In a commencement address never delivered, Dr. Neil Postman once argued that there were two contrasting cultural paradigms, one of which inspires and produces the culture of the highest common denominator and the other of which constantly threatens to corrode our collective sensitivities and produces the culture of the lowest common denominator. http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2005/06/athenians-and-visigothsneil-postmans-graduation-speech.html The first culture is Athens, and the second is that of the Visigoths. Athens, he argues, was characterized by literacy, democracy, philosophy, art and the finest culture, while the Visigoths were characterized by brutality, simplicity, crudeness of speech and artistry, and a bent toward destruction. These two contrasting cultures not only represent opposite values and traditions, they also represent the two poles of culture either of which subsequent societies align with. Dr. Postman argues that the Athenian culture is the superior culture, indeed, even the model culture, while the Visigoth culture is the default culture which we are born to emulate and perpetuate apart from an intentional effort to pursue truth, beauty, and civility. While it is undoubtedly true that Athens represents a cultural high water mark, and possesses an enduring legacy, I cannot agree with Dr. Postman that this is the culture we ought to emulate. What I will argue for is a culture that is something in between, something that is part Athenian, part Visigoth. Let me explain.
Attempting to defend his proposition, that Athenian culture is superior and that we ought therefore to emulate it, Postman points to Athenian language and art, along with their byproducts as illustrations of cultural excellence. Clearly, if we were to make our evaluation of these two societies purely on the basis of their cultural byproducts, and then based on that evaluation establish which culture ought to be emulated, then Athens would win hands down. The Athenians left for our admiration the Parthenon, the poetry of Sappho and Pindar, the tragedies of Euriopides and Sophocles, the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle, not to mention political democracy and the Olympics, while the Visigoths left behind “no poetry, no theater, no logic, no science, no humane politics.”
However, though the Athenian accomplishments are illustrations of the enduring quality which characterized much of Athenian culture, they only capture one side of the cultural spectrum. Sure, on the one hand, there is something to be said for art that arranges a collage of images, colors, and shapes in symmetrical order and realistic proportion. But, on the other hand, there are numerous examples of non-representational art of the sort of Visigoth mold that provokes real thought and deep emotion simply because it doesn’t reproduce a depiction of reality that borders on the Rockwellesque and surreal. Instead, it highlights and accentuates the twisted and uneven grooves and texture of the world we actually live in. To say that one is “better” than the other and ought to be cherished above the other and modeled, while the other should not be, is a sort of snotty elitism, a bigotry, and amounts to a purely subjective value judgment.
To follow Postman’s argument out further, let’s think about Athenian rhetoric. Yes, the prose is polished, elegant, even stately, and the argument is often well developed. However, to insist that this is the only kind of communication that is admirable or even effective is a stretch. Think of the power and insight generated by simple non-verbal cues which speak volumes without words and sentences. Beyond the non-verbal, think of the brilliant, non-Athenian style of Hemingway who communicated with an economy of words. Or, consider, the vigorous oratory of Churchill which lacked the polish and grand style of the Golden Orators of ancient Athens. The only point I am trying to make here is that the “simple” rhetorical model of the Visigoth doesn’t always indicate lack of nuance, depth, or insight as Postman seems to suggest. The clear, simple, yet aggressive style of the Visigoth can be just as effective and meaningful as the Athenian style.
Beyond the comparison of cultural byproducts, I believe there is an important argument to be made for Visigoth culture with its commitment to the martial way. The Visigoths were warriors, horsemen, and strategists. These technical skills were part of a broader martial ethos that included the qualities of self-discipline, valor, comradery, and persistence. This kind of martial ethos is essential for a society if it is to enjoy the opportunity to engage in culture. No society will long enjoy the luxury to ponder, reflect, communicate, compose, sculpt, or paint without the presence of a warrior class and a martial spirit to protect from external marauders or to restrain the internal threats posed by the inherent darkness in citizens, which constantly threatens to erupt in chaos and plunge the polis into disorder. Peer pressure is certainly not enough to restrain such inherent corruption, neither is the power of a good example; tough-minded, exacting brute force is. A well-founded society must have an enforcer, there has to be somebody who everyone fears enough to bridle their darker instincts and who keeps opportunistic outsiders at bay out of fear of severe bodily risk or even death.
