It is sometimes said that a PhD (short for “doctor of philosophy”) is a sign that one has learned to relate his or her subject of study to the world at large on a philosophical level, hence the name. The more of David Dark’s writing I read, the more I realize that he, perhaps more than most, understands the potential impact of his level of education in English and literature. Rather than devoting himself to insular research, he’s focused his energy on addressing a questioning subculture of the American religious and political tradition through thoughtful analysis of that culture, reflected back by its own literature, music, film, television and political icons.

In The Gospel According to America, Dark’s analyzes the intricacies of America’s politics and its “Christ-haunted idea” through the eyes of George Washington, Herman Melville, Bob Dylan, Flannery O’Connor, Elvis, Thomas Pynchon and others who have found inspiration in the freedom, culture, history and possibility of the American Way.

Unsurprisingly, Dark digs even further than just America’s past, by challenging its widely-held theories and practices concerning faith, salvation and the person of Jesus. He puts forward ideas of faith that both emphasize and support the underlying goals of America’s founders and challenge us to question the way those goals are put into practice. He warns us of the dangers of media pundits and believing we are administers of Truth:

When the church is the blind, uncritical endorser or “spiritual” chaplain of whatever the nation decides to do, it has largely renounced its vocation as the body of Christ.

But he also praises the art of being weird, exploring uncharted ideas and the practice of digging deeper than the sound bite culture to which most of us unknowingly subscribe to:

When we’re no longer willing (or able) to exercise the attention span required to hear, read, or listen to any version of history that can’t be contained in a sound bite or a put-down, our capacity for worship and for contribution to a stable democracy is compromised.

Potential readers of any of Dark’s work only need be warned that his explorations are not a quick read. While his ideas are clearly put forth, he doesn’t waste words for the sake of easy skimming. (Perhaps this is his own way of combating sound bite culture.) It’s more of a “take your time and take notes” kind of book than the more commonly enjoyed pop philosophy/sociology examinations that make it into the New York Times bestsellers list.

The other day my friend Brett wrote in defense of using violence in a last-resort situation to solve problem. He addressed it in a mature way that I completely understand and, while I am writing to support pure pacifism instead, it’s not meant to be in opposition to him directly (and not the least bit personal), but more of a devil’s advocate response. Well, sort of. I currently haven’t decided exactly where I stand when it comes to violent measures “when necessary.” So I’m partially writing to get an idea out that’s been bouncing around my head, too.

First off, this argument is founded on general Christian ideology, so if that’s not how you swing, read on only for your own entertainment.

In America, Christians glorify the martyrs of the faith in other parts of the world. We stand in awe of those willing to stand up for their faith and die for it, then sit comfortably and question why it is that American Christians rarely die for theirs. It’s because it isn’t threatened here, in the land of free worship. But I argue that it is still threatened, albeit indirectly.

There is a fair amount to support the idea that Jesus taught pure pacifism. Not an idea closed to reasonable debate, but it’s a substantial point made in the New Testament. If that side is taken, then we should, ideally, not cause harm others when our safety and the safety of those around us is threatened. Instead, we should take the “third way” (as Shane Claiborne calls it in Jesus for President [see my review]) and respond unexpectedly, however that may be.

When we talk about peacemaking and the “third way of Jesus,” people inevitably ask bizarre situational questions like, “If someone broke into your house and was raping your grandmother, what would you do?” We can’t exhaustively troubleshoot every situation with nonviolent “strategy,” but what we can do is internalize the character and spirit of Jesus. We can meditate daily on the fruit of the Spirit and pray that they take root in us. Then we can trust that when we encounter a bad situation, we will act like Jesus.

At one festival, I was asked after a talk, “What would you do if you lived in Darfur and had a gang of young men running at you with machetes?” I though such a strange question deserved an equally far-out answer, so I said, “I’d take off my clothes and run around like a chicken, squawking wildly and pecking at the ground with my mouth.” I figure the chicken response is about as likely to disarm a mob of young hooligans as my trying to fight them. Either response would be ugly, but I’d opt for the former. I’ve already decided that the next time I get jumped, I’m going to turn some backflips and act like a ninja. Or I might just get on my knees and start speaking in tongues. Either seems as likely to hold promising results. At any rate, these aren’t solutions for the tragic situations of brothers and sisters in areas like the Sudan. Without a doubt, protecting the innocent is one of the strongest arguments for redemptive violence. A bunch of folks running around like naked chickens is not a solution to the crisis there. But the story of my friend Celestin [who continued to teach forgiveness and reconciliation, to eye-opening results, after militant Rwandans killed many in his church family] is. After all, Jesus didn’t say, “Greater love has no one than this, to kill to protect the innocent.”

