Decline of the Church
Church attendance and membership across the U.S. is declining. Belief in God is not. Seemingly, membership in a church is less and less seen as the vehicle through which God's meaning can be found. I assume there is no singular reason for this decline in the church as the pathway to religious living. Ironically, as less and less people use a sectarian church as the foundation for their religious beliefs, the 'true believers' become more angry, more radical, more hell bent on using political means to enforce their beliefs on others.
I have examined my own life to try and understand why I too, not in any sudden petulant way, began to distance myself from organized religion. The more you live, if your life is not isolated in some sort of self constructed cocoon, the more injustices you see. And these varied injustices, you begin to realize, are virtually ignored by the churches. None of the major human rights battles in my time were church driven. None of the advanced enlightenment about many issues came from the church. This is not to say that no religious leaders from any denominations may not have played an important role on any of these ethical issues. They did, but almost always as isolated rebels of their church.
I think many began to question God communicates to us via inherited religion. I think many began to be aghast at how strong a role organized religion plays in the worst atrocities of war and as the cause of war itself. Lincoln wrestled with this during our Civil War: "Both parties deprecated war....and the war came....Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other...with malice towards none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.....". Therein lies the catch, just how does God give us the ability to see the right? For me the universe is a God created miracle, a miracle being something beyond human reason to understand. God's native tongue is not to be found in inherited scriptures, or from the tongues of human titled religious leaders, but in facts revealed through science. There have been so many thousands of instances where religious leaders have peddled falsity about so many things as to render the notion that they are divinely inspired to be preposterous. I can't build my own religious beliefs around such illogical nonsense. Whatever God is He is not some sort of partisan Idiot appointing buffoons as His emissaries to us. You try to keep the faith, but at some point sitting through a church service began to seem artificial, insincere, useless, disingenuous, self serving, and frankly unreal. You sit there and wonder just what the hell is this accomplishing? You start questioning the music: all that singing doesn't accomplish a damn thing; neither does all that praying; neither do all the church socials, the bible studies, the expenditure of money to support preachers and the building of glittering cathedrals. Just the cost of maintaining these glittering offerings to God is obscene. It was like let us pray for the poor and spend our money on anything and everything but the poor, except for some small miniscule portion of the budget. If anyone thinks some charities are top heavy scams, organized religion is in the lead.
You also begin to note that the more religious a country, the more aggressive the country tends to be. While Europe became less church oriented, America went the other way and of course which country has been more warlike across the globe than the United States? If the Vietnam War did anything for me, it forced me to see the absolute evil in what we did to that country. How could I have ever supported that kind of venture so enthusiastically for so many years? How could a country within which I had thrived so well, do something so wrong? Slowly, ever so slowly I realized it was religious dogma, domino theories, manifest destiny bullshit enveloped in some sort of 'better than thou' mentality, and blind patriotism which was driving all of this. All of this energetic aggressiveness, this intolerance toward others, this blind eye to the Golden rule, this recourse to violence as a means to an end----all of this stuff was coming from the religious RIGHT. I came to see these people as the religious WRONG. I have read scripture and in more than one religion, and none of these mind sets emanated from Christ or any other major historical religious prophet. The religious right has nothing much in common with real Christianity. Why didn't religious organizations stop this country from ever attacking Vietnam? Why did they do next to nothing to stop the invasion of Iraq? the Crusades? Slavery? Women's rights? the dozens of invasions of South American countries? Then when war commences and young people die like flies, it shifts to some sort of guilt ridden cry of 'support the troops'. Support the troops? The time to support them was not to send them into an immoral war. The murder, impoverishment, and insecurity peddled by Hussein pales in comparison to the havoc we have generated across Iraq. The only way to support the troops is not to send them into immoral wars and to bring them home if there. I hate slick religion----support an immoral war and then justify continuing it by the battle cry of 'support our troops' This is nothing more than a larger version of the mother who supports her son no matter what he is up to: "I mean, he joined a gang, so what could I do but get him an assault weapon in hopes he could kill more effectively and not be killed himself. I am sorry for all the kids he killed but I just wanted to protect my boy." I guess Mother of the Year in one instance and Patriot of the Year in the larger case scenario. But a whole lot of dead innocent victims when all is said and done.
And it just gets worse. Now, these same 'purist' elements of organized religion, almost to a man/woman support torture of prisoners because it 'protects' our country. Is there really anyone, who has ever read scripture, who thinks Jesus would support torturing prisoners? It's an absurdity unless you belong to the religious right, in which it is reduced to 'well, I think it works'. Imagine what this new 'religious principle' does to the consequences of our own captured soldiers. Imagine how many millions of new recruits this grotesque spectacle of Middle Ages barbarianism generates across the globe. How did organized religion, increasingly dominated by the 'purist' elements, ever get to be the front for war, prejudice, intolerance, torture,assault weapons proliferation, irresponsible reproductive practices, and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, ever get to be the image of organized religion?
Is organized religion losing members? I hope so. Enough is enough. Let's just go back to the Golden Rule, cut out all this unethical bullshit camouflaged as religion, and begin to promote ethics on the basis of the Golden Rule---to lead by example, to rearrange our national priorities, to become more pure in spirit toward all of humanity, to work together to protect our environment. This created Universe, via God's created process of evolution, is the basis for all life in all it's forms. Humans, short of mental disease, understand right from wrong. The Golden Rule is inherent in the ethical nature of man. Everyone, everywhere understands the Golden Rule. We all, everyone, everywhere, need to do the right, as God has given us to see the right via this Rule. God does speak to us, it is wired in our genetics. It is there, in all of us, yet we just find reasons to do wrong and then try to call it doing right. OUR BAD. Let us not pray, but understand our duty to the Golden Rule. God's purpose is right there, a part of each of us. All the stuff we might do to strengthen our allegiance to the Golden rule is good. All the stuff we do to get around the Golden Rule is bad. Church attendance has declined in part because they too often, for too long, have been the instrument and excuse to ignore the Golden Rule.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sanctity of Life
Sanctity of Life
Enough. The bullshit on this topic just gets piled higher and higher. What is this term suppose to mean anyway? Obviously it means different things to different people. Is life precious? Is oxygen precious? Is food precious? I think they all are. What does right to life even mean? Each egg and sperm, do they have a 'right' to life? Wait a minute, they are already alive---except in the beginning when God created the Evolutionary process or created man unto His own image and other life forms unto I don't know whose image---however one chooses to believe. Life since then has been a continuum. Life and Death are facts of the evolutionary process so let's not throw around nonsensical terms such as sanctity. I guess God doesn't believe in the 'sanctity' of life or death wouldn't exist. What decides which sperm unites with which egg? God? Chance? It certainly isn't the egg or the sperm. It certainly isn't the parents. What is God doing here, letting a roll of the dice determine who gets to exist and who doesn't? Humans always tend to invent a God who looks human, thinks human, and of course uses inherited religion to pass on His commandments to his chosen by birth disciples. It is very important to choose your parents carefully if this is the case. I mean it is a matter of life after death or going to Hell.
