Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 2/14/2010
This semester I am taking a literature course. It is refreshing to be the student and not the professor. And unlike sitting in on a course in my discipline or a related one, a literature course is well outside my “expertise.” Indeed, I am not doing much better than average, although I might be learning more.
The theme of the course is “hope.” One of our authors located “hope” in family. Our professor asked us to respond to a section from the readings, asking us to write about a family-like activity that fit the author’s idea of family as a “training ground” of skills for a larger community. I wrote about “play.” Five minutes later, we were sharing our responses.
Professors must listen to each student and respond to them. I, however, not being the professor, got to just listen to my classmates give their answers without having to respond. The first handful of students gave very different answers than mine. They wrote about being on a team, or the marching band, in the army, in a church youth group or some other formally organized activity. Eventually a student talked about helping out at a nephew’s first birthday party and another talked about Thanksgiving dinner. These are rituals. No one else played.
Our professor asked us to write about what skill these family-like activities taught us for the larger community. Those who spoke of formally organized activities, like athletic teams, youth groups, and marching bands, spoke of leadership and discipline. I wrote about problem solving, conflict resolution, and leadership.
My response, so different from the other students’, reflects, I think, a significant generational difference. Kids today, especially middle-class kids, grow up in a tightly organized, over-organized really, environment, that begins in pre-school, enlarges to school, carries on after school with lessons, practices, and activities, takes up the weekend with performances, matches and church activities. When do kids ever get to just “play?”
I wrote about playing in my neighborhood. Playing ball with multi-aged boys and girls. We didn’t have adult referees to make calls for us. We often altered the rules (permanent pitchers), manufactured additional players (invisible runners), even had different rules for different players (older kids get two strikes, while younger get five), and calling your fields (changing foul territory to accommodate only two outfielders). We resolved conflicts without adults and (usually) without violence (lots of “do overs” and rules negotiation). Our goal was to “keep playing,” living in the moment, not for a spot in the playoffs. When a mom would call one of us home, we’d adjust the rules, adjust the players, and keep on playing.
We invented games. I recall variations on hide and seek, two-person baseball (we called it “pop fly”), three-person football, wiffle ball golf, and other games that I don’t recall the names of. I was involved in formally organized activities, too. I played Little League baseball in the spring and summer and took piano lessons in the fall and winter. I played more “pop fly,” three-person football, and wiffle ball golf than I pitched and played third base in Little League, however.
Today adults try to teach conflict resolution to kids in schools. I learned conflict resolution playing in the neighborhood. I learned about fairness, not from an umpire, but from making it so all the kids, little kids and big, could play together. Young adults today think leadership is a position and not a quality.
Last Christmas, I spent a lot of time playing with my 5-year-old grand niece. She engaged in play this way: she wanted me to tell her to do something and she would do it. Frankly, this wasn’t much fun (for me) because she got to play with the Playdoh. I negotiated with her to alter the rules a bit; we alternated the roles. She enjoyed telling me what to make and eventually some of the older kids joined in with all of us rotating roles of being the baker or the customer.
Rather than leadership and discipline, I think the over-organized world our kids face today teach “followership” and routine. Through play kids learn “personal responsibility” because they have to problem solve and they use their imaginations to break the routine. It is not a question of either/or, but a matter of balance. I think kids’ lives today are over organized. It is beginning to snow. Maybe all the activities will be cancelled tomorrow and kids can play in the snow.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
What's lacking in today's world is 'kids at play'
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 2/14/2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Religious oppression, repression doomed to failure
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 1/31/10
When the headlines read “China jails three for religious activity,” Americans generally don’t buy the reasons that the three threaten “public peace and harmony.” When the headlines read “Indonesians deny establishment of Christian church” because non-Christians invoke a law requiring “community approval,” we recognize the infringement on religious freedom and repression involved. When Algeria passes a law that sets prison terms for proselytizing by any religion other than Islam, we recognize it for what it is, religious repression and persecution.
