The discussion continues regarding gun control and there are lots of arguments that are coming from the pro gun folk that need to be addressed and lots of fallacies or at least misleading ideas being promulgated from those who are for gun control. Here are a few of the issues as I see them.
1. Violent crime has decreased in the US over the past few decades including the murder rate. Indeed, our rates of violent crime in the US are lower than many of the nations that are raised up as examples by the gun control folk. At the same time, our gun violence rate is significantly higher than all of those places.
2. Assault weapons represent a very small percentage of guns used in murders. They are disproportionately used in mass violence, but that too represents a very, very small percentage of gun deaths. While 26 were killed at the Sandy Hook school, some 700 have died by guns, almost all one at a time and the vast majority by handguns, since then.
3. A significant proportion of gun deaths occur in gang violence.
4. The rates of violent crime are higher in large cities with large populations of folk living in poverty.
5. The number of guns in a given area is directly proportional to the number of gun deaths. Whether this is a direct correlation or coincidence is debatable. For example, the south has one of the higher rates of gun ownership and of gun deaths. It also has a poverty rate that is higher than many other areas of the country.
6. All of the statistics are clear, owning a gun makes one more likely to die from a gun than not having one and those statistics are consistent everywhere. If we look at #1 again, that explains why in England there is a significantly higher violent crime rate, a lower murder rate, and an amazingly lower rate of death by gun.
7. We live in a violent society, but other cultures are violent as well. Video game playing is higher in Denmark, for example, where the rate of death by gun is extremely low. Ditto in Japan. Again, if we look at #1, England has a higher rate of violent crime, but much lower rate of death by gun.
8. We have significant problems with mental health care and with poverty in our country that directly impact violent behavior although often in ways that are counter-intuitive when one watches the news or listens to talk radio. For example, the mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. The same is true of the poor.
9. Gun ownership is going down. Still, the myth of redemptive violence is prevalent in our culture and we still have a love affair with guns that borders on idolatry.
10. There are significant differences in how to understand the 2nd Amendment.
11. There are literally millions of guns already out there.
Some implications of all of that...
1. Banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines will not lower the rate of death by gun significantly. It will lessen the possibility of mass murders, but they are extremely rare.
2. For gun control to make a dent in the raw numbers, handguns must be included in any regulations and some kind of buy back would be required to begin to lower the number of guns in the general population. Many possible laws, for example how guns must be stored, would be virtually impossible to enforce.
3. There are clearly other cultural issues like mental health care and poverty which must be addressed in order to change the level of violence, but the removal of guns from the equation cannot be dismissed as a way of lowering the level of violence.
4. Education is required to begin to dispel the myths that owning guns = protection or having more handguns in the general population lowers the incidence of violence. These ideas are widely held and clearly not true according to any of the objective studies.
5. Any gun control changes that will have a significant impact will involve conflict and serious discussion regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
What do I think?
I think all assault rifles and high capacity magazines should be banned. Currently owned weapons of this sort would be subject to a government buy-back and destroyed. Any found afterwards would be confiscated and destroyed and the owners face a substantial fine. Collectors owning such weapons would have to have them modified to be non-functional and inspected. Armor piercing ammunition would also be banned. I think concealed carry permits should be available only under the most extreme cases. Nobody should be able to purchase any gun without significant background checks, education, and licensing both for the owner and for the weapon. Nobody under age 18 would be allowed to own or use a gun for any purpose including hunting or target shooting. Ammunition would be tracked. By law, all guns must be stored in locked cabinets and ammunition must be stored separately and also locked. Stand your ground laws would all be repealed. A public service announcement campaign would begin, telling the truth regarding the statistics of gun violence. I think that would be a start.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Ah Ha!
Ah Ha! That is pretty much what Epiphany means. The dictionary says that an epiphany is a sudden realization. The English word comes from a Greek word that means striking manifestation or appearance.
In the Church calendar, Epiphany is January 6, the first day following the 12 days of Christmas. In the lectionary, the scripture passage most tied to that day is the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus. Some cultures celebrate Epiphany as the day when gifts are given rather than on Christmas and in some places, the children leave hay out to feed the camels rather than cookies for Santa.
I've been thinking a lot about the Church Year this year and have paid careful attention to the season of Advent, a penitential season of preparation, prior to Christmas, then the full 12 days of Christmas beginning on December 25, and now, Epiphany. Here's the question I've been wrestling with for Epiphany... just what was/is the Ah Ha? What is the sudden realization?
Tradition says that the Epiphany was for the Gentiles, the Magi who realized that the Messiah had come and traveled to see him and bring gifts. An interesting interpretation... the Magi were likely Zoroastrian priests from what is now Iran. The Zoroastrian religion is a highly dualistic religion that sees an ongoing battle between the transcendent and all good god and the force of evil, between creation and chaos. In their eschatology, at the end time there will come a savior who will remake the world and even the dead who had been banished into darkness would be restored into full life in the presence of the all good god. Ok... so we can easily see how they may have understood Jesus as this savior figure and come to worship him. Here's the part that catches my attention this year, nowhere are they told to repent of their "heathen" faith and turn to Judaism or some form of proto-Christianity. They leave their gifts, worship Jesus, and return home. There is no reason to believe they have interpreted their experience in any way except as Zoroastrian priests.
One cannot reliably argue from silence but whenever we read scripture we must remember that the scripture writers included what they felt their readers needed to hear and didn't include what they felt their readers did not need to hear. Only Matthew tells us the story of the Magi and he gives us precious few details. So how do we make sense of this odd little passage? He doesn't tell us of the conversion of the Magi. They don't stay to become followers of Jesus and, as far as we can tell, none of them return thirty years later to follow him. Is the story just a set-up for Herod's slaughter of the innocents and a rather complicated narrative to get Jesus to Nazareth? Maybe, the real epiphany is not meant for the Magi, but for Matthew's readers (first the church he wrote for and ultimately for us). Maybe the real epiphany is that the gospel is inclusive even of those so far beyond the margins as to be completely invisible. Maybe the good news includes not only the Jews and the direct believers but also those of foreign religions who may encounter Jesus but continue to practice their own faith in an authentic manner. Even Zoroastrian priests are included in God's kindom. Maybe the Ah Ha of this little passage is a nascent universalism, still yet to be fully realized or understood.
Wouldn't that be an epiphany?
In the Church calendar, Epiphany is January 6, the first day following the 12 days of Christmas. In the lectionary, the scripture passage most tied to that day is the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus. Some cultures celebrate Epiphany as the day when gifts are given rather than on Christmas and in some places, the children leave hay out to feed the camels rather than cookies for Santa.
I've been thinking a lot about the Church Year this year and have paid careful attention to the season of Advent, a penitential season of preparation, prior to Christmas, then the full 12 days of Christmas beginning on December 25, and now, Epiphany. Here's the question I've been wrestling with for Epiphany... just what was/is the Ah Ha? What is the sudden realization?
Tradition says that the Epiphany was for the Gentiles, the Magi who realized that the Messiah had come and traveled to see him and bring gifts. An interesting interpretation... the Magi were likely Zoroastrian priests from what is now Iran. The Zoroastrian religion is a highly dualistic religion that sees an ongoing battle between the transcendent and all good god and the force of evil, between creation and chaos. In their eschatology, at the end time there will come a savior who will remake the world and even the dead who had been banished into darkness would be restored into full life in the presence of the all good god. Ok... so we can easily see how they may have understood Jesus as this savior figure and come to worship him. Here's the part that catches my attention this year, nowhere are they told to repent of their "heathen" faith and turn to Judaism or some form of proto-Christianity. They leave their gifts, worship Jesus, and return home. There is no reason to believe they have interpreted their experience in any way except as Zoroastrian priests.
One cannot reliably argue from silence but whenever we read scripture we must remember that the scripture writers included what they felt their readers needed to hear and didn't include what they felt their readers did not need to hear. Only Matthew tells us the story of the Magi and he gives us precious few details. So how do we make sense of this odd little passage? He doesn't tell us of the conversion of the Magi. They don't stay to become followers of Jesus and, as far as we can tell, none of them return thirty years later to follow him. Is the story just a set-up for Herod's slaughter of the innocents and a rather complicated narrative to get Jesus to Nazareth? Maybe, the real epiphany is not meant for the Magi, but for Matthew's readers (first the church he wrote for and ultimately for us). Maybe the real epiphany is that the gospel is inclusive even of those so far beyond the margins as to be completely invisible. Maybe the good news includes not only the Jews and the direct believers but also those of foreign religions who may encounter Jesus but continue to practice their own faith in an authentic manner. Even Zoroastrian priests are included in God's kindom. Maybe the Ah Ha of this little passage is a nascent universalism, still yet to be fully realized or understood.
Wouldn't that be an epiphany?
Friday, January 04, 2013
best CD's of 2012
Well... I have to say that is a misleading title. For a musician, I am remarkably uninformed as to what is going on in the music world. Outside of my very small circle, I just don't hear all that much and so I clearly miss out on some wonderful music that would stretch my ears and my imagination and enrich my life.
Luckily, I have some friends who are much more in touch than I am. Fernando Gros is one such person. He has a delightful blog that shares his connections with the larger culture in ways that are foreign to me. Recently he posted his 12 best albums of 2012 and I watched his video links and a few more from some of the artists. While there were a few of his choices that didn't do much for me and a few that I could listen to or not, there were also a few that really caught my ear. I'll share those here. You can go to Fernando's blog to see the rest of his choices. And thanks Fernando for opening my ears to these folk!
His number #12, Traces by Karine Polwart is a CD I should have known as an acoustic musician but did not. Indeed, it is my first listen to Polwart. Everything an acoustic performance needs to be...
