thing to happen in rock music. About the time the radio stations decided for us that there was no new rock music worth listening to, we had grown weary of the 1000th playing of Freebird, Stairway and Light My Fire. I’m sure we weren’t alone, but the radio offered little in the way of hope, until, alas, musicians forced their hand, but radio, in its hubris, couldn’t admit that rock lived on and had to call the latest wave of new rock, “alternative,” and at that moment true rock and roll finally belched forth its death rattle.
Sure the hair bands gave it their all. Techno-punk like Akron’s own Devo and a few other strange oddities of the 80’s didn’t exactly force radio to admit they might have been wrong about forcing 20 year old songs down our ears rather than rolling with the changes, but that was pretty much it for the evolution of rock and roll. If any new rock music existed, from that moment forward it had to call itself alternative.
I’m not sure why this is pouring out of me tonight… I guess I just had to share the Stairway story ‘cuz it really did sound good. And not in some longing for the old days way, but just good, like rain on the roof as you lay in bed or a harmonica crying through a valley. No memory was necessarily associated with it. It was just a cool song again… after years of switching to the CD player or hitting search on the tuner when one of those classic songs came on in the past.
As I type this it occurs to me that this is somehow twisted up in a recurring thought I’ve been coming back to lately. It’s the result of the many debates, discussions and even arguments I had while a graduate student of rhetoric: where does knowledge come from? The specific version of this for students of rhetoric is, are words the source of/creators of knowledge, or do words form later out of necessity to describe a pre-existing truth that’s just “out there?”
Fashion trends obviously are influenced by culture and society, but I don’t know if I can buy that about my musical tastes. I mean, I’m sure culture and society are a small factor, but can that really explain why a song I used to like, but grew tired of suddenly catches me in the right moment? The station that played it has probably played it another thousand times since I stopped listening to it habitually. I’ll tune in to it every now and then to see what’s on, but generally skip past after hearing one of the same hundred or so songs.
So how does this get back to the epistemological question? I’m not sure exactly, but I can’t help but think it does. Do the words that describe fashion trends cause those trends to come back? I think they do in some ways. Maybe not just the words, but talking about the trend more surely must. Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point covers some tangent of this by describing the “cool” people who started wearing Hush Puppies again just as the company considered calling it quits, but unless the rest of us started talking about those cool people, their choice in footwear would have had little effect on the rest of us and no effect on the company or foot fashion trends.
I also can’t help but think this concept fits squarely with the previous few posts… ok, maybe not squarely, but tangentially. When it comes to religious faith, the source of knowledge is clearly at the root of the issue. I’ll contend that our socio-cultural-political climate of late wouldn’t even allow me to discuss this with anyone outside of a college lounge, not classroom. Even academia’s quest to go overboard about being objective has them backpedaling from their previously infamous criticism of religion in the classroom. (much like modern media and its former liberal bias) But in the context of my last posts, I’ll risk saying it here: I believe man is the source of the knowledge we take from the Bible. The fact that man has written it and translated it through several languages over the last thousand or so years is beyond question, but where man got those ideas seems to be the real issue. So there we are again back at do words create knowledge or do we create words to describe knowledge that exists on its own?
In my quest to find answers that satisfy me to questions like this, I wandered through a few other books that some think need a capital B. Lao Tzu’s The Way, English versions of the Koran, a number of books on variations of Eastern philosophy (I still dig those) and various stages of Bible study from the traditional K-8 indoctrination leading to confirmation in a United Church of Christ to courses on the Bible as Literature as an undergrad, and studies of a handful of saints and other Christian figures as rhetoricians. The one thing the religions I’ve glanced at have in common is that they all claim the source of knowledge was divine. It was “out there.” We only use words to describe and discuss it, not create it.
