MIRRORS ARE USEFUL, EVEN IF YOU DON’T ALWAYS LIKE WHAT YOU SEE.

My father was a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Alberta from 1944 till they “threw the bums out” in 1971, and a Cabinet Minister beginning in 1955. He was generally treated respectfully by supporters and opponents alike but he was also, from time to time, subjected to both fawning adulation and nasty criticism. He took it all in stride and, for the most part, we kids did too. Just life in the public eye. Occasionally I was the focus of a little misdirected abuse, but it was kind of fun being a minor celebrity. And one of the things I most enjoyed was watching my friends discover who my dad really was, as opposed to the impression they had gathered through the media. Politicians are seldom as good or bad, wise or foolish, caring or uncaring as they seem on TV.

When friends got to know me, one of the things they were often surprised to discover was the cartoon wall in our family room where Dad hung the originals of many of the political cartoons that had lampooned him over the years. He loved those things, partly, I suppose, because they affirmed his significance, but also because they burst his bubble a little, and critiqued his ideas. Everyone needs critics and bubble bursters. They help you see yourself as others see you.

C. J. Peiffer, in a comment on my October 18 post last year Let God be God mentioned that she, like Mark Twain, is a religious sceptic, and recommended his Letters From the Earth and Captain Stormfield’s Visit to Heaven. Both of these books are indeed well worth reading, especially for those who would consider themselves religious.

Mark Twain was a great social satirist and critic, and particularly so when it came to religion. And I, being what many would call a religious person, particularly enjoy him, as most sensible religious people do. You see, being a religious person doesn’t mean believing in religion, any more than being a politician means believing in politics. Religious people and politicians believe in their own religion and politics. Politicians, for example, generally think most politicians are idiots. Those in their own party are a cut above perhaps, but even there they will find plenty who need improvement. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, etc. believe what they believe, which is generally a subset of the things believed even in their own faith community. As a Catholic I found lots of religious ideas, even Catholic ones, laughable. And this didn’t change when I became a Baptist. So, an awful lot of the things Twain ridicules, most religious people also find ridiculous. Religion, like all things human, is peculiar, to say the least.

Mark Twain scoffed at religion, not God. He was irreverent, not blasphemous. Some couldn’t and can’t make that distinction because they fail to distinguish between their ideas about God and God him/her/itself. -- See what I mean? -- There is a good biblical word for the confusion of our notions of God with God as God is. The word is “idolatry”, and the function of the religious sceptic is to tear down idols. But, if you happen to be worshipping that idol at the time, you’re not going to like it.

The Mark Twains of the world are, to religious folk, what political cartoonists are to politicians; they burst our bubbles, critique our ideas, and help us see ourselves as others see us. This is good, and it can also be fun and funny.

Mr. Deity is a great example of contemporary religious satire, but because it arises in North American culture its target is largely Judeo-Christian religion. I suspect, therefore, that Jews and Christians enjoy it most. But if you are not a Jew or Christian, don't feel left out, you can make your own. Only thing is, if a community wants to reap the benefits of having satirists and critics within it you can’t go shooting them. Not that satirists and critics won’t risk getting shot, just that the ones who will aren’t usually the really funny ones.

Oh, by the way, Happy St. Patrick’s Day to all the Irish and Irish wannabes out there. Don’t know if we have any Leprechauns left in Alberta. But I notice we don’t have any Lepre Colonies.

EDUCATION IS A COMMUNITY THING.

Back in January I posted a blog, Just One Little Word, about a controversy swirling around the teaching of Mark Twain’s masterpiece, Huckleberry Finn. In response I received a very gracious comment from C. J. Peiffer, an artist and writer in Pennsylvania. How cool is that? I sit in my comfy-chair spilling out my thoughts, such as they are, to people all over the world, and if they are kind enough to do so, they can take the time to write a very encouraging and enlightening note. How cool is that? Of course, if Mark Twain were here he would have some wry and witty comment to make about the Internet but, after worming my way into the same paragraph with this comic genius I find, How cool is that?, is all I have to say. Well, even a cat can look at a king.

