Spirituality in the News

It's nice to know that spirituality isn't all dead, she states, somewhat sarcastically. There's the chocolate Seder or the Earth Day Festival. I'm glad it's Holy Week.

From the File of Things That Make You Go, "Hmm"

Perusing a blog I frequent frequently (Is that redundant?), some of the comments there made me wonder. Why is it that in a world, land, society, fill-in-the-blank where "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" and were nobody is supposed to step on the rights of others, those who assert their opinion contrary to popular opinion are squelched? I guess that's a convoluted way to ask.
What about Sarah Palin? Why is she branded whatever she is because of who she is? Why can anybody get away with it with her and not with, say Sotomayor? To pick on one woman is acceptable, to do the same to another is racist. Same goes for the president. Why is it forbidden to ask the hard questions and not be labeled as racist, narrow-minded, or just "totally out of touch with reality"? Policy is considered separately from the person. If Bush had the policies of Clinton, I would never had voted for him, truly. Have we really come so far that we have forgotten how to think and debate civilly? We resort to ad hominim attacks and that wins the debate in our book?
It especially falls hard on Christians, especially those who still hold to theology, doctrine, and vocation. Now we try to rule the world with religion. We are closed-minded to new ways of doing things. If I recall my history correctly, the Christians were opposed to slavery. The Christians helped make Europe a kinder, gentler society in the Middle Ages.
I hear it now: "But that history was written slanted," or "What about the Christians who owned slaves?" or "What about the Crusades, huh?" There is no quick rebuttal if one does not believe in sin. Christians aren't perfect ("Boy, haven't I heard that one before?"), but to say that all Christians are a certain way because of the Crusades is as prejudiced as saying all green people are the same because of the actions of the Wicked Witch of the West. (I'm sure there are green people out there who are truly decent people and do not cackle menacingly and threaten little dogs and girls wearing ruby slippers.)
This is the long way of saying this: I'm not all those labels one slaps on Christian conservatives. Sure, I'll think for myself and make up my own mind. I'll speak up when I need to, and I will work to show others their errors. Maybe that's what's forbidden--"have your own opinion, but I don't want to hear it because you'll just tell me I'm wrong." Or maybe it's okay to tell me I'm wrong to tell you you're wrong because that's just wrong. Welcome to post-modernism, I guess.

Musings from the Week Past

If you stop by regularly (or not), you may notice that I update sporadically. I read some blogs where the author posts daily or even multiple posts daily. The must have more important things to say than I. A friend of mine back in college used to say very little. When he did speak, it was rather profound. I, on the other hand, talk constantly yet often stay within the realm of superficial. Maybe this explains the lags between posts. I am waiting for the profoundness to strike; however, it is rather elusive.
In lieu of anything profound, I offer a few reflections from the week:
February 2 was Groundhog Day. It was also the Purification of Mary and the Presentation of our Lord in the Temple. The masses wait for a marmot to determine the short-term future weather. Do the masses wait, as Simeon and Anna, for a Messiah to determine the future of humanity? We anticipate the onset of spring, but do we anticipate the onset of Lent? Do we look forward as anxiously to following the Christ to Calvary where He accomplishes salvation for the whole world as we do to finding out the future of meteorology? Do we echo the words of Simeon who said, “Lord, now let your servant depart in peace according to your word; for mine eyes have seen your salvation which you have prepared in the sight of all people”? Do we as eagerly as Anna to tell all those around about Immanuel, God with us? Or do we hunker down in the cold, waiting for a rodent to determine the coming of light and warmth?
* * *
We often get textbook ads at our school. This week it was for 7-8 grade religion curriculum (“relevant program for teens”) entitled Finding God. To quote Forrest Gump, “I didn’t know I was supposed to be looking for Him.” The advertisement touted the book’s “culturally relevant material” which will “engage young people on their faith journey” and its “attention-grabbing format” which “appeals to adolescents who are tired of ordinary textbooks.” It encouraged educators to preview the textbooks online with the line: “Help us preserve God’s environment!” The whole ad struck me as quite catch phrase heavy for Roman Catholic textbooks. I guess postmodernism is stealthily infiltrating all denominations.
* * *
To wrap up: I gave a friend a ride from a local church to the airport. Some of the campus’s buildings were marked as follows: Student Center, Worship Center, and Community Lobby. I wonder--why is the building which looks the least permanent the Worship Center, and what is a Community Lobby?

