As MrsD mentioned, we had the pleasure of dropping in to hobnob with several of our fellow wizards in the blogging world during the recent Darwin family travels. At various points in the Great Ohio Trip we spent time with:
Entropy
Fr. Fox
Jay Anderson
TS
Betty Duffy
Rich Leonardi
Scott Carson
And on previous occasions we've had the pleasure of meeting:
Tito
Blackadder
Jenn
JulieD
The Opinionated Homeschooler
LitChic
The Bettinellis
Cranky Conservative (and the missus)
(My apologies to whoever I have forgotten. It wasn't intentional!)
Even in our increasingly wired culture, there's still a slightly spooky air to the statement, "I'm getting together with someone I met online." Not only does it make it sound like one of you has a greater than average chance of being a serial killer, it has a certain antisocial ring to it, suggesting that one spends most of one's time in a basement, smelling of old socks and lit only by the glow of the monitor. I must admit, I'm rather cautious to admit to non-blogsphere people that I originally met some of my friends and coworkers through blogging. "We knew each other in Catholic circles" tends to be my way of explaining it away.
Yet for all that I am hesitant to admit to seeking out chances to meet those we interact with online, I've found it to be a universally positive experience. Admittedly, the etiquette of meeting for the first time someone one has talked to for years can be a little awkward at first. But modern social relations are nothing if not challenging from a social custom point of view. (How as poor MrsD to navigate the traditional "nice girls don't kiss on the first date" stricture when we were both car-less freshman on the same college campus? Our first "date" was a number of months after we started "going out". But I digress.)
For me, the reason why meeting bloggers is so enjoyable is because one has already been able to find out a great deal about the other person through a less socially threatening medium. I am, by habit, a very cautious conversationalist. For all my online opinionating, I'm very hesitant to bring up politics or religion or indeed my more unusually interests in history, literature and languages with people I don't already have some indication would be interested and congenial. Indeed, I usually stick to discussing with people mostly those things in which they have already stated an interest. This leads to safe and low conflict conversations, but with other people who are equally careful in their discussion habits, it can result in never getting too far into any topic.
However, reading what someone else has written over the course of months or years (and reading their comments on my own writing) provides enough of a layer of familiarity that it seems possible to discuss a wide range of topics without too much fear of either alienating (or boring) the other person, or needlessly exposing myself to disapprobation. In effect, the blogsphere acts as a social sifting mechanism. It allows us to form sub-communities of people with at least a certain level of common interest and acceptance. And this commonality makes much more interesting conversation possible. And it also gives one enough information about the specific person to know of possible shared interests, or areas where one ought not to throw one's elbows around. (So for instance, I know not to issue any smack talk against rap when visiting with Jenn and certainly not to bring along a pet scorpion, lest she feel the necessity of instigating a throw down.)
For all that blogging is often knocked as one of the lower forms of communication, in my more self congratulatory moments, I like to imagine the blogsphere as a sort of modern equivalent to the 18th century coffee house culture. Not only did different coffee houses in the great cities like London and Paris and Vienna have different characters (in some people congregated to discuss business, in others philosophy and politics, in other literature, in others science) but there was a thriving genre of one to two sheet daily papers put out by individual writers or writing teams which were distributed to the coffee houses and served as both reading material and conversation topics. Addison & Steele's The Spectator was one of the early successes in this genre, and Samuel Johnson's The Rambler was a late one, but there were many others -- less successful and less remembered. At one point Boswell writes about his wonder at seeing Johnson dash off an issue of The Rambler in one sitting, longhand, and send it off to the printer without revisions. If only my own unrevised (or even revised) writing could be of such value.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Orphan Openings: Cooking Edition
[It's time for a new feature on DarwinCatholic, and since we're much better at starting things than finishing them, the task of writing openings for fiction that we have no intention of completing seems an obvious one for us. We can promise many more, but for the quality improving, I cannot speak.]
Working in the hot kitchen often made Gertrude cross, and so it was with her stores of patience already depleted that she discovered that her husband, so often obstinate in life, refused to fit into the cauldron unless completely deboned and sectioned.