But the positive aspects of the Visigoth ethos consists in more than just providing physical security it impacts other areas of society as well, namely, economic development. In contrast to the Greeks, who were more fascinated with the contemplative, the Visigoths were pragmatic, they were about utility. Their concern was how to use knowledge and skill for gain, as Postman notes, “To a Visigoth, the quest for knowledge is useless unless it can help you to earn money or to gain power over other people.” In other words, the Visigoth contribution to society is the development of a mindset that seeks to turn ideas into applications that have a useful purpose and economic benefit. That stands in contrast to the Athenians who seemed to think of themselves as above that; after all, they had slaves do their work anyway, so they didn’t really seem to care as much about efficiency of production or utility. The only reason why I can see that someone would count that as a negative, is because they are so culturally idealistic and Utopian that they are social egalitarians and don’t want a society where there are class differences based upon skill and individual genius. But, if you have a free market society, ingenuity is the genius that paves the pathway out of poverty into the track of upward social and economic mobility. The Visigoth ethos contributes toward a society of economic prosperity precisely because it cultivates an attitude which is both pragmatic and opportunistic, contemplative and utilitarian.
So, I argue, the best culture is a combination of cultures, one which is part Athenian and part Visigoth, a culture which balances the pursuit of the aesthetics of the Athenians with the cultivation of the martial ethos of the Visigoths. This culture is embodied first of all at the individual level, and then valued and developed at the community level. An individual who lacks martial discipline will either not enjoy the requisite personal qualities to develop their latent mental and aesthetic abilities to their fullest potential or will experience the frustration of having their self-expression being constantly interrupted or worse yet destroyed by thugs and savages. On the other hand the individual who lacks mental and aesthetic abilities yet cultivates martial skill in unequal proportion, will either become so one dimensional that they will become grotesque and eventually self-loathing, or will plunge the culture around them into a state of chaos and darkness in a quest for illegitimate domination. By striking a balance between these contrasting personal qualities the individual will be given the freedom to think and engage in articulate self-expression. When a culture consists of individuals with the proportional balance of Athenian and Visigoth it will possess both mental and aesthetic discipline as well as physical security and internal order. In other words it will be both smart and tough, powerful and articulate, ordered and imaginative. That is what I mean by part Athenian, part Visigoth, and I believe that is the kind of culture that we ought to attempt to emulate.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
We are all just addicts waiting to happen
It seems like anywhere you turn today, you can find a scientific explanation for almost any behavior, deviant or "normal." If you drink too much you are an alcoholic, if you smoke too much you are a nicotine addict, if you are overly sexually active, you are a sex-aholic. The best thing about all these labels is that they come with scientific (genetic) explanations. Whatever your addiction, clearly, it cant be a lack of self-control it can only be that you are genetically predisposed to that particular addictive pattern of behavior. Your behavior has everything to do with the cards you were dealt. You got a bad hand and now you will just have to live with it. Maybe a little therapy and some medication can help minimize its effects, but at the end of the day, your "addiction" will always be there lurking in the shadows to overtake you. You will never beat it, rather, you are always going to be a helpless victim of your genes, and the best you can ever say is that you are "recovering."
Well, now add one more group of helpless victims to the long list of addicts. In a recent article posted in the Telegraph, scientists report that they have found a new clinical disorder called "gadget addiction." This terrible addiction is explained as follows:
They suffer four symptoms: They forget to eat and sleep; they need more advanced technology or more hours online as they develop 'resistance' to the pleasure given by their current system; if they are deprived of their computer, they experience genuine withdrawal symptoms; And in common with other addictions, the victims also begin to have more arguments, to suffer fatigue, to get lower marks in tests and to feel isolated from society. http://Internet addiction is a 'clinical disorder'
Now before you start snickering too loudly at the “gadget addicts” take a moment to consider the debilitating nature of this problem. Dr. Jerald Block explains that some sufferers “were so addicted to the internet that they required medication or even hospital treatment to curb the time they spent on the web.”
He goes on to say that: "The relationship is with the computer. It becomes a significant other to them. They exhaust emotions that they could experience in the real world on the computer through any number of mechanisms: emailing, gaming, porn." Wow, sounds incredibly awful.
