Rapture Culture and Censorship

"We censored ourselves, hoping that our censorship might prevent conflict and promote connection."

I have had little to no experience with evangelism  or "rapture culture".  However, I do vividly remember looking at the Left Behind series at a school book fair and wondering why everyone was so connected over the idea of the apocalypse.   Instead of asking questions, I listened and pretended to have the same vested interest in the subject.

I now know that the Left Behind series is Christian literature, and why it made no sense to me.  Where I haven't experienced any growth is emerging beyond a listener in a conversation about religion.  While I have a basic knowledge of the Bible thanks to my first year religion class and certainly enough opinion on the subject, I never speak out, fearing that I'll offend. 

I would really like to hear more about this quote from Amy Frykholm tomorrow.  Is there a growing expectation of censorship for opinions that are opposite fundamentalist Christian views? 

Standing on the Side of Love

I had the great privilege of hearing reverend Delfin Bautista, a figurehead of the Unitarian Universalist movement Standing on the Side of Love, speak twice this weekend.  After a wonderful dinner at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Northfield, Delfin spoke of his  personcal struggles and of hate crimes and exclusion in the present.  From the recent deaths of LGBT teens across America, to anti-gay legislation in the works in Uganda.

Before I heard Delfin Bautista speak, I never felt close to issues of LGBT rights.  I've been distanced, and thought that my acceptance was enough and no further effort was required on my part.  I now realize that believing in love means actively doing ordinary things with an extraordinary amount of kindness.  There is a difference between tolerance and inclusion.  Every time I the word "gay" slips out of my mouth as a synonym for stupid, I am a hypocrite.  Avoiding people with different sexual preferences than me because I feel "uncomfortable" makes me a hypocrite.  I have a lot of growing to do.

I've come to the conclusion that if I truly believe in the dignity of every human being, I need stop being passive. 

Religion and Democracy

"The revivals encouraged women to play a more active part not only in narrowly spiritual matters but also in the larger arenas of social reform.  Often in the context of revival, women strove mightily against slavery, for better treatment of the mentally ill, and later in the temperance crusade and social work in the cities."

I've never perceived religion as a driving source for social change.  It was only after class on Friday that I was able to gain an understanding of why the Second Great Awakening was important to American history.  In keeping with Abraham Lincoln's definition of democracy, government "by the people for the people", because religion shapes the views of the people, it thus shapes the nation.  What makes the United States unique is that there is a seperation of church and state, that the government does not support or authorize religion and allows for a free market of religions all competing against one another.

When people like Charles Finney set up revivals in the woods, they were advocating political change as they knew how.  I'd like to continue to examine the contrast between social movements from the past and present.

Me on Democracy

I do not share Whitman's view of Democracy. Within what he describes, he promotes unity of the Nation above all else. He states that “the fear of conflicting and irreconcilable interiors, and the lack of a common skeleton knitting all close continually haunts me.” in reference to the divide over slavery that ignited a civil war. I think he would be surprised that the Confederate flag is still flown in parts of the south and that regionalism plays a role in the United States.

The deciding factor of our representative democracy is the majority vote. As a result, not everyone will always get what they want. I believe the most important thing is agreeing to disagree and not to allow the majority decision trample minority rights. More often than not, the flaws of Democracy are more readily apparent to me than its success. The workings of our Democracy are complex, and stray far from “pure” Democracy where every single citizen has equal input. As mentioned in our class discussion, the population of qualified voters has to be defined. Then, lines must be drawn and where will it end? Should only land owning white males allowed to vote?

Whitman alludes to Lincoln's definition of Democracy from the Gettysburg address “The government of the People, by the people, for the people.” and continues to assert his opinion “But the People are ungrammatical, untidy, and their sins gaunt and ill-bred”. This is where Whitman and I disagree. As a result of disparity in unequal distribution of wealth and resources, upper class citizens emerge as more “qualified” voters able to distinguish their opinion.

What I do agree with Whitman about is that the to obtain struggle of Democracy has not changed, merely the arguments. Today, clearly slavery is no longer an debated issue. Instead, we are faced with illegal immigration and whether or not people have human rights without documentation. Again, the issue of who is considered a citizen, and furthermore, qualified to vote.

The best aspect of Democracy is its evolving, malleable nature. While it is not perfect, it can change. The worst, is that it requires citizens to be engaged and many people would rather ignore politics, only becoming involved when things impact their lifestyle. Citizens have a choice, and if they choose to neglect politics, the system will erode.

As the other article points out, for Whitman's faults, he has merits and that is why we are studying his democratic vistas. In Whitman's time, he viewed democracy as in “embryo condition” and to this day, democracy has is growing to maturity.

Food & Freedom

While this does not relate to our readings, I feel the need to record an important experience I had while volunteering that the Foodshelf program at the Northfield Community Action Center. 

I recently began volunteering for the Foodshelf program, and will continue the Tuesday following Thanksgiving Break.  While there, I was occupied with helping patrons collect the amount of food they were entitled to.  This was determined by "household size", or the size of a family.  I was specifically instructed to say no to requests that exceeded a person's allotment.  While there was ample food, and I'm positive that no patrons are going hungry as a result, I reflected on the opposite situation we have here on the hill.

In the Caf, every meal is all-you-can eat.  If it's there, you can take as much as you wish, and no one is going to say no.  Also, I'm sure the Caf produces a fair amount of waste.  I myself am guilty of throwing away food. 

One of the freedoms we've discussed in class was FDR's "freedom from want".  While at this hill, this need is satiated, more than necessary.  While at the Northfield foodshelf, there are more wants than can possibly be met.

I'd like to explore this difference in greater detail.

Architecture and education

"The design of buildings and landscape is thought to have little or nothing to do with the process of learning or the quality of scholarship that occurs in a particular place. But in fact, buildings and landscape reflect a hidden curriculum that powerfully influ­ences the learning process." from Architecture and Education by David Orr

When choosing a college, I was bombarded with brochures depicting the "typical college setting".  It seemed impossible to me that a collegiate education could have an ugly setting.  While I support Off in his claim that the collegiate experience draws from the architecture of the college, not all of my learning for American Conversations has taken place inside of Boe Chapel/Basement.  

I've learned far more from my fellow students thatn I have gazing at any building on campus.  However, I will admit that the reference room of the library with all the imporatant pictures of college affiliates is a good motivation for study. 

To draw any conclusion, I must refer to a principle form my statistics class.  Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because the architecture of buildings may play a part in a students education does not mean the the architecture was the main cause of education. 

My opinion on architecture

Prior to American Conversations, I'll admit that I never gave much thought to architecture.  I thought that the sense of place a physical location had just happened.  After our readings, I realize that this was a mistake.  St. Olaf has only existed since 1874.  Before then, Manitou Heights was a forested hill near a small town that had never thought to build outside the confines of their established town.  If I were to have seen St. Olaf in 1874, I probably wouldn't recognize it.  Not only has St. Olaf changed, but it has changed purposefully, more specific, it has changed to attract an evolving student body. 

For me, this is most obvious when comparing the two science buildings, as we discussed in class.  Holland Hall was the original science building, and it was constructed in the Norman Gothic style.  Regents Hall ,the new building was constructed to be a "green" building, is LEED certified, and constructed with modern architecture. 

This comparison only begins to scratch the surface on the changing nature of science.  When Holland Hall was constructed, it was feared that science would overtake religion, so the science building was within the confines of traditionally religious architecture.  Now, Regents Hall represents a new era and not only relfects the changing attitude of St. Olaf, but society as a whole