Working in the hot kitchen often made Gertrude cross, and so it was with her stores of patience already depleted that she discovered that her husband, so often obstinate in life, refused to fit into the cauldron unless completely deboned and sectioned.
And now for something completely different...
The Nietzsche Family Circus:
Believe me! The secret of reaping the
Believe me! The secret of reaping thegreatest fruitfulness and the greatest
enjoyment from life is to live dangerously!
enjoyment from life is to live dangerously!
Still alive, kinda
Sometime this week we will resume posting in a semi-regular fashion. Today, however, we are still recovering from our 23 hour roadtrip on Saturday. Family togetherness, y'all!
Our thanks go out to all the wonderful bloggers we were privileged to visit during our trip:
Entropy
Fr. Fox
Jay Anderson
TS
Betty Duffy
Rich Leonardi
Scott Carson
Our thanks go out to all the wonderful bloggers we were privileged to visit during our trip:
Entropy
Fr. Fox
Jay Anderson
TS
Betty Duffy
Rich Leonardi
Scott Carson
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Conservative Catholicism and Liberal Islam
I just finished reading Thomas F. Madden's Empires of Trust: How Rome Built--and America Is Building--a New World
, and I'm planning to write a couple posts shortly reviewing the book and the ideas it presents. As a prelude of sorts, however, I'd like to revisit some thinking I did a while back:
A month or so ago I finally had the chance to read Steven Vincent's account of life outside the green zone in post-war Iraq: In The Red Zone. It's a very fair book, and worth a read whether you support the war in Iraq or not. The author, since then killed in Iraq by militants, was a New York art reporter who watched the attacks on 9-11 and supported the Iraq war. Having supported the war, he felt like he should go over and see what was really happening over there. The book has the advantage of being writing from a culture writer's point of view rather than a political writer's. And although Vincent starts out as an enthusiastic supporter of the project, he ends unsure whether it's possible for democracy to flourish in Iraq. (I'd be curious to read later work by him and see what he thought of the elections and the provisional constitution, both of which post date his book.)
This reminded me of my long held intention to read more about Islam, so I pull off the shelf the copy of Living Islam (now apparently out of print) by Ahbar S Ahmed which I'd bought on remainder some nine years ago and had been meaning to read ever since. Living Islam is half cultural history, half apologia (think a very, very light weight version of Letters To A Young Catholic with lots of pictures and basic intro information.)
To round things off, I'm currently reading Thomas F. Madden's The New Concise History of the Crusades.
Now, one of the things that struck Vincent in touring Iraq is that some of what he discovered were the best allies of a democratic Iraq were people that most conservatives would be hesitant to ally with. For instance, the Iraqi Communist Party was, contrary to the history of most of their comrades, one of the few political parties not maintaining a militia to enforce their will by violence. Similarly, radical secularist feminists tended to be the advocates for what American conservatives would consider to be standard human rights for women. Meanwhile Sistani, the voice of moderate to conservative religion on the Shia side, had an on-again off-again relationship with ideas of democracy, much less religious freedom.
All of which led me (slowly as usual) to some thinking on ecumenism. Now, I'm used to thinking of ecumenism in terms of Christian doctrine. In this sense, those groups which take Christian revelation most seriously are often 'closer' to Catholicism than those which see Christian revelation as a non-authoritative step (one among many) in the conversation between God and creation. I've got used to, generally, seeing the more orthodox or conservative elements of a given Christian tradition as 'more faithful' and the less orthodox ones as 'less faithful'. (I don't mean strictly adherence to scripture here. Indeed, I'd see the Orthodox as 'more faithful' to the Christian revelation than any Protestant denomination specifically because they have retained the Church's understanding of the correct relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Within the Protestant spectrum, I would see those who have remained most faithful to both Scripture and Tradition as most faithful to historic Christianity, though I'd see those who accept scripture along as more faithful that those who do not feel strictly bound by either Scripture or Tradition
Similarly, looking at Judaism, I tend to admire the more conservative elements of Judaism over the heavily 'reformed' groups, in that they seem to have remained most faithful to God's original revelation to Israel. Since Judaism is, at root, fully true (though not encompassing all truth) it seems clear that more strict adherence to that core is 'better' than less strict adherence.
