Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Christian Carnival #248 is Posted

    . . . at Fish and Cans.

  • Value of Basic Research (even in France)

    In the middle of a speech on commitment to special needs children, Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin chose to take a pot shot at some pork–research into fruit flies. It was a particularly good political shot, because the research is taking place in Paris, France, and obviously, “real” Americans don’t want to pay for anything that takes place there.

    Like many research projects, fruit fly research simply doesn’t sound very exciting. It makes a good political joke. And it’s a joke that works because too many Americans have almost no idea of the basic science that must take place before they can drive their cars, operate their computers, or generally have jobs.

    Responsible leadership would inform such people of just how essential basic research is. Leaders would examine the process and see just what benefits were intended, even if those benefits were only in developing the framework of scientific understanding in which all that technology, you know, the stuff we all have to have, is accomplished.

    But instead, Palin chose to make it a good joke about wasteful spending. I’m not going to go into detail, but it turns out the fruit flies being studied are abundant in Europe and are just starting to appear in California, and successfully handling this may well involve quite a number of people’s jobs in the future.

    Brighter people than I am have written up a few more details at Inside Higher Ed. List this as another strong reason why I simply can’t stomach the Republican team this year.

  • Next Christian Carnival (#248)

    . . . will be at Fish and Cans.  You have a couple of hours yet to submit your best work!

  • To Stimulate or Not to Stimulate

    The more I read Robert Rech’s comments on the current economic crisis, the better I like what I read. He’s been calling for stimulus that involves rebuilding the infrastructure. He’s calling for the same, but also suggesting that the lame duck congress will not be the ones to create a well-crafted stimulus package. He says:

    The coming stimulus package could be even more nonsensical. It will be voted on by a lame-duck Congress, many of whose members will want to reward campaign donors with juicy pieces of pork. Other lawmakers will see it as their last opportunity to include their pet project or tax perk, and some who won’t be accountable because they’ll be out of office in a few weeks anyway. In other words, it’ll be less a stimulus than a Christmas Tree.

    That brings up one of my pet peeves-the across the board cut in spending, related closely to the “throw money at it” idea. True deficit hawks, you know, sort of like the current Republican crop who keep increasing the deficit, like across the board cuts. Everybody cut 10%, for example. But that often cuts the essentials, things that help keep the economy going.

    I have a small business. I’ve had to cut some expenses. Where did I cut? Ten percent across the board? Did I go straight to my power bill? (Well, actually, I’ve managed some significant cuts in power consumption.) No, I looked for my least effective advertising, and for marginally performing activities and cut there.

    If I borrowed money, what would it be borrowed for? Would I choose to spend it evenly on my everyday bills? After all, it would still be more money going through my business! But no, if I borrowed, it would be for a specific activity that I had good reason to believe that would produce more money.

    I would like to think that the government will listen to the voices of folks like Robert Reich. Unfortunately, that would be unrealistic.

  • Quote of the Day

    This one makes me think (it’s from Brian McLaren):

    The early church is not homogenized, new believers are not mimics when converted, they remain unique people.  Whoever loves God is known by God.  Knowledge can destroy the weak Christian; therefore, how do we deal with people with different knowledge?An Epistemology of Love | Everyday Liturgy, Oct 2008

    You should read the whole article.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

  • Suspending Free Speech in Politics

    Though I have decided to support Barack Obama for president this year, one of the great negatives on my checklist for him and for the Democratic party is campaign finance laws. When I put the candidates side-by-side, however, McCain isn’t a significant improvement on that point.

    This is illustrated by this story on CQPolitics, informing us that the FEC has deadlocked on whether the National Right to Life Committee can use particular phrasing in some issue ads they want to display. The sentence is: “Barack Obama : a candidate whose word you can’t believe in.”

    Now understand that I don’t like the ads. I’ve received print versions and I didn’t like those. This is not speech of which I approve. I’m pro-choice, despite my own dislike of abortion. But on the other hand, I fail to see how it is not speech that can be permitted.