Tolerance

I am rather weary of the word “tolerate” and its other related word “tolerance.” I remember these words cropping up like weeds in high school. Despite growing up in a “conservative” area, the ideology of my public high school was very secular humanist. Even then, however, I was wary of the words. I always defined “tolerate” as something one really didn’t like, but lived with because there was no choice—like lima beans for dinner. The one eating must tolerate the lima beans in order to get to the dessert. (Let me say for the record: I actually like lima beans. Maybe I should say celery instead, as I loathe celery.)
Today “tolerate” and “tolerance” carry the implied definition of “one of the majority must deal with any minority-influenced ideology or lifestyle or habit or action one disagrees with and must not say anything lest one be branded a closed-minded bigot.” Okay, maybe that’s over the top, but can people fully disagree when they hear it used in such a manner in media soundbites?
Tolerance is the natural outgrowth of postmodernism, it seems. There is no right and wrong, only what works for the individual. There are no universals left. Since we can’t agree on things because we have no foundation for what is true, good, right, and decent, the only available option is to agree to disagree. Such agreement becomes tolerance because we are both immovable.
The problem is that whether one recognizes truth or not, it is still there. There are still issues that cannot be “tolerated”. If it were truly so, the police would have to tolerate speeders, murderers, and those driving while intoxicated. Rapists must be tolerated for their lifestyle choice, as would child and spouse abusers. They have every right to live the way they wish. Yes, this is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. There seems to be a point where common society cannot tolerate certain ideologies.
I would agree with the man who stated that tolerance is not love and suggested one tells their spouse, “I tolerate you,” instead of, “I love you.” It’s awfully cold to be sleeping in the doghouse these days. We should love people and not tolerate them. We should not tolerate their behavior but help them change. I will fully recognize gray areas here. In a perfect world this would work perfectly. Of course, in a perfect world this would not be an issue. A teacher cannot tolerate her students hitting each other on the playground. The behavior would be addressed, and the students would work towards correcting the behavior. The teacher would still love the students. To do otherwise, the teacher would not be diligent in her vocation. How can it be any different with us and our neighbor?

Commentaries on Recent News

The bishop prayed to "The God of our many understandings." It’s like singing “Happy Birthday.” He’d like it to be when the singers reach the point when one inserts the name into the song and some people say “Mom” and some say “Aunt Julie” and some say “Mrs. Brown,” yet all mean the same, erstwhile it commences on cacophony. In reality, the “God of our many understandings” is more like singing “Happy Birthday” to multiple people, and some say “Becky” while others say “Jim” and others say “Mr. Rumpleheimer.” The incoherent babble blathers on, and none ever get recognized for who they truly are.

In other news, embryonic stem cell trials moved ahead at Washington University. It is not testing to see if it works; it is testing to see it is safe. This is the next step in clinical trial procedure moving toward FDA approval.
The researcher’s comment was interesting:. "The most important part of course of the Hippocratic Oath is 'due no harm.' And this is the test to see that we do no harm." I would like to pose this question: “What about the harm it causes the embryo?” Perish the thought that society doesn’t “continue its medical pursuits” at the cost of embryos made just to be used for their parts. Do the parts really equal more than the whole? If society cannot recognize the value of one life, how can it determine whose life is valuable to save?

"Tis the Season to Be Pensive

I should know better. I should never allow myself to get off during class; however, sometimes I don't mind the direction the conversation is going, and I'm one of those types who take the soapbox when one can get it. Too bad it always backfires. I often come out of these discussions feeling slightly frustrated. Our postmodern society has shaped the mindset of our children. They have learned well what it has taught them. “You can believe whatever you want, as long as that is what we tell you. If your beliefs conflict, that’s okay too. Don’t tell anyone they’re wrong, for you are wrong to say they’re wrong.” It thought seems to have eradicated logic. I wish to help my students understand and think, yet I fear they or their parents may perceive it as indoctrination. If only I were better at communicating this kind of stuff. . .