But what, then, is one to make of Islam? Some conservative Catholics seem to look at our desire to see the Middle East become more secular and say: "Secularization has brought divorce, fornication, abortion, pornography and a host of other moral horrors into the mainstream. Why should we think that Islamic countries ought to follow us down the devil's road to secular hedonism?"
Certainly, no good Christian would actively suggest that Muslims practice fornication, abortion, etc. However, while the fallen nature of humanity may mean that ceasing to publicly execute people for fornication will result in more fornication, that does not mean ending the practice of executing fornicators is the same thing as encouraging fornication.
The difficulty in knowing which horse to back in the world of Islam is that from a Catholic point of view, Islam does not merely lack the whole truth, but also contains elements (indeed, major elements) which are directly contrary to truth. (And it seems, from an Islamic point of view, the same would have to be said about Catholicism.) So while in a the sense that 'anything worth doing is worth doing well' it might seem that the most orthodox understanding of Islam is the one that we should admire -- since being a firm believer in Islam means firmly believing not only some things that are true, but also others that are false -- in fact an orthodox Muslim is in firmer opposition to Catholicism than a 'liberal' Muslim.
One of the dangers of discussing another religion is lack of context. Perhaps what looks to me from the outside to be 'orthodox' Islam is in fact (by the standards of other Muslims) a radically imbalanced form of Islam, in the same way that someone looking at Christianity from the outside might assume that "Bible alone" Christians were more 'orthodox' than Catholics and Orthodox are. Indeed, I wonder if this is an impossible question to answer for someone who doesn't accept the truth of Islam. I think, at best, from the outside one could identify that line of thought which is most historically consistent in an religion. I am fairly confident that such an outside observer would identify Orthodoxy and Catholicism as the forms of Christianity with the most ancient lineage.
But from the point of view of Catholicism, which asserts that while containing some truth Islam contains major tenets which are false, should we see the most historically prevalent form of Islam as the "best" form of Islam? Should we encourage the form which, through liberalizing of the original Koranic meaning, comes closer to a Catholic understanding of the human person, morality, and man's mission in the world? (Or at least is less of a threat to them.) Should we smile on any form of Islam at all?
From the point of view of basic human rights, it seems that 'liberal Islam' is the friend of Catholicism, not orthodox or historic Islam. But then, conservatism is, in this sense, a relative term. Modern orthodox Catholicism might be described as 'liberal' in comparison to 1300 AD Catholicism.
I've read a number of secular commentators say that "Islam needs a Martin Luther" -- though I suspect that what they actually mean is, "Islam needs a Bishop Spong" -- and it is certainly the case that both for political stability in the Middle East and for Christian missionaries to have more of a chance to reach that part of the world, it would be of great help to us as outsiders if a much more "liberal" and "moderate" form of Islam were to take hold. And yet it grates against me to wish against others modernizing trends which I oppose when applied to my own faith. Though I do not think that the Koran is the word of God, it hardly seems right to encourage people to take what they believe to be the word of God and change it in order to make it fit the spirit of the age.
, and I'm planning to write a couple posts shortly reviewing the book and the ideas it presents. As a prelude of sorts, however, I'd like to revisit some thinking I did a while back:A month or so ago I finally had the chance to read Steven Vincent's account of life outside the green zone in post-war Iraq: In The Red Zone. It's a very fair book, and worth a read whether you support the war in Iraq or not. The author, since then killed in Iraq by militants, was a New York art reporter who watched the attacks on 9-11 and supported the Iraq war. Having supported the war, he felt like he should go over and see what was really happening over there. The book has the advantage of being writing from a culture writer's point of view rather than a political writer's. And although Vincent starts out as an enthusiastic supporter of the project, he ends unsure whether it's possible for democracy to flourish in Iraq. (I'd be curious to read later work by him and see what he thought of the elections and the provisional constitution, both of which post date his book.)