I've always loved African music and have found the folk making music in the African diaspora to be very inspiring. Fernando's #11, Janka Nabay & the Bubu Gang – En Yah Sah, is another new one to me which I found infectious.
Grimes is about as far outside of my normally listening habits as can be... and I really don't understand anything about the video other than it is interesting to watch. Still, I really enjoyed her music. Her recent CD, Visions, is Fernando's #9.
#6 is one CD with which I was familiar and like a lot, David Byrne and St. Vincent, Love This Giant. They are both unusual artists with quirky views of the world. I don't know how they got together, but it works.
and finally, I'll share his #5, Bat for Lashes' CD The Haunted Man. A bit closer to my normal listening than Grimes, but still different enough to be a wonderful surprise.
Luckily, I have some friends who are much more in touch than I am. Fernando Gros is one such person. He has a delightful blog that shares his connections with the larger culture in ways that are foreign to me. Recently he posted his 12 best albums of 2012 and I watched his video links and a few more from some of the artists. While there were a few of his choices that didn't do much for me and a few that I could listen to or not, there were also a few that really caught my ear. I'll share those here. You can go to Fernando's blog to see the rest of his choices. And thanks Fernando for opening my ears to these folk!
His number #12, Traces by Karine Polwart is a CD I should have known as an acoustic musician but did not. Indeed, it is my first listen to Polwart. Everything an acoustic performance needs to be...
I've always loved African music and have found the folk making music in the African diaspora to be very inspiring. Fernando's #11, Janka Nabay & the Bubu Gang – En Yah Sah, is another new one to me which I found infectious.
Grimes is about as far outside of my normally listening habits as can be... and I really don't understand anything about the video other than it is interesting to watch. Still, I really enjoyed her music. Her recent CD, Visions, is Fernando's #9.
#6 is one CD with which I was familiar and like a lot, David Byrne and St. Vincent, Love This Giant. They are both unusual artists with quirky views of the world. I don't know how they got together, but it works.
and finally, I'll share his #5, Bat for Lashes' CD The Haunted Man. A bit closer to my normal listening than Grimes, but still different enough to be a wonderful surprise.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
the size of government
I'm not going to argue the question regarding the size of the government. Anyone who has read my blog knows that I am not for small government." I'm for a government that is large enough and robust enough to do what is necessary to enable this nation to fill full all of its most wonderful promises. That is another post.
What I want to talk about today i a piece that really has been puzzling me. With the horrendous violence at the Sandy Hook school, there has been a strong theme among some right wing folk, mostly evangelical Christians, but not exclusively so. They have argued that we can expect violence in schools because we have legislated God out of the schools. Their answer is to "bring God back into our schools."
Well... nobody has legislated God out of anywhere - you can't do that or prohibited anything. Indeed, there is literally no way to stop prayer from taking place in schools even if you wanted to. Beyond that, religious organizations are specifically allowed in any school that allows any kind of outside organizations. The concern seems only to be about having the 10 commandments posted, prayers at school events, and the like.
First, let me share a history lesson. The idea of separation of church and state did not begin with secular liberals. It was an idea that came from a few very brave and very inspired religious groups. Many of the early settlers of the United States came from Europe fleeing religious persecution. Most, like the pilgrims, arrived here and immediately set about building the same kinds of prohibitions under which they had suffered only attacking everyone who wasn't like them. Two groups however realized that faith is an issue that is decided between and individual's conscience and God. The Baptists (yes, the Baptists) and the Quakers argued and institutionalized the idea that government and religion needed to be separated. The famous phrase of a "wall of separation" that does not appear in the constitution actually came from a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, assuring them that he would work for a complete separation of Church and State, restricting the government from any interference in religious practice.
So, here are my questions... how is it that these folk who argue for "small government" want to insert the government into this most personal and important of issues of conscience? How is it that these folk who do not trust government to do virtually anything want to give the government the responsibility of religious teaching? If government was actually given that power, who would decide what it looks like? Would the school principal write the prayers? Or the town mayor? Would they be representative of the divergence of the population of the area or would they just be watered down until everyone could agree (as if that could ever happen)? Maybe someone from the Westboro Baptist Church could pray for the damnation of all of the children present... or a Santaria priest could sacrifice a chicken. Maybe an Imam could read in Arabic from the Koran or a gay Episcopalian priest from the Book of Common Prayer. Maybe a Mennonite could pray for the abolition of the military or a fundamentalist Mormon could prayer for the re-establishment of polygamy. You get the picture.
As a Baptist pastor, a committed Christian, and a person who takes my faith very, very seriously, I do not want the government teaching my children, grandchildren, or church members issues of faith. I do not want to give those folk the power to dictate the content of their prayers or of their religious interpretations. I am not interested in prayers that offend nobody because they mean nothing and I am not interested in prayers that offend me because I do not agree with their meaning. I am not interested in the 10 commandments published anywhere on government properties because at least half of them have to do with cultic issues and are irrelevant as social policy.
I do trust the government to build social safety nets. I do trust the government as the best way to administer health care. I do trust the government as the best way to provide education, the common defense, and to address many many cultural concerns. I do not trust the government to handle religion and as a minority religious group (and anyone who takes faith seriously in the US is a member of a minority religious group) the only role government has with regards to faith is to keeps its hands off and to make sure that the broader culture keeps its hands off. I agree with Jefferson that those words in the first amendment establish a wall of separation and pray that it will never be breached.
What I want to talk about today i a piece that really has been puzzling me. With the horrendous violence at the Sandy Hook school, there has been a strong theme among some right wing folk, mostly evangelical Christians, but not exclusively so. They have argued that we can expect violence in schools because we have legislated God out of the schools. Their answer is to "bring God back into our schools."
Well... nobody has legislated God out of anywhere - you can't do that or prohibited anything. Indeed, there is literally no way to stop prayer from taking place in schools even if you wanted to. Beyond that, religious organizations are specifically allowed in any school that allows any kind of outside organizations. The concern seems only to be about having the 10 commandments posted, prayers at school events, and the like.
First, let me share a history lesson. The idea of separation of church and state did not begin with secular liberals. It was an idea that came from a few very brave and very inspired religious groups. Many of the early settlers of the United States came from Europe fleeing religious persecution. Most, like the pilgrims, arrived here and immediately set about building the same kinds of prohibitions under which they had suffered only attacking everyone who wasn't like them. Two groups however realized that faith is an issue that is decided between and individual's conscience and God. The Baptists (yes, the Baptists) and the Quakers argued and institutionalized the idea that government and religion needed to be separated. The famous phrase of a "wall of separation" that does not appear in the constitution actually came from a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, assuring them that he would work for a complete separation of Church and State, restricting the government from any interference in religious practice.
So, here are my questions... how is it that these folk who argue for "small government" want to insert the government into this most personal and important of issues of conscience? How is it that these folk who do not trust government to do virtually anything want to give the government the responsibility of religious teaching? If government was actually given that power, who would decide what it looks like? Would the school principal write the prayers? Or the town mayor? Would they be representative of the divergence of the population of the area or would they just be watered down until everyone could agree (as if that could ever happen)? Maybe someone from the Westboro Baptist Church could pray for the damnation of all of the children present... or a Santaria priest could sacrifice a chicken. Maybe an Imam could read in Arabic from the Koran or a gay Episcopalian priest from the Book of Common Prayer. Maybe a Mennonite could pray for the abolition of the military or a fundamentalist Mormon could prayer for the re-establishment of polygamy. You get the picture.
As a Baptist pastor, a committed Christian, and a person who takes my faith very, very seriously, I do not want the government teaching my children, grandchildren, or church members issues of faith. I do not want to give those folk the power to dictate the content of their prayers or of their religious interpretations. I am not interested in prayers that offend nobody because they mean nothing and I am not interested in prayers that offend me because I do not agree with their meaning. I am not interested in the 10 commandments published anywhere on government properties because at least half of them have to do with cultic issues and are irrelevant as social policy.
I do trust the government to build social safety nets. I do trust the government as the best way to administer health care. I do trust the government as the best way to provide education, the common defense, and to address many many cultural concerns. I do not trust the government to handle religion and as a minority religious group (and anyone who takes faith seriously in the US is a member of a minority religious group) the only role government has with regards to faith is to keeps its hands off and to make sure that the broader culture keeps its hands off. I agree with Jefferson that those words in the first amendment establish a wall of separation and pray that it will never be breached.
Monday, December 17, 2012
the discussion
OK, so folk actually seem to be beginning to have the discussion about guns that is WAAAAYYYY overdue.
Here's the problem... many are beginning with misinformation. The NRA has done their job well.
Here are a couple of untruths that they have floated out there and are clearly just not true.
"People need to have guns in their homes to be safe from home invasions." Every study, let me say that again, every study has shown that households that own guns are significantly more likely to have a family member die of gun violence than homes without guns. There are lots of other factors including age, gender, number of people in the household, and type of gun but the bottom line is always true, if you have guns in your home, someone in your household is more likely to die of a gunshot than if you do not.
"If more people were armed, then someone could have stopped the shooter." See the above. Add the statistics that consistently show show that the more guns in an area, the more gun deaths. States that have higher gun ownership have higher numbers of shootings. Conversely, states with stronger gun laws and/or lower gun ownership have fewer homicides or suicides by gun. Again, the stats all show that more guns means less safety, not more. Please think about this further. If teachers came to school with guns, eventually a child would get access to one and we would see a tragedy. Even under the best of circumstances where police returned fire in August at the Empire State Building, by-standers were hit by fragments of bullets shot by trained police officers. Imagine if 15 by-standers had pulled out their guns and began firing. How many innocent by-standers would have been shot then? Think also of the states where there are stand your ground laws. An individual feels threatened, whether justified or not, and instead of retreating, pulls out a gun and shoots. Someone dies. Without the gun, the individual retreats. Finally think of those places in the world where virtually everyone is armed - Somalia, Afghanistan, you get the picture. Is that really the kind of place we want to emulate?
