Drastically Different Themes, Same Source

So I recently read two vastly different books that both extensively referenced Christian and Hebrew scripture to espouse two completely antithetical viewpoints. Of course, this is nothing new. Theologians, religious commentators, preachers, teachers, rabbi’s, clergy and laypersons alike all quote scripture to back up their respective viewpoints on a regular basis.

Yet the stark difference in the two books made me step back and reaffirm for myself what many others have: that in any religion or philosophy in which scriptures are held to be canononical, inspired, important, revered, foundational or simply useful, there comes a point when you have to choose which overall thematic consistency you wish to stick with and affirm. That is, if you wish to stay with the scriptures in the first place. Saying that you do wish to keep some grounding with them, you have to decide and I think (like John Dominic Crossan mentioned in “God and Empire”) that it comes down to peace or war; love or judgment; common ground or divide and conquer.

The two books I’m writing about are drastically different in every sense of the word: they were written in different decades, by different personalities, in different styles, from different worldviews, from different religious doctrines and perspectives yet both claim absolute Christianity. One is “The Sovereignty of God” by Arthur Pink. It was written in 1918 as a treatise. It’s writer is very confrontational throughout, claiming most of the religious folks of his day have completely lost their way and turned to a fake, watered down and irrelevant God. His convictions lie in an absolute controlling, all powerful, intimately involved God who selected a few certain souls to save from hell before creation was even formed and who has laid out every breath of every person and every turn of every event before it occurs. For Pink, this is the only possible interpretation of God in light of scripture as he reads it. For Pink, the utmost important thing to realize is that God is mighty, powerful and deserving of deep reverence, fear and awe. Every thing that happens to an individual is for a reason known only to God; humankind is base, vile and created from the “polluted” ground and deserves nothing but punishment and hell–which most of them will get since only a small “elect” are destined for “salvation.” For Pink, the entire purpose of life is to preach this truth and await judgment hoping to be one of those elect knowing that no man truly knows who is among that number. Pink’s treatise is early 20th century hyper-Calvinism; he acknowledges that term with a scoff but never denies it and never delivers anything but it. He’s not crafted anything new, nor does he claim to. He claims it’s the original message of scripture that has been watered down, but more accurately it hearkens back to John Calvin and further back to Augustine. “The Sovereignty. of God” isn’t my typical reading, but it was recommended to me by someone who espouses the same view with full compassion and sincerity today. It’s also a popular theology for many young Christians now, folks influenced by writers like John Piper.
The other book is “The Irresistible Revolution.” It’s not a treatise, more of a memoir in the making. The writer, Shane Claiborne, is a young evangelical yet also a very “radical’ person in the sense of modern Christianity. He is uncomfortable with the term without amending it with the term “ordinary”– thus “ordinary radical,” because he doesn’t wish to puff himself up. He writes of working with Mother Teresa in Calcutta, assisting in leprosy care there near the end of her life. He writes of flying to Iraq to spend time with children and be an “advocate for peace” when the US was bombing them heavily. He writes of the lawsuits he’s been forced to defend himself in for sleeping on the streets, communal sharing, giving free food away to his neighborhood, etc. Claiborne takes the idea of Jesus to “give up all and follow me” literally and tries to do that as much as possible with the hope that he and all around him will have enough to get by.

Although written 80 years apart, both of these styles of thinking have been present for hundreds of years. One sees the thematic thrust of scripture to be that of radical compassion and social justice: protect the stranger and the outsider; love your neighbor; honor God. Turn the other cheek; go the extra mile, if you have two coats give one away, advocate for a world in which the last become first, the wine never runs out at the wedding banquet and everyone is welcome at the table. This type of theology has been present for a long time; it was called “the Social Gospel” in the 1920s and “Progressive Christianity” in our own day (among other more deriding terms in both cases). The other theology is one of judgment, vengeance and damnation. We are vile; we deserve punishment; Jesus paid the debt for some of us; the rest will burn in hell. Care for the world in this theology is relegated to getting folks into church and that’s it–for extreme opinions in this theology even that is suspect since God can call strangers to church so we wait for them and if they come then we care for them–but not before, because the world turned its back on Christ so we must do the same to the world.
Well, you can thoroughly back up either view with scripture…maybe not correctly, but you can throw out and string together verses, phrases and doctrinal interpretations to support either view, and although folks on the other side can refute those verses with carefully selected verses of their own, it can become a circular argument and never stop. If it could be decisively argued, it wouldn’t keep coming back into popularity in certain circles.

Obviously, whether you like to admit it or not, eventually your opinion and worldview within a faith tradition must incorporate things outside of just the scriptures themselves; after all, all the books in scripture were written by different authors with different historical and cultural perspectives, at different times, in different styles, in different languages. They were assembled later, far after the fact. They were translated through multiple languages. If you want to grasp your head around what you believe in their regards, you have to consult historical criticism, personal revelation, faith history, denominational and religious context, modern discovery and ultimately your own intuition, intelligence and heart.

You ultimately have a choice…does your heart tell you the thrust of Religion should be forgiveness, love, compassion, mercy and work that leads toward justice for fellow humankind and honor of God? Or does your heart tell you Religion is about following the rules to the T, discerning that you are indeed correct in a multitude of issues and ensuring you are part of the one “real” in-group rather than part of the out-group? Only one of these viewpoints is compatible to involving all and working with all for the betterment of the world and all people, all religions. The other is very exclusive and has room for but a few. Of course, one view is highly concerned with making this world better while the other is best suited for closing your eyes and waiting for eternity, hoping hell doesn’t await. That’s psychologically difficult on a multitude of levels…

Definition of a Prophet

In light of the work of Dr. Cornel West ( I recently read his book “Race Matters”) and an article from a current issue of “The American Journal of Theology and Philosophy” by Gary Dorrien,  I’ve been pondering what a true “prophet” is, who some examples in our past are, and the (possible) absence of current examples in our society today.

Contrary to the perception most people have when they hear the word “prophet,” a prophet is not a fortune teller or prediction giver, at least not in a magical sense. Of course, a true prophet may well be able to tell what will happen to their current society if certain changes are not made but it’s not a parlor trick.

