Post 42—:
Why Again on This Stuff
If you’ve been following this blog, you will know that a major emphasis has been the relationship between Reason and Faith and/or Religion. (I capitalize these words to emphasize their centrality in this post.) I am putting you on notice that I don’t get tired of this subject and I won’t in the future as long as spokesmen/spokeswomen of the secular establishment don’t get tired of the subject and keep foisting their vision as the only reasonable one on the rest of us. As long as they unload their secular old saw about Reason vs Faith/Religion on us, so long will I counter them with my Kuyperian Christian guns about Faith/Religion and Reason or, better, Faith/Religion in and underlying Reason.
The "Sensible" World of the Secularist
This time the subject is triggered by an article the Vancouver Sun borrowed from the Los Angeles Times by Anderson Thompson and Clare Aukofer (A&T), co-authors of the book Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith (“Imagine: Man Created God,” July 22, 2011). The article begins by declaring upfront that they strongly wish for a world without religion. To clarify their religionless utopia they pit a number of things against each other. In a world cleansed of religion, “mistakes like the avoidable loss of life in Hurricane Katrina, would be rectified rather than chalked up to ‘God’s will.’” Or take this gem: “…Politicians would no longer compete to prove who believes more strongly in the irrational and untenable.” They long for a world “where critical thinking is an ideal. In short, a world that makes sense.”
"Scientific" Caricatures
Since I am an openly religious person and a missionary at that, those scenarios are supposed to describe me. You know what? I don’t recognize myself in any of that. Our “faith scientists” have just drawn up a scarecrow. To be sure, there may be some individuals, groups of them even, that fit one or more of these caricatures, but as a general situation, these are just silly caricatures hardly worthy of serious scientists. They express secular prejudice more than anything else, certainly not serious science.
Inside vs Outside Knowledge
True, Christians and Muslims—I confess that I don’t know enough about the other religions to speak for them—may see natural and other catastrophes as somehow incorporated in the will of God. However, I don’t know of any Christian or Muslim who would, on basis of that perspective, not work at or, at least, not favour preventing their re-occurrence. Seeing things in relation to divine will simply does not negate corrective or preventive action. Muslims have a reputation of being fatalistic, but they are very active and even pro-active in life’s affairs and by no means twiddle their thumbs while life overtakes them. Pitting such concepts against each other is typical of the outsider who makes logical deductions without having delved deeply into the subject, in this case, specific religions. They appear to have asked some scientific questions of and applied some scientific methods to religion, but they seem to know very little about the content or the inside of religion or about the way adherents experience their religion. How scientific, rational and critical is that?
Utopia: Freedom from the Irrational
Or take their snide at politicians. Most politicians are, unfortunately, politicians. Many will appeal to almost anything they think will bring votes. If it is not religion, it will be something else that A&T would describe as “irrational and untenable.” There are plenty of other issues to which voters cling with strong convictions and emotions. A&T seem to want a total make over of humanity so as to exclude all the “irrational and untenable,” their characterizations of Religion/Faith. They want a world of “critical thinking,” one that “makes sense” to their secular souls. Being isolated academics, they seem to demand that everyone should drop all of life’s reactions to reality except the rational. What an impoverished life that would be—a cold, strict, linear rational affair. God help us!
Secular Faith in Reason
As a serious Christian, I am at this very moment engaged in critical thinking and I am trying to make sense of this world, including the extremely biased views of A&T. Again, they are pitting concepts against each other that in real life always co-exist, namely Faith and Reason, even in their own article! It is they who are uncritical, for they do not seem to have subjected their own secular faith to the critical thinking they demand of others. They appear to simply accept it as the plain unassailable truth that does not require any corroboration or proof. Reason is the source of all truth. Punkt. That’s it. And don’t you dare to challenge that, for then you have ventured into the land of the politically incorrect. But pray tell: who has ever proved that assumed “unassailable” assumption? A&T, until you have proved that article of your faith, you are contradicting yourself. Yes, your faith, your belief system. You are demanding a world without faith on basis of your own belief in unassailable Reason. I can’t rewrite the same things time and again. So, if you're really interested in this issue, skim your way through previous posts and you will find it referred to repeatedly.
Next Post
I hope to deal with A&T’s scientific explanations of religion in the next post.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Secularism—A Major Cause for Hockey Riot (3)
Post 40--:
My Connection with Sports
I promise: this is the last one on Vancouver’s hockey riot. It’s the closest thing I have ever written about sports and its associated culture and certainly the most—4 posts. I did not know I had it in me, for sports is not a major factor in my life, though I do enjoy watching a game on TV now and then and even try to attend a live game once or twice a year, games other than hockey: especially baseball, soccer or tennis. I watched a lot of Vancouver’s Winter Olympics on TV and was intentionally sucked into its very exciting atmosphere. After all, the major street crowds were less than fifteen minutes walking from where I live, as was this year’s hockey riot. While the Olympics were very orderly and made Vancouver proud, the aftermath of the final hockey game was anything but that and made the city bow its head in shame. So, yes, both about sports, but very different events, not to say opposite.
