Archive for January, 2004

My students and the Da Vinci Code

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 31, 2004
in Books, Christianity, Pasadena City College and Teaching
. 2 Comments

Okay, I admit it, I haven’t read the Da Vinci Code, but I have become familiar with its basic thesis — that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, that the church has been covering this up for a millenium and a half, and so forth. Since I teach western civilization classes, am more or less “out” as a Christian in a vigorously secular environment, and am also the official faculty adviser to the PCC chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ (hah, bet you wouldn’t have guessed that!), I’ve been asked perhaps a dozen times by students about the truth of the Da Vinci Code. I am now cheerfully sending them to this Christianity Today webpage which contains a variety of excellent articles on the book. The best article is this one, which makes a fine case for the book as a tiresome updating of the Arian Heresy.

Am I willing to judge what I haven’t read? Sure. In this age of pop culture overload, we have no choice but to rely on each other to reliably relay to us what we need to know about things we haven’t got the time or the energy to engage, be they books or films.

Urgent Plea to Nader: Don’t Run

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 31, 2004
in Money, People and Politics
. 6 Comments

Oregon Green Party activist Harry Lonsdale had this editorial yesterday, begging Ralph Nader (for whom he and I voted in 2000) not to run this year. Here are some excerpts:

It’s too soon to tell whether the 2004 election will be close, but with the country so evenly divided about the Bush presidency, it could well be. And Nader is thinking of running again. Should those of us on the left encourage him to do so?

I’m a huge Nader supporter. I voted for him in 2000 and sent him money. Anyone who has examined his record of public service over the past 35 years would have to admit that he has done more — or attempted to do more — for the American people than virtually any other living American.

Whoa, Harry, easy on the hyperbole. But after pouring on this praise, Lonsdale comes to his thoughful conclusion:

Nader has sent out a letter to his major 2004 contributors, seeking their advice on his 2004 candidacy. (Knowing Nader’s integrity, I believe he was honestly seeking input and not just campaign contributions.) My advice to Nader was to not run. There are many ways to promote his issues and the Green Party platform besides another run for president: Raise money for a regular radio or TV show or a nonstop speaking tour or start a grassroots democracy organization. Had he chosen to, he could have received a ton of free air time for many months by running in the Democratic primaries.

But I’m one of the ABB persuasion — Anybody But Bush — and so is just about every progressive I know. Maybe we’re all overreacting by talking about leaving the country if Bush is re-elected. But the Bush imperial presidency has shaken us down to our heels. This is no longer the country we thought we knew and loved.

Well, I may not be shaken down to my heels. But I am happily in the ABB category, and share Harry’s sentiments. Ralph, stay home.

Tired Legs

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 31, 2004
in Athletics and Fitness and Environmentalism
. 0 Comments

We did a tough 19-mile trail run this morning in the San Gabriels, and my legs are tired, and I am happy..

I have learned to laugh when folks complain that Los Angeles is a concrete jungle; every weekend (and often during the week), a few friends and I can delight in wilderness, far from the “madding crowds” of the city below. I am so grateful to God for the beauty of His creation. I am grateful to have the strength of my legs and my heart to run so far. I am grateful to my country, too, that it has seen fit to preserve at least some of its open spaces. Hurrah for the Forest Service.

“Capable Mom” and the Culture Wars

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 30, 2004
in Sexual ethics and transformation, Sexuality and Youth
. 2 Comments

One of the pleasures of the National Review (and yes, like many good progressives in this country, I do read the right) is the regular column by Meghan Cox Curdon. Today, Mrs. Gurdon has a delightful piece about the coming of a “super mom” to her daughter’s school,:

She is the Capable Mother, an impressive figure at our children’s school who arrived last year and immediately set about massing an army of followers. In addition to trouncing other women in the giving of coffee mornings (ahem), the Capable Mother started an afterschool song-and-dance group that has the subversive feel of a cult. She distributes junk-food snacks and plays music that other parents abominate. She puts elementary-school girls in sexy stockings, and urges her charges to gasp with Bob-Fosse-esque satisfaction when they’ve completed a move. I am told that thong underwear plays a small role in an upcoming production.

