D August 20th, 2009
Ahhh! Not Britain or Canada! Noo!
And why can’t private health insurance companies compete with a government health plan? Oh, cause they need to make profits… riiiight.
Oh, and I had no idea people die from cancer.
Good thing Pat is keeping me ‘informed’.
D August 13th, 2009
They’re doing this in Montreal, with its equally harsh winters… think this may work in Edmonton?
The only reason I see it *not* working would be low populations densities causing under use. (ie: you have to drive to the bike) However, in summer time I think it would be viable in the downtown area from say the museum to Chinatown.
Thoughts?
D August 12th, 2009
There is no end to the discussion on fear and its fabulous utility as a method to control people’s decisions and action. This post is just me brain dumping my experiences growing up ‘in the church’. As it is somewhat redundant for me to delve into the various uses of fear in control, I will attempt to compose a coherent opinion of this weaponized fear. This is all water under the bridge for me at this point, but worth me putting up my ideas to spark discussion regardless.
The new atheist movement (militant fundamentalist all-religions-must-die) has, being somewhat of an oxy-moron, illuminated the hypocrisies of my own religious past. Although I had long pulled myself from the denominational bubble, militant atheists like Dawkins finally gave me the lens with which to view the structure in which I had grown up. Using subtle phrases, an isolationist worldview was pushed on me all those years. I was ‘inside’ with the ‘one-truth’, much like the new atheists – convinced of their assertions and willing to aggressively defend them. To see such an approach being used by ‘the non-Christians’ gave me additional pause, and led me to the distinct possibility that it was unlikely I held the ‘one-truth’ – as taught by my former denominational leaders.
In the end, it was the us-vs-them attitude that introduced my doubt, and gradually demonstrated to me that really my church leaders were mouthpieces of the bible college they had attended and in turn the denominational industry it represented. If they had ideas outside that denominational box I never saw them discussed. The building of polemic arguments against the latest ‘threat’, be it a court decision, a rock band, television, dating, alcohol, homosexuality, and anything considered a remote threat was commonplace. I now think that the polemic approach was less necessary in regards of the arguments themselves, and served a better purpose of ‘uniting’ the group. We then had a common enemy that we could fight together, ignoring the sometimes shaky foundations of our theology – and certainly ignoring any sort of pragmatism or compromise that could have helped meet ‘the non-Christians’ where they were at.
There was a single overarching idea of ‘unity among the body’, which was a twisted way of saying ‘stick to your denomination’. It was this imperialist mindset that gave unity its secondary meaning – the one pertaining to member retention and the guilt and fear associated with walking away from the ‘body’. I now look back astonished that I was always frustrated with our lack of ability to achieve ‘unity’ among believers, which I now attribute to the fact that they had an entirely different sort of isolationist unity in mind.
This brings me to their idea of self-control, their version of which took until much later in life for me to learn was actually repression, a repression borne through fear and negative reinforcement. I plan to write a much more detailed piece on the idea of the ‘dangers of repression as self-control’, but need to do more research into the psychology of these ideas (anyone have any pointers?).
However their biggest fear is that of ideas, and particularly ideas that challenge the denominational theology. There is no room for discussion, and no structure for conversation or debates involving derivations of the teachings. At this point, I believe that is because they were taught with certainty that they hold the ‘one-truth’, and therefore greatly fear (and have no need for) a clearinghouse of ideas. This is where the fear has become systemic, where leaders teach fear not out of some malicious intent, but because they are genuinely scared of being wrong themselves – and in order to protect themselves turn a blind eye to new ideas, interpretations and reason itself.
My emergence from fundamentalism has been refreshing and I feel more at peace with myself and God than ever. And so my persistent uncertainty dictates that I cannot run from ideas, only consume, evaluate and apply those that are sensible to my life as a human who identifies with Christ’s teachings.
Feel free to comment below…
Em February 26th, 2009
I have been audiobooking a book about evolutionary psychology called Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters (2007). While it is very interesting, it sometimes feels as though the authors are describing an alien race entirely void of beauty and ugliness, joy and sorrow, where every one of our passionate emotions has a rational explanation. Anyway, they got to this quote in the first chapter:
People – social scientists ans laypersons alike – often speak of culture in the plural (“cultures”) because they believe that there are many different cultures in the world. At one level, this is of course true…[h]owever, all the cultural differences are on the surface; deep down, at the most fundamental level, all human cultures are essentially the same.
They go on to explain that, according to evolutionary psychology, our human culture (singular) is a product of evolution in the same way as our hands, hearts and brains. As I listened, I had the nagging feeling that I had heard that same thing somewhere before. And I had; C. S. Lewis makes a similar point in Mere Christianity (1943):
I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature [a universal moral code] or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference… Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well imagine a country where two and two made five.
He goes on to explain that, according to Christianity, this is evidence of a universal moral code that transcends the norms of any society.
So which is it? Can it be both? And why does it seem that so many arguments for the existence or dominance of God have an alternate argument which, while not necessarily contradictory, seem to strip the former of its power and mystery?
D February 19th, 2009
I most certainly believe that the act of an abortion is wrong. I wouldn’t call myself a ‘pro-lifer’ because of the sheer volume of rhetoric that label entails – but I definitely can’t see aborting fetus’ as anything other than perverse.
With that in mind, I started to consider what our world would look like without abortion – simply as an exercise to consider what kind of social cost it has on our society. Abortion will likely never again be illegal, possibly more regulated, but we won’t see any backtracking on this issue. Abortion is here to stay, so we’d better learn what a Christ like response would be.
