So, as news sites around the world are undoubtedly reporting even as I type this post, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases regarding same-sex marriage. And, as a supporter of same-sex marriage, I think this is wrong.
Wait, what?
This event comes at an oddly coincidental time, just as one of my classes is finishing its unit on gay marriage. It's been an incredibly thoughtful time for me - same-sex marriage is an issue that I've had trouble taking a position on for almost a decade now, but after hearing arguments from leading scholars on the issue like Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn, I'm ready to take a stance. Examining the pros and the cons, I believe that on the whole, same-sex marriage is a step forward for America and that we ought to support it. That said, I understand and respect that some have reservations.
Side note: it completely defeats any hope of the argument when we label people who have reservations about same-sex marriage as bigots or irrational or whatever you'd like to call them. This is the problem with labeling gay marriage as a civil rights argument - it equates those against gay marriage as those against interracial marriage at the time of Loving vs. Virginia, or those against rights for women and minorities in the 1960s. Certainly, some who oppose gay marriage do so for bigoted or irrational reasons, but others have valid arguments that are immediately discredited as soon as we label them as irrational bigots. Consider Brenda Almond who cites numerous studies that show children do best when raised by their biological mother and father, or Mr. Blankenhorn, who demonstrates that many gay marriage advocates hope to deinstitutionalize marriage and both the good and the bad that come with it. These are serious considerations worthy of some debate, and were I against same-sex marriage I would draw upon these arguments to explain why.
However, I was swayed by Jonathan Rauch, a conservative, gay rights activist, and gay man who wrote Gay Marriage in 2004. It's the best (though not perfect) argument in favor of same-sex marriage that I've read and I highly encourage all of my readers to read some or all of it regardless of where they stand on the issue. Mr. Rauch explains why he believes same-sex marriage will be good for gays, straights, and the institution of marriage, and does an admirable job of offering counter-arguments to those who oppose gay marriage. In short, he argues gay marriage based on its merits, not whether or not it's a civil right.
Then he says he does not support a Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. Instead, he believes this is an issue that ought to be decided on the state level. This is a good idea on two main levels. First, because there are valid arguments against gay marriage, gay marriage can be tested and modified at the state level to avoid or fix some of the potential problems with gay marriage. Second, developing gay marriage at the state level, especially by a popular referendum, would help legitimize it. As much as we may sometimes hope, legally imposing a policy, especially a controversial one like gay marriage, does not make it socially acceptable. If gay marriage works on the state level and a lot of those reservations are proven wrong, gay marriage may well gain national support, and then we could have a popular vote or legislative decision on it, not a Supreme Court decision.
Until November 6, 2012, not a single state had approved of gay marriage by popular vote, and by contrast, several had approved a popular ban on gay marriage. Only two, New Hampshire and New York, had approved it by legislative approval with executive concurrence (i.e. the governor supported it too). That said, I think gay marriage will eventually gain popular support. Already, more young people than old people support it, and support for gays in general has grown (10 years ago, gay sex was illegal under sodomy laws). Down the line, and likely sooner than we expect, gay marriage will have popular support at the national level. But if we rush the issue now and make it a legal battle, even if gay marriage wins the legal battle it has a long way to go to win the culture war.
Let's consider another controversial Supreme Court case: Roe vs. Wade, in 1973. Whether or not you support the outcome (which I am not here to debate and will avoid doing so), there is no denying that legalizing abortion did little if anything to solve the cultural debate on the issue. I have yet to see someone say, "you know, I was against abortion, but if the Supreme Court says it's right then I can't reasonably have any reservations about it." It's nearly 40 years later, and we're still angrily - sometimes violently - debating it, with no major headway on either side. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself recently said that while she believes the Roe v. Wade decision was the right one, it came too soon. It would have been better to overturn the Texas ban without making it a national issue. Likewise, the Supreme Court, should it choose to overturn the ban on gay marriage in California, should avoid language that would result in national legalization of same-sex marriage. Some will undoubtedly say that avoiding the national debate is cowardly or foolish. But if marriage, that ancient and yet timeless institution, is as important as most of us say it is, shouldn't we be more careful about just what it will do before we make a radical change as to what it means across America?
This brings me to my final point, a larger issue for consideration. Nearly every author I have read on the subject, regardless of their stance, asks the same question: what is marriage for? Few if any say love is the only or even primary reason for marriage. Blankenhorn says it is to provide every child with their biological mother and father, and to create a publicly-approved institution of commitment and support. He makes a point. Rauch argues that procreation, while a nice reason, is not the primary reason; instead, marriage serves to "settle the young" (why do you suppose we call it settling down?) and to "provide a reliable system of caregiving." This seems like a broader definition of marriage, but one I still find acceptable. I was shouted down for asking this question earlier this year, as someone angrily told me that I was arguing semantics, but I think it's a core question we must all ask. What is marriage for? And just as important, who should decide what marriage is for, or even the terms we use to define marriage? For me, I think the power to define these essential terms should not lie with the Supreme Court, at least not right now.
I have further thoughts about how same-sex marriage may fundamentally change how we define marriage as well as parentage, but I'll cover those issues at a later date. Thank you again for reading everyone, and I'm happy to be back after a nearly two-month hiatus from writing.
