Tonight's episode of 60 Minutes included a feature on Archbishop Dolan, the Archbishop of New York that many people say is the best candidate for an American Pope in the near future. It was an interesting interview; he's a very gregarious guy, and it's not hard to see why he has risen so high in the church.
Much of the interview dealt with his "very conservative" views on the major politically controversial views held by the Church (homosexual marriage, female clergy, abortion, etc.). His reply was: "Instead of being hung up on these headline issues, let's get back to where the church is at her best."
Interesting response; I would be curious to hear his views on where the church is best. More than that, though, is it's a very good point. The Catholic Church, and religion in general, does so much more than usually gets discussed; we get hung up on specific policies and all the "Thou Shalt Not" language, and forget about helping people grow spiritually and emotionally.
But it's also a response that cuts both ways. He's essentially saying, "forget about this issue so we can focus on the important stuff". Well, fine, but in the face of pervasive and radical social change, why is it the congregation that must forget about it rather than the church?
These issues have become distractions. They steal focus and resources from the things we should be focusing on. It says something about the Church that they point to the debate around these issues as a distraction, but continue funding it.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Work Ethic
A short one:
The Protestant work ethic is frequently held up as the core of America's productivity. Work hard, don't complain, never ask for or expect anything for yourself, and feel bad if you fall short of expectations, whether internally or externally applied.
This is what makes a good Protestant. It is also what makes a good worker.
It is also what makes a good slave.
Was this Protestant ethic the beginning of our modern version of feudal society? If we're not there already, we're quickly moving towards that point. Strong inequalities between the "upper" and "lower" classes, educational and cultural divides, and financial systems that keep the less-well-to-do indebted to their corporate masters.
If so, is this a case of a system turning on itself, with hypocritical or oblivious Protestants profiting from their fellows, or a case of religious exploitation where another group came in and took advantage of the Protestants' hard-working nature?
The Protestant work ethic is frequently held up as the core of America's productivity. Work hard, don't complain, never ask for or expect anything for yourself, and feel bad if you fall short of expectations, whether internally or externally applied.
This is what makes a good Protestant. It is also what makes a good worker.
It is also what makes a good slave.
Was this Protestant ethic the beginning of our modern version of feudal society? If we're not there already, we're quickly moving towards that point. Strong inequalities between the "upper" and "lower" classes, educational and cultural divides, and financial systems that keep the less-well-to-do indebted to their corporate masters.
If so, is this a case of a system turning on itself, with hypocritical or oblivious Protestants profiting from their fellows, or a case of religious exploitation where another group came in and took advantage of the Protestants' hard-working nature?
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Oboist? Really?
Check out these fun charts on Three Jews, Four Opinions:
The online comic strip xkcd sometimes includes funny charts and graphs showing the number of google hits for variations of a phrase or sentence. For example, "x bottles of beer on the wall" shows a spike at x=100. I figured I would try a few Jewish themed ones just for fun.
Are we equals?
I'm never quite sure what to make of things like this:
I support the cause of women's equality, and agree that the problems enumerated by narrator Dame Judi Dench are serious ones, but I feel like the type of equality she's asking for can never quite be reached, in the same way that we can never completely eliminate crime, homelessness, and violence. It's an asymptotic thing; we can get close to, but never actually reach, zero.
So at what point do we say enough is enough?
Her closing remark answers that question: "Until the answer is yes, we must never stop asking." Her statement is a reminder that, though we may never complete the work, we are not exempt from it. That perspective recasts this entire video for me and redirected my opinion on it. There will always be that last bit of equality to strive for, and as things stand today that "last bit" is pretty large.
That said, as I watched this video I was reminded of the epidemiologist that observed AIDS patients are now living long enough to die of other things. The video points out that two women a week are killed by domestic violence in England; that's tragic, but in 2008 (the most recent year I could find numbers for) murder rates for male victims were 225% higher than for female. So if we want to talk about violence as an indicator of inequality, let's consider the full picture.
The gender salary gap in America is still a problem, but during the recession unemployment is significantly higher for men (pdf). Furthermore, college admissions are skewing strongly female (57% since 2000), and young boys are more likely than girls to be illiterate, drop out of school, and go to jail. All factors likely to lead to lower lifetime earnings.
