I'd totally have my graduate work planned out. Anyway, I would love to see this done, perhaps it already has been done, in which case, if you know of it -- point me in that direction.
I'm skeptical of Freed-Hardeman University, a little Church of Christ college in Henderson, TN. Any place whose philosophy major is roughly the same as a Bible major and does not appear to have room to seriously consider atheist arguments, and where discussing sex roles in marriage from a "Biblical" perspective is confused with actual sociology is going to result in Metra raising her eyebrows. And, you can guess the thoughts that ran through my mind while reading that women Bible majors "may" substitute a course called "The Christian Woman" or "Teaching the Bible to Children" for the sermon prep class for all them preacher boys. But I know a lot of people who have degrees from Freed and are quite competent in their fields. (Of course, they're a generation or two ahead of me and things might have changed for the worse as they did with the CofC private school in Columbia.)
Anyway, there's only so much of a sense of a college's academic rigor that one can get from perusing catalogs. What I want to see is someone, preferably agnostic, atheist, or undefinably strange embedded at Freed taking notes on classes. What's taught? How it's taught? Is there actual room for dissent and discussion? Do poli sci classes manage to spend more time discussing Romans 13 than the US Constitution? (Ok, that was Harding, where I had the heart-warming experience of being a pro-stud courtesy of my mother's misguided attempts to save my soul.)
I mean, seriously, I want to know what they teach in their "Muslim Evangelism" course. Given the number of complete misunderstanding of Islam floating about the CofC, I really want to know. And does the department actually think that offering only on course on non-Christian religions (barring Muslim Evangelism) is really going to leave any of their students with any understanding. And it gets better, "Teaching the Bible to Children" is for women only -- because obviously none of the men are going to be interested in doing lowly women's work. Gotta enforce that hierarchy even when there's no possible Biblical justification. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why any serious Bible major wouldn't want to take the senior seminar -- women again "may" substitute one of the women-only classes. I have a feeling that "may" actually means, must. But I don't really know, you see.
Besides, there would be other nuances that I couldn't even get from calling up the registrar and demanding to know what "may" actually means there. Like student attitudes, and what attitudes the college fosters. Are folk there capable of actually responding to criticism or do they stick their proverbial fingers in their ears and chant? I'm really quite curious. This is the stuff you need to be a participant observer to understand.
Basically, I want to know how a fundamentalist educational institution functions. What are the unstated goals and how do their achieve them? The effects of isolation on the student body? And their are perhaps better targets -- maybe BJU or Liberty -- but heck, FHU is my own personal morbid fascination. Besides Bob Jones and Liberty are overtly insane. Freed has the advantage of being a little more subtle. Maybe you could get away with something a little less in depth and get the necessary information. A documentary, like the Jesus Camp one I should probably try watching to Louis Theroux's documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church. (Warning, the video linked to is highly disturbing and flat-out sickening at points.)
And, yeah, I'd be the wrong person to do this. I'm not a good enough actor to keep from picking fights. (Although, you see, you'd want to pick some fight at some point to see how they respond.) And that whole, infiltrating the boy's club would be even more difficult for Metra. Maybe Dimitri could do it -- fake a Russian accent or something and hope no one notices I'm a rather high tenor.
So, yeah, any sociology folks out there looking for a project?
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The Recommended Reading of the Day
Fearlessvk has a thought provoking post on state policies regarding racial discrimination in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. A breakdown of the "colorblind constitution" attitude and how it just doesn't reflect the reality of the situation and how simply calling an end to racism and segregation by the state is inadequate to addressing the problems.
Using this logic to examine school integration specifically, the problem with Justice Roberts' dictum becomes especially clear. Why is it that, 53 years after Brown, many school systems are still heavily segregated by race? Legal segregation has been dismantled; no states any longer require separate schools by race. Yet separate schools by race endure, not as a result of state policy but instead as a result of demographic changes. As the move outward into suburbs has been at first overwhelmingly and then predominantly white, the racial composition of school districts has reflected the resulting residential patterns of segregation, and we have seen urban schools effectively become black schools while suburban schools have effectively become white schools. The "whiteness" of suburban schools has declined in some (but not all) areas due to increasing numbers of blacks and other minorities moving to the suburbs, but even in such areas the schools left behind in the cities often hover around 98% black student populations. Because of the state action doctrine, this resegregation poses no constitutional problems - it has not been mandated by the state, but rather driven by private decisions about where to live.The rest is also worthwhile reading.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
A Recognition
It would do wonders for my blood pressure to stop reading discussion on the CofC board. I mean, wonders. It would probably also be healthier for cinder block walls everywhere.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Silence and All Submission
Inspired by Renegade Evolution's question: "Does ones documentation of their lives, experiences, and mistreatment at the hands of others lead to silencing?" But deviating more or less substantially, because I was pleasantly tipsy whilst composing this.
