in the midst of tigers and lambs

our language?

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:55:00 +0000

The following is a letter to the editor from the Hanover Evening Sun.

"I'm getting really sick of hearing about how the immigrant are being treated so badly... those individuals are here illegally and should be treated that way. I have no issues with those here legally, as long as they learn our language, get jobs, pay taxes and quit expecting government handouts. This country is in the crap hole condition it is in, because our government continues to give, give, give. It is time we stop letting this happen. If you are offended by this, well I'm offended with the fact that the illegal immigrants are getting away with it or they wouldn't continue coming here."

Perhaps the author of this letter should learn "our" language herself. It's amazing how most people I hear expressing such drivel can barely speak English. I believe that as a society we should worry about our own apathetic disposition towards grammatical excellence before we expect it from others.

study war no more

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Tue, 27 May 2008 00:23:00 +0000

It's memorial day. The president asked for Americans to take a moment of silence to reflect on the sacrifices made by many in war. In my feeble attempt to honor this request, I couldn't help but think that the greatest way to honor the sacrifices of these men and women is to work tirelessly to bring an end to war. Yet as I look around, I see very little desire to do this in the American public. With the exception of the Catholics and Anabaptists, I see particularly little of this among Christians. I don't understand why every church is not packed today with parishioners on their knees begging God to bring an end to warfare. Certainly none of them expect war in God's fulfilled kingdom. I am not even arguing (here at least) that there is not a place for it now. Yet why are we so comfortable with it? I am posting a video of the old gospel song "Down By The Riverside." For slaves, spirituals were often covert messages of escape plans. Many slaves pursued freedom by travelling on a river. Subsequently, the "riverside" was often used as an image of the point of liberation from slavery. When the song says "I'm gonna lay down my sword and shield, down by the riverside" I find it to be a reminder of the coming day when we indeed will "study war no more."

Myanmar and Sichuan relief

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:04:00 +0000

Since I was complaining about apathy towards suffering in my last post, I thought I would be productive. The Mennonite Central Committee is putting together emergency assistance for these areas. Although a Christian organization, MCC is very much devoted to service through action rather than word. I am including links to the fundraising efforts of MCC for both Myanmar and for Sichuan, China. Please be assured that the money is for relief efforts only. Feel free to link to their home page from my link list below for more information on the organization. I have no connection to this organization. I am not even a Mennonite. I just appreciate their work.

a sad cultural text

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:17:00 +0000

I was just on the website of a Baltimore network affiliate tv station (WJZ in case your interested). Why do I look at this site? I guess it is the same lowly behavior that draws us to look at horrible traffic wrecks- you don't like it, but you can't help it. Anyhow, on their home page, which theoretically includes the main stories of interest to the Baltimore community, there is not a single mention of the cyclone in Myanmar, nor the earthquake in China. Together these events may have taken 180,000 lives. What is there? A countdown to that all-important day of days, fathers' day (27 days by the way, please get me nothing for this cliche occurance). Also not to be missed are a slide show of CBS' fall lineup, an interview with American idol contestant Kellie Pickler, up to the minute baseball scores, as well as a link to view opinions on whether or not the Baltimore Blast (the local indoor soccer franchise) gets the attentions it "deserves." What does it say about society when the same people (the station as well as its viewers) who don't think the aforementioned tragedies deserve attention, want to spend time analyzing the amount of attention deserved by the Blast? Something seems to have gone seriously wrong with our free press. What was intended as a way to keep the people informed so as to not be controlled by the government, has become a tool to consumerism that seems to increasingly reflect the superficiality of society. Freedom from the government has ironically left us being held captive by our own self-obsession.

Is the pendulum swinging?