Questions
However, different as these events turned out, they generated the same question in my mind and the same tentative suspicion. The question is the same that thousands of people are asking, including columnists in our local press: How could this have happened? When I try to formulate the question to make it appropriate for both events, it becomes: How can so many people, a whole city, be so infatuated and caught up in sports, so influenced by it? Even to the point of sporting t-shirt slogans like “This is what we live for?” In the past posts I have summarized some of the public discussion and opinions about the cause(s) and acknowledge that most of the explanations and theories offered have elements of truth to them.
The Secular Factor
I am going to suggest one more explanation. It does not invalidate the others. Mine is neither the only nor the entire explanation. I do not expect mine to be popular or acceptable to most Vancouverites, for it will touch many in the centre of their soul, but it is one entirely in tune with the spirit of this blog. If you have been following this blog regularly, you may already suspect the point I am about to make: secularism. Yes, secularism is a major cause for the hypnotic drawing power of sports and for the violence sports can generate, not only in Vancouver but in many cities around the world. This does not hold true for every sports fan. I know some very religious and spiritual people who are sports fans, hockey fans even—I think of my pastor—practitioners even. Here I think of a close friend of mine in Port Alberni on Vancouver Island. Sorry, Nick, I’m not going to mention your name or list all your sports achievements.
Secular and ….
But I do seriously propose that secularism is a major underlying cause of sports riots in the Western world in general, including Vancouver. Secularism has replaced Christianity as the major mainstream worldview or even religion. If that sounds outrageous to you, check out discussions by sociologists and philosophers of religion. An 2010 Olympic slogan appearing on the streets read, “I believe.” That’s kind of religious language and not simply a coincidence. Secularism affects even people who officially adhere either to Christianity or another religion, for secularism spreads by stealth: It influences people and slowly changes their values and standards without their even being aware of it and without their foreswearing their official religion. Their hearts and minds are divided; they adhere to both, though they may call themselves Christian, Muslim or Sikh or whatever. These bifurcated people are also sucked into the world of sports and, given the right circumstance, may participate enthusiastically in the sports culture and fall out of sports events. They have traded in the strength and standards of their religion for the values of the secular pop culture around them.
A Secular Vacuum
In earlier posts, I have argued that secularism is basically just another religion with its own sets of beliefs and unproven assumptions. As mainstream Vancouver veered farther and farther away from its previously more influential religion a lot of meaning and standard was lost. A vacuum was created that humans cannot tolerate, a vacuum of meaninglessness and purposelessness. As nature abhors a vacuum, so does the human soul. Such a vacuum demands a replacement to fill it.
Secularism a Religion
The replacement can take many forms. It can be art in any of its variations. It can be reason, money, fame, power, nature or some addiction. It can also be sports. Apart from addiction, none of these things are negative per se, but when they take on the power of directing your life and become your central concern, then they become, as it were, your god. The Bible calls it idolatry: replacing God with something in creation. And you will replace Him with something. That’s just the way we are by nature. Every culture has its pop stream, the one most secularists will follow, unless they happen to be of a more reflective, intellectual type. It is no accident that the negatives of our culture, drug addiction and homelessness, have been on the increase, for meaninglessness will drive many people in that direction either to search for new meaning or to drown their meaninglessness.
From Vacuum to Violence
For many people naturally caught up in our pop culture, sports is a natural choice they embrace without much thought. You just go along with the crowd. It’s almost automatic for many. You give yourself over to it lock, stock and barrel. You participate in the shouting and whooping that is part of that world. It gets hold of you more and more. As the shouting and whooping and other forms of excitement increase and you descend into an almost religious trance, mindlessness sets in and all reason and other restraints are suspended. Given the vacuum of values and standards with which you have grown up, you have no resistance to your adrenalin rushing to a boil and there you go. It only takes a few intentional purveyors of violence to start the ball rolling and the adrenalin-driven crowd, full of either excitement or disappointment and anger, gets whipped up into a frenzy. Add a little booze to the mix and the rest is history. The next morning hundreds of people kick themselves for the stupid frenzy that overtook them. Their vacuum, their lack of internal restraint, deep down, that they should have learnt from their parents, took its toll. They just went for it.
