Name Pending

Obama, faith, and the public square

Look at the below quote taken from a speech from Senator Obama. I don't know what I think about the current political race, so while I will refrain from that discussion, I will say that I think Obama is right when it comes to faith and the public square. It is important to know that there is no way to keep your faith out of how you operate in public. When people say that one should not bring there faith into the public, what they really mean is that the only faith-view allowed in the public is THEIR faith-view, the view that no view is allowed! Why should secularists be the only ones to have their view presented in the public? Because that is the only view that is not biased? No. Because we won't have a common vocabulary unless we keep faith out? But the secular view is a faith-view, with its own vocabulary. Therefore, hearing Obama's quote is refreshing to hear when it comes to dialog because hopefully it means more people can come to the table to discuss the good, the true, and the beautiful in the public sphere.

Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Is America's suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare? - CNN.com


This is a good summary article about basic trends we are seeing in America when it comes to communities and living situations. The article points to both "good" and "bad" consequences of revived downtown communities based on the New Urbanism. Essentially, America is becoming much more like the rest of the world- with the well-to-do living downtown, and the not-so-well to do living on the outskirts of cities. We are not there yet, but we are moving in that direction.

This Op-Ed piece from the WSJ, while I don't know about its application to the modern situation in Iran, does have some interesting insights into the how modern people, who believe people are "basically good" have a hard time seeing "evil." That is, if you assume people are good from the onset, one will make every excuse for world events except the obvious. The case in point used is the Holocaust. Good read.

In the words of jay-z, HOV is back. Well, alternate modes of transportation are back and surging under the high gas prices and overall popularization of sustainability.

Some articles to read that make this point:

Coping with Gas Prices: NPR

Travelers turn to public transit: washington post

Phoenix rediscovers the wheel in the bike: arizona republic

The Betrayal of Judas - ChronicleReview.com

An interesting, albeit long, article noting some of the inner workings of what goes on today in academia when it it just as important to make money as it is to produce "scholarship." There are many other books written about how academia is suffering from the money-making machine called the university. Here the "bad guy" is National Geographic. I concur with the articles' dubious designation of the scholars implicated within. The English translation of the Gospel of Judas was misleading and poorly written. See the article for more details.

Can Money Buy Happiness? — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

This is a thoughtful piece about the correlation between happiness and money. There is something to money and happiness, but its overrated to a degree. The author ends the article by stating that capitalism is the best means to bring happiness into society (which i don't know what i think about this still), but then notes that capitalism only works if "honest" and "fairness" are at play (see the quote below). My question is: how do you get people to be honest and fair, when the market system is designed for people to "win at all cost?" That is, if the system works against the ideas of honesty and fairness, how do you instill these values into the populous? You can't just tell people, "Behave!" What will keep people moral if the the production of material (capitalism) seems to be the highest good. Or better put, if happiness is the highest good (not that i am saying it is), and capitalism is the way to get to this highest good, how do you get people to be honest and moral in the process of achieving this highest good? There has to be, I think, another value system beyond just capitalism...


Quote:

The fact that money doesn’t buy happiness is no indictment of capitalism. On the contrary, capitalism is the best system to allow people to succeed on their merits in the economy—and we know that it is success that truly does bring happiness. Capitalism, moored in proper values of honesty and fairness, is a key to our gross national happiness, and we should defend it vigorously.

I am not yet ready to take sides in the upcoming presidential election, but this David Brooks piece highlights an aspect of America that has bug me for a while. America is going to pass a $307 billion farm bill that will give HUGE benefits to a few American farmers at the cost of the rest of the world's farmers. In essence much of American produce will be bought by the American government at a price that is much higher then market rates. This then takes away money that could be given to those trying to make a living elsewhere in the world, so a few rich farmers (comparatively speaking) here in America can make it. Isn't this a social justice issue? Way aren't Christians getting up in arms about this? I see this to be a much bigger deal then many. After reading the article (regardless of the implications on the presidential race) I understand a little more why so much of the world dislikes us. I tend to agree. Isn't this a problem?


Quote:

Obama’s vote may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa.

Article Link

The Drudge Report has this article posted about a new Jewish Prayer book being published in Britain with non-masculine references to God. To be sure it comes from the Reform Jewish movement which is trying to be contextual with its Scriptures.

