Well there is a time for all good things to end. This blog has been a great experience. However, I have gotten an opportunity to blog with a group of Christian sociologists. It is a good match for me and so I have agreed to join them. I will start blogging in July on the first and third Saturdays of the month. I hope you will join me there.
You may wonder if I am going to keep my name "trouble-maker." The answer is no. It was the right name for this solitary blog. But I will be working with other scholars and they may see such a label and non-professional. So I guess I have to grow up a little. But make no mistake about it, I will still be causing some trouble. My willingness to question what others do not want to talk about will remain.
So this will be my final sign-off for this blog. I will leave it up for the time being. But you can follow me at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/ if you want to keep up with my work. It has been a pleasure blogging on my own and now I look forward to joining this team.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker (for the last time)
Monday, June 25, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Science and Politics - A Bad Mix
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.html
I am a scientist. But this is why many people, myself included, are skeptical about science. For years we have been hearing that same-sex parents are no different than other parents. This has been the rallying cry for same-sex adoption. Yet as pointed out in this link it was very flawed research that generated such findings. No matter. It was the PC finding that was wanted and so forget the flaws.
Then Dr. Regnerus uses a superior sampling technique (I will save you from boredom from going into the details why this technique is superior to the nonprobability samples used before) and finds that may a difference. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Check out the type of comments that are left for the article. These are not scientific comments. they are political comments masquerading as scientific comments. If they were truly scientific comments then we would also see the commentators talk about the bigger flaws in previous work.
Let me assure you that there are limitations to Regnerus's work. Here is the dirty little secret. There are limitations to all scientific work. He explains that much of these limitations are unavoidable. But the previously done work has even greater limitations and people were hailing that work as proof that sexual orientation does not matter. So I have to ask myself why these limitations matter now? Am I just being cynical in believing that those limitations matter now because Regnerus's study does not fit with the political theme many scholars want? Color me cynical.
I point this up not merely because of this particular question. Anytime scientists tackle a politically potent topic we are wise to ask about the biases of the work. It is unfortunate but the treatment of Regnerus work in comparison to the inferior previous work illustrates that bias. I have documented elements of this bias in my work as well. I want science to be a dispassionate search for truth. But I keep running into too much evidence that it is not.
Ultimately this is why we have global warming skeptics. This is why evolution is challenged. This is why a variety of scientific issues are just another battle in the culture war. And until we evaluate all research by identical criteria this is the fate of scientific efforts on controversial issues.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
I am a scientist. But this is why many people, myself included, are skeptical about science. For years we have been hearing that same-sex parents are no different than other parents. This has been the rallying cry for same-sex adoption. Yet as pointed out in this link it was very flawed research that generated such findings. No matter. It was the PC finding that was wanted and so forget the flaws.
Then Dr. Regnerus uses a superior sampling technique (I will save you from boredom from going into the details why this technique is superior to the nonprobability samples used before) and finds that may a difference. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Check out the type of comments that are left for the article. These are not scientific comments. they are political comments masquerading as scientific comments. If they were truly scientific comments then we would also see the commentators talk about the bigger flaws in previous work.
Let me assure you that there are limitations to Regnerus's work. Here is the dirty little secret. There are limitations to all scientific work. He explains that much of these limitations are unavoidable. But the previously done work has even greater limitations and people were hailing that work as proof that sexual orientation does not matter. So I have to ask myself why these limitations matter now? Am I just being cynical in believing that those limitations matter now because Regnerus's study does not fit with the political theme many scholars want? Color me cynical.
I point this up not merely because of this particular question. Anytime scientists tackle a politically potent topic we are wise to ask about the biases of the work. It is unfortunate but the treatment of Regnerus work in comparison to the inferior previous work illustrates that bias. I have documented elements of this bias in my work as well. I want science to be a dispassionate search for truth. But I keep running into too much evidence that it is not.
Ultimately this is why we have global warming skeptics. This is why evolution is challenged. This is why a variety of scientific issues are just another battle in the culture war. And until we evaluate all research by identical criteria this is the fate of scientific efforts on controversial issues.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, May 18, 2012
An Innocent Man
Well we finally done it. We finally killed an innocent man. Check this out.
http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html
For years proponents of the death penalty argued that it had not been proven that an innocent person had been put to death in modern times. From now on they can not say this. This poor fellow was on parole. Last time I checked that was not a penalty punishable by death.
There is a saying that it is better than 10 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person is punished. Well that is not the exact saying but you get what I mean. I hate that saying. It implies that we can never punish someone because there is the slightest possibility that an innocent person may be punished. Do you want to live in a society where we put NO ONE in jail. I don't. There are despicable people who need to be behind bars. It is not as much as I have a desire to punish them but I want myself and my family to be safe.
But behind bars and dead are two different things. If we find out someone is innocent 20 years after the fact then that is sad. But at least we can give that person the rest of their life back. If we kill them then, well you see where that gets us in the story above. So I hate the original saying. But I do support this saying. Better 10 guilty people get to live rather than 1 innocent person be put to death. Let me do it one better. Better 100,000 guilty people get to live behind bars for the rest of their life then 1 innocent person be put to death. What is unreasonable about that?
The saddest thing about the death penalty is that there is no real need for it. Our prisons are practically escape proof. It costs more money to put someone to death, after all of the appeals and such, than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. So the death penalty does not save us money. And in a society where there is still class and race advantages we know that the death penalty can not be fairly applied. Oh yeah. And we now know that we have killed an innocent man.
I fully support life without parole. For some that may be a worse punishment than the death penalty. And we can make sure that tragedies such as this one can never happen again. Until we have God's wisdom and can guarantee that such tragedies will never not occur that should be the standard of a society humble enough to know that mistakes can be made.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html
For years proponents of the death penalty argued that it had not been proven that an innocent person had been put to death in modern times. From now on they can not say this. This poor fellow was on parole. Last time I checked that was not a penalty punishable by death.
There is a saying that it is better than 10 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person is punished. Well that is not the exact saying but you get what I mean. I hate that saying. It implies that we can never punish someone because there is the slightest possibility that an innocent person may be punished. Do you want to live in a society where we put NO ONE in jail. I don't. There are despicable people who need to be behind bars. It is not as much as I have a desire to punish them but I want myself and my family to be safe.
But behind bars and dead are two different things. If we find out someone is innocent 20 years after the fact then that is sad. But at least we can give that person the rest of their life back. If we kill them then, well you see where that gets us in the story above. So I hate the original saying. But I do support this saying. Better 10 guilty people get to live rather than 1 innocent person be put to death. Let me do it one better. Better 100,000 guilty people get to live behind bars for the rest of their life then 1 innocent person be put to death. What is unreasonable about that?
The saddest thing about the death penalty is that there is no real need for it. Our prisons are practically escape proof. It costs more money to put someone to death, after all of the appeals and such, than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. So the death penalty does not save us money. And in a society where there is still class and race advantages we know that the death penalty can not be fairly applied. Oh yeah. And we now know that we have killed an innocent man.
I fully support life without parole. For some that may be a worse punishment than the death penalty. And we can make sure that tragedies such as this one can never happen again. Until we have God's wisdom and can guarantee that such tragedies will never not occur that should be the standard of a society humble enough to know that mistakes can be made.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
A Sad Day
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-most-persuasive-case-for-eliminating-black-studies-just-read-the-dissertations/46346
Naomi Riley was recently fired. She was fired as a blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education for the blog posted above. More than 6000 academic wrote in to complain and to ask for her to be fired. They got their wish. This is a sad day in academia.
I have my own critiques of Black Studies programs. Some of them may overlap with Ms. Riley's critiques but many of them do not. But this is not the place to explore my concerns about such programs. I am sad because academics, the people who are suppose to deal with diverse ideas, decided that Ms. Riley's ideas was too painful and she had to be fired. It hurts me to hear academics cheer her firing. What are they afraid of? If her ideas are too weak then destroy them in the arena of ideas. Seeking to have someone fired because of their ideas is an unscholarly thing for a scholar to do.