The end idea is this: if we truly believe Christ’s teachings, and it is true that he asked for our peace and pacifism, we are martyrs if we stand up for that belief in any situation where our physical safety is threatened by another person.

Is this easy to do? No, not at all. But I’d wager that, if a nonviolent movement of Christians were to rise in this country, someone would take notice and perhaps see something in our faith that hasn’t been seen in quite some time through the inevitably martyrdom that would occur, even if not in great numbers. Something that goes beyond lots of words and cheesy attempts at evangelism and actually gets at the core of our faith and our humanity.

Defensive violence makes sense in a logical world where our own survival is of the highest value. But if our faith is what defines us, then it is for it that we should be willing to die, even when given the opportunity to fight back.

Dr. Thorpe also said that if the incidence of obesity fell to its 1987 level, it would free enough money to cover the nation’s uninsured population.

(via Health Care Savings May Start in Employee Diets in the New York Times)

File this one under “news I am not at all surprised to hear, but am glad for the affirmation anyway.”

I’ve talked a lot about food this year for some reason. And health care has been a national concern since Obama strolled in the front door in January. So someone helping us tie the two together in a way that’s been needed for a long time is a welcome thing to see.

I read somewhere once that if you take a fast food meal, factor in the cost of weight gain (new clothes, gas mileage, etc.) and negative effect it has on your health in the long term, the meal would actually cost more than an equivalent meal made up of fresh produce that many claim is “too expensive.”

Another challenge for the new year: find a partner and make a bet to not eat fast food all year. Keep each other accountable and make the wager high if you lose the bet (kinda like I did).

The term “design by committee” is one I am familiar with as a web developer. It carries zero positive connotation. The story goes that, when creating a product (be it a website, a portable mp3 player or a microwave), the more fingers there are stirring the pot, the worse the product is going to be as a result. The point is that it’s best to have a small handful of visionaries dictating the Way It Is and anyone else involved simply following their direction.

Wikipedia says that “the defining characteristics of ‘design by committee’ are needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision.”

You get the picture.

My question is this: If design by committee carries such a negative inference, why do we continue to praise and support the idea of democracy in government? People constantly complain that our government is overly complicated, bogged down and rife with bureaucracy. Perhaps that’s because we all feel the need to “do our part” in contributing to the laws that get put into place.

I’m not saying I have a better suggestion over democracy. Every form of government has its benefits and drawbacks. America’s government is highly complex, full of hoops, chutes, ladders and loopholes. And we all helped make it that way.

Actually, I take that back. My preferred form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. But that doesn’t work either, because, as they say, those that should be in power are exactly the ones that refuse to be.

Oh hey, look. Remember that time I said that anyone complaining that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage should also be in support of a proposition banning divorce? Looks like it wasn’t just me.

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

The 2010 California Marriage Protection Act is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that’s the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.

[via NPR]

Props to that guy.

When the last tree falls, when the last river is polluted and when there is not a breath of clean air left, people will realize you can’t eat money.

Anonymous

Okay, maybe not exactly what my blog is about, but it seems to be an extreme version of a general statement I seem to be making lately.

Us humans, we suck at taking care of the world. Especially us Americans. We worry about money and comfort before anything else. And, surprise! Not only is the level of comfort we’ve created dangerous due to complacency, lack of personal growth and physical and emotional health, but the resources we’ve depleted for these comforts could bring about some extreme situations if nobody did anything to slow it down.

I believe that, beyond personal morals, there are natural consequences to our actions. If we are selfish we lose our friends. If we eat too much it kills us. If we continually seek bigger ways to satisfy our desires, the earth won’t always be able to support it. I don’t think that’s God, necessarily; it’s logical cause and effect. (Whether God created that logic is another idea entirely.)

Do I think we’re going to get to the extreme highlighted in the above quote? No. Do I think it’s no coincidence that our wasteful lifestyle caused a recession to help prevent that? Yes. Plus, we have people like the TEDsters who are actively seeking out solutions to many of our problems.

This week’s episode of Radiolab presents an interesting hypothetical that in turn presents some bigger-scale questions.

The hypothetical is this: you are wearing a thousand dollar suit. You are walking along the edge of a lake and see a girl drowning nearby. She screams for help. If you jump in to save her, you will ruin your thousand dollar suit. So do you save her? Common morality says yes, right?

Skip forward a couple days. You are now walking downtown and you pass a man at a booth saying that, for a thousand dollar donation, you can save the life of some girl you don’t know in another part of the world.

