Thank you Me Me, wherever you are

three-quarters empty

A commentary on Yahoo News by a person calling himself or herself “Me Me” was entitled, “Why the Conservative Base Will Always Vote Conservative.” It equates Conservatism with Authoritarianism and lists the following points (with references to Altemeyer; Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993: Robert Altemeyer is a retired professor of Psychology at the University of Manitoba and has written widely on Right-wing Authoritarianism. Haddock, Zanna & Esses references are to a 1993 paper on “Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals.)

Does any of this ring bells for you?

*Authoritarianism…happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal.” (Altemeyer, 2006, p. 2)

*An Authoritarian is “someone who, because of his personality, submits by leaps and bows to his authorities.” (p. 8)

*Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honoured, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians.” (p. 9)

*Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:

1. a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;

2. high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and

3. a high level of conventionalism (believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed ).


*High authoritarians are extremely self-righteous individuals who maintain a strong acceptance of traditional (i.e. Religious) values and norms, possess a general willingness to submit to legitimate authority, and display a general tendency to aggress against others (especially those who threaten their conventional values and norms). They see their own aggressive behaviour as righteous rather than hurtful. (Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993)

Authoritarians believe in traditional gender roles, racial prejudice, negative attitudes toward homosexuals, conservative (fundamental or orthodox) religious values, and are low on openness to experience. They are also extra-punitive toward law breakers. They assign longer jail times for any law breaker (no matter how small the crime), they think the crimes are more serious than most people do, and they find “common criminals” to be highly disgusting and repulsive – it makes them feel glad to be able to punish a perpetrator,

. . . But they go easy on authorities who commit crimes.


Thank you Me Me, whoever you are, for condensing some interesting research on the authoritarian mindset.

Don't Walk Your Dog in Swinglow, Saskatchewan

The burning at the stake of 224 Waldensians in France in 1243.

A copper-plate etching by Jan Luyken

Lately, I've been led to think about the meaning of religious freedom by a number of events, starting with a request from the Mennonite Historical Society of Saskatchewan to review Tongue Screws and Testimonies. In keeping with this current preoccupation, I present here some religious-freedom scenarios . . .

1) The Conga Bonga Church in Swinglow, Saskatchewan believes that the god, Conga Bonga, can only be appeased by animal sacrifice, so they have built a huge furnace into which every member throws a beloved pet on the date of the summer solstice, and the smoke rising is a balm to the nostrils of Conga Bonga, and the faithful are protected from dire tragedy for another year.


2) In Bountiful B.C., a fundamentalist Mormon community believes that polygamy is sanctioned by their faith as a legitimate way of life. The leaders are brought to trial on charges of abuse.


3) “In September, 2008, the Province of Quebec changed the religious education curriculum, requiring all students from first grade to the end of high school to take a course each year entitled, Ethics and Religious Culture. The course surveys all religions, treating Christianity on par with all other religions. No religion is permitted to be presented as more desirable than any other. The course is mandatory for all public and private schools. Even religiously based private schools are not permitted to teach a religion course contradicting Ethics and Religious Culture (Quoted from Canadian Council of Christian Charities release of April 5, 2011).”


“CCCC is asking members and other interested parties to pray that the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada make a decision preserving this religious freedom in Canada (ibid).”


It’s quite certain that the definition of “Freedom of Religion” is going to need some pretty significant discussion and debate in Canada in the future. Cooler heads would say that in a multi-cultural democracy, the public institutions shouldn’t favour one religion over another, hence the abandonment of the Lord’s Prayer and Bible readings in public schools makes democratic sense. There are many, however, who still declare that we are a “Christian Nation” and that newcomers ought to adapt . . . so there. You’ve heard the rhetoric.


We’re prone to see issues as having two poles, and only two. You either ban books, or you don't; you favour nuclear energy or you oppose it; you vote on the left, or on the right; you either have free speech or you don’t; either you have freedom of religion or you have tyranny. We don’t do well with nuances, especially on emotional issues.


Take freedom of religion: there’s no likelihood that animal sacrifice will ever be excused in Canada as a facet of religious freedom. If Swinglow, Saskatchewan and it's worship of Conga Bonga actually existed, would the prosecution of animal sacrifice be an infringement on religious freedom? Whether or not polygamy falls under that right or not has yet to be shown. And in the third case above, I’m not sure CCCC has explained it correctly. To my knowledge, separate schools that teach a specific religion will continue to operate under the protection of the Charter, although they may be required to teach the generic course on world religions as a part of a provincial curriculum if the state requires it for graduation, much as they must teach the Biology course even if it includes the theory of evolution.


Like freedom of the press and freedom of speech, freedom of religion is not on a toggle switch – either off or on. By way of comparison, to say one is against the banning of books is absurd. What people who argue on one side or the other of the book-banning question really mean is that they want a more or less liberal policy regarding acceptable literary content. (If the education system were to introduce a neo-NAZI history text into the curriculum, I would be a book-banner, at least until a defensible case for its introduction had been presented. In general, I favour a liberal content policy where material is classified and the choice of its purchase is left to the reader.)


Likewise where the fundamental freedoms are concerned, we shouldn’t allow our debates to boil down to strident defenses of one or the other pole; there is more merit in seeking together the sweet spot, the compromise that allows every citizen to live life in an environment that feels like justice and fairness have been the bases for legislation. That’s what democracy in a secular state means, in the end.


At election time, it seems especially important that we forego clinging to the poles—and risk real dialogue somewhere closer to the middle.


And then, you might well say, we can look down at our feet and realize that hell really has frozen over!