What do we make of laws barring the wearing of crosses? Or bans on nun’s habits claiming that it is repressive to women? Or a country voting to make it unconstitutional to build steeples on Christian churches? The proponents of the ban argue that because the Bible offers instruction on the relationships among people, prescribes the relations between man and God and man and woman, that Christianity is more than just a way to life after death, but a way of life in the here and now. The steeple is a symbol of the growth of this dangerous movement, so eliminate the steeple as a symbol of Christianity’s place in town.
I think most Americans would recognize the above as violations of what we understand as freedom of religion and when criminal penalties are attached to violation of these laws, it is political repression. And that the examples given above are of countries that are, at best, democratically challenged or repressing Christianity, make it that much easier to recognize as “bad.” After all, the countries listed as repressing and persecuting people because of their religion on Human Rights Watch’s Web site are countries that we don’t need much convincing are bad actors: Tajikistan, Eritrea, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, to name those on just one of 42 pages.
Despite this long list of violators of values that Americans hold dear, we optimistic Americans believe that eventually these other nations will realize there is great value in religious freedom, that there is nothing to fear, that nations work well with religious tolerance, even if feathers occasionally get ruffled.
Furthermore, it is not just America, but the “west” that achieves what so many other countries seem unable: diverse religious populations that live in relative harmony with a state that protects the rights of all people regardless of religion.
Yet France is dabbling in religious repression, the banning of the burqa in public, claiming that by passing laws against women wearing this religiously and culturally related garb is really striking a blow for women’s rights and freedom. How silly. You will be fined or put in jail for following your customs in order to free you? That puts an entirely new twist on “live free or die.”
In a country known for its remarkable tolerance and commitment to pluralism, 57.5 percent of Swedes voted for a constitutional ban on minarets on mosques.
Hearing that someone has been convicted and may be put to death in Pakistan because they violated Pakistani blasphemy laws, we shake our heads and probably think “how medieval.” Yet at the beginning of this year, Ireland’s new blasphemy laws went into effect. Medieval? The U.N. is discussing such measures as well.
When has repression ever worked? In the short run, it can shore up a teetering, corrupt state apparatus. Does it work in the long run? Early Christians were repressed but they found ways around it. They developed secret symbols and laid low, but they were not extinguished. The Soviets tried to repress all religion. Russia is far from a religiousless society today. And once the weight of oppression was lifted, the bloody Balkan civil wars erupted.
How often does the history of repression end with the repressed and oppressed eventually overthrowing their oppressors? You can ban minarets and ban the wearing of burqas in public, you can ban and imprison people who hold prayer meetings in their homes. You can even try to exterminate the members of the religion. Despite the ultimate failures and eventual self-destruction that occurs, Nazi Germany, South Africa, the Soviet Union, to name some easy examples, these actions reflect fear of and a lack of confidence in freedom, especially religious freedom.
Religious freedom, both freedom of and from, not repression, is the best (not easiest) public policy.
When the headlines read “China jails three for religious activity,” Americans generally don’t buy the reasons that the three threaten “public peace and harmony.” When the headlines read “Indonesians deny establishment of Christian church” because non-Christians invoke a law requiring “community approval,” we recognize the infringement on religious freedom and repression involved. When Algeria passes a law that sets prison terms for proselytizing by any religion other than Islam, we recognize it for what it is, religious repression and persecution.
What do we make of laws barring the wearing of crosses? Or bans on nun’s habits claiming that it is repressive to women? Or a country voting to make it unconstitutional to build steeples on Christian churches? The proponents of the ban argue that because the Bible offers instruction on the relationships among people, prescribes the relations between man and God and man and woman, that Christianity is more than just a way to life after death, but a way of life in the here and now. The steeple is a symbol of the growth of this dangerous movement, so eliminate the steeple as a symbol of Christianity’s place in town.
I think most Americans would recognize the above as violations of what we understand as freedom of religion and when criminal penalties are attached to violation of these laws, it is political repression. And that the examples given above are of countries that are, at best, democratically challenged or repressing Christianity, make it that much easier to recognize as “bad.” After all, the countries listed as repressing and persecuting people because of their religion on Human Rights Watch’s Web site are countries that we don’t need much convincing are bad actors: Tajikistan, Eritrea, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, to name those on just one of 42 pages.
