RezaAslansoutrage

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 31 August 2012

Derrida's preformative dimension

Posted on 01:08 by Unknown
Lee Braver, author of Groundless Ground: A Study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, a reader's guide to Heidegger and A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism, mounts a defense of the philosophy -- and the philosophical style -- of Jacques Derrida:
"Derrida’s difficulty is exacerbated by a kind of performative dimension to his writings. He believes that language is inherently unstable and that a text’s meaning is always open to more than one legitimate interpretation (not infinitely open—readings must be based on what is actually written), and he shows this occurring in his own writing, playing with language and emphasizing ambiguities. This is all very carefully done and, with some work, you can see what he’s doing, but it is very different from our normal ways of reading and, if you don’t have some patience, it comes across as impenetrable gobbledygook. Note, however, that this way of writing follows from his views on the nature of language. Surely this is a sensible an approach as Quine’s describing the fact that there is no fact about meaning in as clear and unequivocal a way as possible.

"He is accused of not doing philosophy, of attacking and rejecting reason, and of not reading his subject matter carefully. But just what philosophy is and how it works and what is allowed to be reasonable is precisely what is at issue in a lot of philosophy, and is often challenged by the great philosophers."
This seems exactly right to me.
Read More
Posted in arguments, Derrida, Lee Braver, philosophy | No comments

Crossings

Posted on 00:21 by Unknown
Crossings
Read More
Posted in photographs | No comments

Thursday, 30 August 2012

The GOP platform & the 'war on religion'

Posted on 13:54 by Unknown
The Republican Party platform -- approved this week at the convention in Tampa -- includes a gloss on the Bill of Rights. For the First Amendment's two clauses on religious liberty, establishment and exercise, the party repeats the claim that there is currently a "war on religion" being waged by the Obama administration, and takes a stand defending individuals' and institutions' right not to offer services not in accordance with given affiliated religions.

The platform reads:
"The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administration's attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion. This forcible secularization of religious and religiously affiliated organizations, including faith-based hospitals and colleges, has been in tandem with the current Administration’s audacity in declaring which faith-related activities are, or are not, protected by the First Amendment—an unprecedented aggression repudiated by a unanimous Supreme Court in its Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC decision.

"We pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government. No health care professional or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, withhold, or refer for a medical service against their conscience."
This seems to sum up the argument, essentially, which has been made many places in the ongoing religious-liberty-related debate about health care.

I have one factual criticism of this statement, and one (persistent) question about the argument.

First, this is a very odd reading of the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case. The question wasn't about one form of religious practice vs. another, but about who qualified as a minister for the ministerial exemption to employment law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawyers argued for a more restricted and basically traditional definition of "minister," while the lawyers for the Lutheran school Hosanna-Tabor argued it had the right to list all teachers at the school as "ministers," which would allow them to fire one who was ill. Even if the school's triumph in that case is to be thought of as a triumph for "religious liberty," that's hardly a case of the "Administration’s audacity in declaring which faith-related activities are, or are not, protected by the First Amendment."

There's an argument to be made that the Obama administration is doing that, but it's not Hosanna-Tabor.

And, really, isn't any and every freedom of religion case a matter of asserting a definition of what qualifies as an exercise of religion and why? It's not so much "audacious" the nature of the issue.

Second, I still haven't seen or heard a decent, thorough working out of the logical conclusions of this position. If it's really the argument that health care professionals and organizations should not ever be required to perform services against their religion/conscience, would it be okay for a nurse who has just converted to become a Jehovah's Witness to refuse to help with a blood transfusion? Does a Catholic ambulance driver have the right refuse to transport a pregnant woman in a medical emergency that might involve an abortion to save her life? Could an emergency room doctor who is a Conservative Jewish refuse to treat a menstruating woman? Does a Christian Identity MRI tech have a First-Amendment guaranteed right not to be forced to scan a non-white person?

These are not facetious questions. I honestly don't understand if the Republican party platform's declaration of "not ever" is meant, really, to go all the way to the logical end, or if there's a line somewhere that I just haven't heard articulated.

Relatedly, it's not at all clear to me why the stated position would apply to health care professionals and not others. If the argument only applies to health care, why? If not, then the question about the nurse, ambulance driver and doctor could be repeated in an endless number of hypothetical variations. Would it still be the case that this position is as absolute as it appears?

These issues are, it seems to me, implicit in religious pluralism and right of free exercise. They exist in and are a part of the clauses of the First Amendment the platform statement seeks to interpret. These problems are not unique to the Republican party platform, but the platform goes out of its way to make a really strong statement without offering any nuance or detail or even, really, guiding principles for how Republicans might attempt to finesse problematic cases.
Read More
Posted in First Amendment, freedom of religion, health care, Obama, platform, politics, Republican Party | No comments

Obama's blasphemy law

Posted on 03:52 by Unknown
Ruling in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, last year, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the church members' very offensive speech was still protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Even though that speech was offensive, and even though it was outside a U.S. soldier's funeral.

Roberts wrote, "The fact that Westboro spoke in connection with a funeral ... cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro’s speech."

Those opposing the church's protests -- which are famous for provocative slogans such as "God Hates Fags," "God Hates America," "Pray for More Dead Soldiers," and "You Will Eat Your Babies" -- had argued that, specifically because these signs were outside a funeral, they were different than if they'd been elsewhere.

President Barack Obama endorsed that argument that funerals are different this month, in a statement he made as he signed HR 1627 into law. The law -- sponsored by Republican congressmen from Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Tennessee -- limits just a little bit more Westboro Baptist's ability to protest America, declare God's condemnations and generally be provocative in the exercise of their religion. Obama supported this limiting of speech, he said, because of a "sacred duty." Where the lawyers in the Westboro court case and Samuel Alito, the one justice who dissented from the Supreme Court ruling, argued this sort of speech is different because at a funeral it's more hurtful and harmful, Obama instead argued this speech is wrong because it is blasphemous.

Blasphemous not against God, per se, but against a sense of secular sacredness. Against that which is holy in what has been called America's civil religion.

 The relevant portion of the bill reads:
"PROHIBITION.—For any funeral of a member or former member of the Armed Forces .... it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in an activity during the period beginning 120 minutes before and ending 120 minutes after such funeral, any part of which activity—
(1)(A) takes place within the boundaries of the location of such funeral or takes place within 300 feet of the point of the intersection between—
(i) the boundary of the location of such funeral; and (ii) a road, pathway, or other route of ingress to or egress from the location of such funeral;
(B) and includes any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion—
(i) that is not part of such funeral and that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such funeral; and (ii) with the intent of disturbing the peace or good order of such funeral."
President Obama on Aug. 6, the day he signed HR 1627.
Obama said in his signing statement:
"I think all Americans feel we have a moral, sacred duty towards our men and women in uniform.  They protect our freedom, and it’s our obligation to do right by them.  This bill takes another important step in fulfilling that commitment."
Highlighting this specific section of the 45-page law that seeks to restrain the Westboro Baptist protests (or others like it), he said:
"I am very pleased to be signing this bill into law.  The graves of our veterans are hallowed ground.  And obviously we all defend our Constitution and the First Amendment and free speech, but we also believe that when men and women die in the service of their country and are laid to rest, it should be done with the utmost honor and respect."
The argument here is one of sacred time and sacred space, which ought not be defiled.

For Roberts, the funeral changes nothing. Speech on "broad issues of interest to society at large" is the same as it was two hours before or after, the same 100 feet away as it is 300. Space and time remain secular; nothing is transformed by the fact of the funeral. For Obama, on the other hand, there is a transformation. A sanctification. The time around the funeral of a soldier and the space around the funeral become "hollowed."

As Robert Bellah said, famously, in 1967, "American civil religion is still very much alive."

It's in this sense of "American civil religion" that Obama's invocation of a sense of sacredness is perhaps best understood. Where there are other arguments for limiting this sort of speech, he chose this one. "Civil religion" is a tricky term. Not least because Bellah -- who hasn't himself been in love with the term he popularized in this context -- offered descriptions that were somewhat unwieldy. The basic idea, though, involves exactly this sort of argument. Civil religion involves public rhetoric that appeals to a transcendent reality that's not related to any revealed religion, but to a sacred that's sensed as revealed in America and American history. That "transcendence" is understood as immanent to all Americans, making it secular at the same time it's decidedly not. It's supposed to be easily and immediately recognizable to Americans, and also act as the ultimate ground of an argument, justification for a policy.

Bellah says this civil religion is about the "universal and transcendent religious reality as seen in or, one could almost say, as revealed through the experience of the American people."

Classic examples of this include the rhetoric of Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, and also such everyday occurrences as invocations of the "Founding Fathers." Every president in recent memory has made this appeal to the transcendent truth understood and accepted by Americans to be revealed in America, to the point it's hard to imagine a president not doing this. It's like American exceptionalism plus.

The important point is that the appeal can be contrasted to an appeal to the common welfare. Most arguments in the public sphere are grounded finally in something being generally, socially good. A proposal is understood as justified to the extend it's beneficial for the general public. When there is a dispute about policy in modern democracies, be taxes or abortion or whatever, the assumption on all sides is that each side respectively believes itself to be right, and there's agreement on what "right" means and what it would mean to be that. That is, it's accepted without question that policies are to be judged by their results in the lives of the people. This is the so-called "naked" public square, where the grounds for arguing for that which is good are strictly secular.

This can be contrasted to a directly religious argument, where a given religion and, importantly, that religion's authority, serves as ground for argument. I.e., "because the Bible says," and arguments of that nature. These grounds don't offer themselves up to general evaluation and deliberation, but are understood as fixed and final, "absolute," affirmed not by the demos of democracy, but by the (holy) ground itself. Such grounds are not even rightly considered res publica, in that they're essentially inaccessible to the public except for purposes of invocation. 

What Obama is doing here, in making an appeal to the sacred and the hallowed, but a "sacred" and a "hallowed" accessible and immanent to (ostensibly) all Americans regardless of creed, is thus neither secular nor, in an important way, not secular.

A child from Westboro Baptist protests at a funeral.
The argument isn't that Westboro Baptist's exercise of speech is somehow bad for the American people (though that argument could be made). It's not that the social costs of allowing their offensive behavior is so egregious it's necessary to curtail the right of Free Speech at least a little. But it's also not appeal to special revelation, some fixed truth separate from the general experience of the American people. It's supposed to be something that all Americans know and affirm instinctively, and yet is also absolute in the sense it's affirmed as good and true entirely apart from the general welfare, and affirmed as essentially not needing any affirmation.

That is to say, the argument underlying the President's decision to sign into law a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech is that the space and time around a soldier's funeral are fundamentally different from other spaces and times. They're transformed. And holy. But holy in this very peculiar way, where the secular is transcendent, the transcendent secular.