I'm fed up, by George

Jasper Station

Here’s something new besides Election 2011 for which I may sue somebody. You may have heard it among the thousands of ads we’re exposed to—even while watching the news. “By George . . . it’s George—exclusively at WALMART”

At WALMART, no less. Henceforth, don’t look for me at Sears, The Bay or Work Wearhouse. WALMART has appropriated me for their “exclusive” use. Used to be, classmates in elementary school would taunt me with “Georgie, Porgie, puddin’ ‘n’ pie, kissed the girls and made them cry.” Now I expect I’ll be greeted with “By George . . . it’s George.” How can I and all the other Georges go on after this?

If that isn’t depressing enough, how about the election rhetoric we’re supposed to swallow day after day? My good friend, HS, and I agree. Democracy may be a wonderful ideal, but the way we do it these days, i.e. party-system acrimony, is dumbing down the population. The competition for seats has become the underlying theme, as if it were the world cup of propaganda; the issues are only trotted out as absolutely necessary to support that propaganda. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the competition for sales among the big box chains and our politics, except the retail world may still retain a smidgen of respect for our intelligence, 'by George . . . it’s George' notwithstanding.

CBC interviewed some voters in a car dealership in Northern Alberta the other day. They will all vote for Stephen Harper. One said, “Ah, we’ll probably vote Conservative, and then be ashamed of what we get.” If that doesn’t sum it all up, I don’t know what would. He’s obviously grasped in his own way the absurdity of party politics in our day.

HS suggests that change will never come from the top, and I agree. At any given point, the persons in government see it as a detriment to their interests to effect a change. That’s our Gordian Knot. But I look at Libya, Egypt and Tunisia and realize the other truth that HS iterated forcefully: change has to be forced by the people, by you and me.

So here’s one proposal. A vote strike. Let’s all agree to spoil our ballots, or stay away from the polling stations altogether and back our refusal to participate with a clear message and a bold demonstration that we want a more civilized governance model, and then insist upon it. There would be massive upheaval for a time, but look at Egypt; if you’re serious about change, you have to put some money where your mouth is.

Here’s one example of what we’ve allowed ourselves to become: that debacle we call a “Leaders’ Debate,”—that display of petulance, bad manners and false accusations wants to exclude Elizabeth May because the Greens had no representation in the last parliament. Well excuse me, this isn’t about who GOT elected, but who WILL BE elected! Every Canadian who votes will see a representative of each party on the ballot and will choose among these equals. It is in our power to make Elizabeth May prime minister, and for the leaders currently in office to deny that we have a chance to oust them and choose someone else—say Jack Layton or Elizabeth May—is tantamount to holding the ballot in contempt.

But then, contempt for the people, their parliament and now, their ballot, seems not to be a deterrent politically.
This, too, shall pass. But only if we want it badly enough and exercise some courage.


If you happen to see me this week, don’t greet me with “By George . . . it’s George” or I will take you to WALMART against your will, chain you to the ladies’ wear rack and make you spend a whole day absorbing the ambience of consumerism gone mad. Or I’ll make you sit through the entire leaders’ debate.

Two scenarios specifically designed to prepare us for the rigours of hell.

The substance of things hoped for . . .

Still life #6

“I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief.”
(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/i/immanuel_kant.html#ixzz1HWKiIuSS)

Let me begin by toying for a minute with the quote above from Immanuel Kant:

In the boarding house of my soul, I harboured two tenants; Knowledge and Belief. Belief was resident on the premises first and occupied the big room, but after Knowledge moved in, his need for space kept expanding and he demanded that he be given the big room. Thus ensued a continuous tension in the household and I felt compelled to make a choice. Since Belief was my cousin and was in close harmony with the remaining tenants, I sadly evicted Knowledge and resigned myself to living without him although I had found his dynamism invigorating.   

Obviously I’ve ripped the quotation out of its context, unless you consider the brainyquote website to be a context. Also, it could be interpreted in other ways than through the “boarding house” imagery. It could—by itself—be a lament for having misunderstood that knowledge and belief can dwell together, indeed must dwell together in harmony. And then there’s the whole issue of the meaning of the two slippery words at its core: What is our common understanding of knowledge? What do we mean by belief? Is knowledge a synonym for wisdom? Is belief another word for faith? Definitions of abstract nouns are approximations at best.

I’m pretty sure we all know what the quotation is about, nevertheless. When discovery contradicts belief, a crossroads presents itself. Many choose the road of denial in the assumption that holding on to a belief against all evidence is a virtue. Others turn their backs on their previously-held beliefs, sometimes with great disappointment and dismay. Some seem to have accepted the great conundrums of life with equanimity and confidence.

I don’t believe that earthquakes are shakings of the earth by an angry God. They are the inevitable results of the earth’s brittle crust reacting to the contraction of a gradually-cooling interior of our planet.  Fill a bottle with water, screw down the cap and set it out in a Saskatchewan January night. The bottle will break; earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes will happen. Knowledge tells us why.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).” Maybe we’re just too hung up on the sanctity of “believing.” Faith may be where it’s really at; faith in the sense of “the substance of things hoped for.” I suspect that between expanding knowledge and the kind of faith that hopes, that loves, that is optimistic about a future as yet unseen, there is no conflict.

 No reason why they can’t live amicably in the same house.

Gormley vs Shasko

Still Life 05

Few people will know this, but Larissa Shasko is the leader of the Green Party of Saskatchewan. I know this because she and two party stalwarts stopped in at the Station Arts Centre a few months ago and we had a chat about this and that, after which I wished them luck and gave them my card. I now get their email communications: policy developments, nominations, news, etc.


So I was drawn to a podcast of a guest appearance by Larissa on John Gormley live. Gormley is Saskatchewan’s resident "right-wing" talk show host on Rawlco Radio’s News Talk 650 in Saskatoon, a role that seems to have become a staple fixture in every North American city these days. The subject was nuclear energy. John Gormley is avidly for it; Larissa Shasko is adamantly against it. I’m guessing that no minds were changed by the exchange. Neither was it a very “compelling” subject; Gormley had to work hard to get three people to phone in.