In her comment C. J. tells of a project she was part of aimed at teaching Huck Finn to middle school students (junior high), in spite of the oft repeated N-word. They did it by raising the scope and profile of the project, creating an entire unit around the book and making it an occasion for teaching history, art, music, science and drama. They rather than suppressing the N-word they promoted serious discussion of it and the problem of racism. And they involved parents by inviting them to a meeting to discuss their concerns. No one showed up, which might cause someone to suggest that all this effort was unnecessary, but I expect it indicates that the real concern parents have about these sorts of things is that they will be marginalized and ignored. It’s amazing how much trust and good will we have for people who respect and involve us.

And herein lies a host of great lessons:

1. Fighting back or withdrawing are often the only alternatives we consider when a project we believe in encounters resistance, On many occasions, however, what we really need to do is press in. By this I mean, continue to pursue our goals in such a way as to involve those who are concerned.
2. People have every right to resist, especially when something we are doing reaches into their personal or family life in a significant way. We need to value what they have to say, even if it upsets us or we feel we will disagree.
3. People generally have good reasons for concern, if only from their own perspective. When we accept and acknowledge them we often find that this is really all they want.
4. We learn more form our opponents than from those with whom we already agree. Regardless how bright or right we are, we cannot see all sides of anything at once. If we foster discussion and debate we may be amazed at what we learn.

The project C. J. Peiffer describes is an example of great teaching, Schools are among the most important institutions in any community but as such they need to involve the community. As they say, it takes a village to raise a child.

RETIRED!

I took a bit of a break there, from January 25 to March 10. I would have given advance notice if it had been planned, but it took me by surprise. I guess I just sort of ran out of steam. But I’m feeling rejuvenated so I think I’ll be back at it for a while. Perhaps I’ll just bring you up to date on a few things that have been happening in my life. Might explain why the blogging fell off a bit.

We’re getting ready to move to North Bay, Ontario, to be closer to our two little granddaughters, Maggie and Esther. They are 3.69 and .93 years old respectively. They live with my son, Nathan, and daughter-in-law, Debbie, and it will be great to be closer to all of them.

I also have a son, Mark, who lives in Toronto, about four hours from North Bay. He is lead singer – not sure I’ve actually heard him call it that, but I think that’s what it is – in a band called Pants & Tie. He’s a lot of fun and it will be great to be closer to him. He doesn’t have any children to share with us, but he’s full of amazing thoughts and perspectives, and has done a lot to expand my consciousness. All my kids do that, but he’s a real cultural explorer. I once asked him if he minded that sometimes I don’t quite get his music. “Dad”, he replied, “if you got it I’d have to change.”

We’re leaving Edmonton where we have a daughter, Katie, and our favourite son-in-law, Travis. They have two teenaged boys, Jarvis and Bronson. Great kids, great daughter, great son-in-law, all of whom we will miss.

And we’re moving further away from Victoria where our youngest son, James, lives with his girlfriend, Julie. We will miss them both. There’s something special about each kid you have, but youngests, no matter how old they get, are always youngests.

And all this is happening because I’m retiring. I turn 63 today, and it happens to be the same day my EI claim runs out. I am now officially retired. I always thought I’d have a big party at my church and get a gold watch, or more likely another Bible. – People always think a Bible is a great gift for a preacher, but it’s a bit like giving a hammer to a carpenter. – Anyway, my retirement actually started in the wee hours of the morning, as I sat, all alone, in my favourite chair, clicking a mouse. And another thing... I’ve pretty much worn out my chair so we’re not taking it. O well... This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper. (T. S. Eliot – The Hollow Men)

But, as we all know, it’s the way things begin too, and this is the beginning of something, not the end. Cosmologists tell me the cosmos began with a Big Bang, but my little world began with a whole lot of whimpering. I’ve always been that way, so don’t pay me any mind. This is going to be great.

THE BIBLE MATTERS MORE TO ME THAN EITHER CREATION OR EVOLUTION

The church we attend, Epic Student Church, on the University of Alberta campus, meets at Dewey’s Pub, and professors are often invited to come and share. It’s interesting to see that, contrary to what we were told to anticipate, faith in God has not disappeared, even among the intelligentsia.