Obviously, my current thinking about that is beyond skepticism, but as I sit back and take an inventory, I’m even more convinced, but maybe for a different reason. After all, is there really a difference between saying man (through his words) creates knowledge vs. knowledge was given to man by God, but then that knowledge had to be shared with his fellow man through man’s word? Either way, man creates, alters, adjusts, tweeks and otherwise makes what he wants out of that knowledge. Maybe that’s why so many people think rhetoricians are strange, because what we argue about doesn’t really matter.
But that only solves the problem for folks who believe God is the source of all knowledge. There are plenty of folks out there who disagree and thus still struggle with epistemology. I think I’m joining them because when it comes to what form that knowledge takes, and, more importantly, which God created it, the books just don’t jive. I mean, if Allah (pbuh) is the source, then Christians have really strayed from that path, and of course, like the Christian path, Allah’s (pbuh) was divinely delivered so there’s no questioning it. In fact, the Bible foreshadows Mohamed and the Koran refers back to the Bible. Somewhere in there some signals must have gotten crossed… then again, we only have man’s interpretations of both.
That’s about all I can take right now and I’ve got a new Chuck Palahniuk book I can’t wait to dig in to, so that’s it for now.
Luth
Out
I just got back from dropping off a neighbor girl who was hanging out with my daughters tonight. On the way there, the opening notes of Stairway to Heaven caught my ears as I scanned the local radio stations. I don’t know if it’s because I recently read the Rolling Stone article about the band’s London reunion/fundraiser and that planted some kind of seed or if it’s because my LPs have been in a box for about 15 years, but I was compelled to drive around the block a couple of times to hear the whole song, gradually turning up the volume until we pulled in the driveway just in time to hear Robert Plant’s final pleading cry.
I haven’t WANTED to listen to a Led Zeppelin song in a long time, but for some reason, it sounded pretty darned good tonight. In fact, I might dig out the one Zep CD I have just to make sure it wasn’t a fluke.
For a long time I’ve pulled a random CD off the rack and tossed it in my truck just to listen to something I haven’t heard in a while, but the closest to classic rock I’ve listened to was maybe The Clash or The Kinks. The desire to grab something like Aerosmith or AC DC just went away like my childhood love of macaroni and cheese after living on it through the college years.
Now that I think about it, the mac and cheese jones came back for a while too after my kids started liking it… peanut butter and jelly kind of worked that way too. Until I’d made both for my kids, I probably went close to a decade without even considering eating either of those two delicacies. I wonder if that’s why fashion trends always come back around too. One of the surest signs that something will come back is when some expert says it won’t.
When it comes to my musical likes and dislikes, I suppose I’m the expert, and I know classic rock suffered some dark days (in the case of my taste) after its resurgence on FM radio throughout my high school and college days. By then, most of my friends and I had just about had our fill and were really waiting for the next big thing to happen in rock music. About the time the radio stations decided for us that there was no new rock music worth listening to, we had grown weary of the 1000th playing of Freebird, Stairway and Light My Fire. I’m sure we weren’t alone, but the radio offered little in the way of hope, until, alas, musicians forced their hand, but radio, in its hubris, couldn’t admit that rock lived on and had to call the latest wave of new rock, “alternative,” and at that moment true rock and roll finally belched forth its death rattle.
Sure the hair bands gave it their all. Techno-punk like Akron’s own Devo and a few other strange oddities of the 80’s didn’t exactly force radio to admit they might have been wrong about forcing 20 year old songs down our ears rather than rolling with the changes, but that was pretty much it for the evolution of rock and roll. If any new rock music existed, from that moment forward it had to call itself alternative.
I’m not sure why this is pouring out of me tonight… I guess I just had to share the Stairway story ‘cuz it really did sound good. And not in some longing for the old days way, but just good, like rain on the roof as you lay in bed or a harmonica crying through a valley. No memory was necessarily associated with it. It was just a cool song again… after years of switching to the CD player or hitting search on the tuner when one of those classic songs came on in the past.
