ThomStratton.com

Recently I’ve had Enoch on the mind. Now Enoch isn’t someone who gets a lot of attention usually. The Bible has very little to say about him outside of Genesis 5:24:

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Additional scripture and revelation available in my church has somewhat more to say about him, however. He was the leader of the city of Enoch, also known as Zion, and he and his people were able to achieve a level of righteousness that Christ would visit them from time to time. Eventually the entire city was taken up into heaven.

We discussed Enoch and his city in our adult Sunday School class recently, and since then I’ve been thinking a lot about just what it would take to achieve that type of society. We are told there were no poor among them, and that they were ” of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness.” Now, it seems difficult these days to find even one person of one heart and mind, let alone a town full. I don’t think that’s something they could accomplish by pressuring or guilting one another, or through passing and enforcing laws. Everyone had to voluntarily do the right things–and everyone had to agree on what the right things were.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some people left on their own accord, simply because they did not want to live that way. There wouldn’t be room for petty jealousies, selfishness, or class divisions. That’s not to say an outsider couldn’t have identified various classes, but they wouldn’t have been the ones to do it. If there were some who were more wealthy they wouldn’t have looked down on those with less, and those with less wouldn’t have envied those with more. That sort of thinking–in either direction–would have had no place.

In short, I don’t think this is a change that came about overnight. What little scriptural information we have suggests that it took several hundred years during a time when people lived well beyond half a millenia. In that light it may not even be possible today. Perhaps a mere 70 years is insufficient to overcome our human failings. I suspect we’d have to unlearn a lot of things we think we know, break a lot of habits that get in the way of putting others first. There would be a quite a few people who would be annoyed that they wouldn’t get things their way.

There are very few scriptural accounts of groups of people achieving anything close to what the people of Zion were able to do. Some were able to keep it going for several generations, some for only a few years. Certainly it would be a good goal to work toward. It would have to start within each individual and work outward. Each person would need to experience a change of heart to become someone who would put the needs of their friends and neighbors equal to or ahead of their own. It would require a new variety of myopia: instead of “Me, me, gimme!” it would need to be “Is it me? Am I the problem? Am I not in alignment with everyone else?”

It sounds wonderful, but also excruciatingly difficult.

I have nothing to say on Phil Robertson’s personal views. He said what he said, and the results were so predictable he’s got to be pretty naive to not see it coming. And A&E has got to be pretty naive to not know Robertson could say something like that. Isn’t the controversial nature of the cast the reason for the show in the first place? But if he crossed some sort of line, they have the right to fire him. 

But the outcry against Robertson from other sectors is interesting.

Said Bernard Whitman, Democratic pollster, on the Megyn Kelly show:

“It’s time that we stop agreeing that religion can be used as a weapon to spew hate and cause people to feel bad about themselves and who they are and who they love.”

…

“If he wants to go out and have hate speech…if he wants to go out and have hate speech all over America — and hate speech conventions — by God, let him do it, but it shouldn’t have to be in the public square where people have to tune in and see that sort of thing.”

…

“You can have your private beliefs but they don’t have to be aired on public networks.”

…

“I think that he can’t hide behind the veil of Christianity or any religion and use that as a weapon to indict people, to condemn people or make them feel ‘less than.’”

So, what we have here is a man airing his personal beliefs on public networks that people shouldn’t air their personal beliefs on public networks–and he doesn’t see the irony. (By the way, Robertson’s remarks were in a magazine. No one has to tune in and see that sort of thing. Doubly-ironic is that it was Fox giving Whitman his public forum.)

What we have is Whitman using religion as a weapon to indict people and make them feel ‘less than’.

If the people espousing this particular view really believed what they were saying it would cut Facebook activity by at least 10%. There’s hardly a day goes by without someone using Christianity to try and shame people into adopting their point of view. And 80% of these are people on the left who are so quick to adopt Mr. Whitman’s arguments if anyone ever offers an argument counter to their views couched in religious terms. Physician, heal theyself.

Since when do people who evidently revile and renounce religion so vehemently get to be the spokesmen for that same religion? I’m sorry, Mr. Whitman, but I don’t recognize your ecclesiastical authority. Pope Francis I know, and Desmond Tutu I know; but who are ye?

But perhaps Mr. Whitman has a point. Perhaps from now on, any time someone posts on Facebook claiming if I were truly a Christian I would back some political policy, I should use that public forum to denounce them for using religion as a weapon to spew hate and cause people to feel bad about themselves.

It’s only fair, right?

In other news, not everyone is unhinged. Gay anchor Don Lemon takes a more measured stance, which I can agree with. People have a right to their opinion. People also have a right to not support that person for their opinion. But if you’re going to be hypocritical about it, you should expect to get called on it. Don’t judge Robertson for judging others, unless you’re prepared to be judged for doing so.