I advise you to read a column by Penny Gurstein and Howard Rotberg in the Vancouver Sun. They ask, "What if these young people do represent what Vancouver is and what it shall be?" Another of their question: "What if what we see being reflected are the cultural consequences of a post-religious society with no clear moral compass and no overarching guiding values?" Then this statement: "Vancouver has adopted a Lotus Land ideology of cultural relativism in which we tell our children that there are no good cultures and bad cultures and no good versus evil." Or this: "A vast number of people in Vancouver view themselves as 'secular but spiritual.' Too often it means a worship of nature and the absence of discussion of values and morality. If they are raised without any clear values, is it any wonder that young people....?" Finally: "The riots are reflective of a loss of hope and deep-seated anger that we have created in our own children" ("Have We Lost Our Moral Compass?" June 24, 2011).
I invite you to spend some time meditating on these paragraphs. Is there a vacuum in your life? That means you are standing on the edge of a steep cliff with a deep ravine just before you.
(For further reading along this line go to volume 5, part 2, of my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relation. This is an ebook you can access free of charge at < www.lulu.com >. Just type in < jan h boer >.)
Thanks for sticking with me--Jan
My Connection with Sports
I promise: this is the last one on Vancouver’s hockey riot. It’s the closest thing I have ever written about sports and its associated culture and certainly the most—4 posts. I did not know I had it in me, for sports is not a major factor in my life, though I do enjoy watching a game on TV now and then and even try to attend a live game once or twice a year, games other than hockey: especially baseball, soccer or tennis. I watched a lot of Vancouver’s Winter Olympics on TV and was intentionally sucked into its very exciting atmosphere. After all, the major street crowds were less than fifteen minutes walking from where I live, as was this year’s hockey riot. While the Olympics were very orderly and made Vancouver proud, the aftermath of the final hockey game was anything but that and made the city bow its head in shame. So, yes, both about sports, but very different events, not to say opposite.
Questions
However, different as these events turned out, they generated the same question in my mind and the same tentative suspicion. The question is the same that thousands of people are asking, including columnists in our local press: How could this have happened? When I try to formulate the question to make it appropriate for both events, it becomes: How can so many people, a whole city, be so infatuated and caught up in sports, so influenced by it? Even to the point of sporting t-shirt slogans like “This is what we live for?” In the past posts I have summarized some of the public discussion and opinions about the cause(s) and acknowledge that most of the explanations and theories offered have elements of truth to them.
The Secular Factor
I am going to suggest one more explanation. It does not invalidate the others. Mine is neither the only nor the entire explanation. I do not expect mine to be popular or acceptable to most Vancouverites, for it will touch many in the centre of their soul, but it is one entirely in tune with the spirit of this blog. If you have been following this blog regularly, you may already suspect the point I am about to make: secularism. Yes, secularism is a major cause for the hypnotic drawing power of sports and for the violence sports can generate, not only in Vancouver but in many cities around the world. This does not hold true for every sports fan. I know some very religious and spiritual people who are sports fans, hockey fans even—I think of my pastor—practitioners even. Here I think of a close friend of mine in Port Alberni on Vancouver Island. Sorry, Nick, I’m not going to mention your name or list all your sports achievements.
Secular and ….
But I do seriously propose that secularism is a major underlying cause of sports riots in the Western world in general, including Vancouver. Secularism has replaced Christianity as the major mainstream worldview or even religion. If that sounds outrageous to you, check out discussions by sociologists and philosophers of religion. An 2010 Olympic slogan appearing on the streets read, “I believe.” That’s kind of religious language and not simply a coincidence. Secularism affects even people who officially adhere either to Christianity or another religion, for secularism spreads by stealth: It influences people and slowly changes their values and standards without their even being aware of it and without their foreswearing their official religion. Their hearts and minds are divided; they adhere to both, though they may call themselves Christian, Muslim or Sikh or whatever. These bifurcated people are also sucked into the world of sports and, given the right circumstance, may participate enthusiastically in the sports culture and fall out of sports events. They have traded in the strength and standards of their religion for the values of the secular pop culture around them.
A Secular Vacuum
In earlier posts, I have argued that secularism is basically just another religion with its own sets of beliefs and unproven assumptions. As mainstream Vancouver veered farther and farther away from its previously more influential religion a lot of meaning and standard was lost. A vacuum was created that humans cannot tolerate, a vacuum of meaninglessness and purposelessness. As nature abhors a vacuum, so does the human soul. Such a vacuum demands a replacement to fill it.
Secularism a Religion
The replacement can take many forms. It can be art in any of its variations. It can be reason, money, fame, power, nature or some addiction. It can also be sports. Apart from addiction, none of these things are negative per se, but when they take on the power of directing your life and become your central concern, then they become, as it were, your god. The Bible calls it idolatry: replacing God with something in creation. And you will replace Him with something. That’s just the way we are by nature. Every culture has its pop stream, the one most secularists will follow, unless they happen to be of a more reflective, intellectual type. It is no accident that the negatives of our culture, drug addiction and homelessness, have been on the increase, for meaninglessness will drive many people in that direction either to search for new meaning or to drown their meaninglessness.