"If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns." Of course, the statement is not true. Law enforcement personnel would still have guns. Military would still have guns. And if guns were outlawed, production stopped, and those extant confiscated and destroyed, eventually even criminals wouldn't have guns. That is obviously not going to happen, but fewer guns would mean fewer available for criminals too. More importantly, the implication here is that somehow having a gun makes an individual less likely to be a victim of a crime. It just is not accurate.
"The real problem is people, not guns. If the crazies didn't have guns, they'd still kill people in some other way." There is a degree of truth in this... but only a degree. Violence still happens without guns, but it is pretty difficult to kill 27 people with a knife or a baseball bat before someone is able to stop you. Yes, we must address a culture of violence and even more importantly, we must address issues of mental illness. In the meantime, lets remove the tools of violence.
"We need guns to be able to stand up and revolt against tyrants at home." This argument is the one that actually runs closest to the 2nd Amendment, but it is also the most ridiculous one. Are we really expected to believe that untrained individuals could mount a revolt using the kinds of guns that are in circulation against a military like the US has? Look at the difficulty Syria is having against a third rate military with third rate equipment and imagine sending civilians against helicopter gun ships, jets, missiles, tanks, armed drones, and the best trained, most well equipped, military in the world. This statement betrays such a profound lack of trust in the American system that I don't know quite how to even address that part. I trust the system. I trust the checks and balances. I trust the American people to not allow things to get so far that a revolution is necessary.
Now we can have a real discussion about guns. They make some people feel safe. Is that a good reason to sacrifice our children? As of my writing this, there have been over 94,000 people shot in the US this year. Is that a price we want to pay for a feeling of security, especially one that is not borne out by any of the facts? Some people like to hunt or target shoot. Fine, what kinds of weapons and ammunition are necessary for those sports? And what are reasonable restrictions regarding those weapons and ammo? Doesn't it make sense that the regulations are at least as stringent as for driving - a class, a written and practical test, a license that must be periodically renewed, age requirements for gun use, registration of all guns, periodic inspections of all guns, safety regulations regarding gun design that is strictly enforced... Some folk appreciate the artistry in some guns and like to collect objects of beauty. OK, then for collectors, maybe no ammo? There is the 2nd amendment. Yes, there is, but what does it reasonably mean in our society today? When it was written, a musket shot one ball and then had to be reloaded, taking up to a minute per shot for an experienced musketeer and significantly longer for a person who was not an expert. The weapons were also extremely inaccurate. We just aren't talking about the same thing here, so how does the amendment apply?
Let's do away with the NRA lies and have a real discussion.
Here's the problem... many are beginning with misinformation. The NRA has done their job well.
Here are a couple of untruths that they have floated out there and are clearly just not true.
"People need to have guns in their homes to be safe from home invasions." Every study, let me say that again, every study has shown that households that own guns are significantly more likely to have a family member die of gun violence than homes without guns. There are lots of other factors including age, gender, number of people in the household, and type of gun but the bottom line is always true, if you have guns in your home, someone in your household is more likely to die of a gunshot than if you do not.
"If more people were armed, then someone could have stopped the shooter." See the above. Add the statistics that consistently show show that the more guns in an area, the more gun deaths. States that have higher gun ownership have higher numbers of shootings. Conversely, states with stronger gun laws and/or lower gun ownership have fewer homicides or suicides by gun. Again, the stats all show that more guns means less safety, not more. Please think about this further. If teachers came to school with guns, eventually a child would get access to one and we would see a tragedy. Even under the best of circumstances where police returned fire in August at the Empire State Building, by-standers were hit by fragments of bullets shot by trained police officers. Imagine if 15 by-standers had pulled out their guns and began firing. How many innocent by-standers would have been shot then? Think also of the states where there are stand your ground laws. An individual feels threatened, whether justified or not, and instead of retreating, pulls out a gun and shoots. Someone dies. Without the gun, the individual retreats. Finally think of those places in the world where virtually everyone is armed - Somalia, Afghanistan, you get the picture. Is that really the kind of place we want to emulate?
"If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns." Of course, the statement is not true. Law enforcement personnel would still have guns. Military would still have guns. And if guns were outlawed, production stopped, and those extant confiscated and destroyed, eventually even criminals wouldn't have guns. That is obviously not going to happen, but fewer guns would mean fewer available for criminals too. More importantly, the implication here is that somehow having a gun makes an individual less likely to be a victim of a crime. It just is not accurate.
"The real problem is people, not guns. If the crazies didn't have guns, they'd still kill people in some other way." There is a degree of truth in this... but only a degree. Violence still happens without guns, but it is pretty difficult to kill 27 people with a knife or a baseball bat before someone is able to stop you. Yes, we must address a culture of violence and even more importantly, we must address issues of mental illness. In the meantime, lets remove the tools of violence.
"We need guns to be able to stand up and revolt against tyrants at home." This argument is the one that actually runs closest to the 2nd Amendment, but it is also the most ridiculous one. Are we really expected to believe that untrained individuals could mount a revolt using the kinds of guns that are in circulation against a military like the US has? Look at the difficulty Syria is having against a third rate military with third rate equipment and imagine sending civilians against helicopter gun ships, jets, missiles, tanks, armed drones, and the best trained, most well equipped, military in the world. This statement betrays such a profound lack of trust in the American system that I don't know quite how to even address that part. I trust the system. I trust the checks and balances. I trust the American people to not allow things to get so far that a revolution is necessary.
Now we can have a real discussion about guns. They make some people feel safe. Is that a good reason to sacrifice our children? As of my writing this, there have been over 94,000 people shot in the US this year. Is that a price we want to pay for a feeling of security, especially one that is not borne out by any of the facts? Some people like to hunt or target shoot. Fine, what kinds of weapons and ammunition are necessary for those sports? And what are reasonable restrictions regarding those weapons and ammo? Doesn't it make sense that the regulations are at least as stringent as for driving - a class, a written and practical test, a license that must be periodically renewed, age requirements for gun use, registration of all guns, periodic inspections of all guns, safety regulations regarding gun design that is strictly enforced... Some folk appreciate the artistry in some guns and like to collect objects of beauty. OK, then for collectors, maybe no ammo? There is the 2nd amendment. Yes, there is, but what does it reasonably mean in our society today? When it was written, a musket shot one ball and then had to be reloaded, taking up to a minute per shot for an experienced musketeer and significantly longer for a person who was not an expert. The weapons were also extremely inaccurate. We just aren't talking about the same thing here, so how does the amendment apply?
Let's do away with the NRA lies and have a real discussion.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Gun Violence
I'm writing out of frustration and grief and won't think this through as carefully as perhaps I should... so just some random thoughts...
Evidently some right wing preacher has already commented that God didn't step in and stop the murders of children because "God doesn't go where God isn't welcome," i.e. public schools. What utter, utter nonsense. I really don't even know how to respond to this idea except to say that it is ridiculous. This is obscene. This is blasphemous.
I'm frankly waiting to read the crazies who say that Obama planned this as a way to take away their guns. And then there will be the slightly less crazy who will say that this is exactly what Obama was hoping for so he could take away their guns. It hasn't happened yet (that I'm aware of) but I fully expect it.
I do hope that our leaders see this as a final impetus to do real gun control reform. Yes, I know "guns don't kill people, people kill people," but it is pretty difficult to bring about this level of violence without a gun. And yes, I know there is more going on here than just guns. We obviously had a very troubled young man... who never would have been able to perpetrate that degree of violence without guns. I have read the 2nd amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Frankly, I see nothing in that sentence that says anything at all about any person who wants a gun having the right to go out and purchase one. It is well past the time when we need serious and significant regulations regarding the ownership of guns, of ammunition, and of the production of both.
These children and adults did not have to die. We can choose to make it next to impossible for this type of violence to happen again or we can allow groups like the NRA to continue their ridiculous propaganda and give in to their completely irresponsible ideas.
Evidently some right wing preacher has already commented that God didn't step in and stop the murders of children because "God doesn't go where God isn't welcome," i.e. public schools. What utter, utter nonsense. I really don't even know how to respond to this idea except to say that it is ridiculous. This is obscene. This is blasphemous.
I'm frankly waiting to read the crazies who say that Obama planned this as a way to take away their guns. And then there will be the slightly less crazy who will say that this is exactly what Obama was hoping for so he could take away their guns. It hasn't happened yet (that I'm aware of) but I fully expect it.
I do hope that our leaders see this as a final impetus to do real gun control reform. Yes, I know "guns don't kill people, people kill people," but it is pretty difficult to bring about this level of violence without a gun. And yes, I know there is more going on here than just guns. We obviously had a very troubled young man... who never would have been able to perpetrate that degree of violence without guns. I have read the 2nd amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Frankly, I see nothing in that sentence that says anything at all about any person who wants a gun having the right to go out and purchase one. It is well past the time when we need serious and significant regulations regarding the ownership of guns, of ammunition, and of the production of both.