As I type this it occurs to me that this is somehow twisted up in a recurring thought I’ve been coming back to lately. It’s the result of the many debates, discussions and even arguments I had while a graduate student of rhetoric: where does knowledge come from? The specific version of this for students of rhetoric is, are words the source of/creators of knowledge, or do words form later out of necessity to describe a pre-existing truth that’s just “out there?”
Fashion trends obviously are influenced by culture and society, but I don’t know if I can buy that about my musical tastes. I mean, I’m sure culture and society are a small factor, but can that really explain why a song I used to like, but grew tired of suddenly catches me in the right moment? The station that played it has probably played it another thousand times since I stopped listening to it habitually. I’ll tune in to it every now and then to see what’s on, but generally skip past after hearing one of the same hundred or so songs.
So how does this get back to the epistemological question? I’m not sure exactly, but I can’t help but think it does. Do the words that describe fashion trends cause those trends to come back? I think they do in some ways. Maybe not just the words, but talking about the trend more surely must. Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point covers some tangent of this by describing the “cool” people who started wearing Hush Puppies again just as the company considered calling it quits, but unless the rest of us started talking about those cool people, their choice in footwear would have had little effect on the rest of us and no effect on the company or foot fashion trends.
I also can’t help but think this concept fits squarely with the previous few posts… ok, maybe not squarely, but tangentially. When it comes to religious faith, the source of knowledge is clearly at the root of the issue. I’ll contend that our socio-cultural-political climate of late wouldn’t even allow me to discuss this with anyone outside of a college lounge, not classroom. Even academia’s quest to go overboard about being objective has them backpedaling from their previously infamous criticism of religion in the classroom. (much like modern media and its former liberal bias) But in the context of my last posts, I’ll risk saying it here: I believe man is the source of the knowledge we take from the Bible. The fact that man has written it and translated it through several languages over the last thousand or so years is beyond question, but where man got those ideas seems to be the real issue. So there we are again back at do words create knowledge or do we create words to describe knowledge that exists on its own?
In my quest to find answers that satisfy me to questions like this, I wandered through a few other books that some think need a capital B. Lao Tzu’s The Way, English versions of the Koran, a number of books on variations of Eastern philosophy (I still dig those) and various stages of Bible study from the traditional K-8 indoctrination leading to confirmation in a United Church of Christ to courses on the Bible as Literature as an undergrad, and studies of a handful of saints and other Christian figures as rhetoricians. The one thing the religions I’ve glanced at have in common is that they all claim the source of knowledge was divine. It was “out there.” We only use words to describe and discuss it, not create it.
Obviously, my current thinking about that is beyond skepticism, but as I sit back and take an inventory, I’m even more convinced, but maybe for a different reason. After all, is there really a difference between saying man (through his words) creates knowledge vs. knowledge was given to man by God, but then that knowledge had to be shared with his fellow man through man’s word? Either way, man creates, alters, adjusts, tweeks and otherwise makes what he wants out of that knowledge. Maybe that’s why so many people think rhetoricians are strange, because what we argue about doesn’t really matter.
But that only solves the problem for folks who believe God is the source of all knowledge. There are plenty of folks out there who disagree and thus still struggle with epistemology. I think I’m joining them because when it comes to what form that knowledge takes, and, more importantly, which God created it, the books just don’t jive. I mean, if Allah (pbuh) is the source, then Christians have really strayed from that path, and of course, like the Christian path, Allah’s (pbuh) was divinely delivered so there’s no questioning it. In fact, the Bible foreshadows Mohamed and the Koran refers back to the Bible. Somewhere in there some signals must have gotten crossed… then again, we only have man’s interpretations of both.
That’s about all I can take right now and I’ve got a new Chuck Palahniuk book I can’t wait to dig in to, so that’s it for now.
Luth
Out
Monday, January 07, 2008
Why those last two posts don't conflict and some other stuff.
Let's continue with our dialogue about religion. I'll start:
Prove it.