The basic positions are clear: Saskatchewan mines raw uranium and will need energy in the future; it makes obvious economic sense for the province to exploit this resource for energy and medical purposes. On the Green Party side: the problems of safety have not been resolved and we don’t appear to be getting closer to finding, for instance, a safe storage place for spent, radioactive material; at the same time, it diverts us from the real challenge, namely to make advances in solar and wind technology and the reduction of our need for more and more energy.


Two observations: the earthquake and tsunami in Japan raised memories of Chernobyl and although Saskatchewan contains no earthquake-prone fault lines, we all share a fear of the silent, invisible killer that nuclear power plants can’t keep caged with complete certainty. And secondly, economic arguments, compelling as they may be, shouldn’t be as determinant as they seem to have become. Nuclear energy—or any other consequential enterprise, for that matter—has cultural, social, religious, ecological, anthropological, psychological, health, environmental and practical implications as well. Why not argue the nuclear debate from a health point of view, for instance? Surely health is as important to us as economics.


It seems to be the first order of business for our culture—and particularly that portion of it we call the “right wing,”—to strip each decision of every consideration except the economic. If it makes us richer, it must be good.


I have to give the Green Party this: they’re not afraid to stand up and shout out that these are not simple, single-minded debates; that there are mighty things at stake here, things that no amount of money can remedy if they go wrong.


Seems to me the Green Party is the only one that isn’t yet embedded in the political culture of the Conservative, Liberal, NDP and the Bloc, where winning the next election is more immediate than making wise choices. Maybe that would become the Green’s future should they win substantial seats in any election, I don’t know. But when I look at the platforms of the parties, it’s the Green Party that expresses most closely my own view of how this culture ought to shape its future.


Gormley praised Shasko for being the only “left-wing” representative willing to appear on his show. It’s a sign of the political climate in Saskatchewan that every action, every comment has to be placed in a left-wing or right-wing box, which means in turn that every argument is categorized and accepted or rejected not on its merits, but on whether its source is the right or left. How sad is it when a wind generator can be categorized as a part of socialist plot?


Go, Larissa Shasko, go.

Image, Substance

Still life 04

Republican presidential-hopeful Mike Huckabee seems to have discovered what our Prime Minister could have told him a long time ago: in a large whack of the North American population at this time, substance is of little consequence; it’s image that sticks. Although knowing that none of these things are true, he has stated and/or implied that President Obama was born and raised in Kenya by his father and grandfather (he was born in the USA and spent most of his growing-up years in Indonesia), that he is Muslim (he has been a member of Christian churches all his life), that he is anti-West and anti-American (as proven by the fact that he had a bust of Churchill moved in the White House and replaced with one of Abe Lincoln – go figure!). (Check out an interview with Huckabee on You Tube, or see http://www.canada.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Huckabee+embracing+Obama+myths+eyes+Republican+candidacy/4385905/story.html )

 And image is everything in Conservative Party advertising these days: besmirch Michael Ignatieff’s character and fill people’s minds with images of Stephen Harper interacting with his family, silhouetted against the flag, playing the piano. The Conservative Party of Canada apparently believes that if they can throw enough mud at the opposition while portraying their leader in the best, most patriotic light, enough Canadians may buy into the propaganda to win them another election.

They may be right. Surveys show that Canadian young people (15-25) are not politically knowledgeable, and when many people don’t have the information or understanding needed to be active citizens in a democracy, image building (and besmirching) may be the road to victory after all:

“Young Canadians’ political knowledge is low – only slightly higher than the level of their American counterparts and, therefore, low compared with Europe. This suggests that European nations are better at disseminating the information and skills needed to turn its young people into participating citizens, and raises the question of whether Canadians should look there, rather than to the United States, in seeking to address the issue. (See http://www.irpp.org/newsroom/archive/2007/1115sume.pdf)”  

Do Canadians understand the significance to democracy of Bev Oda’s lying to parliament and Harper’s shrugging it off? Of the proroguing of parliament to avoid a critical test? Of the function of election spending rules and the far-reaching significance when leadership “bends the rules” they themselves have set? Of the repeated stonewalling on the dissemination of information vital to Canadians on something as serious as our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

People who don’t “get this stuff” can probably be swayed by image advertising; can probably even be found in enough numbers to win another minority. Seems Huckabee has figured that out. Our political parties seem to have come to a similar conclusion.

For far too many Canadians—and probably even a greater percentage of Americans—substance is of little consequence; it’s image that sticks. Someone needs to tell Harper the obvious; if he wants a majority, he may need to walk around in hockey garb throughout the campaign! Hockey is, after all “our game.” It’s something we get.

  

Beware of 2012

Still life 03

“The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs that cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on December 21, 2012, which is said to be the end-date of a 5,125-year-long cycle in the Mayan Long Count calendar. Various astronomical alignments and numerological formulae related to this date have been proposed.”  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon)

We’re beginning to see the heating up of fervour—and fear—regarding a new time for an apocalyptic catastrophe for planet earth and its people. We always have to have one, don’t we? Y2K—although not astrologically based—kept the world on tenterhooks for a few years. Christian literalism has always been tempted by the lure of numerology to find predictive meaning in the unexplained co-incidents that are inevitable and can be interpreted a thousand different ways. Similarly, astronomical convergences lend themselves to prophetic interpretations: the exact moment when the moon covers the sun is interpreted as being a more significant moment than others, as are solstices and equinoxes.

To see how we’re being prepared to be afraid from now until December 21, 2012 (winter solstice meets 12/12), click on http://www.greatdreams.com/2012.htm. Here you’ll find the Mayan Calendar theories that form the basis for this new apocalyptic disaster schedule. Here you’ll read how Sweden, Norway, Russia and the George Bush family are preparing to survive the holocaust. Here you’ll see amateur science bend reality to fit fantasy. Why anyone but a fool would want to survive for a month longer than others after the earth has been decimated is not addressed, however.