From Vacuum to Violence
For many people naturally caught up in our pop culture, sports is a natural choice they embrace without much thought. You just go along with the crowd. It’s almost automatic for many. You give yourself over to it lock, stock and barrel. You participate in the shouting and whooping that is part of that world. It gets hold of you more and more. As the shouting and whooping and other forms of excitement increase and you descend into an almost religious trance, mindlessness sets in and all reason and other restraints are suspended. Given the vacuum of values and standards with which you have grown up, you have no resistance to your adrenalin rushing to a boil and there you go. It only takes a few intentional purveyors of violence to start the ball rolling and the adrenalin-driven crowd, full of either excitement or disappointment and anger, gets whipped up into a frenzy. Add a little booze to the mix and the rest is history. The next morning hundreds of people kick themselves for the stupid frenzy that overtook them. Their vacuum, their lack of internal restraint, deep down, that they should have learnt from their parents, took its toll. They just went for it.
I advise you to read a column by Penny Gurstein and Howard Rotberg in the Vancouver Sun. They ask, "What if these young people do represent what Vancouver is and what it shall be?" Another of their question: "What if what we see being reflected are the cultural consequences of a post-religious society with no clear moral compass and no overarching guiding values?" Then this statement: "Vancouver has adopted a Lotus Land ideology of cultural relativism in which we tell our children that there are no good cultures and bad cultures and no good versus evil." Or this: "A vast number of people in Vancouver view themselves as 'secular but spiritual.' Too often it means a worship of nature and the absence of discussion of values and morality. If they are raised without any clear values, is it any wonder that young people....?" Finally: "The riots are reflective of a loss of hope and deep-seated anger that we have created in our own children" ("Have We Lost Our Moral Compass?" June 24, 2011).
I invite you to spend some time meditating on these paragraphs. Is there a vacuum in your life? That means you are standing on the edge of a steep cliff with a deep ravine just before you.
(For further reading along this line go to volume 5, part 2, of my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relation. This is an ebook you can access free of charge at < www.lulu.com >. Just type in < jan h boer >.)
Thanks for sticking with me--Jan
Friday, October 8, 2010
World View Collaborative (WVC)
Blog 19 --Religion in the Public Schools
The last two blogs featured discussions about ethical dilemmas that were generated and discussed in the framework of WorldViews Collaborative (WVC). Though I have already briefly introduced this organization two posts ago, let me elaborate a bit more.
WVC’s main mission at the moment is to promote the teaching about religions and worldviews in the BC public schools. I mention both “religions” and “worldviews,” for at least one group represented does not view itself as a religion so much as a worldview. I refer to the Humanist members, who also describe themselves as Atheists. While in our time Christians and Atheists are engaged in a pretty fierce battle, especially in books, journals and magazines, the members of WVC respect each other and their views, sometimes discuss them, but always amicably. This does not mean that we are lukewarm regarding our individual world views. In fact, we are all quite adamant and convinced within our own minds of the truth and value of our beliefs. None of us are world view slouchers. (From here on, I will avoid repetition of the term “religions and world views” by simply using “world views” to cover both of them.)
However, it came to the attention of the Atheist founder(s) of WVC that the people of BC do not really know much about what makes us all tick or what different people find important in their lives. Our public schools don’t help us in this regard, for religion is taboo there. Our schools are secular. Punkt. Religion has no place there. The system is said to be “pluralistic” and “neutral.” It emphasizes what we all have in common and ignores what separates us. As a result neighbours don’t know their neighbours; public school pupils don’t know each other either.
Nevertheless, according to these founders, though no worldview is overtly taught in our public schools, there is a strong Christian bias that permeates the school culture at the disadvantage of other worldviews, including Humanism. Of course, they are not the first to have noticed this. Especially at Christmas time, non-Christians often feel marginalized in our Public Schools and will either complain in the press or to their local school boards. It happens every year.
So, the solution that occurred to these Humanist friends of mine—yes, we have become good friends!—is to find a way to promote the teaching about all major world views in BC—Christian, Humanist, Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Muslim, all of them—in the Public School system. The purpose is not to convert anyone or to proselytize, but simply to present the main contours of each world view in an objective manner as information, so that pupils of different world views will get to know each other better, also later as adults.
Rabbi Dennis Prager once blamed certain “liberals” who are in charge of the system, apparently “liberals” of a different stripe from those who founded WVC as follows:
Liberals… are always talking about pluralism, but that is not what they mean. They mean “melting-pot.” Pluralism… means that Catholics are Catholics, Jews are Jews, Baptists and Baptists, etc. That’s what pluralism means—everyone affirms his values and we all live with civic equality and tolerance. That’s my dream. But in public school, Jews don’t meet Christians. Christians don’t meet Hindus. Everybody meets nothing. That is… why their children so easily inter-marry. Jews don’t marry Christians. Non-Jewish Jews marry non-Christian Christians. Jews for nothing marry Christians for nothing. They get along great because they both affirm nothing. They have everything in common—nothing. That’s not pluralism. But that’s exactly what the liberal world wants. They want a bunch of secular universalists with ethnic surnames. (Quoted by Paul Marshall in A. Van Ginkel, ed., Shaping a Christian Vision for Canada. Markham: Faith Today Publications, 1992, p. 20.)
