For all who have come to expect me to be prolific, I have but one post for today. I’m having hardware problems. I decided to upgrade a couple of things related to putting out my podcast, and the upgrades, which should have been simple, have been anything but.
I assume I will have a working system by tomorrow, but right now things are a bit questionable.
Enjoy!
I like to think of myself as a patriot, but then there are times when I shy away from the term because of some things that are done in the name of patriotism. I served my country in uniform, even while disagreeing with many of the policies of my government. Despite any disagreements, I carried out those policies to the best of my capability.
I’m an opponent of the war in Iraq, but what would I do if I were still in the military? Would I be protesting? Would I be speaking publicly against the war? No. I would vote my conscience, I would speak privately to friends and relatives, but I would carry out my duties again to the best of my ability. Note that this would not include what I would view as illegal orders–torture, for example. But for the vast majority of those in the military those particular questions do not occur. In the military, I owed it to my country to carry out its policies to the best of my ability.
We live in a republic in which power resides ultimately with the people. I think the primary requirement for patriotism for those not in the military (or similarly sworn to carry out politically determined policies) under those circumstances is involvement. There are things one can do that are disloyal, such as desertion from the military, providing information to enemies, or actively working to destroy the country. But the primary responsibility of the citizen is to be heard.
Some seem to believe that patriotism involves supporting your country’s policies, once made, no matter what. There is a sort of reverence when they refer to the actions of the commander-in-chief. But even though I voted against the current resident of the White House, I participated in making him commander-in-chief, and I get to participate in choosing the next president and seeing him leave.
Would it be patriotism for me to support the current war just because my president got it started? I think it would, in fact, be precisely the opposite. The war is a bad move in what appears to be a bad ad hoc strategy, and it will result in no good for the country that I love. Given that I believe that, could I possibly be a patriot and a person of integrity if I didn’t say it? I would suggest the opposite, that I would be the worst sort of lying traitor in those circumstances.
That doesn’t mean that the honest supporter of the war is less of a patriot. In fact, such a person would be a lying traitor if he or she does not act in support of those positions. We each owe our country our best arguments and our vote.
Patriotism, in my view, is not the support of a set of policies, but rather that one gives one’s best in all areas, including one’s mind and judgment to one’s country and does so with integrity.
In popular discussions of ecological issues, which as a non-expert is all I’m privy to, it seems to me that each potential solution is judged as a solution to the whole problem. For example, the question in biofuels seems be whether they can solve dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuel emissions on their own. Of course, they will never meet that standard. It’s hard to tell just how much they can do. I’ve seen enough to make me wonder.
But I have always thought that with the proper atmosphere (intellectual, not physical!) entrepreneurial activity would produce solutions, probably in many small pieces, that would allow technology and sound ecological policy to coexist. This article from MSNBC.com seems to me to point at one idea that has potential. The savings in energy costs could be substantial over the life of a building.
I think this also suggests that the idea of charging for environmental impact, provided such charges can be realistically established, would be beneficial as it would make the economic incentive both greater and more immediate. Saving on your own power bill is one thing; being charged for your impact on the environment of a city would be much more substantial. Some think it would be unfair and put an excessive burden on business, but if the costs were realistically calculated, then somebody is already paying. Shouldn’t it be the person who is having the impact?
With an economic incentive, creative people will find ways to reduce that impact, and that creates an industry rather than destroying industry. With some suggesting that ecological responsibility will ruin our standard of living, and others suggesting we ruin it for the benefit of the environment, perhaps we can find some really creative people in the middle who will make it all work together.
That’s one non-expert’s hope, at least!
. . . is a necessary part of free speech. Laura has it right:
I dont have much in common with Brigitte Bardot, an elderly French actress, or Pat Condell, a British atheist, or with Kathy Shaidle, Ezra Levant, and Mark Steyn, a partial list of Canadians whose free speech is endangered.
Except this: a threat to their free speech is a threat to mine . . .
Just so.
While personally I think Obama got caught uttering a truth, or at least something he actually believes, I personally record it as a negative, because as president he needs to control his tongue. It doesn’t change the fact that I will vote for him. It’s just that in a very disciplined campaign, it’s disappointing.
If he wanted to utter the actual truth, I think it would be that some people fall back on parts of their faith as a justification for existing bigotry. Faith doesn’t justify bigotry, it gets co-opted by bigotry. The partial truth results in a generalization that will certainly be false, which is again a problem. We try to distinguish moderate Muslims from radical Muslims; we need to also distinguish ignorant bigots from ordinary, hardworking people.
But what Jon Stewart did about this on The Daily Show was more fun, and also showed Hillary Clinton as the suddenly faith-filled, spiritual, gun-toting gal that is wants to be perceived as.
Pardon me for using “types” where “genre” would be more precise, but I frequently do so in teaching in order to avoid having to explain details. Further, “genre” doesn’t maintain the same meaning across all critical disciplines.