Despite this long list of violators of values that Americans hold dear, we optimistic Americans believe that eventually these other nations will realize there is great value in religious freedom, that there is nothing to fear, that nations work well with religious tolerance, even if feathers occasionally get ruffled.
Furthermore, it is not just America, but the “west” that achieves what so many other countries seem unable: diverse religious populations that live in relative harmony with a state that protects the rights of all people regardless of religion.
Yet France is dabbling in religious repression, the banning of the burqa in public, claiming that by passing laws against women wearing this religiously and culturally related garb is really striking a blow for women’s rights and freedom. How silly. You will be fined or put in jail for following your customs in order to free you? That puts an entirely new twist on “live free or die.”
In a country known for its remarkable tolerance and commitment to pluralism, 57.5 percent of Swedes voted for a constitutional ban on minarets on mosques.
Hearing that someone has been convicted and may be put to death in Pakistan because they violated Pakistani blasphemy laws, we shake our heads and probably think “how medieval.” Yet at the beginning of this year, Ireland’s new blasphemy laws went into effect. Medieval? The U.N. is discussing such measures as well.
When has repression ever worked? In the short run, it can shore up a teetering, corrupt state apparatus. Does it work in the long run? Early Christians were repressed but they found ways around it. They developed secret symbols and laid low, but they were not extinguished. The Soviets tried to repress all religion. Russia is far from a religiousless society today. And once the weight of oppression was lifted, the bloody Balkan civil wars erupted.
How often does the history of repression end with the repressed and oppressed eventually overthrowing their oppressors? You can ban minarets and ban the wearing of burqas in public, you can ban and imprison people who hold prayer meetings in their homes. You can even try to exterminate the members of the religion. Despite the ultimate failures and eventual self-destruction that occurs, Nazi Germany, South Africa, the Soviet Union, to name some easy examples, these actions reflect fear of and a lack of confidence in freedom, especially religious freedom.
Religious freedom, both freedom of and from, not repression, is the best (not easiest) public policy.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Blackwater a result of politicizing the justice department?
The dismissal of charges against the Blackwater security personnel who were accused of murdering 17 Iraqis http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/us/02blackwater.html a good example of why it is important to have good people working in the US justice department.
I wonder how many of those justicedepartment lawyers were hired for their ideological qualifications in the former Bush admin instead of for their legal credentials. Base on the NYT report, this seems bordering on prosecutorial misconduct.
I wonder how many of those justicedepartment lawyers were hired for their ideological qualifications in the former Bush admin instead of for their legal credentials. Base on the NYT report, this seems bordering on prosecutorial misconduct.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Traditions connect generations; don’t give up on them
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 12/20/09
TERRE HAUTE — “If you guys buy an artificial Christmas tree, I’m leaving.” Although I don’t recall writing it, I found that note in my hand writing in one of the numerous boxes of my parents’ precious pictures and papers. The handwriting and paper it was written on leads me to think I was 14 or 15 when I wrote it.
Two things struck me when I read it: First, why was I so strongly against the idea of an artificial Christmas tree and, second, why did my mother keep the note.
Coincidentally, a few hours before I found that note I had suggested to my wife that we consider buying an artificial tree. She was surprised that I suggested it (“I’m surprised you, of all people, would suggest that.”) We didn’t make any decision but later that evening she found the note I’d written more than 30 years ago, and I’m looking at our real tree as I write this. I guess my disdain for artificial trees is obvious to my family.