A person can be a prophet of rage; a prophet of justice. A prophet of truth, revelation, social gospel, love or peace. Most often a prophet will be a mixture of all of these things. Prophets may be teachers, preachers, rabbis, clerics, doctors, thinkers or writers. They may be singers, poets, artists or activists. They may be religious or irreligious. Pious or plagued by bad habits. Many prophets don’t live full lives; society has a way of using violence to remove them.

Prophets seek truth, regardless of how that truth will be received by those that hear it. Prophets are consumed with purpose, driven by genuine emotion and spirituality. Prophets have connection to the past and a vision for the future. Prophets seek the advance and fulfillment of the entire group, culture and ultimately of all people. Prophets aren’t figures confined just to ancient history and scriptures. Certainly there were figures from those sources: Abraham, Moses, Ezekiel, Elijah and Elisha, Amos, Jesus, Paul, Buddha, Muhammad (for many people), etc.  But in more recent history there have been plenty more: Gandhi, the Dali Lama, Dr. King, Malcolm X, Harvey Milk.

We need Prophetic figures, certainly. Yet we need Prophetic Movements and Prophetic Religion for those figures to emerge from (or perhaps start?).  Such a religion, church or movement calls out greed, apathy, disregard, waste, prejudice, subjugation and hatred wherever it sees it. Such a movement seeks justice, equality, love and progress everywhere. Such spirituality is more concerned with people than dogma, spiritual fulfillment than pious regulation, love rather than misplaced judgment. Of course, judgment pours forth from a prophetic movement but rarely towards specific individuals (unless that individual is a political or religious leader) for specific missteps, but rather towards entire cultures, countries and groups (usually from which the prophet emerged from—critique from within) for their lack of effort toward justice, their acts of oppression, their mistreatment of those with the least…almost every single Prophet in history has called out nations for their mistreatment of the poor.

Okay. What brings in the recent article from the AJTP is that it concerns “liberal Christianity,” which other writers have more accurately captured with the name “Progressive Christianity.” Gary Dorrien published “The Crisis and Necessity of Liberal Theology” in the spring issue of the above mentioned journal. He describes the history of liberal theology and progressive Christianity which in modern forms was predominant in many areas of the country throughout the 1800s and up to the 1930s. The great Depression and the culmination of two world wars reduced its popularity at a time when many people wanted a more concrete, definitive, and unquestioning and strictly rooted religion. The modern problem facing progressive theology and Christianity is, to paraphrase Dorrien from his article, that it’s too religious and spiritually minded for our secular friends who we may otherwise share opinions with on the social issues facing us, it’s too full of openness, doubt, searching and interpretation for our more orthodox traditional Christian counterparts, and it’s too wordy, complex and academic for those that are unversed in philosophy, theology and academia. Dorrien noted that most of us enamored with Liberal Theology feel that Progressive Christianity would spread tremendously if only we could express its message more succinctly, truly and simply. Yet, he writes, it’s wrong to think droves would “flock to our doors” if only we could better express our beliefs. Most people DON”T WANT a Prophetic Religion that seeks to address social change and progress. Most people want a religion that acts as a personal security blanket, reinforcing pre existing thoughts, beliefs and prejudices. But as Cornell West calls out for in his writings, we need those prophets to enlighten those that don’t even seek such progress. We’ve had them throughout history and we’ve made great steps in their wake. When they’re not here we grow complacent. Yet as West writes, we can’t look towards a single person speaking prophetically and say we’ve got it. We must have that entire movement. For there surely are voices crying out now that speak the truth that seek to transform communities, culture and countries. In very recent years West himself as been such a person as well as Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Barbara Ehrenreich, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, Nikki Giovanni, Marcus Borg…the list can go on and on and include writers, musicians, poets, teachers and preachers who maybe don’t always live in and think of themselves as prophets, but seize certain prophetic truths and address them to entire groups of people in the hopes of causing positive change. Yet we need an energized movement that speaks to more people and inspires them to do more for others; the more people inspired to do even a little more is like water rolling down hill, the work done for others may inspire some of them to get involved themselves. The point is, we live at a time when drastic prophetic social change truly can occur. We’ve been stuck at a point in which it was possible for some time now, yet it really hasn’t happened. Dorrien may be write that Progressive Christianity may never be fully widespread, and that’s okay. If it’s a niche corner, then it needs to be a strong niche corner in which good work is done, truth is spoken and it needs to partner with like minded niche corners in every sector, religious or irreligious, secular and spiritual, political or communal.

Thoughts on Dr. George Tiller, Writings of Anne Lamott

Every time this incident is mentioned, Dr. George Tiller is referred solely as “the late-term abortion doctor, one of only three clinics in the country where such a procedure occurs.”

That may be, but little attention is given to why and how such procedures were arranged. The very term “late term abortion” is code word, it’s supposed to be an area even those of us who are very pro-choice are forced to concede, to agree with the opposition that such a thing is heinous and never acceptable. Surely if a woman can’t make up her mind before the 21st week, surely if she’s carried the child to that point and begun to significantly show, surely there can also be no doubt that there is a heartbeat and numerous signs of life, surely we can all agree she has waited to long and to have an abortion at such a stage is irresponsible, wrong and unforgivable. Surely?

Well,  not exactly. Now, I can’t state everything as exhaustively written and researched, but I can’t help but do my part to mention that from what I have read, Dr. Tiller‘s work was not just a matter of very late term pregnant women stumbling in deciding at the last minute they just didn’t feel like having a child after all. No, from what I have read it seems that many tests were always ran, second consultations were requested, and the procedure was for those women who had discovered that the child they were carrying would be born significantly disabled, mentally incapacitated and/or plagued with a very difficult and life-shortening disease. In short, many things that don’t show up until that point of a pregnancy have thus shown up for these women, and they have been forced to face the decision. Will they, or can they, devoted the time, effort, sacrifice and devotion to care for a child that cannot care for him/herself and may not even be aware of him/herself much at all either? Certainly women, men and families raise such children every day and many find such work rewarding and heart fulfilling, and of course many of the people in such situations found themselves without a choice or a preemptive decision in such a regard. Yet can we tell others that do know beforehand what they will be getting into that they must make that decision for themselves? That at the very least they must bring such a child to full term and put him/her up for adoption in the hopes that someone else will seek out and care for them, and failing that leave them to be cared for by the state? Should we be able to tell all others they must have no choice in such a matter? (Keep in mind that at the 22nd week we’re still not dealing with a fully formed human child that would live on their own outside of the mother’s body either.) So should the state strip all women from any choice in the matter when it is indeed such a heartbreaking and difficult decision that none of us would ever hope to have to make ourselves? I don’t think so, and evidently Dr. Tiller did not think so either.