I am nearly a free speech absolutist. But I have done research indicating that many academics are not as open-minded as they may believe themselves to be. They seek to shut down the speech they disagree with. They are hesitant to hire those with ideas that radically depart from their own. This episode reinforces my fears that social pressures and political desires drive much of academia then real thirst for knowledge and intellectual curiosity.
This year we will have a presidential election. We will be subject to a great deal of spin from both Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have viewpoints to push and are not really interested in finding the best solution, just the solution that makes them seem right and the other party seem wrong. That is politics and I guess that is the way it is to be in politics. In science we are suppose to be open to alternate ideas. We are suppose to investigate them even if we think them unwise at first. But we are not that way. If you do not conform to what we want to hear then we will seek your firing and if we can not do that then we will marginalize you in ways so that we do not have to debate you.
This reinforces my skepticism of things such as global warming. Once I see there is a political agenda attached to a scientific theory I begin to wonder if dissenters to that theory have been given a fair opportunity to present their view. Or have we merely fired them and shut them out of the conversation. Incidents like this reinforce the reasons why some people treat science just like they treat members of the opposition political party. And we academics who seek to get those fired who we disagree with have no one to blame but ourselves. This is a sad day for academia.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Naomi Riley was recently fired. She was fired as a blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education for the blog posted above. More than 6000 academic wrote in to complain and to ask for her to be fired. They got their wish. This is a sad day in academia.
I have my own critiques of Black Studies programs. Some of them may overlap with Ms. Riley's critiques but many of them do not. But this is not the place to explore my concerns about such programs. I am sad because academics, the people who are suppose to deal with diverse ideas, decided that Ms. Riley's ideas was too painful and she had to be fired. It hurts me to hear academics cheer her firing. What are they afraid of? If her ideas are too weak then destroy them in the arena of ideas. Seeking to have someone fired because of their ideas is an unscholarly thing for a scholar to do.
I am nearly a free speech absolutist. But I have done research indicating that many academics are not as open-minded as they may believe themselves to be. They seek to shut down the speech they disagree with. They are hesitant to hire those with ideas that radically depart from their own. This episode reinforces my fears that social pressures and political desires drive much of academia then real thirst for knowledge and intellectual curiosity.
This year we will have a presidential election. We will be subject to a great deal of spin from both Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have viewpoints to push and are not really interested in finding the best solution, just the solution that makes them seem right and the other party seem wrong. That is politics and I guess that is the way it is to be in politics. In science we are suppose to be open to alternate ideas. We are suppose to investigate them even if we think them unwise at first. But we are not that way. If you do not conform to what we want to hear then we will seek your firing and if we can not do that then we will marginalize you in ways so that we do not have to debate you.
This reinforces my skepticism of things such as global warming. Once I see there is a political agenda attached to a scientific theory I begin to wonder if dissenters to that theory have been given a fair opportunity to present their view. Or have we merely fired them and shut them out of the conversation. Incidents like this reinforce the reasons why some people treat science just like they treat members of the opposition political party. And we academics who seek to get those fired who we disagree with have no one to blame but ourselves. This is a sad day for academia.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Vanderbilt = Bob Jones
http://www.christianpost.com/news/legal-expert-religious-clubs-have-no-case-against-vanderbilts-nondiscrimination-policy-68542/
I read this article and I am not surprised at the conclusion of the legal expert. Vanderbilt has decided that student organizations can not use religious beliefs to select their leaders. This means that Christian organizations can not disallow an atheist from a leadership position. Essentially, Vanderbilt wants to hide behind some corrupt notion of multiculturalism to squash religious expression.
I know that many religious organizations want to find legal ways to reverse the decisions of the Vanderbilt administration. I used to agree with them. But I realize that as a private institution they have the right to be bigots. So now I merely think that we should expose the Christianophobic desires of the Vanderbilt administration.
We should concede Vanderbilts' legal right. Years ago Bob Jones University prohibited interracial dating. They were wrong. But they had the legal right to do that. They are a private university and were free to practice racial bigotry. Likewise Vanderbilt is free to practice religious bigotry. Let them be stigmatized like Bob Jones University has been. That should be the price that Vanderbilt pays.
With this concession of Vanderbilt's rights I hope that progressives realize that this opens the door for other private educational institutions. When a Christian university passes rules that does not allow for an organization supporting homosexuals then I would expect the same individuals who turned their back on Christian organizations at Vanderbilt to acknowledge the rights of these Christian universities. To not do so would be hypocritical. And if they complain about these Christian universities then those complaints should fall on deaf ears. Only if you defend organizations that you disagree with do you have legitimacy to defend the organizations you do agree with.
So Vanderbilt, you are Bob Jones. Do not like that comparison? Too bad. If you act like a bigot then you should be seen as a bigot. You are a private institution and you have the legal right to crush religious expression. We have a right to see you for what you truly are.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
I read this article and I am not surprised at the conclusion of the legal expert. Vanderbilt has decided that student organizations can not use religious beliefs to select their leaders. This means that Christian organizations can not disallow an atheist from a leadership position. Essentially, Vanderbilt wants to hide behind some corrupt notion of multiculturalism to squash religious expression.
I know that many religious organizations want to find legal ways to reverse the decisions of the Vanderbilt administration. I used to agree with them. But I realize that as a private institution they have the right to be bigots. So now I merely think that we should expose the Christianophobic desires of the Vanderbilt administration.
We should concede Vanderbilts' legal right. Years ago Bob Jones University prohibited interracial dating. They were wrong. But they had the legal right to do that. They are a private university and were free to practice racial bigotry. Likewise Vanderbilt is free to practice religious bigotry. Let them be stigmatized like Bob Jones University has been. That should be the price that Vanderbilt pays.
With this concession of Vanderbilt's rights I hope that progressives realize that this opens the door for other private educational institutions. When a Christian university passes rules that does not allow for an organization supporting homosexuals then I would expect the same individuals who turned their back on Christian organizations at Vanderbilt to acknowledge the rights of these Christian universities. To not do so would be hypocritical. And if they complain about these Christian universities then those complaints should fall on deaf ears. Only if you defend organizations that you disagree with do you have legitimacy to defend the organizations you do agree with.
So Vanderbilt, you are Bob Jones. Do not like that comparison? Too bad. If you act like a bigot then you should be seen as a bigot. You are a private institution and you have the legal right to crush religious expression. We have a right to see you for what you truly are.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Internet Alterations
Recently I have completed collecting data on atheists. I have been curious about this group and this was an opportunity for me to satisfy that curiosity. I found it very interesting research and perhaps one day I will share some of the findings on this blog.
But this entry is not about the atheists. We collected data with an online survey where the respondent remained anonymous and another study where we used a face to face interview. What I found interesting is different ways the atheists reacted to us depending on how we collected our data. The answers from the online survey were quite derogatory towards religion in general and Christianity in particular. For example, one of the respondents wrote about Christians that we should “feed them to the lions.” The atheists we interviewed did not show much respect for religion but their comments were less caustic. They had opportunities to make derogatory comments but passed on those opportunities.
Why did they make more negative comments online than in person? Well it does not take an academic to figure that out. When we are writing the answer to a question to some unknown person we can be more hostile than when we are answering questions face to face, even though we may not know that person either. We were careful to not reveal our religious preferences when we did our interviews so for all the respondents knew we did not believe in the supernatural any more than they did. But it is still harder to be rude when you have to speak words to another person rather than write about killing religious out-groups.
Once again this is not about atheists. It is about the new ways we communicate with each other online. More and more the way we talk to each other is similar to the open ended questions that our atheists answered and not face to face as we did in our interviews. It may be that people are more honest when they can remain anonymous and online. But clearly they can also be more hostile and less respectful to others. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the comments section of a controversial online article. Depending on the topic you are likely to see examples of racism, anti-Christian bigotry, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, derogatory comments and insults of all types. People have a freedom to dehumanize and denigrate individuals when communicating in these discussion lists and you can see some really nasty stuff.