No one should be surprised that people respond passionately, angrily and/or forcefully to change, especially when that which is changing carries a lot of meaning for them. I’ve tried to remember writing that note, I can’t. But I recall tensions at Christmas time related to the traditions in our home. My dad always put up outside Christmas lights, but he never varied what he did. It was always exactly the same. Sometimes my mom would suggest a change. I think we changed the color of the light in the cupola once. Our tree was always very similar, though a couple of years we put it in a different room. I do recall when the mini lights arrived in stores, my dad liked them and wanted to give them a try. My mom was not pleased. One year we had a tree with a mixture of mini lights and the older larger lights. The older style lights meant something to my mother, perhaps something similar to my “line in the sand” regarding real trees.
People attach much meaning to rituals and traditions and no more so than at this time of the year. My parents continued to leave milk and cookies for Santa Claus for years beyond the time I was a child. Those rituals and traditions seem to take on added importance during times of change. And in today’s society, change is constant. Don’t be surprised if family members are crankier about family traditions this year. The last year has been full of change and it is the end of the decade.
I think it has become traditional and ritual for some to express outrage at what they see as the diminution of “Christmas” in both the public and commercial spheres. Lamenting the increasing commercialization of Christmas has been going on as long as I can remember. Nevertheless, there is no evidence whatsoever that the trend is abating. Indeed, the success of the commercialization of Christmas now seems critical to the health of our economy. And the commercialization of Christmas assures that anything controversial (like the greetings that shoppers receive when they enter the store, the music played on the intercom) will continue to move toward what the retailers think is the least offensive until a seasonal greeting and seasonal music is all but eliminated. Some would argue that point is already here.
Traditions and rituals connect generations and they demonstrate the importance of “our” values. My mother was a very complicated person. No one was particularly good at understanding why she did some things, including her. But I suspect that she kept that note I wrote so long ago because she saw it as validation of “our” values.
One of my family’s Christmas Eve traditions is changing this year. I haven’t written any passionate notes about it, but I am searching for some kind of compromise/alternative. My kids have suggested the change and I guess I am glad that they care about our Christmas Eve traditions. And I want to work with them, but I admit to feeling a bit sad, which surprises me. Sometimes we don’t realize how much “silly traditions” mean to us until someone suggests changing them. This year, indulge a family member who insists on a “silly tradition.”
TERRE HAUTE — “If you guys buy an artificial Christmas tree, I’m leaving.” Although I don’t recall writing it, I found that note in my hand writing in one of the numerous boxes of my parents’ precious pictures and papers. The handwriting and paper it was written on leads me to think I was 14 or 15 when I wrote it.
Two things struck me when I read it: First, why was I so strongly against the idea of an artificial Christmas tree and, second, why did my mother keep the note.
Coincidentally, a few hours before I found that note I had suggested to my wife that we consider buying an artificial tree. She was surprised that I suggested it (“I’m surprised you, of all people, would suggest that.”) We didn’t make any decision but later that evening she found the note I’d written more than 30 years ago, and I’m looking at our real tree as I write this. I guess my disdain for artificial trees is obvious to my family.
No one should be surprised that people respond passionately, angrily and/or forcefully to change, especially when that which is changing carries a lot of meaning for them. I’ve tried to remember writing that note, I can’t. But I recall tensions at Christmas time related to the traditions in our home. My dad always put up outside Christmas lights, but he never varied what he did. It was always exactly the same. Sometimes my mom would suggest a change. I think we changed the color of the light in the cupola once. Our tree was always very similar, though a couple of years we put it in a different room. I do recall when the mini lights arrived in stores, my dad liked them and wanted to give them a try. My mom was not pleased. One year we had a tree with a mixture of mini lights and the older larger lights. The older style lights meant something to my mother, perhaps something similar to my “line in the sand” regarding real trees.
People attach much meaning to rituals and traditions and no more so than at this time of the year. My parents continued to leave milk and cookies for Santa Claus for years beyond the time I was a child. Those rituals and traditions seem to take on added importance during times of change. And in today’s society, change is constant. Don’t be surprised if family members are crankier about family traditions this year. The last year has been full of change and it is the end of the decade.
