Last night I saw Into the Wild, a new film directed by Sean Penn. It's based on a book by Jon Krakauer and features wonderful music written by Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder. It tells the true story of a young man named Christopher McCandless in the early 1990s that took off after graduating from college on a long, often crazy adventure that landed him in the Alaskan wilderness. Apparently, his family aided in making the movie, which lends some credibility to it, though, I'm certain Sean Penn took a lot of license with parts of it.
McCandless was a very bright and well-read kid who graduated from Emory University. He had an abusive father and a very troubled youth. He was deeply troubled by the materialism and deception he saw in his own home and in society. After graduation, he decided that society was simply not for him. Influenced by the writings of Jack London, Leo Tolstoy and Henry David Thoreau, he dreamed of leaving society to pursue a solitary and spiritually pure lifestyle. He disappeared and embarked on an adventure that took him all over. He spent time with hippies on the beach and in a remote RV community, with grain farmers in South Dakota, and with a retired veteran living on the edge of the desert in California before heading to Alaska to live in the wilderness. He found an abandoned bus that he used for shelter. Finally, he died of starvation after about 4 months.
I guess his story has really interested a lot of people and made him something of a hero. A lot of things about his story really resonate with a lot of people, I suppose, and his tragic death kind of cements his place as a subject of fascination and speculation. However, Alaskans generally see him as an arrogant idiot. Ill-prepared for his stay in the wild, he sort of brought his death upon himself. With no map, he couldn't have known how close he actually was to help (pretty close from what I hear). An Alaskan park ranger said that essentially, he "committed suicide." The ranger says that there's not much unique about McCandless - plenty of young people try similar things there with an equally inadequate level of preparedness and common sense.
Krakauer's book is generally considered to be very good and fairly accurate, despite his theorizing about McCandless' motivations and his cause of death. The film is beautifully made and its obvious that Penn thinks McCandless something of a hero, albeit a foolish and selfish one perhaps. The scenery is breathtaking, the story is compelling, the music inspiring. I highly recommend it.
I think what makes this movie work is that it touches a chord in many of us. Many of us do get tired of the materialism, selfishness, inequality, and superficialness of society. Many of us wish we could just drop everything and go be one with nature. I do sometimes. There's something pure and idealistic about McCandless' motives and his quest. Yet, as Penn suggests at the end of the film, even McCandless realized before his death that a solitary life is incomplete - happiness is fullest and richest when shared with others. McCandless hurt a lot of people along the way. He left his family with absolutely no word or warning. Especially sad is that he left his sister, whom he loved dearly and was a support throughout a troubling youth. He met wonderful, interesting people along the way and they reached out to him. But every time he rejected them and went on with his search for solitude and purity. Penn doesn't sugar coat the story even though he clearly sympathizes with his hero. There is real hurt and pain in the movie, and McCandless does come off selfish and unfairly and unhealthily emotionally guarded.
While the storyline in Alaska was interesting and suspenseful, it was his journey here in the lower 48 that was most fascinating. Along the way he met and befriended people who Penn seems to suggest are the real and genuine Americans. A loving hippie couple, a sensitive teenage girl, a group of farmers in South Dakota, and, maybe my favorite, a retired veteran in California who makes a living by selling hand-engraved leather items. These are genuine, real, sometimes troubled people that open up their hearts and souls to McCandless. The film suggests that maybe part of his legacy is that he deeply touched each of these people along the way and maybe improved their lives and healed their hearts. I don't know how true this is, but it makes for a great film. But, even as he touched and inspired them, he rejected their offers of love and family.
A female colleague of mine pointed out that the urge to shed society and seek a life of solitude and contemplation in nature may be more of a guy thing. I appreciated her comment. She brought up the American frontier and what we know about gender ratios historically, as well as even modern gender roles that are generally socialized into young people. Interesting to think about.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
What is religious pluralism?
Diana Eck, a professor at Harvard and director of the Pluralism Project, is one of the most notable advocates for religious pluralism and inter-religious understanding in the U.S. today. She is author of A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" Has Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation. The book essentially offers an in-depth portrait of the growing presence of Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus in the U.S. It's based primarily upon her own experiences visiting, observing, and meeting with these groups. But it is not just an analysis of these groups, it is an unabashed endorsement of religious pluralism and inter-religious understanding. Not surprisingly, the book, along with her work, has encountered a lot of criticism and skepticism. I plan to devote an entire post to this criticism in the very near future.
She participated in a conference on religious pluralism and democracy at Georgetown a couple years ago. Talks from the conference were compiled in a recent book. I think partly in response to critics but mostly in keeping with her ongoing message, she offered the following:
Well said.
She participated in a conference on religious pluralism and democracy at Georgetown a couple years ago. Talks from the conference were compiled in a recent book. I think partly in response to critics but mostly in keeping with her ongoing message, she offered the following:
Pluralism is not an ideology, not a new universal theology, and not a free-form theological relativism. Rather, pluralism is the dynamic process through which we engage with one another in and through our deepest differences. For some that engagement will be in the religious or theological register, and for others it will be in the civic register. For many if not most of us, it will be both. Pluralism is not just another word for diversity, but it is engagement with that diversity. It does not displace or eliminate deep religious commitments, It is, rather, the encounter of commitments, in both the religious and the civic sphere. Pluralism does not mean abandoning differences, but holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. In the world as it is today, it is a language that we all need to learn.
Well said.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Email from the ACLU
I joined the ACLU several months ago with a small financial donation. There was a time when I was pathetically ignorant about political and social issues and mostly conservative in deference to my parents and friends. I saw the ACLU as a pesky, liberal, over-reactive organization with a serious anti-religious slant. Isn't that how many conservatives see it?
I see it a lot differently now. Yes, I would bet that the ACLU has a lot of liberal members, and many of their positions could be considered liberal. But at the heart of the ACLU's work is the belief that civil rights should be vehemently defended and that the civil rights of minority groups (racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise) are often the most vulnerable and need to be protected for the good of all. Contrary to what Bill O'Reilly and others would have you believe, the ACLU is not anti-religious or anti-Christmas. That's ridiculous. It's assertion is that religious freedom means that everyone has the right to practice religion in their own way and that government should not endorse or hinder religion in any way. And yes, government-endorsed, religion-specific Christmas displays do marginalize other religious (or non-religious) viewpoints. I support the ACLU because there is always a tendency for the majority in any society or community to ignore, marginalize, or otherwise misunderstand minority groups. I support it because I believe that every person should be able to live a life of their own choosing as long as others aren't harmed. The ACLU is a necessary and significant voice for freedom and civil liberties.