And protesting at a funeral, instead of an exercise of a fundamental American right, is blasphemous, an offense against that special "hallowedness" revealed in America.

One can almost hear Justice Roberts repeating that "The fact that Westboro spoke in connection with a funeral ... cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro’s speech."

There's really no way that I know that one can argue about whether it does or doesn't. As with all matters of revelation, one either accepts that soldiers' funerals are self-evidently different, or one doesn't. Westboro's placards either appear as simple speech, offensive in the normal way, or as more than that, as a violation of something sacred.
Read More
Posted in America, American religion, belief, blasphemy, civil religion, First Amendment, funerals, HR 1627, John Roberts, Obama, politics, Robert Bellah | No comments

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Žižek's favorite film

Posted on 08:35 by Unknown

Slovoj Žižek listed The Sound of Music among his top 10 favorite films for the BFI's 2012 critics list.

He said, "This is what I really enjoy – no compromises for high quality or good taste."

Perhaps not surprisingly, the critics' final top 10 list didn't include any of Žižek's picks.
Read More
Posted in criticism, film, Slovoj Zizek | No comments

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Shane Claiborne, symbol of a possibility

Posted on 04:02 by Unknown
Shane Claiborne, it turns out, can stand for Germans symbolically as representing one end of a range of the possibilities of what Christianity can be.

Claiborne -- of The Simple Way -- was referenced in a recent German opinion piece about (re)discovering the Christian faith, mentioned as an example of Christianity that is "radikaler als Punk oder Revolution," "more radical than punk or revolution." The authors, Elke Naters and Sven Lager, are Germans living in South Africa, where they escaped their Berliner ennui and found their faith. They speak of that faith specifically in the context of South Africa, but the raise Claiborne as an example of this kind of thing they're talking about existing in the West.

He's cited, too, as a counter-example to the one their German friends raise when they think of active and committed Christianity: George W. Bush. Claiborne is a representative of another alternative American Christianity, and is used in the piece to represent a version of Christianity that bourgeois and broadly liberal Germans might find compelling.

They affirm this kind of Christianity, which they present, kind of, as a challenge to Germans: They believe the Bible, they believe Jesus resurrected "und in uns lebt," "and lives in us," and they believe in eternal life, heaven and hell. This, they add, has a practical effect, a social consequence, as "wir glauben an ein Leben vor dem Tod," "we believe in life before death."

Naters and Lager write that Claiborne is an example of this life:
"Seither sehen wir die Kraft des Glaubens nicht nur in Südafrika. Der Amerikaner Shane Claiborne zum Beispiel hat schon viele Jahre vor der Occupy-Bewegung 10.000 Dollar in Münzen und kleinen Scheinen auf die Wall Street gekippt, und einen Tumult verursacht, dass die Straße abgesperrt werden musste. Radikale Großzügigkeit verschließt die Türen der Gier – so lautete seine christliche Botschaft."
"Since then, we have seen the power of faith not only in South Africa. The American Shane Claiborne, for example, had been at it already many years before the Occupy Movement dumped $10,000 in coins and small bills on Wall Street and the tumult caused the street to have to be locked down. Radical generosity closes the doors of greed -- that was his Christian message."
Claiborne strikes me as an odd figure to have this function. Not because he doesn't preach this message Naters and Lager describe, but just because he's such a relatively minor figure, in the scheme of things. Why wasn't Jimmy Carter the counterpoint to George Bush? Here Claiborne is, though, in the German press, representing a different kind of Christianity.
Read More
Posted in America, belief, de, evangelicalism, Germany, Shane Claiborne | No comments

Sunday, 26 August 2012

Hard-to-sing redemption songs

Posted on 00:00 by Unknown
It happens halfway through the hymn, between the second verse and the chorus. Walter, struggling with the key, looks at the white-haired congregants around him in the plain Protestant church, looks at the hymn book in his hands, and drops his voice a step to try and sing bass.

It's a familiar enough scene in congregational singing, though I don't think I've seen it in a film before. The hymn is pitched a little too high or a little too low -- I don't know the technical terms here -- and the singers struggle with high notes being too high or the low ones too low, and they switch, several times in the four or five verses, trying to get it right.

Trying to conform to the voices around them. Trying to find the right place in the community song.

This is also the theme of Small Town Murder Songs, a film which is ostensibly a moody, modern gothic crime story, but is really about a drama of the struggle of faith in the context of a community.


Walter, played by Peter Stromare with a very large mustache, is the aging police chief of a very small Ontario town. Most of his duties have been speeding tickets, illegal dumping, and escorting doublewide mobile home transports through town, but now he's faced with the first homicide of his career. A woman -- "not from around here" -- is found stripped and strangled between a highway and a lake. The news, and the subsequent faltering investigation, upsets the town, upsets the area's Mennonite communities, and upsets Walter's recently reformed life.

The crime narrative in this 2010, Ed Gass-Donnelly-directed film, which is showing, right now, in my local art house theater, is very linear. It's straightforward. The investigation and the plot act as the three, four, five verses of a  hard-to-sing hymn. The drama, the real heart of the story, is Walter trying to adjust himself to sing it right.

He changes course several times in the story. He attempts to transform himself, and to be transformed, and to fit with and be in right relationship with the community around him. Much of the tension of the film comes from the way the chief is always ill at ease, always not quite right with the people who are always in some real sense his people, and yet who won't, don't fully own him as a part of them. He's separated from his Old Order family, awkward with his church, distant from his one fellow officer, increasingly isolated from his wife, detached from the life of the town. Yet he desperately, desperately wants to fix it.

More accurately: he wants to be fixed. He experiences this alienation as his sin, and his sin as part of himself, his "nature." It's the part of himself and his vague, violent past from which he wants, desperately, desperately, to be saved.

The film does all this fantastically, making use of open, seemingly empty rural spaces, long silences, and a sound track of old hymns and folk music of the Alan Lomax field recordings style, re-created by Canadian band and choir Bruce Peninsula. The acting is excellent, with Peter Stormare and co-stars Martha Plimpton, Jill Hennessey and Aaron Poole each embodying, in different ways, supressed turmoil and surface tension.

In one of my favorite scenes, Walter is baptized. He stands arms crossed, fully dressed, chest deep in the baptismal tank. The minister holds Walter's nose, and dunks him. When he comes up his mustache is dripping and, for a moment, there's a look of rapture on his face. Then he starts laughing. And keeps laughing, in what's either relief and joy -- or hysteria.

This ambiguity is consistent throughout the film, and proves powerful.

Small Town Murder Songs not only gets religious details right -- a rare enough thing -- but also gets and portrays the sense of a struggle that's so often a part of being a part of a community, the struggle that's often a part of faith.

It is a crime story, and critics aren't wrong when they compare this to Fargo or Winter's Bone. At the level of viscera, though, this story is a story about wanting and struggling to sing along to a song everyone is singing, except you.

 

Read More
Posted in crime fiction, Ed Gass-Donnelly, faith, film, narratives, Peter Stormare, practice, Small Town Murder Songs | No comments

Saturday, 25 August 2012

Posted on 01:14 by Unknown
Read More
Posted in minimalism, Nils Frahm, weekend music | No comments

Thursday, 23 August 2012

Night weeds

Posted on 12:31 by Unknown
Night weeds
Read More
Posted in not fiction, photographs | No comments

The new irrelevance of Rick Warren

Posted on 05:00 by Unknown
There's something really about odd Rick Warren's explanation for why he's cancelled the planned Obama-Romeny forum. The megachurch pastor and best-selling author had announced he would reprise his role as presidential job interviewer, but now he won't.

Because:
"We created the civil forums to promote civility and personal respect between people with major differences .... The forums are meant to be a place where people of goodwill can seriously disagree on significant issues without being disagreeable or resorting to personal attack and name-calling. But that is not the climate of today's campaign."
Isn't this completely backwards, though? There's a lack of civility, so the forum is supposed to promote civility, but there isn't civility, so the forum is cancelled. But if what the forum was intended to accomplish were a fiat accompli, then what would be the point?

It's a strange argument.

One suspects something else must be going on.
Perhaps it's the politics of a Warren interview event for the respective campaigns. There was a report the campaigns nixed the thing, not Warren, and he's announcing he's cancelling it as a way to save face.

One could see how the whole thing would be just problematic for Obama and Romney. Neither of them really stood to gain. Obama would likely face hostile questions on same-sex marriage, which came up last time, when Obama's position was much more amenable to Warren than it is now. And abortion again too. These aren't the issues Obama is campaigning on, and his answers are not likely to swing any voters or motivate any of those in Warren's audience in his direction. At best, I guess, Obama could placate social conservatives, though it's hard to see how that happens. For Romney, too, the possible pitfalls seem much more serious than the potential gains. He could face hostile questions about his Mormonism. He could get attacked on his inconsistent record on social conservative issues, or even the current positions he espouses such as abortion being acceptable in cases of rape. It's hard to see how Warren steers the conversation towards the topics Romney wants to talk about.

It seems that the sense is that this campaign will not be won on the kinds of issues Warren cares about. But it could be lost on those issues.

Another way to think about what's going on here is that Warren just has failed to make himself a plausible public gate keeper. A certain amount of neutrality is necessary for one to be a respectable, acceptable host of a forum. When Warren was positioning himself as a "post-culture war" kind of evangelical, who took a more liberal position on issues such as the environment or AIDs in Africa, there was at least an argument he'd be even-handed in his criticism of the candidates. As someone more publicly associated with opposition to California's Proposition 8 and saying that Obama administration's policies amount to a "crumbling of our constitution's first guaranteed freedom: the freedom of religion," he doesn't seem like someone who's going to be good at facilitating a conversation. He doesn't seem to be moving past the culture war in any meaningful way.

The loser here is Warren, given that he still seems to want to be a power player, a power broker and king maker. His position as religious authority on the public square has evaporated in the last four years. Whether it's the politics that have changed or Warren himself, his ability to exert an influence here is gone.

Maybe he's not the only loser, though. I thought that, in the last election, the respective candidates' answers to Warren's question about evil were maybe the most interesting and really the clearest things said about underlying, governing philosophies.