Perhaps you recognize yourself somewhere in those four symptoms, and are concerned that you too may be a “gadget addict.” Just wait though, because you may not need to rush out for 12 steps and meds just yet. Research suggests the true “gadget addict” is the species of highly educated, socially awkward men, oh yeah, and also middle aged housewives. If you don’t fit either of those categories, I am sorry to report to you that there is no known explanation for your obsessive internet addiction. But, on the other hand, don’t worry long over this because, after all, if the scientists keep fishing around in the gene pool they are likely to find just the disorder that ails you. In the mean time, just keep on with what you are doing, after all, you are simply doing what you are.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
A monument to homosexuality
I found this article intriguing and decided to take a plunge into the dicyhttp://monument%20to%20homosexual%20victims%20of%20nazis%20unveiled/. Having counted the cost of making it appear that I am more sympathetic to the policies of Hitler rather than the plight of persecuted homosexuals, I will forge ahead and give you my take on this Berlin monument: I find it to be an example of PC run amok and an insult to the millions of Jews who were exterminated simply on account of their ethnicity.
Let me make it clear, I categorically reject civil policies which involve prosecuting, persecuting or punishing homosexuals merely for their sexual choices. On the other hand, make no mistake about it, I don't condone homosexual behavior, since, I believe it is an obvious and inexcusable violation of the innate laws of human sexuality stamped both on the mind and body of human beings. The anatomical compatibility of men and women alone, speaks so loud that it should shout down any dissonance an individual might feel about their sexual orientation, and renders them morally inexcusable. Homosexuality, is a matter of choice, not genetics, or culture.
That last thought gets us down to the issue presented by this article. To place a monument in memory to persecuted homosexuals, who freely chose a behavior that put them at risk for persecution by Hitler's regime, opposite a monument to the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazi's, who were killed for no other reason than their ethnic identity, is a gross and dangerous confusion of moral categories. Murder is immoral on any account, either by civilians or civil government, and should always be abhorred and punished. However, to place the persecution, and in some cases murder of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, on a continuum with genocide is to minimize the horror of Nazi crimes against humanity. To hate and persecute individuals solely on the basis of ethnicity, something that one has absolutely no control over, ought to be considered a circumstance that severely aggravates the crime of murder. While murdering someone out of hate for their sexual choice is reprehensible, murdering out of racial motives, is an intensification of hate that if unchecked, unleashes a destabilizing and destructive influence upon society which has catastrophic implications.
This point is so obvious, I cannot believe that those who were responsible for the erection of this monument were ignorant of this or even in disagreement with it. That leads me to a final thought on all this, motives. Why would someone attempt to place the persecution of homosexuals and Jews at the hands of Nazi's on a continuum that blurs the significant differences between them? Well, the answer is found in the words of Berlin's homosexual mayor, Klaus Wowereit, who said, "Great efforts will still need to be undertaken before the sight of two men or women kissing here or in Moscow or elsewhere on the planet is accepted by society in general." Apparently they do it because its about two men kissing each other! This monument is a public works stunt designed to legitimize homosexuality. Its not about commemorating the suffering of a past generation, its about advancing a political agenda and using tax payer money to do so. By the way, that is not my reading between the lines, it is, again, the interpretation of Berlin's homosexual mayor who said, "The monument consecrated today is a reminder to us of the horrors of the past and draws our attention to the degree of discrimination that currently exists." See, Wowereit himself says its about drawing attention to the homosexual agenda. Its not about commemoration of unjust suffering, its a monument to homosexuality.
To my mind, this "monument to homosexuals" ought to provoke outrage not only from the Jewish community, but from every ethnic group that has experienced the ruthless persecution of dictators, tyrants, and evil oppressors of any stripe. The equation of the mistreatment of homosexuals, which is a behavior based upon a choice, with the brutal, inhuman treatment and murder of millions of Jews based upon race, is so outrageous words can hardly describe it. Who can miss the not so subtle sub-text of this monument, which is that any intolerane of or lack of acceptance of the homosexual lifestyel is tantamount to the slaughter of millions of Jews in Nazi Germany? All this prompts a question, "When are reasonable people going to stand up and stop the mouths of these obstreperous people who shamelessly exploit the suffering and persecution of others to advance and legitimize their selfish agenda?"
Our generation is so worried about being labelled "insensitive" and "bigoted," we have lost our nerve to take principled stands against almost anything. Such lack of nerve will have serious consequences if it persists. If we cannot distinguish between the consequences due to choices, from the consequences due to genetics and race now, we will have no ability to define and prosecute real injustice in the future. Instead of a monument to homosexuality, we need a combined monument to common sense and courage. We need common sense to define the issues correctly and courage to stand up and speak out against the likes of these tyrannical minority groups who use the cover of political correctness to force the rest of society to accept their perverse lifestyle.