Remind me again which way that "inequality" arrow is assumed to be pointing?
My goal is not to play a game of "Who has it worse?"; that's a game you only lose by winning. The answer, of course, is to work on improving the environment for everyone. But that's part of why I have trouble with messages like that in this video, whatever the oppressed group in question. Archaic assholes aside, and I think we all can agree that is a demographic that needs to be quietly and quickly shuffled to the side, most members of the "privileged" group tend to honestly believe these "equality" problems were already settled. So seeing a video like this causes...confusion.
"I thought this was taken care of", the internal monologe goes. "What, exactly, still needs to be done? Am I supposed to apologize? Write my Senator? Donate money?" Compassion, and confusion, have been generated, but without a clear channel for these energies the mind deals with the stress by converting the emotions into something easier to deal with.
Like anger, or resentment.
I appreciate a good piece of messaging; I liked the video for the narration, even if I didn't understand what they hoped to achieve with Daniel Craig. For most of it, though, my primary emotional reaction was defensiveness. "Those poor women," I thought, "how they are suffering! What wicked, shameful group is oppressing them so?
Men?
...like me?"
I thought one of the goals of equality was to prevent media messages from making people feel bad about themselves because of gender, race, or equality; how does it help the cause to turn the tables on the "oppressor"?
Harry Chapin set a good example (in an interview that I now cannot find, dang it!). He talked about coming back to school the day after Thanksgiving break, and having the principal address the class, saying, "We did a great job with our food drive, collected a lot of food for a lot of families! Now let's talk about what they're going to eat tomorrow..."
Ironically, this is also the tactic used on Biggest Loser; let's acknowledge our successes, celebrate them, and talk about how we continue moving forward. This is a format most people respond well to; it acknowledges both the work done and that still remaining, and provides a gentle, irresistible pressure to continue. Leave the stark, bleak, frightening messages for actual life-and-death scenarios, and politicians trying to raise money.
I support the cause of women's equality, and agree that the problems enumerated by narrator Dame Judi Dench are serious ones, but I feel like the type of equality she's asking for can never quite be reached, in the same way that we can never completely eliminate crime, homelessness, and violence. It's an asymptotic thing; we can get close to, but never actually reach, zero.
So at what point do we say enough is enough?
Her closing remark answers that question: "Until the answer is yes, we must never stop asking." Her statement is a reminder that, though we may never complete the work, we are not exempt from it. That perspective recasts this entire video for me and redirected my opinion on it. There will always be that last bit of equality to strive for, and as things stand today that "last bit" is pretty large.
That said, as I watched this video I was reminded of the epidemiologist that observed AIDS patients are now living long enough to die of other things. The video points out that two women a week are killed by domestic violence in England; that's tragic, but in 2008 (the most recent year I could find numbers for) murder rates for male victims were 225% higher than for female. So if we want to talk about violence as an indicator of inequality, let's consider the full picture.
The gender salary gap in America is still a problem, but during the recession unemployment is significantly higher for men (pdf). Furthermore, college admissions are skewing strongly female (57% since 2000), and young boys are more likely than girls to be illiterate, drop out of school, and go to jail. All factors likely to lead to lower lifetime earnings.
Remind me again which way that "inequality" arrow is assumed to be pointing?
My goal is not to play a game of "Who has it worse?"; that's a game you only lose by winning. The answer, of course, is to work on improving the environment for everyone. But that's part of why I have trouble with messages like that in this video, whatever the oppressed group in question. Archaic assholes aside, and I think we all can agree that is a demographic that needs to be quietly and quickly shuffled to the side, most members of the "privileged" group tend to honestly believe these "equality" problems were already settled. So seeing a video like this causes...confusion.
"I thought this was taken care of", the internal monologe goes. "What, exactly, still needs to be done? Am I supposed to apologize? Write my Senator? Donate money?" Compassion, and confusion, have been generated, but without a clear channel for these energies the mind deals with the stress by converting the emotions into something easier to deal with.
Like anger, or resentment.