While it's ridiculous and ahistorical to think this campaign is somehow dirtier or more aggressive than others, or more that way than ever, that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. It would have been nice to hear the candidates try to thoughtfully answer some big, fundamental questions. If Warren could have done that, it could have been a good thing.
Read More
Posted in America, cultural relevance, election, evangelicalism, Mitt Romney, Obama, political debate, politics, Rick Warren, Saddleback, secularity | No comments

Tuesday, 21 August 2012

Horseshoes on the chapel door

Posted on 23:21 by Unknown
Chapel door with horseshoes
Read More
Posted in churches, horseshoe, living in Germany, luck, photographs | No comments

Wallace, writing fiction for God, the Cosmos, the Unified Field

Posted on 13:20 by Unknown
“Fiction for me is a conversation for me between me and something that May Not Be Named—God, the Cosmos, the Unified Field, my own psychoanalitic cathexes, Roqoq’oqu, whomever. I do not feel even the hint of an obligation to an entity called READER—do not regard it as his favor, rather as his choice, that, duly warned, he is expended capital/time/retinal energy on what I’ve done.”
-- David Foster Wallace, pre-Infinite Jest, before the break down and the half-way house time that would inform the ethics of Infinite Jest (the ethics both of & in the text), according to an excerpt from D.T. Max's forthcoming biography of Wallace.

My concerns Max's bio will ignore Wallace's religious aspects and efforts still stand, but this excerpt looks really good. 
Read More
Posted in D.T. Max, David Foster Wallace, Every Love Story is a Ghost Story, religion, writing | No comments

Defending damnation

Posted on 00:16 by Unknown
Justin Taylor, an editor at Crossway and blogger at The Gospel Coalition, defending the doctrine of eternal damnation:


Taylor notes:
"If I had a 'do over' I might have challenged the premise of the analogy: if a father can rescue his children from destruction but only saves some we consider him morally culpable, but in the Christian worldview we are rebelling against the Judge and receive a free offer of mercy which we reject. Instead, I focused on the underlying issue I see at play not only in this debate but in so many aspects of progressive revisionism: namely the desire to create God in our own image."
This is an insanely difficult argument to make, that an all-power, all-loving God wills (or even just allows) everlasting punishment. There are ways to make the argument easier -- e.g. freewill, even if that just pushes the problem back, rather than resolving it.

Taylor, to his credit, doesn't try to shirk the task.

His ultimate argument is against the arguments, it seems to me. He doesn't want to "justify the ways of God to man," ala Milton, but to defend God against the claim justifications are needed. Taylor's point is traditional Christian theology rejects antropocentric standards.

I'm not convinced Taylor actually rejects all anthropocentrism, including the anthropocentric standards of justice, the standards of a judge, king, etc. But this is the argument he's advancing.

He's advancing his anti-anthropocentrism, even, it seems, to the point of discounting the anthropocentrism of the incarnation. Where some take up this issue of hell by attempting to explicate judgement/grace from the ethics of Jesus, as Jesus is understood as the ultimate revelation of God, Taylor states, "I think that is inverting the proper Creator-creature relationship."
Read More
Posted in American religion, arguments, calvinism, documentary, hell, Justin Taylor | No comments

Monday, 20 August 2012

Being the behind the scenes

Posted on 05:14 by Unknown
Being the behind the scenes
Read More
Posted in living in Germany, photographs | No comments

Sunday, 19 August 2012

Costs of a scandal

Posted on 05:31 by Unknown
Some statistics:
  • In the last 15 years, the American Catholic Church has spent about $48 on lawsuit settlements per US Catholic.
  • In California, the Catholic Church has spent about $371 on lawsuit settlements per California Catholic during the same period. 
  • Giving to the church is thought to have declined by 20 percent.
  • The church has spent about $212,500 on lawsuit settlements per priest who, according to the US bishops' conference, has been "not implausibly" accused of sexually molesting a minor. 
  • The amount paid in settlements per "not implausibly" accused priest works out to slightly more than 5 years of a priest's average salary in San Diego, California, to more than 7 years of a priest's salary in Montgomery, Alabama.
  • The California Catholic Church has "tens, if not hundreds, of thousands" of volunteers who work with children, according to the church's lobbying group.
  • The church was the only group to lobby against a California law requiring background checks on people volunteering to work with children, and extending the statute of limitations of child molestation.
  • Estimates of annual amounts the New York bishops spend on lobbying range from $100,000 a year to "well over $1 million."
  • Given those estimates, the New York bishops spend between 75 cents and $7.50 on lobbying per year for each recipient of its bi-weekly newspaper, Catholic New York.
  • The church spent roughly $4.48 billion more on the poor in 2010 than the median amount spent on lawsuit settlements in the last 15 years.
  • 62 percent of the money the Catholic Church spent on the poor came from local, state or federal government coffers.
The Economist reports:
"The sins involved in [the American Catholic Church's] book-keeping are not as vivid or grotesque as those on display in the various sexual-abuse cases that have cost the American church more than $3 billion so far; but the financial mismanagement and questionable business practices would have seen widespread resignations at the top of any other public institution."
Sources: The Economist, 'Earthly Concerns'; California Assembly Bill 1628; Yearly Data on Accused Priests; Pew Landscape Survey on religion in America; Catholic Church in the US demographics; priest's salary in San Diego, California; priest's salary in Montgomery, Alabama; Catholic New York circulation numbers.
Read More
Posted in American religion, bishops, Catholicism, child molestation, politics, priests, religious data, scandal | No comments

Friday, 17 August 2012

Posted on 23:15 by Unknown

WPA Federal Arts Project mural in Eugene, Ore., painted by Carl Morris.

Morris, in an oral history:
"We left the houseboat and we had moved to New York, because I had already been told no [by the committee deciding who would paint a mural in Eugene, Ore]. While we were there a funny thing happened. A friend of ours said, 'I don't know what you think of fortune tellers, but there is one I would think you would find amusing down in the Village if you would like to come down.' We said, 'Sure.' This fortune teller not only told an awful lot of things I didn't want to hear but also said, 'You will get a letter that will send you west.' I said, 'O.K. I'm going to get a letter.' Went home and got this letter from the department saying that I'd been awarded this commission. So we moved back out here and Hilda came to Portland and found a house for us. I went down to Eugene and spent time down there going through the lumber industry and agriculture and all of that, and completely reworked the whole idea all over again. Then, I don't know why these things always have to happen with drama, but again then I was awarded the final acceptance on this, we of course had to have a bottle of scotch. And woke up the next morning in such a condition that I think I heard the words Pearl Harbor five times before it penetrated."
Read More
Posted in America, art, fortune telling, government, history, mural, WPA | No comments

The religious history of the cubicle

Posted on 02:10 by Unknown
The spiritual history of cubicles

Kathryn Lofton, American religion professor at Yale, author of Oprah: The Gospel of an Icon, and curator/executive editor of Freq.uenci.es, "a collaborative genealogy of spirituality," talks about the religious history of the "spiritless space" of the office cubicle.

"The cubicle," Lofton said, at the Heidelberg Center for American Studies last night, "is a shuttered spiritless trap. The cubicle is a spirited invitation to rise."

Lofton argues that the history of work and work spaces is also a history of the struggle of questions of body and mind. Thinking about cubicles is invitation to consider this. The cubicle is a decision that has been made about what would be a "best life." Which means, in market terms, the most productive, but also something having more to do with an individual's asserted individuality and self, and thus, a matter of spirituality.

And in both those cases, the religious and the economic, it has to do with how consciousness is formed. For Lofton, this is a key connection of the relationship between religion and the marketplace today.

Behind Lofton is Herman Miller, of the Zeeland, Mich. company he named after himself. His company was the one to develop the cubicle, as well as to pioneer in the mass production of modernist furniture. He was a committed Dutch Reformed Neo-Calvinist, Lofton said, and his company's philosophy was deeply Neo-Calvinist.

As was the cubicle.

The modern version we know, according to Lofton and according to those involved in developing the idea, is a horrible betrayal of the original concept. At the first, it wasn't supposed to be a "spiritless trap" or contain and oppress people into efficiency, but to be a creative space within the workspace where the "human performer" and human creativity was central. Efficiency and business success were still paramount, but the idea was that the market gods didn't reward worker alienation and oppression.

The goal was to recognize and make a first priority out of the variability of people and the variability of work. To end fatigue. Enhance creativity.

There's at least one Neo-Calvinist today who would argue that that religious potential is still present in the cubicle.

Thinking about cubicles as religious, as spiritual, as spaces where the human spirit is nurtured and enabled and enhanced can strain credulity.

As Lofton said, though, even that skepticism is an opportunity to engage the question, again, of religion and work: "What would it mean to see products' production without cynicism and as a matter of human fullness?"
Read More
Posted in calvinism, cubicle, Dutch Calvinist, HCA, Herman Miller, Kathryn Lofton, Religion and the marketplace, the work we do | No comments

Thursday, 16 August 2012

To capitalize, or not

Posted on 05:57 by Unknown












"Evangelical" or "evangelical"?

"Pentecostal" or "pentecostal"?

Is it "deist" or "Deist," "atheist," or "Atheist"?

Capitalization of group identifiers in religion writing is not exactly consistent. Certain publishers, journals, and authors have their preferences. The Religion Stylebook is authoritative for news reporters who cover religion, and it has its capitalization rules ("Uppercase only when part of a formal name"). But, generally, there's a lot of variety, a lot of inconsistency, a lot of making-it-up-as-you-go.


The problem, specifically, is with names of groups that are not institutionally unified, and yet still can be thought of as groups and functions as groups. Groups where there's no official organization, and yet there could be.

There's a gap between proper nouns and collective nouns, and that's where these names fall.

There's also the matter of trying to avoid confusion. One may want to refer to "charismatic," and not capitalize the word since it's a very loose movement one is speaking of, and it's not a proper name or  official name, there's no master mailing list or headquarters. Yet, writing "the charismatic woman" is confusing. Writing "the woman who identifies with the movement known as 'charismatic,'" very cumbersome.

So, one capitalizes. Or not.

I don't have a solution to this. I have gone both ways. "Evangelical" I tend to capitalize. "Atheist" I don't. "Pentecostal" I used to not, but now I do. I'm not sure I could defend any of that.

I spent a good while, the other day, trying to decide if it should be "deist" or "Deist." Merriam Webster's -- so helpful -- notes that this is a "noun, often capitalized."

It's good to know, though, that this is not a new problem, nor one specific to a particular period of religion writing.

From Google Ngrams, for example, we find that early American authors and publishers couldn't agree on the capitalization rule for atheist/Atheist. Lowercase was the vastly dominant form in the last decade of the 17th century and capitalization was preferred in the 1660s, 1730s and 1750s.














There's even more disagreement about evangelical/Evangelical, with preferences appearing to swing dramatically from, say, the 1640s to the 1660s, and from the 1690s to the first decade of the 1700s:














Nor does it get sorted out, as a comparison of "evangelical" and "Evangelical" in American books published in the 20th century shows:














A preference emerges for the lowercase "atheism" in the 19th century -- which continues today -- but there's persistence in the capitalizers, too, not all of which can be explained the by the word appearing at the start of a sentence:














I don't know how much can really be drawn from these graphs. Maybe there are some social facts to be cited as explaining one style or the other at one time or another. The bigger picture, I suspect, is that we just fuddle along.