In my childhood, end-times interpretation was used to frighten me into making what my elders considered to be the right choices . . . "get born again so you don’t get caught out when the rapture happens, which could well be tomorrow." These recent predictions of “the end” don’t seem to have a discernable purpose however, unless it is to get me to spend a lot of money to secure myself and my family by building a bunker and stocking it with a year’s supply of food. We shouldn’t easily dismiss the possibility that end-times predictions astrologically based are economically driven.

The future cannot be predicted, just as the past cannot be erased. Futures can be shaped however, at least in the microcosmic sense, by people who have their wits about them and are focused on the realities around them. End time predictions blunt the application of our potential by telling us, basically, that we live under the cloud of predistination, fatalism and inevitability.

In short, I predict catastrophes aplenty in 2012. But they won’t have anything to do with the cycles of the Mayan calendar, the convergence of the planes of galaxies or the coincidences of dates and numbers. 2012’s catastrophes will be caused—like 2011’s—by the colossal waste of human potential; the splurging of scarce resources in end games that are illusions.

 Still Life 1

Still life 2

Ordnung ist nicht alles, aber ohne Ordnung ist alles nichts. Order isn’t everything, but without it, you have nothing. This teutonic proverb probably rings most true with junior high school teachers. I’ve experienced it myself, of course, wrestling with restless, acned teenagers who had no interest whatsoever in knowing the easy method for finding the square root of a number.

I could, of course, blame my frustration with the disorder that surrounds me on my Germanic genes, but that would be an excuse. The establishment and maintenance of order in the world has been a preoccupation of western civilization generally since who knows when. The Teutons, maybe?


In a piece of fiction I’ve been working on, a decent and idealistic young man is felled by a stray bullet. His parents agonize over the reasons behind such a meaningless event as parents will naturally do but the conclusions they will come to are as yet unclear. It’s wrestling with the chaos of possibilities that’s preoccupying me at the moment.


And that’s led me to read a bit about chaos theory. By definition, it’s "the branch of mathematics that deals with complex systems whose behaviour is highly sensitive to slight changes in conditions, so that small alterations can give rise to strikingly great consequences." A junior high school classroom is a complex system and it takes little to set it off, so it’s unpredictable. But so is the weather, a church congregation, an ocean, a nation, humanity itself, you name it.


The classic paradigm in chaos theory is the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Tibet setting off a chain reaction that changes the course of a tornado in Texas. Somebody farts in a junior high classroom and you may as well pack up and call it a day. A man in Tunisia posts a photo on the internet and the Middle East erupts into rebellion.

 It’s a tough problem, knowing when and how necessary order is to be established and maintained. Important as “orderliness skills” may be, though, it seems much more urgent that we learn how to live well in a universe that was created to be chaotic, that we learn to remain real and genuine when the world displays its “disorderly” side.


Ordnung ist nicht alles, aber ohne Ordnung ist alles nichts. This is not wisdom; it’s the expression of a pernicious neurosis. A neurosis that manifests itself in the lust for power and control . . . and will in the end be overthrown at great cost by the fanning of butterfly wings in a far country.

The enigmatic "NOT"

Indian Paintbrush

We may never know why Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda selected the KAIROS application out of a pile of applications CIDA had approved and reversed the decision by scribbling an uninitialled “NOT” in the pertinent sentence of the decision. Does it lie in the list of organizations that coordinate ecological and human rights efforts through KAIROS, i.e. who is or isn’t on this list?



The Anglican Church of Canada

The Christian Reformed Church in North America

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

The Presbyterian Church in Canada

The United Church of Canada

The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

The Canadian Religious Conference

The Mennonite Central Committee of Canada

The Primate's World Relief and Development Fund (PWRDF)


Or is it the mandate itself?


“The 2009-2013 proposal was developed within two priority sectors of CIDA: promoting good governance (human rights) and advancing ecological sustainability (reducing the impact of climate change and addressing land degradation). It was approved at every level of CIDA before being declined on November 30” (MCC News Release written by Peter Heidebrecht: http://ottawa.mcc.org/urgent-action-kairos.)


Nor will we know why the process used to terminate the relationship between CIDA and KAIROS was so embarrassing to the government that Oda lied about it to a parliamentary committee, or why the pressure built up to the point where the government decided that the best way out was to tell the truth (sort of) and at least get the brownie points for confession.


The meat of the question is not the “not.” The nub is the work of CIDA, which is the taxpayers’ arm for allotting federal money to worthwhile development projects in have-not countries, particularly whether or not KAIROS is a reasonable organization for doing such work, and whether or not it merits the right to spend taxpayer dollars in fulfilling its mandate. CIDA believes it is; Bev Oda thinks it isn’t.


We taxpayers have a right to know why it isn’t—we are, after all putting dollars into its member organizations on the understanding that they and their human rights/ecology umbrella are doing good work. If Oda knows something that we don’t know that makes KAIROS ineligible for our confidence, she needs to tell us.


I have a suspicion that it goes to an ideological viewpoint that might be damaging to electability if it were to be expressed publicly. I’ve looked at KAIROS with its mandate in mind, and I can’t find a reason to separate it from other organizations receiving CIDA funding. If you want to see more on this, take a quick look at http://www.kairoscanada.org/en/get-involved/cida-funding-cuts/support-from-the-churches/, or http://ca.news.yahoo.com/tory-explanation-mystery-not-leaves-opposition-scratching-heads-20110214-150432-944.html, or http://www.kairoscanada.org/en/.

Wanted: Steady supply of Sodium Thiopental

Real books - headed for the museum?

