A fun little article

I'm not a fan of Ellen Goodman or anyone else at the Boston Globe generally, but sometimes she irritates me so much I can't help but respond. This piece is ignorant and inflammatory, a classic example of someone trying to apply a set of standards to someone else but not to themselves. I think its a left-wing conspiracy (tee hee).

Let me get one thing straight...I am an ardent supporter of the separation of church and state. The state should protect religious expression, and that is basically the extent of the relationship. So I would take a look at any "faith-based" health care initiatives with a serious grain of salt. What Goodman is railing against here, however, has little to do with government support of religion and a lot to do with personal agenda, maybe a bone to pick, I don't know?

She begins by acknowledging that the Catholic health plan is a choice, then suggests that it really isn't a choice since someone might have to end up at a Catholic hospital. So apparently, a choice in health plan is only legitimate if it provides services that are determined to be appropriate by anyone, regardless of moral conviction. That seems a bit illogical, no? The only choice that can be legitimate, then, is my choice. And if you are not willing to provide for my choice, whether or not you want to, you are forcing your religious beliefs upon me.

Hospitals are private institutions, and the last time I checked they were able to govern what type of services they did or did not provide, so long as they always provide services that will help someone in a life-threatening case. Goodman seems to acknowledge the fact that people have a right to choose whether or not they will provide a certain type of medical treatment, but says that institutions do not. Well, when one becomes a part of an institution, one usually identifies oneself with that institution. If I were an abortion doctor I probably wouldn't go to work at a Catholic hosptial.

It's funny that she adopts the "slippery slope" argument that moral conservatives are so fond of. That, my friends, is because there really is no difference between militant liberals and militant conservatives. They are both just people who feel they know how everyone else should act, think, and believe, and want to legislate to ensure that people are forced to do so. This article is a beautiful example. Please think critically.

I found Sine's article to be refreshing and interesting. I hope that if you are reading this you had a chance to take a look at it. I feel very uncomfortable with the conspiracy theory view that sees a "left wing conspiracy" going on beneath the headlines. But of course, we hear a lot of the same rhetoric coming from the other side as well (Hilary Clinton). Sigh... I suppose this election in particular will mark the great polarization of American society, each camp clustering behind labels (see previous post), accepting the totality of one party's viewpoint and entirely rejecting the other. Sometimes I have faith in the capacity for critical thought in people today. I am going to remain optimistic and hope that angry "thought leaders" aren't able to stir people with their dramatic speech. Believe me, I know how it goes. I was once a victim, too. I let inflammatory right-wing rhetoric push me over the emotional edge, until I realized that maybe I was seeking a solution to the problems of the world that was far from biblical, far from Christ-centered.
Why is the evangelical=Republican equation so prevalent, so normative? Is this just a media portrayal, or is it reality? The polls seem to suggest that it is in fact the truth. Why do we rally around particular, emotionally charged issues while neglecting many things that are going on all around us? I think Sine's exhortation to be truly "pro-life" is a powerful one.
I don't have much else to say on this article, I pretty much agree with the whole thing. He's not pushing one party agenda or the other, I think he's advising Christians that adopting a party platform is not going to take care of our responsibility to embody Christ in a fallen world. There are things that we can do in the political arena, but we must carefully weigh the consequences of our choices.

An excellent article by Tom Sine:
http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=921

Read it, comment, discuss. I will be back to give my opinions later.

Language is a powerful, wonderful and dangerous thing. Language really frames our concept of reality, providing not only for communication but thoughts, dreams, etc. Through language we are able to exist as a society. Also, through language we break each other down. Words bring relationships to a beginning, and often to a tragic end. Words create bonds intendend to last for eternity, and they pronounce judgement on the guilty, sometimes even removing life. It is no wonder that God confused language at the Tower of Babel -- language is the means by which men would attain to be God, to try to think God's thoughts. Language is also the means by which God unifies us all into salvation -- through the written and spoken revelation recorded in the Scriptures. Still, even these written words divide people and create misunderstanding at best.

I can see continually how my words are misunderstood and misinterpreted. I can also see how my words place me into a certain category in other peoples' eyes. We use words to categorize and to polarize, to place ideas and even people into neatly defined boxes. Labels are composed of words -- words like "Christian", "church", "postmodern", "Calvinist", etc. When I attempt to speak about any of the concepts that these words represent, ultimately I will be misunderstood by my readers. Why? Because words carry emotional, experiential connotations that I cannot circumvent. As you are reading this, you probably have some type of categorization of a "Calvinist", for example. If I call myself a Calvinist, does this define who I am? Are you then able to arrange me into a certain box, the box in which you place Calvinists? Do you agree with them, and therefore place me into a favorable box, or do you disagree, and place me on the negative side? Or perhaps your opinions are between the two poles, and you place me into a temporary holding pattern until you can gain more information. Maybe you could care less about whether or not I am a Calvinist. But I think you will eventually classify me according to my words and yours.
Can we get at the meaning behind the words? Can we discuss postmodernism, or anything else, without presuppositions clouding every sentence? Or at least, can we step into the shoes of the other, can you experience my presuppositions as your own, to see where I stand?

Hello, my loyal readers, friends and visitors. It has been over a week since my last post, and honestly I don't have a whole lot to say today. I find this blogging thing to be quite interesting. It has transformed me in many ways, and at the same time it has given me a new sense of responsibility. I recently put a hit counter on the page, and I was quite surprised to find out that people really do visit regularly. So then I immediately feel that I must produce something on a regular basis, since I would never want to disappoint the public. What began as simple catharsis has evolved into something much more. I am not remotely suggesting that my thoughts carry some sort of significance, but I am now realizing that I am not simply screaming at a wall, or dumping cerebral excrement into cyberspace. No, instead I am slowly becoming part of a community, invisible though it is, and contributing in some unknown way to the lives of others. Deep inside we all have a desire to reach out, to be heard. I appreciate all of you that choose to hear me. I spend much of my day hearing you as well, even in your anonymity.

However, I hope to never simply fill space for the sake of myself. So if I am lacking in some new insight from day to day, please understand that I would not write anything that I would not consider worth hearing. Perhaps this simple caveat would be better suited to my Diaryland site. But for those of you who feel you have come to know me through these ramblings, I hope this puts a bit more flesh on the ambiguous skeleton you have assembled.

This last week has been discouraging, encouraging, and revelatory all at the same time. The details mean nothing to anyone but me. The one thing I hope to gain from all of this is perspective, perspective that can be a catalyst for action. I have realized that while there are many exciting ideas floating around Christendom today, there is still little in the area of action with respect to these ideas. And as you may know from my previous posts, I definately do not advocate the wholesale obliteration of what already exists. If only we can proceed forward with caution, not fear, not ambivalence, but simply the guidance of the Holy Spirit, tradition and new thought, we can truly change what lies stagnant while redeeming the good.

Sorry for the lack of specificity this time. I welcome your comments and questions, perhaps we can draw the invisible community into a closer bond through communication...