These children and adults did not have to die. We can choose to make it next to impossible for this type of violence to happen again or we can allow groups like the NRA to continue their ridiculous propaganda and give in to their completely irresponsible ideas.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
another world
I have one of the most amazing commutes in the world. I blogged about that drive once before with some photos here. It is a 35 mile drive from my home to my job. The first 9 miles of my drive are across the Santa Ynez valley and then over the Santa Ynez mountains using the Gaviota Pass until I run right into the Pacific Ocean. About the next 20 miles are along the Gaviota Coast, a gorgeous and almost completely undeveloped coastline with the ocean on one side and the mountains on the other. There are a few ranches on the mountain side including one with llamas, but mostly it is rock and chaparral. The road weaves closer and farther from the ocean but for most of that stretch, it is very close to the water.
It is a California highway so I rarely drive it much under 70 mph. That means that I get glimpses of incredible beauty but rarely get to savor them. Today was one of those days. As we came through the pass, the sun was shinning brilliantly. There are multiple oil platforms visible from the shore, all of which are a minimum of 3 miles from the shoreline. Some 22+ miles out are the Channel Islands. Often the islands are obscured by fog. Today, there was a fog bank we could watch moving across the ocean, slowly enveloping one after another of the oil platforms. I caught a glimpse of what I think was a whale spout and then a bit of the back of a whale submerging into the water. I have seen whales from my car at least 2 other times and possibly 3. A number of times a year I see a pod of dolphins swimming by. Watching the surfers on their boards always makes me think of the surfers and swimmers who have been attacked by great white sharks in the area. Once or twice a week we see scuba divers putting on their equipment to dive and I wonder what amazing things they will see.
I look both left and right, mountains and sea, and see beauty and wonder both ways but today I was struck by the realization that I feel comfortable on the land. That is where I live. I understand the mountains. I know there is danger there - rattlesnakes, mountain lions, bear, the possibilities of dehydration or a fall, or even getting lost in the wilderness, but it still feels familiar. The ocean... that is another world altogether, just feet away but completely foreign to me.
It is a California highway so I rarely drive it much under 70 mph. That means that I get glimpses of incredible beauty but rarely get to savor them. Today was one of those days. As we came through the pass, the sun was shinning brilliantly. There are multiple oil platforms visible from the shore, all of which are a minimum of 3 miles from the shoreline. Some 22+ miles out are the Channel Islands. Often the islands are obscured by fog. Today, there was a fog bank we could watch moving across the ocean, slowly enveloping one after another of the oil platforms. I caught a glimpse of what I think was a whale spout and then a bit of the back of a whale submerging into the water. I have seen whales from my car at least 2 other times and possibly 3. A number of times a year I see a pod of dolphins swimming by. Watching the surfers on their boards always makes me think of the surfers and swimmers who have been attacked by great white sharks in the area. Once or twice a week we see scuba divers putting on their equipment to dive and I wonder what amazing things they will see.
I look both left and right, mountains and sea, and see beauty and wonder both ways but today I was struck by the realization that I feel comfortable on the land. That is where I live. I understand the mountains. I know there is danger there - rattlesnakes, mountain lions, bear, the possibilities of dehydration or a fall, or even getting lost in the wilderness, but it still feels familiar. The ocean... that is another world altogether, just feet away but completely foreign to me.
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas Tree
We put our Christmas tree up yesterday. The house is full of the scent of fresh pine...
but...
we have two cats
but...
we have two cats
Monday, November 12, 2012
officially old
Back in the day, 30 was the entry to old age. I remember the saying"never trust anyone over 30." I remember one of the anthems of my age cadre saying, "I hope I die before I get old." I remember turning 30 and having almost as bad a time as I did the first time we bought a minivan. I was seriously depressed. I was old and I hadn't saved the world yet.
Of course, people do wear their age differently now than when I was a kid. I am much, much younger than my parents were when our numbers were the same. They were further along in the journey of life - when my mother hit 30, she had an 11 year old daughter, a 6 year old son, and a 1 year old daughter and had just purchased their second home. I had a 2 year old, was living in company owned housing (a parsonage), and was still working on a degree (my doctorate). They went bowling on weekends while I played guitar in bars. By the time they were my age now, they were struggling physically and, as a result, financially. They felt old. For the most part, I do not. Now I also don't feel particularly young. My body reminds me that it is not what it once was. I am very aware that the men in my biological father's family were mostly dead in their 30's. Thanks to the wonders of modern chemistry, I am not. Still, my joints creak. Tendons are less flexible. I carry a bit more weight... and not nearly as quickly. I do have an AARP card although I still can't get the cheaper tickets at the movie theater. In large degree I had dismissed the ideas of my youth regarding that boundary of 30 years... until...
Last week my daughter turned 30. That has raised the question again. She certainly doesn't look old to me and she is not as far along on her path as I was at that point. She is still working to establish herself as a writer, talks about going back to school for her doctorate, and she and her husband
are planning for children but haven't yet. She doesn't feel that boundary like I did, but we're talking about a different one here - having a 30 year old daughter.
So... if turning 30 didn't make me old, does have a daughter turn 30 do it? Am I officially old? You tell me.
Of course, people do wear their age differently now than when I was a kid. I am much, much younger than my parents were when our numbers were the same. They were further along in the journey of life - when my mother hit 30, she had an 11 year old daughter, a 6 year old son, and a 1 year old daughter and had just purchased their second home. I had a 2 year old, was living in company owned housing (a parsonage), and was still working on a degree (my doctorate). They went bowling on weekends while I played guitar in bars. By the time they were my age now, they were struggling physically and, as a result, financially. They felt old. For the most part, I do not. Now I also don't feel particularly young. My body reminds me that it is not what it once was. I am very aware that the men in my biological father's family were mostly dead in their 30's. Thanks to the wonders of modern chemistry, I am not. Still, my joints creak. Tendons are less flexible. I carry a bit more weight... and not nearly as quickly. I do have an AARP card although I still can't get the cheaper tickets at the movie theater. In large degree I had dismissed the ideas of my youth regarding that boundary of 30 years... until...
Last week my daughter turned 30. That has raised the question again. She certainly doesn't look old to me and she is not as far along on her path as I was at that point. She is still working to establish herself as a writer, talks about going back to school for her doctorate, and she and her husband
are planning for children but haven't yet. She doesn't feel that boundary like I did, but we're talking about a different one here - having a 30 year old daughter.
So... if turning 30 didn't make me old, does have a daughter turn 30 do it? Am I officially old? You tell me.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
"It's Not My Country Anymore"
I've heard that said by a number of my very conservative friends. I guess they have to decide that. Clearly it is not the same country anymore. Romney won a near historic percentage of the white vote and still lost the election. It isn't a country controlled by white folk anymore. More women were elected to the senate than ever before and one state - New Hampshire - has elected women to all of their leadership positions. It is not a country run exclusively by men anymore. Billionaires spent incredible amounts of money trying to buy the election Sheldon Adelson personally funded 6 campaigns with huge amounts of money and they all lost. Yes, money still talks, but it is no longer the deciding factor and the plutocracy doesn't have free reign anymore.
It is a different country than the one I knew as a child in the 50's and 60's. I embrace it. I'm excited by that. I believe this new country embodies the hopes and dreams implicit in the experiment called the United States. Still, it is different and my conservative friends need to make a decision whether they are part of this new expression of the United States. Should they decide to withdraw... that's OK, but they cannot call themselves patriots. They may say, "Obama is not my president," but if they do, they are also saying they are no longer part of this country.
For the Republicans, it will mean they need to re-evaluate and decide on new directions or they will be relegated to being a small regional party with less and less national voice. At least for a while, they will still have the power of obstruction, but their positive voice will become more and more marginal as the demographics continue to change. You can decide whether they are racist or not, but this election clearly was about race and their party is clearly identified racially. A majority of white people voted for Romney. Everyone else voted for Obama. Obama won. It is a new America.
It is a different country than the one I knew as a child in the 50's and 60's. I embrace it. I'm excited by that. I believe this new country embodies the hopes and dreams implicit in the experiment called the United States. Still, it is different and my conservative friends need to make a decision whether they are part of this new expression of the United States. Should they decide to withdraw... that's OK, but they cannot call themselves patriots. They may say, "Obama is not my president," but if they do, they are also saying they are no longer part of this country.
For the Republicans, it will mean they need to re-evaluate and decide on new directions or they will be relegated to being a small regional party with less and less national voice. At least for a while, they will still have the power of obstruction, but their positive voice will become more and more marginal as the demographics continue to change. You can decide whether they are racist or not, but this election clearly was about race and their party is clearly identified racially. A majority of white people voted for Romney. Everyone else voted for Obama. Obama won. It is a new America.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
solo gig
Last night I played a solo gig for the first time in a lonnnggggg time. Years ago, I did the solo thing a lot but every since I began to perform with my daughter Alexis about 15 years ago, I've found myself playing the role of backing up a singer. Being a side player is a very different experience. It truly is a supportive role. You listen to the singer and wrestle with a song that is the singer's choice, trying to enhance his or her performance. It is a unique discipline to give your talents and skills for another's art. The upside is that you are responsible primarily to the singer rather than the audience. If a mistake is made or there was something lacking in the choice of material, that falls back on the singer. At the same time, to some degree you lose the joy of making your own choices. When backing up a singer, I clearly play my style, but there is always the possibility of the singer vetoing something that I feel works well.
As a solo performer, you are responsible for everything - the choice of material, the pater between songs, and all of the aspects of the performance. There is nobody else to blame for anything that doesn't work. All of that adds up to serious nerves for me.
In the two years plus of producing the Cambridge Drive Concert Series I have paid serious attention to which acts seemed to connect the most deeply with the audience. While depth of songwriting, skill of playing their instrument, and quality of a voice all count for something, that was only part of the picture. The best musicians and the best songwriters did not necessarily make for the best performances. There is an intangible connection that characterizes some performances that really makes a special time. The audience has an experience that enriches their lives. The best performers consistently enable that kind of experience.