Let me make it clear, I categorically reject civil policies which involve prosecuting, persecuting or punishing homosexuals merely for their sexual choices. On the other hand, make no mistake about it, I don't condone homosexual behavior, since, I believe it is an obvious and inexcusable violation of the innate laws of human sexuality stamped both on the mind and body of human beings. The anatomical compatibility of men and women alone, speaks so loud that it should shout down any dissonance an individual might feel about their sexual orientation, and renders them morally inexcusable. Homosexuality, is a matter of choice, not genetics, or culture.
That last thought gets us down to the issue presented by this article. To place a monument in memory to persecuted homosexuals, who freely chose a behavior that put them at risk for persecution by Hitler's regime, opposite a monument to the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazi's, who were killed for no other reason than their ethnic identity, is a gross and dangerous confusion of moral categories. Murder is immoral on any account, either by civilians or civil government, and should always be abhorred and punished. However, to place the persecution, and in some cases murder of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, on a continuum with genocide is to minimize the horror of Nazi crimes against humanity. To hate and persecute individuals solely on the basis of ethnicity, something that one has absolutely no control over, ought to be considered a circumstance that severely aggravates the crime of murder. While murdering someone out of hate for their sexual choice is reprehensible, murdering out of racial motives, is an intensification of hate that if unchecked, unleashes a destabilizing and destructive influence upon society which has catastrophic implications.
This point is so obvious, I cannot believe that those who were responsible for the erection of this monument were ignorant of this or even in disagreement with it. That leads me to a final thought on all this, motives. Why would someone attempt to place the persecution of homosexuals and Jews at the hands of Nazi's on a continuum that blurs the significant differences between them? Well, the answer is found in the words of Berlin's homosexual mayor, Klaus Wowereit, who said, "Great efforts will still need to be undertaken before the sight of two men or women kissing here or in Moscow or elsewhere on the planet is accepted by society in general." Apparently they do it because its about two men kissing each other! This monument is a public works stunt designed to legitimize homosexuality. Its not about commemorating the suffering of a past generation, its about advancing a political agenda and using tax payer money to do so. By the way, that is not my reading between the lines, it is, again, the interpretation of Berlin's homosexual mayor who said, "The monument consecrated today is a reminder to us of the horrors of the past and draws our attention to the degree of discrimination that currently exists." See, Wowereit himself says its about drawing attention to the homosexual agenda. Its not about commemoration of unjust suffering, its a monument to homosexuality.
To my mind, this "monument to homosexuals" ought to provoke outrage not only from the Jewish community, but from every ethnic group that has experienced the ruthless persecution of dictators, tyrants, and evil oppressors of any stripe. The equation of the mistreatment of homosexuals, which is a behavior based upon a choice, with the brutal, inhuman treatment and murder of millions of Jews based upon race, is so outrageous words can hardly describe it. Who can miss the not so subtle sub-text of this monument, which is that any intolerane of or lack of acceptance of the homosexual lifestyel is tantamount to the slaughter of millions of Jews in Nazi Germany? All this prompts a question, "When are reasonable people going to stand up and stop the mouths of these obstreperous people who shamelessly exploit the suffering and persecution of others to advance and legitimize their selfish agenda?"
Our generation is so worried about being labelled "insensitive" and "bigoted," we have lost our nerve to take principled stands against almost anything. Such lack of nerve will have serious consequences if it persists. If we cannot distinguish between the consequences due to choices, from the consequences due to genetics and race now, we will have no ability to define and prosecute real injustice in the future. Instead of a monument to homosexuality, we need a combined monument to common sense and courage. We need common sense to define the issues correctly and courage to stand up and speak out against the likes of these tyrannical minority groups who use the cover of political correctness to force the rest of society to accept their perverse lifestyle.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
"My god" is in my head
Recently a letter of Albert Einstein's emerged for auctioning in London, dated from 1954. Included in the body of the letter were a couple of statements that caught my attention: belief in God is a childish superstitition and the Bible is nothing more than a collection of childish primitive tales. I suppose that many people might excuse that coming from Einstein, after all, he was a pioneer in the world of modern physics and lived through the world wars of the 20th century, so, the argument often goes, he was just too sophisticated to believe in a god who could both create a world so intricate and complex as well as full of such random evil.