We have a polarized society and it is not surprising to see such hostile comments. But is this a reflection of the polarization in our society or has our online culture contributed to a new rude culture that we now live in? I tend to think that the latter is likely the case although I do not yet have any solid evidence that this is the case. If I am right then our internet culture is not only a tool for us but it is changing us and we may not like what we are changing into. Perhaps being online merely allows us to express our human nature which may have a natural tendency to denigrate those we disagree with. Regardless, we would be wise to continue to monitor our online culture and be aware of how it may change us or reveal who we really are.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
But this entry is not about the atheists. We collected data with an online survey where the respondent remained anonymous and another study where we used a face to face interview. What I found interesting is different ways the atheists reacted to us depending on how we collected our data. The answers from the online survey were quite derogatory towards religion in general and Christianity in particular. For example, one of the respondents wrote about Christians that we should “feed them to the lions.” The atheists we interviewed did not show much respect for religion but their comments were less caustic. They had opportunities to make derogatory comments but passed on those opportunities.
Why did they make more negative comments online than in person? Well it does not take an academic to figure that out. When we are writing the answer to a question to some unknown person we can be more hostile than when we are answering questions face to face, even though we may not know that person either. We were careful to not reveal our religious preferences when we did our interviews so for all the respondents knew we did not believe in the supernatural any more than they did. But it is still harder to be rude when you have to speak words to another person rather than write about killing religious out-groups.
Once again this is not about atheists. It is about the new ways we communicate with each other online. More and more the way we talk to each other is similar to the open ended questions that our atheists answered and not face to face as we did in our interviews. It may be that people are more honest when they can remain anonymous and online. But clearly they can also be more hostile and less respectful to others. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the comments section of a controversial online article. Depending on the topic you are likely to see examples of racism, anti-Christian bigotry, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, derogatory comments and insults of all types. People have a freedom to dehumanize and denigrate individuals when communicating in these discussion lists and you can see some really nasty stuff.
We have a polarized society and it is not surprising to see such hostile comments. But is this a reflection of the polarization in our society or has our online culture contributed to a new rude culture that we now live in? I tend to think that the latter is likely the case although I do not yet have any solid evidence that this is the case. If I am right then our internet culture is not only a tool for us but it is changing us and we may not like what we are changing into. Perhaps being online merely allows us to express our human nature which may have a natural tendency to denigrate those we disagree with. Regardless, we would be wise to continue to monitor our online culture and be aware of how it may change us or reveal who we really are.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, March 23, 2012
Bullying
I have a confession to make. When I was a young kid I was the victim of bullying. I was pretty small kid and could be pushed around. I also lacked confidence and kids tend to like to pick on those who lack confidence. It does not seem very masculine to admit that you were pushed around as a child. I guess that is why I do not talk that much about it.
Perhaps that is why I found it interesting all of the recent movement for the end of bullying. I can relate to the effects bullying can have on a kid. If there is a reasonable way we can cut down on bullying then by all means we should look at it. Is it possible that trouble-maker and Lady Gaga can agree on something?
Well not so much. It seems that all the activity against bullying is concentrated on one motivation for bullying. That is the bullying due to sexual preference. In other words it is about bullying people because of a perception or reality that they are homosexual. All of this activity would not have mattered one bit when I was a kid since that was not the reason for my torment. It seems that the new bully activists do not really care about what kids go through unless it is because of their sexual preference.
But the problem is deeper than that. Such anti-bullying activity could actually support more bullying. We could be creating an atmosphere that those who are deemed not accepting enough of homosexuality could find themselves the targets of different types of bullying. It may not be from other kids as much as it is from authorities. They may target those who are not PC enough on issues of sexual preference and differentially punish those who are deemed guilty of bullying homosexuals.
Think I am exaggerating? Take the case of Dharun Ravi. That is the Rutgers student who was found guilty for using a webcam on his roommate having sex with another man. His roommate killed himself due to this embarrassment. Ravi may get as much as ten years of prison for his crime and is likely to be deported. Was this stupid? Yes. Does he deserve to be punished? Absolutely. I am thinking suspension from college for a semester or so seems like an appropriate punishment. But ten years!!!! We all know of stupid and insensitive college pranks that should be punished. Fortunately most of us have not done such pranks against homosexuals. I believe that if Ravi had done his thoughtless prank with a heterosexual roommate he would have gotten a more appropriate punishment. The authorities have stepped in and upped the punishment greatly which sends a signal on who can and who cannot be bullied.
We really do need an anti-bullying movement in our society. A true anti-bullying movement would address bullying no matter what the motivation for the bullying. It would not classify some victims as more worthy of protection than others. We should not trade one form of bullying for another. Doing so will not decrease bullying but merely change its target. Ironically it is possible that the anti-bullying movement’s focus on sexual preference may have the net effect of increasing bullying in the United States.
I know what it is like to be the bottom kid on the totem pole. The fact that it was not because of my sexual preference did not make it more pleasant for me. Finding out why kids bullying each other and learning how to discourage bullying is a laudable goal. Let’s make it a benefit for all kids who are bullied and not merely for those who are bullied for politically correct reasons.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Perhaps that is why I found it interesting all of the recent movement for the end of bullying. I can relate to the effects bullying can have on a kid. If there is a reasonable way we can cut down on bullying then by all means we should look at it. Is it possible that trouble-maker and Lady Gaga can agree on something?
Well not so much. It seems that all the activity against bullying is concentrated on one motivation for bullying. That is the bullying due to sexual preference. In other words it is about bullying people because of a perception or reality that they are homosexual. All of this activity would not have mattered one bit when I was a kid since that was not the reason for my torment. It seems that the new bully activists do not really care about what kids go through unless it is because of their sexual preference.
But the problem is deeper than that. Such anti-bullying activity could actually support more bullying. We could be creating an atmosphere that those who are deemed not accepting enough of homosexuality could find themselves the targets of different types of bullying. It may not be from other kids as much as it is from authorities. They may target those who are not PC enough on issues of sexual preference and differentially punish those who are deemed guilty of bullying homosexuals.
Think I am exaggerating? Take the case of Dharun Ravi. That is the Rutgers student who was found guilty for using a webcam on his roommate having sex with another man. His roommate killed himself due to this embarrassment. Ravi may get as much as ten years of prison for his crime and is likely to be deported. Was this stupid? Yes. Does he deserve to be punished? Absolutely. I am thinking suspension from college for a semester or so seems like an appropriate punishment. But ten years!!!! We all know of stupid and insensitive college pranks that should be punished. Fortunately most of us have not done such pranks against homosexuals. I believe that if Ravi had done his thoughtless prank with a heterosexual roommate he would have gotten a more appropriate punishment. The authorities have stepped in and upped the punishment greatly which sends a signal on who can and who cannot be bullied.
We really do need an anti-bullying movement in our society. A true anti-bullying movement would address bullying no matter what the motivation for the bullying. It would not classify some victims as more worthy of protection than others. We should not trade one form of bullying for another. Doing so will not decrease bullying but merely change its target. Ironically it is possible that the anti-bullying movement’s focus on sexual preference may have the net effect of increasing bullying in the United States.
I know what it is like to be the bottom kid on the totem pole. The fact that it was not because of my sexual preference did not make it more pleasant for me. Finding out why kids bullying each other and learning how to discourage bullying is a laudable goal. Let’s make it a benefit for all kids who are bullied and not merely for those who are bullied for politically correct reasons.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
GCB
Okay I have heard that the new show GCB had anti-Christian overtones. So I felt obigated to watch it and see for myself. Boy was that a waste of my life.
