the sixth veil

This is part of a seven part series. Read parts one, two, three, four, and five first.

The sixth veil reveals something insidious. “Nazi Germany, the Inquisition, Stalinism, the Crusades, these were what happened when reality was allowed to give way to cliché. Behind the sixth veil, like a pearl behind cheesecloth, was the realization that ‘the end of the world’ was the most dangerous cliché of all.”

Ah, clichés. Don’t you just love them? They remove all necessity of thought, introspection, openness to change, and creativity. Instead, they allow us to simply fall in with a simple party line that satisfies and pleases thousands, even while robbing the soul of its depth.

Has there ever been a politician elected to a prominent office without a handy cliché? (Here’s a fun quiz: how many US presidential slogans can you recall?) Parents, of course, rely heavily on clichés. They are a great way to answer the child’s “why” without ever actually answering it. Rest assured, though, that children will remember the clichés to pass down to their children and grandchildren.

Robbins claims that the most dangerous cliché is “the end of the world.” Most of us laugh at the image of a man walking the streets holding a sign that says, “The End of the World is Near.” We don’t really buy into this cliché, do we?

I remember watching a film in youth group at our family’s (denominational affiliation removed) church about the end of the world, “The Rapture.” Its intent was to scare the hell out of us, and it worked on me. For years after, chills would run down my spine whenever I walked into an empty room and couldn’t find anyone. “Oh no! The rapture came and I was left behind! I’m going to burn for eternity!” It was a powerful tool of control. None of us wanted to step out of line, lest Jesus decide to reject us at the end of times.

Then there are those that believe in and desire the end of times so firmly that they dedicate their lives to helping bring it about. The end is accompanied by great wars and tribulation, so the story goes, so if they can add to these, the end is sure to come more quickly. Just as dangerous are those who insist that all the violence and suffering are necessary, or at least inevitable, so make no effort to combat it.

Is there an end of times? Well, I guess everything that has a beginning has an end (oops, was that a cliché?) so quite likely there will be an end of times. But it is not ours to anticipate, bring about, or fear. Today is just today. Enjoy it and try not to mess it up too badly.

What happens to a dream deferred?

My classes are studying the play, "A Raisin in the Sun" by Lorraine Hansberry, a play first produced on Broadway in 1959. Among other themes, the play explores cultural and individual pride. One of the characters, Joseph Asagai, asks Beneatha why she insists on mutilating her hair. He suggests to her that her hair would be beautiful if she let it go natural. I asked my class what they made of this, and at first they weren't sure. So then I asked them what was the most popular hairstyle for black women in the 60s. All of them, even those in their 20s, knew it was the afro. "Why?" I asked them, which led into a discussion about taking pride in natural beauty instead of trying to mold oneself into the narrow definition of beauty promoted by our dominant culture.

To further this idea, I brought up the 90s song, "Baby Got Back." (How do you know about that song, Ms.Pullin? they asked. They think all I listen to is Leann Rimes) True, the song is full of innuendo, but at its heart it is encouraging women with curves, especially women of color, to see themselves as beautiful and desirable the way they are. This is why I found it so offensive when Cameron Diaz danced to the song in "Charlie's Angels."

So I'm wondering, besides incredibly thin bodies, what other standards of beauty does our dominate culture promote that damage the confidence of men and women who can not fit these standards?

as requested, a post inspired by freethinking at the Blackdog Coffeehouse

We had some lively discussion Saturday night at the Freethinkers meetup. We kicked off the evening with everyone’s sharing his/her story. It was like old-fashioned testimony time at church, only most stories ended with some variation of, “and that’s why I left the church.” This time there were two of us who still believe in God plus one ex-pastor (now atheist), so there were a variety of viewpoints.

One of the discussions that grew out of the conversation was about the Bible and the Jesus in the Bible. I was not surprised by the strong and diverse opinions, though with that many people in the room, it’s not always easy for everyone to express thoughts. I contributed to the discussion, but ideas continued to race through my head all night, so I’m going to share now some of what’s been on my mind.

Some people shared that not only do they disagree with the Bible, but also that the book makes no sense and that the Jesus in it is not a likeable guy. Ok, everyone’s entitled to opinions, and I do appreciate that many there had at least taken the time to read the book, but if you are going to argue with it, you have to go a few steps further.

Please do not make the same mistakes that millions of Christians do- approaching the ancient text with a modern mindset and modern expectations. Many think, “It’s the Word of God. Everything it says is true, so all I have to do is sit down and read it and I’ll know the truth. It’s just that simple.” Many atheists think, “I don’t believe in God, this is all nonsense, so I’m going to read it to find all the flaws.” Both end up in the same place: not allowing the text to speak for itself first before forming an opinion.

It is an ancient piece of literature and must be understood and respected as that before you can place judgment on it. You would never read Plato the same way you would read today’s newspaper, a best selling novel, or a modern biography. You would expect to have to study it, to understand something of the history and purpose behind it, the setting, the audience, and the genre. Those who do the same with the Biblical text will be miles ahead of most others.