No, the term “late term abortionist” is so loaded that I feel the media strips Dr. Tiller of some honor by negating him to such a term. Here is a man who was violently, ruthlessly gunned down while worshipping in his Lutheran Church on a Sunday morning, a church where both he and his wife were both regular attendants and active, as deacons and choir singers respectively. Here’s a man who has been shot and injured before, and as soon as he recovered he was back at work stating that his community had taken care of him and he wanted to be back at work to care for them. His clinic was bombed, he regularly received death threats and had to be escorted by a body guard much of the time. Yet he honestly believed he was doing work to help others.  Work that sought to help those that were looked down on by much of the world, the desperate and sad, those left to make the hard choices with often little support. He felt he was doing good work and he was gunned down in church for doing so.

I’m ending this article with some excerpts from Christian writer and philosopher Anne Lamott’s chapter on abortion from her book “Grace (Eventually),” which I happened to run across while reading on Sunday.

In this excerpt she was at a panel discussion with two other Christian writers and speakers, both of the somewhat liberal lean (for their particular denominations at least), one an evangelical the other a Catholic. During a question and answer session a man stood up and  asked how they (Lamott and the other speakers) could reconcile their “progressive stance on peace and justice with the ‘murder of a million babies every year in America.’” Lamott’s co-panelists proceeded to address the question, speaking heavily of such a painful issue but that focus should instead be placed on other “pro-life” matters like “capital punishment, the war in Iraq, poverty and HIV,” and that the efforts should go to “reducing unwanted pregnancies, the need to defuse abortion as a political issue,” etc.

Lamott-  “I announced that I needed to speak out on behalf of the many women present, including myself, who had had abortions, and the women whose daughters might need one in the not-too-distant future–people who must know that teenage girls will have abortions, whether in clinics or dirty back rooms. Women whose lives had been righted and redeemed by Roe v. Wade…I actually feel, and said that it was not a morally ambiguous issue for me at all….Then I said that a woman’s right to choose was nobody else’s goddamn business…Plus, I was–I am–so confused about why we still have to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about miniscule zygotes, when real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the government now in power [the symposium was during the Bush administration]. …But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women are a crucial part of that. It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.”

What Happened to the Freaking Radio?

So as an avid music fan, a reader of popular music history and the sociology and culture that surrounds it, I’m quite aware that for decades the recurring theme was for youth to hate the music of their parents generation, and for parents to not understand or approve of the music of their children’s generation. It was simplified into the idea that if you don’t understand it, if you don’t get it, or if it shocks and offends you, you’re just too old. Now for serious music fans, for those folks who scratch much deeper than a love of music that offends and “defines a generation,” this has always been a shallow view. Of course it’s rooted in truth – bebop scared the be-Jesus out of older adults when it roared into play in the ‘40s, rock n roll scared middle class suburbia in the ‘50s by breaking down racial, social and sexual barriers, psychedelic music in the ‘60s with connotations of free love, drugs and peace blasted the Elvis generation into shock, Heavy metal, sleaze, glam and androgyny did it again in the 70s, hip hop and death metal in the 80s, more explicit rap and metal and their bastard fusion amongst a whole other slew of experimental genres that confused many over 30 repeated the trick in the ’90s.

Now we’re nearing the end of the first decade of the 2000s. Sitting comfortably back and looking at the best of the past quarter century plus of popular music, a music fan with a wide taste for variety and an open mind can find true art from each movement, and a lot of great music from the underground that ran through that entire time as well.

So near the end of this decade, what do we have to show musically? Was there any strong emergent genres, even a new strong subgenre from 2000+? Any new musical movements of note even? If there are any examples I am unaware of them, and if so this is really a new thing, because the 2000s are the first decade to not produce a unique, original or even slightly new form of popular music.

This is not to say there hasn’t been any good music over the past decade, there certainly has. Much of it has been later career work of already established greats – Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Steve Earle, Tom Petty, Prince, U2 and others released top notch and in some cases career best work. Some acts who first gained popularity in the ‘90s stepped up in creative and successful artistic ways – Outkast, Eminem, Radiohead, Coldplay, Nine Inch Nails, The Drive by Truckers, Wilco and a slew of others proved they weren’t just ‘90s acts by making their best work. College Radio, Indie Rock and underground music were s great sources – Spoon, Neko Case, Ween, the Roots, the Spooks, Starsailor, Lupe Fiasco, the Hold Steady, Ryan Adams, The White Stripes, The Black Keys, Tom Waits and plenty others made great records, great songs, and played great live shows.

Now, we have the gift of being able to enjoy an entire history of popular music taking multiple variations – bebop to avant garde jazz to fusion, rockabilly to metal to punk, outlaw country to alt country to cowpunk, delta blues to funk to hip hop, gospel to soul to coffeehouse pop.