“States are scrambling to find enough sodium thiopental after its sole U.S. manufacturer ceased production and some overseas supplies dried up.” http://ca.news.yahoo.com/justice-department-reviewing-request-13-states-help-finding-20110208-104211-661.html



Sodium thiopental is an anaesthetic drug which has been used in a cocktail to effect executions. Lethal injection, it’s generally called. Lately, it’s been used straight-up in massive dosage for reasons I don’t fully understand, nor do I need to. The drug is also used in tiny doses in general anaesthesia and the induction of comas for medical reasons.


It’s in short supply, and you have to go beyond the Yahoo News story above to find out why. The drug was developed in the 1930s by Abbott Laboratories. Abbott Laboratories later moved its medical drug development and manufacture into a branch company called Hospira. It’s Hospira’s decision to cease manufacturing the drug that is responsible for the current shortage. In a statement last September, Hospira said:


"Hospira manufactures this product because it improves or saves lives, and the company markets it solely for use as indicated on the product labeling. The drug is not indicated for capital punishment, and Hospira does not support its use in this procedure."{McKinley, Jesse (28 September 2010). Judges Question California's Motivation on Execution". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/us/29execute.html.}


I’m not finished my review of Tongue Screws and Testimonies yet, and my journey through the massive Martyrs Mirror in preparation for the review has left me shaken once again by a knowledge that there are humans in the world who can look another human in the eye while they methodically take away his or her life. The cruelty under which many of the Anabaptist martyrs died leaves me with the distinct impression that given license to kill, a mass of humanity would emerge from the cracks and line up for the opportunity to inflict cruelty and death on others.


And then I read about the shortage of sodium thiopental in the USA and these suspicions are reinforced. And I remember that in a recent interview with Peter Mansbridge, Prime Minister Harper said, “I believe that there are circumstances where capital punishment is justified,” and I wonder if humanity is always just one careless slip away from barbarism.


Even though we’re still struggling as a nation to recover from the most recent recession, our current government is gearing up to build prisons so that harsher and longer penalties can be applied. I would wager that they’d get far more bang for the buck if they put that money into evening sports, recreation, arts programs for junior high-aged kids.


A wise person probably came up with the following definition as advice to the republican/conservative thinkers of the world: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." (Rita Mae Brown?) Are you listening, Stephen Harper?


Meanwhile, there’s a tremendous economic opportunity out there for some Canadian laboratory. Produce sodium thiopental for the US capital punishment market. Maybe their folly can help drag us out of the recession!

Isaiah, Dragon's Den, Functional Literacy

Angel Glacier's tears

I watched an episode of Dragon’s Den on TV the other day and the concept appalled me. A group of wealthy entrepreneurs sit on a platform and hear pitches by ordinary people who believe they have an idea for an enterprise that these pharaohs of finance will want to invest in. It appears that the primary draw for viewers is the crude humiliation of the appellants. But that’s not uncommon in what qualifies as entertainment these days.

               One woman had a program that she predicted would boost reading skills in children by a number of grade levels in a short time. They shot her down, partly because they didn’t believe that her statistic of 70% of Canadians being functionally illiterate was true and that she was therefore presenting a false premise yada, yada, yada. She left there a shattered person.

               Literacy is not easily defined, and depending on how you finally choose to describe “functional literacy,” the 70% doesn’t seem improbable to me. If you were to judge functional literacy by people’s ability to make sense of James Joyce’s Ulysses or Stephen Hawking’s  A Brief History of Time, I doubt that even 10% of the population would pass the test. The key, I guess, is what is meant by functional. Most people can function in this world, even function effectively with a literacy level that allows them to read the newspaper, bus schedules, pill bottles and grocery lists. But it’s impossible to function in a PhD program if literacy is limited to a day-to-day “functional literacy.”

               This morning, my job is to bring as much meaning as possible to the last of the four servant songs in Isaiah. As far as the prophets go, I feel I’m functionally illiterate, at least marginally functionally illiterate. I can’t claim to understand fully what is being said by Isaiah’s: For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth. Former things shall no more be remembered nor shall they be called to mind (Isaiah 65:17). Was this to be read literally or figuratively? Is this a prediction or a prototype? Was it a description of the recent past using a foretelling convention? Was it written for the far distant future or very specifically for the Judean faithful in Babylonian exile? If I were functionally literate, one would suppose I would know the answers to these questions, or else, how could I qualify—let alone function—as a teacher?

               I guess we are all “in development” as regards literacy. The world is full of interpretations of every piece of writing that can be found, everything from the astute to the bizarre. Isaiah is no exception. I lean toward Ivan D.Friesen in his interpretation of the servant songs: they present prototypes, not predictions. (At least, if I understand him, which is a whole ‘nother conundrum) They are not to be read fatalistically, but educationally. They teach the mind of God and the way the world works—good instruction for anyone with the level of literacy to read them with understanding. A stumbling block for those of us who can’t . . . yet.

Martyrs Mirror

the drowning of three Anabaptists in a barrel

I’m working this morning on a book review for the Mennonite Historical Society of Saskatchewan. The book is entitled Tongue Screws and Testimonies: poems, stories and essays inspired by the Martyrs Mirror. It’s edited by Kirsten Eve Beachy and published by Herald Press. The lengthy title tells you what it’s about.

               For those of you who don’t already know, Martyrs Mirror is a massive volume detailing the martyrdom of Christians throughout the ages but emphasizing the torture and execution of Anabaptists in the 16 Century. Written by Dutch Anabaptist (Doopsgezinde) T.J. van Braght in 1659, we’re told that it was intended to awaken the convictions of Braght’s fellow Anabaptists who were becoming comfortable and complacent in Holland in their affluent 17 Century Dutch environment.