Which I take some peace in. 
Read More
Posted in academia, American religion, atheism, evangelicalism, ngrams, scholarship, writing | No comments

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

X is in the general interest

Posted on 07:02 by Unknown
"I shall begin by assuming that the proposition: 'Recommendation X is legitimate' has the same meaning as the proposition: 'Recommendation X is in the general (or public) interest,' where X can be an action as well as a norm of action or even a system of such norms (in the case we are considering, a system of domination). 'X is in the general interest' is to mean that the normative validity claim connected with X counts as justified. The justifiability of competing validity claims is decided by a system of possible justifications; a single justification is called a legitimation. The reconstruction of given legitimations can consist, first, in discovering the justificatory system, S, that allows for evaluating the given legitimation valid or invalid in S. 'Valid in S' is to mean only that someone who accepts S -- a myth or a cosmology or a political theory -- must also accept the grounds given in valid legitimations. This necessity expresses a consistency connection resulting from the internal relations of the justificatory system."
-- Jürgen Habermas, "Legitimation Problems in the Modern State."
Read More
Posted in Habermas, philosophy, politics, secularism, secularity | No comments

What Chris Rock learned from TV preachers

Posted on 02:56 by Unknown
Televangelists are not often praised. So it's interesting to hear an outright appreciation of TV preachers. And of the art of TV preaching.

From Chris Rock, of all people.

The comedian talked on NPR's Fresh Air last week about how his comedy is similar to his grandfather's preaching, and how he learned and continues to learn from TV preachers.

As the conversation starts, it seems like Rock is dismissing preachers as hucksters, manipulators. As it goes on, though, that doesn't seem to be his point. Instead it's admiration. And emulation. He respects preachers' ability to hold attention, keep a crowd, and communicate.
From the interview:

Chris Rock: "When you grow up with a preacher, it's almost like, it's like seeing a magician stuff the rabbit in his side jacket. Like, I knew all the tricks."

Terry Gross: "Did your grandfather think of it as tricks?"

Rock: "I don't think he thought of it as tricks, but every job becomes a job. And you figure out short cuts and you figure out, y'know, y'know, ways around things. I can watch a preacher now -- what's that guy, Joel, Joel Orsteen?"

Gross: "Osteen."

Rock: "Osteen. I watch him a lot. I watch T.D. Jakes, I watch -- and I can see when they're preaching, and I can see when they're, you know, there's tricks. When they're kind of losing the crowd and have to go to something. I can tell when they make audibles. And have to go to something else so they can get the crowd back."

Gross: "So, are you watching them for performance reasons?"

Rock: "A little bit. Half of  it for performance reasons. And half of it just 'cause  I like a good sermon and you're always looking -- A) It feels, a good sermon's always great. And B), you know, these guys, they're always -- they have this task of coming up with a new, with new material every week. I like how a preacher can talk about one thing for an hour and 10 minutes. I keep trying to figure out how I can do that in standup. So how I can like, OK, how can I just be funny about, you know, jealousy. A preacher will pick a topic and they'll run with it for the whole sermon. And take you on a ride. Talking about literally one thing. I just love that style. I've always, always been trying to figure out how I can do that in standup."

I wonder how many noted American comedians have studied their craft by studying preachers. Some certainly seem to have structured their shows as sermons. George Carlin. Lenny Bruce. Though perhaps Bruce would have said the distinction between comedy and preaching is that comedy's Jewish, preaching goyisch. ("A lot of people say to me, 'Why did you kill Christ?' I dunno. It was one of those parties... got out of hand"). Louis C.K., obviously. Not to mention Broderick Rice and those who'd make the connection explicitly. It's not all comedians, certainly, but there're many with a style or sense of structure that seems preaching-related.

Though there's also the point that the influence has significantly sometimes run the other way.
Read More
Posted in American religion, Broderick Rice, Chris Rock, comedians, comedy, Joel Osteen, preaching, T.D. Jakes, televangelists, Terry Gross, TV | No comments

Tuesday, 14 August 2012

Atheism after New Atheism

Posted on 07:08 by Unknown
What happens after New Atheism?

As a group, the New Atheists took a lot of their impetus, their energy and vitriol, from the historical moment of 9/11. That historical moment is passing, though. Likewise, there seems to be a sense that New Atheism is increasingly passe. The abrasive rhetoric and aggravation of culture wars can only play for so long. Where does the "conversation" go after Religulous?

Perhaps in another direction entirely.

Two writers, one in Harpers and one in the Chronicle of Higher Education, are suggesting that new schools of atheist thought have emerged -- or, perhaps, congealed -- that aren't interested in debunking religion, but understanding it. They've abandoned the antagonistic and essentially political project of New Atheism. Instead, they're pursuing something more nuanced.

Christopher R. Beha, a self-described "disappointed disbeliever," in Harpers:
"The New New Atheists tend not to take up the question of God’s existence, which they take for granted as settled in the negative. Instead, they seek to salvage what is lost when belief erodes, concerning themselves with what atheists ought to believe and do in religion’s stead."
Tom Bartlett, in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
"[Y]ou have to figure out what religion does for us in the first place. That's exactly what a loosely affiliated group of scholars in fields including biology, anthropology, and psychology are working on. They're applying evolutionary theory to the study of religion in order to discover whether or not it strengthens societies, makes them more successful, more cooperative, kinder. The scholars, many of them atheists themselves, generally look askance at the rise of New Atheism, calling its proponents ignorant, fundamentalist, and worst of all, unscientific."
It's not entirely clear that Bartlett and  Beha are talking about the same cultural thing, and I'm not entirely convinced the various people and projects described in the two pieces qualify as a movement or as movements.

But, add in Chris Stedman's attempts to integrate atheists into interfaith work and his forthcoming book, Faitheist, "The story of a former Evangelical Christian turned openly gay atheist who now works to bridge the divide between atheists and the religious," and one does sense perhaps the beginnings of atheism after New Atheism.
Read More
Posted in 9/11, atheism, Chris Stedman, journalism, New Atheists, New New Atheists, secularism | No comments

Sunday, 12 August 2012

America's first atheist

Posted on 10:11 by Unknown
"Almighty Freedom! give my venturous song
The force, the charm that to thy voice belong;
Tis thine to shape my course, to light my way,
To nerve my country with the patriot lay,
To teach all men where all their interest lies,
How rulers may be just and nations wise:
Strong in thy strength I bend no suppliant knee,
Invoke no miracle, no Muse but thee."
-- Joel Barlow, The Columbiad: Book I.

Barlow is not thought of as a significant figure of late 18th, early 19th century America. He's a little noted epic poet, and a minor diplomat remembered only really for drafting the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, which contains the controversial clause, "As the government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion."

He is significant, though, as possibly America's first atheist.

James Turner, in his book Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America, suggests Barlow is a plausible candidate for America's first atheist. There may, of course, have been an underground of unbelief in America in the late 1700s, but the evidence we have of the era's skepticism indicates it was directed towards the authority of the clergy, the specifics of creeds and dogmas, and the status of revelation. Not towards God per se. Skepticism was skepticism of "superstition," but that didn't often extend to include metaphysics as such, or the idea of God as revealed in the order of things. The deists and those of that inclination wanted to rationalize religion, but considered atheism a slur to be avoided. Tom Paine, for example, started out his attack or revelation and organized religion by stating, "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."

According to Turner, God was understood as epistemologically necessary, even for those who rejected organized religion. Knowledge was thought only possible via science, and science required nature be consistent and regulated by discoverable rules. "God" was the ground of those rules, and thus the guarantor of rationality. To be skeptical of God was to be skeptical of the possibility of knowledge.

That was more radical than most of the era's radicals were willing to be.

Turner writes, "The known unbelievers of Europe and America before the French Revolution numbered fewer than a dozen .... disbelief in God remained scarcely more plausible than disbelief in gravity."

One of those who came to disbelief with the French Revolution was Barlow.

At least to an extent.

Turner suggests Barlow flirted with the idea of atheism, but then drew back. Perhaps because it was too radical. Perhaps because that active unbelief was only sustainable in the context of France at the time of revolution. Even if he didn't withdraw from the idea of atheism, or at some point again take up deist beliefs, Barlow masked his unbelief, and didn't openly proclaim it. This might of been because, as his biographer Richard Buel, Jr., explains, with the failure of the revolution in France and the increase in religiousness in America with the Second Great Awakening, an outright rejection of all conceptions of God was politically untenable. Propagating atheism would have completely marginalized Barlow, so he maintained a public position of "rational religion," skeptical but within the bounds acceptable to the American public.

Barlow came to his tentative atheism through the influence of Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach, who published anti-religious works anonymously in Amsterdam and hosted the Parisan salon that contained many or most of the known unbelievers preceding the French Revolution. D'Holbach argued that "The universe, that vast assemblage of every thing that exists, presents only matter and motion: the whole offers to our contemplation nothing but an immense, an uninterrupted succession of causes and effects." Holding to that conception of materialism, he was, it has been noted, "long and loud" in his "expressions of atheism." This was so provocative a position, at that point, even Voltaire disavowed it.

In 1795, six years after the French Revolution began, Barlow wrote a letter from France to America praising d'Holbach's work. "I rejoice," he wrote, "in the progress of good sense over the damnable imposture of Christian mummery." In the same letter, Barlow endorsed d'Holbach's depiction of the Apostle Paul as a "famous Montebank."

According to Buel, Barlow was slow, though, to move from criticism of Christianity to outright atheism. Buel writes,
"Entries Barlow made in his notebooks between 1799 and 1801 are sprinkled with references to writings that maintained there was no such thing as an intelligent God and that all religions were illusions. By 1802 these ideas had become Barlow's own. He then objected to prayers to a sentient Supreme Being on the grounds that reason and intelligence were attributes of a dependent rather than an independent agent. If God were indeed sovereign, he would be the equivalent of nature and, as such, without intelligence."
Implicit in this account of his rejection of the God of deists is the epistemological problem of atheism Turner describes. Whereas "natural theology," be it orthodox or deist, posits a supernatural designer of nature, ensuring the orderedness of nature, Barlow finds this idea of an intelligent Supreme Being nonsensical. Specifically because he thinks the conditions necessary for "Supreme" and for being "intelligent" are contradictory. Note, though, that this would also imply that nature is reason-less, which, as Turner explains it, would have undermined the foundational idea of the science of the time, which was that reason and order, in the forms of natural laws, could be detected. It's not clear how or if Barlow imagined himself getting out of this conundrum, but it seems possible, at least, from what Buel says, that he managed it with what might be called philosophical secularization. That is, by just not allowing reference to an "ultimate reality" grounding the rules of nature, preferring instead what Charles Taylor calls "the ethic of freedom and mutual benefit" that constitutes the "Modern Moral Order."