Naturally, the children adore it: To be on stage, with a microphone, prancing around to thumping music? Bliss. As for their parents, some are positive enthusiasts. Many families, such as ours, do not participate. But I have had my lapels grabbed by a remarkable number of women who are deeply uneasy about the Capable Mother’s influence, yet feel powerless to get their children out of there. Their hearts warn them it’s a bad scene, but their with-it sensibilities say, aw, what’s the harm?

Gurdon herself is delightfully firm:

Having bottled the genie of erotic jazz dance in our previous school, I am utterly unafraid of seeming ungroovy when it comes to putting children in fishnets. The Capable Mother is what happens when good people do nothing. She is the human equivalent of Nintendo.

This reminds me of the time when I was first working as a volunteer youth leader at the Episcopal Church in 2000. At the farewell party following a week-long service trip to a small village in southern Sinaloa, several of our ninth and tenth-grade girls, under the direction of another adult leader, put together a very sexy dance routine to Britney Spears’ “Oops, I Did It Again”. They performed it (complete with rubbing up against one another in something that I believe is called “freaking”) in front of our stunned Mexican host families and the local priest. Of course, the girls were terribly pleased with themselves. It wasn’t their fault, as they were only doing what so many teenagers want to do, which is to participate in and reflect back the hyper-sexualized culture in which they are immersed. The dance routine was the fault of our adult leadership team, myself included. We allowed it to happen because, unlike Gurdon, we were very afraid of seeming “ungroovy”!

The older I get, the more willing I am to be a “party-poopin’ puritan” when it comes to the eroticization of American adolescents.

Luke at the Debate

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 30, 2004
in Christianity, People and Politics
. 0 Comments

Luke, the son of Allen at The Right Christians blog, attended last night’s South Carolina Democratic debate; his insights are here. I liked his summary of the fellas on their issues:

The Issues

1. Wesley Clark-Very good on foreign policy, except for a deal about what could have been done by the Clinton administration to stop Al Qaeda; Otherwise pretty straightforward.
2. Joe Lieberman-Very moderate and very hard to listen to; seems like he dances in the middle to try and please everybody; weakest Democrat up there.
3. Dennis Kucinich-Very strong in what he says; he knows what he believes in and sticks by it; doesnt like NAFTA.
4. Howard Dean-Very weak, only real position was that he stood against the war in Iraq; only one to attack anybody (attacked Kerry two times); Seemed beaten.
5. John Kerry-Nothing particularly different; defending attacks made by Dean; had the same old usual politician answers it seemed; horrible smile.
6. Al Sharpton-Not much on policy; just gets the short-liners across, but they are good ones and brings the crowd to applause; definitely the coolest up there; believes in single-payer coverage in health care, along with Kucinich.
7. John Edwards-Said some stuff on the how the legal system needs to be improved; doesn’t stand for gay marriage.

Luke seems to be leaning towards the good general from Arkansas; 32 days from the California primary, Kucinich still has my vote.

The Right Christians is also trying to organize a “meetup” for Left-Leaning Christians, to be held on Febraury 19. Check it out here.

The Dead Center

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 29, 2004
in Christianity and Politics
. 0 Comments

My favorite member of the Clinton Administration, Robert Reich, has this op-ed in today’s New York Times. It’s a brief but impassioned call for a genuine progressive movement at the base of the Democratic party, a movement to rival the Republican’s growing grassroots power:

It (the Republican Party) has a system for recruiting and electing officials nationwide who share the same world view and who will vote accordingly. And it has a coherent ideology uniting evangelical Christians, blue-collar whites in the South and West, and big business — an ideology in which foreign enemies, domestic poverty and crime, and homosexuality all must be met with strict punishment and religious orthodoxy.