I’ve encountered some interesting research lately. Rather than discuss any of it at length I’ll just post them with a few comments:

First up: Are Boys Irrational?

Economists have scratched their heads. “The greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not,” MIT’s Michael Greenstone told the New York Times. If boys were as rational as their sisters, he implied, they would be staying in school, getting degrees, and going on to buff their Florsheim shoes on weekdays at 7:30 AM. Instead, the rational sex, the proto-homo economicus, is shrugging off school and resigning itself to a life of shelf stocking. Why would that be?

The most interesting aspect of this to me is the various commentary around this article (in fact, a commentary on some commentary on the research). James Taranto, who writes the linked column, is examining commentary by Kay Hymowitz and finding some flawed–even sexist–assumptions at the heart of her analysis. Says Hymowitz (who also wrote the quote above):

Now, though, with teen births down more than 50 percent from their 1991 peak and girls dominating classrooms and graduation ceremonies, boys and men are increasingly the ones under examination. Their high school grades and college attendance rates have remained stalled for decades. Among poor and working-class boys, the chances of climbing out of the low-end labor market–and of becoming reliable husbands and fathers–are looking worse and worse. (Emphasis added)

Taranto (correctly, I believe) calls her on that:

Hymowitz laments that young males are insufficiently interested in “becoming reliable husbands and fathers.” Imagine somebody opening a piece with the converse lament that young females are insufficiently interested in “becoming reliable wives and mothers.” The author would be attacked as a misogynist and a dinosaur. Why, critics would demand, should women set their sights so low?

Well, why should men? Except perhaps in very conservative communities, men with sufficient social skills can find sex and companionship without need of a matrimonial commitment (and for those who lack social skills, a willingness to marry is unlikely to provide much compensation). The culture’s unrelenting message–repeated in Hymowitz’s article–is that women are doing fine on their own. If a woman doesn’t need a man, there’s little reason for him to devote his life to her service…

He goes on to, just as interestingly, call out the flawed assumptions in the analysis of the research being presented. Boys and men are behaving rationally. The error is in assuming that males and females all want the same thing. Read the whole thing.

The next bit of research concerns The Stigma of Racism. New research suggests that people are reticent to mention race, even when it makes logical sense, for fear of being thought racist–even though so-doing increases their chances of being viewed as racist!

Scientists had a group of white adult volunteers play a game of Guess Who? — where players start with a lineup of faces and try to find the correct one by asking yes/no questions — with partners who were either white or black.

The lineup they were given was half-black and half-white, so asking about race was a great way to eliminate a lot of possibilities quickly. And yet 43 percent of the subjects failed to ask when the person answering the questions was white, and 79 percent didn’t ask when the person was black. Perhaps because their discomfort showed, the whites who didn’t ask about race were more likely to be seen as racist by outside observers (who for some reason were all white). Conducting the experiment with children revealed that this fear sets in around age 10.

The article goes on to insist this is largely a good thing, as it shows that the civil rights movement has been largely successful–though they are careful to point out that research indicates that one in twenty-five people still wouldn’t vote for a black for president.

What this suggests to me is that there will always be holdouts–people who will always hate some group or another. Further attempts to stigmatize these people and browbeat them into compliance are not likely to yield fruit. Meanwhile, the remaining 96% are finding that the stigma of being thought a racist is so strong that it actually gets in the way of getting along with others. If the goal is for everyone to see everyone else as exactly the same I don’t think we’re going to ever succeed. But if the goal is to get people to not respond negatively to someone just because of skin color, we may want to be careful not to overshoot the mark. If we’re afraid to even acknowledge the obvious–someone’s skin is a different shade than our own–might we not be replacing one problem with another?

Again, read the article.

Evidently there is a bit of an uproar online right now about several columns written by various people of varying renown. The conflict is over whether snark or smarm is the greater crime. Weighing in on the side of being nice is Malcolm Gladwell for the New Yorker.

I’m going to have to go with Gladwell. Though I do appreciate good snark, and indulge in it far too often, it really adds nothing. It is little more than calling attention to your own self-assumed brilliance while simultaneously dismissing the person or thing being criticised. Both their unworthiness and your superiority are simultaneously advanced as self-evident.

It’s good for a laugh, a cheer, a “you-go-girl/boy”, or even a quick buck, but does it really contribute anything positive to society? Do the snarky really change the world in any desirable way? Do we really want a world populated by the Jon Stewarts, Stephen Colberts, Howard Sterns, and Rush Limbaughs  of the world?

Or perhaps, to put it another way, do you like the world we live in? Is the quality of public discourse suitable to your standards?