I look at these Abortion protestors and see an ocean of ignorance, disingenuousness, and illogicalness. For a start, who the hell is pro abortion? I have never met such a person. Some of these sanctity of life characters are even against birth control. At least here they are consistent. It really doesn't make any difference consequence-wise if one uses abortion or birth control---a particular individual 'person' will never exist because adult humans made that decision---ignoring, I guess, the sanctity of life. Now let's stay a moment with this logic. If you decide not to marry someone, you in effect, with that decision, have, with disregard to the sanctity of life, ensured that certain sperms and eggs will never fertilize and lives that could have been will have been denied by your disregard for the sanctity of life. Of course this kind of mentality is absurd.
When these emotional nitwits are screaming about the sanctity of life, they only mean human life, and then only certain human life. They certainly aren't concerned about the massive extinction rate of plants and animals going on because of human overpopulation. Strange, but with such a long, millions of years, history of evolution having gone on, the only species entitled to this sanctity of life is the human species, and then only certain members of the human species at that. In other words, these right to lifers have decided they are the deciders of which life has this sanctity. I wonder on what basis they get to be the deciders? Everyone is entitled to religious beliefs but it is another thing for any group to insist some must obey the religious beliefs of others. That is pretty obnoxious, pretty self centered, and to me, a bit delusional. It is the time honored question---"Who made you God?"
I claimed these abortion protestors were disingenuous. According to those agencies which specialize in saving children who are dying of treatable diseases and conditions, the cost to save each child is around $200. Thus, I would like to know how many of these abortion protestors have put up their own money, and how much of it, to save these children dying from treatable diseases and conditions. Then I want to know how many times these same protestors have held protests against those who have not contributed anything to save these dying children. This sanctity of life, how much of our own money should each of us be spending to save these children? I don't think too many of us better get too hysterical about sanctity of life. We could, if we wanted to, find many times over $200 to save these children. We could, if we wanted to, adopt children.
I too, like everyone else, believe in the sanctity of life. That is why I believe strongly in responsible reproduction. No child should be bought into this world if they are not wanted, or can't be properly cared for. Even the Humane Society is careful who they give a pet to. They don't squawk away that life is precious and then hand pets to anyone who wants one or even worse insist anyone who doesn't want one should take one anyway as some sort of sanctity of life binge. And of course, the Humane Society believes in responsible reproduction so much so that they encourage neutering pets. Funny here, the Humane Society seems more genuinely concerned about the sanctity of life than the human pro-lifers. That term itself is oxy-moronic. Like who are the anti-lifers?
The pro-lifers take the same position at the other end of the life spectrum. A few functioning cells and organs, in their mind, constitutes some sort of irrational sanctity of life dogma. People are, by law, forced to exist non persona, sometimes for decades, when the person has long since become nonexistent. Whether it is Alzheimer's disease, a stroke---whatever---and whether the person wants to die or not, is of no relevance to these pro-lifers. If medical science advances enough maybe we can have bins of functioning cells and organs stored away, of course labeled so we know who each body is, and the funeral industry can be eliminated. You want to see Grandpa? He is in bin #3856 on the third floor behind a glass screen so you get a good view of his still functioning cells.
In the end, what does sanctity of life really mean? According to God's created evolutionary process (my belief) individual lives have no sanctity, only importance. Death of individuals is built into the system. Any real sanctity of life refers to the continuum of life, the fact that life never really ends but gets passed on, generation after generation, with subtle changes---and these changes cause life to evolve in ever changing ways---ways controlled by evolutionary laws---and these changes generate ever increasingly complex organisms. We may desperately want God to be our Protector, kindly meddling in our lives to make our lives better and save us time and time again from misfortune, but there is really no evidence such is the case. In fact, the best amongst us can be dealt the worst of fates and we see that happen all the time. ON THE OTHER HAND, were it not for this amazing God created evolutionary process, none of us would have had the chance to exist, the chance to have a good life. That is exactly why responsible reproduction is a serious human responsibility. The goal should be for every child to have a decent chance for a good life. To bring children into a world in which a parent is unable, for various reasons, to be a good parent, to be unable to financially support a child, is cruel. Overpopulation is cruelty taken to a high level and is not only cruel to all children, but to other species as well. There is sanctity of life---on the grand scale---not centered around individuals in any species. Only humans have the mental capacity to comprehend the Golden Rule, the basis for ethics. All else is just window dressing and irrelevant to ethics or religion.
Next time I see some pro-lifer squawking in the street I will feel like grabbing him/her by the neck and squawking myself: "Look Bozo, take out your wallet and start saving some of these children who are dying from preventable diseases and conditions, go adopt a child, go vote for politicians who want the same amount of money spent to educate EVERY child, to provide proper health care to EVERY child, to demand every country find a way to make responsible reproduction the law---and then, only then, can you have the logical right to preach about the sanctity of life." Until then, if I want any shit out of them I will squeeze their head.
Having completed this tirade clearly Obama is right. This kind of demonizing one side or the other does not promote any solution. He is right that the differences are irreconcilable. Humans are what they are---humanisque. Tis' a pity. Evolution needs to speed up quickly before we destroy ourselves.