Barlow may not have gone that far, though. These are tentative steps. The move from appealing to the ultimate reality of the order of things to appealing to immediate, immanent question of mutual benefit is at least embryonic in this advent of American atheism, but then it's embryonic, also, in a lot of the political philosophy of the 17th and 18th centuries. That doesn't mean it could have been articulated.

Comparing his earlier and later poems, one can note the progress of disbelief in Barlow's thought, from generic Christian sentiment to deism to something more (or less).

Though Barlow was apparently never exactly orthodox, he was a Congregationalist, earlier in his life, and served, even, as a chaplain during the American Revolution. In an early poem written for his graduation from Yale and noted mostly for strongly stating opposition to slavery, Barlow imagines "the Lord of Life" addressing Christopher Columbus, offering a somewhat standard Christian account of the coming resurrection.


The Lord of the poem says the "sons of earth" will "Rise to life" and "behold the promised birth." In the final moment of human history, as described by the God of the poem, "Stern vengeance softens and the God descends, / The atoning God, the pardoning grace to seal, / The dead to quicken and the sick to heal."

In 1787, nearly a decade later, the year before leaving for France, Barlow published his epic The Vision of Columbus. In that, the deity discernible is less Christian, more deist. The God described seems more an abstract principle, the first cause and ground of the laws of nature held to be deists. As found in the first book of the poem, the divine is "that great Source, that life-inspiring Soul, / Suns drew their light and systems learn'd to roll." Barlow's poem speaks of the "trace" of "Heaven's own conduct," which is visible when people "look thro' nature" and has been "stamp'd the mind of man."

Twenty years later, Barlow published an expanded and revised version of the epic, re-titled The Columbiad. Here, in 1807, the divine seems almost completely rejected -- or if not rejected, replaced. Barlow invokes no god but Freedom, and proclaims, "Strong in thy strength I bend no suppliant knee, / Invoke no miracle, no Muse but thee."

As the Guardian noted in a review of Buel's book last year, The Columbiad involved some major revisions of the earlier poem, "transforming his Christian epic The Vision of Columbus into a secular, republican epic." In the later poem, "one of the strangest pieces of literature produced by a 19th-century American," released just five years after Barlow's notebooks evidence a personal atheism, Barlow
"versifies about geological evidence contrary to the Christian creation story, describes the secular apocalypse that will come if Americans fail to emancipate their slaves, and ends with representatives of the major religions discarding the symbols of their faith to join into one world-governing council, based in a crystal palace in Mesopotamia."
A progression of skepticism is visible in Barlow's poetry, but the final version visible in The Columbiad does not actually seem to go as far as outright atheism. What's presented would not be problematic for deists, though it would be for Christians. The skepticism presented in the poetry doesn't seem to go as far as his private notebooks.

It's notable, too, that when Barlow was attacked as an atheist in the American press in subsequent years, his defenders argued he wasn't an atheist, but merely another deist. Atheism was beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse, and Barlow didn't publicly cross that border. Even if he was a committed atheist, he made sure he could still pass as a deist.

Whether this is because he himself wasn't entirely confident in the position, as Turner claims, or because taking such a controversial stand would have been political suicide, as Buel argues, may be a matter of speculation. Perhaps it was both. But Barlow wasn't open about his lack of belief, whether he lacked with deep conviction or was merely flirting.

He didn't publicly promote d'Holbach-style atheism with something like the equivalent of Tom Paine's book. To the extent he did promote such ideas, he did so anonymously.

In 1802, for example, the year "these ideas had become Barlow's own," he translated the final portion of Constantin Volney's Les Ruines, ou Méditations sur les révolutions des empires (The Ruins, or a Survey of the Revolutions of Empires). The first half of the work, which exposited a philosophy of history, had been translated by Thomas Jefferson, but Jefferson stopped before translating the sections of the book dedicated to religion, realizing it would open him up to significant criticism from his political opponents. Volney had already fled America ahead of an expected deportation, and acknowledged the final section of his book was meant to provoke doubt about religion. Barlow finished the work, including the controversial chapter entitled "The Origin and Filiation of Religious Ideas," which argued that humans had invented religion and gods to explain astronomical phenomena. He did this secretly, though. Neither Jefferson nor Barlow had themselves cited as the book's translator.

Buel notes,
"both of the responsible parties now preferred avoiding public identification with Volney's ideas .... Barlow grew increasingly mindful of his reputation among his countrymen. The Ruins would prove to be a tough sell in an America beset by the religious fervor accompanying the Second Great Awakening."
Barlow managed to keep his unbelief quiet enough to be appointed in 1811 to negotiate a commercial treaty with Napoleon. Not that he was entirely free from suspicion. The New York Evening Post, opposing the diplomatic appointment, called Barlow an "apostate priest and reviller of the very religion he publicly professed ... a phrenzied and bloody-minded jacobin, a modern philosopher and a sycophant of those in power" (sic). This seems to have been pretty standard political rhetoric, though, of the sort common directed at deists and those sympathetic to the French Revolution.

If Barlow was America's first atheist, he was tentative about it. "Flirtation," Turner's term, seems to be accurate. He came to his unbelief privately, in the context of his reading and his private notebooks, and he kept it private too. It's significant, nonetheless, that he did go so far as to disbelieve, even if only cautiously. It was, in his notebooks, a crazy thought. And not one without consequences. Barlow hesitated, in the face of those consequences, but still might be rightly understood as marking an early moment in a significant societal shift.

Barlow's private unbelief, as possibly America's first atheist, is an important moment in that move Charles Taylor describes as "a move from a society where belief in God is unchallenged and indeed, unproblematic, to one in which it is understood as one option among others, and frequently not the easiest to embrace," the shift from a society in which "it was virtually impossible not to believe in God, to one in which faith, even for the staunchest believes, is one possibility among others."

In this sense, Barlow is significant to late 18th, early 19th century America. There may have been a historical moment, there, where in the privacy of his notebooks Barlow was the only American anywhere who thought of himself as rejecting all conceptions of God. Where he was the one who thought what was almost unthinkable, that there is no God, and thought it even to the point of tentatively, privately, accepting for himself what to most was an insult, a slur, the name "atheist."
Read More
Posted in America, atheism, Baron d'Holbach, belief, Constantin Volney, French Revolution, James Turner, Joel Barlow, poetry, Richard Buel Jr., secularism, The Columbiad, Treaty of Tripoli, unbelief | No comments

Saturday, 11 August 2012

Ignoring David Foster Wallace's religion

Posted on 10:08 by Unknown
The forthcoming biography of David Foster Wallace, D.T. Max's Every Love Story is a Ghost Story, seems very unlikely to shed any light on Wallace's faith or spirituality.

Though it's known that, at one point, Wallace belonged to a church in Illinois -- maybe a Mennonite church -- and also he reportedly twice attempted to join the Catholic Church, there's not much more information about his religiousness. Beliefs, practices, problems or questions, affiliations -- it's all question marks. A lot is known about his life, but not about this. His life fascinates people, and moves people. His ethical-religious reflections especially.

But no one in the position to find out more about his religious beliefs or practices seems to have been interested in doing so.

Either that or the information just isn't out there.



The question of Wallace's relationship to Christianity came up again in a panel focused on the Wallace archives. Max was on the panel, as well as two other writer's who know more than a little about Wallace's life. But the question wasn't answered:
Douglas Brinkley: "....And also, I always felt it a little odd, but not that odd, but he would always go to church constantly throughout his life. And I was wondering if that came from his childhood and kinda the routine of church? Was he going to church for lightness? Or was he looking for literary material?

Seth Colter Walls: "There's not a great deal of that that I've seen in the archive, but maybe you can speak to that."

D.T. Max: "Well, I was actually think of again of the archive and the things archives don't or can't contain .... What the archive is really really good at (and you probably know this better than me), it has a lot of Infinite Jest gestations .... It's amazing to me, and wonderful and fascinating that there are people, many people who feel close enough to David's work, that they actually want sort of see what made this work. That's -- On one level that's an absolutely normal, typical. You read anyone's novel. But I don't think that that comes up a lot with most writers. I don't think -- I mean, as much interest as there is in, say, Don DeLillo, I don't know, I would be surprised, if there are people who are really, well, I don't know. Let's just say that the scope of people who care about this seems to me unprecedented. And says something. I think, as a biographer I'm always saying, well what does this say. Well it says something really interesting to me, that David touches people not just with his finished work, which he clearly does, but also with the sense of that struggle to create that work."
It is very interesting, from the stand point of biography, that Wallace's writing struggles are so important to so many. I wish, though, that Max found Wallace's struggles with and attempts at religion important too. What does that say? What does it say that Wallace dedicated some time trying to be a part of church communities? How did that work and how did it play out?

Max tacks around the question, as if he either doesn't know the answer or doesn't find it interesting.

Asked directly, in another context, he went with "banal," an assessment he attributes to Wallace.
"Wallace once wrote to his friend Jonathan Franzen that his thoughts on religion were 'banal.' He did go to church, and my assumption is that this practice began after he stopped drinking and smoking pot as part of getting clean and may have continued either because he felt it centered him or merely out of habit, as part of his sense of himself as a middle-class Midwesterner."
Maybe Wallace's thoughts on religion were banal. I doubt it, though. Unfortunately, Max seems to assume that's the case with out investigating any deeper or even being interested. The rest of his answer is just speculation -- and, really, even if his Illinois church attendance was best explained by those things, there's still plenty there to explore. None of those answers specifically would be boring, though Max seems to take them that way.

It's like a terminal disinterest in religion. David Lipsky's extended interview with Wallace was the same way. Wallace talked about religion and God several times, but Lipsky let every statement pass, never following up, always pursuing other questions.

I will read the upcoming bio. I expect it to be good, though for other things and other reasons, but I wish, with all the religious themes and threads in Wallace's work, that those writing about his life would take his religious efforts and endeavors seriously.
Read More
Posted in D.T. Max, David Foster Wallace, David Lipsky, Every Love Story is a Ghost Story, religion | No comments

Tuesday, 7 August 2012

Protecting belief

Posted on 04:48 by Unknown
"Christian theology never expressly identified God and nature; but the point is that natural theology and nature-preaching had implanted within Protestantism an increasingly strong leaning in this direction. Ministers often forgot Calvin's warnings, misunderstood Edwards, ignored Bushnell; natural theologians wanted not just to glorify God in nature but to see Him there ....