“No, I don’t”, and “Not to me.” Ever tried to explain things to a bully who turned everything you said into a joke? Ever tried sitting down and solving problems with someone like that? How are we going to solve any real problems if we’re each only looking for the quick verbal score, building ourselves up for our audience at the expense of the other person?

In such a world it won’t be long before people stop trying to talk to one another and start reaching for weapons. If you can’t negotiate you can always eliminate.

There’s a good reason why the meek shall inherit the earth. It’s just that it may be a scorched earth. Everyone else will have killed each other off.

I don’t usually comment on fashion. I don’t know much about it, and I prefer to keep it that way. But I’m going to make an exception. And yes, this is somewhat in follow-up to my post on Monday.

Duchess Kate and Keira Knightly have made the news in recent days for *gasp* wearing the same dress more than once. Knightly is a bit more controversial, in that hers is her “second wedding dress”, ie. not the actual wedding gown, but a more casual dress to wear at post-ceremony festivities.

What amazes me is that this is news. When was it decided that celebrities can’t wear the same clothes more than once? It’s bad enough these poor rich people have to shell out thousands of dollars for an outfit in the first place. But to then insist they must wear them only once (and then what? Landfill? Donation? Burn? Storage?) and never again is just ridiculous, not to mention wasteful.

Granted, I do know plenty of non-celebrities who feel the same way about re-wearing clothes. There is a similar tradition around prom dresses, too. Why is this, exactly? My high school girlfriend had some stunning dresses. I wouldn’t have minded seeing her wear them more than once.

Besides, from what I can  tell, it’s women who force this standard upon themselves. I’ve not noticed any male celebrity making headlines for wearing the same tuxedo or suit more than once. Maybe it’s just because we set the standard so low that people are just glad we dress up. If so, then ‘high five’, guys! We rock! Let’s keep those standards low and sensible! Or perhaps it’s just that men are not expected to be fashion conscious. Again, somewhere someone set that expectation, and the rest of us men are indeed grateful!

But for what it’s worth, kudos to Kate and Keira for challenging that “conventional wisdom” (seriously, it’s really conventionalized foolishness!) on behalf of women everywhere. These are beautiful women, whose attractiveness is in no way diminished by the lack of newness in their outfits. We know they have money. They don’t need to prove it by throwing out every outfit after one wearing. Wouldn’t it be better if they used that money for something practical? A charity, perhaps? Greening their lifestyle? Campaign financing? Adopting a shelter dog? Why should their money have to go toward overpriced cloth they can never wear again?

I’ve said it before: It’s not the men who are forcing women into impractical fashions and expensive cosmetic maintenance. It’s the women who are pressuring the women into it. They’re the only ones who care. Of course men appreciate women who look nice, but I suspect we’re much more open minded about what looks good (witness the number of Country songs about their women looking so good in old jeans and a t-shirt). Women’s fashion is self-inflicted oppression.

Don’t believe me? Try this article on for size.

Seriously? That’s the second thing Ms. Guglielmetti notices? I didn’t notice it at all. I really had to look close to see it even after the writer called it to my attention. I posted the same picture on Monday and only one out of five commentors noticed the chapped lips. And I was inviting them to take notice, purposely heightening their awareness.

“… it’s always fascinating to spot even the tiniest non-perfect detail on an A-list celeb…” Always fascinating to whom? And why, exactly? I can guarantee no man I know was talking about this “non-perfect detail” around the water-cooler.

“…reassuring, in a way. See, even Keira Knightley doesn’t always have flawless lipstick on!” Huh? Is there anyone who seriously believed she does? Why would anyone expect her lipstick to always be flawless? You can almost hear the triumphant crowing tones in Ms. Guglielmetti’s voice when reading this.

As much as I like to think otherwise, men are not immune to this either. No, we’re not so likely to care whether Tom Cruise’s tuxedo is Armani or Gucci, or whether he’s worn it before, there is still a “male ideal” being used to sell us stuff we don’t need. My spam box full of male-enhancement products and my Facebook feed full of body-building products and techniques is evidence of that. But I don’t recall men dog-piling on other men for appearance-related sins the way women seem to. “That Tom Brady pic is photo-shopped! It’s got to be! No one can have such muscle-tone during the NFL off-season! He’s just trying to make the rest of us feel bad!” Yeah, right. Maybe fromPerez Hilton perhaps, but …well, I’ll leave it there.

But let’s face it. Much damage is done by the celeb-watching, fashion, beauty, and fitness mags and tv shows. Likewise Madison Avenue and Hollywood, who spend billions selling us an ideal and making us feel inadequate.  Men and women have been finding one another attractive and finding one another for millenia without their help, thank you very much.