In contrast, the Democratic Party has had no analogous movement to animate it. Instead, every four years party loyalists throw themselves behind a presidential candidate who they believe will deliver them from the rising conservative tide. After the election, they go back to whatever they were doing before. Other Democrats have involved themselves in single-issue politics — the environment, campaign finance, the war in Iraq and so on — but these battles have failed to build a political movement. Issues rise and fall, depending on which interests are threatened and when. They can even divide Democrats, as each advocacy group scrambles after the same set of liberal donors and competes for the limited attention of the news media.

As a result, Democrats have been undisciplined, intimidated or just plain silent. They have few dedicated sources of money, and almost no ground troops. The religious left is disconnected from the political struggle. One hears few liberal Democratic phrases that are repeated with any regularity. In addition, there is no consistent Democratic world view or ideology. Most Congressional Democrats raise their own money, do their own polls and vote every which way. Democrats have little or no clear identity except by reference to what conservatives say about them.

The bold emphasis is mine. I agree in part, and disagree in part. I want a vigorous social-democratic party committed to economic justice and sustainability. But I think Democrats are already rigid enough on the subject of abortion — far more so, ironically, than the Republicans. (It is easier to name pro-choice Republicans in power — think Colin Powell, Christie Whitman, Arnold Schwarzenegger — than it is to name an equally prominent pro-life Democrat). If Reich is calling for a vigorous leftist platform, I am with him. But I think that on some issues, we already have more rigidity than our Republican friends. The religious left, when it is seriously Christian, is the object of mistrust and suspicion by our secular brethren. (Hence our invisibility in the discourse).

When we Democrats allow a real diversity of views on the life issues, we will have become a far more inclusive party with a broadened base of support.

Johnny can’t write

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 29, 2004
in Class, Ethnicity and Teaching
. 8 Comments

The Times this morning reports that half of the California State University system’s incoming freshmen can’t write at a basic college level.

Top administrators for the 23-campus system expressed frustration about the weak skills of arriving students. They noted that only 42% of the freshmen who started last fall were proficient in math and English, as measured by placement exams.

Traditionally, places in the Cal State system are reserved for the top third of high school graduates. If only 42% of the top third of high school graduates have basic math and English skills, then this is a damning indictment indeed.

In most of my classes here at Pasadena City College, I make my students write term papers. (Which they frequently plagiarize, for which I frequently fail them). Many are shocked that I deduct points for poor grammar and spelling, and one or two have accused me of being culturally insensitive for insisting that A grades are only given to those whose English language skills are flawless.

But I am happy to report that in every class, I do have students who write very well. They are usually in a very small and elite minority. But they are not all white, or male, or from affluent high schools. The common denominator among my best students is that at some point, often without parental help or assistance, they made an individual decision to do well and to be successful. I have seen too many bright students from underprivileged backgrounds write brilliantly to believe that failure is merely a reflection of flaws in the system. At some point, academic under-performance ceases to be the fault of teachers, or parents, or poorly-funded schools, and it becomes the responsibility of the student.

I believe strongly in the values of community, in the need to strengthen our public and private institutions. In my heart, I am still a passionate Christian socialist. I am a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the teacher’s union. But sometimes, just sometimes, it is very hard not to succumb to a libertarian world view which emphasizes “individual responsibility” and “choice” above all else! Somehow, I still feel compelled to associate my students’ triumphs and failures more with their own decision-making than with the culture and the class in which they were raised. Maybe it is just easier for me that way?

Chuck Colson makes sense

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 28, 2004
in Christianity and Politics
. 11 Comments

I admire Watergate villain turned evangelical Christian Chuck Colson, founder of the fine Prison Fellowship Ministries, though I agree with his conservative politics only a fraction of the time. He has an editorial online today with which I wholeheartedly agree: Is Being a Christian Enough? Referring to the debate over Howard Dean’s clumsy efforts to establish his credentials as a believer, Colson says:

Now, Dean’s church attendance, or lack thereof, is the least of my problems with him. Still, his efforts to establish his religious credentials remind me of a similar mistake made by some Christians I know. They tell me that “things would really be different in this country if we could just get more Christians elected to office.” They believe that if we could fill the Congress and the courts and the White House with born-again believers, we’d straighten out this country in a hurry—all problems solved.