TL;DR: I support same-sex marriage, but I don't think it should be up to the Supreme Court to decide the issue. Marriage is too important, controversial, and fragile for us not to give it more consideration.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Obligatory Birthday Post/Glorious Gifts
Good afternoon, dear readers,
Today is my twenty-first birthday, so this should again be a short post as I'd like to spend most of my day celebrating, understandably.
I've always enjoyed my birthday, and I think that birthday gifts are a part of why I enjoy it so much. This year, though, the biggest gift is not anything that I have personally received, but rather a gift to the whole Davidson College community.
This morning, the Duke Endowment, which is already responsible for over $100 million in donations to the college in the past 88 years, announced that it would be giving a gift of forty-five million dollars to the college. I'm writing the number out like that, not only because it is the largest single gift ever given to Davidson in the school's nearly 200-year history, but also because of the impact it is expected to have on everyone here - the student body, the faculty, and the staff. It's important to mention that the aim of plans for the money will help to break down barriers between those three groups, so we really can call ourselves the "Davidson family."If you're part of the Davidson community, you've probably already heard something about this gift - my Facebook feed alone is blowing up with the news - but I wanted to offer my own remarks.
One of my favorite things in life is to see clear, exciting plans for progress. So, I'm pretty much always happy on my birthday, as it represents a milestone in my life and allows me to reflect on the changes of the previous year. Davidson's plan for this outstanding gift is another reason for me to be happy.
Although the plans are not terribly detailed at this point from what I've seen so far, Davidson plans to use this money to "remake the model of a liberal arts education," by "reimagining the academic neighborhood." What this means is that over the next ten years, pretty much all of the academic buildings will be renovated into state-of-the-art facilities that stress giving individual departments the tools they need to succeed, while creating "community and flexible spaces" that foster interdisciplinary study and research.
Offhand, I'd say that this will improve the overall academic quality of Davidson as well as allow for new majors, minors, and concentrations, particularly those that bridge the divide between arts and sciences. This isn't the "political science tower" that one of my professors and I dreamed of, but it's truly an advancement that benefits everyone. Overall, it will turn Davidson into an academic "neighborhood" that should really break down the barriers that separate a lot of majors from each other - barriers that I as well as many others are aware of.
The overhaul will begin in 2013 with more concrete plans for this transformation, and it's expected that the changes will take place over a decade. This means that neither I nor many of my classmates and colleagues will be here when the changes are complete, but I am thrilled to see what this means for future generations of Davidson students and the future of Davidson as an institution. To quote a goofy new-wave song, "the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."
I was planning to focus on my own personal accomplishments over the last year, but this amazing announcement derailed those plans (although happily so). In the interests of space, I'm going to go for a short list of accomplishments instead of a whole post - sort of a "Top Ten" in no particular order:
1. Became a political science major
2. Became president of both the college's chapter of Amnesty International as well as the Eumenean Society, Davidson's oldest social organization
3. Began the process of restructuring the Eumenean Society into a dynamic and active group on campus
4. Travelled to Russia, China, and Mongolia on the Trans-Siberian Railroad
5. Became a regular tour guide for the college
6. Made at least two dozen new friends, some of whom are now my closest friends
7. Further focused my future interests on conflict in Southern Africa and post-Soviet states.
8. Lost 15 pounds over the summer
9. Read over a dozen books, making progress on my four-page reading list.
10. Continued to lead a life that I can say has been happy and fulfilling, which I couldn't do without the support of my family and friends.
Thank you all for reading so far!
TL;DR: I'm 21 now; Davidson just received an amazing gift that will transform its academic environment for the better; I can think of at least ten things to be proud of myself for in the past year.
Today is my twenty-first birthday, so this should again be a short post as I'd like to spend most of my day celebrating, understandably.
I've always enjoyed my birthday, and I think that birthday gifts are a part of why I enjoy it so much. This year, though, the biggest gift is not anything that I have personally received, but rather a gift to the whole Davidson College community.
This morning, the Duke Endowment, which is already responsible for over $100 million in donations to the college in the past 88 years, announced that it would be giving a gift of forty-five million dollars to the college. I'm writing the number out like that, not only because it is the largest single gift ever given to Davidson in the school's nearly 200-year history, but also because of the impact it is expected to have on everyone here - the student body, the faculty, and the staff. It's important to mention that the aim of plans for the money will help to break down barriers between those three groups, so we really can call ourselves the "Davidson family."If you're part of the Davidson community, you've probably already heard something about this gift - my Facebook feed alone is blowing up with the news - but I wanted to offer my own remarks.
One of my favorite things in life is to see clear, exciting plans for progress. So, I'm pretty much always happy on my birthday, as it represents a milestone in my life and allows me to reflect on the changes of the previous year. Davidson's plan for this outstanding gift is another reason for me to be happy.
Although the plans are not terribly detailed at this point from what I've seen so far, Davidson plans to use this money to "remake the model of a liberal arts education," by "reimagining the academic neighborhood." What this means is that over the next ten years, pretty much all of the academic buildings will be renovated into state-of-the-art facilities that stress giving individual departments the tools they need to succeed, while creating "community and flexible spaces" that foster interdisciplinary study and research.
