I’d love any comments/criticisms of my thinking here, before I put this into a paper and make a fool of myself…

This particular article is talking about the public school commissioners election and basically talks about how all the big groups are putting together their own ticket.  The article finishes by saying:

Who knew you would end out laughing out loud while doing research like this….

Another article reports on a public meeting held on the School Question and includes, among other things, direct quotes of the snarky comments and interruptions (“cock-a-doodle-do”) throughout the proceedings.  Every time some of them came up, I might add.

Today’s journalism really does lack the entertainment value of these older papers….

“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.” Mitt Romney, 12/6/2007

Does this mean I get to stop paying taxes?  Since my citizenship has just been revoked….

“Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.”

So you can only believe in religious freedom if you have “knelt in prayer” to his god?  Otherwise you’re an enemy?  How can someone smart enough (theoretically) to be where he is and with a staff of writers to write this drivel not have realized that A does not equal B in the above sentence?

There are a great number of things making me cranky today.  Here’s a summary:

• Mitt Romney’s speech and the religious pandering of all the candidates.  (I love this summary, and hate what it means for the country.)
• The imminent mortgage bail-out for those who overextended themselves, but only the ones that timed it right (so that they haven’t already seen the rate jump and therefore had to stop making payments) and who someone somewhere thinks can make it at the low rate but not at the high rate.  So, I should have taken a risky loan and saved myself a few percentage points instead of buying a house within my means?  Good to know.  My friends who have already had their rate adjust and missed a payment?  Out of luck. 
• The fact that my hope of a 20 hour job has just fallen through, leaving me with either the 30 hour consulting job (still not officially offered) or applying for a full time institutional researcher position (where at least I would be on campus all the time, if busy, and have to give up my assistantship in favor of tuition remission through the college, which is taxable).
• I have been calling and emailing adviser since mid November.  First it was “You’ll hear from me after Dec. 1″.  On Sat Dec 1 7:45 am he emailed me to call him.  I was crunching to get things done and called him on Tuesday.  No response.  Called again.  No response.  Emailed.  Got a response.  “I’m finishing up some work on an evaluation project.  I’ll call before mid-week next week.”  Nice to know where I stand. 
• I am stumped on a stupid problem at work.  It makes no sense at all.  None.  And it’s pissing me off.
• It’s cloudy.  Again.  I deal with 115 degree days because it’s sunny here all the time.  Right now I’m feeling jipped.
• My mother called last night to tell me to check my email for something that she sent and I responded to days ago.

I realized last night that part of my procrastination problem is that I don’t feel like a scholar/academic.  I feel like I am taking classes as a hobby.  And if that’s the case, we are accumulating far too much student loan debt to keep the hobby affordable.

• How Religion, Religious Groups, and Beliefs are Privileged:  Studies still find that atheists are America’s most distrusted minority, ranking below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society”.  In contrast, religions and religious people are afforded rights that would be roundly trounced if they were given to, say, men or whites.
• Moral Fallacies: Morality doesn’t just come from religion and, in fact, religion can make it worse.  Non-theistic morality can, alternatively, be based on compassion and respect.
• The relation of war to religion: in a fascinating step beyond a pair of Science articles this author draws the connection between the traits found to encourage war (in-group altruism and out-group hostility) and the traits found in most religions.

There are other good articles, so definitely take a look!

Powered by ScribeFire.

One of the best contemporary news magazines around these days remains The Economist.  As a source for world news, economic news, politics, and everything else, it remains the most interesting, thorough and balanced source out there.  I have a goal (only partially met) of making time every week to read it so that I don’t entirely lose track of the world during my PhD.

This week they lead with a major special section on Faith and Politics.  I highly recommend reading this article, as it shines a great deal of light on the global impact of religion today. 

However I am having a problem reconciling two parts of their argument:

• They say that previously modernity seemed to be linked to secularism but that it is now being more accurately linked with pluralism; religion doesn’t go away but all sects are available and are generally chosen as opposed to being born-into.  Pluralism further includes the option of atheism/agnosticism/etc.  I want that to be true.  I’m OK with pluralism. 
• They also talk about the rise in religion being in what they call the “hot” religions; these are the more absolutist sects.  They specifically talk about the decline of the more tolerant sects.