Yet the striking sadness concerning the path popular music has taken in recent years is the almost complete disappearance of quality music from the radio. Most of us album loving folks who still spin vinyl and view albums as cohesive works bemoan the so-called “death of the album,” but with continued strong songs and albums we can deal with digital and still get triple pressed 180 gram remastered vinyl for our turntables and high quality CD for our cars on certain albums if we desire. No, the real sadness is the overwhelming abundance of absolute irredeemable garbage that pumps its way onto the airwaves, in the videos and to the top of the billboard charts, music that is beyond questionable in quality and substance. Asher Roth’s despicable “I love college.” Lady GaGa’s recycled Brittany Spears puke. The second-rate Paula Abdul wannabe Ciarra. Nickleback. TI. Souljah Boy. Toby Keith, Gretchen Wilson, Big and Rich. I could go on ad nausea but I won’t. If you look at what was actually popular in the 50s—Elvis, Chuck Berry, Sam Cooke, Johnny Cash, Miles Davis; in the ‘60s-The Beatles, Rolling Stones, John Coltrane, James Brown,; the ‘70s- Bruce Springsteen, The Clash, Willie Nelson, Black Sabbath; the 80s- Public Enemy, U2, REM, Michael Jackson, Guns N Roses; the ‘90s – Nirvana, 2pac, Nine Inch Nails. Now of course I’m listing highlights. As you progress through the decades it becomes a matter of cherry picking the best of the popular, because from the ‘70s on each decade has yielded a lot of popular radio hits that are just trash. By the time we get to the nineties it’s very noticeable (Limp Bizkit, Creed, Master P) but by the time we get to today, try turning on the radio and hearing anything that isn’t about a strip club (pop station), a boot in the ass of a foreign country (country station) or the desire to rawk and/or go home and/or slit wrist (hard rock station) and you’ve hit the jackpot. Of course there are good popular acts that still remain “good” in the artistic sense. Of course there’s a place for big, dumb or cheesy, mindless fun in music as well. And yes, there’s a ton of under the radar beautiful music being made today as well. Yet whether because of the conglomeration of power, the absolute control and standardization of radio by companies like Clear Channel who are McDonaldizing pop music, because of tastes that are formed to like what the big dogs want the people to like and expose them to, because of a desire to not “think” because there’s enough troubling information on the news, because of the move from books to handheld techno gadgets that have to some degree “dumbed down” what is entertainment, because of reality TV and shock jocks, I really don’t know but there is an obvious change now and it’s not just a case of a new generation “just not getting it.”

Popular and critically acclaimed have historically occasionally overlapped. The Beatles are the biggest example of that, perhaps the only band that ever managed to be simultaneously the most popular band with the biggest hits as well as the best reviewed and revered amongst music journalists. Today, the gap between acclaim and popularity is a virtual gulf. What’s sad is that those of us who love music still can find it in many, many places with a bit of work, but many great artists will never have the chance to continue in their field because they simply lack adequate exposure. Many songs of great quality will languish and never reach their potential by never being heard and loved by the people that would love them and be positively affected by them. Yet such is the case, and I know there’s bigger issues to worry about–but music helps get through those other issues quite often.

Observations on “The Reader”

I missed seeing “The Reader” during its theatrical release in 2008, otherwise I certainly would have placed it high on my list of “Best Films of 2008,”  it certainly out-classes and out-thinks some of the more basic diversionary films that settled near the bottom of that list.

“The Reader” is now out on DVD, and a viewing of it left me with all sorts of thoughts. First, on a simply film appreciatory level, it’s a wonderfully made movie with tremendous performances by the entire cast. Kate Winslet consistently proves herself to be one of the, if not THE, eminent actresses of her time. Her work in “Iris” and “Little Children” displayed that, “The Reader” solidifies it.

In narrative and artistically, “The Reader” knocks everything out of the park. I’ve never read the novel on which it’s based, yet I’m certain the allegory, subtext, nuance, philosophy and empathy that cuts through in all directions was present there, and if so it’s amazing that was brought to the screen so successfully. The visuals and many certain shots highlight the deeper meanings that come through in the words and actions of the characters so much so that this film works on so many different levels.

The film explores the after affects of the holocaust in a way I’ve never before seen displayed. The story takes place in Germany in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘80s (the ‘70s are entirely skipped) and concerns first a boy of about 15, Michael (played by David Cross as a teen and later by Ralph Fiennes as an adult), who is seduced by a thirty-something woman, Hanna Schmitz (played by Kate Winslet) . Hanna abruptly disappears from Michael’s life one day and he sees her again years later when he is a law student in as his class observes the trial of a group of SS women for war crimes. She is one of those on trial.

What this story manages to do is to remove all easy judgments the viewer might normally make on any character. Whereas noir films muddy things up by showing that there is no complete good in all and the heroes and villains alike share darkness within themselves, this film is like a reverse noir in which the emphasis is on no character being completely bad. It’s ingrained in us to feel it’s good and just to hate the Nazi’s. What other human group can be so easy and blameless for us to loathe? It’s true that there were many human monsters traipsing around in SS uniforms, it’s true that people like Hitler, Mendel and the like cause us to question their very humanity in light of their actions. But what of the rest of the country? Those that served in the army, the SS and other jobs as accomplices in the whole messy, evil affair? Those that simply felt they were “doing their job,” or “serving their country,” or merely trying to get by? Those that didn’t take the time to think about the depth and implications of their actions. Or what of those that didn’t work in any related field yet passively allowed such things to happen by not speaking up, by not acting out, by not revolting? This film shines a light on the next generation of Germans who lived knowing their parents, teachers, preachers and older friends had actively or passively allowed one of the absolute worse national crimes in history to occur.  By taking it further and juxtaposing this relationship between a young teen, who represents that next generation, and a thirty-something woman, who represents Nazi-era Germany, this entanglement is even more pronounced. Most difficult and surprisingly, Winslet portrays this woman in such a way that you begin to feel sympathy for her tremendously, yet then you question yourself for doing so. Shouldn’t these people be void of our sympathy? We’re practically trained to think so. Yet her humanness  shows
through anyway, and her protestations of “I never thought about the past” ring true. Were such a terrible ordeal to occur this day, in this country, wouldn’t many act in the same way? This doesn’t excuse the behavior, not at all, and the film never does that., it never excuses the behavior or lightens its impact.

It reminds me quite a bit of a comment theologian NT Wright made in his book “Evil and the Justice of God,”  in which he notes the fervor and ardor that people voice hatred towards pedophilia and child molesters. He writes that although such things are “admittedly stomach-churningly wrong and evil,” the extent to which that one crime is so focused on by some is to his mind a way for a society that looks the other way or justifies most other past “sins” to be vocally critical and morally superior to at least one target group. The extent to which such a thing like child molestation is horrific and wrong allows many people to justify a complete hatred on and judgment passing to others.
We feel comfortable demonizing a select few groups of people this day and age, and Nazis and child molesters are certainly guilty of things that deserve the reaction of moral repulsion. What this film manages to do is to pull back the labels and allow you to view someone underneath that label not all that removed from what some of us would be capable of in the “right”(in this case wrong) situation. Shifted from that position of moral superiority we are left to see that most of us are quite human beneath any quite possibly horrible actions we’ve committed. Interestingly, even past the Nazi issue the female lead character is still guilty of seducing a young teenage boy and then deserting him, leaving him floundering in her shadow the rest of his life to such an extent that it seems all other relationships he has are sullied. He acknowledges her ill affect on him in a conversation with a woman who had survived a concentration camp as a young girl  (played by the remarkable Lena Olin). “Yes I know she’s guilty of much worse to so many others,” he tells her looking like a large part of him still loves her even as it hates her for what she’s done to him.