A while back Dr. Denis Lamouraux, who holds doctoral degrees is dentistry, biology and theology, spoke about his faith as a committed Christian and a committed evolutionary biologist. It was fascinating, and an encouragement to students who are trying to pick their way through the science/religion minefield. Following Dr. Lamouraux’s presentation one of the students asked if, for the sake of balance, we could have a Creation Scientist share, and last Tuesday evening Dr. Margaret Helder, a botanist and Vice-President of the Creation Science Association of Alberta, spoke to us.

Dr. Helder was very interesting. She is clearly a real scientist, despite the oft repeated assertion that no “real” scientist can be a creationist. But, I must admit, I found her pretty unconvincing. It’s not her science, however, but her Bible reading, that troubles me.

Creation Science is more about the Bible than it is about science, and more about a particular way of reading and interpreting the Bible than about the Bible per se. The Creation Science folks insist on a strictly literal reading of the biblical text, which they believe conveys factual and utterly reliable information about history, cosmology, biology, etc. And, as a result, they reject scientific theories and speculations that conflict with their literal Bible reading. What’s interesting to me, however, is that they miss the internal clues (those within the text) that should cause them to question their approach.

For example, as a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis requires, Dr. Helder declared that she believes the universe was created in six, literal, twenty-four hour days. (“And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day.”). But this means the earth and vegetation were created before the sun was created. What was the earth orbiting for four days? And what does it mean to speak of evening and morning when there is no sun?

And she said she was completely untroubled by the fact that a literal reading of the text places the story of Abraham only 350 years after the flood. Think about it. This means that Abraham left the city of Ur, among the Chaldeans, to settle in another city, Haran, among the Canaanites. He then went down to Egypt and had dealings with the Pharaoh, and later witnessed the destruction of Sodom, another city. And all this just three and half centuries after the entire world, except for one family and two specimens from each species of animal, bird and insect, had been utterly destroyed. When I pressed her, her only response was that populations grow much faster than most people imagine. No doubt they do, but it seems obvious to me that cities, and peoples, and cultures, take much more time than a strict, literal reading of the text allows.

So the concern I have about Creation Science is not about the theory of Evolution. Frankly, I think it’s great when scientific theories are challenged; it helps them evolve. But the literalistic mindset that produces such a wooden, shallow reading of the biblical text, is a concern.

When an obviously intelligent woman reads that Cain, the first child born into the only family in the world, was a farmer, and his brother a shepherd, and doesn’t stop to scratch her head, I have to wonder. And when I read that, after he murdered Abel, Cain went out and started building a city, well, surely I must ask myself what sort of material this really is. My own conclusion is that it is a profound, and divinely inspired reflection on the meaning of just about everything. But it’s not literal, and certainly not science or history; at least not as we use the terms.

DO WE REALLY WANT TO GET ALONG?

Four Sikhs, scheduled to make a presentation at Quebec's national assembly, were denied entry to the legislature on January 18, 2011, because they refused to remove their kirpans. They were there in a spirit of solidarity, to support the right of Muslim women to wear facial coverings. They had checked with security prior to making the trip from Toronto and had been made aware that their kirpans could pose a concern. They chose to make the trip anyway and just see what happened. Well, that’s what happened; they didn’t get in.

A kirpan is a dagger, carried by baptized Sikh men to symbolize their readiness to defend themselves and others against injustice. I understand that, according to most Sikhs, it is not intended for offensive purposes, it is not worn to intimidate or threaten, it is a spiritual symbol of dedication to truth and justice. Therefore, it seems to me a kirpan is no more a weapon than is a Scottish piper’s dirk (dagger), or a carpenter’s chisel, or an electrician’s screwdriver. In other words, it’s a metal object that could be used to inflict considerable damage on someone and, as such, it is obviously a security concern. The fact that it’s religious, ceremonial, symbolic, defensive, or required apparel explains why a Sikh might want to wear it, but all that’s irrelevant from a security point of view. As long as it could be used to inflict injury surely anyone can understand why it might be a problem.