Was there some anti-Christian overtones? Maybe a little. It seems to me that the Christian characters on the show are not very likeable. But then again none of the charcters on that show are very likeable. Therein is the crux of the matter. The show is awful. I could not get through the entire pilot. I do not know how anyone can stand to watch that sort of drivel.
I accept the fact that there is anti-Christian bias in Hollywood that comes out in protrayals of Christians. Can you remember the last time there was a sympathetic overtly Christian character in Hollywood? Perhaps GCB was an attempt to express this bias. But it simply was not a good enough vehicle to do so. The characters were so cardboard and one dimensional that no thinking person can take the show seriously.
So put me on the anti-GCB bandwagon. Not becasue I think the show is a great example of anti-Christian bigotry. But because we already have enough bad TV shows and we do not need any more.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Was there some anti-Christian overtones? Maybe a little. It seems to me that the Christian characters on the show are not very likeable. But then again none of the charcters on that show are very likeable. Therein is the crux of the matter. The show is awful. I could not get through the entire pilot. I do not know how anyone can stand to watch that sort of drivel.
I accept the fact that there is anti-Christian bias in Hollywood that comes out in protrayals of Christians. Can you remember the last time there was a sympathetic overtly Christian character in Hollywood? Perhaps GCB was an attempt to express this bias. But it simply was not a good enough vehicle to do so. The characters were so cardboard and one dimensional that no thinking person can take the show seriously.
So put me on the anti-GCB bandwagon. Not becasue I think the show is a great example of anti-Christian bigotry. But because we already have enough bad TV shows and we do not need any more.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Saturday, March 3, 2012
A Test for Conservatives
You probably have heard about the Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke controversy by now. If you have not then here is an ABC article to provide you a quick update.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-a-slut-and-prostitute/
So Limbaugh has not only refused to apologize but he has also made his insults of Fluke worse. Nice.
The sad part is that I agree that Fluke had no business testifying in a hearing on religious rights. I heard her before Limbaugh got involved and she struck me as another student steeped in entitlement thinking. Here is a clue. If you go to a Catholic college then do not expect them to supply you with contraceptives. Go somewhere else if that is important to you. But none of that entitlement thinking excuses the disgusting behavior of Limbaugh. The points I just made could have been made without dragging this argument through the mud. Limbaugh should be ashamed of himself.
Now is the time for conservatives to disown Limbaugh. He has had his day. I give him credit for being the first major player in the, at that time, new area of talk radio. And in his heyday he did it quite well. I did not agree with him a good deal of the time but he was entertaining and could persuade me to rethink things. What he is doing now is neither entertaining nor insightful. It is just crude. His day has passed and it is time for him to go.
But will conservatives facilitate reducing his exit or at least reduce his current influence? I remember when John McCain dared to criticize Limbaugh during his presidential run. The backlash he received from that criticism made McCain backtrack in a hurry. Limbaugh has made himself the third rail of conservative politics. You do not criticize him without consequence in the conservative community.
But conservatives who care about their causes need to face down Limbaugh. It is not as if there are not other talented conservative commentators who can carry on in the talk radio arena that conservatives dominate so well. I have criticized progressives who do not police their own extremists. At this point Limbaugh is an extremist who has taken an issue of religious freedom and reduced it down to name-calling.
This is the test for conservatives to see who is brave enough to openly challenge him and condemn Limbaugh. I say condemn Limbaugh because it is not enough to just condemn the comments. You also have to condemn the man who is unrepentant about those comments. For too long Limbaugh has been treated with kid gloves by conservatives. Will any conservatives have the wisdom to see that his day has past and the guts to marginalize him in their conservative subculture? Praise him for his historical breakthroughs if you must and acknowledge his previous accomplishments. But please do not enable him to infect us with more venomous comments in the future. Those of us who are not conservatives, and especially us moderates who can be won to some of your causes from time to time, will be watching conservatives to see if they have the spine to do what is right.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-a-slut-and-prostitute/
So Limbaugh has not only refused to apologize but he has also made his insults of Fluke worse. Nice.
The sad part is that I agree that Fluke had no business testifying in a hearing on religious rights. I heard her before Limbaugh got involved and she struck me as another student steeped in entitlement thinking. Here is a clue. If you go to a Catholic college then do not expect them to supply you with contraceptives. Go somewhere else if that is important to you. But none of that entitlement thinking excuses the disgusting behavior of Limbaugh. The points I just made could have been made without dragging this argument through the mud. Limbaugh should be ashamed of himself.
Now is the time for conservatives to disown Limbaugh. He has had his day. I give him credit for being the first major player in the, at that time, new area of talk radio. And in his heyday he did it quite well. I did not agree with him a good deal of the time but he was entertaining and could persuade me to rethink things. What he is doing now is neither entertaining nor insightful. It is just crude. His day has passed and it is time for him to go.
But will conservatives facilitate reducing his exit or at least reduce his current influence? I remember when John McCain dared to criticize Limbaugh during his presidential run. The backlash he received from that criticism made McCain backtrack in a hurry. Limbaugh has made himself the third rail of conservative politics. You do not criticize him without consequence in the conservative community.
But conservatives who care about their causes need to face down Limbaugh. It is not as if there are not other talented conservative commentators who can carry on in the talk radio arena that conservatives dominate so well. I have criticized progressives who do not police their own extremists. At this point Limbaugh is an extremist who has taken an issue of religious freedom and reduced it down to name-calling.
This is the test for conservatives to see who is brave enough to openly challenge him and condemn Limbaugh. I say condemn Limbaugh because it is not enough to just condemn the comments. You also have to condemn the man who is unrepentant about those comments. For too long Limbaugh has been treated with kid gloves by conservatives. Will any conservatives have the wisdom to see that his day has past and the guts to marginalize him in their conservative subculture? Praise him for his historical breakthroughs if you must and acknowledge his previous accomplishments. But please do not enable him to infect us with more venomous comments in the future. Those of us who are not conservatives, and especially us moderates who can be won to some of your causes from time to time, will be watching conservatives to see if they have the spine to do what is right.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, March 2, 2012
To a new low in rhetoric.
Well this is a new low in political rhetoric. I support free speech and their right to be crude. But I still ask why can we not do better than this?
http://news.yahoo.com/hell-barack-row-over-washington-metro-ad-051919392.html
What is gained by such an insult to the President? When did we lose our manners? Can we not agree without being disagreeable? All this does is entice those on the other side to stoop to insults as well. No wonder why those of us who are not fully in the Republican or Democrat camp are not always eager to go out and vote. I guess we better or we will let the extremists decide our elections.
I wish I had some super powerful insight here. But to me it just seems like a bunch of children got some money and decided to insult the President. Already I want this political season to end.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
http://news.yahoo.com/hell-barack-row-over-washington-metro-ad-051919392.html
What is gained by such an insult to the President? When did we lose our manners? Can we not agree without being disagreeable? All this does is entice those on the other side to stoop to insults as well. No wonder why those of us who are not fully in the Republican or Democrat camp are not always eager to go out and vote. I guess we better or we will let the extremists decide our elections.
I wish I had some super powerful insight here. But to me it just seems like a bunch of children got some money and decided to insult the President. Already I want this political season to end.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Tebow or Lin?
It is amazing the reception that Jeremy Lin has gotten. So much so that I think I need another blog about him. That is two in a row on Lin, which is something that I did not do for Tim Tebow. In fact the comparison of Lin to Tebow is quite interesting.
Both Lin and Tebow were almost overnight media sensations. It is probably fair to say that both got more coverage than they deserved. But both are helping a team to win that was not winning before they took over their starting positions. And both are evangelical Christians. These are the similarities between the two athletes.