Enough. The bullshit on this topic just gets piled higher and higher. What is this term suppose to mean anyway? Obviously it means different things to different people. Is life precious? Is oxygen precious? Is food precious? I think they all are. What does right to life even mean? Each egg and sperm, do they have a 'right' to life? Wait a minute, they are already alive---except in the beginning when God created the Evolutionary process or created man unto His own image and other life forms unto I don't know whose image---however one chooses to believe. Life since then has been a continuum. Life and Death are facts of the evolutionary process so let's not throw around nonsensical terms such as sanctity. I guess God doesn't believe in the 'sanctity' of life or death wouldn't exist. What decides which sperm unites with which egg? God? Chance? It certainly isn't the egg or the sperm. It certainly isn't the parents. What is God doing here, letting a roll of the dice determine who gets to exist and who doesn't? Humans always tend to invent a God who looks human, thinks human, and of course uses inherited religion to pass on His commandments to his chosen by birth disciples. It is very important to choose your parents carefully if this is the case. I mean it is a matter of life after death or going to Hell.
I look at these Abortion protestors and see an ocean of ignorance, disingenuousness, and illogicalness. For a start, who the hell is pro abortion? I have never met such a person. Some of these sanctity of life characters are even against birth control. At least here they are consistent. It really doesn't make any difference consequence-wise if one uses abortion or birth control---a particular individual 'person' will never exist because adult humans made that decision---ignoring, I guess, the sanctity of life. Now let's stay a moment with this logic. If you decide not to marry someone, you in effect, with that decision, have, with disregard to the sanctity of life, ensured that certain sperms and eggs will never fertilize and lives that could have been will have been denied by your disregard for the sanctity of life. Of course this kind of mentality is absurd.
When these emotional nitwits are screaming about the sanctity of life, they only mean human life, and then only certain human life. They certainly aren't concerned about the massive extinction rate of plants and animals going on because of human overpopulation. Strange, but with such a long, millions of years, history of evolution having gone on, the only species entitled to this sanctity of life is the human species, and then only certain members of the human species at that. In other words, these right to lifers have decided they are the deciders of which life has this sanctity. I wonder on what basis they get to be the deciders? Everyone is entitled to religious beliefs but it is another thing for any group to insist some must obey the religious beliefs of others. That is pretty obnoxious, pretty self centered, and to me, a bit delusional. It is the time honored question---"Who made you God?"
I claimed these abortion protestors were disingenuous. According to those agencies which specialize in saving children who are dying of treatable diseases and conditions, the cost to save each child is around $200. Thus, I would like to know how many of these abortion protestors have put up their own money, and how much of it, to save these children dying from treatable diseases and conditions. Then I want to know how many times these same protestors have held protests against those who have not contributed anything to save these dying children. This sanctity of life, how much of our own money should each of us be spending to save these children? I don't think too many of us better get too hysterical about sanctity of life. We could, if we wanted to, find many times over $200 to save these children. We could, if we wanted to, adopt children.
I too, like everyone else, believe in the sanctity of life. That is why I believe strongly in responsible reproduction. No child should be bought into this world if they are not wanted, or can't be properly cared for. Even the Humane Society is careful who they give a pet to. They don't squawk away that life is precious and then hand pets to anyone who wants one or even worse insist anyone who doesn't want one should take one anyway as some sort of sanctity of life binge. And of course, the Humane Society believes in responsible reproduction so much so that they encourage neutering pets. Funny here, the Humane Society seems more genuinely concerned about the sanctity of life than the human pro-lifers. That term itself is oxy-moronic. Like who are the anti-lifers?
The pro-lifers take the same position at the other end of the life spectrum. A few functioning cells and organs, in their mind, constitutes some sort of irrational sanctity of life dogma. People are, by law, forced to exist non persona, sometimes for decades, when the person has long since become nonexistent. Whether it is Alzheimer's disease, a stroke---whatever---and whether the person wants to die or not, is of no relevance to these pro-lifers. If medical science advances enough maybe we can have bins of functioning cells and organs stored away, of course labeled so we know who each body is, and the funeral industry can be eliminated. You want to see Grandpa? He is in bin #3856 on the third floor behind a glass screen so you get a good view of his still functioning cells.
In the end, what does sanctity of life really mean? According to God's created evolutionary process (my belief) individual lives have no sanctity, only importance. Death of individuals is built into the system. Any real sanctity of life refers to the continuum of life, the fact that life never really ends but gets passed on, generation after generation, with subtle changes---and these changes cause life to evolve in ever changing ways---ways controlled by evolutionary laws---and these changes generate ever increasingly complex organisms. We may desperately want God to be our Protector, kindly meddling in our lives to make our lives better and save us time and time again from misfortune, but there is really no evidence such is the case. In fact, the best amongst us can be dealt the worst of fates and we see that happen all the time. ON THE OTHER HAND, were it not for this amazing God created evolutionary process, none of us would have had the chance to exist, the chance to have a good life. That is exactly why responsible reproduction is a serious human responsibility. The goal should be for every child to have a decent chance for a good life. To bring children into a world in which a parent is unable, for various reasons, to be a good parent, to be unable to financially support a child, is cruel. Overpopulation is cruelty taken to a high level and is not only cruel to all children, but to other species as well. There is sanctity of life---on the grand scale---not centered around individuals in any species. Only humans have the mental capacity to comprehend the Golden Rule, the basis for ethics. All else is just window dressing and irrelevant to ethics or religion.
Next time I see some pro-lifer squawking in the street I will feel like grabbing him/her by the neck and squawking myself: "Look Bozo, take out your wallet and start saving some of these children who are dying from preventable diseases and conditions, go adopt a child, go vote for politicians who want the same amount of money spent to educate EVERY child, to provide proper health care to EVERY child, to demand every country find a way to make responsible reproduction the law---and then, only then, can you have the logical right to preach about the sanctity of life." Until then, if I want any shit out of them I will squeeze their head.