               The copy on my desk this morning is a German translation of Braght’s voluminous work published in 1849 in Philadelphia. There are many translations and reprintings available: Amazon, for instance, has plenty to choose from in English. My edition, unfortunately, doesn’t include the pencil illustrations of Jan Luiken (1649-1712) one of which I’ve included above. Generations of Mennonites have had the book in their houses, no doubt for purposes similar to van Braght’s, namely, to illustrate to each generation the bloody legacy through which their spiritual ancestors were required to pass in order to keep “true faith” alive in a hostile world.

               Most of us, I think, skipped the bloody stories. After reading a few, they seemed repetitious and, well, way too many. The illustrations were another thing; the drawings of Jan Luiken were fascinating in their gruesomeness. They were, and still are, overlooked art.

               There’s a great website at http://www.bethelks.edu/mla/holdings/scans/martyrsmirror/ with all the drawings and their cut lines. I admit I’ve spent much of my time clicking on items like http://www.bethelks.edu/mla/holdings/scans/martyrsmirror/mm%20bk1%20p339.jpg, burning of the Waldensians and http://www.bethelks.edu/mla/holdings/scans/martyrsmirror/mm%20bk2%20p503.jpg, Torture of the teacher, Ursula. I’m still drawn to the depiction of the macabre in human behaviour. I don’t think I’m alone in that.

               If you want to know what I think about the ethics of voluntary martyrdom in support of faith, forget it. At least until I’ve finished with Tongue Screws and Testimonies. So far, I give it 1 ½ thumbs up. It, too, is available on line.

Pay attention

Station Arts Centre at Night - photo by Rod Andrews

I’m teaching a Bible class this morning based on Isaiah 48. The chapter is addressed to the Children of Israel during the period of Cyrus the Great’s defeat of the Babylonian Empire and his subsequent release of the Jewish captives to return to Judah.


Speaking for God, Isaiah says something like: If only you’d paid attention to my instructions earlier when you were still in Judah. You would now be rich as if a river of good fortune had rolled over the land. Your success would have been as unstoppable as the waves on a stormy sea. The population of Judah would rival that of any kingdom on earth; you would be rejoicing in the multitudes of children and grandchildren surrounding you. The well-being of your nation would have been secured for all time. If only you’d listened to me!


Bob MacDonald, science consultant to the CBC’s The National, explained how La Ninya caused the massive rainfall that’s been flooding Brisbane. When asked if there were other factors in the tragedy, he replied that the human factor was significant. Brisbane, like New Orleans, is built on a delta, the low-lying deposits of a river as it exits into the sea. A swamp in other words. Humans like to be near the water. As a result, Brisbane inhabits a flood plain of sorts that is very obviously vulnerable to such disasters.

We might think of some of the river valleys in Canada where people have chosen to live too near the water or in low-lying areas vulnerable to similar flooding.

If only the builders of Brisbane, New Orleans had paid attention to the lay of the land.

Paying attention, though, is seemingly not enough. Acting communally on what we know and have heard is quite another problem. Climate change is going to alter substantially the quality of life on much of the globe. We know this, and yet our leadership (the current government) encourages us to clap our hands over our ears and pretend that it’s all business as usual.

Someday we’ll look back and say, “If only we’d paid attention earlier when we were still in Judah.”

Snow on Snow on Snow

January 10, 2011 - accumulated frozen water vapour

Because of the particular “shape” of the water molecule, water vapour forms a six-pointed crystalline structure called a “snowflake” when it freezes. In cold climates, water vapour aloft forms snowflakes that fall to earth, blanketing the ground for months in the winter. Since snowflakes are light and don’t cling together in cold temperatures, even a slight wind will pick them up and carry them for miles until they reach some sheltered spot where they settle in “drifts.” As the weather warms in spring, these drifts and the snow blanket gradually melt leaving ponds and rivulets of water.


That’s all there is to know about snow.


But wait. If that’s all there is to it, why does it awaken in me such strong, distinct instincts and feelings?


Driving home from church yesterday morning, the threads and wisps of snow drifting across the road awoke in me a spiritual memory. Part déjà vu, it recalled to mind a moment of looking through the back window of the horse-drawn caboose when I was very young, on this very same road, watching the drifting snow begin to fill in again the rude tracks the horses’ hooves and sled runners had made.


Silently drifting snow evokes a pensiveness, a nostalgia for things beyond the ability to describe as if of days lived before one was born, before  fathers and mothers were born, before recorded time itself. Snow and wind together have always been, will be after the last traces of life on earth have been eroded into nothingness and the earth sinks again into the quiet of the universe. Snow is drifting today over the graves of my parents, my grandparents, my daughter, my brother. Sooner or later, it will drift silently over mine.


I confess a kinship with the inchworm—“measuring the marigolds.” But something is lost when we assume that size, colour are all there is to know about marigolds, or clouds, or music, or art . . . or snow. If it were, then there would be no art, no music, no reason even to walk out into the world.

There would only be data.


The drifting snow has awakened in me a peace that defies explanation. I long to sit on a hill in the Grasslands National Park out of sight of all human activity . . .
. . . and watch the snow drift.

What's in a Name - Really?

The then-known World

What’s in a name? We went to see The King’s Speech at a theatre in Edmonton a week ago and it brought up a discussion of names. King George VI had four names: Albert Frederick Arthur George. When he contemplated his coronation upon the abdication of his brother Edward, he might logically have become “King Albert,” but that seemed unsatisfactory and so he chose to be “George” despite the fact that he had pretty serious issues with his father, “George V,” who is portrayed in the movie as an unforgiving tyrant regarding young George’s struggle with a stammer. George VI grew up being called “Bertie” by his family. Take time to see the movie; it’s a story of substance for a change.

I also am “George.” The name doesn’t automatically confer king-like-ness. My mother told me the name was chosen because I was born on George VI’s birthday—December 14th. My father’s name was “Gerhard” and I recall that some of my aunts called him “George.” So I repeat, “What’s in a name—actually?” Would my life have been different if they’d chosen “Albert” or “Frederick” or “Arthur?”