Offhand, I'd say that this will improve the overall academic quality of Davidson as well as allow for new majors, minors, and concentrations, particularly those that bridge the divide between arts and sciences. This isn't the "political science tower" that one of my professors and I dreamed of, but it's truly an advancement that benefits everyone. Overall, it will turn Davidson into an academic "neighborhood" that should really break down the barriers that separate a lot of majors from each other - barriers that I as well as many others are aware of.
The overhaul will begin in 2013 with more concrete plans for this transformation, and it's expected that the changes will take place over a decade. This means that neither I nor many of my classmates and colleagues will be here when the changes are complete, but I am thrilled to see what this means for future generations of Davidson students and the future of Davidson as an institution. To quote a goofy new-wave song, "the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."
I was planning to focus on my own personal accomplishments over the last year, but this amazing announcement derailed those plans (although happily so). In the interests of space, I'm going to go for a short list of accomplishments instead of a whole post - sort of a "Top Ten" in no particular order:
1. Became a political science major
2. Became president of both the college's chapter of Amnesty International as well as the Eumenean Society, Davidson's oldest social organization
3. Began the process of restructuring the Eumenean Society into a dynamic and active group on campus
4. Travelled to Russia, China, and Mongolia on the Trans-Siberian Railroad
5. Became a regular tour guide for the college
6. Made at least two dozen new friends, some of whom are now my closest friends
7. Further focused my future interests on conflict in Southern Africa and post-Soviet states.
8. Lost 15 pounds over the summer
9. Read over a dozen books, making progress on my four-page reading list.
10. Continued to lead a life that I can say has been happy and fulfilling, which I couldn't do without the support of my family and friends.
Thank you all for reading so far!
TL;DR: I'm 21 now; Davidson just received an amazing gift that will transform its academic environment for the better; I can think of at least ten things to be proud of myself for in the past year.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Two Sides to Every Coin
Good evening, friends and readers all,
Sorry that this post is going up later than expected - I've been trying to finish up a paper on Belarusian Politics (more fun than it sounds) before my birthday and it's taken up most of my afternoon. On the bright side, that time constraint should keep this post short and to the point.
Today, I wanted to talk about debates again. More importantly, that there's two sides to every debate. This conclusion may seem so obvious that it doesn't warrant even talking about, much less a whole blog post, but I've observed that it isn't as obvious in practice as it is in theory.
For example, over the past few days, I've been reading a book about the "work-family debate" and reforming the workplace to make it more family friendly. I support many if not all of the author's claims - specifically, that there isn't enough being done to help parents balance their work lives with their family lives. The author references a number of cases where the media either under- or misrepresents the realities of the issue, and then suggests a number of steps that could be taken to improve the situation. I, again, agreed that the steps all sounded positive, but what struck me was that the author posed the solutions as if they were so obvious that you'd have to be blindly ignorant or just completely against workplace equality to not support them. I found myself asking, "If these ideas are so obvious, and they're so clearly beneficial to everyone, why haven't they been implemented yet?" In other words, there had to be a reason why not everyone was on board with the author's plan.
I learned in tenth grade that if you're making an argument, no matter how strong it is, you should at least summarize what the other side's perspective on the issue is. Certainly, you can then show why that viewpoint is wrong, but you should mention it.
Although I try to avoid examples involving slavery, the history of slavery in the American South is another good example of where knowing both sides of the argument helped. All throughout my life, I wondered how the South and its people could support such an inhumane practice. Were they all just racist and wanted to see people different from them suffer? Surely this couldn't explain the issue. In American History, I finally learned that there were significant economic reasons to slavery - essentially, plantations required a sizable workforce, and slavery was a way to supply that labor. Did that make me support slavery in any way? Absolutely not. Still, by knowing both sides of the issue, I felt that I understood it more completely.
I've seen some other one-sided arguments in modern times: everyone should say no to NC Amendment 1 (which constitutionally defined marriage as one man, one woman), or no woman should ever support the Republican Party. Whether I agreed with these stances, I felt like there must be another side to the issue for there to be an issue at all, and I wanted to know what it was.
In sum, I think we often forget to consider, or even search for, both (or more) sides to every issue. The saying is there's two sides to the coin - two perspectives to the debate, and unless we at least know what they are, we lose both a greater understanding of the issue as a whole, as well as further reasons why our preferred stance is the better one.
TL;DR: Don't assume that there's only one side to an issue, or that the others aren't worth listening to. A one-sided debate doesn't do much good for anyone.
Sorry that this post is going up later than expected - I've been trying to finish up a paper on Belarusian Politics (more fun than it sounds) before my birthday and it's taken up most of my afternoon. On the bright side, that time constraint should keep this post short and to the point.
Today, I wanted to talk about debates again. More importantly, that there's two sides to every debate. This conclusion may seem so obvious that it doesn't warrant even talking about, much less a whole blog post, but I've observed that it isn't as obvious in practice as it is in theory.
For example, over the past few days, I've been reading a book about the "work-family debate" and reforming the workplace to make it more family friendly. I support many if not all of the author's claims - specifically, that there isn't enough being done to help parents balance their work lives with their family lives. The author references a number of cases where the media either under- or misrepresents the realities of the issue, and then suggests a number of steps that could be taken to improve the situation. I, again, agreed that the steps all sounded positive, but what struck me was that the author posed the solutions as if they were so obvious that you'd have to be blindly ignorant or just completely against workplace equality to not support them. I found myself asking, "If these ideas are so obvious, and they're so clearly beneficial to everyone, why haven't they been implemented yet?" In other words, there had to be a reason why not everyone was on board with the author's plan.
I learned in tenth grade that if you're making an argument, no matter how strong it is, you should at least summarize what the other side's perspective on the issue is. Certainly, you can then show why that viewpoint is wrong, but you should mention it.
Although I try to avoid examples involving slavery, the history of slavery in the American South is another good example of where knowing both sides of the argument helped. All throughout my life, I wondered how the South and its people could support such an inhumane practice. Were they all just racist and wanted to see people different from them suffer? Surely this couldn't explain the issue. In American History, I finally learned that there were significant economic reasons to slavery - essentially, plantations required a sizable workforce, and slavery was a way to supply that labor. Did that make me support slavery in any way? Absolutely not. Still, by knowing both sides of the issue, I felt that I understood it more completely.
I've seen some other one-sided arguments in modern times: everyone should say no to NC Amendment 1 (which constitutionally defined marriage as one man, one woman), or no woman should ever support the Republican Party. Whether I agreed with these stances, I felt like there must be another side to the issue for there to be an issue at all, and I wanted to know what it was.
In sum, I think we often forget to consider, or even search for, both (or more) sides to every issue. The saying is there's two sides to the coin - two perspectives to the debate, and unless we at least know what they are, we lose both a greater understanding of the issue as a whole, as well as further reasons why our preferred stance is the better one.
TL;DR: Don't assume that there's only one side to an issue, or that the others aren't worth listening to. A one-sided debate doesn't do much good for anyone.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Oh, the possibilities (that we rarely speak of)!
The concept I'm about to talk about should be familiar to most of my readers, and to the general public as well, hopefully. Dale Carnegie referred to it in How to Win Friends and Influence People as "Talk in terms of the other person's interest." It's how we're supposed to get other people to do what we want, and how to present ourselves in applications to programs, grants and jobs.
My topic for today is "presenting the issue not as a negative, but as something that could be turned into a possibility." Seems obvious, right? If I'm asking you to change something about yourself or to side with me on an issue, you'd be much more likely to if I explain why you'd want to. Simply put, we should have an answer for "what's in it for me?"
At my college about a month ago, we had a big debate about whether or not activities funds, which do come out of our tuition, should be used to buy Chick-fil-a for campus events. The specific issue is kind of a moot point now, considering that Chick-fil-a has decided to no longer donate to controversial groups that support the "traditional family" over gay marriage. There were a lot of points raised at the Talk Back session hosted by the school newspaper, but I want to focus on one as it relates to today's topic.
The debate was framed as a for-or-against issue: either we should buy Chick-fil-a for campus events (most notably After Midnight, a free food event that happens once a month) or we should not. Regardless of my stance on gay rights and gay marriage, I started to look at it in terms of possibilities. Most people were offering nothing as an alternative. Chicken sandwiches vs. nothing. A number of people fired back, saying they supported gay rights, but they really didn't want to lose their free chicken. It sounds petty, I know. Here's the suggestion I made, and how I would resolve debates like this in the future:
I suggested that we stop framing it as Chick-fil-a vs. nothing, or an unknown alternative. Instead, we should talk about other options that students would like, such as a local chicken chain, or a local Indian restaurant. We wouldn't see it so much as losing our chicken sandwiches as gaining chicken tenders, or tasty Indian food, or...there are plenty of possibilities. But we didn't explore that perspective as much as I would have liked, and I think there was still some resentment when the final verdict was handed down as "it is in our best interests not to buy Chick-fil-a this year," not "it is in our best interests to offer other options such as [insert alternative here]."
What does this mean for the bigger picture? Throughout our lives, we will tell people what they can't do, and we will be told what we can't do either. If these changes are left at that, then they will often be viewed as negative and unpopular. However, if we suggest viable alternatives to the restrictions from these changes, or explain why the change benefits everyone, or take a bit of both options, we can make more people happy, and more willing to accept any negative consequences the change might incur.
From chicken sandwiches at my college to workplace reform at the national level (something we're discussing in one of my classes right now), and everywhere in between, it seems as though most are content to talk only of changes as issues that must be decided, whether or not people are happy with the results. If we change that norm, and start framing these discussions in terms of the possibilities these changes can bring, and the benefits that come with them, I think more and more will start thinking that change is, more often than not, good for everyone.
TL;DR: These days, we often talk about change as good for only one group, with another group making the sacrifice. If we present the change in terms of possibilities and advantages to all groups, we will start seeing less resentment and more approval of the new policy.
My topic for today is "presenting the issue not as a negative, but as something that could be turned into a possibility." Seems obvious, right? If I'm asking you to change something about yourself or to side with me on an issue, you'd be much more likely to if I explain why you'd want to. Simply put, we should have an answer for "what's in it for me?"
At my college about a month ago, we had a big debate about whether or not activities funds, which do come out of our tuition, should be used to buy Chick-fil-a for campus events. The specific issue is kind of a moot point now, considering that Chick-fil-a has decided to no longer donate to controversial groups that support the "traditional family" over gay marriage. There were a lot of points raised at the Talk Back session hosted by the school newspaper, but I want to focus on one as it relates to today's topic.