In my previous post on the historicity of Genesis 1-11, I wrote as though one could establish a single literary category that would cover all 11 chapters. But those who have studied this passage will realize this is not so. At a minimum, Genesis 5 and 11:10-32 (genealogies) differ from the remainder. Chapter 10 is also in a category of its own, and its relationship with the rest of the book could provide some interesting discussion.
I personally accept the general outlines of source theory, and thus see a combination of multiple sources in both the stories of creation and the flood. But those fault lines, as interesting as they are, are not what I’m talking about now. Whatever one believes about the background, somebody, somewhere felt that the material fitted together.
If we assume that the person who did so was not an idiot, then they probably had some idea how things connected. Assuming that blatant chronological issues are the result of oversight is questionable at best. The author or final redactor, whichever you prefer, probably understood the text in such a way that it didn’t blatantly contradict itself.
Because of this, it would be worthwhile to see the difference between Genesis 1:1-4a, which I would see as liturgy, and Genesis 2:4b-25, which is much closer to myth in its literary character. Which of these is more likely to be concerned with chronology? Well, Genesis 1 seems to say more about it, but Genesis 2 is more likely to have that as a concern based on its form. Even myths are concerned with sequence.
So we can identify at least four types of literature, liturgy, myth, genealogy, and a more generalized tribal genealogy along with some geography in Genesis 10. In deciding historicity we need to address each of these types. I do acknowledge that others might disagree on the categorization, which is precisely how it should be. Those are the questions of which good historical study of the Bible is made.
Ed reviews a review of the Bible Literacy Project, by an apparently clueless Alabama state senator, which should explain it all. As readers will know, I prefer that Bible classes not be held in public school, though the Bible should be included where appropriate in other curricula (literature, social studies, history). If one does choose to do a public school Bible class, the Bible Literacy Project provides the best option.
The BLP responds to clueless reviewers here.
I write here frequently against teaching creationism of any variety in public schools. I do this, amongst other reasons to protect the integrity of science, to preserve the limited space in the science curriculum for actual science, and because I think religion in public schools is dangerous to both church and state. One major question is what religious doctrines would be taught, and who would teach them.
But I also suggest that churches should teach about all of the various views on origins. They can easily emphasize and support their particular view, as is their right (and many would say duty). They are not charged with the integrity of science, and they are the best place to discuss various religious ideas. I think if churches took on the task in a serious way it would be done much better.
Lingalinga blogged today that he is including a variety of materials in his homeschool program. As a homeschooled person, I can testify that one can cover a lot of ground in such a unit. I didn’t get to really learn about evolution in my homeschooling, but my experience isn’t normative. I think this is precisely how a homeschooler should go about it, presumably also including a good deal of the basic science (which I assume will happen) as well as the variety of interpretations.
In homeschool you know who is going to do the teaching of religious ideas, you have much more freedom to move between topics and to look at things in an interdisciplinary way. This is where and how it can happen for the non-public school student.
People often think that legalism is about trying very hard to be right, and that the main problem with it is that people can’t succeed at it. I would suggest that there’s something more characteristic of legalism, and that it results from trying to paste on the narrow letter of some “right” things to oneself without really taking it in.
A legalist reads the commandment about “bearing false witness against one’s neighbor” and construes it very narrowly, either as lying under oath or as lying outright. Then he tries not to lie outright. If he can deceive people in some way other than lying directly, he doesn’t care. Similarly the legalist looks at a list of sexual commands and tries not to do those specific things, or perhaps not get caught doing them (note that he’s not lying outright, just deceiving).
The alternative, one taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is to take the right approach into one’s mind and heart and then live out that integrity. This person tries to live in a non-deceptive manner. If he finds he has deceived someone, that’s the time for confession and repentance. In sexual matters, he tries to live up to his promises and not to injure people through irresponsible activity. If he fails, he does his best to restore damaged relationships and to limit the hurt to others.
Please note here that I’m not comparing Christianity and Judaism. If that were not inappropriately done so often I wouldn’t have to mention it. There’s no basic reason why a Jew must be a legalist and a Christian not. I personally know many examples of Christian legalists, and Jewish examples of a deeply internal faith and ethic. In fact, in speaking the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was teaching within the range of Judaism of his time.
That’s how long it takes me to get to my point, which is this: Those who fuss over gluing moths to tree trunks (a place where they would naturally rest, but not when it was convenient to photograph them) in order to take their pictures, should perhaps not stage scenes themselves. I normally have no problem with staging scenes in order to take photographs, as long as the staging is either true to life or appropriate to the genre involved.
But integrity involves a consistent viewpoint. If you believe staging a scene is inappropriate, you shouldn’t do it. If you think it’s OK, it should be OK for your enemies as well.
This goes a step further if the scene was staged to suggest that an event occurred in which more Pepperdine students attended than actually did. (HT: The Panda’s Thumb) But the whole thing would be nitpicking if we were not dealing with a standard already set. I would suggest dropping both, but I eagerly await a clear repudiation of the claim of fraud in the peppered moth case.
I doubt that will happen, but it should.