You'll have to ask someone who was in the audience whether I was able to create that kind of experience. I do have to say that I felt that my guitar playing has been better when playing behind someone else. Still, I felt very good about what happened. I'll keep at it and try to do some more solo gigs.
As a solo performer, you are responsible for everything - the choice of material, the pater between songs, and all of the aspects of the performance. There is nobody else to blame for anything that doesn't work. All of that adds up to serious nerves for me.
In the two years plus of producing the Cambridge Drive Concert Series I have paid serious attention to which acts seemed to connect the most deeply with the audience. While depth of songwriting, skill of playing their instrument, and quality of a voice all count for something, that was only part of the picture. The best musicians and the best songwriters did not necessarily make for the best performances. There is an intangible connection that characterizes some performances that really makes a special time. The audience has an experience that enriches their lives. The best performers consistently enable that kind of experience.
You'll have to ask someone who was in the audience whether I was able to create that kind of experience. I do have to say that I felt that my guitar playing has been better when playing behind someone else. Still, I felt very good about what happened. I'll keep at it and try to do some more solo gigs.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
the problem with small government
The problem with small government is that there are big problems. We saw that this week in a major way. Sandy barreled down on the northeast and the damage is astounding. There is no way that the strapped states could meet the needs of their devastated populations. Many of them have provisions in their constitutions that they must have balanced budgets so the only way they could address the problems of a natural disaster like Sandy would be to decimate all of their programs. It simply would not work without obscene human costs.
Beyond that, when we have people in leadership whose basic assumption is that government is a bad thing that needs to be shrunk until it is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, it doesn't matter whether they are skilled and competent or not. They will not respond in an adequate way. We saw that after Katrina when FEMA blew it big time. There were reasons even beyond the incompetence of the leadership (and they were incompetent). They simply didn't see it as their job. The response was inadequate and many areas of the gulf still have not recovered. On the other end of the spectrum, we see the Obama administration who put FEMA resources in place as soon as it became clear that Sandy would be horrific. They began to make contacts with the governors and building coalitions to get things done before the storm hit. Even Gov. Christie of New Jersey praised the Obama administration for their efficiency at addressing the problems. He also said that he is expecting significant funds from the federal government to help meet the needs of his state.
Romney implied during the primary debates that FEMA should be privatized or at least that the responsibilities it owns be passed down to the state level. Republicans significantly cut funding to FEMA over the past few years and Ryan's budget calls for further cuts. All of that is while holding the recent memory of Katrina. They simply do not believe it is their job to help out in times like this. The responsibility is given to the states, who simply cannot address the biggest issues. The expectation is that charities and the private sector would help. We saw how that worked with Katrina. Faithful volunteers spent hundreds of thousands of hours helping out and slowly drifted away as the months passed. Some are still working there but they cannot begin to address the problems that persist 7 years later. The private sector? The casinos went back up on the gulf coast in a matter of months. Housing for poor folk? Still waiting to be constructed.
The next time you hear a Tea Party person claim we need smaller government, remember the images of New Jersey and New York and ask them, "If we didn't have a big government, who would help in times like this?" They very well may answer that folk are on their own... that is not a country where I want to live.
Beyond that, when we have people in leadership whose basic assumption is that government is a bad thing that needs to be shrunk until it is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, it doesn't matter whether they are skilled and competent or not. They will not respond in an adequate way. We saw that after Katrina when FEMA blew it big time. There were reasons even beyond the incompetence of the leadership (and they were incompetent). They simply didn't see it as their job. The response was inadequate and many areas of the gulf still have not recovered. On the other end of the spectrum, we see the Obama administration who put FEMA resources in place as soon as it became clear that Sandy would be horrific. They began to make contacts with the governors and building coalitions to get things done before the storm hit. Even Gov. Christie of New Jersey praised the Obama administration for their efficiency at addressing the problems. He also said that he is expecting significant funds from the federal government to help meet the needs of his state.
Romney implied during the primary debates that FEMA should be privatized or at least that the responsibilities it owns be passed down to the state level. Republicans significantly cut funding to FEMA over the past few years and Ryan's budget calls for further cuts. All of that is while holding the recent memory of Katrina. They simply do not believe it is their job to help out in times like this. The responsibility is given to the states, who simply cannot address the biggest issues. The expectation is that charities and the private sector would help. We saw how that worked with Katrina. Faithful volunteers spent hundreds of thousands of hours helping out and slowly drifted away as the months passed. Some are still working there but they cannot begin to address the problems that persist 7 years later. The private sector? The casinos went back up on the gulf coast in a matter of months. Housing for poor folk? Still waiting to be constructed.
The next time you hear a Tea Party person claim we need smaller government, remember the images of New Jersey and New York and ask them, "If we didn't have a big government, who would help in times like this?" They very well may answer that folk are on their own... that is not a country where I want to live.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Church Music Redux
Yesterday there was a op ed that said that revitalizing the Roman Catholic mass will involve abandoning pipe organs. While I have to say that I have no commitment to revitalizing the mass nor do I think that scraping pipe organs is the solution to any problems the RC church is having in attracting younger folk, I was very interested to see a response to the piece on Felice Me Fa. The author gives four recommendations:
It is not the responsibility of the church to teach folk about any type of music and even less is it the responsibility of the church to preserve arts and culture from centuries ago, regardless of the beauty of those arts. Likewise, it is not the responsibility of the church to make judgements regarding the relative value of different styles of music. While I agree that music is extremely important in the life of a church, its role there is not a central one. It is supportive.
I have served three churches, two of which had pipe organs and one of which was a very significant instrument. I have worked with stellar organists and have been deeply moved by some of their performances. I have also seen significant amount of church resources go into organ maintenance when there were other issues that I judged as being more important to the overall ministry of the church that were ignored. Personally, I do not experience the presence of God in organ music, listening to a church choir, or a hand bell choir.
Let me address her four recommendations individually.
1. Is it sad that young people don't have an appreciation of much of the serious music from our past? Yes. (FWIW, my bachelors degree is in music) Fixing that issue is not the job of the church. It belongs to schools. By all means encourage music education, but put it where it belongs.
2. Yes, prioritize music in congregations and spend enough money to make sure the music is done well. Music is important in our culture. But remember the role of music in the church. It is there to help people to experience the presence of God. It is not the role of the church to preserve the popular culture from previous centuries in Europe.
3. Unfortunately, waiting for people to become more aware of unfamiliar and unappreciated music styles is not a possibility for the church. People will leave for churches where they can experience music they already find meaningful... or jettison church altogether. They are not there to receive a cultural education... they are there to experience the presence of God.
4. Here we agree... more or less. There is nothing like live music, but music in the church is not about performance, it is about participation.
So, unless your congregation is one that is showing by the attendance numbers that it deeply appreciates the organ, dump it. And more than that, dump all of those vestiges of a different age so that the church, especially the mainline and progressive churches, can speak a message which the larger culture can hear. I believe in the good news. I believe a progressive gospel message is needed in our broken and fragmented world. An organ along with those practices and ideas from a past long gone, in almost all instances, only keep that message from being heard.
The author betrays a number of problematic ideas that often characterize the mainstream church. Let me give a little background here first. There is an interesting disconnect where more theologically liberal churches tend to be more conservative in style, while churches with a conservative theology are often more attuned to cultural change when it comes to their worship style. It makes some sense. If you believe that your neighbors are all going to hell and care about them at all, then you'd be willing to do just about anything to get them "saved." If couching the message in contemporary music and a Jay Leno style worship works, then you do it. If on the other hand, you do not believe that all of your unchurched neighbors are going to hell, there is a different motivation for what goes on in the life of the church. All too often that gets translated as a responsibility to convey some higher culture. That is the problem with the blogger's recommendations.1. encourage music education
2. prioritize and support music in the parishes
3. give people more time
4. let music come to life
It is not the responsibility of the church to teach folk about any type of music and even less is it the responsibility of the church to preserve arts and culture from centuries ago, regardless of the beauty of those arts. Likewise, it is not the responsibility of the church to make judgements regarding the relative value of different styles of music. While I agree that music is extremely important in the life of a church, its role there is not a central one. It is supportive.
I have served three churches, two of which had pipe organs and one of which was a very significant instrument. I have worked with stellar organists and have been deeply moved by some of their performances. I have also seen significant amount of church resources go into organ maintenance when there were other issues that I judged as being more important to the overall ministry of the church that were ignored. Personally, I do not experience the presence of God in organ music, listening to a church choir, or a hand bell choir.
Let me address her four recommendations individually.
1. Is it sad that young people don't have an appreciation of much of the serious music from our past? Yes. (FWIW, my bachelors degree is in music) Fixing that issue is not the job of the church. It belongs to schools. By all means encourage music education, but put it where it belongs.
2. Yes, prioritize music in congregations and spend enough money to make sure the music is done well. Music is important in our culture. But remember the role of music in the church. It is there to help people to experience the presence of God. It is not the role of the church to preserve the popular culture from previous centuries in Europe.
3. Unfortunately, waiting for people to become more aware of unfamiliar and unappreciated music styles is not a possibility for the church. People will leave for churches where they can experience music they already find meaningful... or jettison church altogether. They are not there to receive a cultural education... they are there to experience the presence of God.
4. Here we agree... more or less. There is nothing like live music, but music in the church is not about performance, it is about participation.