Of course none of this settles the matter. The question remains as to how the concern should be resolved. Perhaps it’s not actually necessary to ban all sharp, metal objects from legislatures, courtrooms and schools. We don’t, as yet, ban them form shopping malls, libraries or theatres. There is still a mace in Parliament, even though someone could pick it up and wield it as a weapon, which is, after all, what a mace actually is. The Sargent at Arms also wears a symbolic sword. – Nonetheless real, but symbolic in that no one expects him to defend the parliament with it. – Someone could seize it, of course, and go on a rampage, but I assume the security folks have somehow made provision for that possibility. So, perhaps it’s enough, in some situations, for security to know who has a kirpan, a chisel, a screwdriver, a ceremonial sword, etc., and just keep an eye on the situation.

Surely, if we really want Sikhs to participate in our society, we can sort this out. But, if we or they really don’t want that, there will be no limit to the opportunities for conflict. The question is, what do we really want?

JUST ONE LITTLE WORD

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of my favourite books. It’s a great story, written by Mark Twain, one of the finest story tellers America, or any other nation, has ever produced. It’s filled with wonderful characters: Huck, the Widow Douglas, Aunt Polly, Injun Joe (actually from Tom Sawyer) and, of course, Huck’s travelling companion, Jim. But Jim is, and always has been, a bit problematic. You see, he’s the other main character in the story, and a runaway “nigger”, so that word just keeps popping up. According to one commentator it appears 219 times. That’s almost once a page, which is more than I recall, but perhaps not noticing after a while is one of the concerns.

Now, according to Dr. Alan Gribben, a professor of English at Auburn University in Alabama, the problem is not really the word itself, but the fact that it’s keeping the book out of most classrooms in America. So he is in the process of publishing an expurgated version of this great classic, replacing “nigger” with “slave”. Needless to say, this has stirred up a firestorm of controversy.

On the one hand:

- It’s understandable that a teacher, particularly a Caucasian teacher, might be reluctant to risk teaching this book in it’s present form.

- And it’s a terrible loss for kids, particularly American kids, to miss out on studying this great American classic simply because this word appears so often.

- And it’s quite understandable that a professor who loves the novel, and desires to expose young people to its profoundly anti-racist subtext, might wish to remove the offending word in order to do so.

But, on the other hand:

- This word is integral to the story. (Jim’s life is at risk, not merely because he’s a slave, or even a runaway slave, but because he’s a runaway “nigger” slave.)

- And the constant repetition of the word underscores the great lesson in the book. (That the social stratification of the South, so deeply oppressive and hurtful to everyone, was rooted in a profound and pervasive racism, kept in place by a system of oppression ranging from extreme violence and the constant threat of violence, to the continuous employment of countless, casual, verbal indignities.)

- And Jim’s trust in Huck, and Huck’s love for Jim, are colossal human triumphs precisely because of the racist context of their lives. (I doubt that that context could really be understood apart from the constant repetition of this word. At least Mark Twain, who knew far more about it than I do, didn’t seem to think so.)

In the end, I suppose, something might be accomplished by introducing young people to even a bowdlerized version of Huck Finn. Indeed, if the book is clearly presented as such, it may afford students a great opportunity to learn who Thomas Bowdler was, and of his attempts to tidy up Shakespeare, and other classics of his day. We all do it. The term “N-word”, which some of you may prefer to the word I've been using, is itself a modern day bowdlerism.

But then again, wouldn’t it be nice if we could just help students become literate: learn to read with empathy, understanding, grace and maturity, the words on the page; learn to comprehend the context, meaning and purpose of literature, not just the words; learn to talk openly with one another about the power of words to hurt and heal. Then they would be able to read the “N-word” in Huckleberry Finn, the “F-word” in Catcher in the Rye, and even hear that other “F-word” in the Dire Straits hit Money for Nothin’ without taking offence.

To paraphrase a famous statesman whose birthday will be celebrated in America in a few days: I have a dream that one day literature will be judged by the content of its characters, not the colour of its words. But, until then, perhaps Dr. Alan (Bowdler) Gribben is the best we can do.

Note: Mark Twain defined a “Classic” as a book that everyone wants to have read, but nobody wants to read. In using the word in reference to Huckleberry Finn I mean no disrespect. Words are such loaded entities.