This reminded me of my long held intention to read more about Islam, so I pull off the shelf the copy of Living Islam (now apparently out of print) by Ahbar S Ahmed which I'd bought on remainder some nine years ago and had been meaning to read ever since. Living Islam is half cultural history, half apologia (think a very, very light weight version of Letters To A Young Catholic with lots of pictures and basic intro information.)
To round things off, I'm currently reading Thomas F. Madden's The New Concise History of the Crusades.
Now, one of the things that struck Vincent in touring Iraq is that some of what he discovered were the best allies of a democratic Iraq were people that most conservatives would be hesitant to ally with. For instance, the Iraqi Communist Party was, contrary to the history of most of their comrades, one of the few political parties not maintaining a militia to enforce their will by violence. Similarly, radical secularist feminists tended to be the advocates for what American conservatives would consider to be standard human rights for women. Meanwhile Sistani, the voice of moderate to conservative religion on the Shia side, had an on-again off-again relationship with ideas of democracy, much less religious freedom.
All of which led me (slowly as usual) to some thinking on ecumenism. Now, I'm used to thinking of ecumenism in terms of Christian doctrine. In this sense, those groups which take Christian revelation most seriously are often 'closer' to Catholicism than those which see Christian revelation as a non-authoritative step (one among many) in the conversation between God and creation. I've got used to, generally, seeing the more orthodox or conservative elements of a given Christian tradition as 'more faithful' and the less orthodox ones as 'less faithful'. (I don't mean strictly adherence to scripture here. Indeed, I'd see the Orthodox as 'more faithful' to the Christian revelation than any Protestant denomination specifically because they have retained the Church's understanding of the correct relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Within the Protestant spectrum, I would see those who have remained most faithful to both Scripture and Tradition as most faithful to historic Christianity, though I'd see those who accept scripture along as more faithful that those who do not feel strictly bound by either Scripture or Tradition
Similarly, looking at Judaism, I tend to admire the more conservative elements of Judaism over the heavily 'reformed' groups, in that they seem to have remained most faithful to God's original revelation to Israel. Since Judaism is, at root, fully true (though not encompassing all truth) it seems clear that more strict adherence to that core is 'better' than less strict adherence.
But what, then, is one to make of Islam? Some conservative Catholics seem to look at our desire to see the Middle East become more secular and say: "Secularization has brought divorce, fornication, abortion, pornography and a host of other moral horrors into the mainstream. Why should we think that Islamic countries ought to follow us down the devil's road to secular hedonism?"
Certainly, no good Christian would actively suggest that Muslims practice fornication, abortion, etc. However, while the fallen nature of humanity may mean that ceasing to publicly execute people for fornication will result in more fornication, that does not mean ending the practice of executing fornicators is the same thing as encouraging fornication.
The difficulty in knowing which horse to back in the world of Islam is that from a Catholic point of view, Islam does not merely lack the whole truth, but also contains elements (indeed, major elements) which are directly contrary to truth. (And it seems, from an Islamic point of view, the same would have to be said about Catholicism.) So while in a the sense that 'anything worth doing is worth doing well' it might seem that the most orthodox understanding of Islam is the one that we should admire -- since being a firm believer in Islam means firmly believing not only some things that are true, but also others that are false -- in fact an orthodox Muslim is in firmer opposition to Catholicism than a 'liberal' Muslim.
One of the dangers of discussing another religion is lack of context. Perhaps what looks to me from the outside to be 'orthodox' Islam is in fact (by the standards of other Muslims) a radically imbalanced form of Islam, in the same way that someone looking at Christianity from the outside might assume that "Bible alone" Christians were more 'orthodox' than Catholics and Orthodox are. Indeed, I wonder if this is an impossible question to answer for someone who doesn't accept the truth of Islam. I think, at best, from the outside one could identify that line of thought which is most historically consistent in an religion. I am fairly confident that such an outside observer would identify Orthodoxy and Catholicism as the forms of Christianity with the most ancient lineage.