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:36:00 +0000

This past Sunday, Messiah College (my alma mater) hosted the Compassion Forum (see videos here). The three major presidential candidates remaining were invited to discuss how issues of faith affect their lives and might impact their presidencies. Of the three, John McCain was the only one to decline. This fact was not lost on the press. I heard in several places the observation that the Democrats seemed to be reaching out to the Christian community, which formerly has been a treasure trove of Republican votes. I feel that they were at least in part correct. Both candidates seem to be more friendly in their disposition towards conservative Christianity than did their counterparts of the 1990s. I don't think though that this change is simply due to a Democratic willingness to reach out. I believe that there is a shift taking place within much of American Christianity. The warm, respectful reception that Obama and Clinton received at Messiah probably would not have happened when I was on campus 13 years ago. The reception, I feel, was demonstrative of more than just good manners. I believe many in the crowd were very interested in what these two had two say. I do not mean to announce the death of the "religious right." I just think that the days of most American protestants voting for whoever James Dobson tells them to are over. I am not exactly sure why this is. Perhaps it is because of the compassionate writings of Christian authors such as Tony Campolo, Fr. Brennan Manning, and Donald Miller. Perhaps that as we move further from the Cold War, it is becoming a bit less of a faux pas to demonstrate concern for the general welfare of scoiety. On this side of a pendulum swing, it is really too early to say. Nonetheless, the professions of Christian faith made by them on this night and others do not seem quite as unbelieveable as they might have a decade ago. Hopefully this change is more of a correction than a swing. It would be of little use for there to be an opposite knee-jerk bias of the one that used to exist. Perhaps this is a an indication that what we are seeing is growing concern for the relevance of the Christian message to life and others, rather than just the self.

Teach your kids math, turn on TBN and count commandments being broken

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:07:00 +0000

I, for some reason, happen to be sitting here watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network on Direct TV channel 372. It happens to be their Spring 2008 Praise-A-Thon. The "praise-a-thon" apparently is a primary means of fund raising for TBN, which, according to the Orlando Sentinel, took in $194 million in 2005 alone. When you add this to their 19 seat private jet, you can't help but wonder what exactly it is that they are praising? A continually running banner proclaims "Give to shut the door on lack and open it to abundance." Huh?

Ministry co-founders Paul and Jan Crouch oversaw TBN's purchase in 2007 of the Holy Land Experience theme park in Orlando, Florida. On the Praise-A-Thon this evening, Paul Crouch described this as doing the "Lord's work." He said that you don't "own" a non-profit organization, but it is run by a board of directors. He said that Jan and him are on the board, as well as Paul Crouch Jr., and he said, "I don't know who else is on the board," giving the impression that this is not about power and ownership. He clearly implied that he is not in this for control, but rather to do the Lord's work. The reality of the situation is that there is only one other person on the board, their other son Matthew. Is it possible he can't remember four people, especially when all of them are close relatives? Is it really a board of directors anymore if it is composed of a husband, wife, and their two kids? No. It is that he was being dishonest. The previously mentioned article from the Orlando Sentinel exposes more on the reality of the reality of their intentions, as it discusses the laying off of 100 workers and the outsourcing of much of the park's work

As I sit and watch Paul Crouch ask for money tonight, it makes me angry. Their fusion of their business with the work of God is nauseating. I certainly do not wish them anything bad. I certainly could be exposed as a hypocrite for much of what I do and say. I just cringe thinking of the people who are giving beyond their means to these thieves. May the grace of God reach these people so that they might know that His love is not attached to the strings of their giving to TBN.

suftastic

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:09:00 +0000

in my best behavior, I am really just like him.

This is what 4,000 looks like

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:23:00 +0000

As of this week, 4000 Americans have been killed in Iraq. Although certainly not a large number compared to other wars (more than twice this number died in 3 days at Gettysburg), this is a huge loss of life nonetheless. So as to feel the reality of this, I would like to memorialize these people by typing 4000 question marks. I chose the question marks because I didn't know any of them and I am not entirely sure why they died.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

brains don't think, people do

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:46:00 +0000

I was thinking about the rationale behind the expression "Guns don't kill people, people do." I guess without a person to pull the trigger, a gun is reduced from a threatening object to an arbitrarily-formed mass of steel. As I look at the faces of my students, I can't help but apply the same logic to the intellect. If a brain is not used, can it any longer be considered a brain?