Thinking that electing Christians to high public office answers all of our problems ignores a reality that (Martin) Luther knew: In every society, “the wicked always outnumber the good.”

It’s a sinful world. Therefore, government’s prime job is to restrain sin and to preserve order. That is its ordained role from God. Our leaders, therefore, have to be those who are best-suited for carrying out these tasks, the most confident and responsible. Or, as Luther is supposed to have said, it is better to be “ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.”

I like that. Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I may end up voting for a very secular Democrat (a “wise Turk”) than the man whom I (respectfully) regard as a “foolish Christian” in the Oval Office.

My beloved union does its job

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 28, 2004
in Money, Politics and Teaching
. 0 Comments

Peter Schrag has an article in this morning’s Bee about the fascinating details of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s proposed K-12 budget for California. It looks like my union (to which I pay almost $1000 a year in voluntary dues) did very, very nicely in negotiations with Arnold. Yes, we community college profs are mostly represented by the same union that takes care of the primary and secondary teachers — and this is one of the those cases where it is decidedly to our benefit. Here’s how Schrag’s piece starts:

Barbara Kerr is proving that you can be president of the CTA, the muscular California Teachers Association, and a nice person at the same time.
But in her press conference earlier this month with the equally muscular Arnold Schwarzenegger, she looked less like the primary schoolteacher she used to be and a lot more like the cat that swallowed the canary.
Her description of the deal her union made with the governor as “fair” immediately became a candidate for understatement of the year.

Nice.

New Hampshire

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 27, 2004
in People, Politics and War
. 3 Comments

Today’s primary is underway, and I predict the following order of finish (largely consistent with the polls):

1. Kerry
2. Dean
3. Clark
4. Edwards
5. Lieberman
6. Kucinich

But I think that Dean’s win over Clark and Edwards will be more substantial than some people may expect, close enough for him to declare himself this week’s “comeback kid”. I think it will be a bad showing for Clark and Lieberman, and that the latter will drop out of the race.

The Nation had an interesting piece on John Edwards today. The article assesses the remarkable interest that Senator Edwards is attracting from anti-war folks, despite his votes in favor of the attack on Iraq. It suggests that Edwards is the most effective “angry about the war” candidate, particularly because in recent days, he has neatly tied together his “two nations” speech on domestic poverty with a condemnation of sweetheart deals for the likes of Halliburton in Iraq.

While Edwards does not echo the pure anti-war rhetoric of a Dean, a Clark or, particularly, a Kucinich or an Al Sharpton, the North Carolinian does toss red meat to anti-war Democrats — highlighting the corruptions of empire that infuriate grassroots Democrats. It is easy, and quite possibly appropriate, to be cynical about the way in which Edwards now highlights criticism of a war that he has supported more consistently even than Kerry. But voters seem to be willing to forgive Edwards, a fresh-faced and energetic contender who exudes aw-shucks optimism on the trail, more than they do the other candidates.

I think that analysis is right on. More importantly, for us on the left who still regard the Nation as the leading American political opinion journal, this might mean that we now have permission to support John Edwards while retaining our progressive credentials. Besides, the right is now starting to worry about Edwards — the proof of their anxiety is Rich Lowry’s nasty little attack in today’s National Review.

Besides, I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Supporting Edwards seems like a particularly dramatic (and perhaps effective) way to atone for that error. If Edwards is out of it come March 2, I will vote for Kucinich. But if it is still a near thing, the vote will go to this good-natured North Carolinian.

Lotteries

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 27, 2004
in Addiction and mental illness, Class, Faith, Money and Politics
. 4 Comments

Jay Voorhees, whose blog I have recently discovered, had this post last week about his fight against the coming of the Tennessee Lottery. He coordinated the United Methodist Church campaign against the initiative establishing a lottery; of course they lost, and as of last week, the lottery tickets went on sale in Tennessee. His words are better than mine:

Everywhere I turn I see lottery machines and tickets. And I hear folks talking about buying tickets, and how much money they are going to win from the lottery.