How I wish we could toss out the whole appearance-conscious industrial complex and just be ourselves. All that money that could be better spent actually improving the world instead of dangling an unrealistic standard just out of our reach in order to make us buy one more product, one more procedure. No more running people down for their insignificant or imagined imperfections, celebrity or otherwise. No more outfit spotters counting wearings. Not likely to happen. It’s human nature to compete, keep score. We’ve got to have rules so we can know who wins.

I hope more and more celebrities follow Ms. Knightly’s and Duchess Catherine’s leads and move the world toward a more sensible fashion expectation. Considering the furor over some recent photos of the post-baby bodies of a few models, we’ve got a long way to go. Can we back off and let people just be themselves? The world will be a better place for it. If a few snarky celeb watchers and fashion reviewers get put out of work, well…that’s a good first step.

I do not like lettuce, especially in salad. I’ve overcome a lot of my food biases over the years, but that’s one I just can’t seem to manage. It just doesn’t taste good to me. It’s bitter, and crunchy in all the wrong ways. I admit it’s probably irrational, but there it is. I won’t eat lettuce if I can help it.

So you can imagine my response the other day when a colleague at work stopped by my desk with a lettuce. She’d found a really good sale on lettuce and decided to pick up a bunch and share them with her co-workers. She wanted to give me a head of lettuce.

That’s right. I laid into her. I mean, who wouldn’t? How arrogant of her to assume that just because she loves lettuce everyone else will, too. How dare she try to force her food choices on me! I don’t care how common it is to love lettuce–that’s actually kind of the point! All these lettuce-eaters really should be more sensitive to the rest of us who just don’t agree with their tastes.

Oh, she tried to defend herself, claiming she didn’t know I felt so strongly about lettuce, and that shouldn’t it be the thought that counts? I wouldn’t let her off that easily. I’m sick of lettuce lovers lording their produce over me. The threw that lettuce back at her and told her to either respect my food choices or leave me alone. The nerve of that woman! Seriously, I’m reconsidering our friendship.

Okay, you’re probably guessing by now that I didn’t really do that, and that I’m just trying to make a point. The whole story is allegorical, of course. I would never be that mean to someone with such clearly good intentions. I’m not sure I could be that mean.

That’s why a Facebook meme going around lately has really caught my attention. I decided to post about it rather than just share it. The meme addresses the ongoing controversy over wishing people a merry Christmas. The point they try to make is that if someone is wishing you well, regardless of the approach, why not just accept it in the spirit intended and count yourself fortunate to be the receiver of someone else’s good will.

Hear, hear, I say. Hannukah is very important to some people out there. Kwanzaa is important to other people. For that matter, Dr. Who is important to a lot of my friends. I know some people for whom Winter Solstice is a fond event. Knowing that, why on earth would I take offense if someone were to wish me a Happy Solstice? It’s something meaningful to them, and they want to share some of that happiness with me. Thank you! I’m pleased you would think of me.

So the more I think of it, these people who get bent out of shape because someone wishes them Merry Christmas are just sad. What has warped their minds so badly that they can’t just accept a little good will from another human being. Like it or not, Christmas is a rather large common denominator in this country and much of the world. If someone wants to share a little happiness they feel, what’s wrong with that?

I used to live in Boise, and the Boise State Bronco football team was approaching religion status. It got a bit much to take sometimes, I’ll admit. I went to Idaho State University, and our team stank. We were regularly demolished by BSU. But would I grouch at someone if they invited me to their tailgate party? Would I bite the head off my coworker who asked me what I thought of the last game, assuming I’d watched it? No. Of course not. Another human being tried to make a positive connection with me over something that brings them happiness. Why should that merit a negative reaction?

In spite of my overdose of Bronco-mania, I learned to pay attention to BSU football because it mattered to people who mattered to me. It helped to be able to do more than just decline invitations or cut off the conversation quickly. Even just a “I didn’t see it, but I heard we won. What did I miss out on?” and a few minutes of polite listening didn’t really cost me anything, showed my willingness to accept their attempt to connect, and built some good will between us. I’d like to think that’s a better outcome than getting offended and rejecting their good will.

On the other hand, the U of U / BYU rivalry down here in Salt Lake is just nuts. Seriously, people. Get a life. 😉 Just kidding. Kind of.

So I guess those of you who prefer to get offended in some attempt to teach the oppressive majority a thing or two about sensitivity, feel free to continue if you must. You’re certainly teaching people things, but it’s not the lesson you intended, I suspect. I believe it’s better to “be a good human being”, as the meme goes, and give and accept kind thoughts and wishes freely. There is far too little of that as is. 

So go ahead, wish me a Excellent Festivus, Ramadan, or Holi. And may I just say, may your sonic screwdriver never run out of power.

(Okay, Whovians, seriously, if there’s a proper Who-related greeting of good will, please let me know. I don’t want to sound lame. 😉 )

(Yeah, I know. Too late!)

(Happy Hannukah anyway!)