That's usually where the dialogue about religion I had in mind stops. Discuss any issue of any importance regarding any topic other than religion, and that's the standard to which we hold the other conversant. But when it comes to religion, that standard is gone.
As I've mentioned here before, when it comes to the affairs of men (and women) on this planet, that should be the standard. If you can't provide solid, empirical evidence, wrapped in a logical argument for your plan, then why should men accept it?
The answer to that last question in every case except where religion is concerned is, "they shouldn't."
That's the dialogue we should have more of.
Now let's have some fun with this...
For instance, did you hear the one about the biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute who says he was fired because of his religion and is suing for a half a million? The research lab says they fired him because he refused to do the job. He even wrote that he didn't want to do it in a letter to his boss. Ok, that's a little nuanced... he didn't want to work on the "evolutionary aspects of the NIH grants" for which he was hired. He's a biologist. He studies evolution.
His lawyers argue that he was never asked if he believed in evolution when he was hired so that wasn't a job requirement and therefore it can't be used to fire him. (Wouldn't that be like asking doctor if he believes in the power of medicine? Does anyone really ask that?) His lawyer also says that believing in evolution requires as much "faith" as believing in creation.
It's true that believing in evolution requires faith, but not in the sense that the lawyer is trying to suggest by invoking the two defintions of the word. Scientific faith (not to be confused with Scientology) is the same faith required to drive on a two lane highway. You're separated by only a foot or two by oncoming traffic doing at least 55 miles per hour. If you and an oncoming driver sneeze at the wrong time, you both die. You have to have faith in that other driver's ability to not sneeze. But that kind of faith doesn't require belief in mythical beings or man's words describing what those beings think. It comes from repeated observations of other drivers on the road.
Science does in fact require that kind of faith. Faith that other researchers have done their work, that your data is solid and that the conclusions are true, repeatable under controlled conditions, etc. Faith in conclusions supported by observable evidence achieved over repeated testing is not the same as faith in a religion. The laywer knows this, but he won't point it out to the jury.
They won't have the dialogue about religion that they should. The lawyer, who knows why the biologist who refused to report on his research was fired, won't argue the merits of his case, he will argue the merits of firing someone because of his religion. He will paint the Insitute as devil-worshipping for this. The Insititute's lawyers will argue that they simply want complete reports supported by empricial evidence, but they won't dare mention that there's no empricial evidence of creation because the jury will then use the biologist's lawyer's paint brush to paint them as devil worshippers as well and the Insititue will lose their case based not on the merits of the case, but based on human insecurity and inability to look at the facts in a case involving religion.
Or here's another for instance: if I call Mike Huckabee's arrogance or campaign spending hypocritical in terms of the Christianity I studied, I can prove that with Bible verses that directly address it, but when he says abortion and same sex marriage are wrong because God says so, he can't prove that. I can provide evidence that God (if he exists) aborts more babies than anyone on Earth and I can provide evidence that the word "homosexual" is NEVER used in the Bible. But no one has shown me any evidence that God doesn't approve of or at least condone these things.
That's the kind of dialogue I'd like to have more of, but I'm never allowed. People always say, don't argue politics or religion. Or they get mad at my questions and tell me I just have to "believe."
And I do believe... what I see and what I know... and what is presented to me with evidence, in a logical argument. I also believe that there's a lot about human nature we don't know, especially when it comes to spiritual or conscious needs. I believe too that religion can provide a sense of comfort in lieu of further understanding about these needs, but that it can also prevent further understanding of these needs unless we're allowed to question it objectively as we do other biological, chemical and physical processes. Questioning it objectively means asking for proof of the answers.
Any belief beyond that should be left out of the conversation when it comes to the affairs of man. It would result in a lot less bloodshed and a lot more progress toward solving the other issues facing mankind.
I have to go watch the Buckeyes win another BCS National Championship... don't even get me started arguing about that!
Luth
Out
Prove it.