My heart is breaking. Oh, I know that there are kids that will go to college on these funds. But I also know that addicted persons will be the primary funders of these scholarships. I know that pre-school programs will be started. But I also know that lotteries prey primarily on the poor. I know that it’s all in fun. But I also know that bankruptcy rates rise when gambling enters a state — and that Tennessee already has one of the highest rates of bankruptcy in the state.

I’m not going to protest, carrying signs and screaming that folks are going to burn in hell if they buy a lottery ticket. In fact, I don’t really think that. But I do think that it’s an unjust system of funding government, and it makes me sad to realize that most folks don’t have a clue as to what we’ve gotten into.

I was passionately opposed to the coming of Indian Gaming to California. I haven’t bought a lottery ticket since I became a Christian; it strikes me as perhaps the worst form of regressive taxation imaginable. Here’s a link to an old Sojourners article on gambling; eight years later, it is still sadly relevant:

Put aside questions about gambling’s potentially negative effects on local economies, families, and society as a whole. From a faith perspective, a more basic reason to oppose gambling will remain: It is a spiritual parasite.

Gambling feeds off of resources, energy, and hope that could be turned toward the common good, and spawns false understandings of what is of true value. The meaning of words like “play,” “excitement,” “courage,” “winning,” “risk,” and “security” become distorted and empty. Gambling may sometimes bring what seem like concrete benefits to individuals or communities, but an exorbitant price in soul and culture is paid. And, despite gambling industry claims of easy gain and wealth to share, there is evidence that most often the monetary cost is exorbitant as well.

Yup.

Brief Oscar Notes

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 27, 2004
in Movies
. 0 Comments

As I am an early riser, I watched the Oscar nomination announcements this morning while playing with the splendid Matilde. I haven’t seen Cold Mountain, and thus am not disappointed that it was ignored; I am disappointed, however, that Scarlett Johannson was not nominated for her work in the sublime Lost in Translation. Easily, easily, easily, the best film I have seen this year (”In America” would be my second choice). The last ten minutes of the film were as perfect as any 600 seconds in cinema. It deserves any and all awards that it may receive…

More on why I am not an Episcopalian

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 26, 2004
in All Saints Pasadena, Christianity and Faith
. 16 Comments

Because I have a heart for teenagers, and because my Mennonite church has no kids over ten (we are a very young church), I work with the high school youth at my old church, All Saints Episcopal here in Pasadena. I resigned from the Vestry of the latter church because of its profound ambivalence about the identity of Jesus, and its evident discomfort with a genuinely Christian message. However, I stay involved with the All Saints youth because I love the kids, and I — subversively — try and slip in some evangelical doctrine from time to time.

But then I read things like this. Here is a link to a PDF file of All Saints’ newsletter, “Saints Alive”. The cover article, written by the church’s senior liturgy associate, a woman whom I know well and like very much, typifies what is so fundamentally deadly about contemporary Anglicanism. I quote:

“Not long ago, on a flight from the East Coast, I was working on a Sunday morning presentation at All Saints. The woman in the seat next to me leaned over and asked, ‘Are you a Christian?’ ‘No’, I said, ‘I’m just doing some research.’ Because the religious right has so co-opted the term Christian, I am reluctant to identify myself to a total stranger as ‘a Christian’. I would have to answer, ‘Yes, I am a Christian, but it’s not what you think.’ I would have to explain that Christianity is inclusive, not exclusive, that the Bible needs interpretation, not literal acceptance, and that the Christian story is not the only story of faith, although it is the story which inspires, challenges, and transforms me’”.

AAARGH!