The debate was framed as a for-or-against issue: either we should buy Chick-fil-a for campus events (most notably After Midnight, a free food event that happens once a month) or we should not. Regardless of my stance on gay rights and gay marriage, I started to look at it in terms of possibilities. Most people were offering nothing as an alternative. Chicken sandwiches vs. nothing. A number of people fired back, saying they supported gay rights, but they really didn't want to lose their free chicken. It sounds petty, I know. Here's the suggestion I made, and how I would resolve debates like this in the future:
I suggested that we stop framing it as Chick-fil-a vs. nothing, or an unknown alternative. Instead, we should talk about other options that students would like, such as a local chicken chain, or a local Indian restaurant. We wouldn't see it so much as losing our chicken sandwiches as gaining chicken tenders, or tasty Indian food, or...there are plenty of possibilities. But we didn't explore that perspective as much as I would have liked, and I think there was still some resentment when the final verdict was handed down as "it is in our best interests not to buy Chick-fil-a this year," not "it is in our best interests to offer other options such as [insert alternative here]."
What does this mean for the bigger picture? Throughout our lives, we will tell people what they can't do, and we will be told what we can't do either. If these changes are left at that, then they will often be viewed as negative and unpopular. However, if we suggest viable alternatives to the restrictions from these changes, or explain why the change benefits everyone, or take a bit of both options, we can make more people happy, and more willing to accept any negative consequences the change might incur.
From chicken sandwiches at my college to workplace reform at the national level (something we're discussing in one of my classes right now), and everywhere in between, it seems as though most are content to talk only of changes as issues that must be decided, whether or not people are happy with the results. If we change that norm, and start framing these discussions in terms of the possibilities these changes can bring, and the benefits that come with them, I think more and more will start thinking that change is, more often than not, good for everyone.
TL;DR: These days, we often talk about change as good for only one group, with another group making the sacrifice. If we present the change in terms of possibilities and advantages to all groups, we will start seeing less resentment and more approval of the new policy.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Chalk Crusades
As promised, here are my expanded and updated remarks on the "war of the words" between the atheists and believers at my college:
Every Monday at around 1:20 PM, I tell a group of prospective students and their families that religion at this college "is what you make of it." Part of my takeaway point is that whether you are a die-hard catholic or a steadfast atheist, Jewish from birth or a recently converted Muslim, or whatever your faith may or may not be, you will never feel pressured to change who you are or feel attacked because of what you do or do not believe. I still feel that such is the case here, but based on some of the remarks I've seen lately chalked around campus, I worry that perhaps it isn't going to be that way for much longer.
Before I continue, I think I ought to qualify my own religious background. I come from a family that is half Catholic, and half Protestant. The protestant side includes Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, a little bit of Judaism by marriage (which isn't a sect of Christianity, but worth mentioning), and my own branch, The United Church of Christ, which is an open and affirming church. This means that they accept everyone, including gays and lesbians (which has caused some controversy) and agnostics and atheists. Basically, so long as you don't mock the pastor as she gives her sermon, you're welcome in my church. I went to church on and off growing up, and spent most of high school convinced I was either atheist or about to convert to Buddhism or Taoism. I still like the values of the Eastern Religions, but I'd consider myself Christian, although I don't attend church regularly. In sum, my background fits well with the religion is what you make of it theory.
To be fair, the atheists, or "Society of Secular Students" as I believe they call themselves, did fire the first shot. On September 30, to celebrate National Blasphemy Day (which I didn't realize was a thing), they wrote a number of chalk messages around campus. Some of these questions were good, and could be related to topical issues like the recent attacks on American Embassies (though evidence is now emerging that those attacks were not in retaliation for the film, "The Innocence of Muslims", but instead a coordinated attack on the anniversary of 9/11). For example, "Is blasphemy free speech?" is a valid question that certainly deserves some discussion. However, some of the other questions, while hopefully well-intentioned, struck me as more trivial than anything else, and I'm not sure what their goal was. For example, "Believe in God? What if you're WRONG?" or "What if your God DOESN'T exist?". I know some students found these questions offensive or disrespectful, but I took one look at them and thought "So what?". I'm not wagering my life savings on God's existence in Vegas, and I don't think anyone's argued that you'll spend an eternity in Hell if you believe in God and it turns out you're wrong. Generally, the opposite is true.
The more trivial of these questions seemed more like an unintentional caricature of the very thing they were questioning. I grew up in Northeast Ohio, and whenever I drive to Cincinnati I have to pass through the "Bible Belt" of Ohio, where I see billboards that say things like "Where will YOU go when you die?" and "Hell is REAL" (these billboards often have the Ten Commandments posted on the opposite side to hammer the point home). The tone of the atheist messages seems awfully close to the especially religious messages, and with that point combined with the triviality of some of the questions, I find the messages hard to take seriously. In the end, I'm left wondering what they expected to accomplish.
However, that doesn't mean I take the religious messages seriously either. Again, I support the idea that you can believe in any faith or no faith at all, so both sides have the right to believe whatever they want (or nothing at all) so long as they don't try to convert me. Someone decided to write a response in chalk outside of the school library a couple of days after National Blasphemy Day. The first message reads, "I believe in God." Alright, you'll have no argument or criticism from me here. The messages go on to say that the writer believes in God because of "the complexity of the human body," the fact that we happen to exist on one of the few habitable bodies in the universe, "language," and because animals know, among other things, when to hibernate. The string of messages concludes as you walk along, not with "Burmashave," but rather with something to the effect of "If REASON isn't enough for you, then you obviously don't know the meaning of FAITH." I do not recall the exact words, but the message, and the capitalized "REASON" and "FAITH" were definitely the same.
I appreciate the sentiment, and the message the writer was trying to send, but they picked the wrong arguments. My argument that religion isn't a high-stakes game isn't necessarily the best one, but I could respond to the argument that one can believe in God because of all of the aforementioned items simply by cracking open a biology textbook, perhaps using my Animal Behavior textbook to explain language and hibernation. I won't argue that religion is wrong, but I will argue that the "REASON" offered isn't a very good way to argue in favor of religion. Moreover, the final statement seemed accusatory and insulting in a way that seemed to contradict the welcoming nature of most if not all of the churches and faithful in the area.
I have always argued that much of Christianity's teachings, as well of the other major religions, are not meant as a way to explain science (not in modern days, at least) but rather to provide a set of principles for people to live by. Last semester, I took a course titled "Basic Christian Beliefs" and one of the points raised was that Jesus dying on the cross for mankind's sins is not meant to imply that the "eternal life" this sacrifice grants is immortality or resurrection, but rather that eternal life begins now, and that life should be lived to the fullest. Whether or not God exists, if it's giving Christians a reason to live a fulfilling live, ideally with personal happiness and good will towards others, I won't try to sway them from that path. On the other hand, I will likely reject an argument that God created the world in six days or that we can attribute human language to a divine power in favor of the scientific theory. In other words, there are many reasons to support religion (using Christianity as my example), and I think a discussion about all the good religion brings contrasted with some of the evil it has caused too would be a worthy one. Suggesting that the atheists are flat out wrong by using the intelligent design argument is not taking the "higher road", will likely only add to the atheists' argument, and doesn't allow me to take the author of the pro-religion statements very seriously either.
I would like to add that I have heard that both sides of this debate (if that is what you would call it) have been sponsored by the Student Government Association (SGA). I'm not sure what to make of this, but I would ask the SGA "what are you doing?" On one hand, by supporting both sides, they aren't taking a side. On the other hand, the SGA used to favor more open discussion, or so I thought.
I don't think any of the parties had cruel intentions in this matter, but while my own feelings are unfazed I know there are students who have been upset by the recent events. Maybe we don't need a "Talk Back" (as we seem to have for every single time a controversial event happens around here), but in the future, let's all agree to find a better way of having this debate than letting the chalk fly. Maybe once the chalk washes away (the recent rain has seen to that) the hurt feelings can heal, and we can go back to the religion is what you make of it system that I say this college practices.
TL;DR: You're not going to change someone's belief with a chalk message; all you'll do is annoy them. All they've convinced me of is that neither side should be taken seriously.
Every Monday at around 1:20 PM, I tell a group of prospective students and their families that religion at this college "is what you make of it." Part of my takeaway point is that whether you are a die-hard catholic or a steadfast atheist, Jewish from birth or a recently converted Muslim, or whatever your faith may or may not be, you will never feel pressured to change who you are or feel attacked because of what you do or do not believe. I still feel that such is the case here, but based on some of the remarks I've seen lately chalked around campus, I worry that perhaps it isn't going to be that way for much longer.
Before I continue, I think I ought to qualify my own religious background. I come from a family that is half Catholic, and half Protestant. The protestant side includes Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, a little bit of Judaism by marriage (which isn't a sect of Christianity, but worth mentioning), and my own branch, The United Church of Christ, which is an open and affirming church. This means that they accept everyone, including gays and lesbians (which has caused some controversy) and agnostics and atheists. Basically, so long as you don't mock the pastor as she gives her sermon, you're welcome in my church. I went to church on and off growing up, and spent most of high school convinced I was either atheist or about to convert to Buddhism or Taoism. I still like the values of the Eastern Religions, but I'd consider myself Christian, although I don't attend church regularly. In sum, my background fits well with the religion is what you make of it theory.
To be fair, the atheists, or "Society of Secular Students" as I believe they call themselves, did fire the first shot. On September 30, to celebrate National Blasphemy Day (which I didn't realize was a thing), they wrote a number of chalk messages around campus. Some of these questions were good, and could be related to topical issues like the recent attacks on American Embassies (though evidence is now emerging that those attacks were not in retaliation for the film, "The Innocence of Muslims", but instead a coordinated attack on the anniversary of 9/11). For example, "Is blasphemy free speech?" is a valid question that certainly deserves some discussion. However, some of the other questions, while hopefully well-intentioned, struck me as more trivial than anything else, and I'm not sure what their goal was. For example, "Believe in God? What if you're WRONG?" or "What if your God DOESN'T exist?". I know some students found these questions offensive or disrespectful, but I took one look at them and thought "So what?". I'm not wagering my life savings on God's existence in Vegas, and I don't think anyone's argued that you'll spend an eternity in Hell if you believe in God and it turns out you're wrong. Generally, the opposite is true.
The more trivial of these questions seemed more like an unintentional caricature of the very thing they were questioning. I grew up in Northeast Ohio, and whenever I drive to Cincinnati I have to pass through the "Bible Belt" of Ohio, where I see billboards that say things like "Where will YOU go when you die?" and "Hell is REAL" (these billboards often have the Ten Commandments posted on the opposite side to hammer the point home). The tone of the atheist messages seems awfully close to the especially religious messages, and with that point combined with the triviality of some of the questions, I find the messages hard to take seriously. In the end, I'm left wondering what they expected to accomplish.
However, that doesn't mean I take the religious messages seriously either. Again, I support the idea that you can believe in any faith or no faith at all, so both sides have the right to believe whatever they want (or nothing at all) so long as they don't try to convert me. Someone decided to write a response in chalk outside of the school library a couple of days after National Blasphemy Day. The first message reads, "I believe in God." Alright, you'll have no argument or criticism from me here. The messages go on to say that the writer believes in God because of "the complexity of the human body," the fact that we happen to exist on one of the few habitable bodies in the universe, "language," and because animals know, among other things, when to hibernate. The string of messages concludes as you walk along, not with "Burmashave," but rather with something to the effect of "If REASON isn't enough for you, then you obviously don't know the meaning of FAITH." I do not recall the exact words, but the message, and the capitalized "REASON" and "FAITH" were definitely the same.
I appreciate the sentiment, and the message the writer was trying to send, but they picked the wrong arguments. My argument that religion isn't a high-stakes game isn't necessarily the best one, but I could respond to the argument that one can believe in God because of all of the aforementioned items simply by cracking open a biology textbook, perhaps using my Animal Behavior textbook to explain language and hibernation. I won't argue that religion is wrong, but I will argue that the "REASON" offered isn't a very good way to argue in favor of religion. Moreover, the final statement seemed accusatory and insulting in a way that seemed to contradict the welcoming nature of most if not all of the churches and faithful in the area.
I have always argued that much of Christianity's teachings, as well of the other major religions, are not meant as a way to explain science (not in modern days, at least) but rather to provide a set of principles for people to live by. Last semester, I took a course titled "Basic Christian Beliefs" and one of the points raised was that Jesus dying on the cross for mankind's sins is not meant to imply that the "eternal life" this sacrifice grants is immortality or resurrection, but rather that eternal life begins now, and that life should be lived to the fullest. Whether or not God exists, if it's giving Christians a reason to live a fulfilling live, ideally with personal happiness and good will towards others, I won't try to sway them from that path. On the other hand, I will likely reject an argument that God created the world in six days or that we can attribute human language to a divine power in favor of the scientific theory. In other words, there are many reasons to support religion (using Christianity as my example), and I think a discussion about all the good religion brings contrasted with some of the evil it has caused too would be a worthy one. Suggesting that the atheists are flat out wrong by using the intelligent design argument is not taking the "higher road", will likely only add to the atheists' argument, and doesn't allow me to take the author of the pro-religion statements very seriously either.
I would like to add that I have heard that both sides of this debate (if that is what you would call it) have been sponsored by the Student Government Association (SGA). I'm not sure what to make of this, but I would ask the SGA "what are you doing?" On one hand, by supporting both sides, they aren't taking a side. On the other hand, the SGA used to favor more open discussion, or so I thought.
I don't think any of the parties had cruel intentions in this matter, but while my own feelings are unfazed I know there are students who have been upset by the recent events. Maybe we don't need a "Talk Back" (as we seem to have for every single time a controversial event happens around here), but in the future, let's all agree to find a better way of having this debate than letting the chalk fly. Maybe once the chalk washes away (the recent rain has seen to that) the hurt feelings can heal, and we can go back to the religion is what you make of it system that I say this college practices.
TL;DR: You're not going to change someone's belief with a chalk message; all you'll do is annoy them. All they've convinced me of is that neither side should be taken seriously.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Why I Write (this blog)
Hello everyone,
Thank you for joining me for my first blog post in what will hopefully be my first successful blog. I thought the best way to start out would be to explain what led me to create this blog and where I'm planning to take it.
The immediate cause had something to do with an incident involving me and my college's newspaper. I am a regular contributor, usually because I want to provide a thoughtful opinion on an issue without being too far to one side or the other. I wouldn't call myself a centrist, but I like to consider both sides of the issue before casting judgement, and as a result I usually have an opinion somewhere in the middle.
Anyway, the issue at hand was a debate between my school's atheists and more religious students that was taking place in form of questions and statements chalked on sidewalks across campus, essentially over whether or not to believe in any kind of supreme being. The newspaper went looking for perspectives on the issue on its Facebook page, and in typical James fashion I decided to offer my two cents (for those wondering what I said, I'll try to post an expanded version of the remarks soon). As it happened, I was the only one who felt like doing so, apparently.
A few days later, I went on the paper's website (since they tend to post articles there before they go out in print, and the delivery schedule to my dorm has been a little erratic this year), and saw that the editors had posted an "online exclusive" with a reaction to the religion debate. I was happy that the newspaper was taking a further interest in the issue, and I clicked on the link, eager to see what other people were saying.