    Having dealt with non-profits myself, I do, in fact, understand that particular tax categories are confined to particular activities. Thus it’s generally OK with me from a constitutional point of view that churches are not permitted to explicitly endorse candidates, or that non-profits of particular types be restricted in their political activity in order to have a particular tax status.

    I say generally OK, because I think it falls within constitutional boundaries, but I question whether the lines are correctly drawn. In order to grant tax exempt status, the IRS has to define what is a church, what is a charitable non-profit, and so forth. But it is nonetheless troubling to me that a pastor can say “I think you should vote for a pro-life candidate (wink, wink)” without having his tax status threatened, but cannot say “I think you should vote for X who is a pro-life candidate” without risking it. Apparently if he says, “You can’t believe in X as a candidate” that would also be problematic. This is a whole subject in itself, but I can’t really discuss the rest without at least brushing against it.

    In this case, we’re talking about what various political action committees can do during an election, and bluntly it sounds to me like a frontal assault on free speech. I despise the ads. I think they should be legal. I think these election laws are not about making elections fairer; they’re about silencing people we don’t like. I don’t approve of silencing people. (Very narrow exceptions, such as incitement, are alright, though I draw the line as far out as possible consistent with some order.)

    This is one of the reasons I refuse to register as one of the major parties, besides the biggest reason, which is simply that I think it’s wrong to have political parties enshrined in law. Neither of our parties actually stands, even in a general way, for freedom. They stand in a general way for the freedoms of their constituent groups, and against those of others.

    I would like to see our politicians actually support free speech, whether it is spoken for them or against them. “Fair speech,” speech that is distributed according to someone’s idea of fairness, is ephemeral, indefinable, and ultimately results in censorship.

    That’s what we have in this case–the FEC deadlocked on whether to censor the speech of the NRLC. In a country that prides itself on constitutional freedoms, it shouldn’t even be an issue.

  • Somebody Should Hire Her Quick

    An intern with the San Diego Police Department, Gabrielle Wimer, solved a cold case from 1971.

  • Abortion as a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card

    Recently I had a conversation with someone who claimed that Republicans had much more integrity than Democrats. He was, of course, a Republican. I maintained, in turn, that all politicians were tempted, and that many would, inevitably, lose their integrity, irrespective of party.

    After we had exchanged names and scandals for a period of time, and despite the fact that I’m independent rather than Democrat I had to provide all the Republican ones, he said, “Well, Republicans automatically have more integrity because nobody who supports abortion can have any integrity at all.”

    So there!

    A politician may solicit sex from a stranger in a restroom (which, while really yucky doesn’t strike me as a major legal issue) but if he opposes abortion he automatically has more integrity than someone who supports abortion rights, but is faithful to his wife.

    A politician may frequent a prostitute, but if he’s right on abortion . . . He may steal money, but if he’s right on abortion . . .

    I don’t even mean that in all these cases these same folks would completely excuse the behavior. What I mean is that they would regard the person who support abortion rights as having less integrity.

    As I’ve read around the conservative blogs, I’ve heard this sort of theme over and over. Whatever else I may believe as a Christian, I can’t possible support someone who–cue the ominous, evil-overlord music–kills babies.

    It’s an accusation that elicits mixed emotions from me, because I do very intensely dislike abortion. It strikes me as many things, including irresponsible and calloused in most cases. On the other hand, I don’t quite manage to get to the point where any egg which is fertilized has a right to life. Nature doesn’t work that way and I feel no duty to try and force the issue.

    But setting aside the core of the endless debate, how do I deal with the idea that this one issue is such a test case that if one fails it, one is beyond the pale no matter what else one may believe?

    I use the same method I do on every other issue–I exclude it, and then check. Do people who support abortion rights tend to be more calloused to human life in other ways? Do they have less integrity in their business dealings? Are they likely to grab and knife and stab me to death at a greater rate than the rest of the population?

    Ideas and attitudes don’t always come in the packages in which we expect them to appear. People may combine things that I think are contradictory and manage to live quite a good life.