It is difficult to imagine that someone who had the opportunity to examine the book of nature with such care and precision, and who mareveled at the majesty of its design, could so easily miss (or dismiss, whatever the case may be) the fingerprints of the same majestic power, who created the natural world, so indeliby imprinted upon the pages of scripture. According to the sentiments expressed in this letter it seems fair to say that Einstein found that the Bible lacked credibility, after all, it was a holy book filled with odd stories and improbable miracles. But, I would challenge that. I realize that the the notion of miracle is supposedly very difficult for people to believe in who live in the age of toasters and microwaves, but I don't believe that miracle is that difficult for someone to believe in who has the capacity to marvel at the complex nature of the universe and codify the laws of quantum mechanics. Surely, the intricacy of the phenomenal world should have left room for openness to the concept of divine miracles as they are recorded in scripture, no matter how crude the language used to report them. After all, the improbability of naturalism as an adequate means of accounting for the majestic intricacy of the phenomenal world ought to have left him searching or at least open to considering counter explanations for the origins of the complex natural world.
Some years ago Charles Misner, a scientist specializing in the general theory of relativity suggested that Einstein was not really an atheist, he simply couldn't subscribe to any formal religion he had been exposed because they did not adequately capture the majesty of the God who fashioned the world. I think its just the opposite though. It seems to me that he idolized himself instead and worshiped his own majestic mind. Of course God is hard to see and believe in for the one looks into the mirror of nature and finds the reflection of his own marvelous face staring back at him instead of beholding with awe and wonder Him who designed it all.
http://belief/ in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter
It is difficult to imagine that someone who had the opportunity to examine the book of nature with such care and precision, and who mareveled at the majesty of its design, could so easily miss (or dismiss, whatever the case may be) the fingerprints of the same majestic power, who created the natural world, so indeliby imprinted upon the pages of scripture. According to the sentiments expressed in this letter it seems fair to say that Einstein found that the Bible lacked credibility, after all, it was a holy book filled with odd stories and improbable miracles. But, I would challenge that. I realize that the the notion of miracle is supposedly very difficult for people to believe in who live in the age of toasters and microwaves, but I don't believe that miracle is that difficult for someone to believe in who has the capacity to marvel at the complex nature of the universe and codify the laws of quantum mechanics. Surely, the intricacy of the phenomenal world should have left room for openness to the concept of divine miracles as they are recorded in scripture, no matter how crude the language used to report them. After all, the improbability of naturalism as an adequate means of accounting for the majestic intricacy of the phenomenal world ought to have left him searching or at least open to considering counter explanations for the origins of the complex natural world.
Some years ago Charles Misner, a scientist specializing in the general theory of relativity suggested that Einstein was not really an atheist, he simply couldn't subscribe to any formal religion he had been exposed because they did not adequately capture the majesty of the God who fashioned the world. I think its just the opposite though. It seems to me that he idolized himself instead and worshiped his own majestic mind. Of course God is hard to see and believe in for the one looks into the mirror of nature and finds the reflection of his own marvelous face staring back at him instead of beholding with awe and wonder Him who designed it all.
http://belief/ in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Irony of "Jesus Camp"
I finally did it, I sat through Jesus Camp; and, I must say, that it was every bit as disturbing as I thought it would be. The way contemporary evangelicals act and worship in the name of Jesus is utterly appalling, and will cause any thinking Christian to bristle with shame. Here however, I don’t intend to chronicle all the horrifying details of the twisted behavior and worship of these evangelicals exemplified in the movie. Instead, I want to point out the irony of the movie which is this: the producers of the film wanted to show how the “religious right” is indoctrinating young children and preparing them to be zealous foot soldiers in a political and cultural battle, while pretending that the liberals whose point of view they represent, do not do that.
The movie is framed by two separate radio announcements, one at the beginning and one at the end, pertaining to Supreme Court justices. The first refers to the resignation of Sandra Day O’Connor and the second refers to the approval of justice Sam Alito to take her place. These announcements provide the narrative context which teases out the underlying issue of the entire film: the political battle over abortion. Of course, the announcement concerning the justices emerges on account of the pivotal role they play in deciding the legality of abortion. Now, that being the key issue, the role of the political activism of the religious right in seeking to elect a president and other governement officials who appoint Supreme Court justices, emerges as the concern of the producers. The film then, focuses on how the “religious right” is indoctrinating young children to be soldiers in this conflict, and the principal focus becomes the “Kids on Fire Camp” and the ministry of Becky Fischer to illustrate the process.
So that is the big picture, now where is the irony?