A Quick Thought on Education in a Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:54:00 +0000

I was thinking for some reason about the role of public education in democracy. In a totalitarian state, whether fascist, communist, monarchy etc.., it is easy. The purpose is to indoctrinate the people for submission to the state. It seems a bit more complicate in democracy. Is the point to teach values that are representative of the people? Or is to educate students so as to facilitate them one day being thinking members of society who will help steer the public will for good? In the former, teachers are responsible to the desires of the taxpayer. In the latter, they are accountable to the truth (or their best percpetion of it). Although I tend towards the former, it seems that many Christians advocate the latter.

3 thoughts on time from musicians

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:13:00 +0000

"The clock is another demon that devours our time in Eden"
-10,000 Maniacs

"Why do I feel so mocked by the hands of the clock"
-Vigilantes of Love

"We know the drill and we do it well. We love it, we hate it, ain't that life. Ain't that the curse of the second hand. Ain't that the way of the hour and the day."
-Mark Heard

A Meager Tribute

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:37:00 +0000

So as to not be cliche, I have waited until the day after the holiday to pay tribute to Dr. King. I have had a variety of responses to this man in my 35 years. I clearly remember the first time I heard of him. We were shown a film strip on his life in 2nd grade (remember film strips?). Not only was this my first exposure to Dr. King, but it was my first exposure to segregation. I remember looking around at some of my African-American classmates (I was fortunate to have lived in an ethnically diverse neighborhood) and being shocked that not too long before this, we would have lived dramatically separate lives. Over time, my youthful romantic optimism faded. I came to feel that the fame of Dr. King was tokenism (I struggle even to type this now). I felt inundated with clips of him uttering about his dream, yet I failed to grasp the significance of it. I have now come to view him as one the great heroes of American history. I believe that the greatness of this man extends far beyond his role in the eradication of segregation. To begin with, Dr. King recognized that the greatness of the Untied States has really nothing to do with the United States in a vacuum. It rests in the fact that people who founded the nation, as well as those who have maintained it, recognized truths that were much greater than any one nation or state. The country only works as long as it seeks to perpetuate the role of these truths within the nation. Dr. King wasn't just acting to save the black man, he was acting to save the nation. If segregation had been allowed to continue, it could only have led to the death of the nation in one form or another. Something that helped me realize all of this was taking the time to read the entirety of his speech from the March on Washington. As I mentioned, I had heard the end very often, and I never found much meaning in it. I believe that the significance of Dr. King is found elsewhere in the speech. The following is a portion of that. It reflects optimism rather than cynicism, love of country rather than bitterness towards it,and a plan for improvement rather than just a complaint. Above all it shattered the assumptions that many white Americans had made concerning African-Americans, and it helped America be more American than it ever had been before. I only hope that I might be able to implement this attitude in my own role as a citizen, and perhaps pass it on to my students as well.

•In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children

• -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “I Have a Dream”

Paradox

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:08:00 +0000

I am continually confounded by the concept of paradox. It seems to unravel countless philosophical mysteries, but could it just be a cop-out? One such mystery for me is the moral character of French Revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre. Celebrated by some, scorned by most, Robespierre is remembered as both a champion of civil liberty and as the first modern totalitarian dictator. But it would be too easy to write off the inconsistency of this man as having simply been a case of hypocrisy. No. With Robespierre it was far more complicated. He seems to have been both an oppressive tyrant and a champion of human rights at the same time. More than a hypocrite, this man was a living embodiment of paradox.

On one hand is the Robespierre who committed himself "to defend the oppressed against their oppressors, to plead the cause of the weak against the strong who exploit and crush them." On the other is the Robespierre who later is responsible for the executions (among thousands) of Francis Bertrand for making sour wine, as well as of former close friends like Camille Desmoulins and Georges Danton, who he deemed too moderate (which they were anything but).