I am having a hard time reconciling these two statements.  The “hot” religions are the ones that seem to want to convert or eliminate other faiths.  How is that pluralistic?  My fear for the world is that what we are seeing is a growth of intolerance that will result in more and more wars, genocides and irrational discrimination.  That is hardly pluralistic and definitely not a good thing.

The magazine then goes on to argue that at least religious wars will be “as much of popular will as of state sponsorship”.  Again, how is this good?  Seems like a mob-mentality to me.  They try to redeem that idea by saying “their fury mostly directed at apostates not competing civilizations”.  But is that true?  Aren’t most Americans considered to be apostates by most Iranian’s?  Isn’t a war between the U.S. and Afghanistan/Iraq and perhaps eventually Iran a war between competing civilizations?

in the end the article concludes that there must be a firm line between church and state, else “the new wars of religion may prove [] intractable.”  I agree, but fear that this isn’t possible.  We can draw a line between church and state, but when churchmen take an active role in the political process, presidential candidates try to sell their qualifications in part based on their own faith, and arguably the most powerful man in the world believes that God TOLD him to invade Iraq, all in the one country that DOES supposedly have a firm line between church and state, it’s hard to see how it will help.

I have been struggling lately with understanding the origins and purpose of religion.  I am currently listening to Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion but also stumbled upon this string of posts by an evolutionary biologist that I wanted to share:

Explaining Religion
Explaining Religion 2: What is Religion
Explaining Religion 3: Is it Adaptive?

I am starting to differentiate the original evolution of religions from their growth and expansion.  This brings up the unit of analysis question, which these articles seem to be struggling with.  Is our unit of analysis the initial reasons that religions appeared or the reasons that they flourished, grew and still exist.  These are likely to be completely different sets of reasons.

(chart from The Pew Global Attitude Survey – graphs Religiosity vs. per capita GDP, a measure of a country’s wealth.  In almost every case as GDP rises, religiosity drops.  Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with
“3″ representing the most religious position. Respondents were given a
“1″ if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; a “1″ if
they say religion is very important in their lives; and a “1″ if they
pray at least once a day.)

I am well aware of the fact that you can easily lie with statistics.  The trend line in this may not be nearly as exact as it looks.  But the fact that the US is such a massive outlier to the other data worries me.  This is why I need to study religion in the public schools….

I really take issue with the idea that “faith in God is necessary for morality” because it is an alternative way of saying that people who do not believe in god are evil/immoral and implies that for society to work everyone must believe.  Why can only the threat of some outside force make a person moral?  (We won’t even talk about all the immoral religious people….)

I have an essentially libertarian set of values.  I believe in individual
liberty, tolerance and that you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t
interfere with me doing whatever I want.  I’m not religious (frankly I
think its all superstition) but if it helps you get through the day then I’m
happy for you.  I’m happy with the way the framers set up this country and
cringe every time the Bush administration chips away at the Bill of
Rights.  I think my core beliefs are best expressed actually in the
contrast of the establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….) and
the free exercise clause (…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). 
Worship how you want, just don’t try to make other people worship that way with
you.  I’m good with that.

Where I’ve been stumbling over this whole thing is in the concept of religion
as a form of diversity.  Our multicultural society has taken to heart the
idea that all forms of diversity must be respected, and I think a strong case
can be made for religion as a form of diversity.  (Some might make the
case that diversity only applies to things about which an individual has no
choice; gender, ethnicity, etc.  However a child has no choice in the
religion of their family when they are growing up, so I’m not sure that
matters.)  We go so far as to teach tolerance in public schools, which has
caused some parents (often fundamentalist Christians, but not always) to object
on the grounds that the value of tolerance of certain groups (most often
homosexuals) is not consistent with the teachings of their church and the
parent’s teachings at home.  Some groups have accused the public schools
of trying to indoctrinate all children into a secular religion.