The easiest way to get at the irony is to analyze a few of the editorial comments made by the radio host, sprinkled throughout the film, which focus on the “religious right” and their role in this political battle. For instance, he laments the fact that the political activism of the “religious right” sends a bad message to Christian children that it is appropriate and legitimate to intertwine religion and politics. He charges that Christian children are being taught that global warming and the rape of the environment doesn’t matter. He complains that through the agitation of his base, the religious right, President Bush is pushing the teaching of Creationism in public schools, along side of naturalistic evolution. He sounds the alarm, warning against relgious activism, as he notes that there is a “religious army of foot soldiers (those who have been indoctrinated as children) directed by a political right and they are taking control in small slices. They have taken control of the White House, congress and the judiciary.” Finally, in a segment toward the end, he interviews Becky Fischer, and in the context of arguing with her about the legitimacy of her indoctrination of young children says, “you have a right to teach kids anything but don’t let that bleed into the public sector.” These few comments adequately provide evidence for the axe the movie is trying to grind: Christian activists are indoctrinating Christian children about political issues, particularly abortion, global warming, and the origins of life, and it is dangerous to freedom and must be stopped.
Now, having read these statements of the radio host, who serves as the mouthpiece of the producers to articulate their political philosophy and concerns, I am sure you can seee the irony. He (they, the producers) are saying, “what an outrage, these Christians are teaching these kids ideas and concepts that are designed to effect their behavior and impact the political process!” Like the public education system has not been doing that in America for the last 80 years. I will never forget one of the most honest statements I heard from a liberal professor who taught a Political Science course I once took. He said, “the public education system in America is designed to teach children who the civil authorities are, and how to recognize the symbols of their office.” That is 100 percent correct, and that is indoctrination! The purpose of education is not to teach children who is in charge, it is to provide them with the tools so that they can learn how to think for themselves. However, once education becomes a government institution, it will always end up focusing on indoctrination rather than education because the state cannot separate its own interests from the task of imparting information.
So what is the state's interest that is being communicated through public education? Well, that is obvious, the state wants citizens who recognize government authority, fear and respect government authority, and who have been trained to think and act in predictable ways. The most effective way to accomplish that is to engraft children, from the earliest age possible, into an education system where the goals and interests of the state are constantly reinforced throughout their formative years of life. The primary value of the state that shapes the education system in America is that citizens are actually “resources,” not individual human beings made in the image of God possessing real dignity; therefore, the role of public education is to teach these “resources” how to behave properly, that is, respect the encroaching power of government without asking probing questions about constitutional authority, look to the governemnt for solutions to personal problems such as health care, day care, a job, etc., and to control the biological reproduction of the “resources.” To reinforce this last value, the the education system starts with sex education in Kindergarten and continues it through high school. The government hopes that the “resources” use appropriate birth control so as not to overproduce and thereby lead to greater government costs, but just in case the sex education doesn’t work, it affords the “resources” the “right to privacy” err, abortion in order to control population.
These are the “non-sectarian” political ideas that govern the perspective of the producers of “Jesus Camp.” The bone they have to pick with the religious activists is that they are competing with the liberal establishment which runs the government education system for the hearts, minds, and bodies of children. With the rise of Christian schools, and more particularly the home school movement, which the movie points out consists of evangelical Christians to the tune of 75 percent, the government monopoly on indoctrination (education) has been seriously challenged. That represents an enormous problem for liberals because if enough of these young people grow up to think for themselves, and in turn think of themselves as free individuals, and not government “resources” they just might challenge or overturn the status quo.
For these political liberals to tell tax-paying citizens, parents and religious groups that they don’t have the right to teach children a system of beliefs, morals, and actions if those views spill over into the political realm is utter hypocrisy. That is exactly what the liberal establishment has been doing for decades, and still continues to do. It has indoctrinated generations of children in establishment liberalism through government schools. Through the medium of film, “Jesus Camp” powerfully reminds us that ideas always impact behavior and eventually political systems. Denying this, and pretending that only “sectarian” groups indoctrinate children in order to influence public policy is dishonest and hypocritical, and that’s the irony of “Jesus Camp.”
The movie is framed by two separate radio announcements, one at the beginning and one at the end, pertaining to Supreme Court justices. The first refers to the resignation of Sandra Day O’Connor and the second refers to the approval of justice Sam Alito to take her place. These announcements provide the narrative context which teases out the underlying issue of the entire film: the political battle over abortion. Of course, the announcement concerning the justices emerges on account of the pivotal role they play in deciding the legality of abortion. Now, that being the key issue, the role of the political activism of the religious right in seeking to elect a president and other governement officials who appoint Supreme Court justices, emerges as the concern of the producers. The film then, focuses on how the “religious right” is indoctrinating young children to be soldiers in this conflict, and the principal focus becomes the “Kids on Fire Camp” and the ministry of Becky Fischer to illustrate the process.