I recently watched and reviewed the PBS documentary about the intelligent design debate and subsequent trial here in Pennsylvania. I was proud that the ACLU played a significant role in winning that case for the concerned parents and science teachers in Dover, PA. This was not the ACLU and others versus religion. Not at all. Many of the parents and science teachers involved in going after the school board are deeply religious. It's about making sure that science stays science and religion stays out of science class.
Anyway, I got an email from the ACLU right before Thanksgiving encouraging members to speak out boldly if the chance comes up over the holidays. It was pretty cool. Here are a few points from the email:
I see it a lot differently now. Yes, I would bet that the ACLU has a lot of liberal members, and many of their positions could be considered liberal. But at the heart of the ACLU's work is the belief that civil rights should be vehemently defended and that the civil rights of minority groups (racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise) are often the most vulnerable and need to be protected for the good of all. Contrary to what Bill O'Reilly and others would have you believe, the ACLU is not anti-religious or anti-Christmas. That's ridiculous. It's assertion is that religious freedom means that everyone has the right to practice religion in their own way and that government should not endorse or hinder religion in any way. And yes, government-endorsed, religion-specific Christmas displays do marginalize other religious (or non-religious) viewpoints. I support the ACLU because there is always a tendency for the majority in any society or community to ignore, marginalize, or otherwise misunderstand minority groups. I support it because I believe that every person should be able to live a life of their own choosing as long as others aren't harmed. The ACLU is a necessary and significant voice for freedom and civil liberties.
I recently watched and reviewed the PBS documentary about the intelligent design debate and subsequent trial here in Pennsylvania. I was proud that the ACLU played a significant role in winning that case for the concerned parents and science teachers in Dover, PA. This was not the ACLU and others versus religion. Not at all. Many of the parents and science teachers involved in going after the school board are deeply religious. It's about making sure that science stays science and religion stays out of science class.
Anyway, I got an email from the ACLU right before Thanksgiving encouraging members to speak out boldly if the chance comes up over the holidays. It was pretty cool. Here are a few points from the email:
- Tell them torture is flat out wrong, everywhere, and all the time. Tell them waterboarding, which Dick Cheney seems to have no problem with, has been considered torture since the Spanish Inquisition.
- Point out that by justifying and using torture, the United States is turning its back on a long tradition of humane detention and interrogation practices. Our nation was once a shining example for the rest of world, helping to draft the international treaties and laws that banned torture after WWII and offering refuge to victims of atrocities perpetrated by other governments.
- And tell them that, on top of all that, torture doesn’t work. It makes people tell their tormentor anything he wants to hear. And tell them that by justifying torture we increase the likelihood that people all across the world -- including American soldiers -- will be tortured.
- If the subject turns to the “war on Christmas” that Bill O’Reilly and his cronies claim the ACLU is waging, tell them that the real threat to religious freedom in America is a government that uses taxpayer dollars to promote one religion over another. Religion is the business of families and churches, not government bureaucrats and politicians.
- And tell them that though folks like Mr. O’Reilly and his ilk make hay every December by claiming that the ACLU is against Christmas, we work year-round to ensure that everyone in America has the freedom to practice their own religion (or no religion at all) and to keep the government out of religion.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
My inner Scotsman: identity and choice
Lately, I've been getting in touch with my inner Scotsman. No, I'm not Scottish. Well, actually, I don't know whether I am. I was adopted as a newborn and we don't really have knowledge of my birth parents' ancestry and origins. My dad is a second-generation Mexican-American. My mom traces her ancestry to Western Europe. Mexican-American culture was definitely part of my upbringing, though I'd have to say it played only a minor role. Mexican food was a particularly important part of that upbringing and continues to be important to my brothers and I. Spanish was very rarely spoken at home, though I did take it in high school for a few years. My dad talked little of his upbringing and did not seem to hold his Mexican-American heritage as a central feature of his identity. I did speak with him about it on occasion. I think his religious identity really outweighs his ethnic identity. It's not that he's ashamed of his ethnic heritage. Not at all. It's just not central to his identity and the way he raised us.
Maybe because it only played a minor role, and maybe because I'm adopted, I've never felt like that Mexican-American identity is really mine to have. I've felt somewhat ethnically lost, I suppose. As a result, I've always had a hard time understanding why race and ethnicity mean so much to people. In some ways that's good, I suppose, as I've never placed too much importance on it. When we hold on to any on of our labels too tightly, I believe it can have negative consequences. These labels include race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, and religion. Taking them too seriously may lead us to view others as dangerous or inferior. But not taking them seriously enough may lead to alienation and lack of social cohesion.
I have to admit, though, that I've always been a bit jealous of people with strong racial or ethnic identities. As a white male I've always felt like I'm too much a part of the traditional majority and power scheme. Being adopted only makes this worse. It leaves me with no sense of connectedness to ancestors and no grounding in a particular culture. I think Mormonism fulfilled this need somewhat for most of my life. Mormonism is more than a religious affiliation or mere church membership. Indeed, sociologists often consider it a "quasi-ethnic" faith to account for its strong and distinct subculture and its low levels of intermarriage and apostasy. As you could imagine, leaving the church only exacerbated my "identity" problem.
Modern Unitarian Universalism is something of a multi-religious faith. This is a far cry from my Mormon roots. This multiculturalism and multi-religious celebration of UUism has even drawn criticism and warnings about "misappropriation." However, for all its celebration of religious, racial, and ethnic pluralism, it still remains a religion of mostly white, well-educated, liberal Americans.
Talk of cultural misappropriation is based on the assumption that racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious identities are ascribed, not chosen (at least not lightly chosen) and that they are not to be easily and carelessly mixed or borrowed. I think the concern is that it's too easy (and wrong) to pick and choose elements of another culture or religious tradition that suit one's needs or beliefs and not pay attention or give proper respect to the whole culture or religious tradition that's been borrowed or chosen from and how it's lived by its real and actual members. I know I didn't express that very well, but I hope you get the point. This is a real concern for me.