As I said, I know and respect the woman who wrote this. But this refusal to “claim the name” of Jesus, this absolute disdain for the Great Commission, this tiresome construction of the straw man of the religious right — this is what is killing the Episcopal Church, and liberal Protestantism in this country. Right there, on the plane, the good Lord handed our senior liturgy associate a chance to witness — and instead, like Peter in the courtyard, she denied Him. (And Peter had the slightly better excuse of fearing for his life; she feared nothing more than being lumped together with Jerry Falwell.) Furthermore, she does not want to be part of a Christianity that is inclusive of conservatives. If you can’t give an honest answer to a stranger on an airplane, it beats the heck out of me how you can claim to be “inspired, challenged, and transformed”.

I still love the teenagers at All Saints so much! But I wonder how long I can continue to work with them in good conscience.

Why not Lieberman?

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 26, 2004
in Abortion, Faith, Family, People, Politics, Veganism and War
. 5 Comments

The Times this morning has a rather unhappy piece entitled: Even His Mom Wonders Why Lieberman ‘Didn’t Catch On’. The article wraps up thus:

Joe will be in the book of great Americans never to be president. It’s funny because there was a place for Lieberman’s message in this campaign, but somehow he missed the boat,” he said. “I’m sure he’s scratching his head and asking himself why.”

Lieberman insists there are too many undecided voters to count him out. Standing before reporters in minus-3 degree temperatures Sunday, he said, “We’re going to do a lot better than people predict.”

Yet on the primary’s eve, Lieberman insiders — including his sister Ellen Lieberman, a theater director in Connecticut — still search for answers.

Following the Nashua City Hall speech on Saturday, she pushed her mother’s wheelchair, pondering why “the honest man who is as he appears to be” is not connecting with voters.

“I just don’t know,” she said. “Do you know why?”

Well, Ellen, let me have a crack at it. First of all, I would rather spend time with Joe Lieberman than with any of the other candidates in the Democratic race. That includes my own favorite, Kucinich. (Dennis is a vegan, and I am not yet ready to extend my “seamless garment” pro-life stance to include the entire animal kingdom. Maybe someday, but not yet). I would enjoy having him over for supper and a time of intense discussion on faith in the public sphere! I have tremendous admiration for Lieberman’s unusually high scruples, and his willingness to talk about his faith in public, even when it is not in his best political interest. I think his famous censure of his friend Bill Clinton in 1998 was to his lasting credit (imagine if Bill had resigned that summer, and President Gore had won narrow re-election in November 2000!) Unlike some, I don’t see Joe Lieberman as a traitor to the Democrats because of his insistence on a place for morality and religion within our party. I think his attacks on Hollywood have been, for the most part, right on.

And I don’t think Joe Lieberman is lagging so badly in the polls because of his faith or his morality. He is lagging because of his support for the war in Iraq and his consistently conservative positions on economic issues. His support for welfare reform in 1996 (which looked good short term, but has turned out to be DISASTROUS) was unforgiveable. And his more recent support for the Patriot Act is also simply unacceptable to the Democratic left.

I honor Lieberman’s decency, his integrity, and his insistence that individual politicians see a relationship between public and private morality. But he is lagging in the polls for the same reason he won’t have a chance at my vote — his positions on the issues that really matter to progressives (war, economic justice, civil liberties) are far more in synch with his brethren in the GOP than they are with us. May he remain a conscience in the senate for decades to come. But he has no place on our national ticket.

Kucinich on electronic voting machines

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 24, 2004
in People and Politics
. 0 Comments

Though I continue to make progress in my flirtation with John Edwards, my vote in the California primary remains solidly committed to Dennis Kucinich. New on his website this weekend is an extensive section on the very serious problems surrounding the new electronic “touchscreen” voting machines (the very sort I used to vote early during last fall’s recall election). The main problem revolves around the mysterious refusal of the machine’s manufacturers to provide “voter-verified” receipts, receipts that could be used in a recount. Dennis is co-sponsoring HR 2239 to address the problem; details here.

I remember voting “touchscreen” and enjoying it, but also regretting the absence of a receipt. As others have pointed out, if ATMs can spit out receipts, so too can these machines.