Let me give you an example of why this is all a stumbling block for me.  Most
researchers believe that Native American students will learn best if they are
in a culturally consistent environment.  As such a number of promising
public schools are teaching the language and culture of the tribe to the
students in those schools with the goal of proving that the achievement for
those students is higher than it would be for students educated
elsewhere.  In discussion, however, it became clear that language and
culture include spirituality in this context.  They celebrate the
holidays, participate in rituals and ceremonies and otherwise are indoctrinated
into that set of spiritual beliefs.

So, why is that OK but a white parent who wants their child taught in a manner
consistent with their form of fundamentalist Christianity that believes
homosexuality should not to be tolerated cannot be accommodated within the
public school system?  Would it matter if it were a black parent who
wanted their child taught in a way that conformed to southern Baptist
teachings?  What about an Asian family who wants their child taught in a
non-violent spiritual tradition and thus not exposed to dodge ball in gym
class? 

I don’t want to take something away from the Native American students. 
If, in fact, it is proven that those students do better academically in that
environment (and particularly if it has a large effect size), though, I would
expect other religions to make the claim that teaching their
“culture” and spiritual traditions would improve their children’s
education as well.  And I’m not sure they would be wrong about that.

I believe that teaching your child that the Bible is the literal word of God
and that Jesus is coming back to damn the sinners and raise up those who
believe in this specific version of a religion borders on child abuse.  It
is illogical, irrational, and bad for society as a whole.  While many
forms of religion are open and accepting the ones that would jump on this
opportunity are the ones that are intolerant and actively hostile to other
beliefs.  That is bad for society as a whole.

But if I value personal liberty, tolerance, and the core of the constitution,
don’t I need to tolerate those beliefs?  Don’t I need to support that call
from parents for the right to educate their children in a way that is
culturally consistent with what the child is getting at home?  Particularly
if it improves that child’s academic performance and therefore many of their
life chances?   Regardless of what culturally consistent may mean?

Frankly, I’m still struggling with this and have been for months.  I have
determined that it comes down to the order in which I place my values;

• If I value individual liberty
  or tolerance above all else, then I have to tolerate these beliefs no
  matter how harmful or foolish I consider them.  The condition under
  which I could reject those ideas forces me to see myself as smarter than
  all those other people AND possessing the right to tell them what to
  do.  I may do the former but I have never done the latter.
• If I value the constitution
  above all else (specifically how separation of church and state has been
  understood by constitutional scholars) then I have to reject interventions
  that could improve student performance because they involve teaching
  prohibited subjects and implicitly establishing a religion within that
  particular school.  OR I have to fight for a way to change
  the common interpretation and allow public schooling that is
  “culturally consistent” for each individual subgroup as long as
  no specific subgroup is denied its chance.
• If I value parents rights
  above all else, than they should be able to educate their children however
  they choose and that should include in a way consistent with whatever
  whack-job religion the parents follow.
• If I value the child’s rights
  above all else, than I must support whatever can help them learn
  more.  If that is proven to be this “culturally consistent”
  education, then I have to work to make it possible.  However is
  academic achievement truly the child’s overriding interest when they are
  getting straight As in a biology class that teaches that dinosaurs lived
  alongside humans and that the earth popped into being in a week about 6000
  years ago?
• If I value society above any
  individual, however, can I really support allowing parents to educate
  their child in a way that goes against society’s best interest?  Intolerance
  to other subgroups and members of society is never in society’s best
  interest….

In my head I find myself still valuing individual liberty
first; that people have the right to be as stupid and foolish as they want to
be.  But I really am struggling with how that applies to children. 
Children are formed by their family and acquaintances.  The child picks up
their belief systems and may never get away from it. 

So who should decide what is best for them?  Their parents?  The
state? Society at large?  And what do we do when the society is SO large
that it can’t agree on whether the sun will come up tomorrow, let alone what
values are best? 

Or should we sacrifice some potential achievement to ensure that children are
at least exposed to discordant ideas?  Even if that could mean keeping a
disadvantaged group down?