So that is the big picture, now where is the irony?
The easiest way to get at the irony is to analyze a few of the editorial comments made by the radio host, sprinkled throughout the film, which focus on the “religious right” and their role in this political battle. For instance, he laments the fact that the political activism of the “religious right” sends a bad message to Christian children that it is appropriate and legitimate to intertwine religion and politics. He charges that Christian children are being taught that global warming and the rape of the environment doesn’t matter. He complains that through the agitation of his base, the religious right, President Bush is pushing the teaching of Creationism in public schools, along side of naturalistic evolution. He sounds the alarm, warning against relgious activism, as he notes that there is a “religious army of foot soldiers (those who have been indoctrinated as children) directed by a political right and they are taking control in small slices. They have taken control of the White House, congress and the judiciary.” Finally, in a segment toward the end, he interviews Becky Fischer, and in the context of arguing with her about the legitimacy of her indoctrination of young children says, “you have a right to teach kids anything but don’t let that bleed into the public sector.” These few comments adequately provide evidence for the axe the movie is trying to grind: Christian activists are indoctrinating Christian children about political issues, particularly abortion, global warming, and the origins of life, and it is dangerous to freedom and must be stopped.
Now, having read these statements of the radio host, who serves as the mouthpiece of the producers to articulate their political philosophy and concerns, I am sure you can seee the irony. He (they, the producers) are saying, “what an outrage, these Christians are teaching these kids ideas and concepts that are designed to effect their behavior and impact the political process!” Like the public education system has not been doing that in America for the last 80 years. I will never forget one of the most honest statements I heard from a liberal professor who taught a Political Science course I once took. He said, “the public education system in America is designed to teach children who the civil authorities are, and how to recognize the symbols of their office.” That is 100 percent correct, and that is indoctrination! The purpose of education is not to teach children who is in charge, it is to provide them with the tools so that they can learn how to think for themselves. However, once education becomes a government institution, it will always end up focusing on indoctrination rather than education because the state cannot separate its own interests from the task of imparting information.
So what is the state's interest that is being communicated through public education? Well, that is obvious, the state wants citizens who recognize government authority, fear and respect government authority, and who have been trained to think and act in predictable ways. The most effective way to accomplish that is to engraft children, from the earliest age possible, into an education system where the goals and interests of the state are constantly reinforced throughout their formative years of life. The primary value of the state that shapes the education system in America is that citizens are actually “resources,” not individual human beings made in the image of God possessing real dignity; therefore, the role of public education is to teach these “resources” how to behave properly, that is, respect the encroaching power of government without asking probing questions about constitutional authority, look to the governemnt for solutions to personal problems such as health care, day care, a job, etc., and to control the biological reproduction of the “resources.” To reinforce this last value, the the education system starts with sex education in Kindergarten and continues it through high school. The government hopes that the “resources” use appropriate birth control so as not to overproduce and thereby lead to greater government costs, but just in case the sex education doesn’t work, it affords the “resources” the “right to privacy” err, abortion in order to control population.
These are the “non-sectarian” political ideas that govern the perspective of the producers of “Jesus Camp.” The bone they have to pick with the religious activists is that they are competing with the liberal establishment which runs the government education system for the hearts, minds, and bodies of children. With the rise of Christian schools, and more particularly the home school movement, which the movie points out consists of evangelical Christians to the tune of 75 percent, the government monopoly on indoctrination (education) has been seriously challenged. That represents an enormous problem for liberals because if enough of these young people grow up to think for themselves, and in turn think of themselves as free individuals, and not government “resources” they just might challenge or overturn the status quo.
For these political liberals to tell tax-paying citizens, parents and religious groups that they don’t have the right to teach children a system of beliefs, morals, and actions if those views spill over into the political realm is utter hypocrisy. That is exactly what the liberal establishment has been doing for decades, and still continues to do. It has indoctrinated generations of children in establishment liberalism through government schools. Through the medium of film, “Jesus Camp” powerfully reminds us that ideas always impact behavior and eventually political systems. Denying this, and pretending that only “sectarian” groups indoctrinate children in order to influence public policy is dishonest and hypocritical, and that’s the irony of “Jesus Camp.”
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Was Moses on Dope?