So, unless your congregation is one that is showing by the attendance numbers that it deeply appreciates the organ, dump it. And more than that, dump all of those vestiges of a different age so that the church, especially the mainline and progressive churches, can speak a message which the larger culture can hear. I believe in the good news. I believe a progressive gospel message is needed in our broken and fragmented world. An organ along with those practices and ideas from a past long gone, in almost all instances, only keep that message from being heard.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Mormonism in the news and the ballot box
Let me begin with a disclaimer. Being a Mormon (or a Muslim, an Athiest, a Unitarian, a Bahai, or whatever else) does not disqualify an individual from running for president. At the same time a candidate's religious commitments or lack thereof can certainly be considered when an individual decides for whom they will vote. All of that has nothing to do with this post.
A second disclaimer... while there are lots of Mormons in the area where I live and the property owned by the church I serve shares a boundary with a Mormon church, I don't have any friends who are Mormon. I do have some acquaintances who are Mormon. The Mormon folk I know are nice people. As a community, the hold some values that I admire. They care deeply about their families (even if the definition is a lot more narrow than mine). They care for one another in community and are there for one another when there is need. They take their faith seriously and live it... a two year commitment to mission work is a serious thing. They do have some values that I find problematic as well. The misogyny built into their theology, the belief in American exceptionalism, and a general secrecy about their faith that borders on and perhaps is at times dishonest all trouble me.
And an affirmation. My personal theology is not exclusive. I affirm the truths in other religions and deeply appreciate what they can teach me as a person of faith. In addition to a variety of different brands of Christians, I have friends who are Muslim, Bahai, Jewish, and Hindu. I also have friends who are agnostic and others who are atheist. I learn from all of them and I am glad they are all part of my life.
Last week the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed Mormonism from the list of cults on their website. It was clearly a political move as Franklin Graham, Billy's son, has been an outspoken opponent of Obama and there have been many evangelicals who have been reticent about voting for a member of a cult for president. Remove any mentions of Mormons as a cult and perhaps remove a bit of that reticence among some evangelical voters. Early in the campaign a PAC supporting Romney made a television ad raising the issue of Obama's ties with Jeremiah Wright and the brand of Afro-centric Liberation Theology preached at Trinity UCC Church in Chicago. Romney quickly asked that the ad be dropped and it was. He clearly was worried that issues of religion would cause large numbers of evangelicals to stay home on election day if they learned more about Mormonism. Coinciding with the removal of the cult definition, Romney brought up his faith at the end of the second presidential debate.
Mormons are not Christians... at least not in any traditional use of that descriptor in spite of the fact that they call themselves Christian. Yes, a person named Jesus is central to their faith, but that could be said about other non-Christian religions as well. Jesus appears in Islam and is affirmed in many eastern religions but that does not make them "Christian."
Let me just point to two different Mormon doctrines that take them clearly outside of historical Christianity. First is a little saying "As God was, man is, as God is, man may become." Some folk may see parallels here to the traditional Christian idea of the incarnation, but it does go far beyond that idea. This is a Mormon idea that each man can evolve into a god and that God was once like we are now and evolved into whatever God now is.
Second, Mormons are polytheists. Christians have always called themselves monotheistic and placed themselves in the same traditions as Jews and Muslims. Now, some Jews and Muslims might raise questions regarding Christian monotheism we struggle to make sense of the Trinity, but Mormons again clearly believe something beyond that. Joseph Smith taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods. Other Mormon profits have affirmed numerous times that there are many gods with each world having its own god. You can also see that theme in the previous paragraph. If we all (men) can become gods, then there clearly are multiple gods. Indeed, one prophet, Orson Pratt, said that there are more gods than there are particles of matter.
I do not know whether or not one should include Mormons in a list of cults. I guess that becomes a matter of definition. I would say that they clearly should not be included in any historical definition of Christianity.
Should that affect your vote? Only you can decide that. There are Mormon politicians whom I respect and for whom I might vote - Jon Huntsman would be one. There are politicians who call themselves Christian for whom I would never vote. George Bush was one. Romney? Sure, you can consider his religion if you want, but more importantly, look at his policies and both his expressed values and the things he has said and done in the past... vote accordingly... just don't vote for him because he is a Christian. He isn't. He is a Mormon. For that matter, don't vote for Obama because he is a Christian. He is. Instead, look at is policies, his expressed values, his actions, and the things he has said and vote accordingly.
A second disclaimer... while there are lots of Mormons in the area where I live and the property owned by the church I serve shares a boundary with a Mormon church, I don't have any friends who are Mormon. I do have some acquaintances who are Mormon. The Mormon folk I know are nice people. As a community, the hold some values that I admire. They care deeply about their families (even if the definition is a lot more narrow than mine). They care for one another in community and are there for one another when there is need. They take their faith seriously and live it... a two year commitment to mission work is a serious thing. They do have some values that I find problematic as well. The misogyny built into their theology, the belief in American exceptionalism, and a general secrecy about their faith that borders on and perhaps is at times dishonest all trouble me.
And an affirmation. My personal theology is not exclusive. I affirm the truths in other religions and deeply appreciate what they can teach me as a person of faith. In addition to a variety of different brands of Christians, I have friends who are Muslim, Bahai, Jewish, and Hindu. I also have friends who are agnostic and others who are atheist. I learn from all of them and I am glad they are all part of my life.
Last week the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed Mormonism from the list of cults on their website. It was clearly a political move as Franklin Graham, Billy's son, has been an outspoken opponent of Obama and there have been many evangelicals who have been reticent about voting for a member of a cult for president. Remove any mentions of Mormons as a cult and perhaps remove a bit of that reticence among some evangelical voters. Early in the campaign a PAC supporting Romney made a television ad raising the issue of Obama's ties with Jeremiah Wright and the brand of Afro-centric Liberation Theology preached at Trinity UCC Church in Chicago. Romney quickly asked that the ad be dropped and it was. He clearly was worried that issues of religion would cause large numbers of evangelicals to stay home on election day if they learned more about Mormonism. Coinciding with the removal of the cult definition, Romney brought up his faith at the end of the second presidential debate.
Mormons are not Christians... at least not in any traditional use of that descriptor in spite of the fact that they call themselves Christian. Yes, a person named Jesus is central to their faith, but that could be said about other non-Christian religions as well. Jesus appears in Islam and is affirmed in many eastern religions but that does not make them "Christian."
Let me just point to two different Mormon doctrines that take them clearly outside of historical Christianity. First is a little saying "As God was, man is, as God is, man may become." Some folk may see parallels here to the traditional Christian idea of the incarnation, but it does go far beyond that idea. This is a Mormon idea that each man can evolve into a god and that God was once like we are now and evolved into whatever God now is.
Second, Mormons are polytheists. Christians have always called themselves monotheistic and placed themselves in the same traditions as Jews and Muslims. Now, some Jews and Muslims might raise questions regarding Christian monotheism we struggle to make sense of the Trinity, but Mormons again clearly believe something beyond that. Joseph Smith taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods. Other Mormon profits have affirmed numerous times that there are many gods with each world having its own god. You can also see that theme in the previous paragraph. If we all (men) can become gods, then there clearly are multiple gods. Indeed, one prophet, Orson Pratt, said that there are more gods than there are particles of matter.
I do not know whether or not one should include Mormons in a list of cults. I guess that becomes a matter of definition. I would say that they clearly should not be included in any historical definition of Christianity.
Should that affect your vote? Only you can decide that. There are Mormon politicians whom I respect and for whom I might vote - Jon Huntsman would be one. There are politicians who call themselves Christian for whom I would never vote. George Bush was one. Romney? Sure, you can consider his religion if you want, but more importantly, look at his policies and both his expressed values and the things he has said and done in the past... vote accordingly... just don't vote for him because he is a Christian. He isn't. He is a Mormon. For that matter, don't vote for Obama because he is a Christian. He is. Instead, look at is policies, his expressed values, his actions, and the things he has said and vote accordingly.
Friday, October 19, 2012
unfriending
I've been unfriended on Facebook... more than once. The first time I was aware of it, I was upset. Yes, I am opinionated and I'm not shy about sharing opinions, but I try to be respectful of those with whom I disagree and I try to learn from them. I also try to help them better understand my position. Yes... there is a degree of "evangelism" inherent in that, but I am more concerned about discussing and learning than about converting. I really wanted to know whether there was something I had said that was offensive and fix it. I didn't try but I still am curious about that first unfriending.
I never imagined that I would do it. I have some pretty conservative friends and I treasure their input especially when we don't agree. That reminds me that there are other ways of seeing the world and they always have something to teach me. They also remind me of some of the fallacies on my side of the theological, cultural, and political boundaries. That is very good.
This week, for the first time I unfriended someone. It wasn't easy for me to do. I really do treasure those connections across viewpoints and I really do try to be both respectful and humble. This time, there was no discussion and no respect coming my way at all and no interest in seeing anything from another's viewpoint. More than once I got messages from other friends asking what was up with that person on my timeline. Then the questions became "why are you putting up with that?" and I began to see that some of the remarks were hurtful to other friends or worse than that, were bringing out the worst in me and in other people. So, I unfriended this individual.
I wish we had been able to talk and learn from one another. I wish that both of us would have been stretched and encouraged to see things in new ways. That just wasn't happening and as another friend reminded me, "don't feed the trolls." I don't regret it, but I am sad.
I never imagined that I would do it. I have some pretty conservative friends and I treasure their input especially when we don't agree. That reminds me that there are other ways of seeing the world and they always have something to teach me. They also remind me of some of the fallacies on my side of the theological, cultural, and political boundaries. That is very good.