Another interesting theme that arises in relation to that feeling of moral superiority we all often get is brought home by one of college age Michael’s classmates who points out the absurdity of placing a few female guards on trial for war crimes when virtually the whole country actively or inactively aided in the atrocity. He asserted that society was doing this to make themselves feel better, not to bring about justice. The law teacher insightfully pointed out that society doesn’t determine or go by morality, but by law, and the two can be on quite the opposite ends at many points.

In short summation, in addition to being an entertaining, artistic, perfectly acted, immensely watch-able and heartbreakingly tragic film, “The Reader” also prompts more intelligent consideration and thought that almost any film in recent years.

Guns, God, Government

In America, especially in the south, if you want to anger someone those above 3 topics pretty much are a way to do so. Perhaps in many areas, guns most of all.

A startling piece on Sunday nights “60 Minutes” profiled the brother of a girl who was shot and killed at VA Tech. The brother, to make a point, attended a Virginia gun show and within an hour had purchased a dozen guns, many of them assault weapons, without having to provide an ID or go through a background check. Virginia is a state with few gun sell restrictions, and the gun show loop even allows people in the parking lot of gun shows to sell weapons directly from the trunk of their cars. The brother of the VA Tech victim was asked if he was even once asked to show identification. He responded that it happened a few times, but each time he refused and was told that for 50 dollars more (or a trip to the parking lot to purchase the gun outside) they would go ahead with the sell.

The sells of guns have shot up dramatically this year. Due to the recession say some, and to the Obama presidency say others. In past recessions, people have stocked up on canned goods and blankets. This time around it’s guns. Gun lobbyists have stated that people are right in thinking that were there a complete economic meltdown, there would be nothing better than guns to get them prepared to survive and gather food (quite a bit of Doomsday Prophecy). As to the Obama presidency, conservatives fear he will bring back the Clinton ban on assault weapons and seek to close the gun-show loophole.

The gun lobby fiercely argues against  bringing back the ban on assault weapons that was in place under Clinton and repealed under Bush. As for waiting periods, that gun show loophole that allowed the VA tech brother to purchase multiple weapons without waiting was responded to by a NRA spokesman in VA with “the second amendment doesn’t say anything about a waiting period before your right to bear arms.” No, the second amendment doesn’t mention waiting periods, or the right to bear assault weapons, nuclear bombs or hazardous material for firebombing either.

A great book on this subject is “Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t Win the Battle Over Guns”  by Mark V. Tushnet.  It’s really quite a balanced book, written by a Law Professor at Harvard who claims to be rather disinterested in the debate on personal levels, feeling it’s not a priority on his list of national concerns. He debates both sides and ultimately concludes that each has winning and losing arguments and that the debate must be resolved outside of the constitution, with information and decisions based on further sources because the constitution  doesn’t fully answer this question for us in this day and age. We thus have to look at court precedents, modern interpretations, changing atmospheres as well as original intent.

What truly seems like common sense though, is that regardless of whether the founding fathers intended the right to bear arms with a well armed militia for personal, state and national protection to extend to a personal, private ownership of any citizen at any time or if the original intent is currently fulfilled by having an established national guard and technological advances that negate the necessity, there are a few factors that fall outside of the second amendment when it comes to guns.

No matter what, common sense should tell us that had the forefathers predicted AK47’s in inner cities being used by street gangs or in drug cartels moving throughout the world, there may have been some warning and restriction. There should be no argument against bringing back the ban on assault weapons—at least no logical, sensible, compassionate argument. Military grade weapons have no place in the hands of a private citizen. They exist only to destroy large numbers of people in short spans of time. As for increased background checks, extended waiting periods and closing the gun show loop? Yet again there is no decent argument against these things. Someone going to a gun show should have to provide ID and undergo a background check, the same as they would if they were to go to a gun shop. As for folks to be able to legally sell weapons out of the trunk of their car in the parking lot at such gun shows, it’s almost enough to make one feel lawgivers in Virginia simply aren‘t thinking clearly.

The problem is, as Tushnet points out, for many people this issue is bigger than just guns. Many feel it is a part of the “culture wars,” liberals vs. conservatives, cities vs. rural areas and so on. We need to get past that and make solid judgments in regards to issues that affect the health and safety of everyone living in this country.

Oddly many of those in the south who want no gun restrictions and pride themselves on carrying concealed weapons also are deeply religious, or at least historically so. I understand hunting, especially to provide food. I understand target practicing as a sportsman. Beyond that, carrying weapons with the intent to use them if necessary on another human being is however a form of violence. I’m sure that’s a comment liable to make many angry, yet I have to stress I don’t feel that such an action makes someone a violent person. I completely understand the feelings, emotions and drives that cause many to carry a weapon or keep one in their home solely for “home protection” and to, in theory, keep their loved ones safe (the stats show that simply keeping a gun in your home increases your chances of dying by gunshot dramatically, but that‘s another story). I also know that many jobs require people to carry weapons strictly for the protection of self and others with the intention to shoot to kill if necessary. Yet to invoke the God aspect from the title of this article, carrying, buying or owning a weapon for any reason other than to hunt for food or target practice for sport is a, albeit possibly subtle in some cases, form of violence. Christianity is rooted in nonviolence, so it’s simply odd that many Christians are so vocally pro-gun. Regardless of the actions of the church in low-points in history and the attitudes of many who call themselves Christians, Jesus spoke of complete non-violence yet many of those that praise his name today follow it with “pass the ammunition,” at least metaphorically. I understand self-preservation, defense and a desire to be prepared. Yet can’t those that want guns for that reason view them almost as a necessary evil and not be so enthusiastic about them? Can’t we all agree that restrictions on the sell of and type of guns can be imposed to help curb needless violence? Yes there are many factors that lead to the violence that permeates society, American society in particular. Yes, there are other avenues that must be explored. Yet a step in the direction of moving guns to the area of hunting, emergency and sensibility only is direly needed.

Many notable advocates for non-violence have addressed the issue of the limits of pacifism. A future article on this site will be concerned with how various leaders in the field, Gandhi, MLK and the Dalai Lama have dealt with this issue. That’s it for now.