That's usually where the dialogue about religion I had in mind stops. Discuss any issue of any importance regarding any topic other than religion, and that's the standard to which we hold the other conversant. But when it comes to religion, that standard is gone.
As I've mentioned here before, when it comes to the affairs of men (and women) on this planet, that should be the standard. If you can't provide solid, empirical evidence, wrapped in a logical argument for your plan, then why should men accept it?
The answer to that last question in every case except where religion is concerned is, "they shouldn't."
That's the dialogue we should have more of.
Now let's have some fun with this...
For instance, did you hear the one about the biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute who says he was fired because of his religion and is suing for a half a million? The research lab says they fired him because he refused to do the job. He even wrote that he didn't want to do it in a letter to his boss. Ok, that's a little nuanced... he didn't want to work on the "evolutionary aspects of the NIH grants" for which he was hired. He's a biologist. He studies evolution.
His lawyers argue that he was never asked if he believed in evolution when he was hired so that wasn't a job requirement and therefore it can't be used to fire him. (Wouldn't that be like asking doctor if he believes in the power of medicine? Does anyone really ask that?) His lawyer also says that believing in evolution requires as much "faith" as believing in creation.
It's true that believing in evolution requires faith, but not in the sense that the lawyer is trying to suggest by invoking the two defintions of the word. Scientific faith (not to be confused with Scientology) is the same faith required to drive on a two lane highway. You're separated by only a foot or two by oncoming traffic doing at least 55 miles per hour. If you and an oncoming driver sneeze at the wrong time, you both die. You have to have faith in that other driver's ability to not sneeze. But that kind of faith doesn't require belief in mythical beings or man's words describing what those beings think. It comes from repeated observations of other drivers on the road.
Science does in fact require that kind of faith. Faith that other researchers have done their work, that your data is solid and that the conclusions are true, repeatable under controlled conditions, etc. Faith in conclusions supported by observable evidence achieved over repeated testing is not the same as faith in a religion. The laywer knows this, but he won't point it out to the jury.
They won't have the dialogue about religion that they should. The lawyer, who knows why the biologist who refused to report on his research was fired, won't argue the merits of his case, he will argue the merits of firing someone because of his religion. He will paint the Insitute as devil-worshipping for this. The Insititute's lawyers will argue that they simply want complete reports supported by empricial evidence, but they won't dare mention that there's no empricial evidence of creation because the jury will then use the biologist's lawyer's paint brush to paint them as devil worshippers as well and the Insititue will lose their case based not on the merits of the case, but based on human insecurity and inability to look at the facts in a case involving religion.
Or here's another for instance: if I call Mike Huckabee's arrogance or campaign spending hypocritical in terms of the Christianity I studied, I can prove that with Bible verses that directly address it, but when he says abortion and same sex marriage are wrong because God says so, he can't prove that. I can provide evidence that God (if he exists) aborts more babies than anyone on Earth and I can provide evidence that the word "homosexual" is NEVER used in the Bible. But no one has shown me any evidence that God doesn't approve of or at least condone these things.
That's the kind of dialogue I'd like to have more of, but I'm never allowed. People always say, don't argue politics or religion. Or they get mad at my questions and tell me I just have to "believe."
And I do believe... what I see and what I know... and what is presented to me with evidence, in a logical argument. I also believe that there's a lot about human nature we don't know, especially when it comes to spiritual or conscious needs. I believe too that religion can provide a sense of comfort in lieu of further understanding about these needs, but that it can also prevent further understanding of these needs unless we're allowed to question it objectively as we do other biological, chemical and physical processes. Questioning it objectively means asking for proof of the answers.
Any belief beyond that should be left out of the conversation when it comes to the affairs of man. It would result in a lot less bloodshed and a lot more progress toward solving the other issues facing mankind.
I have to go watch the Buckeyes win another BCS National Championship... don't even get me started arguing about that!
Luth
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)