“One of the most startling developments in the culture war is the apparent takeover of the Republican Party by conservative evangelicals who claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation, uniquely called and blessed by God.
“The 2004 Texas GOP platform affirmed ‘that the United States of America is a Christian nation,’ founded ‘on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible.’ Texas Republicans...declared the doctrine of separation of church and state to be a ‘myth’ that must be rejected in order to restore the founders’ original intent.
“One of the architects of that platform was David Barton, vice chair of the Texas Republican Party and one of the chief advocates for a Christian America. Barton’s view of American history has energized millions of voters and forced lawmakers to take conservative Christian causes seriously.
“Barton is clearly more interested in current cultural squabbles than he is in history. Put simply, Barton is a bad historian--his B.A., from Oral Roberts University, is in math education. He retrieves only those aspects of history that, often taken out of context, match his emphasis on America’s Christian identity.
“The founders were, on the whole, less religiously orthodox than the average American. They pushed the new nation toward tolerance and less reliance upon historic Christianity.”
--Kurt Peterson, who teaches history at North Park University in Chicago. He was writing in the October 31, 2006 "Christian Century."
Monday, October 29, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Getting Real About Moral and Ethical Issues
Halloween is a very important holiday. Not because of anything specific that it celebrates. But it serves as a pressure-relief valve from the work grind that many of us have been caught up in since just after Labor Day. It’s a chance to dress up in costume, dress your kids up in costume, decorate your home or your office, have a party, and just have fun. Enjoy it!
“Living History” quote of the day:
“In the early sixties we suddenly cheered up when some historian noticed that the late, Massachusetts-born, white-mustachioed Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who had served on the bench into the nineteen-thirties, had in his long lifetime shaken hands with both John Quincy Adams and John F. Kennedy.”
--Roger Angell, in "The New Yorker," September 11, 2006
Quote of the day no. 2:
“Experts decry our moral slippage, and recommend more technology, laws and prisons. Or they condemn parents while calling for a revival of traditional religious values. Fine. But, as far as can be told, such talk hasn’t produced much except political polarization.”
--Richard Louv, in the "San Diego Union-Tribune"
Louv’s piece suggests we need to find a way to address ethical and moral issues that goes beyond simply passing increasingly restrictive laws and mandating increasingly harsh prison sentences. The reason: these strategies are not working.
Where do we begin? We usually begin by blaming someone--parents, media, big business or the justice system. While this helps us feel righteous and avoid personal responsibility, it accomplishes exactly zero.
Where do we begin? With leadership. Louv quotes Daniel Yankelovich, who recommends that business take the lead with a “stewardship ethic”: “If we rely primarily on regulatory and legal mechanisms to repair the damage, we will not get very far. We will force the gamesters of the system to be more ingenious and more careful. But we will not transform the ethical climate.”
Where do we begin? I have a simple suggestion. It is that each of us stop being a “gamester.” This means we'd stop making any decisions based on “can I get away with this?” or “will I get caught?” We'd just stop that.
Is it possible?
“Living History” quote of the day:
“In the early sixties we suddenly cheered up when some historian noticed that the late, Massachusetts-born, white-mustachioed Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who had served on the bench into the nineteen-thirties, had in his long lifetime shaken hands with both John Quincy Adams and John F. Kennedy.”
--Roger Angell, in "The New Yorker," September 11, 2006
Quote of the day no. 2:
“Experts decry our moral slippage, and recommend more technology, laws and prisons. Or they condemn parents while calling for a revival of traditional religious values. Fine. But, as far as can be told, such talk hasn’t produced much except political polarization.”
--Richard Louv, in the "San Diego Union-Tribune"
Louv’s piece suggests we need to find a way to address ethical and moral issues that goes beyond simply passing increasingly restrictive laws and mandating increasingly harsh prison sentences. The reason: these strategies are not working.
Where do we begin? We usually begin by blaming someone--parents, media, big business or the justice system. While this helps us feel righteous and avoid personal responsibility, it accomplishes exactly zero.
Where do we begin? With leadership. Louv quotes Daniel Yankelovich, who recommends that business take the lead with a “stewardship ethic”: “If we rely primarily on regulatory and legal mechanisms to repair the damage, we will not get very far. We will force the gamesters of the system to be more ingenious and more careful. But we will not transform the ethical climate.”
Where do we begin? I have a simple suggestion. It is that each of us stop being a “gamester.” This means we'd stop making any decisions based on “can I get away with this?” or “will I get caught?” We'd just stop that.
Is it possible?
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Greatest News Story of 2006
Quote of the day:
“In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better.”
--Ellen DeGeneres
Thought for the day:
“We live in a talking culture, not a thinking culture or a feeling culture. Maybe if we make noise we don’t have to think or feel.”
--Dr. Duh
News Item from October 2006:
“Dozens of Amish neighbors came out yesterday to mourn the quiet milkman who killed five of their young girls and wounded five more in a brief, unfathomable rampage.”
--Mark Scolforo of the AP
That was the most amazing news story of 2006. It brings to mind the poem by William Wordsworth:
“Thanks to the human heart by which we live,/
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,/
To me the meanest flower that blows can give/
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.”
“In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better.”
--Ellen DeGeneres
Thought for the day:
“We live in a talking culture, not a thinking culture or a feeling culture. Maybe if we make noise we don’t have to think or feel.”
--Dr. Duh
News Item from October 2006:
“Dozens of Amish neighbors came out yesterday to mourn the quiet milkman who killed five of their young girls and wounded five more in a brief, unfathomable rampage.”