In the end, the most influential church leaders tried to protect belief by making peace with modernity, by conceiving God and His purposes in terms as nearly compatible as possible with secular understandings and aims. A minority insisted that a transcendent God must utterly elude human grasp."
-- James Turner, Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America.
Read More
Posted in American religion, atheism, belief, James Turner, natural theology, secularity, secularization | No comments

A perch at the end of the day

Posted on 04:25 by Unknown
Perch at the end of the day
Read More
Posted in birds, churches, my life | No comments

Friday, 3 August 2012

Let me root, root, root for the home team: When sports replaces religion in the rites of death

Posted on 06:57 by Unknown
"It was such a big part of her life, why not be a part of her send off too."

Errol Morris' latest short documentary, on sports funerals:



As a reporter, I covered one of these in Georgia in 2007 or '08. The viewing was set up as a tail gate party, and everyone wore University of Georgia Bulldog gear in accordance with the will of the man who'd died. A large bulldog was inflated in front of the funeral home, bulldog flags were flown from the hearse, and the man was buried with two tickets to the next game in his hand.

Morris doesn't get into the specifically religious aspects of these funerals, though he does ask one Cubs fan if there will be sports in heaven.

The Georgia funeral director I spoke to saw sports funerals as replacing traditional religious rites. For these people, he said, religion was too dour, too somber. They didn't want organ music and a rented minister. What they wanted was a celebration, and for their friends and families to enjoy at their deaths what they had enjoyed in their lives. Religion wasn't an important part of their lives, wasn't what gave their lives meaning. Sports was. So they designed these non-religious rites of passage around that idea.

The widow at the viewing I attended agreed with that. She said she hadn't known of her husband's plans until he died and she read his will, but that he'd done what he knew would comfort her and everyone who cared about him.

"All this," she told me, "is him saying to me, 'don't cry, now. I don't want no crying.'"
Read More
Posted in America, Bulldogs, death, Errorl Morris, funerals, nones, religion, rites, ritual, secularism | No comments

Ted Cruz & the Texas Ten Commandment Monument case

Posted on 06:19 by Unknown
Ted Cruz -- Texas Republican nominee for US Senate, hailed now as a leader and intellectual force for the Tea Party movement -- made his time as Texas' Solicitor General a foundational piece of his image and campaign. In that role he argued several First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court.

Van Orden v. Perry, also known as the Texas Ten Commandments Monument case, is particularly interesting.



As I read it, Cruz et al defended the monument on three grounds:
  1. The monument is primarily not religious (the most standard and yet counter-intuitive argument in these cases)
  2. A reasonable observer would correctly understand 1. (this probably being the real crux of the issue)
  3. Even if it were religious or were misunderstood as religious, there's nothing coercive about a monument, and thus religion isn't established (a position that's been advanced by Justice Clarence Thomas)
To a large extent, the arguments in the Texas Ten Commandment Monument case as similar to what one sees elsewhere. There were some that struck me as notably different, though.

For example:
"In its museum-setting context, this monument would not convey to the reasonable observer any official endorsement of religion. This is simply not a context in which the State is reasonably understood to be taking sides. The many monuments commemorating veterans do not communicate disapproval of pacifists; the Tribute to Children does not reflect negatively on older Texans; the Hiker and horse-riding Cowboy monuments send no message concerning motorized transport; and the Volunteer Firemen monument reflects no official disapproval of those who pursue firefighting as a paid profession. The monuments, memorials, and commemorative plaques on the Capitol Grounds are not reasonably perceived as creating 'insiders' and 'outsiders' in the Texas political community."
The argument here's pretty clever. Essentially, Cruz et al are saying that a monument can't make an exclusive claim. That monuments are always innately pluralistic, recognition of one thing never meaning or reasonably implying de-recognition for something else.

Presumably, though, the monument to hikers, the monument to children and the other monuments don't say anything like "I AM the LORD thy God / Thou shalt have no other gods before me,"  where the religious one has those words exactly. Which seems like a quintessentially exclusive claim.

The Supreme Court decided otherwise, though, ruling that the law,
"requires that we neither abdicate our responsibility to maintain a division between church and state nor evince a hostility to religion by disabling the government from in some ways recognizing our religious heritage."
And, thus,
"The inclusion of the Commandments monument in this group [of monuments] has a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government, that cannot be said to violate the Establishment Clause."
In a 2011 speech, Cruz gave his own gloss on the court victory, citing it as an example of "how we re-take our country," by "standing on principle" -- "we," in that case, being specifically identified as "conservative Christians."



Some other notes:
-- Van Orden who brought the suit against Texas because of the monument, was, incredibly, a homeless Unitarian with a suspended law license.

-- Cruz' advisor at Princeton was Robert P. George.

-- In a smart analysis of Cruz's triumph, Abby Rapoport argues his win has little to do with ideology, much less the advent of a new era of Tea Party power, and has been widely and wildly mis-read.
Read More
Posted in American religion, First Amendment, freedom of religion, modern conservatism, political debate, Ted Cruz | No comments

Thursday, 2 August 2012

New home

Posted on 04:54 by Unknown
New home
Read More
Posted in my life, photographs | No comments

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Al Mohler's confessionalism

Posted on 10:43 by Unknown
Al Mohler, who once effected a purge of "liberals" at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was recently reflecting on that after nearly 10 years. In that reflection he gives a curious account of what he considers liberalism, and how that liberalism happened at the flagship seminary of the famously conservative Southern Baptists.

Mohler:
"The confessional accountability was loosed. And the obligation was ignored. Now it was not done in a blatant way, where someone got up and said 'I deny the Abstract [of Principles],' except in a couple of -- it did happen in a couple of examples. But rather it happened by the claim to private interpretation, which was explicitly ruled out by the founders. Who said the confession must be signed by every faculty member.... It was very clear that if at any point mental reservations should come, it was the faculty member's duty to bring his concerns with his resignation to the president of the school [laughter]. When the conservatives at the SBC -- and this is something very, very important, and I raise this with some fear and trepidation, for I have concerns about my own denomination, which are many -- but, grassroots Southern Baptist, many of whom could not articulate what was wrong, knew something was horribly wrong .... Wonderfully, by God's grace, the issues became clarified. And you had grassroots Baptists who began to understand the issue of the inerrancy of God's word. And, even though they may not know the word 'confesssionalism,' they knew the need for it, even if unarticulated."
This is curious, I think, for a few reasons:

1) Mohler is suggesting that theological liberals are not liberals because they hold liberal positions, but because of the how they come to those positions. It's the hermeneutic of private interpretation that bothers him. Presumably one could hold that individuals can and should interpret the Bible for themselves and still come to exclusively conservative positions on things,  but Mohler would still object to them (in principle at least).

Mohler's making opponents out of a lot of evangelicals who would agree with him on particular issues that normally get classified as "conservative" or "liberal," on the basis that their interpretive principles are in themselves "liberal," even if that hasn't been the result.


2) The emphasis is on confessions, rather than biblicism more strictly.

Not to say that Mohler goes anywhere near suggesting a confession could be authoritative beyond or separate from the Bible. There's no question Mohler believes confessions are valuable only to the extent they sum up essential Biblical doctrines. Yet there is a matter of emphasis. The problem he's pointing to came not specifically because of disregard for the Christian scriptures, in his account, but because of a weakening of authority and a loosening of "confessional accountability."

I read that as implying that the Bible can be read in a rather open way, as a dialogue, with interpretation ongoing and developing, etc., whereas with these confessions (as per Mohler), there's absolute closure and an end to interpretations. One can either assent or not assent, but it's no longer a matter of reading.

The Baptists have a long tradition of confessions, but it's more common, post-Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies, to hear an emphasis on fidelity to the Bible and also a commitment to certain sort of reading (i.e., "literal"). Where the Abstract of Principles doesn't even mention the Bible, more recent Southern Baptist documents make beliefs about the Bible central. In the Southern Baptist Convention's statement of faith, for example, in 1925, '63 and '00, the Bible is the very first item on the list, above even beliefs about God.

I suspect that this emphasis on confessions and grassroots Baptists turn towards (unarticulated) confessionalism evidences a growing concern that the Bible and the literalist hermeneutic were not enough. That authoritative official interpretation is necessary.

If this is the case, then this development is not unrelated to the evangelicals who've become Catholic and Eastern Orthodox in recent years. 

3) The SBC statement of faith says of the Bible that it is "the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried." It's really not clear to me how or by whom such things should "be tried," according to Baptist polity, if not by individuals.

There may be an answer to that, from Mohler or other confessional Baptists. I don't know what it is, though.

4) It's not always the case that confessions are enforced so authoritatively as set out by Mohler here. It can still be the case that confessions are open to ongoing readings, interpreted by communities, part of a conversation where commitments have been made but applications and explanations and understandings are still being worked out. He rules this out, though, by promoting this idea of a confession where even having "mental reservations" is unacceptable.

This means, in a sense, a confession for Mohler is not something that can be read. It can't be interpreted, because it already has been interpreted. There's supposed to be a finality to the meaning of the thing, I think. There are thought to be only two responses to a confession, accepting and assenting or rejecting and having reservations.

5) D.G. Hart, historian of American religion, has argued that history of Protestantism in the 20th century has been badly misunderstood as a fight between modernists and fundamentalists or liberals and conservatives, where really it's a conflict between those Protestants who maintained confessional orthodoxy and those who didn't. That's proposing a pretty dramatic revision of the historiography as it currently stands. Is Mohler, though, kind of suggesting the same thing?


Some other notes:
-- The purge at Southern inspired some reflection on and defense of Baptist's confessional history. See Steve Weaver's "The Use of Confessions of Faith in Baptist History," which appears to have been written at Southern circa 2002; Gregory A. Wills' "Baptists, the Bible and confessions," written for Southern Seminary Magazine in 2000; and Robert Paul Martin, "The Legitimacy and Use of Confessions of Faith," who argues confessions can prevent heresy where the Bible could not:
"A confession of our loyalty to the Bible is not enough. The most radical denials of biblical truth frequently coexist with a professed regard for the authority and the testimony of the Bible. When men use the very words of the Bible to promote heresy, when the Word of Truth is perverted to serve error, nothing less than a confession of faith will serve to publicly draw the lines between truth and error."

There have been corresponding rejections of confessionalism and counter histories arguing that Southern Baptists are not confessional. Representative is Walter B. Shurden's "The First President of the SBC and Confessions of Faith."

-- It would be worth exploring why history is seen as authoritative in this debate, and to what extent Southern Baptists take their own traditions as authoritative.

-- What I refer to as a purge, above, is more often described as a bold stand for orthodoxy. E.g., Justin Taylor calls it "how the Lord turned the tide at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—from a place of deep theological liberalism to a bastion of orthodox fidelity."