This week, for the first time I unfriended someone. It wasn't easy for me to do. I really do treasure those connections across viewpoints and I really do try to be both respectful and humble. This time, there was no discussion and no respect coming my way at all and no interest in seeing anything from another's viewpoint. More than once I got messages from other friends asking what was up with that person on my timeline. Then the questions became "why are you putting up with that?" and I began to see that some of the remarks were hurtful to other friends or worse than that, were bringing out the worst in me and in other people. So, I unfriended this individual.
I wish we had been able to talk and learn from one another. I wish that both of us would have been stretched and encouraged to see things in new ways. That just wasn't happening and as another friend reminded me, "don't feed the trolls." I don't regret it, but I am sad.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Redistribution of Wealth
 | |
| a popular graphic on Facebook |
First, every economic transaction involves the redistribution of wealth. When I receive my paycheck from Cambridge Drive Community Church, it represents a redistribution of wealth. Church members have placed checks in the offering plates and their wealth is redistributed to me and to other obligations of the church. When I go to the grocery store and purchase groceries, my wealth is redistributed to workers, stockholders, property owners, and before them to producers. The question is not whether wealth will be redistributed, but whether the rules that govern the redistribution are fair to all involved.
I have to say that I often respond to Facebook posts and to the graphic above about redistribution of wealth by saying it is a Biblical idea. It clearly is and basically always involves redistributing from the wealthy to the poor. The Old Testament laws regarding the Year of Jubilee are the archetype for the issue. In those laws, every 50 years all debts were cancelled, slaves freed, and land - the primary means of production - returned to the original family of ownership. Think of what that means for a minute... John Doe was an excellent businessman, worked hard, and was able to acquire significant property. He dreamed of passing it on to his grandchildren so they could have a leg up. Doesn't happen though because in 50 years, everything is equalized and all of the additional property he purchased through his hard work went back to the original families of ownership with no reimbursement to him or his heirs. On the other hand, Jack Smith was a lazy do nothing. He lost all of his family's property due to sloth and poor decision making. He never thought a moment about his grandchildren. Because of the year of Jubilee, they didn't need to live with the consequences of his poor choices. Everything was equalized and they started on a level playing field with the grandchildren of John Doe. Neither would benefit or suffer from the decisions made by their ancestors. Scholars do not believe that the laws were ever observed. It is no wonder. By the time the first observance came around, those who had accumulated goods and advantages weren't willing to give them up. In spite of the clear proscriptions in the Law, they refused to follow God's plan for redistribution of wealth. Like the graphic, they shouted, "It's not fair! We worked hard for that property." The law looked at a deeper question of fairness and observed that systematically denying the means of production to some people is worse yet.
A particular verse in the discussion of the year of Jubilee has been on my mind a great deal this week as I've been thinking about this issue. Leviticus 25:23 says, "the land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants." In an agrarian time, the land was the primary means of production. Leviticus tells us here that the primary means of production belongs to God, never to an individual, and therefore cannot be sold or owned in perpetuity. The "owners" are always tenants or aliens rather than owners of the means of production and that property is always God's to redistribute. More importantly, the assumption is always there that those who hold the means of production are stealing from the poor. This especially clear in the minor prophets but we see it just as clearly in the words of Jesus - Mark 10:23-25, Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
So what do we do with this today? Clearly we are not going to institute the Year of Jubilee. Still, we can see the tax code and government programs shaped in such a way as to favor the poor over the wealthy so regardless of whether one is wealthy because of hard work or an accident of birth or whether one is poor because of laziness or an accident of birth, all receive equal opportunities. We can imagine schools funded in such a way as to remove the systemic advantages that go to the already wealthy. We can imagine the means of production as equally available to all.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Mutiny! Why We Love Pirates and How They Can Save Us
first two disclaimers and an apology...
I received this book for free in return for writing this review. Second, I have met the author. A few years ago we met at an event called Soliton and had a few beers together. I found Kester to be delightful and very bright. Neither issue will impact any opinions I have regarding the book. And the apology, I promised to write this review by September 30. I didn't. I'm sorry. Here it is.
The other day I was sitting in front of the television watching a rented movie. Before the film began there was the typical announcement that "piracy is not a victimless crime." Of course it is not... we've all imagined the violence of Somali pirates taking hostages of the coast of Africa, families terrified, life disrupted, and on rare occasions, people dying. But how is that the same as copying a DVD or CD? And is the situation in Somalia really what we've imagined?
I knew next to nothing about pirates before reading Mutiny. I do have a friend who is doing her doctoral dissertation on pirates so I've heard a little bit about the way that they were used by the powers that were in the political machinations of the 1600's. Still, I knew very little more than the cartoonish pictures so prevalent in pop culture.
Brewin has two themes that are central to his argument, the benefits of the commons are being confiscated by those with power and resources, leaving the common people without, and whenever the commons are blocked, pirates emerge to unblock things. Indeed, his definition of pirate is "one who emerges to defend the commons wherever homes, cultures or economies become ‘blocked’ by the rich." (Kindle Locations 783-784). He does push the argument a bit further into metaphor as well and talks about the unblocking of the self as a psychological act of piracy necessary for maturation.
The short review of the book is that I loved it. Go buy it. The longer review is a little more nuanced. Brewin clearly says again and again that the pirates are not out to change the game, they have just refused to play. At the same time, there is more than a bit of romaticization of the pirates, turning them into counter-culture heroes and heroines. I asked my dissertation friend about Brewin's picture of freedom and equality loving pirates and she reminded me not to forget that they killed people... lots of people. Evidently piracy was not a victimless crime... but neither were the situations that led to piracy victimless. That is the message of the book.
In a world where labor and its rewards are more and more separate, where the commons of creative thought and traditions of music and writing, where the power of religion is used to bind people rather than free them, piracy becomes a naturally occurring response. The questions are many and the answers not simple, but Brewin argues the spirit of the pirate is needed to fix the problems of the world. What do I say to that? Argh!
I received this book for free in return for writing this review. Second, I have met the author. A few years ago we met at an event called Soliton and had a few beers together. I found Kester to be delightful and very bright. Neither issue will impact any opinions I have regarding the book. And the apology, I promised to write this review by September 30. I didn't. I'm sorry. Here it is.
The other day I was sitting in front of the television watching a rented movie. Before the film began there was the typical announcement that "piracy is not a victimless crime." Of course it is not... we've all imagined the violence of Somali pirates taking hostages of the coast of Africa, families terrified, life disrupted, and on rare occasions, people dying. But how is that the same as copying a DVD or CD? And is the situation in Somalia really what we've imagined?
I knew next to nothing about pirates before reading Mutiny. I do have a friend who is doing her doctoral dissertation on pirates so I've heard a little bit about the way that they were used by the powers that were in the political machinations of the 1600's. Still, I knew very little more than the cartoonish pictures so prevalent in pop culture.
Brewin has two themes that are central to his argument, the benefits of the commons are being confiscated by those with power and resources, leaving the common people without, and whenever the commons are blocked, pirates emerge to unblock things. Indeed, his definition of pirate is "one who emerges to defend the commons wherever homes, cultures or economies become ‘blocked’ by the rich." (Kindle Locations 783-784). He does push the argument a bit further into metaphor as well and talks about the unblocking of the self as a psychological act of piracy necessary for maturation.
The short review of the book is that I loved it. Go buy it. The longer review is a little more nuanced. Brewin clearly says again and again that the pirates are not out to change the game, they have just refused to play. At the same time, there is more than a bit of romaticization of the pirates, turning them into counter-culture heroes and heroines. I asked my dissertation friend about Brewin's picture of freedom and equality loving pirates and she reminded me not to forget that they killed people... lots of people. Evidently piracy was not a victimless crime... but neither were the situations that led to piracy victimless. That is the message of the book.
In a world where labor and its rewards are more and more separate, where the commons of creative thought and traditions of music and writing, where the power of religion is used to bind people rather than free them, piracy becomes a naturally occurring response. The questions are many and the answers not simple, but Brewin argues the spirit of the pirate is needed to fix the problems of the world. What do I say to that? Argh!
Thursday, October 04, 2012
St Francis of Assisi Day
 |
| St. Francis preaching to the birds |
In the Roman Catholic Church, each saint has a day assigned to honor them. Today is St. Francis of Assisi Day. I thought of him this morning as I fed my cats, as we drove to work and saw three deer feeding beside the road, watched a herd of cattle and then of llamas in the fields along the highway, passed a murder of crows dropping walnuts to the road to break them open, saw a pair of mockingbirds trying to run another crow off that had gotten too close to their nest, listen to the insects and birds sing outside my open office door, listened to the squeals and laughter as children arrived for nursery school... Francis saw the presence of God in the faces of all of his little brothers and sisters, heard the voice of God in their songs, and preached back to them the good news of God's love. He calls us to find the very presence of God in the wonders of creation surrounding us.
In yesterday's daily e-mail meditation, Richard Rohr had this to say about Francis
In most paintings of people waiting for the Holy Spirit they are looking upward, with their hands outstretched or raised up, the assumption being that the Holy Spirit will descend from “up” above. In the Great Basilica in Assisi where St. Francis is buried, there’s a bronze statue of him honoring the Holy Spirit. His posture and perspective are completely different from what we have come to expect. He’s looking down into the earth with expectation and desire! This is the change of perspective that became our alternative orthodoxy—although it should have been mainline orthodoxy! He was merely following the movement of the Incarnation, since Christians believe that the Eternal Word became “flesh” (John 1:14), and it is in the material world that God and the holy are to be found.Today, I will honor Francis by looking down to find the presence of God.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Pulpit Freedom Sunday
Religion and politics has become a hot button topic these days.
Roman Catholic Archbishop John Meyers has said that members of his church who are pro gay marriage should not receive the Eucharist.