For example, in the narrative of Jesus in the book of John, the author writes that Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine at a wedding. Keep in mind that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are not, and were never intended to be understood as, eyewitness accounts, nor were they written haphazardly. The author has a very specific message and so tells the story in a way to convey that message effectively. Everything from the shape of the plot to the language used aims to drive home this message to a specific audience at a specific time. So, a scholar would read this story and ask herself, “Knowing what I do about the intentions of the author, the intended audience, and the historical situation, why did the author not only include this Jesus miracle story but place it as his first miracle? What purpose does it serve?” After understanding all of that, you may commence to debate the truth in the text.

The Bible also must be understood at least as literature that is 2000+ years old representing several authors, many cultures, and even different belief systems. Of course it contains contradictions and inconsistencies. Does that mean it should be automatically discounted? Not necessarily. If it were a Biology or Physics textbook, maybe (unless the Physics textbook included both Newtonian and Quantum Physics, which do appear to contradict). However, a compilation of 66 separate writings across thousands of years recording various people’s experiences and ideas about God must contain inconsistencies if it’s to be taken seriously.

I am not taking sides on the debate here, just trying to raise the intellectual level of the conversation on both sides.

the fifth veil

This is part five of a seven part series. Read parts one, two, three and four first.

With the dropping of the fifth veil, Robbins exposes another god: money. He says, “Preoccupied with it, dominated- and ultimately bewildered- by it, introspective men and women finally had to confess that it clouded their vision of the world… when the fifth veil falls, and with it the illusion of financial worth, individuals might recognize themselves again, might find themselves standing, as if naked, among ancient values in a long- lost landscape.”

How much are we motivated by money? How many of our decisions are based more on the financial impact than anything else?

Some would argue that without financial incentive we would not be as productive. But then, what is the definition of productive? Is making more and more stuff productive? Is convincing others to consume more and more productive? What is the inherent value in love, happiness, enjoyment of the simple things of life?

And what is the ultimate cost of pursuing primarily money? What is given up for the accumulation of stuff? Where I work, I see young people making lifetime career decision based on which field within their ability will yield the highest income. They are not solely to blame. We sell education to them based largely on the incentive of more money. Now, I’m not against higher education. I’m very much for it. I just think that making more money is a weak goal, one that either cannot sustain enthusiasm or will prove to lead to a shallow existence.

Shallow existence seems to work just fine for many, though. How many really care about self-actualization? That would cost a great deal. It may cost giving up not only financial incentive, but also popularity, comfort, and security. But those are all fleeting and unreliable anyway, merely an illusion.

as I eat another piece of pie...

A friend of mine sent me this article from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He thought I would find it interesting not only because it's about Thanksgiving, but because my name comes from a character, Dagny Taggert, of one of her novels, Atlas Shrugged. The article superimposes Rand's philosophy onto Thanksgiving, asking the question, "who should we be thanking?"

It was written in 2007, just before or maybe in the beginning of the economic collapse. I agree with the philosophy to a point, but I think it can be very shallow and short-sided. Many people around the world work just as hard or harder than I, but they will never enjoy the luxuries that I do. There's also too much of the "might makes right" mentality there. The native cultures of this land and others that we have colonized and otherwise conquered were just fine before Europeans, then later Americans, came in, obliterated them, and introduced our fine life.

There is a sadness and defeat that comes with the American culture of gluttony. We need more and more to make us happy, and we never really are truly happy. Just a thought to open this Christmas season. Happy Black Friday.

when a plan comes together

I teach language arts in the Adult Continuing Education department at Kansas City Kansas Community College. Most of the students in our On Track program are working toward passing the GED. A few, though, already have their high school diplomas but need some classes to prepare them for the college placement exam.

Last week, two of my students proudly announced to me that they scored high enough on the placement exams to be accepted into college, and now both are enrolled. One even brought me his schedule to show off. I am bursting with pride for both of them. They have worked incredibly hard these past few months, and I can see the difference not only in their reading and writing skills, but also in their confidence.

Congratulations to both of you, and best of luck to all my students taking the GED in a few weeks. I know you will all knock the socks off that test.

know your rights

We talked about the Bill of Rights today in class. Some of the rights were vaguely familiar to my students, some of them brand new. None of my students had ever read them in their original language. I had a whole lesson prepared, but just reading through them one by one led to so much discussion that I never made it to the planned lesson. Their questions were unending, "What about this situation..." "What would happen if..." "Would I have the right to..." "I know of this one person who..."

It was some of the best discussion we've had this year. It brought to light for me how few people really know and understand their individual rights, but also excited me that they were so interested in learning about them. Maybe I'll bring in a recent Supreme Court case and ask how they would decide were they justices. Any suggestions of a good case I could bring to class?