So, the point of WVC is to make the citizens of BC aware of their differences as well as commonalities, so that we can know each other better. My neighbour to know what makes me tick and vice versa. Pupils will come to realize that these different world views represent deep depositories and traditions of truths and insight from which we can all obtain greater wisdom, even if we do not agree with all we hear. The various colourful parades and other events are not just “funny” things that Indians or Pakistanis do, but they represent depths of thought that would never have occurred to us. This project will hopefully take away the shrouds of secrecy and mystery with which we surround ourselves and remove the ignorance with which we observe each other. Exchange fear with respect and interest; suspicion with challenging dialogue.
For reasons I do not quite comprehend, the founder, retired Professor Ernest Poser of UBC and, before that, McGill, somehow found me and judged me a suitable candidate for this project. Perhaps he fell upon my website (www.SocialTheology.com ). But I am glad he invited me, for I have enjoyed meeting this inter-religious group tremendously. For one thing, I have noticed that not all liberals, Humanists, Atheists and secularists are the same. There are tolerant ones amongst them, very gracious and compassionate. I write a lot about adherents to that world view and often quite vociferously. When these friends read my writings, I want them to know that my frustrations with their co-liberals are not aimed at them, especially not personally. Of course, the deep differences and disagreements remain, but we enjoy each other’s company. Poser and I especially enjoy our occasional souperamas either in our homes or in restaurants, during which we engage each other in great discussions. Thank you, Ernest!--as well as you, Kathy and Eric.
The last two blogs featured discussions about ethical dilemmas that were generated and discussed in the framework of WorldViews Collaborative (WVC). Though I have already briefly introduced this organization two posts ago, let me elaborate a bit more.
WVC’s main mission at the moment is to promote the teaching about religions and worldviews in the BC public schools. I mention both “religions” and “worldviews,” for at least one group represented does not view itself as a religion so much as a worldview. I refer to the Humanist members, who also describe themselves as Atheists. While in our time Christians and Atheists are engaged in a pretty fierce battle, especially in books, journals and magazines, the members of WVC respect each other and their views, sometimes discuss them, but always amicably. This does not mean that we are lukewarm regarding our individual world views. In fact, we are all quite adamant and convinced within our own minds of the truth and value of our beliefs. None of us are world view slouchers. (From here on, I will avoid repetition of the term “religions and world views” by simply using “world views” to cover both of them.)
However, it came to the attention of the Atheist founder(s) of WVC that the people of BC do not really know much about what makes us all tick or what different people find important in their lives. Our public schools don’t help us in this regard, for religion is taboo there. Our schools are secular. Punkt. Religion has no place there. The system is said to be “pluralistic” and “neutral.” It emphasizes what we all have in common and ignores what separates us. As a result neighbours don’t know their neighbours; public school pupils don’t know each other either.
Nevertheless, according to these founders, though no worldview is overtly taught in our public schools, there is a strong Christian bias that permeates the school culture at the disadvantage of other worldviews, including Humanism. Of course, they are not the first to have noticed this. Especially at Christmas time, non-Christians often feel marginalized in our Public Schools and will either complain in the press or to their local school boards. It happens every year.
So, the solution that occurred to these Humanist friends of mine—yes, we have become good friends!—is to find a way to promote the teaching about all major world views in BC—Christian, Humanist, Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Muslim, all of them—in the Public School system. The purpose is not to convert anyone or to proselytize, but simply to present the main contours of each world view in an objective manner as information, so that pupils of different world views will get to know each other better, also later as adults.
Rabbi Dennis Prager once blamed certain “liberals” who are in charge of the system, apparently “liberals” of a different stripe from those who founded WVC as follows:
Liberals… are always talking about pluralism, but that is not what they mean. They mean “melting-pot.” Pluralism… means that Catholics are Catholics, Jews are Jews, Baptists and Baptists, etc. That’s what pluralism means—everyone affirms his values and we all live with civic equality and tolerance. That’s my dream. But in public school, Jews don’t meet Christians. Christians don’t meet Hindus. Everybody meets nothing. That is… why their children so easily inter-marry. Jews don’t marry Christians. Non-Jewish Jews marry non-Christian Christians. Jews for nothing marry Christians for nothing. They get along great because they both affirm nothing. They have everything in common—nothing. That’s not pluralism. But that’s exactly what the liberal world wants. They want a bunch of secular universalists with ethnic surnames. (Quoted by Paul Marshall in A. Van Ginkel, ed., Shaping a Christian Vision for Canada. Markham: Faith Today Publications, 1992, p. 20.)