I think I've mentioned I've only had one formal "women's studies" class before. And that some of the readings/discussions made me feel like clawing my eyes out. The lockstep, "you will believe this or you aren't one of us" vibe wasn't ringing true in Metra's ear. The tone of "how dare you think something different, that makes you a threat, and quite possibly a helper in the oppression, especially if you claim we are ignoring/inadvertently damaging you" -- yeah, I wasn't buying. Anyone who thinks that simply because a person disagrees with one, that person is attempting (or somehow magically managing) to silence one -- BS! (By the way, I think the same thing about the Creationists whining that they are being censored by the academic community.)
Not that there isn't such a thing as being silenced. It happens frequently. But it seems to me at least, that to be silenced requires that who have considerably more physical or perhaps social force directed against one.
I don't know fully what it means to be silenced because I was born into a family of oddballs who just live in the marginal of 'Shire society and do their own thing and have been doing so for more than a hundred years. So while I learned that the church would treat me differently from the boys and not let me led songs or speak, I was also reassured by virtually everyone within my family that while the Cathey's Creek CofC elders might think that, it wasn't actually true -- just play along and then think what you want to think anyway. And, I spent much/most of my formative years with my spinster great aunt who was known for wearing pants to church and removing snakes that had crawled into the building when the menfolk were too scared or too slow to do it, so maybe I didn't even have to play along all that much. But I am still trying to explain to my family that there are massive differences between the experience my father (who remained within the CofC) had and the experience I have. The most salient one -- he was actually permitted formal and public speech. And when one congregation stripped him of that right, he could in fact find another congregation that continued to recognize that. Conversely, I was forbidden to speak (or really act independently) in the public forum of worship even after I had well passed the age at which my male peers were invited (or in some cases dragged) into it. And, I bet that there are a number of people who would justifiably laugh out loud at my declaration of knowing something about being silenced. Because this is a silencing extremely limited in scope.
But, because the scope was limited, I know the difference being being forbidden to speak and being allowed to speak but vehemently disagreed with. I had a few forums in the old CofC. Limited, yes, but I loved the preacher at the congregation we were at (and actually, the youth minister too) because I knew that I could speak with them in private and they would both take me seriously. They might not understand, and they probably wouldn't agree, but both would have allowed me to have my opinion. I could and would speak in some of the classes (they ain't worship after all). This, actually, was why I was ostracized by the my peers, accused of not having a heart, and interrogated on my sexuality at the tender age of fourteen (which considering I still don't really have one thanks to year upon years of repression, makes me giggle). Oh, and that whole, going to hell/oh, you'll just grow out of this thing. But the fact is, none of that was silencing even though the goal was to persuade me to change my mind or at the very least, to stop raising cain. Yes, it was discouraging but not silencing.
Silencing was the fact that I was forbidden to speak at any official service. Silencing was the fact that I suspect that if I have ever gathered up the courage to stand up in the middle of a service and explain why I was firmly convinced that points x, y, and z were very wrong, I would have from my little self escorted out by several burly deacons. In that forum, I was -- in fact -- coerced into silence. The threat of being physically prevented from speaking was there. I would be silent, and I would submit, or else I would be made to do so. And to tell the truth -- compared to the much greater forces exerted around the world on numerous people to keep their mouths shut -- that is such a watered down form of coercion that it is like unto nothing. No one would have broken my jaw or tried to kill me, and I could walk away.
While the other tactics used to instill or create cooperation amongst the youth or females (peer pressure, discounting opinions, the threat of going to hell for eternity, God's supposed phallus) were attempts to minimize disagreement/free thought, they were something very different. None of those had the power, ultimately, to prevent me from speaking. Even being accused of being an evil influence on my sister and being responsible for her not being saved isn't silencing. Annoying as everything, but the only way those tactics could actually shut me up was if I allowed them to get under my skin. And then the people who would listen to what my opinion was and then reply with the reasons why they thought differently -- well, I've never had a problem with them. Some disagreeing with my speech does nothing to silence me or even encourage silence on my part.
The badly made point is, it takes a heck of a lot more than someone disagreeing with your opinions or your actions -- or even outright mocking what you have said or done as sheer foolishness, stupidity, or bigotry -- before you have actually been silenced. A gun to the head, the possibility of being taken down physically, the threat of stoning, deprivation of liberty, physical violence, starvation in the streets, being thrown out of your community into the desert -- these can all legitimately be called silencing. Just being told you're a flaming idiot, whether rightly or wrongly, or that you have mistreated others -- nope, that is not being silenced.
I think I've mentioned I've only had one formal "women's studies" class before. And that some of the readings/discussions made me feel like clawing my eyes out. The lockstep, "you will believe this or you aren't one of us" vibe wasn't ringing true in Metra's ear. The tone of "how dare you think something different, that makes you a threat, and quite possibly a helper in the oppression, especially if you claim we are ignoring/inadvertently damaging you" -- yeah, I wasn't buying. Anyone who thinks that simply because a person disagrees with one, that person is attempting (or somehow magically managing) to silence one -- BS! (By the way, I think the same thing about the Creationists whining that they are being censored by the academic community.)
Not that there isn't such a thing as being silenced. It happens frequently. But it seems to me at least, that to be silenced requires that who have considerably more physical or perhaps social force directed against one.
I don't know fully what it means to be silenced because I was born into a family of oddballs who just live in the marginal of 'Shire society and do their own thing and have been doing so for more than a hundred years. So while I learned that the church would treat me differently from the boys and not let me led songs or speak, I was also reassured by virtually everyone within my family that while the Cathey's Creek CofC elders might think that, it wasn't actually true -- just play along and then think what you want to think anyway. And, I spent much/most of my formative years with my spinster great aunt who was known for wearing pants to church and removing snakes that had crawled into the building when the menfolk were too scared or too slow to do it, so maybe I didn't even have to play along all that much. But I am still trying to explain to my family that there are massive differences between the experience my father (who remained within the CofC) had and the experience I have. The most salient one -- he was actually permitted formal and public speech. And when one congregation stripped him of that right, he could in fact find another congregation that continued to recognize that. Conversely, I was forbidden to speak (or really act independently) in the public forum of worship even after I had well passed the age at which my male peers were invited (or in some cases dragged) into it. And, I bet that there are a number of people who would justifiably laugh out loud at my declaration of knowing something about being silenced. Because this is a silencing extremely limited in scope.
But, because the scope was limited, I know the difference being being forbidden to speak and being allowed to speak but vehemently disagreed with. I had a few forums in the old CofC. Limited, yes, but I loved the preacher at the congregation we were at (and actually, the youth minister too) because I knew that I could speak with them in private and they would both take me seriously. They might not understand, and they probably wouldn't agree, but both would have allowed me to have my opinion. I could and would speak in some of the classes (they ain't worship after all). This, actually, was why I was ostracized by the my peers, accused of not having a heart, and interrogated on my sexuality at the tender age of fourteen (which considering I still don't really have one thanks to year upon years of repression, makes me giggle). Oh, and that whole, going to hell/oh, you'll just grow out of this thing. But the fact is, none of that was silencing even though the goal was to persuade me to change my mind or at the very least, to stop raising cain. Yes, it was discouraging but not silencing.
Silencing was the fact that I was forbidden to speak at any official service. Silencing was the fact that I suspect that if I have ever gathered up the courage to stand up in the middle of a service and explain why I was firmly convinced that points x, y, and z were very wrong, I would have from my little self escorted out by several burly deacons. In that forum, I was -- in fact -- coerced into silence. The threat of being physically prevented from speaking was there. I would be silent, and I would submit, or else I would be made to do so. And to tell the truth -- compared to the much greater forces exerted around the world on numerous people to keep their mouths shut -- that is such a watered down form of coercion that it is like unto nothing. No one would have broken my jaw or tried to kill me, and I could walk away.
While the other tactics used to instill or create cooperation amongst the youth or females (peer pressure, discounting opinions, the threat of going to hell for eternity, God's supposed phallus) were attempts to minimize disagreement/free thought, they were something very different. None of those had the power, ultimately, to prevent me from speaking. Even being accused of being an evil influence on my sister and being responsible for her not being saved isn't silencing. Annoying as everything, but the only way those tactics could actually shut me up was if I allowed them to get under my skin. And then the people who would listen to what my opinion was and then reply with the reasons why they thought differently -- well, I've never had a problem with them. Some disagreeing with my speech does nothing to silence me or even encourage silence on my part.
The badly made point is, it takes a heck of a lot more than someone disagreeing with your opinions or your actions -- or even outright mocking what you have said or done as sheer foolishness, stupidity, or bigotry -- before you have actually been silenced. A gun to the head, the possibility of being taken down physically, the threat of stoning, deprivation of liberty, physical violence, starvation in the streets, being thrown out of your community into the desert -- these can all legitimately be called silencing. Just being told you're a flaming idiot, whether rightly or wrongly, or that you have mistreated others -- nope, that is not being silenced.
A Militantly Agnostic Gnostic, or Everything's an Opinion
I don't know and you don't either.
"Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing." Socrates
For some unknown reason, I lurk on a couple of CofC discussion boards of Facebook. (My justification is that occasionally someone had to jump in a remind folk that there's more than one way to skin a cat or read a Bible.) Anyway, on a fairly regular basis someone will bring up the difference between personal opinions and the supposedly cold hard facts of scripture. At this point, I might read one or two comments in the threads then decide that I'm putting too many dents in the desk and ignore the thread. (My tolerance is inversely proportional to the number of people incapable of typing whole words with appropriate use of capital letters.)
I've yet to see an argument providing objective, non-circular proof for a reading of the Bible as the literal, final, and inerrant Word of God. And I've heard plenty. There is, of course, the classic Second Timothy citation: "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (3:16). I figured out at some point in high school that using that verse made no sense at all. First of all, Paul or Pseudo-Paul couldn't have been referring to the modern canon of the New Testament or even the modern canon of the Old Testament. Besides, any text could claim to be the word of God. Heck, I could claim to be speaking the word (version K, after versions A-J weren't sufficient) -- that would NOT mean that I actually am speaking the word of God. My sister just reported a similarly circular statement, "We know the Bible is true because Jesus is God." Really now?
Then, there's the archaeological, historical confirmation nonsense. First, I would like to make the point that just because a text has it's historical duckies in a row does not mean that it's interpretation of those facts is correct. Other historical records from the Ancient Near East do confirm a sizable percentage of the battles from the historical books. Of course, this means the Bible confirms those historical records -- so which interpretation of events is right? Was the Israelite army obliterated because the Israelites had angered YHWH, or because the gods of the invading group was more powerful than YHWH? Both claims are made by texts with their historical ducks (dates, places, etc.) in order. Further, there's archaeological evidence for other ancient text once believed to be pure fiction. The location of Troy was discovered by a zealous fan of Homer using the descriptions in the Odyssey -- obviously, therefore, we must also accept the theological claims of the Odyssey. I'm all for Artemis and plan to take up silver-smithing in her honor -- it goes along with m'name, you see.
Point is, none of these proofs are objective. Circular reasoning is just that, and the fact that portions of the Bible can be historically verified says nothing about the legitimacy of the interpretations and theological claims made. People choose to accept or not to accept the authority of the Bible -- that in and of itself is an opinion.
In high school I got into an argument with two Bible class teachers (I know, hardly a fair fight). It finally got around to one of the teachers in exasperation telling me that I just had to have faith that the Bible was literally true about whatever it was we were arguing about. That's great, I said, but I have faith that X (where x equals God gave me the same rights as the boys, or there's more than one way to God, etc.) is true and the Bible is wrong. You don't have to agree with me on X, but why isn't my faith as good as yours?
And that's the thing. Everything is, to one extent or another, an opinion even if you cite some outside source because humans make choices as to what they will regard as an authority. The Bible is not an objective authority because people have to choose or not choose to recognize it has authoritative. Most of these choices can be amply justified by subjective evidence specific to each individuals unique experience. I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't believe the Bible; I will tell them that they shouldn't expect everyone else on the planet to agree with them.
"Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing." Socrates
For some unknown reason, I lurk on a couple of CofC discussion boards of Facebook. (My justification is that occasionally someone had to jump in a remind folk that there's more than one way to skin a cat or read a Bible.) Anyway, on a fairly regular basis someone will bring up the difference between personal opinions and the supposedly cold hard facts of scripture. At this point, I might read one or two comments in the threads then decide that I'm putting too many dents in the desk and ignore the thread. (My tolerance is inversely proportional to the number of people incapable of typing whole words with appropriate use of capital letters.)
I've yet to see an argument providing objective, non-circular proof for a reading of the Bible as the literal, final, and inerrant Word of God. And I've heard plenty. There is, of course, the classic Second Timothy citation: "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (3:16). I figured out at some point in high school that using that verse made no sense at all. First of all, Paul or Pseudo-Paul couldn't have been referring to the modern canon of the New Testament or even the modern canon of the Old Testament. Besides, any text could claim to be the word of God. Heck, I could claim to be speaking the word (version K, after versions A-J weren't sufficient) -- that would NOT mean that I actually am speaking the word of God. My sister just reported a similarly circular statement, "We know the Bible is true because Jesus is God." Really now?
Then, there's the archaeological, historical confirmation nonsense. First, I would like to make the point that just because a text has it's historical duckies in a row does not mean that it's interpretation of those facts is correct. Other historical records from the Ancient Near East do confirm a sizable percentage of the battles from the historical books. Of course, this means the Bible confirms those historical records -- so which interpretation of events is right? Was the Israelite army obliterated because the Israelites had angered YHWH, or because the gods of the invading group was more powerful than YHWH? Both claims are made by texts with their historical ducks (dates, places, etc.) in order. Further, there's archaeological evidence for other ancient text once believed to be pure fiction. The location of Troy was discovered by a zealous fan of Homer using the descriptions in the Odyssey -- obviously, therefore, we must also accept the theological claims of the Odyssey. I'm all for Artemis and plan to take up silver-smithing in her honor -- it goes along with m'name, you see.
Point is, none of these proofs are objective. Circular reasoning is just that, and the fact that portions of the Bible can be historically verified says nothing about the legitimacy of the interpretations and theological claims made. People choose to accept or not to accept the authority of the Bible -- that in and of itself is an opinion.
In high school I got into an argument with two Bible class teachers (I know, hardly a fair fight). It finally got around to one of the teachers in exasperation telling me that I just had to have faith that the Bible was literally true about whatever it was we were arguing about. That's great, I said, but I have faith that X (where x equals God gave me the same rights as the boys, or there's more than one way to God, etc.) is true and the Bible is wrong. You don't have to agree with me on X, but why isn't my faith as good as yours?
And that's the thing. Everything is, to one extent or another, an opinion even if you cite some outside source because humans make choices as to what they will regard as an authority. The Bible is not an objective authority because people have to choose or not choose to recognize it has authoritative. Most of these choices can be amply justified by subjective evidence specific to each individuals unique experience. I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't believe the Bible; I will tell them that they shouldn't expect everyone else on the planet to agree with them.
I have an Itchy Foot
And, I've totally been on Voldemort's side for quite some time. Surprised, aren't cha?
So what will happen at the end of the Harry Potter saga? J.K. Rowlings will have the time to do crazy things, like actually revise her manuscripts before they are rushed to publication? Do I really remember what happened at the end of the last book? Nope, other than Dumbledore died, outliving my prediction of his demise by an entire book. Do I really care what happens at the end of this one? I'll read it anyway.
But, I suspect the pleasure I got from this Salon article on possible ends for the saga of the boy-wizard will be greater than whatever joy I will extract from the book after the little brother is finished with it. Maybe I can beat him with it in vengeance for having misplaced my Philip Pullman.
So what will happen at the end of the Harry Potter saga? J.K. Rowlings will have the time to do crazy things, like actually revise her manuscripts before they are rushed to publication? Do I really remember what happened at the end of the last book? Nope, other than Dumbledore died, outliving my prediction of his demise by an entire book. Do I really care what happens at the end of this one? I'll read it anyway.
But, I suspect the pleasure I got from this Salon article on possible ends for the saga of the boy-wizard will be greater than whatever joy I will extract from the book after the little brother is finished with it. Maybe I can beat him with it in vengeance for having misplaced my Philip Pullman.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Oh, yeah, Happy July 4
You know, I like these. Wouldn't it be nice if the government actually paid some attention to them? I know, dream on. From here.
Amendment I
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