I appreciate a good piece of messaging; I liked the video for the narration, even if I didn't understand what they hoped to achieve with Daniel Craig. For most of it, though, my primary emotional reaction was defensiveness. "Those poor women," I thought, "how they are suffering! What wicked, shameful group is oppressing them so?
Men?
...like me?"
I thought one of the goals of equality was to prevent media messages from making people feel bad about themselves because of gender, race, or equality; how does it help the cause to turn the tables on the "oppressor"?
Harry Chapin set a good example (in an interview that I now cannot find, dang it!). He talked about coming back to school the day after Thanksgiving break, and having the principal address the class, saying, "We did a great job with our food drive, collected a lot of food for a lot of families! Now let's talk about what they're going to eat tomorrow..."
Ironically, this is also the tactic used on Biggest Loser; let's acknowledge our successes, celebrate them, and talk about how we continue moving forward. This is a format most people respond well to; it acknowledges both the work done and that still remaining, and provides a gentle, irresistible pressure to continue. Leave the stark, bleak, frightening messages for actual life-and-death scenarios, and politicians trying to raise money.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Appendix
[I wrote this back in August 2009, and it got lost in my Drafts folder after that. I still think it's interesting, and decided to post without heavy updating or editing.]
Science news from last week is that the appendix does, in fact, have a purpose. Unsurprisingly, religious bloggers have jumped on this as "proof" of science's fallibility and therefore, by extension, religion's truth. Many suggest, as did Rabbi Yonason Goldson, that "... knowledge and understanding have caught up with yet another aspect of Creation ...", asserting the position that eventually science will learn enough to see religion was right all along (the writer somehow connects this to mixing wool and cotton; not sure I follow that particular leap).
I disagree with Rabbi Goldson, largely because he tries to strengthen the artificial divide between science and religion. The part of his article I do agree with is this:
This arrogance, as he terms it, exists on both "sides" of the debate. Just yesterday, while discussing the topic of belief, a friend determined the question unanswerable, the existence of God therefore irrelevant, and belief therefore foolish. But this is the same mistake biologists made for years; everyone "knew" the appendix had no purpose because we had been unable to find that proof. How, then, does lack of evidence disprove religion?
We cannot dismiss any idea or concept, whether the value of the appendix or the existence of God, because of lack of evidence. All an unanswered question proves is that the question has not been answered.
Of course, that works both ways. Assuming there is a God, and the Torah/Bible/Koran contains his literal words is also incorrect, because it too is unproven. There exists a tension between the two positions, and it is within that tension that belief can exist.
Science news from last week is that the appendix does, in fact, have a purpose. Unsurprisingly, religious bloggers have jumped on this as "proof" of science's fallibility and therefore, by extension, religion's truth. Many suggest, as did Rabbi Yonason Goldson, that "... knowledge and understanding have caught up with yet another aspect of Creation ...", asserting the position that eventually science will learn enough to see religion was right all along (the writer somehow connects this to mixing wool and cotton; not sure I follow that particular leap).
I disagree with Rabbi Goldson, largely because he tries to strengthen the artificial divide between science and religion. The part of his article I do agree with is this:
"But jumping to the conclusion that anything we cannot explain must have no purpose or rationale demonstrates one of the most common forms of human arrogance. How often have science and medicine had to rethink their positions after new research has turned long-held truths upside down and inside out?
Even the greatest among us are prone to this kind of error. King David questioned the purpose of spiders and of insanity. (Personally, this author has a problem with mosquitoes.) The Almighty did not explain Himself to David."
This arrogance, as he terms it, exists on both "sides" of the debate. Just yesterday, while discussing the topic of belief, a friend determined the question unanswerable, the existence of God therefore irrelevant, and belief therefore foolish. But this is the same mistake biologists made for years; everyone "knew" the appendix had no purpose because we had been unable to find that proof. How, then, does lack of evidence disprove religion?
We cannot dismiss any idea or concept, whether the value of the appendix or the existence of God, because of lack of evidence. All an unanswered question proves is that the question has not been answered.
Of course, that works both ways. Assuming there is a God, and the Torah/Bible/Koran contains his literal words is also incorrect, because it too is unproven. There exists a tension between the two positions, and it is within that tension that belief can exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)