It turned out that the newspaper had decided to take my comment from Facebook and just copy/paste it onto their website in its entirety. I don't mind the chance to share my views and there was nothing in the comment that I wouldn't want anyone to see, but the problem I had with it was that they had neither asked nor informed me that my comment would be used in this manner. I wouldn't call it an invasion of my rights or some abuse of power, but something still felt wrong about what had happened. After some thinking, it occurred to me that rather than getting angry, I had just as much right to create a space for my thoughts rather than rely on the school newspaper as my sole forum.
Aside from the immediate cause, I've been considering something like a blog for a while - essentially a place where I can talk about my opinions on local, national, and international issues (or just anything going on with me or around me), and anyone who feels like reading can. I'm not bound by any regulations that I would have as a sometime opinion columnist, either. As the 2012 presidential election comes nearer and nearer, I see a lot of political opinions and arguments on Facebook, and I want this blog to be an alternative to that as well. I don't necessarily like being forced to see every political argument any of my Facebook friends post, but it wouldn't be right to assume that everyone should be required to see what I say either. So, I'm going to do my best to keep the political commentary here, not there, so anyone who wants to see it, and those who can't aren't required to read it.
For the big picture, I'm about to turn twenty-one, and rather than anticipating my days of being able to drink, I'm thinking more about my place in the world: what I've done with my life so far, what I'm currently doing, and what I want to do. This blog may not be much, but it allows me to make something of a mark and feel like I've got some form of self-expression as I try to work out what my true passions are and where I want to go from here.
I decided to call the blog "James and Words" after trying a good half-dozen other blog titles, most of which either sounded unintelligent or pretentious. Admittedly, "James and Words" wasn't the witty title I was initially trying for, but after thinking about it, I like it because it's simple and tells you exactly what this blog is: it's me and some words. Well, a lot of words, judging by the length of this post. Thanks for reading, and look for my next post in the next few days!
TL;DR: Starting a blog, mostly to talk about local, national, and international issues as they come up.
Edit: Added the TL;DR section for people who want the really short summary.
Thank you for joining me for my first blog post in what will hopefully be my first successful blog. I thought the best way to start out would be to explain what led me to create this blog and where I'm planning to take it.
The immediate cause had something to do with an incident involving me and my college's newspaper. I am a regular contributor, usually because I want to provide a thoughtful opinion on an issue without being too far to one side or the other. I wouldn't call myself a centrist, but I like to consider both sides of the issue before casting judgement, and as a result I usually have an opinion somewhere in the middle.
Anyway, the issue at hand was a debate between my school's atheists and more religious students that was taking place in form of questions and statements chalked on sidewalks across campus, essentially over whether or not to believe in any kind of supreme being. The newspaper went looking for perspectives on the issue on its Facebook page, and in typical James fashion I decided to offer my two cents (for those wondering what I said, I'll try to post an expanded version of the remarks soon). As it happened, I was the only one who felt like doing so, apparently.
A few days later, I went on the paper's website (since they tend to post articles there before they go out in print, and the delivery schedule to my dorm has been a little erratic this year), and saw that the editors had posted an "online exclusive" with a reaction to the religion debate. I was happy that the newspaper was taking a further interest in the issue, and I clicked on the link, eager to see what other people were saying.
It turned out that the newspaper had decided to take my comment from Facebook and just copy/paste it onto their website in its entirety. I don't mind the chance to share my views and there was nothing in the comment that I wouldn't want anyone to see, but the problem I had with it was that they had neither asked nor informed me that my comment would be used in this manner. I wouldn't call it an invasion of my rights or some abuse of power, but something still felt wrong about what had happened. After some thinking, it occurred to me that rather than getting angry, I had just as much right to create a space for my thoughts rather than rely on the school newspaper as my sole forum.
Aside from the immediate cause, I've been considering something like a blog for a while - essentially a place where I can talk about my opinions on local, national, and international issues (or just anything going on with me or around me), and anyone who feels like reading can. I'm not bound by any regulations that I would have as a sometime opinion columnist, either. As the 2012 presidential election comes nearer and nearer, I see a lot of political opinions and arguments on Facebook, and I want this blog to be an alternative to that as well. I don't necessarily like being forced to see every political argument any of my Facebook friends post, but it wouldn't be right to assume that everyone should be required to see what I say either. So, I'm going to do my best to keep the political commentary here, not there, so anyone who wants to see it, and those who can't aren't required to read it.
For the big picture, I'm about to turn twenty-one, and rather than anticipating my days of being able to drink, I'm thinking more about my place in the world: what I've done with my life so far, what I'm currently doing, and what I want to do. This blog may not be much, but it allows me to make something of a mark and feel like I've got some form of self-expression as I try to work out what my true passions are and where I want to go from here.
I decided to call the blog "James and Words" after trying a good half-dozen other blog titles, most of which either sounded unintelligent or pretentious. Admittedly, "James and Words" wasn't the witty title I was initially trying for, but after thinking about it, I like it because it's simple and tells you exactly what this blog is: it's me and some words. Well, a lot of words, judging by the length of this post. Thanks for reading, and look for my next post in the next few days!
TL;DR: Starting a blog, mostly to talk about local, national, and international issues as they come up.
Edit: Added the TL;DR section for people who want the really short summary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)