Weblog

Friday, 27 November 2009

  • Practice Resurrection

    Very few writers are as acute in diagnosing our cultural and societal illnesses as Wendell Berry.  Berry wrote this poem, The Mad Farmer Liberation Front, in 1973, which you can tell by his references to computer cards, from the days when programs were literally holes punched in cardstock, carried around in crates and fed into computers one at a time.

    But that one dated image aside, Berry is exactly right here, both in his diagnosis and his prognosis.  If we want to have any chance, we've got to live out of step with the ordering of society and its values.  Black Friday is as good a day as any to recognize this. 

    Love the quick profit, the annual raise,
    vacation with pay. Want more
    of everything ready-made. Be afraid
    to know your neighbors and to die.
    And you will have a window in your head.
    Not even your future will be a mystery
    any more. Your mind will be punched in a card
    and shut away in a little drawer.
    When they want you to buy something
    they will call you. When they want you
    to die for profit they will let you know.

    So, friends, every day do something
    that won't compute. Love the Lord.
    Love the world. Work for nothing.
    Take all that you have and be poor.
    Love someone who does not deserve it.
    Denounce the government and embrace
    the flag. Hope to live in that free
    republic for which it stands.
    Give your approval to all you cannot
    understand. Praise ignorance, for what man
    has not encountered he has not destroyed.

    ...

    As soon as the generals and the politicos
    can predict the motions of your mind,
    lose it. Leave it as a sign
    to mark the false trail, the way
    you didn't go. Be like the fox
    who makes more tracks than necessary,
    some in the wrong direction.
    Practice resurrection.

    What do you think?  Does Berry accurately diagnose our cultural malaise?  How can we take his advice to lose our minds?  What does it mean to practice resurrection?

    -NDSR

    Full text of The Mad Farmer Liberation Front

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

  • Justifying 9/11

    Several of the 9/11 conspirators are being brought to New York for their criminal trial.  Attorneys in their defense (there's a job I wouldn't take for all the money in the world) have announced their defense strategy.  The conspirators are pleading not guilty.  They are going to attempt to justify their actions as being a valid response to American foreign policy.

    This is interesting because it means that the trial will, in a sense, be a trial of 9/11 itself; as well as a trial of America.  For the sake of the allegations, the conspirators admit to doing it, but will try to argue that it wasn't wrong.

    Good luck with that.

    What do you think?  Could a terrorist act like 9/11 ever be justified?  What does it take to justify any act of violence against innocents?  Most Americans feel that the use of nuclear weapons during WWII was justified - is there any correspondence? 

    -NDSR

    Source

Saturday, 21 November 2009

  • Political-religious maturity

    One of the most frustrating things about witnessing the ridiculous merger of American politics and American Christianity is not so much the theologically questionable nature of such a venture,  but the sheer immaturity of it.  Listening to someone like Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity attempt to reason from  religious convictions to political stances is painful for anyone who understands the complexities inherent in either realm. 

    For this reason, it is always reassuring to recall politicians whose political-religious thinking is mature.  Even where I disagree with him, Abraham Lincoln had this sort of deep maturity evident in his writings and speeches.  It's undoubtable that his religious convictions informed his political stances.  On the matter of conscientious objectors to the Civil War, Lincoln "felt that unless we recognized conscientious religious scruples, we could not expect the blessing of Heaven." 

    Probably the best example of Lincoln's mature thought is his second inaugural address, given just months before his assassination.  After explaining the causes leading to the Civil War, which was still ongoing, Lincoln analyzed the war from his Christian theological perspective.

    Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

    The maturity and humility of Lincoln's thought is impressive.  Even while he clearly believes his view is correct, he does not paint it in black-and-white terms.  He observes that both sides pray to the same God, and that "the prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully."  One can hardly imagine George W. Bush speaking this language. 

    Perhaps the best modern exemplar of this kind of political-religious maturity is our current President.  Obama does not speak from the perspective of providential Christian theism as Lincoln did, but that is precisely the point.  Providence is not the center of our nations' religio-political discourse anymore.  Obama exemplifies the kind of thoughtful pluralism that can say that "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

    Regardless of how much you agree and/or disagree with Obama's political philosophy (and there is much for any thoughtful person to both agree and disagree with; no need to be a party hack), it is this sort of political-religious maturity that is allowing Obama to recast America's role in the world, especially our relationship with global Islam.   But it is also this maturity and craft of speech that makes it so difficult for his viewpoints to be gelled into the talking points modern voters need in order to make judgments.  It's sad to say, but a good number of Americans need to hear pundits define Obama, because they can't follow the nuances and subtlety of his speeches, especially his more important international ones. 

    Still, I don't doubt Obama would hold to these closing words from Lincoln's address.

    With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

    What do you think?  Do you agree that Lincoln and Obama exemplify a sort of political-religious maturity?  If not, who does?  Who do you feel exemplifies political-religious immaturity?

    -NDSR

Friday, 20 November 2009

  • "Pay what you can" dining


    "Our suggested price is $4.76, would you like to pay that or something different?"

    A Better World Cafe is the fifth restaurant since 2003 to offer diners the option to pay what they can afford for their meal, including the option of not paying. 

    There are a number of motivations behind the model, including combating world hunger and the deprivations of poverty, providing a superior model to the soup kitchen ("The richest nation in the world should not have to have soup kitchens"), and establishing more local and sustainable communities.  To that end, the restaurant deals with local farmers instead of mega-corporations, and composts its own waste.

    The idea is attracting interest, as Denise Carreta, founder of One World Everybody Eats is in talks with over fifty restaurateurs along the east coast interested in the model, and is currently engaged in a speaking tour on the subject. 

    What do you think?  Is this idea superior to the soup-kitchen model?  Would you want to eat here as a paying customer?

Thursday, 19 November 2009

SirNickDon

  • Visit SirNickDon's Xanga Site
    • Name: Nick Don
    • Country: United States
    • State: Kansas
    • Metro: Wichita
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 8/4/2003
    • True Premium

Connect

Weblog Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.