--Mark Scolforo of the AP
That was the most amazing news story of 2006. It brings to mind the poem by William Wordsworth:
“Thanks to the human heart by which we live,/
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,/
To me the meanest flower that blows can give/
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.”
Monday, October 08, 2007
The Irrationality and Impossibility of Forgiveness
Quote of the day:
“I hope they stay around here, and they’ll have a lot of friends and a lot of support.”
--Daniel Esh, an Amish artist, woodworker and great-uncle to three of the children in the Pennsylvania school when Charles Roberts attacked. Esh was speaking of Roberts’ family.
This past week was the first anniversary of the shooting at the Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania.
We read about the forgiveness being extended to a Pennsylvania murderer and his family from the Old-Order Amish community, and we have a variety of responses. When we examine these responses, we likely wind up at one of two places.
Either we say “the Old-Order Amish people are quaint,” which means we can’t relate to their behavior, or we say “these people are deluded,” which means they are not part of the “real” world.
We may also assume that, for them, forgiveness is easier than it would be for any “normal person” (like us). That is not true.
Forgiveness is always extremely difficult. The Old-Order Amish families and community have to deal with exactly the same extraordinary pain and anger that any other families or communities would deal with facing this horrible crime.
But the Old-Order Amish have a way to deal with these powerful emotions. That is what we see in their response.
“I hope they stay around here, and they’ll have a lot of friends and a lot of support.”
--Daniel Esh, an Amish artist, woodworker and great-uncle to three of the children in the Pennsylvania school when Charles Roberts attacked. Esh was speaking of Roberts’ family.
This past week was the first anniversary of the shooting at the Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania.
We read about the forgiveness being extended to a Pennsylvania murderer and his family from the Old-Order Amish community, and we have a variety of responses. When we examine these responses, we likely wind up at one of two places.
Either we say “the Old-Order Amish people are quaint,” which means we can’t relate to their behavior, or we say “these people are deluded,” which means they are not part of the “real” world.
We may also assume that, for them, forgiveness is easier than it would be for any “normal person” (like us). That is not true.
Forgiveness is always extremely difficult. The Old-Order Amish families and community have to deal with exactly the same extraordinary pain and anger that any other families or communities would deal with facing this horrible crime.
But the Old-Order Amish have a way to deal with these powerful emotions. That is what we see in their response.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Great Awakening of What?
Quote of the day:
“How the world dearly loves a cage.”
--Collin Higgins, from the script of "Harold and Maude"
Noting an increasing number of people publicly calling attention to their religious faith, President Bush said a few months ago that we might be in the midst of what he called a third Great Awakening. I was thinking about that comment when I read this, referring to a similar cultural shift some 350 years ago:
“What grew more and more evident as time went on was that motion is everywhere and rest is the unusual state. The upshot was that in place of the age-old static world the new was what is called dynamic. Needless to say, the source of truth likewise shifted, from settled revelation to restless experiment; truth itself was no longer static. Science took pride in having the courage to discard its own views....
“At this point comes the paradox: the age of the new method and the new revelations (in the plural and without capital letter) saw a resurgence of superstition, most violently expressed in the persecution of witches. Yet it should be no surprise that when novel ideas set minds wondering and tongues wagging, strong minds with well thought out convictions should resist and defend the status quo.
“Not everybody has the mental elasticity to be a fideist, believe in Genesis and Galileo at the same time. There is always a conservative party, and by a kind of Newtonian law of the mind, action is matched by an equal reaction; one branch of the conservative party turns reactionary and clings more intensely to the old convictions.”
This is from Jacques Barzun’s 2000 book “From Dawn to Decadence.” As you may know from previous posts, I have been savoring this book for a while--and I will continue to.
If we are going to consider whether we are living amid a new “Great Awakening,” it behooves us to be very clear to what extent it is a reversion to superstition and an attempt to turn back the clock on scientific research.
“How the world dearly loves a cage.”
--Collin Higgins, from the script of "Harold and Maude"
Noting an increasing number of people publicly calling attention to their religious faith, President Bush said a few months ago that we might be in the midst of what he called a third Great Awakening. I was thinking about that comment when I read this, referring to a similar cultural shift some 350 years ago:
“What grew more and more evident as time went on was that motion is everywhere and rest is the unusual state. The upshot was that in place of the age-old static world the new was what is called dynamic. Needless to say, the source of truth likewise shifted, from settled revelation to restless experiment; truth itself was no longer static. Science took pride in having the courage to discard its own views....
“At this point comes the paradox: the age of the new method and the new revelations (in the plural and without capital letter) saw a resurgence of superstition, most violently expressed in the persecution of witches. Yet it should be no surprise that when novel ideas set minds wondering and tongues wagging, strong minds with well thought out convictions should resist and defend the status quo.
“Not everybody has the mental elasticity to be a fideist, believe in Genesis and Galileo at the same time. There is always a conservative party, and by a kind of Newtonian law of the mind, action is matched by an equal reaction; one branch of the conservative party turns reactionary and clings more intensely to the old convictions.”
This is from Jacques Barzun’s 2000 book “From Dawn to Decadence.” As you may know from previous posts, I have been savoring this book for a while--and I will continue to.
If we are going to consider whether we are living amid a new “Great Awakening,” it behooves us to be very clear to what extent it is a reversion to superstition and an attempt to turn back the clock on scientific research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
