|
upsidedownkingdom
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Nathan
Gender: Male
Interests: my wife; designing furniture; good music of all kinds; anything outside the mainstream; cool tennis shoes; neutral milk hotel; and rediscovering Jesus
Expertise: thinking of the best comeback after the debate is over
Occupation: Artist - Furniture and Cabinet
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
4/17/2006
|
|
| A partial response to the Rev. Wright discussionI didn't have time to follow the very interesting discussion that was had in response to my last post, but I just want to say-- now that it's through-- that I think this discussion was quite emblematic of the way race is generally discussed in America.
What I mean is that there is a clear difference in the way the different races view racism and race relations in this country. White people, generally speaking-- especially conservatives, but not only them-- tend by and large to see racism as past history, and in terms of the "big" things that happened in our history such as slavery and Jim Crow. Thus they understandably react to black men like Rev. Wright and my friend Pashe by getting defensive: "Why should I pay for things my racial ancestors did?" or "We've made so much progress; we've ended slavery and given you the vote. What else could you want?"
Now, as I said, I think this line of reasoning is quite understandable, and in fact a few years ago I said many of the same things. However, this point of view fails to take into account the current realities of racism experienced by contemporary African Americans. Many of them have seen firsthand neighborhood redlining and the subsequent racial division in home mortgage rates (where African Amercians paid higher interest). They see the forgotten schools and the racial profiling, the "DWB" issues, and it makes them recoil from "mainstream" society. Not to paint with too broad a brush, but I think there's a deep experiential difference in the way whites and blacks talk and feel about race, and I think that in this case it is my own racial group that needs to recognize that there's far more to the story than slavery and Jim Crow.
I notice that African Americans tend to speak of racism in terms of the progress that needs to be made yet, while whites are more likely to reference (sometimes defensively) the progress that's already been made. For instance, I remember Martin Luther King day 2008, in which the Democrats (especially Obama) spoke of the changes King "began", implying that much needs to be done, while the GOP members (I especially remember Romney) spoke of what King "accomplished", implying strongly that we've arrived. Both are right, in a sense; but in this case we whites are probably the ones that need to get less defensive, realizing that we've not been the victims here, and open up to what still needs to be done. | | |
| Through my many discussions, there are many ways in which I've gotten to better understand those with whom I disagree, and many times I've changed my views because of this.
One thing I still cannot understand-- having never been able to get a straight answer on the issue-- is this:
How is it permissible, from an objective moral perspective, for one country to take an action while condemning another for taking that same action? For instance, why is it morally permissible for Israel to punish millions of Arabs, such as those in Gaza, for the actions of a few, but not permissible for Arabs to attack Israeli citizens? Or, why is America able to align itself with terrorists or cruel governments like Saudi Arabia when it suits American interests, while other nations get slapped with UN sanctions for doing the same?
This is not a diatribe against America, although some may see it that way. All I'm saying is that these moral double-standards underlie almost every American foreign policy position, and I cannot understand how so many Christians, who supposedly believe in the Golden Rule, can support such positions.
Here are a few responses that will not be allowed into this discussion:
1) "You are unpatriotic (or ungrateful, or whatever)." (This is beside the point).
2) "We are America, protector of freedom around the world, and sometimes you have to do things that seem repugnant in order to serve the greater good." (This rests on the untested assumption that we are really working for the greater good, and not for ourselves.)
3) "We were attacked on 9/11! Desperate times call for desperate measures." (Both #2 and #3 fail to answer the question, "By what moral standard do we take our actions?)
4) "Parents give older children different parameters than their less mature siblings. The same is true with nations." (OK, this makes sense in theory, but it begs two questions: First, by what standard is America "more mature" than other nations? Second, is belligerent unilateral action, defiance of international law, and cavorting with dictators the type of thing a "more mature" nation does?)
______________
(In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I used to support double-standard-based American actions. But I could never answer the questions I am now posing, which is in large part why I changed my beliefs.) | | |
| Obama's "bitter" commentI'm not going to spend much time defending Obama's recent comment in San Francisco about how many people "cling to guns and religion" because of problems in their lives. I think it was a silly thing to say politically, especially considering how the media was going to construe it (given that it was in San Francisco). But then again, some people do cling to guns and perverted forms of religion when they're filled with fear. It certainly wasn't an altogether outlandish thing to say.
What I really wanted to say, though, was that the public response to this has been so silly. "Oh my God," we seem to collectively say, "Obama's not one of us! He's an elite! He doesn't get us! How dare he?"
To which I'm tempted to say: Duh! The man's in the Senate, and he's running for President! Of course he's not one of us! Why should we be so surprised? Really, the only difference between a man like Barack Obama and George W. Bush is that the latter has gotten really good at playing the "I'm one of you, a simple religious conservative, who can't even say the word 'nuclear' properly" game. For the love of God, though, the man grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth. He's never really risked anything without having a ready safety net. He's never really had to work hard without knowing that his well-connected family would back him up. Pretty much all of our major politicians are to a degree like that.
How 'bout we get used to that fact, and stop acting so surprised when Senator Obama says things like that. | | |
| More on Popular LiteralismI've been asked a number of pointed questions, and been confronted with certain statements, regarding my last post. Let me try to talk about those a little:
1) It seems to me that "popular literalism" is often defended by the "necessity" argument. "If Genesis 1 and 2 aren't 100% historical," people ask, "then how do we explain sin?" Or, "If Genesis 1 and 2 aren't 100% historial, how can we know the rest of the Bible, especially the Gospels, are historical?"
Now, I think these are good questions, and I have answered them in my comments following the previous post. However, it strikes me that these aren't arguments for why the Creation story should be fully historical or scientifically accurate; they're appeals to fear, in a way. Fear, specifically, that our faith will unravel if we "mess" with this particular understanding of Genesis. Now, I mean, I understand this: I had to go through this fear too. But is that a good reason to eschew the arguments I've put forth?
2) It has also been said that science shouldn't be the "yardstick" by which we measure the validity of the Bible. Now, on its face, I completely agree with this argument. But when I dig deeper, I find some problems.
First, I am only using science as the "yardstick" to measure this particular interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself. There are many ways people have been able to interpret Genesis and other biblical books over the millennia, and this "popular literalism", while hot in Christian bookstores at the moment, is far from the "only orthodox" theology it's often branded as.
Second, I don't think we should either judge the Bible by science or judge science by the Bible. It's not a either/or thing; it's about integrating Scripture and science and seeing what each has to say about particular issues. Regarding the age of the earth, for instance, there simply is no evidence that the earth is young, while all the evidence points to its being old. (I'd be happy to discuss this if anyone wants to bring up specific points.) So, we're faced with a dilemma: (1) either the "popular literalists" are right, and the earth is young, which means God (dishonestly) placed evidence of age in the earth, or (2) science is right, and Genesis 1 and 2 mean something else entirely.
Third, the claim that "we shouldn't use science to judge the Bible" seems to be based on the belief that science is an ideology that stands opposed to Scripture. But science isn't an ideology at all: it's just the accumulation of observations from many thousands of people, many of whom were Christians. If one is going to claim that scientific observation is wrong, then we've opened up another can of worms, for if that is the case how do we even trust our own "observations" of the Bible? | | |
|