But there is a critical observable difference. Tebow came with a great deal of controversy. It is fair to say that at times it seems that as many people hated Tebow as loved him. His detractors were legion and it was not just because of his football skills, or lack thereof. Some commentators and football players took shots at his faith as well. There has been some controversy generated by Lin but it has not been widely supported. For example, everybody condemned the controversy over the “Armor” comment featured on ESPN. Nobody defended it and an editor was fired over it. When Saturday Night Live decided to mock Tebow with a skit in which a fake Jesus criticizes him, there was not an equivalent outburst and no one was fired. Furthermore, Tebow has inspired t-shirts and a facebook page dedicated to hating him. There is no doubt that Tebow has produced more antipathy than Lin and it is not even close.
Why this difference? I have a theory. In a divided country we look for clues that indicate whether it is allowable to support a certain person. Tebow, as Lin, is an open evangelical Christian. That signals to religious, and even political, conservatives that Tebow is someone that can be supported. But there is nothing about Tebow for progressives to support unless they are a fan of the Florida Gators or Denver Broncos. So such progressives feel free to hate him.
Lin is also an evangelical. But he is also an Asian-American breaking into a field where Asians and Asian-Americans are relatively rare. This has the imagery of a racial minority conquering new territory and this image is welcoming to political progressives. So in addition to his obvious appeal to Asian-American fans that image also provides a cue for progressives to accept him as well.
I like Lin. I am quite happy for his success. He is fun to watch and I tend to root for him, as long as he is not playing my Spurs. But I have to wonder if he would be getting so much love if he was just another white or black ballplayer. I would wonder if his faith would create the level of controversy that we saw with Tebow. I am not blaming progressives here. I do not think that conservatives would support Tebow and Lin to the extent that they do if they were not evangelical Christians. But we live in a culturally divided society and the different fate of Tebow and Lin illustrates this.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Both Lin and Tebow were almost overnight media sensations. It is probably fair to say that both got more coverage than they deserved. But both are helping a team to win that was not winning before they took over their starting positions. And both are evangelical Christians. These are the similarities between the two athletes.
But there is a critical observable difference. Tebow came with a great deal of controversy. It is fair to say that at times it seems that as many people hated Tebow as loved him. His detractors were legion and it was not just because of his football skills, or lack thereof. Some commentators and football players took shots at his faith as well. There has been some controversy generated by Lin but it has not been widely supported. For example, everybody condemned the controversy over the “Armor” comment featured on ESPN. Nobody defended it and an editor was fired over it. When Saturday Night Live decided to mock Tebow with a skit in which a fake Jesus criticizes him, there was not an equivalent outburst and no one was fired. Furthermore, Tebow has inspired t-shirts and a facebook page dedicated to hating him. There is no doubt that Tebow has produced more antipathy than Lin and it is not even close.
Why this difference? I have a theory. In a divided country we look for clues that indicate whether it is allowable to support a certain person. Tebow, as Lin, is an open evangelical Christian. That signals to religious, and even political, conservatives that Tebow is someone that can be supported. But there is nothing about Tebow for progressives to support unless they are a fan of the Florida Gators or Denver Broncos. So such progressives feel free to hate him.
Lin is also an evangelical. But he is also an Asian-American breaking into a field where Asians and Asian-Americans are relatively rare. This has the imagery of a racial minority conquering new territory and this image is welcoming to political progressives. So in addition to his obvious appeal to Asian-American fans that image also provides a cue for progressives to accept him as well.
I like Lin. I am quite happy for his success. He is fun to watch and I tend to root for him, as long as he is not playing my Spurs. But I have to wonder if he would be getting so much love if he was just another white or black ballplayer. I would wonder if his faith would create the level of controversy that we saw with Tebow. I am not blaming progressives here. I do not think that conservatives would support Tebow and Lin to the extent that they do if they were not evangelical Christians. But we live in a culturally divided society and the different fate of Tebow and Lin illustrates this.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Here comes Linsanity
I enjoy NBA basketball. But to be honest I do not really get into it until we get close to playoff time. But about a week ago my facebook account went crazy with talk of some guy name Jeremy Lin. It seemed that all of my Asian friends were posting and chatting about him. So naturally I had to check him out when the Knicks played the Lakers.
Okay in the interest of full disclosure here – I hate Kobe. So I was pulling for the Knicks all the way. But I do not think I had to hate Kobe to appreciate the 38 points Lin put up. The boy has got some game. He also seems to play with a joy that was fun to watch. I cannot pull for him when the Knicks play the Spurs (That is my team), but otherwise I think I am a Lin fan.
In many ways he is going to be as interesting of a story to the American sports world as Tim Tebow. There are so many fascinating dimensions to the Lin story that it is hard to know where to go with this. The Asian-American angle is what first produced interest in the story as Asian-Americans have a role model and hero in the NBA. A Harvard grad in professional sports is another interesting twist. His heartfelt Christian faith is certain to get played up in the coming weeks and months.
But what I find interesting is the fact that all of the teams basically passed on him. Even the Knicks used him as a last resort. No one saw the now obvious talent this young baller has. Why did the NBA teams pass on him? Well when we think of NBA basketball player we do not think of a Harvard-educated Asian-American do we? Lin simply did not fit into our expectations and a lot of teams really missed out on a treasure due to their stereotyping of Lin.
Let me clarify something. This is not a claim of racism. That may have happened, but I am not claiming that. Rather we tend to develop basic stereotypes and operate out of them without even thinking about it. It is in the interest of NBA coaches and general managers to accurately assess basketball talent. Yet Lin slipped through their fingers. I believe it is because Lin is not what they expected in a potential NBA star. The cost of their failure of imagination is that this bright young talent got away. We tend to hold onto stereotypes even when it costs us. That is how powerful our urge to stereotype is.
It is understandable why we stereotype. It is a shortcut. We do not have time to really get to know everyone in our lives. Sometimes we need to put people in a box and if we never have to get to know them well then that is fine. Stereotyping becomes a problem when we refuse to take them out of that box when there is evidence to the contrary. So many coaches and general managers had a box for well-educated Asians who want to play basketball and put Lin in that box. Even when he demonstrated talent they did not take him out of that box. And the Knicks lucked into discovering how inadequate that box was.
When we automatically restrict people because of stereotyping we hurt ourselves. We can rob ourselves of potentially “Lin” level of talent. We do not hire a women clergy because of her gender and can lose out in what she has to offer. We reject an evangelical academic candidate for a position (read my book Compromising Scholarship for evidence of this) and do not get a potentially great teacher/researcher. We refuse to befriend someone who dyed his/her hair pink and miss out on a friend who will be there for us. Stereotyping is not just bad for those stereotyped but it is horrible for those doing the stereotyping. They may never know what they are missing due to their stereotyping. The bottom line is that we must be careful not to keep people in boxes when doing so is not warranted. Or we may have to watch Lin hit a three pointer to beat our team in the last moments of the game.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Okay in the interest of full disclosure here – I hate Kobe. So I was pulling for the Knicks all the way. But I do not think I had to hate Kobe to appreciate the 38 points Lin put up. The boy has got some game. He also seems to play with a joy that was fun to watch. I cannot pull for him when the Knicks play the Spurs (That is my team), but otherwise I think I am a Lin fan.
In many ways he is going to be as interesting of a story to the American sports world as Tim Tebow. There are so many fascinating dimensions to the Lin story that it is hard to know where to go with this. The Asian-American angle is what first produced interest in the story as Asian-Americans have a role model and hero in the NBA. A Harvard grad in professional sports is another interesting twist. His heartfelt Christian faith is certain to get played up in the coming weeks and months.
But what I find interesting is the fact that all of the teams basically passed on him. Even the Knicks used him as a last resort. No one saw the now obvious talent this young baller has. Why did the NBA teams pass on him? Well when we think of NBA basketball player we do not think of a Harvard-educated Asian-American do we? Lin simply did not fit into our expectations and a lot of teams really missed out on a treasure due to their stereotyping of Lin.
Let me clarify something. This is not a claim of racism. That may have happened, but I am not claiming that. Rather we tend to develop basic stereotypes and operate out of them without even thinking about it. It is in the interest of NBA coaches and general managers to accurately assess basketball talent. Yet Lin slipped through their fingers. I believe it is because Lin is not what they expected in a potential NBA star. The cost of their failure of imagination is that this bright young talent got away. We tend to hold onto stereotypes even when it costs us. That is how powerful our urge to stereotype is.