Having completed this tirade clearly Obama is right. This kind of demonizing one side or the other does not promote any solution. He is right that the differences are irreconcilable. Humans are what they are---humanisque. Tis' a pity. Evolution needs to speed up quickly before we destroy ourselves.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
20% Got It Right
20% Got it Right
I just finished a book by Paul Rieckhoff, a soldier who spent the first few years of the Iraq War in Baghdad. He was an infantry platoon leader, so his perspective is that from one on the front lines. The book is titled Chasing Ghosts. It is well written, lively, down to earth, and quite insightful. If you ever wonder what it is like to be stationed in Iraq in the infantry, this is the closest you can come to understanding the mindset involved. There is nothing about the Iraq War I have ever liked. I marched with others in the streets of Chicago to protest starting that War, every damn thing I projected (along with many others) that would happen, DID. The consequences of this War, which still continues, has reeked total havoc on Iraq, has done immeasurable damage to the image of America across the globe, has left money for domestic American issues nonexistent, and generated the kind of religious hatred which produces the kind of fanatical killing fields across the globe, which are almost impossible to reign in. Religious fanatics of all ilk (maybe with Buddhism as an exception) are ever so willing to kill, go to War, torture, and jail their perceived 'heathens'. At the end of each religious blood bath, it is always vowed 'never again' but this wisdom is not the kind of thing one generation can pass on to the next. And all this amidst environmental and human population pressures which create conditions never faced by the human species since it first evolved.
It seems SO long ago I marched against ever starting that War. I guess it was way back in March 2002. I think I marched in part because I had not really marched or done much of anything on any of the major social issues of my time. If blks got to attend white schools, if women got rights denied---well if any group got any justice in my time, it wasn't because I was out in the streets on their behalf. For most of my life I was closer to the mindset that if someone didn't like it here 'they could leave'. Things were ok for me. so these rabble rousers were nothing but an irritant. It took years of teaching, of being exposed to these discordant elements of our society in meaningful ways, before I began to understand just how un-level the playing field was for so many groups. Of course you don't get many points siding with those groups outside your own group---it almost reeks of disloyalty and leaves you isolated from any group. In some respects it puts you in some sort of no man's land. Fortunately for me, no man's land was more liberating, and brought more contentment than being in the right box with braces on my brain.
That march back in 2002 did not stop the War, it only closed down Lake Shore Drive for a period of time and did serve to impress me a lot with the kind of people who participated. I have never been in a crowd so diverse. When it comes to questions of War, decency, and fairness---no ethnic, religious, economic, or social group has any monopoly on these measures. I remember many things about that march, things kind of permanently etched in my mind. It was a total mixture of poor, wealthy, middle income, blk, white, hispanic, Asian, every religious persuasion, young, middle aged, old, handicapped, non handicapped, etc. It was one of those rare instances when one feels human, not a partisan clans-person of some sort.
It was in Daley PLaza roped off on the perimeter by horses end to end. The speeches were too loud and too emotional for me and after a bit I decided to leave. Surprise! I couldn't get out. No one could get in or out. The Plaza was filled. The people were excited and the police, almost to a man/woman were filled with hostility at the spectacle. We were all, to them, the unpatriotic scum of the country. At that time about 80% of Americans were for invading Iraq. They had swallowed all the lies fed to them by their own government. It was going to be like Grenada, go in, kick a little ass, save the people from a dictator, and as icing on the cake show the Muslims how to run a country. A bit of showoff bravado for every taste.
I told some cops on the horses that I really just wanted to leave, let me through.
One told me I should have thought about that before I came there. But the idea of letting people leave appealed to their mood of the moment, so they parted a few horses for me and a couple of others to leave. MISTAKE. I was practically propelled through the opening like a cannon ball when some agitated young people, some with drums, bull horns, whistles, and whatever, surged through the opening depositing me and anyone in front of them out on Madison Avenue. Immediately the whole Daley Plaza was emptying out onto Madison Avenue and the Police were radioing for permission to arrest, mace, or do whatever it took to contain the crowd. They were extremely angry when the word came down for them to let the people march until they damaged anything and then use force. MISTAKE. For the most part, people who are against going to War are not the type who revel in smashing up things, turning over cars, smashing store windows. I can't remember all the slogans but all sorts of clever ones with the same message---'No war'.---were filling the air in deafening volumes. And the drums were beating, whistles blowing, and people in cars trapped among masses of people heading for Michigan Avenue, who, in some cases, probably out of fear, were all giving thumbs up to us as we proceeded. I remember one cop on his radio saying, "No they are not damaging anything but we can't stop them, they refuse to stop or go where we tell them." Fortunately we live in an age where police have to have good reason to assault citizens who are protesting peacefully. True, we had no permission to be on the street, but true, people who are against a war need some room to make their point. The disruption we caused that rush hour weekday afternoon was miniscule compared to the disruption subsequently caused by the war. It was March, and March in Chicago is no picnic weather. The march didn't start off with all that many. I don't know, maybe a thousand. So the Police Command Center told the officers to let them march, stay with them, keep them in the street. MISTAKE. As the march progressed more and more people, many heading to train stations to go home, or waiting for buses, began to join in the march, so the numbers kept growing. Thus at some point, as the numbers grew to tens of thousands, the police were unsure how to stop that many people. In an age of instant communication with TV, internet, and cell phones, people began racing downtown to join the March. When the March got near my train station I had no idea where the hell it was going and feared I would end up too far from the train station to be able to walk back. Something to do with aging joints. At first I was right up front in the March, having been pushed into the lead with the initial thrust through the police line, but a little birdie told me to fall back a bit, not look like some kind of leader. There was going to come a point when someone was going to get clubbed around. Well, that little birdie took too long to enlighten me. A week later, when it was a special on Public Television, there I was, right up in front, surrounded by these energetic (screaming) young people---I suppose looking like a 60's hippie having been raised from the dead for the occasion. Maybe I am still on some official potential terrorist list.
When I got to my suburban station an hour later I heard on the radio that the March was still going on at 10PM, and they were now up around Chicago Avenue. The march had started around 5PM. They had marched onto Lake Shore Drive and closed that down, and the Police, I can well imagine, were by then livid with anger, hostility, hungry and tired, and no green light to beat the hell out of these unpatriotic scums, but finally---near midnight, got the green light to make arrests. When they moved they charged in and grabbed whomever they could and threw them in Paddy Wagons lined up for blocks. It really didn't make much difference who they grabbed as everyone was doing the same thing----marching. Of course the police had to stop it, if they didn't it would have gone on all night and all the next day, virtually forever with different people joining and leaving the march. Of course when the cases got to court the Judges threw out all the charges figuring the bruises and overnight jail time was sufficient. Of course the police felt, as usual, they do their job and the judges let the arrested go free. Democracy can be messy.
