Archive for April, 2006
Scribblings… Church vs. Academics and beyond
26 April 2006…some may make the argument that the conservative, fundamentalist, Christian movement(s) have thrown science, logic, and reason out the window. This may be true; in some circles, I think it’s safe to say, this is true. But why are Christians so strongly opposed to what most others see as clearly well-established systems of thinking? “Fear of God” is an acceptable answer. But having felt the effects of being a “church member”, all the while never being a particularly god-fearing person, I think it’s something more: a sense of community, which church and, more generally, “Christendom” provide (Does the term “Christendom” work in the 21st century?) and which so few other societal constructs provide.
From within, the church community is a very warm & welcoming place. Sure, some demoninations are more fire & brimstone than others–as a Presbyterian, I was frankly terrified by the Southern Baptist churches my friends went to. And one occasionally feels the pangs of society–elitism, alienation, “That family’s closer to the preacher,” and what not. But by and large, a congregation is a group of folk who all know each other’s names, who keep up on personal events and care and show concern for one another in times of trouble. In contrast, how many of us know our neighbors on a first name basis? Their occupations, hometowns? What about our coworkers? Or, more to the point, how much does a science class–thirty high-schoolers, brought together for just fifty minutes a day and expected to remain mostly on-task–care about one another? How much does Anthropologist Bob in Palo Alto care about Anthropologist Carl from San Diego, and his wife’s bout with pnemonia?
Let’s make a distinction hear: we’re not actually talking about science, but about education. And just as Christians reject seemingly sound educational material, perhaps educators have forsaken an important sense of community. Is it possible that this simple, mode-of-operation incompatibility is as great a contributor to the church-versus-school chasm as any Creationist mumbo-jumbo?
I could list a page full of compliants about my old church. I could let slip a few of my genuine personal beliefs that would probably have the congregation brand me as a heretic. Spiritually, I’m much more fulfilled following my own, multi-cultural and very loosely structured, hodge podge of beliefs than any church doctrine. And yet I still look back at my time in church with great fondness, and the sense of community is precisely why I miss it.
Before I digress, I suggest checking out Dumbing Us Down by John Taylor Gatto, who much more eloquently describes the difference between communities and “networks” (which is the model for schools, corporations, and far too many other organizations).
And now I wish to ponder what could get, say, a dyed-in-the-wool, Creationist-trained fundie kid to at least consider, if not accept, the Theory of Evolution? Hmm… Critical thinking, perhaps? On that note, how many agnostic/nonspiritual/indifferent high schoolers understand how to apply critical thinking to an issue?
…
The answer is “not a lot”, for anyone who didn’t see a rhetorical question coming from a mile away. Perhaps there’s something else we should teach kids before we think about teaching Evolution OR Intellient Design OR …
Incomplete & Partial Thoughts about Immigration, Illegal and Otherwise
10 April 2006First thing’s first: I do not support amnesty, nor do I believe illegal immigrants have any legal rights in this country. Quite the contrary, we—the United States, its government and citizens—have every right to deport illegal immigrants if we so choose.
These days it would seem popular to dismiss me as racist or anti-immigration, but I am neither. I simply believe that immigration laws were put in place to give everyone—laborers, corporations, consumers, et cetera—a fair shot, an even playing ground. I would go so far as suggest that many of my fellow citizens advocating amnesty are racists themselves. Were these same people alive 150-200 years ago, would they be advocating the continuation of slavery and the African slave trade? Their motivations seem to be in keeping: create, secure, or expand a population of second-class citizens—non-citizens, moreover—to live in a state of perpetual poverty while performing the most grueling, toilsome labor.
I suggest these “immigration sympathizers” to put their money where their mouth is, quite literally. Along with amnesty, demand a mandatory minimum wage for migrant workers that is no less than the minimum for U.S. Citizens. To do otherwise would be to support double standards putting to disadvantage those very same people you advocate and sympathize for.
Alas, I do not believe this sympathy is genuine, but motivated either by guilt over taking advantage or our Hispanic friends, or by the desire to continue taking advantage. It is said that we who speak out against the “rights” of illegal immigrants are taking our maids/janitors/landscapers/food servers for granted. Not true. I clean my own house, do my own dishes, mop up my own messes. I don’t drive to the bus stop to hire day laborers for yard work. I trim my own trees, or else pay a landscaper on the legal up-and-up a healthy hourly wage to do the work for me.
I am not anti-immigration. I am a fan of rich cultures, and I know that some of the richest cultural spots in our nation—Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco—are so rich exactly because of their immigrant roots. It is with pride that I recognize my own immigrant roots, tracing back to 19th-century English & Scottish commonfolk who, just like today’s immigrants, simply wished to better their lives and pursue the American dream. The difference is this: my forefathers came to this country and played by the rules, what rules there were. They mingled. They didn’t call themselves Scottish-Americans, but rather just Americans, not out of some forced cultural assimilation but out of the desire to share in the American dream with other Americans, immigrant and natural-born alike. They wouldn’t dare raise a Scottish flag in place of a U.S. flag, as they took pride in what the stars & stripes meant to them: not simply a paycheck, but a home, an ideal. They had their share of being taken advantage of, but just the same, they played by the rules—a notion that today seems lost on illegal immigrants and all too many American corporations, citizens, and state officials.