It is understandable why we stereotype. It is a shortcut. We do not have time to really get to know everyone in our lives. Sometimes we need to put people in a box and if we never have to get to know them well then that is fine. Stereotyping becomes a problem when we refuse to take them out of that box when there is evidence to the contrary. So many coaches and general managers had a box for well-educated Asians who want to play basketball and put Lin in that box. Even when he demonstrated talent they did not take him out of that box. And the Knicks lucked into discovering how inadequate that box was.
When we automatically restrict people because of stereotyping we hurt ourselves. We can rob ourselves of potentially “Lin” level of talent. We do not hire a women clergy because of her gender and can lose out in what she has to offer. We reject an evangelical academic candidate for a position (read my book Compromising Scholarship for evidence of this) and do not get a potentially great teacher/researcher. We refuse to befriend someone who dyed his/her hair pink and miss out on a friend who will be there for us. Stereotyping is not just bad for those stereotyped but it is horrible for those doing the stereotyping. They may never know what they are missing due to their stereotyping. The bottom line is that we must be careful not to keep people in boxes when doing so is not warranted. Or we may have to watch Lin hit a three pointer to beat our team in the last moments of the game.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Religious Freedom for Whom?
Remember the controversy about the ground zero mosque? Progressives were talking about keeping the government out of religion. Conservatives were talking about what they said is a larger principle taking a stand against Islamic-based insensitivity. At the time I took the position that I did not agree with the decision to build the Mosque but the Muslims had every right to do so. If we made it harder for them to express their religious perspective, even if it is insensitive to the relatives of 9/11 victims, then we infringe on religious freedom in ways that will be hard to reverse. I stand by that opinion.
Now we have the controversy with the Health and Human Services order to Catholic affiliated organizations to provide insurance coverage that includes contraceptives. Now it is the conservatives who are taking about keeping the government out of religion. Progressives are discussing about what they say is a larger principle of reproductive freedom and women’s rights. Funny how things can switch around like that. If I were cynical I would think that both sides are just using the whole freedom of religion argument to advance their particular political agenda and really do not care about freedom of religion.
Once again I do not agree with this position from the Catholic hierarchy. Both practically and theologically I think they are wrong to put such a focus on birth control issues. But I support their right to have this position. Once again I see the slippery slope of taking away religious freedom is too precious for us to risk it.
I trust that there are others who remain true to their desire for religious freedom in both circumstances. But is it not interesting how the principles of conservatives and progressives change according to who is having their freedom challenged? Whether they choose to support religious freedom seems to depend on whether we are talking about Muslims or Catholics. This means that freedom of religion has no real meaning for them. If you really believe in religious freedom then you defend it regardless of whether the group you are defending is your political ally or enemy. That is what it means to have a principle more important than our petty political concerns.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Now we have the controversy with the Health and Human Services order to Catholic affiliated organizations to provide insurance coverage that includes contraceptives. Now it is the conservatives who are taking about keeping the government out of religion. Progressives are discussing about what they say is a larger principle of reproductive freedom and women’s rights. Funny how things can switch around like that. If I were cynical I would think that both sides are just using the whole freedom of religion argument to advance their particular political agenda and really do not care about freedom of religion.
Once again I do not agree with this position from the Catholic hierarchy. Both practically and theologically I think they are wrong to put such a focus on birth control issues. But I support their right to have this position. Once again I see the slippery slope of taking away religious freedom is too precious for us to risk it.
I trust that there are others who remain true to their desire for religious freedom in both circumstances. But is it not interesting how the principles of conservatives and progressives change according to who is having their freedom challenged? Whether they choose to support religious freedom seems to depend on whether we are talking about Muslims or Catholics. This means that freedom of religion has no real meaning for them. If you really believe in religious freedom then you defend it regardless of whether the group you are defending is your political ally or enemy. That is what it means to have a principle more important than our petty political concerns.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Can Christianity and Sociology Mix? - Part 4
If we are holistic beings then all parts of who we are must interact together as we strive to understand our world. I am not just a sociologist. I am not just a Christian. I am not just black. I am all of those things. This is not to say that all of those things are equal in their importance to me but all of them, and other identities I have, matter in how I approach my life and understand my world.
You might guess that as an African-American that I would have special concern about the racial issues in the United States. You would be right in that assumption. In fact, for most of my academic career I have published in the area of race and ethnicity. I have done work on topics such as interracial romance, racial identity, residential segregation and racial diversity in religious settings. Like most people of color, I have had to think about racial issue seriously from an early age and so when I gained the methodological tools to understand those issues more deeply I used them to the best of my ability.
With such an effort at understanding the social scientific literature on racial issues you would think that I would have found a lot of fantastic answers to the question of how we overcome the perilous effects of our racialized society. However, I have been dissatisfied with the answers I found in my reading of the current literature. As I have established in previous blogs my sociological training is great for helping me to see what is happening in society, but less useful for helping me to understand the nature of humans. The idea that we are perfectible and that education will eliminate racism is not sufficient. In my last blog I discussed the work of Emerson and Sikkink which strongly suggests that education merely aids us in hiding our racial preference, rather than curing us of that bias.
My faith, and the notion of human depravity connected to that faith, is relevant here. Human depravity explains that humans, both whites and non-whites will manipulate racial situations to their advantage. Whites will come up with solutions to racial problems that better suit what they want. People of color will come up with solutions to racial problems that better suit what they want. As a result we spend more time arguing with one another than finding solutions that work.
It was this insight, given to me by my faith, which led me eventually to develop a mutual accountability approach to racial issues. That approach is one which seeks commonality rather than contention. To totally flesh out this approach in the small space a blog provides is not feasible. I am fortunate to have published Transcending Racial Barriers (Oxford University Press) which discusses the approach more completely. Basically we argued that to deal with racial issues we need to take proactive steps of recognizing our bias for solutions that help our own group, listen to the perspectives others may have, and then work to find a solution that people of all races can live with.
Simple huh? But surprisingly I have previously found no such approach in the literature of race and ethnicity. It was my faith and understanding of human depravity which allowed me to think through racial issues in a way to develop a balanced approach. Most people do not think about racial alienation as an issue that religion has something to say about. This is especially the case if we are supposed to be scholars who understand society. But my faith has been indispensable in thinking through racial issues.
I have gone this far into racial issues to illustrate a larger point. My sociology or faith does not operate in a vacuum. They reinforce and inform each other. They make each other stronger. I am a Christian and a sociologist. Those are not contradictions in terms. They are only contradictions when we create ridiculous definitions of Christianity and sociology. They are only seen as direct oppositions when vested interest groups among Christians and sociologists decide that it is to their advantage to have a convenient scape goat to blame the world’s problems on. But when applied in the right way my Christianity and sociology can work to solve those problems instead of merely finger point at those we disagree with.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
You might guess that as an African-American that I would have special concern about the racial issues in the United States. You would be right in that assumption. In fact, for most of my academic career I have published in the area of race and ethnicity. I have done work on topics such as interracial romance, racial identity, residential segregation and racial diversity in religious settings. Like most people of color, I have had to think about racial issue seriously from an early age and so when I gained the methodological tools to understand those issues more deeply I used them to the best of my ability.
With such an effort at understanding the social scientific literature on racial issues you would think that I would have found a lot of fantastic answers to the question of how we overcome the perilous effects of our racialized society. However, I have been dissatisfied with the answers I found in my reading of the current literature. As I have established in previous blogs my sociological training is great for helping me to see what is happening in society, but less useful for helping me to understand the nature of humans. The idea that we are perfectible and that education will eliminate racism is not sufficient. In my last blog I discussed the work of Emerson and Sikkink which strongly suggests that education merely aids us in hiding our racial preference, rather than curing us of that bias.