I realize "purge" has negative connotations, but it's the most accurate word I can think of for the situation.

-- I was taught that the Southern Baptists were not a denomination, but a convention. A fine distinction, but significant if you want to make it so. What I was taught was apparently wrong, though. 
Read More
Posted in Al Mohler, Baptists, bible, creeds and confessions, D.G. Hart, evangelicalism, hermeneutics, misreading | No comments
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • 'Going to glory'
    A notebook preacher.
  • (no title)
    Wohl dem, des Hilfe der Gott Jakobs ist; des Hoffnung auf den HERRN, seinem Gott, steht; der Himmel, Erde, Meer und alles, was darinnen ist,...
  • An interpretive endeavor
    Jason N. Blum, " Retrieving Phenomenology of Religion as a Method for Religious Studies ," in the Journal of the American Academy ...
  • Beer and church
    There's something about beer and church. The combination seems incongruous, especially when the church in question is a conservative on...
  • (no title)
  • To capitalize, or not
    "Evangelical" or "evangelical"? "Pentecostal" or "pentecostal"? Is it "deist" or "Dei...
  • Incarnation, in the context of demon possession
    A fascinating thing about demonology and explanations of exorcisms is the way theology -- sometimes very abstract theology -- is re-cast in ...
  • Catholics to bishops: never mind our souls
    American Catholic bishops attempted to exert their influence on the electorate, but to little effect. Looking at the Catholic vote the day a...
  • When a Nazi converts to Islam
    He wore a beard, but not a full beard. He walked to prayers at the nearby mosque. He read the Quran, but in his own native German rather tha...
  • The new irrelevance of Rick Warren
    There's something really about odd Rick Warren's explanation for why he's cancelled the planned Obama-Romeny forum. The megachur...