So, the point of WVC is to make the citizens of BC aware of their differences as well as commonalities, so that we can know each other better. My neighbour to know what makes me tick and vice versa. Pupils will come to realize that these different world views represent deep depositories and traditions of truths and insight from which we can all obtain greater wisdom, even if we do not agree with all we hear. The various colourful parades and other events are not just “funny” things that Indians or Pakistanis do, but they represent depths of thought that would never have occurred to us. This project will hopefully take away the shrouds of secrecy and mystery with which we surround ourselves and remove the ignorance with which we observe each other. Exchange fear with respect and interest; suspicion with challenging dialogue.
For reasons I do not quite comprehend, the founder, retired Professor Ernest Poser of UBC and, before that, McGill, somehow found me and judged me a suitable candidate for this project. Perhaps he fell upon my website (www.SocialTheology.com ). But I am glad he invited me, for I have enjoyed meeting this inter-religious group tremendously. For one thing, I have noticed that not all liberals, Humanists, Atheists and secularists are the same. There are tolerant ones amongst them, very gracious and compassionate. I write a lot about adherents to that world view and often quite vociferously. When these friends read my writings, I want them to know that my frustrations with their co-liberals are not aimed at them, especially not personally. Of course, the deep differences and disagreements remain, but we enjoy each other’s company. Poser and I especially enjoy our occasional souperamas either in our homes or in restaurants, during which we engage each other in great discussions. Thank you, Ernest!--as well as you, Kathy and Eric.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Ethical Dilemma (2)
Please re-read the introduction to the previous post, Ethical Dilemma (1), so you know what this one is all about.
The Dilemma: The Case of the Lying Refugee
A young woman, in another part of the world, faces an arranged marriage to
a man she hardly knows and does not wish to marry. She therefore
secretly leaves home to seek asylum on another continent. Fearing that
her family might trace her whereabouts and arrange for her repatriation,
she gives a false name and age in her application for citizenship in the
host country. When found out, should she be denied citizenship in her
chosen country of refuge?
Comments
Western culture tends to condemn arranged marriages. In addition, we are familiar with this case and she is upheld as an international hero and writer. Hence, most of us might almost naturally approve of her refugee application and discount her lies. My worldview takes the following into consideration and leads to the following decisions:
• The Bible does not condemn arranged marriages. A case might be made that the Bible would prefer such arrangements to those of the West, where marriage occurs in an extremely individualistic framework and breaks down much more frequently than in cultures where it is arranged.
• This person had a very rebellious attitude about her that did not tolerate the restrictions of her native culture. It was not a matter of religious or political persecution that endangered her life. Such a person might make a good immigrant, but refugee provisions are not meant to cover her circumstances. So here we have a person taking up refugee resources of time and money that should have been applied to genuine refugees.
• Since her entire refugee case is a bogus one, I would not accept her as a refugee. I would recommend she be deported to her native country and apply for immigration. I would insist on deportation to discourage others from making bogus application. I would advise her that, if she wants to come to this country, The Netherlands (NL), she apply from her home country as an immigrant. She might return to NL under bond to pay expenses NL incurred from her bogus refugee claim.
• Alternatively, in this particular case, while awaiting lengthy refugee proceedings, suppose her life style, ambitions and considerable ability had become clear. She demonstrated that she would be a valuable citizen. Hence, her case could be transferred to the immigration dept and treated there within NL. However, to qualify as an immigrant, she should be bonded to repay the expenses incurred in processing her bogus application.
• I will tolerate “lies” from genuine refugees whose lives are endangered at home for religious or political reasons. Here compassion would kick in as well as my conception of truth vs lie. I am a product of WW II, where people saved each other’s lives by so-called “white lies.” Such “lies” are used worldwide. I do not consider them lies but a life-saving device to be used in dangerous circumstances. The case of the KGB Russian in Vancouver who told the truth about himself, should teach us that truth is not always appreciated in the halls of refugee administration. In the murky circumstances of refugee culture the “white lie” is standard and needs our sympathy but not our unqualified approval or affirmation. It should be considered allowable in selected cases. That would not be the case in our example.
•
Neither life nor reason nor the Bible are always all black or white! The refugee in question, after being accepted as refugee and citizen, ended up chastizing her new country for being too tolerant of refugees!
The Dilemma: The Case of the Lying Refugee
A young woman, in another part of the world, faces an arranged marriage to
a man she hardly knows and does not wish to marry. She therefore
secretly leaves home to seek asylum on another continent. Fearing that
her family might trace her whereabouts and arrange for her repatriation,
she gives a false name and age in her application for citizenship in the
host country. When found out, should she be denied citizenship in her
chosen country of refuge?