My faith, and the notion of human depravity connected to that faith, is relevant here. Human depravity explains that humans, both whites and non-whites will manipulate racial situations to their advantage. Whites will come up with solutions to racial problems that better suit what they want. People of color will come up with solutions to racial problems that better suit what they want. As a result we spend more time arguing with one another than finding solutions that work.
It was this insight, given to me by my faith, which led me eventually to develop a mutual accountability approach to racial issues. That approach is one which seeks commonality rather than contention. To totally flesh out this approach in the small space a blog provides is not feasible. I am fortunate to have published Transcending Racial Barriers (Oxford University Press) which discusses the approach more completely. Basically we argued that to deal with racial issues we need to take proactive steps of recognizing our bias for solutions that help our own group, listen to the perspectives others may have, and then work to find a solution that people of all races can live with.
Simple huh? But surprisingly I have previously found no such approach in the literature of race and ethnicity. It was my faith and understanding of human depravity which allowed me to think through racial issues in a way to develop a balanced approach. Most people do not think about racial alienation as an issue that religion has something to say about. This is especially the case if we are supposed to be scholars who understand society. But my faith has been indispensable in thinking through racial issues.
I have gone this far into racial issues to illustrate a larger point. My sociology or faith does not operate in a vacuum. They reinforce and inform each other. They make each other stronger. I am a Christian and a sociologist. Those are not contradictions in terms. They are only contradictions when we create ridiculous definitions of Christianity and sociology. They are only seen as direct oppositions when vested interest groups among Christians and sociologists decide that it is to their advantage to have a convenient scape goat to blame the world’s problems on. But when applied in the right way my Christianity and sociology can work to solve those problems instead of merely finger point at those we disagree with.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Can Christianity and Sociology Mix? - Part 3
It may not be a surprise that a social scientist can allow his studies to inform his faith. Science is often seen as "truth" while faith is seen as "opinion." But I do not agree with that viewpoint. I see both science and religion as different, but valid, ways of accumulating knowledge. So if my Christianity can be informed by my sociology then my sociology can be informed by my Christianity.
My sociology often provides me with an understanding of how society, and the individuals in it, works. But my Christianity is helpful about informing me on the nature of humans. It gives me a perspective that I would not necessarily see as a pure social scientist. In fact, I think a lot of social scientists have missed the boat as it comes to understanding the nature of humans. My faith tells me about human depravity. It talks about being born into sin and our innate selfish nature. In contrast to the notion of human depravity is the idea which I see among so many social scientists which is human perfectibility. Many of my colleagues believe that we are not innately depraved and that with enough education and training that we can develop a healthy morality. I guess it makes sense that they would have such a perspective since it allows scholars and educators to gain status as those who will play a key role in perfecting humans and society. But the evidence I see supports the idea that we are born with an innate selfish nature not easily changed through human efforts.
It is rather easy to show that we are born with a selfish or self-centerness in our nature. Ever watch a baby? A baby merely wants more and more. He or she has no concept of giving to others. A baby, as cute as he or she may be, is a great example of human depravity. But can we train that baby and create the perfectible moral being that some desire for our society? We can to some extent. But there are serious limitations to what we can do.
The key way many academics believe we are perfectible is through education. But, two of my friends, Michael Emerson and David Sikkink, made an interesting discovery several years ago. They found out that the more education whites obtained the more likely that they said they supported racial integration in neighborhoods and schools. However, they also found that the more education whites obtained the less likely they were to live in integrated neighborhoods and send their kids to integrated schools. Those educated whites talk a good game about racial integration but their actions work against the very integration they profess to desire. It is as if their education taught them what to say on surveys, but also how to maintain the racial status quo that works to their advantage. Education does not create a better person, but simply teach that person how to do a better job presenting his/herself to society.
Education is unable to "prefect" humans because of our basic nature. This is where human depravity can enlighten us about who we are. My Christianity has informed me that while we can get better that there is an element of depravity that cannot be removed by human efforts. It can, and must, be controlled. Ideally it may be controlled through personal efforts at becoming moral but if necessary we need laws and social sanctions to control that depravity. In my every day experience I consistently find the idea of human depravity to be a better explanation for what I see than the idea that humans are perfectible. I thank my Christianity for this valuable insight. It is one that does not come naturally to social scientists who, after all, have a vested interest in believing that they can “fix” society if individuals will accept the training offered by these scientists.
Does this insight shape how I do my work? Of course it does. It informs my sociology by allowing me to be a holistic person of mind and spirit. In the last entry to this series I will look at a specific way in which my faith informs my sociology even as my sociological training has given me skills to better hone my faith. And we will see this in an area that is not automatically seen as being "religious."
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
My sociology often provides me with an understanding of how society, and the individuals in it, works. But my Christianity is helpful about informing me on the nature of humans. It gives me a perspective that I would not necessarily see as a pure social scientist. In fact, I think a lot of social scientists have missed the boat as it comes to understanding the nature of humans. My faith tells me about human depravity. It talks about being born into sin and our innate selfish nature. In contrast to the notion of human depravity is the idea which I see among so many social scientists which is human perfectibility. Many of my colleagues believe that we are not innately depraved and that with enough education and training that we can develop a healthy morality. I guess it makes sense that they would have such a perspective since it allows scholars and educators to gain status as those who will play a key role in perfecting humans and society. But the evidence I see supports the idea that we are born with an innate selfish nature not easily changed through human efforts.
It is rather easy to show that we are born with a selfish or self-centerness in our nature. Ever watch a baby? A baby merely wants more and more. He or she has no concept of giving to others. A baby, as cute as he or she may be, is a great example of human depravity. But can we train that baby and create the perfectible moral being that some desire for our society? We can to some extent. But there are serious limitations to what we can do.
The key way many academics believe we are perfectible is through education. But, two of my friends, Michael Emerson and David Sikkink, made an interesting discovery several years ago. They found out that the more education whites obtained the more likely that they said they supported racial integration in neighborhoods and schools. However, they also found that the more education whites obtained the less likely they were to live in integrated neighborhoods and send their kids to integrated schools. Those educated whites talk a good game about racial integration but their actions work against the very integration they profess to desire. It is as if their education taught them what to say on surveys, but also how to maintain the racial status quo that works to their advantage. Education does not create a better person, but simply teach that person how to do a better job presenting his/herself to society.
Education is unable to "prefect" humans because of our basic nature. This is where human depravity can enlighten us about who we are. My Christianity has informed me that while we can get better that there is an element of depravity that cannot be removed by human efforts. It can, and must, be controlled. Ideally it may be controlled through personal efforts at becoming moral but if necessary we need laws and social sanctions to control that depravity. In my every day experience I consistently find the idea of human depravity to be a better explanation for what I see than the idea that humans are perfectible. I thank my Christianity for this valuable insight. It is one that does not come naturally to social scientists who, after all, have a vested interest in believing that they can “fix” society if individuals will accept the training offered by these scientists.
Does this insight shape how I do my work? Of course it does. It informs my sociology by allowing me to be a holistic person of mind and spirit. In the last entry to this series I will look at a specific way in which my faith informs my sociology even as my sociological training has given me skills to better hone my faith. And we will see this in an area that is not automatically seen as being "religious."
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Monday, January 9, 2012
Can Christianity and Sociology Mix? - Part 2
Okay so can a Christian benefit from sociology? I like to think so. It is my chosen discipline. I do not want to think that what I study has little meaning to my faith.
So how can sociology inform my Christianity? When I first became a Christian I was surrounded by a lot of wonderful people. They were incredibly kind and loving. But they were also very politically conservative and I just did not agree with them on all of those issues. Naturally, I had to wonder if I was wrong and needed to just accept their perspectives.