The Dawkins Delusion

I honestly had no clue that there was a book with the subtitle of  “Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine” when I wrote an article on this blog a few months back titled “Concerning Atheist Fundamentalism.” I didn’t think that I had coined the term, but generally the type of worldview I was referring to I had seen noted as “fact fundamentalism,” “science fundamentalism” and “secular (humanist) fundamentalism.”  When I posted the blog with that title, I had a few comments quickly posted from people claiming that atheists could not be fundamentalists by their very nature. I disagreed, many others have and do disagree as well, one person commenting mentioned that the mindset I was criticizing was more likely “anti-theism” rather than atheism. I could (and may) discuss what anti-theism is and how it differs in more depth, but for now I’ll leave it at the point that anti-theism is more in tune with the ideas of John Shelby Spong and atheism is more like Stephen Jay Gould.
On the other hand, the prime example of “Atheist Fundamentalist” is Richard Dawkins.

Alister McGrath and Joanna McGrath take on the main arguments and ideas propagated by Richard Dawkins’ “God Delusion” in the concise yet intelligent “Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine.” McGrath is a noted scientist, former atheist and now a Christian Theologian.  As a scientist,  McGrath appreciates and commends some of Dawkins’ earliest work such as “The Selfish Gene.” Yet McGrath notes the biased, nonfactual fervent loud cries that Dawkins has devolved to in later works that is drawing ire and criticism from those of every religious persuasion as well as fellow scientists and other atheists. McGrath points out correctly that roughly as many scientists believe in God as do not. In 1999, a poll of all working in the field of science showed the results as 45 % that do not believe in God, 40 % do believe in God and the rest responded that they are unsure or have no certain opinion. There are numerous scientists like McGrath, including Francis Collins (Director of the Human Genome Project) and Owen Gingerich (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), that share a worldview that promotes rigorous use of the scientific method as well as theology and a life of faith.

The main point of rational folks in the field of science is that God and “the divine” can neither be proven nor disproved within the realm of science. Dawkins’ for the past few years has shrilly insisted that everything true and real can be proven in science. For Dawkins and his ilk, nothing is true or real if it cannot be scientifically classified. This discounts any truth that may be gleaned through historical study, literature, music, philosophy, anthropology, sociology…the list goes on. The natural sciences are the only worthwhile measuring stick. This moves Dawkins far beyond most rational scientists, far beyond most atheists even. And yes, it places him distinctly past anti-theists ( who may be pantheist, panentheist or agnostic).

Interestingly, for someone who places so much emphasis on science and the scientific method, Dawkins’ commits many grievous errors in (mis)placing his arguments within a scientific context. McGrath makes great points in this regard, pointing out the lapses, jumps and misuse of science in the two principal arguments Dawkins’ uses in his inquiry into the real origin of religion. Dawkins claims that religion is “a virus of the mind,” and makes the jump that since “superstitious” belief spreads amongst families, communities and societies it is “like a virus” and then Dawkins makes the jump from “like a virus” to the statement “religion is a virus of the mind,” without giving any remotely scientific proof of such a proposition. Then there’s Dawkins’ theory of the “meme” which postulates the existence of tiny mental “memes” that jump from person to person in society and become ingrained in genes down family lines—again, without a shred of scientific proof or backing.

Dawkins becomes angry when his position is questioned. When someone in the scientific community professes any type of faith in any religious area, Dawkins believes they must be lying or using such statements in the hopes of gaining some sort of personal advantage. When Pope John Paul professed admiration for science and Darwin, Dawkins scoffed that he as well was lying.

Dawkins’ does everything a fundamentalist of any sort does—clings to a few sources and ideas and uses them for ultimate proof of any and every opinion he has regardless of new discovery, fact and rational thought. Holds the opposite view in complete contempt and makes no concession to any other argument, regardless of any proof or support that argument happens to have. Claims that all matters in life can be addressed and answered from one sphere of thought without any doubt at any time.  Most of all, perhaps, if the facts and information do not really support your claims as well as you would like, simply shout louder than the opposition and be heard. This is Dawkins.

McGrath does a wonderful job in briefly contrasting Dawkins with Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was an atheist as well, yet he never claimed that science could disprove faith, nor that the natural sciences were the only field capable of producing truth of any kind. Gould didn’t think religion was the source of all evil as Dawkins does. Gould believed that although he was an atheist, science was unable to sway one in either direction in that matter. Gould rightly knew that some things lay outside the field of science.

In coming blogs I plan to review a few other notable short books that pertain to this area. Next up, soon enough, will be one about “Irreligion,” in which a mathematician, John Allen Paulos, tries to argue that “the numbers just don’t add up” to point to God’s existence.

Why the “Hip God Cause” is Silly #2: Creationism

I’m not sure how “hip” this one is, except that it never seems to die off. Mainline denominations pretty much made their peace with Darwin and science decades ago. The Catholics emphasized science and discovery as being yet another facet of God’s truth—wherever truth is, God is—long ago as well. Yet for a large number or protestants, namely evangelicals and the most conservative of them, creationism remains the only “safe” and valid belief a “true” Christian can have.  *

Yet only one notable scientist stakes any real claim in creationism, or intelligent design (claimed to be different ideas yet both are largely the same thing). Michael Behe, author of  “Darwin’s Black Box” has been discredited by even his own university (Behe is a biochemist professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and Leheigh has stated on it’s website that  “It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”) Behe’s own testimony in one of the largest creationism court cases in recent history, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, was cited extensively by the Judge overseeing that case in his ruling that “intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.”

The old “well it’s just a theory” argument towards evolution that is thrown out to discredit it’s teaching in classrooms ignores the fact that everything in the field of science that is strongly supported is a “theory.” Gravity is a “theory” as well. A scientific theory has become a theory through repeated experiments, fact checking, study and re-evaluation.  The Theory of Evolution has been re-evaluated and expanded in recent years through DNA studies, through further archeological discoveries and in laboratory experiments. It’s pretty much as proven as you can get, and science rarely defines anything as a permanent and unchanging “law,” because almost everything is open to further study.  So despite it being that evolution is a credible, validated science, those of the fundamentalist and evangelical fervor have gone to extremes to create their own pseudo science, labeling it intelligent design or creationism.