And of course the War shortly commenced. Our President was going to War, alone if necessary, and like planned clockwork---a few weeks later the President put on his bomber jacket and declared 'Mission Accomplished'. To be fair to the President he didn't really identify what mission was accomplished. Maybe it was the mission to dupe the American public into a War which should never have been waged, would break us financially, send millions of Iraqis into exile, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi (most by their own people), jail thousands of innocent Iraqi people (turned in by personal enemies to teach them a lesson), turn the whole country into piles of rubble, leave vast portions of the people unemployed, without electricity most of the time, and swell the ranks of terrorists worldwide to levels which would destabilize many areas of the world for years to come, and leave our own country at risk for retaliation by the friends and relatives of the millions of victims of the War. No surprise, really. After all Bush did say, 'Bring em on'. And they are still coming, seven years later----poorer, angrier----with nothing left to lose---and 'God' on their side, with the world becoming unsafe in more and more places. What a War this has been. One for the books with no easy happy ending in sight.
I wonder how many of those same cops who hated us marchers so intensely, ever look back and say to themselves, 'those unpatriotic scums had it right. More people should have marched". Incidentally, to my knowledge, not one mainstream politician marched or spoke that day. Nope, not even Obama. He got it right, but he didn't march. For once I did. In my heart, good for me. Better late than never. And just to think----I inadvertently started the march by asking for a path to leave. I guess being circumstantially relevant is better than irrelevancy. One could argue the whole exercise was irrelevant---the War happened anyway. Hey, walk through a graveyard and ask yourself how many of the long dead were ever relevant to the millions of years old God created evolutionary process? The real tough questions are beyond human reason.
I just finished a book by Paul Rieckhoff, a soldier who spent the first few years of the Iraq War in Baghdad. He was an infantry platoon leader, so his perspective is that from one on the front lines. The book is titled Chasing Ghosts. It is well written, lively, down to earth, and quite insightful. If you ever wonder what it is like to be stationed in Iraq in the infantry, this is the closest you can come to understanding the mindset involved. There is nothing about the Iraq War I have ever liked. I marched with others in the streets of Chicago to protest starting that War, every damn thing I projected (along with many others) that would happen, DID. The consequences of this War, which still continues, has reeked total havoc on Iraq, has done immeasurable damage to the image of America across the globe, has left money for domestic American issues nonexistent, and generated the kind of religious hatred which produces the kind of fanatical killing fields across the globe, which are almost impossible to reign in. Religious fanatics of all ilk (maybe with Buddhism as an exception) are ever so willing to kill, go to War, torture, and jail their perceived 'heathens'. At the end of each religious blood bath, it is always vowed 'never again' but this wisdom is not the kind of thing one generation can pass on to the next. And all this amidst environmental and human population pressures which create conditions never faced by the human species since it first evolved.
It seems SO long ago I marched against ever starting that War. I guess it was way back in March 2002. I think I marched in part because I had not really marched or done much of anything on any of the major social issues of my time. If blks got to attend white schools, if women got rights denied---well if any group got any justice in my time, it wasn't because I was out in the streets on their behalf. For most of my life I was closer to the mindset that if someone didn't like it here 'they could leave'. Things were ok for me. so these rabble rousers were nothing but an irritant. It took years of teaching, of being exposed to these discordant elements of our society in meaningful ways, before I began to understand just how un-level the playing field was for so many groups. Of course you don't get many points siding with those groups outside your own group---it almost reeks of disloyalty and leaves you isolated from any group. In some respects it puts you in some sort of no man's land. Fortunately for me, no man's land was more liberating, and brought more contentment than being in the right box with braces on my brain.
That march back in 2002 did not stop the War, it only closed down Lake Shore Drive for a period of time and did serve to impress me a lot with the kind of people who participated. I have never been in a crowd so diverse. When it comes to questions of War, decency, and fairness---no ethnic, religious, economic, or social group has any monopoly on these measures. I remember many things about that march, things kind of permanently etched in my mind. It was a total mixture of poor, wealthy, middle income, blk, white, hispanic, Asian, every religious persuasion, young, middle aged, old, handicapped, non handicapped, etc. It was one of those rare instances when one feels human, not a partisan clans-person of some sort.
It was in Daley PLaza roped off on the perimeter by horses end to end. The speeches were too loud and too emotional for me and after a bit I decided to leave. Surprise! I couldn't get out. No one could get in or out. The Plaza was filled. The people were excited and the police, almost to a man/woman were filled with hostility at the spectacle. We were all, to them, the unpatriotic scum of the country. At that time about 80% of Americans were for invading Iraq. They had swallowed all the lies fed to them by their own government. It was going to be like Grenada, go in, kick a little ass, save the people from a dictator, and as icing on the cake show the Muslims how to run a country. A bit of showoff bravado for every taste.
I told some cops on the horses that I really just wanted to leave, let me through.
One told me I should have thought about that before I came there. But the idea of letting people leave appealed to their mood of the moment, so they parted a few horses for me and a couple of others to leave. MISTAKE. I was practically propelled through the opening like a cannon ball when some agitated young people, some with drums, bull horns, whistles, and whatever, surged through the opening depositing me and anyone in front of them out on Madison Avenue. Immediately the whole Daley Plaza was emptying out onto Madison Avenue and the Police were radioing for permission to arrest, mace, or do whatever it took to contain the crowd. They were extremely angry when the word came down for them to let the people march until they damaged anything and then use force. MISTAKE. For the most part, people who are against going to War are not the type who revel in smashing up things, turning over cars, smashing store windows. I can't remember all the slogans but all sorts of clever ones with the same message---'No war'.---were filling the air in deafening volumes. And the drums were beating, whistles blowing, and people in cars trapped among masses of people heading for Michigan Avenue, who, in some cases, probably out of fear, were all giving thumbs up to us as we proceeded. I remember one cop on his radio saying, "No they are not damaging anything but we can't stop them, they refuse to stop or go where we tell them." Fortunately we live in an age where police have to have good reason to assault citizens who are protesting peacefully. True, we had no permission to be on the street, but true, people who are against a war need some room to make their point. The disruption we caused that rush hour weekday afternoon was miniscule compared to the disruption subsequently caused by the war. It was March, and March in Chicago is no picnic weather. The march didn't start off with all that many. I don't know, maybe a thousand. So the Police Command Center told the officers to let them march, stay with them, keep them in the street. MISTAKE. As the march progressed more and more people, many heading to train stations to go home, or waiting for buses, began to join in the march, so the numbers kept growing. Thus at some point, as the numbers grew to tens of thousands, the police were unsure how to stop that many people. In an age of instant communication with TV, internet, and cell phones, people began racing downtown to join the March. When the March got near my train station I had no idea where the hell it was going and feared I would end up too far from the train station to be able to walk back. Something to do with aging joints. At first I was right up front in the March, having been pushed into the lead with the initial thrust through the police line, but a little birdie told me to fall back a bit, not look like some kind of leader. There was going to come a point when someone was going to get clubbed around. Well, that little birdie took too long to enlighten me. A week later, when it was a special on Public Television, there I was, right up in front, surrounded by these energetic (screaming) young people---I suppose looking like a 60's hippie having been raised from the dead for the occasion. Maybe I am still on some official potential terrorist list.
When I got to my suburban station an hour later I heard on the radio that the March was still going on at 10PM, and they were now up around Chicago Avenue. The march had started around 5PM. They had marched onto Lake Shore Drive and closed that down, and the Police, I can well imagine, were by then livid with anger, hostility, hungry and tired, and no green light to beat the hell out of these unpatriotic scums, but finally---near midnight, got the green light to make arrests. When they moved they charged in and grabbed whomever they could and threw them in Paddy Wagons lined up for blocks. It really didn't make much difference who they grabbed as everyone was doing the same thing----marching. Of course the police had to stop it, if they didn't it would have gone on all night and all the next day, virtually forever with different people joining and leaving the march. Of course when the cases got to court the Judges threw out all the charges figuring the bruises and overnight jail time was sufficient. Of course the police felt, as usual, they do their job and the judges let the arrested go free. Democracy can be messy.
And of course the War shortly commenced. Our President was going to War, alone if necessary, and like planned clockwork---a few weeks later the President put on his bomber jacket and declared 'Mission Accomplished'. To be fair to the President he didn't really identify what mission was accomplished. Maybe it was the mission to dupe the American public into a War which should never have been waged, would break us financially, send millions of Iraqis into exile, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi (most by their own people), jail thousands of innocent Iraqi people (turned in by personal enemies to teach them a lesson), turn the whole country into piles of rubble, leave vast portions of the people unemployed, without electricity most of the time, and swell the ranks of terrorists worldwide to levels which would destabilize many areas of the world for years to come, and leave our own country at risk for retaliation by the friends and relatives of the millions of victims of the War. No surprise, really. After all Bush did say, 'Bring em on'. And they are still coming, seven years later----poorer, angrier----with nothing left to lose---and 'God' on their side, with the world becoming unsafe in more and more places. What a War this has been. One for the books with no easy happy ending in sight.
I wonder how many of those same cops who hated us marchers so intensely, ever look back and say to themselves, 'those unpatriotic scums had it right. More people should have marched". Incidentally, to my knowledge, not one mainstream politician marched or spoke that day. Nope, not even Obama. He got it right, but he didn't march. For once I did. In my heart, good for me. Better late than never. And just to think----I inadvertently started the march by asking for a path to leave. I guess being circumstantially relevant is better than irrelevancy. One could argue the whole exercise was irrelevant---the War happened anyway. Hey, walk through a graveyard and ask yourself how many of the long dead were ever relevant to the millions of years old God created evolutionary process? The real tough questions are beyond human reason.
Friday, May 8, 2009
NURTURING POTENTIAL
Nurturing Potential
I was looking last night at pictures on the wall of my most admired Americans in history. I thought about O'bama being compared to Lincoln. I thought about the people in my life who I admire and relate to the best. I thought about my many years as a teacher and the students who stood out above the rest as successful, well rounded, emotionally stable and socially adept individuals. And as I am inclined by nature to do, I searched for some common thread that pushed them to the top of these lists. How do the young evolve to be somebody others admire?
It certainly isn't wealth. Most wealth is acquired either through inheritance or an obsession with money as an end unto itself. Of course there are some, if few, exceptions. It certainly isn't fame since fame as a life objective breeds most often an overpowering suffocation of attention. It certainly isn't intelligence as measured by test scores or IQ. Some of the people I admire the most, and some of the most contented people I have known, are, kindly put, intellectually challenged.
It seems the most common thread is a self-made success wrapped in social consciousness. This breeds empathy and trust. I suppose one could say most of my 'heroes' started with little, had the good fortune to be healthy, and had the freedom for self development in an environment which was conducive to self development. I can't seem to find a lot of real success stories from those overprotected, over-controlled, over managed in their youth. It just seems, I am sure with some exceptions, that those parents who run the tightest of ships, stifle the potential of their victims. The intentions of such parents are just the opposite of the result, and too often reflect an obsession with molding their offspring according to their own needs and shortcomings. Parental control freaks unintentionally create lifelong handicaps for their children.
Science has taught us, over the years, that mental development is mostly settled by the late teens. I remember once, years ago when I was taking this Methods course for teaching science, and the Professor asked me what was the best method for teaching a certain concept. My reply got me a C or D for the course (have forgotten which) because I stated there was no best method. He went through the roof and asked just what I though he had been trying to teach us all semester. He then asked me upon just what basis would I make such a statement. My reply was that if I listed the top ten best teachers I have had in my life, they all pretty much had their own peculiar methods of teaching. And I still believe that. Interestingly, that Professor went on sabbatical the following semester when I practice taught and another professor took his place. When I showed up at my assigned high school the teacher of the class told me I would start in a week when he finished the unit he was on. He told me not to come there while he taught so as not to be influenced by his own method of teaching. That made me nervous as I assumed I better teach his way or my grade would be in trouble. Anyway, I got an A for a grade and when the sabbatical Professor returned he gave his replacement Professor hell for the grade I received. Sometimes in life you just get lucky. I only taught high school for like 2 or three years but it was helpful to me for the subsequent years of college teaching.
My dad and mother were a contrast in parenting. My mother, if she could, would have micromanaged my whole young life. My father was hands off and believed parenting was simply an exercise in leading by example. As a consequence he didn't swear, drink, smoke, gamble, engage in adultery, mistreat anyone, lie, swindle, and oh boy was it an irritant to have a father be such a goody two shoes. Yet his attitude gave me the kind of freedom to mingle with just about anyone, experience all kinds of situations, make endless mistakes with my own behavior, and yet, from it all, my own unique potentials were free to develop. Over time, in endless ways, I was able to learn, via comparison, right from wrong, good people from bad people, appreciate diversity, and draw a good measure of comparison reguarding which people, behaving which ways, were the happiest and most pleasant to be around. So for me, my dad's method was perfect for my own development.
Still, and this is the sad clinker here---what method works for one may not work for another. The method which worked for me didn't really work for my brother and he resented my dad for the rest of his life. To my brother, if my dad had done this or that or whatever his own life would have turned out different. Maybe, how can I know? Parents probably should realize that genetics sets potential, not parents. So all the determination in the world cannot make somebody something they are not. Human worth has a wide spectrum. Let each be allowed to become the best according to the cards dealt him/her. Only ethics of the Golden Rule variety---the kind of ethics innate to human nature, an ethics based on logic, needs discipline. Most everyone really does understand the Golden Rule and therefore right from wrong---- now all that is needed in our development period is an environment where this example is practiced by those around us. Parenting by example is the closest generalization one can make about parenting. Circling the wagons, embracing the modern version of 'family values', and wrapping a genetic family enclave in some kind of political, religious, cultural, or national cocoon is hardly the makings of enlightened or contented human adult.
I have worked with young people my whole life and I can't really pinpoint what constitutes good parenting. What works for one child fails with another. But I think, at least for the most part, whatever method used, it can't be stifling, can't be suffocating a child from reality or diversity or risk. Much of what is now called 'family values' is nothing more than putting mental braces and confined spaces on children. Many young people today haven't really experienced hardly anything except via a computer. The social fabric of our society is becoming less and less existent and replaced by informational overload from computers and gadgets of all sorts. I date myself here, but people don't think much anymore, they just process endless amounts of entertainment type information, way too much to be processed in any meaningful way by our minds. When I was young there was endless time to think, there was no other choice, and you spent far more time interacting with real people, and by necessity had the time to think about so many of the intangible things of life. Maybe I go overboard because I enjoy thinking about life and people and bigger pictures of human existence. I enjoy others, but not in my face all the time---there are certain activities for which I value company and interaction, but many of my 'free moments' are spent doing things by myself. When you are by yourself you observe more, you process information more thoroughly. If I go to a museum or wander in nature I prefer to go by myself, get totally absorbed in the experience and think over what I am seeing and experiencing. It seems to relax me and make me feel more contented about life in general. If too much of my own life is dependent on the vagaries of others, then conflict and tension impinge on contentment. When younger, all that pestiferous stuff is necessary. When one is retired it is time to let all of that stuff go, ride gently down the stream, enjoy the show, revel in the appreciation for all the good times in your life, buckle your seatbelt for the impending deterioration of your health, and be a nuisance to no one---that means be independent not a burden or pest to those in their productive years. Modern medicine makes it possible to be a drag on others for decade after decade. Perhaps the day is coming when each person can control their own dying process, decide for themselves when enough is enough, and in the knowledge that they can control their own dying process, lose their fear of death. There is no need for death to be a long process of physical or mental torture, or even years of mental oblivion. The way some people are made to die, against their wishes, makes water boarding look relatively benign.
Cautionary Note: None of the above is based on being a parent myself. It is based solely on observations---in retrospect---on my youth, and on observing the thousands of students over my career. Students often talked about family situations and after a while you gain insight into parenting. Even with all this insight I don't think I could ever have been a good parent, unless the child was of a certain nature. Therein lies the conundrum---a parent who could be an excellent parent with certain genetically endowed children are often a terrible parent with differently endowed children. There is no one way to teach; there is no one way to parent. Somehow a way to mix the personal nature of the particular parent with the personal nature of the particular child has to be found. If my own parents failed, it was not my fault, I tried to raise them right and used to tell others that. The truth is, from direct observation, that some of the best kids come from the worst parental environments, and some of the worst kids come the best parental environments. What did seem evident as a generalization is that kids raised in a suffocating, rigid, parental environment seemed to stand out in college as insensitive to others, aloof from others, way too serious minded, extremely judgmental, and seldom mixed well with other students. They never seemed comfortable outside the coccoon within which they were raised. And worst, they are filled with a lot of anger. Unable to accept diversity in others they can only find comfort isolating themselves from others. I just don't think this is a good thing, and by the time they are in their late teens it is mostly too late for them to change. Parenting is one of those topics where the more you learn, the less you know for sure. It is like bowling, you may aim for the best, but the results, with the best of bowlers, can sometimes be disastrous. And like bowling, after you take your best shots, you can't take them over again.
I was looking last night at pictures on the wall of my most admired Americans in history. I thought about O'bama being compared to Lincoln. I thought about the people in my life who I admire and relate to the best. I thought about my many years as a teacher and the students who stood out above the rest as successful, well rounded, emotionally stable and socially adept individuals. And as I am inclined by nature to do, I searched for some common thread that pushed them to the top of these lists. How do the young evolve to be somebody others admire?
It certainly isn't wealth. Most wealth is acquired either through inheritance or an obsession with money as an end unto itself. Of course there are some, if few, exceptions. It certainly isn't fame since fame as a life objective breeds most often an overpowering suffocation of attention. It certainly isn't intelligence as measured by test scores or IQ. Some of the people I admire the most, and some of the most contented people I have known, are, kindly put, intellectually challenged.
It seems the most common thread is a self-made success wrapped in social consciousness. This breeds empathy and trust. I suppose one could say most of my 'heroes' started with little, had the good fortune to be healthy, and had the freedom for self development in an environment which was conducive to self development. I can't seem to find a lot of real success stories from those overprotected, over-controlled, over managed in their youth. It just seems, I am sure with some exceptions, that those parents who run the tightest of ships, stifle the potential of their victims. The intentions of such parents are just the opposite of the result, and too often reflect an obsession with molding their offspring according to their own needs and shortcomings. Parental control freaks unintentionally create lifelong handicaps for their children.
Science has taught us, over the years, that mental development is mostly settled by the late teens. I remember once, years ago when I was taking this Methods course for teaching science, and the Professor asked me what was the best method for teaching a certain concept. My reply got me a C or D for the course (have forgotten which) because I stated there was no best method. He went through the roof and asked just what I though he had been trying to teach us all semester. He then asked me upon just what basis would I make such a statement. My reply was that if I listed the top ten best teachers I have had in my life, they all pretty much had their own peculiar methods of teaching. And I still believe that. Interestingly, that Professor went on sabbatical the following semester when I practice taught and another professor took his place. When I showed up at my assigned high school the teacher of the class told me I would start in a week when he finished the unit he was on. He told me not to come there while he taught so as not to be influenced by his own method of teaching. That made me nervous as I assumed I better teach his way or my grade would be in trouble. Anyway, I got an A for a grade and when the sabbatical Professor returned he gave his replacement Professor hell for the grade I received. Sometimes in life you just get lucky. I only taught high school for like 2 or three years but it was helpful to me for the subsequent years of college teaching.
My dad and mother were a contrast in parenting. My mother, if she could, would have micromanaged my whole young life. My father was hands off and believed parenting was simply an exercise in leading by example. As a consequence he didn't swear, drink, smoke, gamble, engage in adultery, mistreat anyone, lie, swindle, and oh boy was it an irritant to have a father be such a goody two shoes. Yet his attitude gave me the kind of freedom to mingle with just about anyone, experience all kinds of situations, make endless mistakes with my own behavior, and yet, from it all, my own unique potentials were free to develop. Over time, in endless ways, I was able to learn, via comparison, right from wrong, good people from bad people, appreciate diversity, and draw a good measure of comparison reguarding which people, behaving which ways, were the happiest and most pleasant to be around. So for me, my dad's method was perfect for my own development.
Still, and this is the sad clinker here---what method works for one may not work for another. The method which worked for me didn't really work for my brother and he resented my dad for the rest of his life. To my brother, if my dad had done this or that or whatever his own life would have turned out different. Maybe, how can I know? Parents probably should realize that genetics sets potential, not parents. So all the determination in the world cannot make somebody something they are not. Human worth has a wide spectrum. Let each be allowed to become the best according to the cards dealt him/her. Only ethics of the Golden Rule variety---the kind of ethics innate to human nature, an ethics based on logic, needs discipline. Most everyone really does understand the Golden Rule and therefore right from wrong---- now all that is needed in our development period is an environment where this example is practiced by those around us. Parenting by example is the closest generalization one can make about parenting. Circling the wagons, embracing the modern version of 'family values', and wrapping a genetic family enclave in some kind of political, religious, cultural, or national cocoon is hardly the makings of enlightened or contented human adult.
I have worked with young people my whole life and I can't really pinpoint what constitutes good parenting. What works for one child fails with another. But I think, at least for the most part, whatever method used, it can't be stifling, can't be suffocating a child from reality or diversity or risk. Much of what is now called 'family values' is nothing more than putting mental braces and confined spaces on children. Many young people today haven't really experienced hardly anything except via a computer. The social fabric of our society is becoming less and less existent and replaced by informational overload from computers and gadgets of all sorts. I date myself here, but people don't think much anymore, they just process endless amounts of entertainment type information, way too much to be processed in any meaningful way by our minds. When I was young there was endless time to think, there was no other choice, and you spent far more time interacting with real people, and by necessity had the time to think about so many of the intangible things of life. Maybe I go overboard because I enjoy thinking about life and people and bigger pictures of human existence. I enjoy others, but not in my face all the time---there are certain activities for which I value company and interaction, but many of my 'free moments' are spent doing things by myself. When you are by yourself you observe more, you process information more thoroughly. If I go to a museum or wander in nature I prefer to go by myself, get totally absorbed in the experience and think over what I am seeing and experiencing. It seems to relax me and make me feel more contented about life in general. If too much of my own life is dependent on the vagaries of others, then conflict and tension impinge on contentment. When younger, all that pestiferous stuff is necessary. When one is retired it is time to let all of that stuff go, ride gently down the stream, enjoy the show, revel in the appreciation for all the good times in your life, buckle your seatbelt for the impending deterioration of your health, and be a nuisance to no one---that means be independent not a burden or pest to those in their productive years. Modern medicine makes it possible to be a drag on others for decade after decade. Perhaps the day is coming when each person can control their own dying process, decide for themselves when enough is enough, and in the knowledge that they can control their own dying process, lose their fear of death. There is no need for death to be a long process of physical or mental torture, or even years of mental oblivion. The way some people are made to die, against their wishes, makes water boarding look relatively benign.
Cautionary Note: None of the above is based on being a parent myself. It is based solely on observations---in retrospect---on my youth, and on observing the thousands of students over my career. Students often talked about family situations and after a while you gain insight into parenting. Even with all this insight I don't think I could ever have been a good parent, unless the child was of a certain nature. Therein lies the conundrum---a parent who could be an excellent parent with certain genetically endowed children are often a terrible parent with differently endowed children. There is no one way to teach; there is no one way to parent. Somehow a way to mix the personal nature of the particular parent with the personal nature of the particular child has to be found. If my own parents failed, it was not my fault, I tried to raise them right and used to tell others that. The truth is, from direct observation, that some of the best kids come from the worst parental environments, and some of the worst kids come the best parental environments. What did seem evident as a generalization is that kids raised in a suffocating, rigid, parental environment seemed to stand out in college as insensitive to others, aloof from others, way too serious minded, extremely judgmental, and seldom mixed well with other students. They never seemed comfortable outside the coccoon within which they were raised. And worst, they are filled with a lot of anger. Unable to accept diversity in others they can only find comfort isolating themselves from others. I just don't think this is a good thing, and by the time they are in their late teens it is mostly too late for them to change. Parenting is one of those topics where the more you learn, the less you know for sure. It is like bowling, you may aim for the best, but the results, with the best of bowlers, can sometimes be disastrous. And like bowling, after you take your best shots, you can't take them over again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)