But then I started studying sociology. I began to see what was happening. My Christian friends tended to have a very individualistic way of looking at the world. I am not saying that the way they look at the world is wrong. I rather say that it is incomplete. My studies as a sociologist showed me the importance of social structures in shaping our social reality. I tend to look to both individual's volition and social structures to understand why things happen in our society. My Christian friends tend to only look at our volition or free will to explain social actions. My differences with them often were shaped around our social and political disagreements.
The best way to illustrate this is with my expertise in race and ethnicity. My Christian friends tend to look at racism as something that individuals perpetuate. I know that racism is something that individuals can possess but that institutional racism is a problem as well. Institutional racism creates problems for people of color even if people themselves are not racist. Institutional racism require institutional solutions such as laws or governmental regulations. Those are the solutions that many of my friends tend to ignore since they only see racism as a problem due to individual sin.
This shows a new perspective my sociology has given me. It has shown me that sin is not just something that individuals engage in. It is also something that societies have as well. There is something known as social justice we should be concerned about. Some well-meaning Christians dismiss the notion of social justice. To be fair I have seen people who are so unbalanced in their promotion of the idea of social justice that they distort individual responsibility. Any good concept can become distorted when it is not balanced by other concerns. But for me being concerned with societal concerns is vital. Sin is not just something individuals can do but it also is something that can be perpetrated by social institutions.
I think of my sociology as something that helps to complete my Christianity. It gives me a more holistic approach to my faith. I am not arrogant enough to state that all Christians need an appreciation of sociology to complete their faith. But I do wish that more Christians would learn more about social structures and the way they impact us. I guess I am enough of a sociologist to believe that we all can benefit from the ideas in sociology, even if we all do not need a doctorate in it.
So my Christian faith is informed and I think made better by my sociology. But the opposite is true as well. My sociology is also informed by my Christianity.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
So how can sociology inform my Christianity? When I first became a Christian I was surrounded by a lot of wonderful people. They were incredibly kind and loving. But they were also very politically conservative and I just did not agree with them on all of those issues. Naturally, I had to wonder if I was wrong and needed to just accept their perspectives.
But then I started studying sociology. I began to see what was happening. My Christian friends tended to have a very individualistic way of looking at the world. I am not saying that the way they look at the world is wrong. I rather say that it is incomplete. My studies as a sociologist showed me the importance of social structures in shaping our social reality. I tend to look to both individual's volition and social structures to understand why things happen in our society. My Christian friends tend to only look at our volition or free will to explain social actions. My differences with them often were shaped around our social and political disagreements.
The best way to illustrate this is with my expertise in race and ethnicity. My Christian friends tend to look at racism as something that individuals perpetuate. I know that racism is something that individuals can possess but that institutional racism is a problem as well. Institutional racism creates problems for people of color even if people themselves are not racist. Institutional racism require institutional solutions such as laws or governmental regulations. Those are the solutions that many of my friends tend to ignore since they only see racism as a problem due to individual sin.
This shows a new perspective my sociology has given me. It has shown me that sin is not just something that individuals engage in. It is also something that societies have as well. There is something known as social justice we should be concerned about. Some well-meaning Christians dismiss the notion of social justice. To be fair I have seen people who are so unbalanced in their promotion of the idea of social justice that they distort individual responsibility. Any good concept can become distorted when it is not balanced by other concerns. But for me being concerned with societal concerns is vital. Sin is not just something individuals can do but it also is something that can be perpetrated by social institutions.
I think of my sociology as something that helps to complete my Christianity. It gives me a more holistic approach to my faith. I am not arrogant enough to state that all Christians need an appreciation of sociology to complete their faith. But I do wish that more Christians would learn more about social structures and the way they impact us. I guess I am enough of a sociologist to believe that we all can benefit from the ideas in sociology, even if we all do not need a doctorate in it.
So my Christian faith is informed and I think made better by my sociology. But the opposite is true as well. My sociology is also informed by my Christianity.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Can Christianity and Sociology Mix? - Part 1
In my Twitter account I describe myself as "Just a Christian black sociologist trying to make his way in the world." Well the black part is pretty clear but one might wonder about the Christian sociologist part. I mean can a person be a sociologist and a Christian at the same time? If not then am I just an walking living contradiction. Is my existence just a joke on rationality? Whoa. That is too heavy. Let me just look at the Christian and sociology mixture.
Now on the surface there does not seem to be a contradiction between a religious belief and an occupation. I mean as a Christian can I not be any occupation I want as long as it is legal? (I did try being a Christian drug dealer once but that just did not work out). Of course I can. So there should not be a contradiction between being a Christian who works and a sociology researcher and teacher.
Furthermore, can not a sociology have any religious belief he wants. There is not a religious test for being a sociologist is there. (Well not an official religious test. Read my book "Compromising Scholarship" for unofficial ways there may be a religious test in academia). So if there is no religious expectations upon being a sociology then where is the contradiction?
The contradiction seems to have developed because of the way sociology has historically developed. The institution of sociology developed in concert with what has been called the Enlightenment movement. This movement marshaled a great deal of resistance to the religious institutions of its day. (This is bit of an oversimplification, but hey this is a blog, not a term paper.) The early sociologist understood the social conflict between those claiming science and those claiming religion and understandably they choose to support the forces claiming science.
One has to be naive not to think that such an origin would not effect the way sociology is practiced today. The materialist groundings in much of sociology works in opposition to the otherworldly assumptions of Christianity and other religious ideologies. I felt this many times in graduate school with my fellow graduate student friends. I loved my friends but had to conceptually deal with their ideologies that operated to counter my religious beliefs. Likewise I often had to hear ideas from my Christian friends that did not comport with my understanding of sociological knowledge.
Then a funny thing happened on my way to professorship. I learned how to use my sociology to make my Christianity better and my Christianity to make my sociology better. In doing so I did become what I am today - a Christian sociologist. I do not think that Christianity and sociology are like oil and water. They can mix and even strengthen each other. My sociology can inform my Christianity and my Christianity can inform my sociology. Maybe because I allow them to inform each other is why I have become the trouble-maker that I am today. Anyway in the remaining blogs in this series I will try to illustrate how they can and do inform each other. Until then.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Now on the surface there does not seem to be a contradiction between a religious belief and an occupation. I mean as a Christian can I not be any occupation I want as long as it is legal? (I did try being a Christian drug dealer once but that just did not work out). Of course I can. So there should not be a contradiction between being a Christian who works and a sociology researcher and teacher.
Furthermore, can not a sociology have any religious belief he wants. There is not a religious test for being a sociologist is there. (Well not an official religious test. Read my book "Compromising Scholarship" for unofficial ways there may be a religious test in academia). So if there is no religious expectations upon being a sociology then where is the contradiction?
The contradiction seems to have developed because of the way sociology has historically developed. The institution of sociology developed in concert with what has been called the Enlightenment movement. This movement marshaled a great deal of resistance to the religious institutions of its day. (This is bit of an oversimplification, but hey this is a blog, not a term paper.) The early sociologist understood the social conflict between those claiming science and those claiming religion and understandably they choose to support the forces claiming science.
One has to be naive not to think that such an origin would not effect the way sociology is practiced today. The materialist groundings in much of sociology works in opposition to the otherworldly assumptions of Christianity and other religious ideologies. I felt this many times in graduate school with my fellow graduate student friends. I loved my friends but had to conceptually deal with their ideologies that operated to counter my religious beliefs. Likewise I often had to hear ideas from my Christian friends that did not comport with my understanding of sociological knowledge.
Then a funny thing happened on my way to professorship. I learned how to use my sociology to make my Christianity better and my Christianity to make my sociology better. In doing so I did become what I am today - a Christian sociologist. I do not think that Christianity and sociology are like oil and water. They can mix and even strengthen each other. My sociology can inform my Christianity and my Christianity can inform my sociology. Maybe because I allow them to inform each other is why I have become the trouble-maker that I am today. Anyway in the remaining blogs in this series I will try to illustrate how they can and do inform each other. Until then.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)