Comments
Western culture tends to condemn arranged marriages. In addition, we are familiar with this case and she is upheld as an international hero and writer. Hence, most of us might almost naturally approve of her refugee application and discount her lies. My worldview takes the following into consideration and leads to the following decisions:
• The Bible does not condemn arranged marriages. A case might be made that the Bible would prefer such arrangements to those of the West, where marriage occurs in an extremely individualistic framework and breaks down much more frequently than in cultures where it is arranged.
• This person had a very rebellious attitude about her that did not tolerate the restrictions of her native culture. It was not a matter of religious or political persecution that endangered her life. Such a person might make a good immigrant, but refugee provisions are not meant to cover her circumstances. So here we have a person taking up refugee resources of time and money that should have been applied to genuine refugees.
• Since her entire refugee case is a bogus one, I would not accept her as a refugee. I would recommend she be deported to her native country and apply for immigration. I would insist on deportation to discourage others from making bogus application. I would advise her that, if she wants to come to this country, The Netherlands (NL), she apply from her home country as an immigrant. She might return to NL under bond to pay expenses NL incurred from her bogus refugee claim.
• Alternatively, in this particular case, while awaiting lengthy refugee proceedings, suppose her life style, ambitions and considerable ability had become clear. She demonstrated that she would be a valuable citizen. Hence, her case could be transferred to the immigration dept and treated there within NL. However, to qualify as an immigrant, she should be bonded to repay the expenses incurred in processing her bogus application.
• I will tolerate “lies” from genuine refugees whose lives are endangered at home for religious or political reasons. Here compassion would kick in as well as my conception of truth vs lie. I am a product of WW II, where people saved each other’s lives by so-called “white lies.” Such “lies” are used worldwide. I do not consider them lies but a life-saving device to be used in dangerous circumstances. The case of the KGB Russian in Vancouver who told the truth about himself, should teach us that truth is not always appreciated in the halls of refugee administration. In the murky circumstances of refugee culture the “white lie” is standard and needs our sympathy but not our unqualified approval or affirmation. It should be considered allowable in selected cases. That would not be the case in our example.
•
Neither life nor reason nor the Bible are always all black or white! The refugee in question, after being accepted as refugee and citizen, ended up chastizing her new country for being too tolerant of refugees!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
For the Love of Food Animals (3)
Post 9
I was going to move on to another topic, but an article by Peter Fricker in the Vancouver Sun caught my attention. The title is “Are Food Animals Victims of Their Poor Image?” (Vancouver Sun, 20 Sep/2010). Fricker is a departmental director for the Vancouver Humane Society and has given me leave to use his article as I see fit. For not knowing me at all, that’s pretty generous and daring. So, thanks, Peter.
In the previous post, I dealt shortly with how food animals are treated and insisted that they must be treated with respect, compassion, mercy and in ways appropriate to their nature. They are, after all, creatures of God who are entrusted to us for care, protection and, where necessary, control.
Fricker wonders why not more outrage is expressed at cruelty to animals in general, including food animals. His is not the only one. A couple of years ago there was a public campaign against Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC)for the atrociously cruel way they treat(ed) their chickens. It was fought on various fronts, including on the sidewalk in front of KFC outlets. I understand the company promised to do better and the street campaign, at least, has ceased. I hope it is true.
Chickens seem to be among the most vulnerable of food animals. They run into the billions. According to Fricker, Canadians slaughter 580 million of them annually. Our giant cousin, no fewer than 9 billion p.a.! Now that’s some chicken!
How do they suffer? Well, they are bred to grow so fast that “their bones cannot support their weight, leading to chronic painful conditions and injuries.” When they are to be transported for slaughter, “they endure rough handling, often breaking (brittle) bones.” En route, they are “exposed to extreme weather over long distances, with some dying” along the way. Survivors so far are often “shackled upside down, dragged through a sometimes ineffective stun bath and having their throats slit.”
Though Christian tradition and the Bible allow animals to be used for human consumption, that does not make it acceptable for them to “be treated so inhumanely.” Fricker suggests that “breeding for unnaturally fast growth could be stopped” Based on the responsibility for treating animals according to their kind, I would see that such breaking should be stopped. An imperative, especially for Christians who should know better. They should also be allowed more space to move around beyond the “half-square foot of space,” as Fricker puts it. While en route, they should be fed and watered more frequently. Slaughter methods should become more human—by gas perhaps, as Fricker would prefer to see.
Like our pets, chickens “feel fear, pain and distress. Capacity for suffering is something all animals share,” but “it appears that, for most of us, that is acceptable.” Thanks, Fricker, for this pungent article.