    I prefer a very different idea of integrity. Integrity is being true to what you truly believe to be right. Not what someone else believes, what you, yourself believe in your heart. What you continue to believe when the closet door is shut, and when you’re in front of 10,000 people. What you believe even when people are saying they won’t vote for you because of it.

    Abortion doesn’t provide such a flag. It’s a difficult issue. It’s emotional. But it’s not a good indicator of integrity. I won’t overlook a politician’s faults because he or she is pro-choice. I won’t do it because he or she is pro-life.

    No get-out-of-jail-free cards here.

  • Religion and God Mocked in Campaign

    In an article titled Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage amendment, I found the following:

    Palin also claimed religion and God had been “mocked” during the campaign, although she offered no evidence to support that.

    “Faith in God in general has been mocked through this campaign, and that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and choose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit,” she said.

    (Note that CQPolitics cites portions of an interview released by CBN for this material.)

    And Governor Palin is right. Religion and God have been mocked in this campaign. In her case, it was done by many who don’t really understand the stream of Christianity to which she belongs. I too have been prayed for by people whose theology might not 100% coincide with my own.

    But it started much earlier, at least as early as the reactions to Barack Obama’s church, to his particular faith, and to his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Because Obama’s church is different, not like all those other churches, and it’s liberal, it’s OK to run down his faith and his associations. If it’s Sarah Palin, and a pastor who sends the crowds after a witch, that’s a misunderstanding. And indeed, I think it is a misunderstanding. But there is also a pretty substantial misunderstanding of Obama’s faith on the right.

    You see, folks like Sarah Palin cite “faith in God” as the issue. But if faith in God is the issue, why is anyone concerned with the accusation that Obama is a Muslim? I’ve encountered not a few Muslims in my life, and every one of them had an active faith in God. I certainly didn’t agree with them on much theology. In fact, I find very little in Islam that is attractive to me personally. But there are plenty of Muslims who are quite attractive personally.

    Of course, Obama must respond with the truth that he is a Christian. And it is a very important advantage in the campaign that he is a Christian with very specific things to say. One may disagree with his theology or the theology of his church, but it is hard to argue that he is not sincere and committed to his faith. But at the same time, I think that religion and faith in God are mocked rather severely by the simple nature of this debate.

    “Faith in God” becomes “faith in God as I define both ‘faith’ and ‘God’.” And that’s a rather sad thing.

    There is not supposed to be a religious test for office in the United States. Now that is a legal thing. It doesn’t mean that the voters cannot have such a test. And I think they do. Whatever the role of race in this campaign, I think religion has a very dangerous role. Does anyone doubt that if Barack Obama had to say “yes” when asked if he was Muslim, he would be in the position he is in now? Could he say that he is a loyal, patriotic American who also happens to be a Muslim? I doubt that would work.

    That’s because “faith in God” is not the issue. “Faith in God” is not what is being mocked. What is being mocked, at many times and from many angles is a faith that is different. When Palin said that Obama doesn’t see America in the same way that she and her audience did, she was underlining this difference.

    You may ask whether I don’t think I’m right about religion, and if so, why I shouldn’t state that claim. Yes, I have a bad habit of being pretty certain that I’m right. The struggle is not to believe that people with whom I disagree are bad because they disagree. The method is to encounter those people, listen to them, and try to understand how they work.

    Here’s the key: In my experience, they are not evil and they are often not that different from me. We may disagree on something I hold very dear. But on other subjects they are not bad people. They may worship differently, believe different things, consider different books sacred, and come from different ethnic backgrounds, but I generally find they don’t match up to my worst fears.

    The are merely choosing to “worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit.” Or was Governor Palin really saying that they (the ones who really have faith in God) worship Jesus in whatever manner they deem fit? Is it a case of any denomination (except the liberal ones) is OK, as long as they are Christians?

    But I think the greatest mockery of religion is an ongoing one, and that is the way in which we see public symbolism as an expression of real faith. A candidate in most cases must express some form of religious faith. Do they go to church? Do they trust in God? The political answer is “yes” and “yes.” It doesn’t matter what that means in their behavior; it only matters that the right words are said.

    This is the attitude that brings us disputes about monuments to the ten commandments. We are told that to reject the monument is to reject God, yet what goes on in the courtroom is not governed by the ten commandments. Many of the commandments are unconstitutional–just start reading with #1–and others are unenforceable. Do we think God is impressed by false labeling?

    Then there is the little slogan “In God we Trust” on our money. Some think it’s a national motto. Actually it’s a national joke. We don’t actually trust in God. In financial affairs we trust least of all. Do we suppose that God is impressed by the words as the bill is slipped into a dancer’s g-string or fed to a slot machine?

    I’d personally prefer that faith was kept a little more low key in our politics, simply because I think our current determination to have “people of faith” in public office is one of the greatest invitations to hypocrisy ever.

    We don’t trust in God, and if we behave as we have been, as Rev. Jeremiah Wright said in his inimitable way, God sure is not going to bless us.

  • Sacrifice then and Now

    What meaning is evoked in people’s minds by the word “sacrifice?”  One of the things I like to do when teaching is to simply write a word on the board that is commonly used in Biblical and/or Christian discourse and get people to give me various things that this word means to them.  I try not to specify the context too closely.

    The other day I did this while teaching a bit on the tabernacle service, and its relation to the theme of Hebrews 7-9.  Yes, I know, big subject.  But I started by writing the three words “temple”, “priest”, and “sacrifice.”

    The result was not entirely unexpected, but was instructive.  I’m going to stick with the word “sacrifice.”  The group focused on giving up things for others or for some benefit for oneself.  For example, one person talked about giving up certain things in life in order to pursue an avocation for tennis.  Others talked about sacrificing in order to help the poor.

    It is probably indicative of the group involved that, even though we were in Sunday School class, the “church” meanings did not come up.  When I brought up the idea of sacrifice for sin and the various ways in which that might be understood, people acknowledged it with an “oh yeah.”

    Now this was not a stupid group of people. Far from it.  They were one of the most interactive and constructive groups with whom I have had the privilege to work recently.  But what was uppermost in their minds was not quite entirely unlike a picture of sacrifice in the ancient world, but it was pretty close.

    The idea of offering a sacrifice “to” anyone–God, for example–again did not come up.

    When I have done a similar exercise with more conservative groups I will likely get all the words that relate to sin and atonement, but they will often miss the idea of a sacrifice in order to accomplish something, a simple offering for thankfulness, or the fairly common purification sacrifices.  Those are ideas that are not part of either the liberal or conservative universes.

    So how does one read and/or teach Hebrews in such a context?  First, I consider my use of that exercise completely justified.  I can get an idea of where people are, and then point out the differences and similarities between their view of sacrifice and that of the ancient world.

    Elements that may be missed by various groups include:

    • Any concept of substitution
    • Purification (clean and unclean)
    • Thankfulness
    • Appeasement
    • Magical rituals in which the animal is slaughtered less as a sacrifice and more as a part of the magical ritual.
    • Sacrifice as part of the continuing liturgy.

    There is a difficulty here, I think, in teaching a book like Hebrews without having some exposure to sacrifice, priesthood, and temples in the ancient world.  A good start on that exposure would be to look at the sacrifices as taught in Leviticus especially, but such a process tests the patience of the best of classes.

    I’m not one to maintain that the author of Hebrews was some kind of expert on the Torah.  On the other hand he certainly did have a working acquaintance, at least with the LXX version of it, and he would not necessarily see sacrifice in the same way we do.  In order to get some portion of his perspective, we need to do some reading of that same literature.

    Even simply looking at each of his quotes and perhaps their Old Testament context will be inadequate.  We need somewhat of a picture of how ancient Israelite religion worked, placed in an ancient near eastern context, before we can learn how one New Testament author wanted to change, or better, <em>transform</em> it.