For the past five years a group of conservative pastors have observed what they call Pulpit Freedom Sunday. Each year there is a lot of discussion about the propriety of the day and of churches making political endorsements. It is scheduled for this Sunday.
First let me come clean. I believe in absolute freedom of religion. The State has no right to dictate what a religious group can say or believe or constrain the way that faith lives itself out unless it is a danger to the general public. I also believe in freedom from religion as a necessary corollary to absolute freedom of religion. If individuals are not able to escape the influences of faith, they cannot freely choose. Public policy is therefore never to be based on religious doctrines. Freedom of religion is clearly an important issue in the two situations raised above.
A Roman Catholic archbishop can restrict who receives the Eucharist based on his understanding of Roman Catholic teaching. If he deems that advocating gay marriage is a sin, and that sin precludes one from the Lord's table, he can do that. The Roman Catholic church is not a democracy and it is irrelevant whether the majority of members agree or not or even if the teaching has no credible basis in scripture. He is the bishop and he speaks for the church (I know that is a slight over simplification). There is a set body of doctrine and practice, set by the church, which members are obligated to hold and observe. Now, if he is misinterpreting the church's teaching, that is for those above him in the hierarchy to say, not the members, not the US government, and certainly not those outside of the Roman Catholic Church. If an individual disagrees, he or she can leave that communion.
I also agree with the founders of Pulpit Freedom Sunday that the state has no right to control anything said from the pulpit. Part of the issue of freedom of religion is precisely that, that the government has no right to dictate what a religious group can or cannot say. Indeed, for many of the early framers of freedom of religion, a significant part of the equation was the ability of the Church to judge the State. How could they do that if they were not allowed to speak on political issues? If you look at the history of political speech in churches, it was not against IRS rules until the time of LBJ. Before then, pastors often spoke on political issues and no doubt, endorsed candidates at times.
Many folk misunderstand the way the tax code impacts separation of church and state. They often believe that religious organizations receive their tax exemption because they are like other charities that receive special tax status because they provide some community good. While I would argue that religious groups do a tremendous amount of good in our society, that is not why they receive tax exempt status. They receive tax exempt status solely because they are religious groups. The Supreme Court said in 1819 that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the State has no grounds for any type of control over any religious group... therefore no taxation.
Some see the tax exempt status as a government subsidy to religion. The argument goes that because religious organizations do not pay taxes but do receive the benefits of government services, that equals a subsidy. The argument itself is not all that strong, but even if accurate, it does not matter. The Constitution precludes the establishment of religion and as was said above, the ability to tax is the ability to destroy... thereby interfering with religious freedom.
Now, I would not dare endorse a candidate from my pulpit (even though anyone who knows me could make a pretty accurate guess who I'll be voting for). I believe that God calls each of us to weigh the questions and make a decision. I believe there are some views that are clearly mo but that reflects my theology, not everyones'. Some religious groups have very well defined beliefs and extremely narrow options for disagreement. Freedom of religion requires that they be allowed to speak their religious beliefs from their pulpits.
Two other issues that have been raised a lot lately are not so clear - payment for contraception by medical insurance paid for by Roman Catholic institutions and the issue of abortion and public funds. The Catholic institutions in question are involved in matters not quite so clearly religious in nature such as hospitals, hire individuals who are not Roman Catholic, and serve in ways that are not quite clearly religious. I think the solution given by the Obama administration is an inelegant but workable solution.
As for abortions, public funds are not eligible to be used to pay for elective abortions anyway so the question is moot. It does raise a sticky point for me. What about taxes that are used to pay for things clearly in violation of a group's religious principles? If public funds were used to pay for elective abortions, should Roman Catholics or members of some evangelical groups be allowed to withhold a portion of their taxes because the funds are being used in ways that conflict with their faith? How about tax dollars that fund the military or capital punishment, both of which have been forbidden in Anabaptist doctrine for centuries? Should Anabaptists be allowed to withhold the percentage of their taxes that go to fund the military?
Roman Catholic Archbishop John Meyers has said that members of his church who are pro gay marriage should not receive the Eucharist.
For the past five years a group of conservative pastors have observed what they call Pulpit Freedom Sunday. Each year there is a lot of discussion about the propriety of the day and of churches making political endorsements. It is scheduled for this Sunday.
First let me come clean. I believe in absolute freedom of religion. The State has no right to dictate what a religious group can say or believe or constrain the way that faith lives itself out unless it is a danger to the general public. I also believe in freedom from religion as a necessary corollary to absolute freedom of religion. If individuals are not able to escape the influences of faith, they cannot freely choose. Public policy is therefore never to be based on religious doctrines. Freedom of religion is clearly an important issue in the two situations raised above.
A Roman Catholic archbishop can restrict who receives the Eucharist based on his understanding of Roman Catholic teaching. If he deems that advocating gay marriage is a sin, and that sin precludes one from the Lord's table, he can do that. The Roman Catholic church is not a democracy and it is irrelevant whether the majority of members agree or not or even if the teaching has no credible basis in scripture. He is the bishop and he speaks for the church (I know that is a slight over simplification). There is a set body of doctrine and practice, set by the church, which members are obligated to hold and observe. Now, if he is misinterpreting the church's teaching, that is for those above him in the hierarchy to say, not the members, not the US government, and certainly not those outside of the Roman Catholic Church. If an individual disagrees, he or she can leave that communion.
I also agree with the founders of Pulpit Freedom Sunday that the state has no right to control anything said from the pulpit. Part of the issue of freedom of religion is precisely that, that the government has no right to dictate what a religious group can or cannot say. Indeed, for many of the early framers of freedom of religion, a significant part of the equation was the ability of the Church to judge the State. How could they do that if they were not allowed to speak on political issues? If you look at the history of political speech in churches, it was not against IRS rules until the time of LBJ. Before then, pastors often spoke on political issues and no doubt, endorsed candidates at times.
Many folk misunderstand the way the tax code impacts separation of church and state. They often believe that religious organizations receive their tax exemption because they are like other charities that receive special tax status because they provide some community good. While I would argue that religious groups do a tremendous amount of good in our society, that is not why they receive tax exempt status. They receive tax exempt status solely because they are religious groups. The Supreme Court said in 1819 that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the State has no grounds for any type of control over any religious group... therefore no taxation.
Some see the tax exempt status as a government subsidy to religion. The argument goes that because religious organizations do not pay taxes but do receive the benefits of government services, that equals a subsidy. The argument itself is not all that strong, but even if accurate, it does not matter. The Constitution precludes the establishment of religion and as was said above, the ability to tax is the ability to destroy... thereby interfering with religious freedom.
Now, I would not dare endorse a candidate from my pulpit (even though anyone who knows me could make a pretty accurate guess who I'll be voting for). I believe that God calls each of us to weigh the questions and make a decision. I believe there are some views that are clearly mo but that reflects my theology, not everyones'. Some religious groups have very well defined beliefs and extremely narrow options for disagreement. Freedom of religion requires that they be allowed to speak their religious beliefs from their pulpits.
Two other issues that have been raised a lot lately are not so clear - payment for contraception by medical insurance paid for by Roman Catholic institutions and the issue of abortion and public funds. The Catholic institutions in question are involved in matters not quite so clearly religious in nature such as hospitals, hire individuals who are not Roman Catholic, and serve in ways that are not quite clearly religious. I think the solution given by the Obama administration is an inelegant but workable solution.
As for abortions, public funds are not eligible to be used to pay for elective abortions anyway so the question is moot. It does raise a sticky point for me. What about taxes that are used to pay for things clearly in violation of a group's religious principles? If public funds were used to pay for elective abortions, should Roman Catholics or members of some evangelical groups be allowed to withhold a portion of their taxes because the funds are being used in ways that conflict with their faith? How about tax dollars that fund the military or capital punishment, both of which have been forbidden in Anabaptist doctrine for centuries? Should Anabaptists be allowed to withhold the percentage of their taxes that go to fund the military?
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
what is music?
It might seem like a silly question to some folk but it does get rolled around in some of my circles and can generate significant heat. There is a generation of guitar players out there with amazing technique who, as often as not, build compositions around that technique. The pieces may have very little in terms of melody and could never be performed on another instrument so some folk have questioned whether they are really music or not.
A recent discussion/argument on a guitar forum got me remembering... In Jr. High one year, I had a student teacher in music who was a flautist. One day she performed for us, playing a piece by Varese called Density 21.5. I had never heard anything like it. It certainly didn't fit any definition of music I knew, all formed by listening to folk music and the Mills Brothers at home and James Brown on the radio. It opened my ears, my imagination, and my future and likely played a significant role in my development as a musician.
Here's a video of a performance of the piece by Laura Pou. As I understand it, she takes some liberties with the rhythm of the piece and "sings" it a bit more than Varese intended. I find it a wonderful performance - I love watching her body language - and the piece still makes me perk up and listen.
What do you think of the piece? And does the performance move you? Finally, is it music?
A recent discussion/argument on a guitar forum got me remembering... In Jr. High one year, I had a student teacher in music who was a flautist. One day she performed for us, playing a piece by Varese called Density 21.5. I had never heard anything like it. It certainly didn't fit any definition of music I knew, all formed by listening to folk music and the Mills Brothers at home and James Brown on the radio. It opened my ears, my imagination, and my future and likely played a significant role in my development as a musician.
Here's a video of a performance of the piece by Laura Pou. As I understand it, she takes some liberties with the rhythm of the piece and "sings" it a bit more than Varese intended. I find it a wonderful performance - I love watching her body language - and the piece still makes me perk up and listen.
What do you think of the piece? And does the performance move you? Finally, is it music?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