I think it has become traditional and ritual for some to express outrage at what they see as the diminution of “Christmas” in both the public and commercial spheres. Lamenting the increasing commercialization of Christmas has been going on as long as I can remember. Nevertheless, there is no evidence whatsoever that the trend is abating. Indeed, the success of the commercialization of Christmas now seems critical to the health of our economy. And the commercialization of Christmas assures that anything controversial (like the greetings that shoppers receive when they enter the store, the music played on the intercom) will continue to move toward what the retailers think is the least offensive until a seasonal greeting and seasonal music is all but eliminated. Some would argue that point is already here.
Traditions and rituals connect generations and they demonstrate the importance of “our” values. My mother was a very complicated person. No one was particularly good at understanding why she did some things, including her. But I suspect that she kept that note I wrote so long ago because she saw it as validation of “our” values.
One of my family’s Christmas Eve traditions is changing this year. I haven’t written any passionate notes about it, but I am searching for some kind of compromise/alternative. My kids have suggested the change and I guess I am glad that they care about our Christmas Eve traditions. And I want to work with them, but I admit to feeling a bit sad, which surprises me. Sometimes we don’t realize how much “silly traditions” mean to us until someone suggests changing them. This year, indulge a family member who insists on a “silly tradition.”
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Americans’ opinion on access to abortion unwavering
Originally published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 11/22/09
A CBS News poll of adults taken in early October asked: “Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Or, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. Or, Abortion should not be permitted.” Forty-one percent indicated generally available, 35 percent stricter limits, 20 percent indicated it should not be permitted and 4 percent were unsure. On Nov. 7, the Congress voted 55 percent to 45 percent to impose stricter limits on abortion through the Stupak Amendment that restricts the use of public monies in either the “public option,” insurance exchanges or in use of insurance credits. Adding together those who indicated stricter limits and those who oppose abortion entirely, you account for 55 percent of the adults polled.
PollingReport.com has compiled the results of 349 polls of Americans on the subject of abortion covering more than 30 years.
Examining these polls, I’m struck how consistent the results are, how little change there is across the years. For instance, Gallup asked a similar question in April 1975, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” Twenty-one percent indicated legal under any circumstances, 54 percent legal only under certain circumstances, 22 percent illegal in all circumstances, and 3 percent were unsure. Gallup last asked this question in July ‘09, the findings were virtually the same, 21 percent, 57 percent, 18 percent, and 4 percent.
Time/CNN polled in April 1989, asking: “Do you favor or oppose the Supreme Court ruling that women have the right to have an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy?” Fifty-four percent favored, 39 percent opposed, and 7 percent were unsure. The same question was asked in January 2003 (the most recent for this question) and the results were nearly identical: 55 percent, 40 percent and 5 percent.
Anyone who follows public opinion on the abortion issue knows that public opinion has remained stable since the 1973 Roe v Wade. So, why does the controversy still rage so hotly? It lies in understanding what the poll results really say.
While public opinion doesn’t seem to change, abortion law, availability and access have. Perhaps the first legal restriction was passed in 1976 in Missouri, a parental notification law, which now at least 35 states have. A spousal notification law was passed in Pennsylvania, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it in 1992. Twenty-four states have a mandatory waiting or counseling period before a woman can get an abortion. In 1976, the Hyde Amendment banned appropriated funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to be used for abortion services. The effect of these and other measures is to restrict the access or availability of abortion to women, despite the overall public support for the Roe decision. Harris Polls, taken 14 times since 1973 and last taken in 2009, consistently show a majority favoring the Roe decision. The Supreme Court has at least four times upheld Roe in subsequent rulings.
The movement has been to restrict abortion either through direct laws such as parental notification laws, waiting periods or restricting access through funding restrictions. Compared to the mid 1970s, the availability of abortion is much less than what it used to be. Yet, support for more restrictions remains constant. When those who support more restrictions combine with those who oppose abortion, we can expect more and more restrictions.
I wish pollsters would ask a question about abortion similar to one they have asked over the years about gun control: “In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?: Asking about keeping laws, availability or access as it is now, would be very telling about where the future of abortion availability will head. With gun laws, 78 percent favored stricter laws in 1990, and as gun laws got stricter, public opinion shifted to keeping things as they are, from 17 percent in 1990 to 43 percent in October 2009 (Gallup Poll).