Writer Rudy Wiebe taught me long ago that in writing fiction, naming characters is important. Names carry connotations: I met a young girl who will go through her whole life with the name “Precious Gem;” The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, a 1760s serialized novel by Laurence Sterne proposes that anyone with the name “Tristram” is branded for life as . . . well . . . not-totally-robust.

There is a trend going on in naming, and that must mean something too. Statistics in the USA reported at http://names.mongabay.com/baby_names/boys250.html show that the most popular baby name in 2005 was “Jacob,” followed by “Michael,” “Joshua” and “Matthew.” What’s the trend? Fluffy to solid? Back to the Bible? Both? Or are we simply followers of fashions that tilt—as it were—with the fanning of butterfly wings?

Back in R.D. Parker Collegiate, some staff members invented a student and got him inserted into the school records, even had the principal attempting to reach his parents to discover the reasons for his absences. They called him “Klavier Onk.” I’ve always liked that name, as evidenced by the fact that I haven’t forgotten it over these 30+ years.

Wouldn’t “King Onk III” be a hoot?

Happy New Year

bark

2011 is upon us. We all know, of course, that if we were observing the earth from space we wouldn’t see our planet passing a signpost, we wouldn’t see a light come on although we might hear strains of Should auld acquaintance be forgot . . . wafting up through the ether. 365-day years, 24-hour days, 60- minute hours and 60-second minutes mean nothing anywhere except on earth. But—you may well protest—we don’t ever live anywhere except on the earth, so what’s your point?



David Suzuki has said that the most useful view of our home as humans is from space (we’ve all seen the photos) and understanding that that blue planet is the one and only human abode, shared by all of us. A hymn we used to sing goes: “This world is not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through.” The preacher in Ecclesiastes 1:14 says: “I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.” What they have in common is the notion that our time living in this home we call earth is not long; what they don’t share is a grand philosophy of this short sojourn.


The best you and I can do is choose an “as if” that seems to fit and live according to its precepts. Evangelical Christianity, Islam and Jewry (to a less-specific degree) incorporate an afterlife of the soul, and so the guide to life may be that one lives “as if” another, better life follows death. Ecclesiastes obviously poses the possibility that death makes the striving of the living purposeless, and to follow the “all is vanity” line of thought would mean that one lives “as if” working, planning and setting goals were no more than futile gestures.


Let me propose a grand philosophy for 2011. Let’s live “as if” we had been assigned a ration of imagination, energy and hope so that we might beautify the home we share and the lives of the people in it. Let’s throw energy and imagination into preserving what is good: the natural world and its life-giving and sustaining abundance. Let’s contribute an addition-of-value to this home by cultivating the arts, by creating refreshing newness. Let’s imagine peace, and insist that war and strife soil our common home. Let’s abhor hoarding and sing the praises of sharing. Let’s visit each other, talk to each other, sing and dance together, uphold each other in pain and rejoice with each other in victory.


Let’s have the courage to shout down the detractors who live “as if” nothing matters except their personal hoard of wealth, fame or comfort. Let’s have the temerity to suggest that selling the stones out of our common foundation is stupid.


Above all, whether or not we look forward to a blissful eternity or not, let’s not forget that in the grand philosophy the “as if” we choose for 2011 is significant beyond imagining.


I wish you all a happy and prosperous New Year.

Save the CBC

A World Without Islam - Graham E. Fuller - a review.

teacher's desk

Fuller, Graham E. A World Without Islam. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2010



The central thesis of Fuller’s book is that even if Mohammed had never been born, or if the Islamic religion had never taken hold, the tensions in the Middle East would be very similar to what we see today. He refers a number of times to the Islamisization of the conflicts in the Middle East. More and more, the rhetoric of democracy against Islam is used to provide context for the wars, and more and more, the public is being encouraged to see Western intervention in the Middle East as a defense of Western democracy against a brutal, dangerous Islam.


Fuller begins by tracing the history that led to the current tensions in the Middle East. Many readers will find chapters like “The Third Rome and Russia: Russia inherits the Orthodox Legacy” or “Colonialism, Nationalism, Islam, and the Independence struggle” challenging; there are whole blocks of world history that we in the West typically didn’t even touch on in school. He makes a reasonable case for asserting that what we have often seen as religious wars were really geopolitical conflicts, sometimes taking on the shape of religious disputes because the combatants were of different religious persuasions. Fuller maintains that religion doesn’t start wars, but can exacerbate tensions and contribute to the context of disputes, can be harnessed as a means of diverting attention from the real motives of the combatants.


Religion will always be invoked wherever it can to galvanize the public and to justify major campaigns, battles, and wars, especially in monotheistic cultures. But the causes, campaigns, battles and wars are not about religion. Take away the religion, and there are still causes, campaigns, battles and wars (p.286).


Fuller opens the question of how terrorism is defined, viewed and responded to in the west. His argument that Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism in exactly the same way as 9/11 was, is persuasive. The extreme escalation of terrorism via suicide bomber attacks on the symbols of power is, however, a recent development and in the West, the opinion that it is enabled by Islamic religious beliefs is widespread. Terrorism is the way in which a weaker combatant wages war against a stronger. Having no military force to match the one considered an oppressor, the weaker one resorts to terror, the infliction of fear through the mechanism of surreptitious sabotage. Not unlike Robin Hood. Fuller doesn’t excuse terrorism by any means, but his contention that we need to define terrorism in a global manner and apply it evenly to all occasions of dispute is timely.


Insurgency may be “illegal,” but it is the essence of human response to unjust conditions (p. 292).”


Fuller agrees with an opinion I’ve expressed on numerous occasions: 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal act rather than an act of war, as George W. Bush declared it to be shortly after the event.


Efforts to identify and stymie terrorist acts must be carried out through intelligence and police work; capture of terrorists should be the prerogative of international organizations or local countries, and not by the United States operating on an illegal extraterritorial extension of its sovereign rights to capture and assassinate individuals at will (p. 301).