My guess is you’d be less likely to donate that money. But why? Because she’s not an immediate, tangible concern? Because, if you didn’t save her, nobody would judge you negatively for neglecting a child?

Radiolab goes on to discuss how this difference in thinking is due to a long-standing human mentality, that we have evolved to the point that emergencies in our physical location are those of importance and all others are easily ignorable.

What does it take for humans to evolve to the next level? To be aware that there is always an emergency somewhere? To gain a global consciousness?

Certainly the resources are there. Despite our recent economic crisis, America still has most of the world’s money; a small fraction of it could end the plague of starvation, ensuring every man, woman and child on earth did not go hungry. If only we’d think globally instead of locally. (That said, why do we buy burgers for homeless people when our local homeless shelters seem to be able to feed them just fine? Why not donate the money to fund relief in Africa?)

So the growing pains are there. People are making attempts at solving this, at pushing forward to encourage people to think about emergencies globally. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Is this a sign of mental evolution? How much longer until people react together to solve any emergency in the world? My guess is that we’ll get closer, but never quite there.

I’ve been excited about the effects of this recession. No, seriously. When the natural consequences of our irresponsibility arise, there is no choice but to adapt, learn from our mistakes and figure out how to be more responsible.

This video gives me hope for what might happen. The signs of hope seem small right now, but perhaps a few more years of this will help them to grow.

I especially love the part technology is playing in this. It’s amazing how it’s helping people work together to find ways to save money, spend it wisely and use the resources we have in the best way possible.

Sometimes I try to come up with ideas for how, as a web developer, I can play a larger part in promoting the responsibility of our culture. Do I build a directory for food co-ops? A wiki where people share tips on how they’ve saved on groceries or their gas bill? A Facebook application for ride-sharing?

Does anyone have any ideas for how the Internet, social networking or mobile technology would help you find ways to promote sustainability, local community and responsible living? Maybe we can do something together.

An interesting fact I learned in Australia: US pennies would probably not exist were it not for copper lobbyists. In the land down under, the smallest denomination coin is 5 cents. They eliminated 1-cent coins and all prices are to be rounded to the nearest 5.

I wondered out loud at one point why the US doesn’t do the same thing. One of my travel mates quickly responded that the US still makes pennies because lobbyists for the copper industry have fought all such legislation. Now there’s an interesting twist on “money equals power.”

Australia also has 1- and 2-dollar coins. I wonder if there is some lobbyist for an industry supported by the US Mint keeping smaller bills instead of popularizing coins so they won’t go out of business too.

I understand the desire for an industry to do whatever they can to stay afloat, but, with a few exceptions, it seems like a bad sign when an industry has to resort to legislation and/or lawsuits in order to keep business from dying. Deal with it, folks. No industry is guaranteed to be eternal.

Fun side note: in Thailand, where 30 baht is roughly equivalent to 1 US dollar, there are 1-baht and even 1/2-baht coins, but they’re hard to find. The only people that give them out are Big C chain stores (the Thai equivalent to Walmart [blech]). And, conveniently, pretty much nobody will take a 1- or 1/2-baht coin but Big C, rendering them almost entirely useless.

I believe our nation works best with robust and civic dialogue and civil debate. For mature societal conversations to take place, at least two mature parties are required, and looking back over this summer, a second party is hard to find.

The Obama administration needs a worthy loyal opposition, just as any group in power does, and the president himself often says so. But people who shout “hitler, nazi, socialist” don’t constitute a worthy loyal opposition. Nor do the birthers (who don’t stray too far from the fictional portrait of the afterbirthers described satirically here). Nor do the nostalgics, who seem to keep waking up in the 1980’s year after year, quoting Ronald Reagan.

(Brian McLaren via my friend Rachel’s blog)

McLaren makes a very good observation that’s been very frustrating for me as of late. To see all the video and photos of right-leaning protesters speaking and holding signs making obtuse, uninformed, unloving and ignorant statements has been just as frustrating as it was a year ago to be an Obama supporter amidst a crowd of followers whose only justifications were “hope” and “change.”

Much responsibility does rest on the shoulders of the Republican party to become once again a worthy opposing voice, but just as much lies on those who vote conservatively to be educated and civil in their political reactions. (“You lie!” was probably not setting a very good example and I have to wonder if that particular politician has been influenced by a lack of civility in his supporters.)

More importantly, though: this is not advice for Republicans only. It’s something every voter and politician — for every party — needs to keep in mind. We all need to help buck this uncivil cycle, and that should be something we can all agree on.