But from the point of view of Catholicism, which asserts that while containing some truth Islam contains major tenets which are false, should we see the most historically prevalent form of Islam as the "best" form of Islam? Should we encourage the form which, through liberalizing of the original Koranic meaning, comes closer to a Catholic understanding of the human person, morality, and man's mission in the world? (Or at least is less of a threat to them.) Should we smile on any form of Islam at all?
From the point of view of basic human rights, it seems that 'liberal Islam' is the friend of Catholicism, not orthodox or historic Islam. But then, conservatism is, in this sense, a relative term. Modern orthodox Catholicism might be described as 'liberal' in comparison to 1300 AD Catholicism.
I've read a number of secular commentators say that "Islam needs a Martin Luther" -- though I suspect that what they actually mean is, "Islam needs a Bishop Spong" -- and it is certainly the case that both for political stability in the Middle East and for Christian missionaries to have more of a chance to reach that part of the world, it would be of great help to us as outsiders if a much more "liberal" and "moderate" form of Islam were to take hold. And yet it grates against me to wish against others modernizing trends which I oppose when applied to my own faith. Though I do not think that the Koran is the word of God, it hardly seems right to encourage people to take what they believe to be the word of God and change it in order to make it fit the spirit of the age.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Happy birthday to the best sister ever (except for my other sister)
In honor of my sister Elizabeth's birthday, here's the gist of the mostly-impromptu toast I offered at her wedding along with my younger sister Anna (we divvied up duties as the matron and maid of honor):
As I look around at everyone having a great time at the reception, I'm so impressed at how Elizabeth organized this whole wedding. All the organizational skills in our family, those genes bypassed me and went straight to Elizabeth, and there was nothing left over for Anna.
As I watched Elizabeth tonight on the altar, praying during her wedding ceremony, it struck me for the first time: she's not just my little sister anymore. She's a mature, gentle, gracious woman, fully capable of planning out almost every detail of this beautiful wedding, and she'll be a wonderful, loving wife to Eric. And a wonderful mother to my future nieces and nephews, of whom I expect plenty.
As I look around at everyone having a great time at the reception, I'm so impressed at how Elizabeth organized this whole wedding. All the organizational skills in our family, those genes bypassed me and went straight to Elizabeth, and there was nothing left over for Anna.
As I watched Elizabeth tonight on the altar, praying during her wedding ceremony, it struck me for the first time: she's not just my little sister anymore. She's a mature, gentle, gracious woman, fully capable of planning out almost every detail of this beautiful wedding, and she'll be a wonderful, loving wife to Eric. And a wonderful mother to my future nieces and nephews, of whom I expect plenty.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Having a Great Time, Wish You Were Here
MrsDarwin here, just now surfacing to say that the wedding was the most beautiful I've ever attended, bar none. The day was a superlative. Even nature cooperated -- there was 70% chance of showers, but instead the day was overcast and the light diffused, making for some marvelous pictures in the park. My sister was the most radiant, lovely bride, and the wedding mass itself went without a hitch. Many thanks go to the celebrant, Fr. Schnippel, who recognized us as The Darwins even though we were in our street clothes.
And the reception was about the most kickin' event ever. Good food, good company, old friends, and several special live performances made this the best reception in the history of receptions. The bar has been set high for any other wedding I attend from now on, because I'll be thinking, "How does this compare to the Egan/Wolf wedding of '09?"
As the groomsmen were all standing around the parking lot of the reception hall, waiting for the ladies to arrive for pictures, they were talking about needing an omen for the day. At that point, one of them looks up and says, "Look, a hawk with a snake!" Sure enough, there was a hawk circling above them with a snake in its beak. Anyone want to read the entrails and interpret for us?
And the reception was about the most kickin' event ever. Good food, good company, old friends, and several special live performances made this the best reception in the history of receptions. The bar has been set high for any other wedding I attend from now on, because I'll be thinking, "How does this compare to the Egan/Wolf wedding of '09?"
As the groomsmen were all standing around the parking lot of the reception hall, waiting for the ladies to arrive for pictures, they were talking about needing an omen for the day. At that point, one of them looks up and says, "Look, a hawk with a snake!" Sure enough, there was a hawk circling above them with a snake in its beak. Anyone want to read the entrails and interpret for us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