The issue of Robespierre's religious belief makes for an interesting case-in-point. The Bible in the book of James says that "faith without works is dead." The book of Galatians lists joy, peace, temperance, and goodness among the fruits of the spirit. If either of these can be included as essential parts of the definition of a Christian, than it would be hard to consider Robespierre one. Yet in a climate of militant anti-Christianity, Robespierre continually defended the role of the Christian faith in French society. He made a particular enemy of Atheism towards the end of his life. He believed that the belief of the people in God was intrinsic to the Revolution. He said "The French people pins its faith...upon the conception of an incomprehensible power, which is at once a source of confidence to the virtuous and of terror to the criminal." Indeed much of his motivation to lead a revolution of the people to overturn oppression came from inspiration he received from the teachings of Christ.

Although his actions seem to contradict a Biblical definition of a Christian, his words and thoughts, both private and public, seem to affirm one. Similarly, he seems to have both opposed and championed basic human rights and equality with equal passion and authenticity. Only the idea of paradox allows for the existence of such contradictions.

So is paradox a legitimate entity? Certainly it can be used irresponsibly. It would be very easy to write off any inconsistency as being paradoxical rather than hypocritical. The life of Maximilien Robespierre seems to demonstrate however that dramatic inconsistencies that can exist authentically, or paradoxically, in an individual.

Over the Rhine

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:43:00 +0000

Thanks to my brother for this info- Over the Rhine will be playing Messiah College (my alma mater) on March 28th. Click here for ticket info.

i have flown free

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:35:00 +0000

I am going back to school.

a sense of yearning

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:05:00 +0000

Over the Rhine has a song called Snow Angels, from their album of the same title. Listening to it as we drove home from a friends last night, I was struck by the following verse

Snow angel, snow angel
Someday I’m gonna fly
This cold and broken heart of mine
Will one day wave goodbye
Goodbye to this cruel wicked world
And all the tears I’ve cried
Snow angel, snow angel
I’ll meet you in the sky

Certainly they are not the first to communicate this sense of yearning. Nonetheless, it stuck me as an uncommon sentiment. There seems to be an existential understanding in this of the need for something else. Although sung very pleasantly, I can almost hear Karin crying as she sings these words. Once again, I feel more intimately connected with an artist I have never met (actually I met them once, but that's not the point) than I really ever have with a church community. I just don't get this sense of desperation with most Christians I meet. Certainly they profess the existence of sin and an eternity free of it. What I sense more is a fear of eventual suffering rather than a desire to be delivered from it in the here and now.

The National on Letterman - July 24, 2007

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:07:00 +0000

The National is yet another great band to come out of Cincinnati (also home to Over the Rhine). Their album Boxer was named album of the year by Paste magazine and it is fantastic. This is them performing the song Fake Empire on the Late Show with David Letterman.

Arrested Development film update

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:59:00 +0000

I said I would occassionally update news about any progress towards Arrested Development hitting the big screen. Jason Bateman gave this interview to MTV on December 6.

a brief gripe

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000

"There are no rules in filmmaking, only sins. And the cardinal sin is dullness."
-Frank Capra
The same can be said of teaching.

The Bells of St. Corleone

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:08:00 +0000

I read recently a brief review of the classic Frank Capra film It’s a Wonderful Life in World Magazine. The reviewer described the film as having presented a Christian worldview. Plugged In, which is published by James Dobson's organization Focus on the Family, said that "after more than 50 years, families can still explore its rich themes and valuable life lessons together." In a 1996 video release by Republic Entertainment Inc. it was labeled under the heading “Family Collection.” In his film Hollywood vs. Religion, conservative movie critic Michael Medved uses it as an example to defend his thesis that the Hollywood establishment has transitioned from being pro-religion in the 1930s and 40s to being anti-religion today. He claims that the inclusion of angels and God makes the film friendly to Judeo- Christian values.

I don't understand why these individuals and organizations are so quick to claim this film as being consistent with their belief systems. The basic plot line is that although things have been tough lately for George Bailey, he is at heart a good man. All he needs to do to make things better for him and the world around him is to search within himself. The film ends with him making this realization, and all seems to be well within the world of Bedford Falls.

I find it interesting that this has become known as a Christmas film. To begin with, very little of the film takes place during Christmas. More than that though, the world of Bedford Falls seems to exist completely outside of the need and recognition of the incarnation of Christ. If God became flesh and set out to die for the sins of the world of Bedford Falls, then he was wasting his time. There is no problem in this imaginary universe that cannot be overcome be a little good intention and self-awareness. The character of George Bailey is not fundamentally in need of the salvation offered in the scriptures. His life does not reflect the sinful condition that the book of Romans claims to exist in all of mankind.

A film that makes an interesting contrast with this is Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather. Both of these films feature main characters walking past the marquees of art-deco movie theaters. The film playing inside during each is the Bells of St. Mary's. They are therefore set during the same time period. Despite this, they present sharply different portrayals of the world. The main character in The Godfather, Michael Corleone, has recently returned from World War II. It becomes clear that he is determined to remain apart from the organized crime of his family. By filming him as a soft-spoken, clean-cut war hero, it is clear that Michael is the traditional good guy of the film world. He is the George Bailey of the Corleone family. Unlike George Bailey however, Michael cannot find enough inside of him to defy the evil in the world. If anything, looking deep inside himself reveals that he, like everyone else, has evil woven into his nature. The film ends with a marvelous shot of Michael who has just ordered the murder of his brother-in-law. He retreats into the shadows and appears very similar to the way we first saw his father in the film's beginning. Rather than finding the tools to defy his family, he has become them.

Although The Godfather does not name Christ as the source of redemption from evil, it goes to great lengths to show that the entire creation, not just individual parts of it, are in need to a redemption that is outside of their own faculties. In order to do so, it deals candidly but honestly with the manifestation of sin in the world. Certainly this film should not be screened by young children. At the same time, it seems significantly more consistent with a Christian view of the world than does It's A Wonderful Life. It is unfortunate that Christian leadership is so quick to equate clean and moral with a Christian world view. In the case of these two films, it seems like clean and moral can also be significantly dishonest. As Christmas approaches, and we focus on the fact that Jesus came to earth, I can't help but feel as though we have lost touch with the reason that he had to.

more on immigration

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:45:00 +0000

Apparently people are targeting illegal immigrants for crime. The feeling is that they will not report it to the police for fear of deportation. The raison d'etre of the US government is to protect the rights of its citizens. If people are here illegally, then they do not enjoy this protection fully. Amidst all of the debate over immigration, I have heard no one argue for the restriction of immigration on these grounds. This is my biggest concern with open borders. If a significant portion of our population does not have the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, it hurts us all.

A Miracle on Larch Drive

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:42:00 +0000

My kids believe in Santa Claus. Perhaps I am lying to them. Perhaps this is not rationally sophisticated. Nonetheless, this myth gets perpetuated. I am ok with that. I am thinking about this as I have just watched Miracle on 34th Street. This for me is one of those Christmastime staples. Some of these films offer nothing other than sentimental value. I find more however in this film. Every year I watch it, I see more and more value. On the surface, the film deals with the existence of Santa Claus. The films main character, Doris Walker, has at some point had her heart broken by a man who left her alone to bring up their daughter Susan. Mrs. Walker has apparently been profoundly shaped by her painful past. In an attempt to spare her daughter similar heartbreak, she is bringing her up to only believe in what can be perceived using common sense. Two men enter their lives and threaten this situation. Susan becomes friendly with a friendly lawyer neighbor named Fred Gailey who seems to be the poster boy of romantic optimism. Fred seems intent on challenging Susan's refusal to believe in anything irrational. They also happen upon a gentleman named Kris Kringle who believes he is Santa Claus. Kris comes to work as the Macy's department store Santa for Doris, who also works there. Although Doris and Susan take to this kind old man, they refuse to believe that he truly is Santa Claus. Kris gets into trouble when he becomes angry at the store psychologist for his treatment of another co-worker named Alfred. He confronts the man Alfred's defense, and ends up being criminally charged for his actions. The district attorney attempts to have him institutionalized due to his belief that he is Santa Claus. Fred Gailey, the Walkers' lawyer, becomes Kris lawyer. He tries to prove that not only is there is a Santa Claus but that it is indeed Kris. The film is clearly about more than the existence of Santa however. Throughout the film the character of Doris struggle to maintain her refusal to accept anything outside of empirical reality. It becomes clear that for her this is a way of coping with a fear of hope. Fred confronts her on the need to believe in more and tells her "Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to." Most of the inhabitants of the world created by the filmmakers seem to share the sentiments of Doris and Susan. Alfred the Macy's janitor is declared mentally ill by the store psychologist fort being caring and good natured. The district attorney rests his case as soon as Kris affirms that he believes himself to be Santa Claus. Simply using the backdrop of New York City adds to the feeling of a world which is too busy to care about anything more than the next thing. Although religion is never expressly mentioned, I believe that what is on trial is God. Two years before this film was made, 350 years of modernist and scientific arrogance ended abruptly with World War II. Obviously science itself did not end, nor should it have. Rather, a time began when it became slowly more fashionable to consider belief in something outside of the natural world. Clearly this film is asking questions related to this topic. Clearly the film is also critical of the cynical products of the modern era. I certainly have no idea is the God of the Bible was being considered by the makers of this film. The film does though provoke some interesting conversations about the role of faith at the crossroads of modernity and post-modernity. In this film, the idea of Santa simply has no place in a reality fashioned by the struggle for self-preservation of its inhabitants. It is the same struggle for self-preservation that the Bible identifies as sin. According to Fred, what Doris and the rest of the world are lacking is faith. As far as my own kids go, I don't think its right to wean them off of Santa and onto God. At the same time, it seems that to deprive them of the experience of Santa would just rush them into a world of business and unbelief that much sooner. I want them to believe in something. I am afraid that the process of aging and becoming wiser will rob them of the ability to believe in more than just Santa.

Where is the promise of youth for my child?
Where are the faraway kingdoms of dreams? We've been to the moon and there's trouble at home

They vanished in the mist with Saint Nicholas ,

they lie scattered to the ghettos and the war zones
Why can't I sleep in peace tonight underneath the satellite sky
I want to stand out in the middle of the street and listen to the stars

I want to hear their sweet voices

I want to feel a big bang rattle my bones

I want to laugh for my children I want the spark to ignite

before they find out what it means to be born into these times

-Mark Heard "Satellite Sky"

The Pledge Revisited

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:20:00 +0000

When I left for college, I was what you might consider the quintessential American patriot. In addition to having intense political passions, I also was a lover of all things USA. My bedspread, bath towel, and backpack all featured American flags. The fact that my alma mater was founded by a church (Brethren in Christ) that affiliates itself with a pacifist perspective was a source of great frustration to me. I viewed this position as being both cowardly and traitorous.

I have recently found myself in a situation that represents a sharp departure from my past. The school where I work purchased flags for the classrooms so that the pledge of allegiance could be said in the morning. I found myself, as a matter of principle, unable to either put up a flag or say the pledge. The reason for this has nothing to do with disliking the United States. As a teacher of United States History for 12 years, I have developed an intense admiration for the Constitution and the principles which it espouses.

As far as the flag is concerned, I have much respect for it a symbol of this. It is with the use of the flag that I take issue. When I teach, my goal is to examine truth which transcends the confines of my school as well as the geographic and political boundaries of this country. If I were to work in a public school for the government, I may be more comfortable with its display. The fact that I do not frees me I believe to hold all earthly institutions accountable to transcendent truth. To display the flag in this setting would, I believe, compromise the appearance of my willingness to do so.

The pledge is a more serious concern for me. Not only do I not feel comfortable leading my students in the pledge, I do not feel comfortable saying it at all. The pledge was written in 1892 by a Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy. It was written for a magazine called Youth Companion as part of an advertising campaign to sell flags. It changed several times until taking on its present form in the 1950s. At one point the supreme court upheld laws requiring all students to recite it, but that has since been overturned. What follows is the text of the Pledge of Allegiance, including problems I have with it.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America
Although I love this country, I love the principles it seeks to protect even more. I believe what was given as justification for our revolution was that at times governments instituted by men are prone to seek to rob men of these rights, rather than preserve them. I believe the following words from Jefferson demonstrate this. "In the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." His writing seems to be defiant of the concept of undying allegiance to any civil government. I believe the concept of allegiance asks for this. Wikipedia defines it as "a duty of fidelity said to be owed by a subject or a citizen to his/her state or sovereign. " Encarta defines it similarly as "loyalty to ruler or state: a subject's or citizen's loyalty to a ruler or state, or the duty of obedience and loyalty owed by a subject or citizen."

If I were to feel this type of loyalty to the United States, I would be more comfortable pledging it to the state or the nation. I certainly do not owe allegiance to the flag itself. I realize that it is just a symbol, but the pledge is not worded accordingly.

and to the Republic for which it stands
Why not just say to the Republic for which the flag stands? To include "and" identifies a distinct allegiance to the flag. Still, I don't believe I owe allegiance according to the aforementioned definitions to either. Perhaps this is affected by my faith. I believe that allegiance as such is reserved for God. At the risk of the appearance of religious fundamentalism, I want to point out that such sentiment is by no means reserved for the faithful. This is made powerfully clear by the words of French enlightenment thinker Denis Diderot. The author the L'Encylcopedie, Diderot famously quipped " man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

One Nation
Although the meaning of this word has recently evolved to a political identity, historically it has been defined, as by American Heritage Dictionary, as "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality."In the historical sense, we are as much many nations as we are one. We are white, black, catholic, teen, nerd, farmer, Texan, beach bum, etc...

Under God
This is probably the one that has evoked the most controversy. Although written in 1892, the pledge did not formally contain this phrase until 1954. I certainly think that this nation is under God in terms of it being subject to his authority. However, I do not believe that this is any more or less true than it is for any other nation. I believe the way that it worded also leaves too much to the imagination. It could be implying official connection with a deity, special favor from a deity, equal authority with a deity, or a combination of this and other things. Because of this ambiguous language, I would prefer it to not be included.

Indivisible
If it is under God's authority, then it, like all other governments, is quite divisible. This sounds to me like the Titanic's captain claiming his ship to be unsinkable. I find it hard to understand how the same people who so passionately defend the inclusion of "under God" do not seek the exclusion of the above. This to me gives it the pledge a nationalistic favor and I believe the inclusion of "under God" should be seen as such.

With Liberty and Justice for All
Although these are guaranteed, I don't believe they are actualized. The day they are, I will be happy to say it.

I do not pretend that this is by any means a comprehensive discourse on this subject. I hope that it does not come across as dislike of the United States. This country existed for 116 prior to the writing of the pledge. Obviously love of this country can exist without its recitation. Perhaps I will undergo yet another change of heart on such things. Until then however, I do not feel comfortable with the pledge.

I think it would be fitting to end with a comment about my thoughts on governmental loyalty. The Bible in Hebrews says to "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." At the same time, Jesus admonished the pharisees in Matthew for placing law based in the traditions of men over that of God. Matthew 15:3 says "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" I interpret this as a requirement to obey earthly authority to the extent that it does not require me to break God's commands. As a citizen of the United States, I recognize the US Constitution as the supreme law governing my earthly citizenship. I do not believe that loyalty to it compromises my faith. However, as its enforcement is in the hands of men, I believe that it is within the realm of possibility that it one day could. Given this fact, I am willing to submit to constitutional authority, but I stop short of pledging it my undying allegiance.

Tis The Season

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:45:00 +0000

Two things that prominently feature in my memories of the early 1980s are Weird Al and fear of atomic warfare. The two came delightfully together in his early song "Christmas at Ground Zero." (embedding is disabled for this song, so I had to post a link). Its worth the time for a song featuring the line "We'll dodge debris as we trim the tree underneath a mushroom cloud."

North of the Border

noreply@blogger.com (Earl) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:58:00 +0000

One of the major justifications given for the creation of the United States was that all humans were entitled to certain basic human rights that should be placed beyond the reach of any government. Not only did Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence make mention of "unalienable rights," he went on to make the particularly radical statement "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." For 300 years western governments had been shaped by the ideas of men such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, and Cardinal Richelieu. These men argued that individuals offered no higher good than service to the state and the sovereign, and that any individual concerns must never take precedence over these. Jefferson's declaration sounded an alarm that this era was over and the western world would soon hold no room for Machiavelli's idealized Prince. Government would now exist to preserve the freedom, happiness and prosperity of the individual.

I am concerned that in the face of the growing tension over immigration, particularly from Central and South America, into the United States, that this part of the American essence is being forgotten. Yesterday in my mailbox at work I received an essay that dealt with that. It compared this issue to feeding birds from a bird feeder. It suggested that if you feed birds from a feeder that they will lose the ability to fend for themselves. They will become dependent on the feeder. The essay went on to suggest that the birds will eventually poop all over your porch and that it is time to clean up the poop.

Certainly there is a valid fear of the ability of the US government to remain effective if the population rises too quickly. In addition, if the government cannot enforce its own laws, what good is it? My fear here is that these issues are not really the source of tension.

What worries me are comments about changing culture as a result of immigration. There are federal laws governing immigration. There are not significant federal laws through prohibiting the spread of culture. If there were, I would imagine they would fail. To oppose the immigrant culture I believe is not a defense of the American vision and system of the Constitutional Framers. I believe it is racist. The above mentioned article made a comment about our kids having to learn Spanish in school. I overheard a conversation at church where someone was complaining about businesses in the area being run by and catering to Mexican immigrants. A man was threatened with a knife at a South Carolina gas station recently merely for speaking Spanish at a gas station. A student of mine recently commented about a pick-up truck full of Mexicans. When I asked her how she knew they were Mexican, she looked at me like she didn't know what I was even talking about. All of this seems to reflect a growing frustration with an entire group of people and their culture rather than the actions of individuals.

In November of 1938, German diplomat to France Ernst von Rath was assassinated by Herschel Grynszpan, a German Jew living in Paris. This action ignited what had become a very tense racial situation in Germany. Five years of Nazi reign combined with economic and diplomatic crises following WWI resulted in significant anti-Semitism. This killing was the catalyst for which the Nazis had been waiting. A night of terror against German and Austrian Jews known as Kristillnacht was the result. Between November 8 and 9, 1938, 8000 Jewish businesses and 1700 synagogues were destroyed, and 30,000 Jews were imprisoned with 2000 of them dying. What had begun as a fear of the destructive influence of a group of outsiders would eventually result in Hitler's "final solution."

I would like to think that both the American system and the integrity of the American people would prevent this from ever happening here. I can't help but wonder if a similar event might cause an escalation in racial tension in this country. I fear that like Germany in the 1930s, the United States could see significant violence against particular minorities if these tensions continue to escalate.

What a sad historic irony that what masquerades as a defense of American ideals actually represents a complete rejection of them. When Jefferson and the other members of the 2nd Continental Congress did in the summer of 1776 was more than just declare independence. The heart of Jefferson's document was a justification for independence. By depriving them of basic human liberties, The British King and Parliament had forfeited their right to govern the colonies any longer. Human beings have dignity and value. These attributes of all men exist beyond any temporal, geographic, or political borders. Americans certainly have a right to advocate defense of their laws. The moment we refuse to afford others basic human dignity however, we have lost touch with the values which gave rise to this great nation. We must always extend to all what Jefferson called "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."