I recognize that there are extremists on both sides of this issue that are equally loud and equally annoying. Despite what both of these groups scream, I do insist that there is a safe, logical middle ground. Die-hard creationists believe with personal certainty that any concessions to Darwin’s science negates their faith. I read of one fundamentalist Christian preacher who claimed that without a literal 7-day creation story there could be no crucifixion of Jesus. “Without the creation story, there can be no cross,” he claimed. A very baffling deduction.  Of course you have many that think that because of Darwin, evolution, natural selection and origin of the species there can be no God. History and life becomes a series of random and meaningless events perpetuated through cause and effect and traceable back to a scientific certainty that leaves no room for a benevolent God. These folks cling to the thought that it is pure ignorance to “ignore” such scientific “fact” to hold onto an outdated and disproved perception of God.

Oddly, I’ve read one creationist claim that if you hold to the idea that ultimately there is a God responsible for kick-starting the entire thing, even if you accept every claim posited in the theory of evolution, you do in fact hold to “intelligent design.” I’m not sure if most in the I.D. camp would be so lenient, but if they are, I guess I could safely be classified with them…but I hate the term, and I reject that it is “science” even if it is truth.

To get to the heart of what I’m really concerned about here, and what’s so silly about the cause of “creationism” as it displays itself in Creation Museums and as a pseudo science taught to home-schooled evangelicals and in private fundamentalist schools, and as it is attempted to be injected into the public school system is that IT IS NOT A SCIENCE. In fact, it’s laughable that  there are people in this world that attempt to create a belief system that attempts to prove that the world is only 6,000 years old, that humans appeared on this earth in the exact form they exist in today in the very beginning and to even go so far as to convert the Hebrew creation myth of Adam and Eve into a literal historical account. Yet they do have such a right to hold to such beliefs, as well they should. Yet they should not be able to inject such thought into a science class in a public school system because the entire system is void of even a shred of actual science.

It comes down to this. Either a person can grow in faith and allow new discovery and science to compliment faith: they can live in an open door environment, with faith that grows and adapts, with eyes open. Or, a person can shut the door, cling to a particular interpretation of how things are with no room to grow or adapt. To me as a spiritual person, God is bigger than that. To me as a Christian, Christ is bigger than that. No scientific or historical discovery can alter a valid faith system built on compassion, revelation and forgiveness. If your entire faith is built on a system of innumerable claims that must be accepted unquestioningly, and that if any one aspect is every fully discredited the entire system is destroyed,  do you really have a valid faith at all? The truths that can speak to us through religious scripture, prayer and revelation have little if anything to do with testable historical facts. They have everything to do with all-encompassing faith and forward momentum of spiritual growth. To say the Adam and Eve tale is a creation myth does not negate the truth and message that may lie at the heart of it for entire groups of faith. To accept some (or much of, or even all of ) Darwin’s ideas as reliable science doesn’t take away from the possibility of God. Evolution is an incredibly involved, amazing process that is miraculous in itself. If it is the method God chose to bring life about over time, so be it. It takes nothing away from how we today experience God, faith and positive global service.  As I mentioned earlier, many feel that by embracing science’s explanations for life they no longer have to cling to a religious explanation. Such people were looking for an excuse to abandon faith and they have it, if it weren’t Darwin it would be something else. They have every right to embrace science as their only faith, yet those of us who allow science to compliment a deeper faith know that for us, science as faith only is sterile, cold and leaves much to be desired.

Wherever you stand, I’m sure this issue will keep rearing its head from time to time. Astoundingly, almost half of all Americans reject any form of Darwin and evolution as a belief they hold. Many in the science field have no room for a religious realm to their thought. Then there are the rest of us, who comfortably settle both sides into who we are and what we think. All in all, there is room for all of this in the world.

* I’m not going to make an entire article out of this, but by crediting Catholics for holding to a “where truth is, God is” mentality I can’t let it slide the huge gaffe the sitting Pope made recently. See, the last Pope, John Paul, was compassionate, progressive and intelligent. This current Pope, to keep this polite, is quite a bit more reactionary and “old school.” Recently in Africa he commented that condoms “increase the spread of AIDS.” No one, not even the Pope, should go to Africa, a continent dying of AIDS, and discourage the use of condoms. That is not an embrace of truth or God.

Why the “Hip Cause” is Silly #1: “Prayer in School”

This thread of articles focuses on “hip God causes,” you know those slogans, campaigns and causes bandied about by folks that often stay ever-present, yet are noticeably cyclical as well. They tend to bubble to the surface periodically as the rallying cry for evangelicals and peripherally conservative Christians.

One that really befuddles me is “Prayer in School.” I say befuddle, because on so many levels I am confused when I hear the rallying cry over this cause. “Keep Prayer in schools!” or “Put God back in schools!” folks will shout.
My confusion arises for several reasons. One, what causes this to become the hip evangelical cause of the moment each time? Whatever the cause, it seems it has recently occurred again if online petitions, chain e-mails and the earnest hopes of semi-read scripture enthusiasts are a reliable sign.

Overwhelmingly what throws me the most, though, is wondering what exactly these folks want. I’m assuming they want statues of Jesus placed throughout all public schools, detailed and characterized exactly how they want him to look as well as full, led prayers throughout the school day, and classes interspersed with scripture reading. Well, if that’s what they want, there are private schools for that. Why they want it in a public school is completely beyond me.

The biggest point worth making here is–PRAYER CANNOT BE FORBIDDEN FROM ANY SCHOOL. Also, GOD IS STILL IN EVERY SCHOOL, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. So what do these folks want, other than a stifling, constricting and ultimately faith harming, led and controlled, forced-upon belief system that will ultimately lead to faith rejection by many children simply out of anger they‘ll be apt to feel for being forced to embrace or acknowledge certain viewpoints.

Prayer is in school now. A student can pray at virtually any time during the day, silently and to themselves. Before class, during lunch, at assembly, or as a notable passage of scripture  called for, ceaselessly throughout the day (by the way they live and by constant faith dialogue in their minds). Want prayer that’s more than simply silent? There are very few schools in which children will be reprimanded for praying aloud before dinner at their cafeteria table with children who are voluntarily sitting with them and participating. Want a prayer or bible study group? Simply set up a VOLUNTARY after-school group to do that very thing.

So really, it’s baffling what more people want. Do they want teachers to lead students in specific Christian prayers, prayers veiled in the language and belief systems of each teachers’ specific interpretation and version of Christianity? So who decides the type of prayer and the type of language at play during such led sessions? I’m an Anglican, so my sort of prayers differ from what evangelicals, Catholics or Greek Orthodox Christians would pray. I’m a very liberal Anglican at that, so my private prayers differ from many of my fellow Anglicans in tone, expectation and method. As an Episcopal in America, I realize the public led prayers I engage in from the Book of Common Prayer will be common and known throughout the country in most Episcopal churches, yet each individual in a pew is apt to have their own interpretation, relation to and connection with what is being said as a group. Can such a view be held by elementary school children with no faith tradition or knowledge originating in their homes in regards to what these words may possibly mean to different people? Above and beyond this, what about Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews or atheist children?  Is it even remotely in the realm of fair or just that the beliefs of those children are trampled, ignored and berated, even if (perhaps especially if) they are a small minority in the otherwise “Christian“ classroom?    In short, it’s common sense that led, forced-participatory prayer can bring nothing but bad things. So, other than the acceptable and permitted types of prayer mentioned above and this bad idea, what else do the “put prayer back in school” crowd have in mind? I assume most teachers would get upset if a student stood up in the middle of class and began to loudly pray, interrupting the lesson. Does the Prayer-Power crowd want that, even though such, loud, showy, obnoxious “look at me” prayers were disparaged by even Jesus himself in scripture?

GOD IS IN ALL SCHOOLS,  as I mentioned, because God is in all, in everyone and present everywhere. God is above all and in all, external and internal, moving through and working through anyone that allows room. “Keep God in school” or “Put God back in school?” Huh? God is there already. Now, whether God is heard or followed is another question entirely, and entirely up to the individual. If parents and adults want God to thrive and move within the public school system they will teach their children to be just, peaceful, fair, tolerant, loving and compassionate. They will disparage violence, prejudice, ignorance and greed. They will teach their children the value of loving, forgiving, working to better the world and serving others. They will teach their children how to think, question, reason, evaluate, acknowledge and learn. Teachers in the schools will inspire their students to pursue truth, knowledge, education, fairness and progress.
Then God will thrive even more in the lives of students in public schools. But it starts at home, and it has nothing to do with institutionalizing a narrow and particular human crafted version of God, prayer and faith and then forcing others to accept that same version.

For those that hold and practice a sort of flat faith that is rooted in their own repetitive, unquestioning acceptance of the way they “have always done it,” those that are at the appointed place and time every Sunday, begrudgingly cut a check offering up their ten percent and have a very set and selective view of what constitutes a “moral issue” often latch onto these causes and shout for them in the honest thought that the country and the world will be a better place if changes are brought about to bring back “the good old days,” (which by the way, never existed in such an idyllic way). Yet real faith is much more than scrambling to hold onto the faith of your childhood with blind acceptance without probing it, questioning it and at times doubting it. Real faith brings its questions to the table and uses them to deepen the truth being sought. Real faith is unconcerned with superficial causes like “prayer in school,” and instead focuses on total transformation and positive global service, the type of mindset, actions and thoughts that seek to bring peace and compassion to the individual, to the society, to the country, to the world. That’s the Kingdom of God.

- Peace through Justice,
dmh2

Restoring Education to It’s Proper Role

It’s about time we place more emphasis on knowledge for knowledge’s sake. So many throughout the past few decades have chosen to go to college and what they would study in college and ultimately what they would do with their lives based on how much wealth they could accumulate by taking that path. What happened to an actual widespread thirst for knowledge and a hunger for truth? Shouldn’t prospective students want to know how things work, what has happened in the past, what science reveals, what psychology says about us, how people do or do not worship and how such ways differ and affect entire cultures and societies, what is going on in the world today and how such things get to their respective points? Most important of all, shouldn’t the main concerns a prospective student has before picking a potential career path be: will this work make me happy and will this work make the world around me a better place for my having done said work?

Realistically, I understand that before undertaking the massive amount of work, invested time and accumulated debt one will accept in training for a career in a college or university one should be relatively certain that there will be a valid job awaiting for having such training that also will pay enough to cover the bills and make such an investment worthy of the time it required. Yet I also know that many of us often overstate how much is “enough.” Going through college to get a job that will make 40,000 dollars a year should not be a laughable goal. So often people assume they have to make 100 grand a year or its simply not worth their time. I think its quite clear that in most areas of the country we can get by (and get by comfortably) on much less. Living in a bit more moderate of a fashion is not a wasted life.

Education should not be limited to a fine area. Many undergraduate students throughout history have complained that they had to receive such a broad and across-the-board base coursework. Someone studying to be a physicist may hate that they have to take Literature, History, Philosophy or Psychology. Someone studying to be an English teacher may often loath taking Calculus, Biology and Geography. Yet it’s often the occurrence that a student may find their passion in a completely unexpected place by taking such mandatory’s. It’s also important that the experts in every field can understand a basic level of comprehension in those “across the board” areas. I think such broad learning should be extended. Today in schools across the country there are many students who find arts and humanities slipping from the curriculum because such areas aren’t deemed as important as Math or Science in acquiring a job. Although science and math may teach you how to apply skills in many professions, arts and humanities teach you who you are and open you up to the “why” instead of just the “how.” Obama mentioned in a recent address his desire that all adults capable of taking at least one class in a higher education setting – be it in college, technical school or wherever—is a great call. That class would benefit anyone whether it served as vocational training that deepened their job knowledge or simply an educational course that taught them more about history, science or math, even if that course simply served to inspire them artistically through art, craft or writing. The point is that no education is wasteful. No knowledge is bad knowledge. The more we as a country can learn the better off we will all be. The coming generations need as much broad and specific knowledge as possible to compete in the growing global market as well as to contribute to the rest of society through scientific development, historical discovery, artist output.

Furthermore, knowledge is essential to freedom. Simply knowing and being aware of fact, possibility and truth calls oppression, whether it is oppression brought on by a ruling class, a government institution, an oppressive religious organization, a personal relationship, a societal organization or simply ignorance itself into the light. I truly feel education has the power to destroy most prejudices, stereotypes, judgments and limited viewpoints.