Unlike American’s opinion on gun control, which seems to respond to changes in those laws, American’s opinion on abortion seems “inelastic” with respect to the availability or access to abortion services. A coalition of those who favor stricter laws or narrowed availability and those who oppose abortion in any circumstances, suggests women’s ability to exercise their constitutional right will continue to be narrowed. Perhaps pro-choice groups could learn something from pro-gun groups about defending a constitutional right in face of political majorities to restrict it.
A CBS News poll of adults taken in early October asked: “Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Or, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. Or, Abortion should not be permitted.” Forty-one percent indicated generally available, 35 percent stricter limits, 20 percent indicated it should not be permitted and 4 percent were unsure. On Nov. 7, the Congress voted 55 percent to 45 percent to impose stricter limits on abortion through the Stupak Amendment that restricts the use of public monies in either the “public option,” insurance exchanges or in use of insurance credits. Adding together those who indicated stricter limits and those who oppose abortion entirely, you account for 55 percent of the adults polled.
PollingReport.com has compiled the results of 349 polls of Americans on the subject of abortion covering more than 30 years.
Examining these polls, I’m struck how consistent the results are, how little change there is across the years. For instance, Gallup asked a similar question in April 1975, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” Twenty-one percent indicated legal under any circumstances, 54 percent legal only under certain circumstances, 22 percent illegal in all circumstances, and 3 percent were unsure. Gallup last asked this question in July ‘09, the findings were virtually the same, 21 percent, 57 percent, 18 percent, and 4 percent.
Time/CNN polled in April 1989, asking: “Do you favor or oppose the Supreme Court ruling that women have the right to have an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy?” Fifty-four percent favored, 39 percent opposed, and 7 percent were unsure. The same question was asked in January 2003 (the most recent for this question) and the results were nearly identical: 55 percent, 40 percent and 5 percent.
Anyone who follows public opinion on the abortion issue knows that public opinion has remained stable since the 1973 Roe v Wade. So, why does the controversy still rage so hotly? It lies in understanding what the poll results really say.
While public opinion doesn’t seem to change, abortion law, availability and access have. Perhaps the first legal restriction was passed in 1976 in Missouri, a parental notification law, which now at least 35 states have. A spousal notification law was passed in Pennsylvania, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it in 1992. Twenty-four states have a mandatory waiting or counseling period before a woman can get an abortion. In 1976, the Hyde Amendment banned appropriated funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to be used for abortion services. The effect of these and other measures is to restrict the access or availability of abortion to women, despite the overall public support for the Roe decision. Harris Polls, taken 14 times since 1973 and last taken in 2009, consistently show a majority favoring the Roe decision. The Supreme Court has at least four times upheld Roe in subsequent rulings.
The movement has been to restrict abortion either through direct laws such as parental notification laws, waiting periods or restricting access through funding restrictions. Compared to the mid 1970s, the availability of abortion is much less than what it used to be. Yet, support for more restrictions remains constant. When those who support more restrictions combine with those who oppose abortion, we can expect more and more restrictions.
I wish pollsters would ask a question about abortion similar to one they have asked over the years about gun control: “In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?: Asking about keeping laws, availability or access as it is now, would be very telling about where the future of abortion availability will head. With gun laws, 78 percent favored stricter laws in 1990, and as gun laws got stricter, public opinion shifted to keeping things as they are, from 17 percent in 1990 to 43 percent in October 2009 (Gallup Poll).
Unlike American’s opinion on gun control, which seems to respond to changes in those laws, American’s opinion on abortion seems “inelastic” with respect to the availability or access to abortion services. A coalition of those who favor stricter laws or narrowed availability and those who oppose abortion in any circumstances, suggests women’s ability to exercise their constitutional right will continue to be narrowed. Perhaps pro-choice groups could learn something from pro-gun groups about defending a constitutional right in face of political majorities to restrict it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