Whereas I am all about being contextual with the Bible, the fact is, in Hebrew, there are 3 gender distinctions for words- masculine, feminine, and neuter. While some words for God are in the neuter- many more are in the masculine. If God wanted himself to be revealed in only the neuter he would have, but he chose the masculine form too (not because it is in any way superior to the feminine). As such, we can make the Scriptures more understandable, but we probably should not change gender distinctions.

For Christians, this is a translation issue as well. The TNIV (Today's New International Version) has gone with more gender neutral language. I understand the rationale, but I disagree.

In today's Op-Ed section of the NY Times David Brooks wrote a piece about the cultural movement of society. I found his article to be about spot on.

In a nutshell he says society is moving away from a "militant materialsim" that was pushed by scientists in the past, and moving to more mystical and sacred mentality of the self.

He is right on in saying that humanity is refusing to be known only as the sum total of carbon parts of individuals. Instead, he says, people want a connection with the mystical and the metaphysical.

Brooks also rightly asserts, though, that this new movement is not really leading to people believing in a particular religion necessarily (although as "spirituality" increases overall religiosity will increase as well), but more of a transcendental Buddhism- a general spirituality.

As such as spirituality increases, those who believe in particular doctrine- such as the Bible- will need to be more explanatory with their own religious views. While Brooks mentions he does not take sides in this debate, that he is just the messenger, I still get the feeling he is sympathetic with the neural Buddhists. Regardless, I think this movement is underway.


Quotes:

Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.

This picture illustrates the central discussion of this article. The author uses various studies that show that we all have subconscious implicit biases against those who are different from us. Even Jesse Jackson, friend of Martin Luther King, Jr. says, "than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Jackson shows us that we have ideas that we don't endorse floating around in our subconscious and affect our judgments of others. This is particularly evident in Racism.

We get these biases because we are more familiar with people of our own kind and so we assume the worse on those different from us.
Another example of this in the article is the fatal shooting of Diallo- a black man in 1999 by white New York City Police officers. He was shot at 41 times after they thought he was reaching for a gun when he was really reaching for his wallet to show them his identification. The case is an active example of implicit biases at work.

The article goes on to cite some ways to curb these biases. It notes some obvious, albeit practical steps on could take such as a)early on put children in positive situations with diverse individuals, b) use willpower to actively think against one's biases c) acknowledge one's views and use logic and reason to show how those views are based on assumptions that are unfounded.

It was interesting to see the article note that one could overcome many of these biases through self-awareness and a little pro-active thought. Overall a good read. Quotes Below:

A growing body of work indicates that implicit attitudes do, in fact, contaminate our behavior. Reflexive actions and snap judgments may be especially vulnerable to implicit associations. A number of studies have shown, for instance, that both blacks and whites tend to mistake a harmless object such as a cell phone or hand tool for a gun if a black face accompanies the object. This “weapon bias” is especially strong when people have to judge the situation very quickly.

Seeing targeted groups in more favorable social contexts can help thwart biased attitudes.

In addition, people who report a strong personal motivation to be nonprejudiced tend to harbor less implicit bias. And some studies indicate that people who are good at using logic and willpower to control their more primitive urges, such as trained meditators, exhibit less implicit bias. Brain research suggests that the people who are best at inhibiting implicit stereotypes are those who are especially skilled at detecting mismatches between their intentions and their actions.

Oil hit $120 dollars a barrel yesterday. Goldman says it foresees $150 dollars in the near future and eventually $200 a barrel eventually. I fueled up a couple days ago to the price of $3.85 for regular. I feel the pain. However, at least I have the choice to take the subway. Many people in NYC have this choice, contrary to the congestion pricing opposition arguments, and they are showing microeconomics in motion. People in cities with public transit are voting with their feet. Ridership in DC is up 4%. In NYC 7% and Boston 9%. Tulsa reports that city bus ridership is up 15%. Also, larger vehicle purchases are significantly down. Good right?

Well, all this will mean nothing if we try to bear out this storm and ease the pain to drivers. Instead of giving a horribly disproportionate amount of funds to roads, etc we need to divert the majority into our cities and suburbs for better transit. Moreover, we need to take out the stop plug on our alt energy innovation sector. We use to lead the world in alt energy now we are severely behind in innovation and construction, which has basically lost us thousands of jobs for Americans.

This isn't the cold war, just stick to our guns and let freedom reign. This requires action, not non-action.

Labels: Gas, Oil, Ridership, Transit

This article is a good review of another book coming out looking at the problems of consumerism. It seems to be a book in the same vein of the the 1976 publication The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. It looks like a good read.

This New York Mag article denotes the schism going on in the current atheist camps. Individuals who have implicitly related to each other on the commonality of non-theistic belief are divided about if they should organize more formally. One group thinks that if they organize they will be considered a "religious" group or view on reality. This is in fact true, hence their reluctance. At the same time, if individuals are already finding community by sharing faith assumptions (like the faith assumption that theistic belief is false), even if they have not organized into "churches" they are still operating as such. This is what the other group highlights- that if they have the same views, why not relate formally about these views? If it smells like a faith assumption, looks like one, and acts like one- is it not therefore a view on reality? This article highlights that tension.

i don't know much about the current pope, but this article seems to indicate that he wishes to address the questions of secular society. interesting...

an interesting article from a Jew denoting the fact that multiculturalism is not the winner of respect for people of different views. also noted is the fact that the public square, the market place, cannot be void of varying voices- even religious ones- without being oppressive in some nature. what is needed is not a regulator of these voices, but an ability to let the voices play out with respect. where this respect is located, where it comes from, and why one respects will have to come from an array of reasons as everyone has a different reason to be in the marketplace. see quote below. the writer though, i don't think, has a good foundation for where beauty comes from.

Even before there was multiculturalism, there was respect for human variety and pleasure in it. An open civil space will always be cacophonous. There will be affirmation and alienation, sometimes even within a single individual; and there will be indifference, which is in its way one of the accomplishments of pluralism.

this article quotes a 1997 survey saying 40% of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians believe in a personal God. note, not a distant force, but a personal God.

the article also quotes another survey of just National Academy of Sciences Scientists and less then 10% said they believe in a personal God.

so who is right? i guess it depends on your sample. hmm....

"Should you have to pay to drive on the Capital Beltway -- and on Interstate 270, the George Washington Memorial Parkway and all the bridges that cross the Potomac?

"But if you don't like the idea, don't fire off any angry e-mails just yet. "Road pricing," long the arcane province of a few academics, has become technically feasible and politically at least not unmentionable. But it still generates tremendous suspicion and opposition, and not along the usual left-right dividing lines.

"Just ask Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City. He assembled a coalition of environmentalists, business groups, subway riders and others to back what he called "congestion pricing," an $8 fee he would have charged anyone driving downtown during business hours. The Bush administration offered a $354 million incentive -- or bribe, to opponents -- to be used for public transit if the plan was adopted. But Democrats in the New York legislature killed the proposal a week ago.

....

"Liberals focusing on climate change and smart growth tend to love road pricing. But liberals focusing on social inequities tend to believe that high-income taxpayers should pay for public amenities that are available to everyone.

"The reality is that road pricing is inevitable. It won't be a panacea, and the administration has unfairly burdened a good idea by supporting it while refusing to increase other revenue sources for transportation. The D.C. study showed that road pricing doesn't necessarily solve the revenue problem. Tolls on Maryland's intercounty connector (ICC), for example, should keep traffic flowing, but they won't come close to covering construction costs.

But congestion pricing is working in London, Stockholm and Singapore, and variable-rate tolls are coming to Washington on three projects already: new lanes on part of the Beltway in Virginia, new and converted lanes on Interstates 95 and 395 in Virginia and the entirely new ICC in Maryland. Tyler Duvall, acting U.S. undersecretary for transportation policy, says that technology could enable policies to ease concern about regressiveness; low-income drivers could receive a monthly credit on their windshield transponders."

Labels: Congestion Pricing, Urban Planning

In this article a NYT reporter opens up about his views about the Catholic Church in lieu of the coming visit of the Pope. Not unlike most Americans in their experience of church- whether Catholic or non-Catholic- Dan Barry the reporter highlights his "cafeteria-like approach" to Christianity. That his, he is prone to pick and choose what he will revere, and what not too. He summarizes American spirituality well.