So I couple that idea with a hotly contested theory written by Steven D Levitt in his book Freakonomics:
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect)
Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted aborted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.
Being an abortion linked theory, these studies will be contested for years to come. Nevertheless the idea that people who would have been bad or neglectful parents produce misbehaving children stuck with me, and that often people deciding on an abortion are not in most productive of child rearing environments. We don’t need an economist to tell us that if a parent is very weak on even basic discipline, or neglectful of their children, that kids tend to make bad choices and ‘misbehave’ in later life.
And sometimes, these neglected or abused kids end up in the care of our government’s social system, often at a young age. The good people who work for the government and non-governmental agencies try to provide the best care possible in very difficult circumstances.
And then it struck me. Who are we as Christians to look at women having abortions and say “shame on you”, when we are conveniently neglecting the children who were not aborted, but neglected? If abortion was illegal how many of those unborn would be sitting in group homes, or foster care, without a permanent and loving family that is willing to commit to them? How can we decry abortion when we don’t even help the kids who *are* alive, whose mothers may have made the harder choice not to terminate their life despite their circumstance?
What if every young Christ following couple who wants children included an adopted child in their family?
In my experience in mainstream protestant churches in Alberta, there are very few adoptive parents. I can only speculate on why – insulated church culture, the “it’s not my problem” complex, fear of “the world”, stigma of being the “adoptive parents”. But I certainly know this: Christ would have us look after orphans, regardless of our inconvenience.
What can we do about abortion? Maybe some regulatory changes. But until we have taken responsibility to help the thousands of kids that would be at risk if abortion was illegal, let’s get off our high-horse.
And don’t kid yourself, it is your responsibility. Christ made that pretty clear.
Em February 9th, 2009
I would like to state, for once and for all, that is it entirely conceivable to believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution explains how the world came to be, while at the same time it reveals the hand of a higher being. While it would be convenient for all of us, science can not and does not disprove the existence of God. I should think that this would have been well established by now, but STILL people come up with this ludicrous, narrow-minded, two-sided sham of an argument that leads to hair-pulling statements such as this one:
Next Thursday, Feb. 12, marks the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, probably the most influential scientist in intellectual history. Darwin’s theory of evolution has been making trouble for a century and a half, and shows no sign of stopping any time soon.
Darwin’s dangerous idea dethroned mankind as the pinnacle of all creation, and knocked God the Creator right out of the sky.
Apart from the folks who cling to Intelligent Design, most of us now accept the fact that the human race evolved through eons of natural selection.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090207.COWENT07/TPStory/National#
I would like to also point out that throughout his entire life, Darwin struggled with the idea of God. This was not a rational, studied approach to His existence but a troubled, emotional search for meaning in a cruel world.
D February 8th, 2009
Went to a church in a more southern Albertan city this weekend. They ended the worship with this classy Amy Grant tune.
We believe in God
And we all need Jesus‘Cause life is hard
And it might not get easier
But don’t be afraid
To know who you are
Don’t be afraid to show itIf you believe in God
If you say you need JesusHe’ll be where you are
And he never will leave you
Sing to me now words that are true
So all in this place can know it…
D February 6th, 2009
The central question that I repeatedly come to in my internal debate of the gay marriage issue is this:
Under whose authority?
My frame of reference is Alberta, Canada so I’ll frame my arguments from that context. However, I believe these arguments apply globally.
Here we go:
First, if I wanted to marry people (in my province), how would I go about doing that? (http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/542.cfm)
I have two options:
Okay, so how do i become a marriage officiant?
I apply. (http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/1152.cfm)
I include:
Well, that was easy.
And how do I become a clergy member?
Fulfill requirements of [insert religious brand here].
When I am complete, and if my religious organization is registered with the province of Alberta – I’m set to start marrying.
So if I am a clergy member under [religious brand x], and I am going to marry someone how do I go about that?
Okay, so I have a [religious brand x]-approved ceremony, and I’ve married these two people.
Now under whose authority have I married them?
So we have three areas of authority. The [brand x] minister has legally married the couple in the eyes of Alberta as [brand x] is registered with the government. He is also considered a minister in the [brand x] organization, and they have qualified him as ‘able to marry’, so their marriage has been authorized by [brand x].
Where does [brand x] get the authority to marry from?
The clergy member’s faith and understanding of God gives him the belief that when he prays and tells God that these two are being married, that God looks down and says, “yup, so they are”… then they go have sex and it’s a done deal.
Now what’s the difference between someone who went to the Government of Alberta to get married versus someone who went to [brand x]?
So they are only married in the eyes of the government, but not under God. The government, and most commonly the officiant, don’t have the ‘spiritual authority’ to marry under God.
So:
Why are Christians so worried about gay marriage? Sure it doesn’t fit with the traditional view of scripture, but our government performing gay marriages doesn’t threaten Christian personal beliefs. And the point of a society where church and state are separated is to allow the flexibility of multiple opinions, so that everyone can ‘get along’.
Here are two possible simple solutions to this
OR – a better option:
Ultimately God is the one who decides what is moral/immoral appropriate/inappropriate. And every human’s responsibility is to get as close to God as possible, and make decisions based on that closeness. Some people are gay, and some of that group are in gay sexual relationships. That’s not going to change.
And if Christians want to have any sort of dialog with individuals who happen to be gay, it might be better if we were not their oppressors.
D January 19th, 2009
via http://www.236.com/news/2009/01/16/israel_to_get_back_to_its_root_11137.php