One of the things that bothers me in all this is that Christians are among these poultry keepers. There are several of them in the Fraser Valley of BC’s Bible Belt. Why is that we do not hear them speak up in protest as professionals and as people who are aware of Biblical teachings? It is perhaps because few people write about it and few express outrage. Preachers hardly ever preach on the subject. I have never heard one sermon on the subject, not even from my own mouth!
The problem I believe is that handy little escape hatch many Christians use as an excuse. It goes by various names. My favourite name for it is “<dualism.” It describes the worldview held by many Christians that divides religious, spiritual and churchly concerns from the rest of culture. We are left with two realms: religion and the world. In the world you do as you please, as long as you do God’s things in the religious real. Chickens are part of that world cut off from religion. So, therefore you can do with chickens as you please. It is not of God’s concern.
I’ve got news for you, you Christian dualists. That ain’t the way things are or go. The entire world and all that’s in it belong to God and they are to be treated accordingly. That’s one of the time-honoured emphases of the Calvinistic tradition. That dualistic perspective is a secular worldview with which Christians ought to have no truck. The Christian Religion is not that cheap or easy.
The same reasoning and perspective hold for keeping any other animals for profit. Profit is legitimate; it is the oil of the economy. But it cannot be the sole bottom line. I invite you to take it from there.
I was going to move on to another topic, but an article by Peter Fricker in the Vancouver Sun caught my attention. The title is “Are Food Animals Victims of Their Poor Image?” (Vancouver Sun, 20 Sep/2010). Fricker is a departmental director for the Vancouver Humane Society and has given me leave to use his article as I see fit. For not knowing me at all, that’s pretty generous and daring. So, thanks, Peter.
In the previous post, I dealt shortly with how food animals are treated and insisted that they must be treated with respect, compassion, mercy and in ways appropriate to their nature. They are, after all, creatures of God who are entrusted to us for care, protection and, where necessary, control.
Fricker wonders why not more outrage is expressed at cruelty to animals in general, including food animals. His is not the only one. A couple of years ago there was a public campaign against Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC)for the atrociously cruel way they treat(ed) their chickens. It was fought on various fronts, including on the sidewalk in front of KFC outlets. I understand the company promised to do better and the street campaign, at least, has ceased. I hope it is true.
Chickens seem to be among the most vulnerable of food animals. They run into the billions. According to Fricker, Canadians slaughter 580 million of them annually. Our giant cousin, no fewer than 9 billion p.a.! Now that’s some chicken!
How do they suffer? Well, they are bred to grow so fast that “their bones cannot support their weight, leading to chronic painful conditions and injuries.” When they are to be transported for slaughter, “they endure rough handling, often breaking (brittle) bones.” En route, they are “exposed to extreme weather over long distances, with some dying” along the way. Survivors so far are often “shackled upside down, dragged through a sometimes ineffective stun bath and having their throats slit.”
Though Christian tradition and the Bible allow animals to be used for human consumption, that does not make it acceptable for them to “be treated so inhumanely.” Fricker suggests that “breeding for unnaturally fast growth could be stopped” Based on the responsibility for treating animals according to their kind, I would see that such breaking should be stopped. An imperative, especially for Christians who should know better. They should also be allowed more space to move around beyond the “half-square foot of space,” as Fricker puts it. While en route, they should be fed and watered more frequently. Slaughter methods should become more human—by gas perhaps, as Fricker would prefer to see.
Like our pets, chickens “feel fear, pain and distress. Capacity for suffering is something all animals share,” but “it appears that, for most of us, that is acceptable.” Thanks, Fricker, for this pungent article.
One of the things that bothers me in all this is that Christians are among these poultry keepers. There are several of them in the Fraser Valley of BC’s Bible Belt. Why is that we do not hear them speak up in protest as professionals and as people who are aware of Biblical teachings? It is perhaps because few people write about it and few express outrage. Preachers hardly ever preach on the subject. I have never heard one sermon on the subject, not even from my own mouth!
The problem I believe is that handy little escape hatch many Christians use as an excuse. It goes by various names. My favourite name for it is “<dualism.” It describes the worldview held by many Christians that divides religious, spiritual and churchly concerns from the rest of culture. We are left with two realms: religion and the world. In the world you do as you please, as long as you do God’s things in the religious real. Chickens are part of that world cut off from religion. So, therefore you can do with chickens as you please. It is not of God’s concern.
I’ve got news for you, you Christian dualists. That ain’t the way things are or go. The entire world and all that’s in it belong to God and they are to be treated accordingly. That’s one of the time-honoured emphases of the Calvinistic tradition. That dualistic perspective is a secular worldview with which Christians ought to have no truck. The Christian Religion is not that cheap or easy.
The same reasoning and perspective hold for keeping any other animals for profit. Profit is legitimate; it is the oil of the economy. But it cannot be the sole bottom line. I invite you to take it from there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