It’s hardly necessary to add that Fuller sees the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and the closure of foreign military bases to be the first necessary steps in arriving at eventual peace in the Middle East. He considers the Israeli expansion and its displacement of Palestinians to be the most irritating barb in East/West relations, and advocates for the reversal of this expansion. Until this happens, the Arab/Muslim world will always be in a posture of defense against outside aggression, and it won’t be a consequence of religion, but of geography, politics and the right to defend oneself and one’s community against foreign aggression.


I remember a conversation with a man in Belfast during a tense period of “the troubles.” He said—in effect—that the Western media completely misunderstood the conflict in Ireland as being a Protestant-Catholic feud. He went on to say that it hinged completely on nationalist/loyalist grounds and had no reference to religious differences. In Northern Ireland, as in the Middle East, religion was used to further ends of both British loyalist and Irish nationalist’s goals.


That the Canadian and American governments should be putting a beneficial spin on the news of their activities in Afghanistan is understandable; much money and many lives have been invested in what is most certainly going to prove itself to have been a fool’s errand. There is no military solution to terrorism; it’s foundations must be found and addressed. The average Canadian, I observe, has a very poor grasp of the foundations of the Middle East conflicts and deals in platitudes, half-truths and herd wisdom. It’s time we all read and studied Fuller’s book.

WickyLeaky

Silver Leaf

A sometime reader of this blog recently said he was waiting for my comments on Wikileak. Frankly, I’m getting a big kick out of seeing all those important people covering up their private parts with their hands as the world discovers that “the emperors have no clothes.” And then there’s commentator Tom Flanagan losing control of his vitriol levels for a minute and suggesting that Assange would justifiably be assassinated. It’s altogether the funniest political event since John McCain selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the 2008 presidential election. The outcries about the potential damage public leaking can do are heating up.


Hello! What are being leaked and posted are quotes, not inventions. The only way Wikileaks will post something stupid about you is if you say or write something stupid.


I know that during negotiations compromises are reached in stages and that publicizing an interim position can jeopardize the process. It’s  “diplomacy at work.” On the other hand, where persons or institutions with power are able to act and make decisions without fear of “leaks,” the creep toward corruption is certainly facilitated. Public knowledge can, for instance, prevent “interrogation techniques” from gradually escalating in severity until we discover suddenly that our governments are allowing the torture of prisoners.


Most of us have known all along that our emperors are running around naked, as are we all. Wikileaks doesn’t teach us this; it simply underlines what we already knew. But the terror in the eyes of our leadership is hard to miss, and they’re fighting back vehemently. Where I live, the site has been yanked: “Sorry. This site is not currently available.”


In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, a neighbour says to Jem and Scout that their dad is the same man on the street that he is at home. People in public life need to be aware that honesty, integrity, courtesy and respect are no less required of them than they are of the rest of us. Negotiate privately if you must, but don’t assume that the people for whom you are working have no right to expect certain minimum standards to apply when the public can’t hear you.


Of course, one person who probably has no worries about leaks is CBC hockey commentator Don Cherry. When he has a quarrel with the media, he simply hauls out in public and urinates all over the “left-wing pinko kooks.” Nothing hidden there. Nothing to expose. Would that it were.

REPENT!

Good-bye, F-150

Sunday morning. Just finished printing up a sermon I’m scheduled to deliver this morning. It’s called, Repent and Reconnect. The title was given to me by a sequence we’re following in the Advent season services. I’d rather be talking about the three kings of the Orient; I was just involved in three evenings of dinner theatre under the banner, “The Gift of the Magi,” featuring choral music and the short stories of O’Henry, namely The Last Leaf and The Gift of the Magi. Readers’ Theatre. It was well received. The dinners were phenomenal.


Repentance takes such odd shapes, doesn’t it. Tom Flanagan regrets his glib remarks on a CBC TV program in which he advocated the assassination of the founder of Wikeleaks; I’m pretty sure his regret is genuine, but he did feel compelled to say that the leaks on the website ought to be stopped nevertheless. Sort of an “my stupid comments were provoked by a man who is way badder than I am” kind of apology.


Then there’s the “I was seduced” repentance, in one case constituting the defense of a man who was charged with sexual misconduct with a minor!

Probably as inane as any is the “I’m sorry, but I was drunk at the time” repentance.

I don’t find the admission and regret part of repentance as hard as I used to. I can remember making all kinds of excuses for stupid things I’d done as a pre-adult. When your public image is as important as it is in your teen years (or as a public figure), face must be saved, and the straws grasped at to accomplish that can be bizarre. Repentance without penitence, and without the prerequisite intention of changing course.

Even more astounding is the public tolerance that allows people in power to make massive blunders with little demand from us for repentance. I’m puzzled, for instance, by the fact that although Bush and Cheney and the rest of the American administration of the time led the US into Iraq on the basis of a lie—or ignorance, depending whom you ask—and thousands died as a result, there doesn’t seem to have been a concerted demand for genuine repentance, i.e. admission, remorse, change. Why is that, do you suppose?


But, I don’t want to stray too far from home on this subject. Here and now, I repent the fact that I’ve allowed myself to be recast as a consumer—as opposed to a person—and in so doing, have been joint contributor to an economy that can’t work in the long run and an environment that can’t sustain the continual attacks upon it. So I’ve admitted it, but I ought to feel more remorse, and I’ve still got a lot of changes to be made, although I sold the pickup truck I loved and have reduced to one, small vehicle. Whoopee ding. I also recycle. Hey, and I don’t buy bottled water.


But I’m not sure I’m ready for the real repentance, when I and my fellow “consumers” genuinely say “enough is enough.”

I guess there’s always that other face-saving excuse. “The devil made me do it!”