So, what is multiculturalism and what is religious pluralism? Does something get lost in the process? Can we share our cultures and religions with each other without something get lost or watered down in the process? Can we share them with one another without one being superior to another? These are pretty heavy questions and I'm not going to answer them here. They're for another post some other time.
Where does my search for rootedness and identity take me? Well, to Scotland, actually. I've always had a deep fascination for Scotland and its music and culture. I love the movie Braveheart despite its historical inaccuracies. I adore traditional Scottish music (the Tannahill Weavers are incredible). It strikes a deep chord in me and touches me in ways that other music can't. I've made a sacred vow to myself to learn how to play the bagpipes someday, when I can afford it and have a space to do it in. I also plan to visit Scotland as soon and as often as I can. I recently purchased a kilt and some accompanying items of clothing. Yet, I'll never be able to say I'm Scottish, as I'll never be able to comfortably say I'm Mexican-American. Am I so intrigued by Scotland and its culture because I want my own racial, ethnic, and cultural identity?
So, how are identities constructed in our day? I've mentioned race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion but haven't even mentioned gender identity. That's another whole issue. Undoubtedly, these issues are most salient for minorities - racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, or otherwise. How fluid are identities? How chosen? How deep? Perhaps most importantly, how important or necessary? I've raised a lot more questions than I've answered. But these questions really do plague me. As a sociologist, I see individual identity intimately tied up with group membership and group interests. This no doubt explains why issues surrounding identity are more salient for minority groups, who struggle for validation, legitimation, recognition, and even survival.
Maybe because it only played a minor role, and maybe because I'm adopted, I've never felt like that Mexican-American identity is really mine to have. I've felt somewhat ethnically lost, I suppose. As a result, I've always had a hard time understanding why race and ethnicity mean so much to people. In some ways that's good, I suppose, as I've never placed too much importance on it. When we hold on to any on of our labels too tightly, I believe it can have negative consequences. These labels include race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, and religion. Taking them too seriously may lead us to view others as dangerous or inferior. But not taking them seriously enough may lead to alienation and lack of social cohesion.
I have to admit, though, that I've always been a bit jealous of people with strong racial or ethnic identities. As a white male I've always felt like I'm too much a part of the traditional majority and power scheme. Being adopted only makes this worse. It leaves me with no sense of connectedness to ancestors and no grounding in a particular culture. I think Mormonism fulfilled this need somewhat for most of my life. Mormonism is more than a religious affiliation or mere church membership. Indeed, sociologists often consider it a "quasi-ethnic" faith to account for its strong and distinct subculture and its low levels of intermarriage and apostasy. As you could imagine, leaving the church only exacerbated my "identity" problem.
Modern Unitarian Universalism is something of a multi-religious faith. This is a far cry from my Mormon roots. This multiculturalism and multi-religious celebration of UUism has even drawn criticism and warnings about "misappropriation." However, for all its celebration of religious, racial, and ethnic pluralism, it still remains a religion of mostly white, well-educated, liberal Americans.
Talk of cultural misappropriation is based on the assumption that racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious identities are ascribed, not chosen (at least not lightly chosen) and that they are not to be easily and carelessly mixed or borrowed. I think the concern is that it's too easy (and wrong) to pick and choose elements of another culture or religious tradition that suit one's needs or beliefs and not pay attention or give proper respect to the whole culture or religious tradition that's been borrowed or chosen from and how it's lived by its real and actual members. I know I didn't express that very well, but I hope you get the point. This is a real concern for me.
So, what is multiculturalism and what is religious pluralism? Does something get lost in the process? Can we share our cultures and religions with each other without something get lost or watered down in the process? Can we share them with one another without one being superior to another? These are pretty heavy questions and I'm not going to answer them here. They're for another post some other time.
Where does my search for rootedness and identity take me? Well, to Scotland, actually. I've always had a deep fascination for Scotland and its music and culture. I love the movie Braveheart despite its historical inaccuracies. I adore traditional Scottish music (the Tannahill Weavers are incredible). It strikes a deep chord in me and touches me in ways that other music can't. I've made a sacred vow to myself to learn how to play the bagpipes someday, when I can afford it and have a space to do it in. I also plan to visit Scotland as soon and as often as I can. I recently purchased a kilt and some accompanying items of clothing. Yet, I'll never be able to say I'm Scottish, as I'll never be able to comfortably say I'm Mexican-American. Am I so intrigued by Scotland and its culture because I want my own racial, ethnic, and cultural identity?
So, how are identities constructed in our day? I've mentioned race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion but haven't even mentioned gender identity. That's another whole issue. Undoubtedly, these issues are most salient for minorities - racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, or otherwise. How fluid are identities? How chosen? How deep? Perhaps most importantly, how important or necessary? I've raised a lot more questions than I've answered. But these questions really do plague me. As a sociologist, I see individual identity intimately tied up with group membership and group interests. This no doubt explains why issues surrounding identity are more salient for minority groups, who struggle for validation, legitimation, recognition, and even survival.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Thoughts on an afterlife
I believe that the primary reason why belief in an afterlife is nearly ubiquitous and central to many religious traditions is the overwhelming human desire to exist. And from a biological/evolutionary point of view, that intense desire to exist, to preserve one's own life, serves us well and ensures that individually and as a species we will do all we can to live long lives and see the species live on.
Religion is an expression of humans' deepest and most sincere desires and ideals. It is not surprising, then, that a belief in an afterlife, doctrines regarding the nature of that afterlife, and the requirements for being able to enjoy the most desirable state in that afterlife, are important to many religious traditions. Often, the supposed afterlife is a far better state than this life, not surprisingly. The grass is always greener on the other side, right?
Despite my flaws, I want fiercely to continue living, and, if possible, after this life. The thought of ceasing to exist somehow at my death is a terrifying, almost incomprehensible thought. Yet, I have decided that it is useless to worry about it. As with my stance on the existence of God, I am truly agnostic regarding the afterlife.
While acknowledging the questionability of survey data, from what I've seen virtually everyone believes in an afterlife, even the majority of non-religious Americans. I think two things drive this. As I mentioned before, I believe that our incredibly intense desire to continue to exist makes us practically expect to continue on in some way after we die. The second thing, I think, is our desire for fairness. The injustices and cruelty of life makes us want desperately for things to somehow work out after this life. Though, there is some evidence that the pervasiveness of these beliefs varies from country to country. From looking at survey data, as far as I can tell, measures of religious belief are all very high in the U.S. compared to many nations, particularly in Western Europe.
But, for all this, wishing does not make it so. I mean no disrespect toward those that believe firmly in an afterlife, but isn't it just wishful thinking? I do struggle with this issue personally, because I hope that I can be with those that I love after I die and continue to develop as a person. But, it doesn't matter what I wish for, and worrying about it doesn't do me any good. This is not to promote a "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality. This may be the conclusion for some. But not me. I find ample reason to strive for a deep, meaningful, productive life, even if it does end at death. In fact, I have a deeper sense of urgency now that I've decided to remain agnostic regarding the afterlife. Every day is precious.
Furthermore, I just can't buy any kind of Pascal's Wager-type view of the afterlife. By this I mean the idea that it doesn't hurt to believe and to do the requisite acts (belief, baptism, etc.) but it does hurt not to believe because if I'm wrong I'm screwed. So, believing and acting is a safe bet and covers my bases. I think this perspective would sum up my position:
This is not an excuse to not believe in God or not be religious. It's a serious, honest, reasonable approach to the issue. I guess I'll find out whether I'm right or wrong eventually, but for now, it's enough for me to worry about being kind, committed, fair, sincere, and loving without worrying about stuff I have no way to know and no way to control.
Religion is an expression of humans' deepest and most sincere desires and ideals. It is not surprising, then, that a belief in an afterlife, doctrines regarding the nature of that afterlife, and the requirements for being able to enjoy the most desirable state in that afterlife, are important to many religious traditions. Often, the supposed afterlife is a far better state than this life, not surprisingly. The grass is always greener on the other side, right?
Despite my flaws, I want fiercely to continue living, and, if possible, after this life. The thought of ceasing to exist somehow at my death is a terrifying, almost incomprehensible thought. Yet, I have decided that it is useless to worry about it. As with my stance on the existence of God, I am truly agnostic regarding the afterlife.
While acknowledging the questionability of survey data, from what I've seen virtually everyone believes in an afterlife, even the majority of non-religious Americans. I think two things drive this. As I mentioned before, I believe that our incredibly intense desire to continue to exist makes us practically expect to continue on in some way after we die. The second thing, I think, is our desire for fairness. The injustices and cruelty of life makes us want desperately for things to somehow work out after this life. Though, there is some evidence that the pervasiveness of these beliefs varies from country to country. From looking at survey data, as far as I can tell, measures of religious belief are all very high in the U.S. compared to many nations, particularly in Western Europe.
But, for all this, wishing does not make it so. I mean no disrespect toward those that believe firmly in an afterlife, but isn't it just wishful thinking? I do struggle with this issue personally, because I hope that I can be with those that I love after I die and continue to develop as a person. But, it doesn't matter what I wish for, and worrying about it doesn't do me any good. This is not to promote a "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality. This may be the conclusion for some. But not me. I find ample reason to strive for a deep, meaningful, productive life, even if it does end at death. In fact, I have a deeper sense of urgency now that I've decided to remain agnostic regarding the afterlife. Every day is precious.
Furthermore, I just can't buy any kind of Pascal's Wager-type view of the afterlife. By this I mean the idea that it doesn't hurt to believe and to do the requisite acts (belief, baptism, etc.) but it does hurt not to believe because if I'm wrong I'm screwed. So, believing and acting is a safe bet and covers my bases. I think this perspective would sum up my position:
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
This is not an excuse to not believe in God or not be religious. It's a serious, honest, reasonable approach to the issue. I guess I'll find out whether I'm right or wrong eventually, but for now, it's enough for me to worry about being kind, committed, fair, sincere, and loving without worrying about stuff I have no way to know and no way to control.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Keith Olbermann rocks!
Keith Olbermann is providing Americans with some much needed balance. Apparently his show Countdown with Keith Olbermann started off as more of a straight news show that was relatively neutral. But increasingly he has taken the lead as a major liberal voice among the evening talking heads, many of which are decidedly and irresponsibly conservative (think Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck). O'Reilly's been pretty critical of him, which means that he must be doing something right! Apparently, it's the most-watched show on MSNBC, though the network as a whole doesn't get good ratings.
The Nation, one of our oldest progressive political magazines, has noticed. Olbermann graced the cover not long ago and was the subject of a feature article. Olbermann was praised for being sincere, fiery, and, of course, leaning to the left. He drew some favorable comparisons to Edward Murrow. I'm too young to know much about Ed Murrow, though I did see that great Clooney film about him.
Olbermann was recently named the 67th most influential liberal by the Daily Telegraph in the UK. Of course, Olbermann doesn't call himself a liberal, and it's conceivable that he's using his position as a competitor of O'Reilly (they're in the same time slot) and the dissatisfaction over the Bush administration and war to his advantage. But, from what I've seen, it's more genuine than that. I hope, at least.
Unfortunately, I don't get MSNBC! Otherwise, I'd probably watch it a lot. We live in Penn State's family housing and for some reason it's not in our channel lineup. I can watch parts of it online, but it's just not the same.
Anyway, I've recently gotten interested in how politics are covered on television. I've never watched much news or commentary on TV, and I'm starting to remember why now. It's really frustrating. It's at this really low level of intelligence. It's largely about entertainment and not meaningful analysis or dialogue. I've also grown increasingly concerned about people like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Millions of people watch their shows every night and are subjected to some pretty twisted, biased, nasty stuff.
Anyway, I'm happy that Olbermann appears to be challenging some of this with something more intelligent and accurate.
The Nation, one of our oldest progressive political magazines, has noticed. Olbermann graced the cover not long ago and was the subject of a feature article. Olbermann was praised for being sincere, fiery, and, of course, leaning to the left. He drew some favorable comparisons to Edward Murrow. I'm too young to know much about Ed Murrow, though I did see that great Clooney film about him.
Olbermann was recently named the 67th most influential liberal by the Daily Telegraph in the UK. Of course, Olbermann doesn't call himself a liberal, and it's conceivable that he's using his position as a competitor of O'Reilly (they're in the same time slot) and the dissatisfaction over the Bush administration and war to his advantage. But, from what I've seen, it's more genuine than that. I hope, at least.
Unfortunately, I don't get MSNBC! Otherwise, I'd probably watch it a lot. We live in Penn State's family housing and for some reason it's not in our channel lineup. I can watch parts of it online, but it's just not the same.
Anyway, I've recently gotten interested in how politics are covered on television. I've never watched much news or commentary on TV, and I'm starting to remember why now. It's really frustrating. It's at this really low level of intelligence. It's largely about entertainment and not meaningful analysis or dialogue. I've also grown increasingly concerned about people like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Millions of people watch their shows every night and are subjected to some pretty twisted, biased, nasty stuff.
Anyway, I'm happy that Olbermann appears to be challenging some of this with something more intelligent and accurate.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Fantastic PBS piece on evolution and ID
I found out about last night's PBS documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial when I got an email from the ACLU encouraging people to watch. It was fantastic. I learned a lot that I didn't know about Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute, and more. The basic overview of the theory of evolution and supporting evidence I was already pretty familiar with, but it was great to hear it again. What a beautiful, awe-inspiring story about how we came to be.
I would really encourage anyone to watch this documentary. If you missed it, apparently, starting in a couple days they're going to let people watch it online. Basically, it covered the whole controversy that happened a few years ago in Dover, PA. Some school board members, while trying to choose a new science textbook, were upset that the textbook they were going to buy was "laced with Darwinism." They decided to purchase a supplemental textbook that teaches Intelligent Design as an alternative to the theory of evolution, which they argue still has significant holes and flaws and is ultimately just a theory. Understandably, this upset the science teachers and many parents and severely divided the community. Concerned parents called on the ACLU to take on the issue, and it eventually went to a federal court in Harrisburg. After a long trial, the judge ruled that ID is not science, is basically creationism repackaged as a "scientific theory," it's unconstitutional to teach it in schools, and the school board was out of line in trying to mislead and deceive the community (they actually secretly raised money to buy the alternate textbooks after being told they couldn't). Chalk one up for truth and fairness.
I'd just encourage you to watch it. Also, the ACLU has some great stuff on their website about it. It's really fascinating and I've been thinking a lot about it. I think evolution bugs some conservative religious folks for several reasons. First, they perceive belief in man's divine origins to be in conflict with evolution. Second, they believe in biblical inerrancy, so the Genesis account has to right, right? Third, they generally are wary of a lot of science since they perceive it to be insensitive or even hostile to religion. Fourth, their religious perspective has a hard time tolerating uncertainty.
I think the documentary did a good job of showing that there are seriously religious people that also accept the theory of evolution and the mountain of evidence supporting it. These people are willing to live with a degree of uncertainty regarding how exactly God fits into the picture. My wife, educated as a biology teacher, is definitely among those that accept the theory of evolution and the belief that we are sons and daughters of God. That's OK with me. Personally agnostic, I still find beauty and wonder in the story of evolution and origin of man.
Frankly, evolution is just as awe-inspiring and spiritual as any religious account of creation could be. It tells us where we came from and how. It teaches us that were are part of the rest of nature. We're made of the same pieces and share the same ancestors. We have a responsibility to care for our planet and the rest of our fellow earth dwellers.
I would really encourage anyone to watch this documentary. If you missed it, apparently, starting in a couple days they're going to let people watch it online. Basically, it covered the whole controversy that happened a few years ago in Dover, PA. Some school board members, while trying to choose a new science textbook, were upset that the textbook they were going to buy was "laced with Darwinism." They decided to purchase a supplemental textbook that teaches Intelligent Design as an alternative to the theory of evolution, which they argue still has significant holes and flaws and is ultimately just a theory. Understandably, this upset the science teachers and many parents and severely divided the community. Concerned parents called on the ACLU to take on the issue, and it eventually went to a federal court in Harrisburg. After a long trial, the judge ruled that ID is not science, is basically creationism repackaged as a "scientific theory," it's unconstitutional to teach it in schools, and the school board was out of line in trying to mislead and deceive the community (they actually secretly raised money to buy the alternate textbooks after being told they couldn't). Chalk one up for truth and fairness.
I'd just encourage you to watch it. Also, the ACLU has some great stuff on their website about it. It's really fascinating and I've been thinking a lot about it. I think evolution bugs some conservative religious folks for several reasons. First, they perceive belief in man's divine origins to be in conflict with evolution. Second, they believe in biblical inerrancy, so the Genesis account has to right, right? Third, they generally are wary of a lot of science since they perceive it to be insensitive or even hostile to religion. Fourth, their religious perspective has a hard time tolerating uncertainty.
I think the documentary did a good job of showing that there are seriously religious people that also accept the theory of evolution and the mountain of evidence supporting it. These people are willing to live with a degree of uncertainty regarding how exactly God fits into the picture. My wife, educated as a biology teacher, is definitely among those that accept the theory of evolution and the belief that we are sons and daughters of God. That's OK with me. Personally agnostic, I still find beauty and wonder in the story of evolution and origin of man.
Frankly, evolution is just as awe-inspiring and spiritual as any religious account of creation could be. It tells us where we came from and how. It teaches us that were are part of the rest of nature. We're made of the same pieces and share the same ancestors. We have a responsibility to care for our planet and the rest of our fellow earth dwellers.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Fightin' words
Islamo-fascist. Right-wing nutjob. Secular progressive. Theocrat. Extreme leftist. Socialist.
I could go on for a while. Names. Labels. Loaded words that get used because they pack a punch and get people fired up and mobilized. Of course, anyone that's reasonable and fair-minded knows that most of these words, if not all, can be misleading, unfair, ambiguous, and nasty. So why do they get used? I have a few ideas.
Apparently, conservatives have managed to make "liberal" a bad word. An interesting article on The Politico website points out that it has been something of a bad word for some time, and that it's especially evident in the current Presidential campaign. Hillary has eschewed the word, opting for "progressive" instead. While the word "conservative" has been used 100 times in Republican debates, "liberal" has been used only 4 times, and never by a candidate. George Lakoff says that liberals need to reclaim the word and not cede it to its opponents (hmm, sounds like what's happened with religion, too!). George Lakoff is a pretty hard-core liberal and wrote a book about how liberals and conservatives draw on different cognitive and linguistic frameworks.
I have no idea how to change what's become of political discourse today. I wish we could get beyond these divisive and inaccurate labels and move into the realm of fact, compromise, and responsibility. But it seems like a hopeless cause. We can only do our part to speak fairly and accurately, and to try to change the nature of political discourse.
I could go on for a while. Names. Labels. Loaded words that get used because they pack a punch and get people fired up and mobilized. Of course, anyone that's reasonable and fair-minded knows that most of these words, if not all, can be misleading, unfair, ambiguous, and nasty. So why do they get used? I have a few ideas.
- It's easy! They require no work, no thought, no balance, no qualifications, and no compromise. They get used because they're easy to use. They generally have widely understood, if inaccurate, meanings.
- They pack a punch. They're loaded. They're designed to get visceral responses, not necessarily thoughtful or balanced responses.
- They create reference groups. Reference groups don't even have to be real. In fact, it probably helps if they're not real. Reference groups allow a group to help define what it stands for and what defines membership. They are partly symbolic. Most of the terms above, and others, have an element of truth. But they tend to paint an over-simplified (and thus more convenient) view of reality, often creating a fictitious or partly fictitious group. In politics, reference groups are often perceived as "out to get us." Secular-progressives are out to get conservatives. They just want to persecute people that are religious, get rid of Christmas, steal everyone's money, destroy the traditional family, and so on. The Religious Right is out to get everyone, particularly people who aren't conservatively religious. They want to establish a theocracy, do away with non-Christians, persecute minorities and homosexuals, and so on. It's easier to get people riled up, I guess, if you create these stories.
Apparently, conservatives have managed to make "liberal" a bad word. An interesting article on The Politico website points out that it has been something of a bad word for some time, and that it's especially evident in the current Presidential campaign. Hillary has eschewed the word, opting for "progressive" instead. While the word "conservative" has been used 100 times in Republican debates, "liberal" has been used only 4 times, and never by a candidate. George Lakoff says that liberals need to reclaim the word and not cede it to its opponents (hmm, sounds like what's happened with religion, too!). George Lakoff is a pretty hard-core liberal and wrote a book about how liberals and conservatives draw on different cognitive and linguistic frameworks.
I have no idea how to change what's become of political discourse today. I wish we could get beyond these divisive and inaccurate labels and move into the realm of fact, compromise, and responsibility. But it seems like a hopeless cause. We can only do our part to speak fairly and accurately, and to try to change the nature of political discourse.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Politics at church: values in action or wrong time and place?
Occasionally, I see UU bloggers complain about the mix of politics and religion at Sunday services. A criticism I've heard from outsiders made against Unitarian Universalism is that it's only a "thin veneer for liberal political agendas." Is this true? Is there too much politics at UU churches? Should they be kept separate?
It's not hard to think of reasons why UUs are more politically aware and active than most people and why Unitarian Universalism openly engages in political discussions. Partly, it's just a reflection of its roots in liberal Protestantism and its emphasis on social justice and reform. Partly, it reflects the "this-worldly" theology of UUism. It's a faith with its eyes set squarely on this world and how to improve it. Of course, agreeing to come together not on shared religious beliefs but on shared values and ideals helps this. Also, UUs themselves are generally well-educated and politically liberal, certainly a mix that's bound to spill over into everything they do, including church.
I'll admit - there have been times on Sundays when I've been a bit uncomfortable by the mix, wishing instead that we could focus on nurturing and healing our hearts and minds. But, overall, I support the mix of faith and politics in UUism. Here are some reasons why.
First, I got tired of having no mix at all. Politics is a no-no at the Mormon services I attended most my life. I think this is generally in line with the tendency for religious conservatives to believe that they best way to heal and change the world is by saving one soul at a time. I think it also has to do with the tendency for religious conservatives to equate patriotism with strong support of the government, even to a fault. I believe this is based partly on the myth "Christian Nation" and a "Chosen Nation." God is behind our nation and supports what we do, for the most part.
I believe that individuals can and do change and that this can lead to social change. But I don't think it necessarily has to come through personal religious conversion, and I believe that social structure, laws, and institutions - all beyond the individual - play a tremendous role in society, for good and ill. I think that this awareness is what drives UUs to mix faith and activism.
Second, there is this belief that religion and politics shouldn't go together because they'll spoil one another (or maybe mostly that the latter will spoil the former). This sets up a strong distinction and boundary between religion and politics, and suggests that there's too much compromise, too much secularism in politics and that this would have a negative impact on religion. But, I've come to believe that that boundary or distinction isn't as strong as I once thought. My interest in politics, my political beliefs, my growing activism, are all a reflection and natural result of my deeply held beliefs and values, many of which are informed by Unitarian Universalism. Like it or not, politics and government do affect us all, and carry with them tremendous social and moral ramifications. Why shouldn't it be the site of religious action?
Now, at this point someone could rightly bring up the religious right as a potentially dangerous mix of religion and politics. Right-wingers get accused of wanting to establish a theocracy (a severely exaggerated accusation), imposing their beliefs and values on others, being too militaristic and blindly patriotic, and in general being intolerant and nasty. Why would UU activism be any different? Well, for one, it is different. Core to my belief system is the belief that individuals should be able to live a life of their choosing as long as it doesn't hurt others, that we are not a Christian nation but a multi-religious nation (and a nation of non-believers, too) that needs to respect and draw from that pluralism, that being critical is not unpatriotic, and that everyone should have a voice, even those that we disagree with. Of course religion and politics should mix - we just have to guard against any one perspective cementing that mix thus keeping out all the others.
It's also fair to point out that political arguments and beliefs held by UUs often lack a supernatural or other-worldly component. Thus, they might not even seem religiously-inspired to many. I believe that religion is wider than people generally give it credit for, so I have no problem calling it religiously-inspired. Of course, UUs are not inspired only by religion (many are inspired very little by it!). Many of my socio-political beliefs and attitudes are based on other means of arriving at conclusions and discovering truth. Religion often has nothing to do with it. But, Unitarian Universalist history and principles definitely help shape them and inform them.
Sure, some Sundays I feel like I'm at a political meeting and not a religious service. But not usually. Core to Unitarian Universalism is that our values should inspire action, and that we have an obligation to work for a better world. If that carries us into politics, so be it.
NOTE (12/13/07): I just reread this post for the first time in a long time. I would just add one thing. I got a lot of interesting comments on this post, and I realized that people may not understand how I'm using the word "politics." I'm using it very broadly and loosely here. I mean voting, protesting, blogging, letter-writing, donating money, lobbying, and so on.
In recent years, there has been talk of "values voters." This generally refers to socially conservative, usually religious voters that place priority on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. This bugs me. Who isn't a "values voter"? We're all "values voters." We vote for those candidates, laws, ordinances, and policies that we feel best represent our values. This is yet another way in which values and religiosity have been equated with conservatism. This is wrong.
It's not hard to think of reasons why UUs are more politically aware and active than most people and why Unitarian Universalism openly engages in political discussions. Partly, it's just a reflection of its roots in liberal Protestantism and its emphasis on social justice and reform. Partly, it reflects the "this-worldly" theology of UUism. It's a faith with its eyes set squarely on this world and how to improve it. Of course, agreeing to come together not on shared religious beliefs but on shared values and ideals helps this. Also, UUs themselves are generally well-educated and politically liberal, certainly a mix that's bound to spill over into everything they do, including church.
I'll admit - there have been times on Sundays when I've been a bit uncomfortable by the mix, wishing instead that we could focus on nurturing and healing our hearts and minds. But, overall, I support the mix of faith and politics in UUism. Here are some reasons why.
First, I got tired of having no mix at all. Politics is a no-no at the Mormon services I attended most my life. I think this is generally in line with the tendency for religious conservatives to believe that they best way to heal and change the world is by saving one soul at a time. I think it also has to do with the tendency for religious conservatives to equate patriotism with strong support of the government, even to a fault. I believe this is based partly on the myth "Christian Nation" and a "Chosen Nation." God is behind our nation and supports what we do, for the most part.
I believe that individuals can and do change and that this can lead to social change. But I don't think it necessarily has to come through personal religious conversion, and I believe that social structure, laws, and institutions - all beyond the individual - play a tremendous role in society, for good and ill. I think that this awareness is what drives UUs to mix faith and activism.
Second, there is this belief that religion and politics shouldn't go together because they'll spoil one another (or maybe mostly that the latter will spoil the former). This sets up a strong distinction and boundary between religion and politics, and suggests that there's too much compromise, too much secularism in politics and that this would have a negative impact on religion. But, I've come to believe that that boundary or distinction isn't as strong as I once thought. My interest in politics, my political beliefs, my growing activism, are all a reflection and natural result of my deeply held beliefs and values, many of which are informed by Unitarian Universalism. Like it or not, politics and government do affect us all, and carry with them tremendous social and moral ramifications. Why shouldn't it be the site of religious action?
Now, at this point someone could rightly bring up the religious right as a potentially dangerous mix of religion and politics. Right-wingers get accused of wanting to establish a theocracy (a severely exaggerated accusation), imposing their beliefs and values on others, being too militaristic and blindly patriotic, and in general being intolerant and nasty. Why would UU activism be any different? Well, for one, it is different. Core to my belief system is the belief that individuals should be able to live a life of their choosing as long as it doesn't hurt others, that we are not a Christian nation but a multi-religious nation (and a nation of non-believers, too) that needs to respect and draw from that pluralism, that being critical is not unpatriotic, and that everyone should have a voice, even those that we disagree with. Of course religion and politics should mix - we just have to guard against any one perspective cementing that mix thus keeping out all the others.
It's also fair to point out that political arguments and beliefs held by UUs often lack a supernatural or other-worldly component. Thus, they might not even seem religiously-inspired to many. I believe that religion is wider than people generally give it credit for, so I have no problem calling it religiously-inspired. Of course, UUs are not inspired only by religion (many are inspired very little by it!). Many of my socio-political beliefs and attitudes are based on other means of arriving at conclusions and discovering truth. Religion often has nothing to do with it. But, Unitarian Universalist history and principles definitely help shape them and inform them.
Sure, some Sundays I feel like I'm at a political meeting and not a religious service. But not usually. Core to Unitarian Universalism is that our values should inspire action, and that we have an obligation to work for a better world. If that carries us into politics, so be it.
NOTE (12/13/07): I just reread this post for the first time in a long time. I would just add one thing. I got a lot of interesting comments on this post, and I realized that people may not understand how I'm using the word "politics." I'm using it very broadly and loosely here. I mean voting, protesting, blogging, letter-writing, donating money, lobbying, and so on.
In recent years, there has been talk of "values voters." This generally refers to socially conservative, usually religious voters that place priority on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. This bugs me. Who isn't a "values voter"? We're all "values voters." We vote for those candidates, laws, ordinances, and policies that we feel best represent our values. This is yet another way in which values and religiosity have been equated with conservatism. This is wrong.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Who will step up?
Several recent articles in The Nation have lamented that none of the presidential candidates, not even the Democrats, have really stepped up and called for a bold and pronounced shift in foreign policy and domestic issues. There's no doubt that the Republican candidates will not do anything to change how we work with other nations and how we are perceived by those nations. Despite our status as one of the most wealthy and technologically advanced nations on the earth, they will not do anything to grant Americans their right to adequate health care. In their effort to appeal to religious conservatives they will continue to show no compassion and extend no hand to gay and lesbian Americans. They will continue to ignore the constitution and the reality of religious diversity today and assert that America is a "Christian nation." I could go on.
What about the Democratic candidates? Jerry W. Sanders at The Nation has recently expressed concern that the Democrats are not responsive enough to public opinion on U.S. foreign policy. Most Americans are tired of being a global bully and going it alone on things like Iraq. This is one of my primary concerns right now and something that I care about a great deal for the election next year. I'm tired of the idea that we're this infallible superpower that has the authority to do whatever we want in the world. We need to build meaningful, peaceful relationships with other nations, restore our reputation with our allies, and care more about diplomacy. Basically, we need to start playing nice. Yes, I realize that other kids in the world don't always play nice, either, but we've got to stop the paranoid fear-mongering and constant muscle-flexing.
Another article laments that the Democrats haven't spoken out against the Republicans tossing around the word "Islamofascism." An incredibly offensive and out-of-touch word, "Islamofascism" is also to exaggerate the threat of terrorism and to ignore that we have friends in the Muslim world, that most Muslims are not fundamentalist, and that, oh, yeah, we have millions of Muslims here in the U.S.
I haven't settled completely on a candidate yet. Clinton seems too committed to the Iraq war and the same kinds of tactics Bush has used. She plays it too safe for me in the debates. There are some seriously morally troubling things we're facing as a nation and I want a candidate that's not afraid to say so in a progressive way.
I like John Edwards. I was impressed with his performance in the most recent debate. I appreciate his boldness and his willingness to criticize Hillary on the right issues. I like his plan for universal health care. I like his plan for getting out of Iraq and changing how we work with and are perceived by other nations. I like his concern over environmental issues. I wish he were as progressive as Kucinich or Gravel on some issues, but I want to support a candidate I think has a shot to win. So, for now, and I reserve the right to change my mind, I'm for Edwards. I urge people to check him out. Check out all the candidates. We desperately need a President who will realize that Americans are more seriously ready for something very different and morally responsible.
What about the Democratic candidates? Jerry W. Sanders at The Nation has recently expressed concern that the Democrats are not responsive enough to public opinion on U.S. foreign policy. Most Americans are tired of being a global bully and going it alone on things like Iraq. This is one of my primary concerns right now and something that I care about a great deal for the election next year. I'm tired of the idea that we're this infallible superpower that has the authority to do whatever we want in the world. We need to build meaningful, peaceful relationships with other nations, restore our reputation with our allies, and care more about diplomacy. Basically, we need to start playing nice. Yes, I realize that other kids in the world don't always play nice, either, but we've got to stop the paranoid fear-mongering and constant muscle-flexing.
Another article laments that the Democrats haven't spoken out against the Republicans tossing around the word "Islamofascism." An incredibly offensive and out-of-touch word, "Islamofascism" is also to exaggerate the threat of terrorism and to ignore that we have friends in the Muslim world, that most Muslims are not fundamentalist, and that, oh, yeah, we have millions of Muslims here in the U.S.
I haven't settled completely on a candidate yet. Clinton seems too committed to the Iraq war and the same kinds of tactics Bush has used. She plays it too safe for me in the debates. There are some seriously morally troubling things we're facing as a nation and I want a candidate that's not afraid to say so in a progressive way.
I like John Edwards. I was impressed with his performance in the most recent debate. I appreciate his boldness and his willingness to criticize Hillary on the right issues. I like his plan for universal health care. I like his plan for getting out of Iraq and changing how we work with and are perceived by other nations. I like his concern over environmental issues. I wish he were as progressive as Kucinich or Gravel on some issues, but I want to support a candidate I think has a shot to win. So, for now, and I reserve the right to change my mind, I'm for Edwards. I urge people to check him out. Check out all the candidates. We desperately need a President who will realize that Americans are more seriously ready for something very different and morally responsible.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
"Find us and ye shall seek": the new UU full-page ad
I just noticed today that as part of the big UUA marketing campaign, a new full-page ad is running in the November 5 issue of Time magazine. In another post I discussed an older and perhaps more controversial ad. This new ad has in huge letters the phrase "FIND US AND YOU SHALL SEEK." It takes up about half the page. Of course, this is a twist on the New Testament phrase and invitation of Christ "seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." This appears in both Luke and Matthew. The ad then goes on:
Overall, I like the ad. I think the twist on the familiar New Testament phrase is clever and eye-catching. The whole gist of the ad is certainly going to seem flaky to many, but I think it will appeal to some "spiritual seekers" that are turned off by organized religion. I don't know that I'd consider myself a "seeker," but I consider myself on a spiritual journey to a degree. I'm content with not having all the answers, and I find asking the right questions can have a wonderful impact. So, I think the ad may touch people like me.
If there's one thing that bugs me about it, just like with the other ad, it's that it reinforces the idea that UUism is extremely individualistic. As I've said, this is a concern I have about UUism as a whole. It also reinforces a popular conception people have that within UUism people can believe whatever they want and that there's nothing to hold UUs together. I think this is tempered by the inclusion of the word "responsible" before "quest for truth and meaning." This, of course, comes straight from the fourth principle. But the message I would rather send is that UUism isn't about giving you all the answers or telling you what to do. It's about like-minded people rallying around shared values and beliefs about humanity and our responsibility in society and in the world. We invite people to join us in the search for truth and meaning and our work to make the world a more just, loving place.
If you're searching for a spiritual home where questions are as welcome as answers, find us. We are a loving, open-minded religious community that is guided not by a set creed or dogma but by a free and responsible quest for truth and meaning in our lives. There is a religion that welcomes your search. Discover Unitarian Universalism.
Overall, I like the ad. I think the twist on the familiar New Testament phrase is clever and eye-catching. The whole gist of the ad is certainly going to seem flaky to many, but I think it will appeal to some "spiritual seekers" that are turned off by organized religion. I don't know that I'd consider myself a "seeker," but I consider myself on a spiritual journey to a degree. I'm content with not having all the answers, and I find asking the right questions can have a wonderful impact. So, I think the ad may touch people like me.
If there's one thing that bugs me about it, just like with the other ad, it's that it reinforces the idea that UUism is extremely individualistic. As I've said, this is a concern I have about UUism as a whole. It also reinforces a popular conception people have that within UUism people can believe whatever they want and that there's nothing to hold UUs together. I think this is tempered by the inclusion of the word "responsible" before "quest for truth and meaning." This, of course, comes straight from the fourth principle. But the message I would rather send is that UUism isn't about giving you all the answers or telling you what to do. It's about like-minded people rallying around shared values and beliefs about humanity and our responsibility in society and in the world. We invite people to join us in the search for truth and meaning and our work to make the world a more just, loving place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