Throughout my years as a college student and then as a grad student I came across many interesting if not fantastic explanations of difficult things found in the Bible. It seems that critical scholars will go to any lengths imaginable to explain away the supernatural in the scriptures. As I was doing to some net surfing here recently I came across an explanation of Moses on Mt. Sinai that really took the cake. In an article Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argued that, "Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments." Apparently, the bark from accacia trees can produce a strong hallucinogenic effect under the right conditions. Shanon thinks that this concoction accounts for the things Moses heard and saw(e.g. burning bush, which he thinks is another apparent hallucinogenic episode).
Why resort to such fantastic explanations? Well, the answer is obvious, we can't just take the Bible at face value. After all, it is wrong about so many things, right? Actually, no, it is not wrong on so many things, and it is not full of errors, and false statements. Critics used to say that the Bible, in the early chapters of Genesis, named cities and Mesopotamian kings that never existed, only to be proved wrong with the discovery of the Ebla tablets in the 1960's. We used to be told that the walls of Jericho could not have fallen outward, as the book of Joshua says, because an attacking army would naturally batter the walls until they fell inward (even though Joshua specifically says Israel didn't touch the walls), until the 1990's, when renowned archeologist Kathleen Kenyon proved that available evidence suggests they fell outward. Many other instances of critics attempting to explain away the facts of the Bible only to be later disproved by hard evidence could be cited, but it is unnecessary to do this. The Bible is reliable, as Nelson Glueck (renowned Jewish archaeologist) once said, “it may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”
Just because Prof. Shanon got lit up on psychodelic drugs once doesn't mean Moses did, at least not on Mt. Sanai. This kind of unfounded speculation leads one to ask, "what will they come up with next? Moses was abducted by aliens? The 'burning bush' episode took place on Tralfamadore?" I think Prof. Shanon better stick to studying the behavior of white rats rather than interpreting the Bible if reading his own experiences into the text is all he knows how to do.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080304120710.ad7gm7i6&show_article=1
Why resort to such fantastic explanations? Well, the answer is obvious, we can't just take the Bible at face value. After all, it is wrong about so many things, right? Actually, no, it is not wrong on so many things, and it is not full of errors, and false statements. Critics used to say that the Bible, in the early chapters of Genesis, named cities and Mesopotamian kings that never existed, only to be proved wrong with the discovery of the Ebla tablets in the 1960's. We used to be told that the walls of Jericho could not have fallen outward, as the book of Joshua says, because an attacking army would naturally batter the walls until they fell inward (even though Joshua specifically says Israel didn't touch the walls), until the 1990's, when renowned archeologist Kathleen Kenyon proved that available evidence suggests they fell outward. Many other instances of critics attempting to explain away the facts of the Bible only to be later disproved by hard evidence could be cited, but it is unnecessary to do this. The Bible is reliable, as Nelson Glueck (renowned Jewish archaeologist) once said, “it may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”
Just because Prof. Shanon got lit up on psychodelic drugs once doesn't mean Moses did, at least not on Mt. Sanai. This kind of unfounded speculation leads one to ask, "what will they come up with next? Moses was abducted by aliens? The 'burning bush' episode took place on Tralfamadore?" I think Prof. Shanon better stick to studying the behavior of white rats rather than interpreting the Bible if reading his own experiences into the text is all he knows how to do.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080304120710.ad7gm7i6&show_article=1
Okay, I Was Wrong About Henderson
Well, I was way wrong about that Henderson-Sylva fight. I told my sons that I was predicting a decision in favor of Henderson, but that it would still be a good fight. My son looked at me and said, "wrong, it will be Sylva in the 2nd round!" It turns out, he was right and I was wrong. The first round went exactly how I had predicted. There was a feeling out process, some punches and kicks, and then a takedown by Henderson and he held Sylva down, and dirty boxed him until the end of the round. At that point, I felt pretty smug about my prediction, and I was not prepared for what happened next. Sylva opened things up in that 2nd round and showed everyone why he is the most dangerous fighter in the world. He threw vicious knees, elbows and kicks, and then unveiled a world class ground game to finish off Henderson, who is an extremely savvy ground fighter. The big question left in my mind as I finished watching the fight, was, who in the world can match up with this guy? Maybe Dana will have to send someone else down from the light heavies to take this guy out, or, maybe he will have to lure "the Natural" back to Octagon with the promise of a huge pay-day if he steps in the ring with this guy. Hats off to Sylva though, he is great fighter, and he exhibits such class in victory, that you can't help but admire him both as a man and a fighter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)