My Intro to Religious Thought teacher is, in essence, the embodiment of post-modern philosophy. Raised as a conservative Methodist, he majored in Religion as an undergrad, and, as all Religion majors, realized that Christianity is not as simple as it seems. And, as all young adults coming to that this realization, faced the accompanying crisis of faith. After all, if you can accept that most of Genesis is exaggeration (at best, and this is not to mention all of the other things you learn about the Bible in school) and not notice an impact in your faith, something is probably very wrong with you. Studying those like Nietzsche and coming to the realization that you cannot prove what you believe tends to do that to you. Post-modernism is, really, the philosophy of rejection. All our lives are stories, and nobody's story can be correct.
It is into this time that we see (and need) a post-modern response to a post-modern philosophy. Whether or not they claim to be a part of the Emergent movement or not, authors like Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, and Rob Bell provide this response. And most popular among them (at least among the youth group masses) is Donald Miller. I'll admit, his books are probably among my favorite. You laugh, wonder, think, grow angry, and hopefully, learn. Christianity Today's review of Miller (not his books, but the man himself) says Miller is "often described as 'irreverent' or 'bohemian'". Which means one thing: he fits in with the rest of the world born after 1970.
Though the article focuses, in the beginning, on Miller's current aging-yet-relevant style of being (the author mentions that he is starting to have those mid-age moments, meeting a friend and asking, "Hey, how's your wife feeling these days?"), it later goes on to discuss this new trend of the Christian experience as a whole. Quoting one fan, we read, "I love Blue Like Jazz because it's, like, a Christian book, but it doesn't make you feel bad about yourself." Which means one thing (well, several, but I'll focus on this one): Nietzsche was wrong when he said that guilt is inherent in Christianity. Instead, Miller would probably argue, and I will agree, that Christianity is a post-modern religion. It's about our stories. God's story about how much he loves humanity, humanity's story about how we are trying to get back to God, and our own stories about how we relate to God and humanity. Miller is quoted as saying, "The chief role of a Christian is to tell a better story."
And, as the article points out, this is how Miller writes. Blue Like Jazz is the story of Miller going through life and learning. Searching for God Knows What is a collection of essays drawing from stories - his story of developing his own sense of evangelism, realizing that the world is fallen and needs God's help, and thinking about the role of the Church. In fact, Miller has one book that is really just one long story punctuated with moments of philosophical clarity; Through Painted Deserts is about how Miller discovered Portland.
As the masses start to wake up and smell the stories, they will need leaders, or at the very least, influences. Whether or not he wants to be, Don Miller has taken that position.
So, what's your story?
Rock on.
29 June 2007
20 June 2007
I was gonna...
...write a review of Christianity Today's cover story on Donald Miller over the weekend. However, I decided to shave my head instead.
Now, I just got out of a Religion test, have a German test tomorrow, and an English paper due Monday. In other words, I don't have time this week. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I'll be back with my review as early as Friday, as late as Monday. Not sure which, yet.
Back soon.
Shalom.
14 June 2007
The Passing of Ruth Graham
It saddens me to announce that Ruth Graham, wife to Billy Graham, passed away today. She was 87.
I hope that you will join me in praying for the Graham family and in honoring the life of such a wonderful woman.
Of his wife, Mr. Graham had this to say:
"Ruth was my life partner, and we were called by God as a team. No one else could have borne the load that she carried. She was a vital and integral part of our ministry, and my work through the years would have been impossible without her encouragement and support."
I hope that you will join me in praying for the Graham family and in honoring the life of such a wonderful woman.
Of his wife, Mr. Graham had this to say:
"Ruth was my life partner, and we were called by God as a team. No one else could have borne the load that she carried. She was a vital and integral part of our ministry, and my work through the years would have been impossible without her encouragement and support."
Intro to Religious Thought (or: What They Don't Teach in Sunday School)
The academic study of religion is the most thoroughly depressing field out there. I'm pretty sure of it. It shouldn't be, but it is. They take everything you believe and show you how stupid it is to believe in it. All interpretations (at least according to my professor, and yes he means all, as in every, including those by non-believers) are wrong (yeah, he's a big fan of Nietzsche, for those who were wondering). What's weird is when you get home and realize you still believe, despite how incredible the beliefs are. There's an old joke I once heard, that if you have enough faith to still believe after going through Seminary, you have enough faith to be a preacher. I'm starting to think the same is true for religion majors. This reminds me of a mewithoutYou quote, "We have all our beliefs, but we don't want our beliefs; God of Peace, we want you."
The problem with the way we teach beliefs in modern churches is that we claim them to be fact. In the most conservative churches, it goes without question that Moses wrote the Torah, the world was created in seven days, we are the only religion to hold this view, there was a flood, we are the only people who believe in a Noah figure, the Patriarchs are all very real, we can prove that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, and the Bible has absolutely no contradictions, historical or otherwise. In reality, the Torah has four sources and probably more authors, our TWO accounts of creation coincide with accounts from all over the Near and Middle East, the Epic of Gilgamesh recounts a flood and an ark, there is not proof for any of the Patriarchs, least of all Joseph, who should have proof, and no proof of Israelite presence in Egypt. On top of that, the mention of iron and the Philistines should not be in the Torah, as neither would not be in Canaan until after 1200 BCE. Not to mention the fact that there are multiple versions of the texts we found at the Dead Sea, especially Isaiah, on who's prophecies much of our understanding of Jesus as Christ is based. It's quite sad to listen to the students in my class who haven't been introduced to these ideas until now. Their entire faith is shattering before them (though whether or not their faith should be based on creationism is another topic).
Then there are the ideas that nobody sees coming, no matter how progressive of a church they attended or how much study they do on their own. The idea that the Israelites worshiped multiple gods, that the Hebrew Bible affirms the existence of multiple gods, the idea that God had to wrestle a sea monster during creation, the suggestion that Noah's son slept with him while he was drunk, and the idea that Mary very possibly wasn't a virgin. Even though these ideas are not as wide-spread as the first, they'll still through you for a loop the first time you hear them.
So why isn't the Church teaching its members to think? Why is it that you don't hear these ideas until you get into the lecture hall? I'm not saying they should be a part of every sermon, but they are certainly things that older Christians should be concerned with. These are serious problems for our faith and if we want to be able to say we have a relationship with God and that we understand our faith and where it comes from, these are issues that need to be addressed.
On the issue of where our faith comes from, why is it that we don't look into the Israelite background of our faith? What makes Jesus distinct from all these other deities in the ancient world is not being born of a virgin or rising from the dead. It's the long, glorious history that culminates in Christ. Almost as if God looked around at all of these ancient cults and said, "Ha, watch this," and blew them all out of the water. If you don't learn about what distinguishes Jesus from others in the "divine man" genre of ancient history, then when you hear about these other "divinities", you face a tremendous crisis.
In Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell says our faith should be more like a spring than a brick, in that it should be flexible (and springs can be used for trampolines and to invite people to come play, where as bricks can only be used in walls, to keep people out). When we raise people to have brick-like faith, when it comes time for someone to need to reexamine their faith, it shatters. When a person whose faith is like a spring reexamines their faith, they survive. How do we make our faith like a spring? By learning about it.
Rock on.
Edit: Ben Witherington expresses his thoughts on a similar subject at his blog.
My friend Pat writes on a broader sense of Christian complacency over at Notes from Underground.
The problem with the way we teach beliefs in modern churches is that we claim them to be fact. In the most conservative churches, it goes without question that Moses wrote the Torah, the world was created in seven days, we are the only religion to hold this view, there was a flood, we are the only people who believe in a Noah figure, the Patriarchs are all very real, we can prove that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, and the Bible has absolutely no contradictions, historical or otherwise. In reality, the Torah has four sources and probably more authors, our TWO accounts of creation coincide with accounts from all over the Near and Middle East, the Epic of Gilgamesh recounts a flood and an ark, there is not proof for any of the Patriarchs, least of all Joseph, who should have proof, and no proof of Israelite presence in Egypt. On top of that, the mention of iron and the Philistines should not be in the Torah, as neither would not be in Canaan until after 1200 BCE. Not to mention the fact that there are multiple versions of the texts we found at the Dead Sea, especially Isaiah, on who's prophecies much of our understanding of Jesus as Christ is based. It's quite sad to listen to the students in my class who haven't been introduced to these ideas until now. Their entire faith is shattering before them (though whether or not their faith should be based on creationism is another topic).
Then there are the ideas that nobody sees coming, no matter how progressive of a church they attended or how much study they do on their own. The idea that the Israelites worshiped multiple gods, that the Hebrew Bible affirms the existence of multiple gods, the idea that God had to wrestle a sea monster during creation, the suggestion that Noah's son slept with him while he was drunk, and the idea that Mary very possibly wasn't a virgin. Even though these ideas are not as wide-spread as the first, they'll still through you for a loop the first time you hear them.
So why isn't the Church teaching its members to think? Why is it that you don't hear these ideas until you get into the lecture hall? I'm not saying they should be a part of every sermon, but they are certainly things that older Christians should be concerned with. These are serious problems for our faith and if we want to be able to say we have a relationship with God and that we understand our faith and where it comes from, these are issues that need to be addressed.
On the issue of where our faith comes from, why is it that we don't look into the Israelite background of our faith? What makes Jesus distinct from all these other deities in the ancient world is not being born of a virgin or rising from the dead. It's the long, glorious history that culminates in Christ. Almost as if God looked around at all of these ancient cults and said, "Ha, watch this," and blew them all out of the water. If you don't learn about what distinguishes Jesus from others in the "divine man" genre of ancient history, then when you hear about these other "divinities", you face a tremendous crisis.
In Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell says our faith should be more like a spring than a brick, in that it should be flexible (and springs can be used for trampolines and to invite people to come play, where as bricks can only be used in walls, to keep people out). When we raise people to have brick-like faith, when it comes time for someone to need to reexamine their faith, it shatters. When a person whose faith is like a spring reexamines their faith, they survive. How do we make our faith like a spring? By learning about it.
Rock on.
Edit: Ben Witherington expresses his thoughts on a similar subject at his blog.
My friend Pat writes on a broader sense of Christian complacency over at Notes from Underground.
10 June 2007
Good, Clean, Christian Sex
I hear that sex is supposed to be fun. Like, a lot of fun. This comes from parents, friends, family, TV, the radio, and the movies. And I don't doubt that it is. I have a question, though. Why is it that what I hear from most churches is that sex is God's gift to married couples? Why do we leave it at that? It's either this one line about how good sex is or a long list of "thou shalt not's" that if thou doest, make sex bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for "free love" along with communion (though that would make for a catchy church sign and a great double entendre), but if sex is so great, why don't we discuss it more in church?
Sex is the greatest level of physical intimacy that humanity can have, yes? So it's no wonder that the Church is called the Bride of Christ, with the obvious intimate connotations that come with this, the description of Love that is inherent in this term. There's a reason we have an entire book that is little more than a love letter between two people in our Bible, despite the fact that this is often looked over (part of me is glad about this, as a sermon on the Song of Songs would be incredibly awkward). I know I'm just stating the obvious here; this is the same stuff you always hear in the obligatory youth group relationship talks. So why in the world are we not applying this?
The Church is going through something of a sexual revolution right now. By this, I mean that some on the progressive side of ministry are discussing sexuality as it pertains to faith. Not a list of what you can and can't do, but actually taking a look at how sex ties into our relationship with God. Rob Bell's new book has one of the most provocative titles in modern Christian writing: Sex. God. I was quite literally speechless when I first saw it. "Surely he can't have written a book about that!" I picked up a copy at the book store and was flipping through it. The first section is titled, "This Is Really About That". Then there is this little article from the Burnside Writers' Collective, which prompted this post, simply entitled "Sex, God, and Rock & Roll". Then there was the most awkward month of middle school youth group. It was our frank discussion on sex. This was meant to educate us. In public schools, discussions in sex ed are limited to talking about the basics. Nothing controversial (oddly enough, this is because of the Christian Right). So, to make sure that we weren't going blindly into the world of high school and sex, my youth pastor decided we would have four sessions of no-topic-off-limits sex talk. I assure you, this was quite unheard of in the suburbs of Columbia, SC, and most of my friends were quite shocked. Come to think of it, I think most people would still be shocked if this were to come up at most youth groups. All of this, I think, is for the better.
This leads us into the important question: What impact does it have on the world when the Church is afraid to discuss a gift from God? Well, it means that other people have to do the discussing. As the author of the article, Steve Simpson, points out, the porn industry is not afraid to talk about sex. The media is not afraid to talk about sex. This is where, then, people will go to learn about it. MTV and Ron Jeremy. I see in the dorms how good of a job they do in instilling good sexual values (or values of relationships in general). I thank God for those progressives in the Church that are not afraid to talk openly about sex because it's too important of a topic for Christians to not be involved in.
Rock on.
Edit: Something I thought and hoped I would never see - a Christian sex advice site. Somebody left a comment advertising for a web site "For Christian Husbands Only". And when I mean "sex advice site", I don't mean topics like "I struggle with lust/pornography/whatever", but "Keep Your Erection as Long as You Desire". This is another example of slapping the label of Christian on anything to make it all right. Sites like this, whether done in the name of God or not, still turn the focus of a marriage towards sex. Again, sex in marriage is a great thing. But it should not be the focus. And if there are sexual problems in a relationship, I would hope that the couple in question would have friends they could turn to for such advice.
Sex is the greatest level of physical intimacy that humanity can have, yes? So it's no wonder that the Church is called the Bride of Christ, with the obvious intimate connotations that come with this, the description of Love that is inherent in this term. There's a reason we have an entire book that is little more than a love letter between two people in our Bible, despite the fact that this is often looked over (part of me is glad about this, as a sermon on the Song of Songs would be incredibly awkward). I know I'm just stating the obvious here; this is the same stuff you always hear in the obligatory youth group relationship talks. So why in the world are we not applying this?
The Church is going through something of a sexual revolution right now. By this, I mean that some on the progressive side of ministry are discussing sexuality as it pertains to faith. Not a list of what you can and can't do, but actually taking a look at how sex ties into our relationship with God. Rob Bell's new book has one of the most provocative titles in modern Christian writing: Sex. God. I was quite literally speechless when I first saw it. "Surely he can't have written a book about that!" I picked up a copy at the book store and was flipping through it. The first section is titled, "This Is Really About That". Then there is this little article from the Burnside Writers' Collective, which prompted this post, simply entitled "Sex, God, and Rock & Roll". Then there was the most awkward month of middle school youth group. It was our frank discussion on sex. This was meant to educate us. In public schools, discussions in sex ed are limited to talking about the basics. Nothing controversial (oddly enough, this is because of the Christian Right). So, to make sure that we weren't going blindly into the world of high school and sex, my youth pastor decided we would have four sessions of no-topic-off-limits sex talk. I assure you, this was quite unheard of in the suburbs of Columbia, SC, and most of my friends were quite shocked. Come to think of it, I think most people would still be shocked if this were to come up at most youth groups. All of this, I think, is for the better.
This leads us into the important question: What impact does it have on the world when the Church is afraid to discuss a gift from God? Well, it means that other people have to do the discussing. As the author of the article, Steve Simpson, points out, the porn industry is not afraid to talk about sex. The media is not afraid to talk about sex. This is where, then, people will go to learn about it. MTV and Ron Jeremy. I see in the dorms how good of a job they do in instilling good sexual values (or values of relationships in general). I thank God for those progressives in the Church that are not afraid to talk openly about sex because it's too important of a topic for Christians to not be involved in.
Rock on.
Edit: Something I thought and hoped I would never see - a Christian sex advice site. Somebody left a comment advertising for a web site "For Christian Husbands Only". And when I mean "sex advice site", I don't mean topics like "I struggle with lust/pornography/whatever", but "Keep Your Erection as Long as You Desire". This is another example of slapping the label of Christian on anything to make it all right. Sites like this, whether done in the name of God or not, still turn the focus of a marriage towards sex. Again, sex in marriage is a great thing. But it should not be the focus. And if there are sexual problems in a relationship, I would hope that the couple in question would have friends they could turn to for such advice.
07 June 2007
China, the US, and the 2008 Olympics
China is quickly emerging as the heir to the former Soviet Union's role as the second super power. China is among our biggest trade partners (seriously, find how many things in your house are marked with "Made in China"), one of the largest investors in the African continent, and the largest country in the world by population. It makes sense that such a model of the new and global economy would get the 2008 Olympics.
But should the US attend these games?
First, there is China's rights abuses in their own country. The fact that eighteen years after Tienanmen Square, they have yet to admit to any wrong doing or even allow for a memorial service in the Square itself does not demonstrate the type of nation that we should be supporting. (This is not to mention how many Chinese the Olympic construction has displaced, as Atlanta did the same thing on a smaller scale.)
Perhaps we as a nation should take a closer look at China's trading partners in Africa. Among them are the Sudan and Zimbabwe, two of the most notorious human rights abusers on the continent. China won't point out the speck in their trading partners' eyes with a plank in their own, but they won't remove their plank. China can hold tremendous sway in the reason and help to put an end to the Sudanese genocide, but instead of risking an economic advantage, they threaten to veto any UN sanctions on Sudan.
With the world on China as 2008 approaches, the US and other western nations have a great opportunity to shame China into shape. Threatening to boycott the Olympics, whose greatest supporters in recent times have been Americans, would force China to start reforming their rights policies.
But I don't see the US boycotting. China is our ally, and will be for some time, despite supporting the Khmer Rouge, despite its numerous rights abuses, and despite their support of genocidal African regimes. We want China to help us talk to North Korea. We want China to continue making our stuff. We want China. Our nation has essentially given China a get-out-of-jail-free card (or several).
Even if the US did decide to boycott, the American people would never allow it. To many rich business men are looking forward to going to the games. To many Americans depend on the Olympics to build up their national pride. NBC depends on the games to pull in advertising and viewers.
Five bucks says we would boycott the Cuban Olympics. Ten says we would boycott the Venezuelan games.
It kind of makes you wonder.
Rock on.
But should the US attend these games?
First, there is China's rights abuses in their own country. The fact that eighteen years after Tienanmen Square, they have yet to admit to any wrong doing or even allow for a memorial service in the Square itself does not demonstrate the type of nation that we should be supporting. (This is not to mention how many Chinese the Olympic construction has displaced, as Atlanta did the same thing on a smaller scale.)
Perhaps we as a nation should take a closer look at China's trading partners in Africa. Among them are the Sudan and Zimbabwe, two of the most notorious human rights abusers on the continent. China won't point out the speck in their trading partners' eyes with a plank in their own, but they won't remove their plank. China can hold tremendous sway in the reason and help to put an end to the Sudanese genocide, but instead of risking an economic advantage, they threaten to veto any UN sanctions on Sudan.
With the world on China as 2008 approaches, the US and other western nations have a great opportunity to shame China into shape. Threatening to boycott the Olympics, whose greatest supporters in recent times have been Americans, would force China to start reforming their rights policies.
But I don't see the US boycotting. China is our ally, and will be for some time, despite supporting the Khmer Rouge, despite its numerous rights abuses, and despite their support of genocidal African regimes. We want China to help us talk to North Korea. We want China to continue making our stuff. We want China. Our nation has essentially given China a get-out-of-jail-free card (or several).
Even if the US did decide to boycott, the American people would never allow it. To many rich business men are looking forward to going to the games. To many Americans depend on the Olympics to build up their national pride. NBC depends on the games to pull in advertising and viewers.
Five bucks says we would boycott the Cuban Olympics. Ten says we would boycott the Venezuelan games.
It kind of makes you wonder.
Rock on.
03 June 2007
The Kraft Effect
I think I may have made a major sociological break through over dinner. I was looking in my pantry, wondering what I should have: the Ramen or the Mac and Cheese. Suddenly, I had flashbacks of my childhood (granted, it wasn't that long ago) and all of the great foods: Mac and Cheese, Ramen noodles, Pop Tarts, cereal, Chewy granola bars, chicken tenders, and the like.
Then I looked around my kitchen, and oh crap, it's the same food. But just last year, I was dinning on the finest dinning hall foods (ok, most college kids can't say this): Philly cheese steak, smoothies, cheese cake, chili, mixed field green salads, and wonderful sandwiches. And through my last two years of high school, I had stepped away from my childhood favorites, developing a taste for vegetables, cheeses, and things that don't come out of a box. What happened?
The Kraft Effect.
The Kraft Effect can be depicted quite simply by a negative quadratic equation: as you move from childhood to a "zero year", your choice in food becomes more diverse. After the zero year, you begin to regress, with your food choices becoming more limited.
The reasons for the trend towards zero year is quite obvious, with the brain becoming more mature and more open minded, willing to try new foods. But what about as we move away from the zero year? I propose the following causes:
*This factor also explains why the undistinguished palate is only present in the dorms/apartments of students. You will observe that at restaurants, students avoid simple noodle/pasta dishes at all costs.
Rock on.
Then I looked around my kitchen, and oh crap, it's the same food. But just last year, I was dinning on the finest dinning hall foods (ok, most college kids can't say this): Philly cheese steak, smoothies, cheese cake, chili, mixed field green salads, and wonderful sandwiches. And through my last two years of high school, I had stepped away from my childhood favorites, developing a taste for vegetables, cheeses, and things that don't come out of a box. What happened?
The Kraft Effect.
The Kraft Effect can be depicted quite simply by a negative quadratic equation: as you move from childhood to a "zero year", your choice in food becomes more diverse. After the zero year, you begin to regress, with your food choices becoming more limited.
The reasons for the trend towards zero year is quite obvious, with the brain becoming more mature and more open minded, willing to try new foods. But what about as we move away from the zero year? I propose the following causes:
- Time - College/graduate students simply don't have the time to make anything more complicated than Easy Mac. The time buying the ingredients, cooking, and cleaning up? Ha. We have more important things. Like papers. And Facebook.
- Effort - What student wants to add more to his plate? Now your telling me that being in college isn't enough, but we have to learn to cook and clean as well? Ha.*
- Money - Easy Mac? Cheap. Store-brand Easy Mac? Cheaper. Ramen? Cheapest. Because, like with time, we have more important things to use money for, such as textbooks. And concert tickets.
- Taste - Seriously, I'm a little disturbed that store-brand Easy Mac tastes that good. Any cheese-sauce product that doesn't even require milk cannot possibly be healthy. But, oh is it addictive. Kinda like uncooked Ramen.
*This factor also explains why the undistinguished palate is only present in the dorms/apartments of students. You will observe that at restaurants, students avoid simple noodle/pasta dishes at all costs.
Rock on.
30 May 2007
Georgia to Do Away with Two Diplomas
For those who don't know, Georgia high schools have previously offered two different seals on high school diplomas. One is the college prep seal. The meaning behind this seal is obvious: the courses the student has completed courses to get ready for college. The second seal is a vocational seal. Students take standard math and English classes, geography, and such, but instead of going into advanced classes, such as the upper maths and sciences, and some history classes, they take courses in welding, carpentry, auto repair, and computer sciences (to name a few). The seal, at least at my old high school, required that they take three classes from the same group (three consecutive welding classes, for example). Most of my friends who were on this track planned on going on to trade schools and working in construction or car shops.
The two seals had a few basic requirements in common: English composition, basic maths and sciences, and introductory social sciences. They then gradually moved apart as the college-bound prepared for their trek to higher learning and the future manual-laborers learned the general practices of their trade. Obviously, this system was not perfect, as both could probably stand a little more in the way of foreign language instruction and practical mathematics (money management classes, things such as balancing a check book and keeping a budget).
The high school I attended for the first two years, Bradwell Institute, also offered a dual seal, meaning that the recipient took classes in both the upper-level arts and sciences and in technical areas (a fourth seal, the college prep honors seal went to those who took the honors and AP college prep classes).
The state, though, has decided that the vocational diploma discriminates between rural and urban schools, and on account of race and income level. Because of this, they plan to do away with it, saying that students need to be held to the same standard.
I am all for equality. But specialized education is also essential. You don't see them arguing for the removal of honors classes in Georgia. It is not just unreasonable, but also harmful to the students. Instead of wasting the future mechanic or hair-stylist's time with the Calc, Physics, and European History, put them in the classes that will prepare them for what they want to do. We say we want to prepare them for college, but they aren't going to college. We say we want to prepare them for life, but we are wasting their time with stuff they don't need. Our current education philosophy here in the US seems to be get everybody ready to go to Georgia Tech, MIT, and other technology centers, to prepare us for the future and global economy. I first call into doubt the idea of devoting our lives to technology, lest the Matrix come about voluntarily. But I do enough of that in other posts. Here I focus on becoming so single-minded in education that we have tunnel vision. Where will the dreamers go, the philosophers, theologians, and those who practice the arts, the writers, painters, and musicians, the performers and photographers? And those upon whose toil society is built in the most literal sense and whose sweat keeps life running like a well-oiled machine, what will become of them? Our way of life is built upon diversity, starting education. Let us keep it that way.
I have always lifted Georgia's dual-diploma system up as an example of what good education looks like. Teaching students what they want to learn and preparing them for what they want to do. I sincerely hope that this system stays in place.
For those in Georgia, please write to the Department of Education. Let them know how vital this program is.
Rock on.
The two seals had a few basic requirements in common: English composition, basic maths and sciences, and introductory social sciences. They then gradually moved apart as the college-bound prepared for their trek to higher learning and the future manual-laborers learned the general practices of their trade. Obviously, this system was not perfect, as both could probably stand a little more in the way of foreign language instruction and practical mathematics (money management classes, things such as balancing a check book and keeping a budget).
The high school I attended for the first two years, Bradwell Institute, also offered a dual seal, meaning that the recipient took classes in both the upper-level arts and sciences and in technical areas (a fourth seal, the college prep honors seal went to those who took the honors and AP college prep classes).
The state, though, has decided that the vocational diploma discriminates between rural and urban schools, and on account of race and income level. Because of this, they plan to do away with it, saying that students need to be held to the same standard.
I am all for equality. But specialized education is also essential. You don't see them arguing for the removal of honors classes in Georgia. It is not just unreasonable, but also harmful to the students. Instead of wasting the future mechanic or hair-stylist's time with the Calc, Physics, and European History, put them in the classes that will prepare them for what they want to do. We say we want to prepare them for college, but they aren't going to college. We say we want to prepare them for life, but we are wasting their time with stuff they don't need. Our current education philosophy here in the US seems to be get everybody ready to go to Georgia Tech, MIT, and other technology centers, to prepare us for the future and global economy. I first call into doubt the idea of devoting our lives to technology, lest the Matrix come about voluntarily. But I do enough of that in other posts. Here I focus on becoming so single-minded in education that we have tunnel vision. Where will the dreamers go, the philosophers, theologians, and those who practice the arts, the writers, painters, and musicians, the performers and photographers? And those upon whose toil society is built in the most literal sense and whose sweat keeps life running like a well-oiled machine, what will become of them? Our way of life is built upon diversity, starting education. Let us keep it that way.
I have always lifted Georgia's dual-diploma system up as an example of what good education looks like. Teaching students what they want to learn and preparing them for what they want to do. I sincerely hope that this system stays in place.
For those in Georgia, please write to the Department of Education. Let them know how vital this program is.
Rock on.
29 May 2007
The HotList
This just in from Facebook: You can now use brand names and icons to let people figure you out.
"Help people know you better by showing logos of the brands you identify with. Compare what you like with your friends....Show people what you are all about. Better than Facebook's info section because this uses logos, and no one reads your profile anyways ;)"
Facebook: Taking sign-exchange value to a new level. Reinforcing the trend that all Greeks love Abercrombie, all black people listen to rap, and every man, woman, and child in the south loves their Ford truck.
Seriously, though, what the crap? Have we gotten that lazy, that we now reduce our entire self-image down to corporate icons? I can just see the next wave of college applications: Please, describe yourself in twenty brand-names or less.
There is also the new Lamefactor function: "Anonymously judge your Facebook friends."
And Rendezbook, self-described "Speed-dating for Facebook." A simulation of simulated relationships! Brilliant! This even saves you the awkwardness of having to tell someone how you feel, because if both people are interested in the same option (out of Friendship, Relationship, or Random Fling) they are emailed confirming the "feeling".
Not to mention the Compass, which uses ten questions to tell you where you are in the detailed political spectrum of Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative.
And last, but not least, we arrive at the Causes feature. You can give a crap about the rest of the world without ever lifting a finger!
Some of the new features are great. I love the Extended Info section. It gives me a place to list some things I think are important about me: Favorite authors, places, philosophers, foods, artists, you name it. But then again, with the HotList, why should I even bother? Brand names can do all of the talking. I could use the Info area to discuss my politics. Or I could answer ten questions and they'd make a picture of a compass for that, too. Now I'm really desperate. I should just list my favorite friends and girls that I'm attracted to. No, wait. There are features for those. I can just vote on my friends and women, and if I'm lucky, things will work out that way.
Facebook: Eliminating the need for words and human interaction since May 2007. It can all be simulated anyway.
Rock on.
"Help people know you better by showing logos of the brands you identify with. Compare what you like with your friends....Show people what you are all about. Better than Facebook's info section because this uses logos, and no one reads your profile anyways ;)"
Facebook: Taking sign-exchange value to a new level. Reinforcing the trend that all Greeks love Abercrombie, all black people listen to rap, and every man, woman, and child in the south loves their Ford truck.
Seriously, though, what the crap? Have we gotten that lazy, that we now reduce our entire self-image down to corporate icons? I can just see the next wave of college applications: Please, describe yourself in twenty brand-names or less.
There is also the new Lamefactor function: "Anonymously judge your Facebook friends."
And Rendezbook, self-described "Speed-dating for Facebook." A simulation of simulated relationships! Brilliant! This even saves you the awkwardness of having to tell someone how you feel, because if both people are interested in the same option (out of Friendship, Relationship, or Random Fling) they are emailed confirming the "feeling".
Not to mention the Compass, which uses ten questions to tell you where you are in the detailed political spectrum of Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative.
And last, but not least, we arrive at the Causes feature. You can give a crap about the rest of the world without ever lifting a finger!
Some of the new features are great. I love the Extended Info section. It gives me a place to list some things I think are important about me: Favorite authors, places, philosophers, foods, artists, you name it. But then again, with the HotList, why should I even bother? Brand names can do all of the talking. I could use the Info area to discuss my politics. Or I could answer ten questions and they'd make a picture of a compass for that, too. Now I'm really desperate. I should just list my favorite friends and girls that I'm attracted to. No, wait. There are features for those. I can just vote on my friends and women, and if I'm lucky, things will work out that way.
Facebook: Eliminating the need for words and human interaction since May 2007. It can all be simulated anyway.
Rock on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)