Categories

  • "sacred steel" (1)
  • #PrayforBoston (1)
  • 1848 (1)
  • 1916 (1)
  • 2012 (4)
  • 2013 (1)
  • 4th of July (1)
  • 9/11 (1)
  • A Christian Manifesto (1)
  • AAR (1)
  • Aaron Schock (1)
  • abolitionists (1)
  • abortion (6)
  • Abraham Kuyper (2)
  • Abraham Lincoln (1)
  • abuse (4)
  • academia (22)
  • academica (1)
  • Acton Institute (1)
  • aesthetics (2)
  • African-American religion (3)
  • Al Mohler (1)
  • Albert J. Raboteau (1)
  • Alex Grenier (1)
  • aliens (1)
  • Alton Lemon (1)
  • Amazon (1)
  • ambition (1)
  • ambivalence (1)
  • America (21)
  • America’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone (1)
  • American (1)
  • American religion (128)
  • American Revolution (1)
  • Amish (1)
  • anabaptists (1)
  • Andrew Hamblin (1)
  • Andrew Sullivan (1)
  • Angela Zimmann (1)
  • animation (1)
  • Ann Taves (1)
  • Anti-Catholicism (1)
  • Anti-Mormonism (1)
  • apocalyptic (3)
  • apocalypticsm (2)
  • apologetics (1)
  • Appalachian (1)
  • Archdiocese of Philadelphia (1)
  • arguments (5)
  • Arizona Republic (1)
  • ark (1)
  • art (12)
  • Art Gish (1)
  • Art Young (1)
  • astrophysics (1)
  • asylum (4)
  • Aten Reign (1)
  • atheism (28)
  • audience (1)
  • authors (1)
  • Baby Doe (1)
  • bad faith (2)
  • baptism (1)
  • Baptists (2)
  • Baron d'Holbach (1)
  • Barry Hankins (1)
  • bars (1)
  • baseball (1)
  • bear market in God (2)
  • beer (1)
  • belief (13)
  • Ben-Hur (1)
  • Benedict XVI (4)
  • bible (4)
  • Big Mountain Jesus (1)
  • big Other (1)
  • Bill O'Reilly (1)
  • Billy Graham (4)
  • Billy Sunday (1)
  • birds (1)
  • birth control (10)
  • bishops (1)
  • Black Mountain Poets (1)
  • blasphemy (2)
  • blues (1)
  • Bob Dylan (2)
  • Bob Grenier (1)
  • book (4)
  • book culture (6)
  • book review (1)
  • bookshelf (1)
  • bookstore (3)
  • Boston (2)
  • Boz Tchividjian (1)
  • Brennan Manning (2)
  • Brethern (1)
  • Broderick Rice (1)
  • buddhism (1)
  • Bulldogs (1)
  • Calvary Chapel (2)
  • calvinism (12)
  • Canada (1)
  • capitalism (9)
  • cardinals (1)
  • Cardus (1)
  • Carl F. H. Henry (1)
  • Catholic hierarchy (1)
  • Catholicism (19)
  • Chance The Rapper (1)
  • charity (2)
  • Charlemagne (1)
  • Charles Chaput (1)
  • Charles Darwin (1)
  • Charles Fox Parham (1)
  • Charles Olson (2)
  • Charles Taylor (3)
  • Chicago (2)
  • child molestation (1)
  • children (2)
  • Children's literature (1)
  • Chris Rock (1)
  • Chris Stedman (1)
  • Chris Sullivan (1)
  • christian fiction (14)
  • Christian Hedonism (1)
  • Christian music (5)
  • Christian publishing (7)
  • Christian Reconstructionism (2)
  • Christianity (15)
  • Christianity Today (1)
  • Christmas (7)
  • Chuck Colson (2)
  • Chuck Smith (1)
  • church (7)
  • church suppers (1)
  • churches (6)
  • churches in bars (1)
  • citations (1)
  • civil religion (7)
  • Civil War (4)
  • Clarence Darrow (1)
  • clergy (2)
  • Cloud Ten (2)
  • cognitive minorities (1)
  • Col. Sanders (1)
  • comedians (1)
  • comedy (1)
  • commodification (1)
  • Conestoga Wood Specialties vs. Sebelius (1)
  • congress (1)
  • Constantin Volney (1)
  • Consuming Spirits (1)
  • conversation (3)
  • conversion (4)
  • Cotton Mather (1)
  • Courageous (1)
  • cover-up (2)
  • creationism (2)
  • creativity (1)
  • creeds and confessions (1)
  • crime fiction (2)
  • crime writing (1)
  • criticism (5)
  • crucifixion (2)
  • cubicle (1)
  • culpability (1)
  • cultural relevance (3)
  • cultural studies (10)
  • culture war (8)
  • D.G. Hart (1)
  • D.T. Max (3)
  • Dale McGowan (1)
  • Dan Fincke (1)
  • Daniel Dennett (2)
  • Darwin (1)
  • David Foster Wallace (3)
  • David Lipsky (1)
  • David Silverman (3)
  • David Tamayo (1)
  • de (1)
  • death (5)
  • Declaration of Independence (1)
  • definition of religion (3)
  • demons (6)
  • denominations (2)
  • depression (1)
  • Derrida (2)
  • Descartes (1)
  • Detroit (1)
  • digital humanities (1)
  • discourse analysis (1)
  • documentary (3)
  • dominionism (1)
  • Doomsday Preppers (1)
  • Dorothy Day (1)
  • doubt (2)
  • Dutch Calvinist (3)
  • e-books (2)
  • e-readers (1)
  • Eastern Orthodox (3)
  • economics (6)
  • ecstatic prayer (4)
  • Ed Gass-Donnelly (1)
  • Edith Schaeffer (1)
  • election (4)
  • Elmbrook v. Doe (1)
  • end times (4)
  • Episcopal Church (3)
  • epistemology (1)
  • Erasmus (1)
  • Eric Hobsbawm (1)
  • Errorl Morris (1)
  • ethics (5)
  • ethics of writing (1)
  • evangelicalism (38)
  • Every Love Story is a Ghost Story (2)
  • evil (2)
  • evolution (5)
  • exorcism (1)
  • experimental fiction (2)
  • faith (4)
  • Family Life Faith and Freedom v. Lynda Serrano (1)
  • Family Research Council (1)
  • fasnet (1)
  • Faulkner (1)
  • Fenway (1)
  • fiction (6)
  • film (8)
  • financial crisis (1)
  • fireworks (1)
  • First Amendment (26)
  • First Things (4)
  • folk art (1)
  • forgiveness (1)
  • fortune telling (1)
  • FOX news (1)
  • France (1)
  • Francis Schaeffer (4)
  • Frank Peretti (1)
  • Freedom From Religion Foundation (1)
  • freedom of religion (14)
  • French Revolution (1)
  • Front Porch Republic (1)
  • Fundamentalist-Modernist (4)
  • funerals (2)
  • gender (1)
  • George Beverly Shea (1)
  • George McGovern (1)
  • German (1)
  • German Reformed Church (1)
  • Germany (9)
  • giving (2)
  • Good Friday (1)
  • gospel (4)
  • gothic (1)
  • government (1)
  • grace (1)
  • Grammys (1)
  • Gravity (1)
  • Greece v. Galloway (1)
  • Greg Abbott (1)
  • Greg Brown (1)
  • Gruppe 91 (1)
  • Habermas (2)
  • Hagee (1)
  • Halakha (1)
  • Halloween (1)
  • Harry Crews (1)
  • HCA (4)
  • health care (3)
  • Heidelberg (2)
  • Heidelberg Catechism (1)
  • hell (3)
  • Henry Luce (1)
  • Herbert Rösler (1)
  • Herman Miller (1)
  • hermeneutics (1)
  • Hinduism (1)
  • Hispanic (1)
  • history (24)
  • Hitchcock (1)
  • Hobby Lobby Inc. vs. Sebelius (7)
  • Hobby Lobby Inc. vs. Sebillius (1)
  • holiness (1)
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry (1)
  • holy roller (1)
  • homemaking (1)
  • homeschooling (4)
  • homosexuality (2)
  • horseshoe (1)
  • Hosanna-Tabor (2)
  • hospitality (1)
  • Houndmouth (1)
  • houses of worship (2)
  • How's that working out for you -- being clever? (1)
  • Howard Phillips (1)
  • HR 1627 (1)
  • HSLDA (4)
  • humanism (2)
  • Hume (1)
  • icon (1)
  • icons (3)
  • ideology (1)
  • immigration (4)
  • In God We Trust (1)
  • In the Year of Dreaming Dangerously (1)
  • incarnation (1)
  • Including Atheists (1)
  • infanticide (1)
  • Intelligent Design (3)
  • Ira Glass (1)
  • Iraq (1)
  • Islam (3)
  • J. Gresham Machen (1)
  • Jack Chick (1)
  • James D. Bratt (1)
  • James Turner (2)
  • James Turrell (1)
  • James W.C. Pennington (1)
  • Jamie Coots (1)
  • Jason Molina (1)
  • Jehovah's Witnesses (1)
  • Jerry Jenkins (2)
  • Jesus (3)
  • Jesus People (1)
  • Jim Bakker (1)
  • Jodi Arias (1)
  • Joe Biden (1)
  • Joel Barlow (1)
  • Joel Osteen (1)
  • John Bunyan (1)
  • John Jay Institute (1)
  • John Piper (1)
  • John Reist (1)
  • John Roberts (2)
  • John Weiners (1)
  • John Wesley (1)
  • John XXIII (1)
  • Jonathan Cahn (1)
  • Jonathan Edwards (3)
  • Jonathan Smith (1)
  • Joseph M. Bauman (1)
  • journalism (4)
  • Juan Mendez (1)
  • Judaism (1)
  • Judge Carol E. Jackson (1)
  • Judge Sarah Evans Barker (1)
  • Justin Taylor (2)
  • Justin Townes Earle (1)
  • Kathryn Jean Lopez (1)
  • Kathryn Lofton (1)
  • Kenneth D. Royal (1)
  • kerfuffle (1)
  • language theory (1)
  • Lauren Green (1)
  • law (12)
  • Lawrence Krauss (3)
  • Lecrae (2)
  • Lee Braver (1)
  • Left Behind (2)
  • Lemon Test (1)
  • let's be serious (1)
  • Lew Wallace (1)
  • liberal (5)
  • liberalism (1)
  • life in Germany (2)
  • Linda Rios Brooks (1)
  • links (1)
  • literary studies (2)
  • living in Germany (15)
  • Local Religious Beliefs and Mutual Fund Risk-Taking Behaviors (1)
  • logic (1)
  • Logical Positivism (1)
  • luck (1)
  • M.S. Simkin (1)
  • maps (1)
  • Marc Ouellet (1)
  • marijuana (1)
  • Mark Driscoll (1)
  • Mark Hatfield (1)
  • marriage (2)
  • married life (1)
  • Martin Luther King Jr. (1)
  • Marx (4)
  • Marxism (3)
  • material conditions (3)
  • Matthew S. Hedstrom (1)
  • Matthew Sutton (1)
  • Max Weber (1)
  • Mayan calendar (1)
  • megachurch (3)
  • Megan Phelps-Roper (1)
  • Mennonites (1)
  • metafiction (2)
  • metaphysics (3)
  • Methodists (1)
  • Metropolitan Jonah (2)
  • Michael Farris (4)
  • Michael W. Cuneo (1)
  • Michele Bachmann (1)
  • Michio Kaku (1)
  • Mike Huckabee (2)
  • minimalism (1)
  • misreading (1)
  • Mitt Romney (6)
  • modern conservatism (13)
  • monasticism (1)
  • Mormonism (2)
  • mural (1)
  • music (1)
  • my life (28)
  • names (1)
  • narratives (5)
  • Nate Silver (1)
  • Nathan Hitchen (1)
  • Natural Law (1)
  • natural theology (1)
  • Nazis (3)
  • Neil Carter (1)
  • Neil DeGrasse Tyson (1)
  • Neo-Calvinism (1)
  • networks (1)
  • New Atheists (4)
  • New New Atheists (1)
  • new religious movements (1)
  • ngrams (1)
  • Nibiru (1)
  • Nicolas Cage (1)
  • Nikolaevsk (1)
  • Nils Frahm (1)
  • Noah (1)
  • non-denominational (1)
  • non-profit (1)
  • nones (11)
  • not fiction (18)
  • notes on reading (4)
  • novel (2)
  • Obama (13)
  • obit (8)
  • obits (1)
  • OCA (2)
  • Old Believers (1)
  • Old North Church (1)
  • ontology (1)
  • P.T. Anderson (1)
  • pacifism (1)
  • patriots (1)
  • Paul Ryan (1)
  • peace activists (1)
  • Peggy Gish (1)
  • pentecostal (14)
  • pet funerals (1)
  • Peter Lalonde (1)
  • Peter Stormare (1)
  • phenomenology (1)
  • philosophy (11)
  • photographs (41)
  • photography (1)
  • Pilgrim's Progress (1)
  • platform (1)
  • pluralism (4)
  • poetry (4)
  • political debate (11)
  • politics (37)
  • politics of distraction (3)
  • poll (1)
  • Pope (6)
  • poverty (1)
  • practice (2)
  • prayer (8)
  • preaching (3)
  • priests (1)
  • printing (2)
  • pro-life movement (1)
  • processing (1)
  • proselytization (1)
  • Protestantism (3)
  • Psalm (1)
  • public service announcement (1)
  • public square (4)
  • publishing (3)
  • pulpit freedom (1)
  • Puritans (4)
  • Quakers (1)
  • quote (2)
  • quotes (1)
  • race (2)
  • racing (1)
  • Ragamuffin Gospel (2)
  • Ralph Reed (1)
  • rap (3)
  • Raymond Burke (1)
  • Reformed theology (3)
  • religion (11)
  • religion and politics (20)
  • religion and science (8)
  • Religion and the marketplace (27)
  • Religion for Atheists (1)
  • Religions in America survey (1)
  • religious data (19)
  • religious experience (1)
  • religious journalism (12)
  • religious marketplace (5)
  • religious practice (27)
  • religious right (6)
  • Religious Studies Project (1)
  • repost (1)
  • Republican Party (2)
  • Rev. Peyton's Big Damn Band (1)
  • revolutions (1)
  • Reza Aslan (1)
  • Rich Mullins (1)
  • Richard Buel Jr. (1)
  • Richard Dawkins (2)
  • Rick Warren (1)
  • rites (2)
  • ritual (4)
  • Rob Bell (2)
  • Robert Bellah (3)
  • Robert D. Putnam (1)
  • Robert Ingersoll (4)
  • Robert Randolph (1)
  • Rodney Stark (2)
  • Roe vs. Wade (2)
  • Romeike (4)
  • Ron Hansen (1)
  • Rosa Parks (1)
  • Ryan Hunter (1)
  • Saddleback (1)
  • saints (3)
  • Salmon Chase (1)
  • same-sex marriage (2)
  • Sandy Hook Elementary (1)
  • satanic panic (1)
  • scandal (4)
  • scholarship (3)
  • scientisim (2)
  • Scientology (1)
  • Scopes trial (2)
  • Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus (1)
  • secularism (19)
  • secularity (15)
  • secularization (8)
  • self-publishing (1)
  • separatism (1)
  • Shane Claiborne (1)
  • sharia (1)
  • sketch (1)
  • Skewby (1)
  • slavery (1)
  • Slovoj Zizek (3)
  • Small Town Murder Songs (1)
  • snake handling (2)
  • Social Gospel (1)
  • social imaginaries (1)
  • social justice (1)
  • socialism (1)
  • sociology (1)
  • solidarity with the oppressed (1)
  • Sovereign Grace Ministries (3)
  • Spirit of Capitalism (1)
  • spirit phography (1)
  • spiritual warfare (2)
  • spirituality (2)
  • sports (1)
  • St. Francis (1)
  • statistics (6)
  • Stephen C. Meyer (1)
  • Stephen King (1)
  • student life (1)
  • Suess (1)
  • supernatural (1)
  • Supreme Court (5)
  • Susan Jacoby (2)
  • suspension of disbelief (4)
  • T.D. Jakes (1)
  • taxes (2)
  • teaching (8)
  • Ted Cruz (2)
  • televangelists (3)
  • Ten Commandments (1)
  • Terry Gross (1)
  • testimony (1)
  • Texas (1)
  • Thanksgiving (1)
  • The Birds (1)
  • The Color of Christ (1)
  • The Columbiad (1)
  • The Conjuring (1)
  • The Exorcist (1)
  • The Harbinger (1)
  • The Pale King (1)
  • the secular (5)
  • the South (2)
  • the work we do (3)
  • theodicy (1)
  • theology (3)
  • theory (1)
  • thinking (16)
  • This American Life (2)
  • Thomas Kincade (1)
  • Thomas Nagel (1)
  • Tim LaHaye (1)
  • Timothy Dolan (2)
  • Tony Perkins (1)
  • Tosca Lee (2)
  • tracts (1)
  • transatlantic (1)
  • travel (1)
  • Travis Alexander (1)
  • Treaty of Tripoli (1)
  • Tübingen (3)
  • Tulsi Gabbard (1)
  • TV (3)
  • Tyndale House (1)
  • Tyndale House vs. Sebelius (2)
  • UFOs (1)
  • UK (1)
  • unbelief (3)
  • Unitarians (1)
  • United Church of Christ (2)
  • United States v. Windsor (1)
  • USA Today (1)
  • utopia (1)
  • V.P. Roychowdhury (1)
  • Valerie Weaver-Zercher (1)
  • Van Orden v. Perry (1)
  • Vatican II (1)
  • violence (3)
  • Virgin of Guadalupe (1)
  • voting guides (1)
  • Walter Owens (1)
  • war (2)
  • weekend music (7)
  • welfare (1)
  • Westboro Baptist (1)
  • why philosophy? (4)
  • William F. Buckley (1)
  • William J. Lynn (1)
  • William James (1)
  • William Jennings Bryan (1)
  • Willow Creek (1)
  • women (1)
  • worldview (1)
  • worship (4)
  • WPA (1)
  • writing (4)
  • Zealot (1)
  • Zurich (1)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (147)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (21)
    • ►  April (18)
    • ►  March (23)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (24)
  • ▼  2012 (153)
    • ►  December (33)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (29)
    • ▼  August (29)
      • Derrida's preformative dimension
      • Crossings
      • The GOP platform & the 'war on religion'
      • Obama's blasphemy law
      • Žižek's favorite film
      • Shane Claiborne, symbol of a possibility
      • Hard-to-sing redemption songs
      • No title
      • Night weeds
      • The new irrelevance of Rick Warren
      • Horseshoes on the chapel door
      • Wallace, writing fiction for God, the Cosmos, the ...
      • Defending damnation
      • Being the behind the scenes
      • Costs of a scandal
      • WPA Federal Arts Project mural in Eugene, Ore., pa...
      • The religious history of the cubicle
      • To capitalize, or not
      • X is in the general interest
      • What Chris Rock learned from TV preachers
      • Atheism after New Atheism
      • America's first atheist
      • Ignoring David Foster Wallace's religion
      • Protecting belief
      • A perch at the end of the day
      • Let me root, root, root for the home team: When sp...
      • Ted Cruz & the Texas Ten Commandment Monument case
      • New home
      • Al Mohler's confessionalism
    • ►  July (22)
    • ►  June (2)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile