The right question about religion...maybe: "

It's only been two days, and I feel like I've already been through way too many discussions among seculars on the "Religious Problem." I'm tired of the cartoon about "Jesusland," of arguments about whether religion just has too much influence, about how we can encourage low-income whites to vote "their interests" rather than what they consider moral values, or whether we should "encourage moderate religious voices," whatever that would entail.

I think the right way to frame the question about the role of religion in current American life is as follows:

We are clearly in the middle of one of the great periods of Christian revival in American history, the third or fourth of the "Great Awakenings" in American Protestantism. Each such period has begun with a change in the nature of worship itself, essentially a private phase, and moved onto a public phase where it engaged with the political process. These have been significant moments of progress for this country. The Second Great Awakening led in it public phase to the Abolitionist movement. What some historians consider the Third Great Awakening beginning in the 1890s led to the Social Gospel movement, settlement houses, and the beginnings of the progressive era idea of a public responsibility to ameliorate poverty.

The right question, I think, is not whether religion has an undue influence, but why it is that the current flourishing of religious faith has, for the first time ever, virtually no element of social justice? Why is its public phase so exclusively focused on issues of private and personal behavior? Is this caused by trends in the nature of religious worship itself? Is it a displacement of economic or social pressures? Will that change? What are the factors that might cause it to change.

I need some reading suggestions here. If you've read Robert Fogel's The Fourth Great Awakening & the Future of Egalitarianism you'll probably recognize that my question comes from there. Here's a chart that summarizes Fogel's basic view of the Great Awakenings, which I believe is idiosyncratic compared to that of most historians of religion (Fogel is an economic historian) Fogel helped me understand the question, but not to answer it. I'd appreciate any thoughts or advice.

"

(Via The Decembrist.)

This hearkens back to one Dr. Collar's great achievements - drumming the idea of cycles in history into my head, one of those wonderful light bulb moments in my education. I saw him a couple years back, referring to OHS as cloistered - of course, he left OHS to teach at a college. I hope they appreciate him as much as we do.

Ok, in a respite from the world's events (Arafat - dead or alive?) (Kerry - does his concession speech matter if the provisional ballot count puts him ahead [actually no]) I'd like to note that gali, antonia & I have a place now in Harlem, right on 125th st. On an express stop, a block from an old navy, magic johnson movie theatre, health club, post office, pharmacy and enough fast food and fried chicken to last a lifetime. And the apartment? Marble floors in the bathrooms, a jacuzzi tub, wooden floors, walk-in closets with shelving we suspect can double as midget bunk beds three bedrooms and a shaftway. (for the bodies.)

The search for the essentials (beds, sofas) continues.

Now if you come visit, you might actually have a place to crash with me.

In regards to events, the republicans say that they won on a "morality" platform.

Bigotry equals morality? Should I be crying? Who are these people? Today's Decembrist essay puts it well. Fuck this national reconciliation bullshit. I am ashamed today to be a part of the country that validated this administration based on... morality.

Does anybody else remember the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation?

And btw, if annybody tells you "you voted, now STFU" remember that if you vote, you signed off on the process, so don't complain is a bas an argument as "you didn't vote, so you have no right to complain."

Oh my God! Brian Boitano....

The shock of 9/11, all over again.

Back then, US vs the Fundamentalists.
Now, us vs the Fundamentalists.

There are Two Americas.

And this is not "Et tu"

What can I say?

After 2000, I decided to be far more cautious about the election this year, and despite my optimism, there was a persistent kernel of doubt that kept me worrying about the results of a republican sweep this year.

Will Bush win? At this point it seems all but a done deal. Getting out the vote combined with voter suppression seems to have been a winning ticket in the federal elections.

The major fear was that with the judiciary on the line this year, the democrats would be able to stave off an appointment or two to the Court. This now also appears to be unlikely, especially with Rehnquist's serious problems.

At the same time, despite the irregularities in the swing states, the country appears to have given the GOP time and time again the mandate to govern. Allen points out that this is cause for some to desperately pull out their copies of Democracy in America. It has been far too long since I have pulled out those volumes (if I'm not mistaken not since high school).

Perhaps it has come time again to reevaluate the American Experiment. In most objective circles (dare I consider myself among those) it is generally acknowledged that the winners in this years races while of ideological purity were ... lacking. The Daily Show (unfortunately watched from Television last night my loyal readers) perhaps put this best in the last ten minutes of their election special, rattling off some of the more ridiculous parts of the regional platforms and rhetoric espoused by GOP candidates.

Despite the closeness in the votes in the electoral college, this was not a close election. Any election where these candidates get sixty million votes is a loss. My initial impression is that the problems with this election stem not from a failure to get out the vote, but an inherent failure in the logic behind the get out the vote drives. Voter canvassing attracts marginal voters to the cause.

We have a serious problem with the electorate en-masse. We have to face the fat that there are many Americas, and that most of us are not familiar with them, or their ideas, that we have no strategy to change their core beliefs, which were reflected in this election. To sink to the level of palliative metaphors, "You can't boil water with a blow torch, you just end up making steam."

A majority of Americans are amenable to religious demagoguery, affiliated homophobic paranoia, and a willingness to reject a global context in favor of allegiance to narrow mindedness.

If we who pride ourselves as intellectuals want to regain control of our political process, our international soft power, our pride in our nation, we will have to start from within. "Strength" and false "resolve" are not the only alternative panaceas to ignorance.

Reeducation begins at home.

Today, I live on an island.

See the problem?

From inside, I've been told the Drudge numbers reported so far are correct.

Looks like a landslide...

Thanks to Chibisuke on totalfark. My favorite unexpected poll result.

Just Click Damnit. Totally WorkSafe.

And what's with all this "Just Vote" bull I'm hearing all over?

You don't go to a baseball game and hold up a sign that says "Win!"

I want to see more "Vote Kerry" signs up. If you're a Bush voter, my opinion (and dare I say the opinion of my colleagues) is "Stay Home!"

Money

sex & thought control

A generation without soul

Perfect people

In a perfect world

Behind closed doors

All in control

Life in a world of luxury

Cold cash money mentality

You gotta keep the faith

You gotta keep the faith

You better keep the faith

And run away


Run away

run away

Run away and save your life

And only the last stanza in the luxury car commercial.

I love it.

Firefox tidbit.

If you want to delete an entry from the auto-complete drop-down menu in a field (say in a username or password field on a web page form, where you accidentally entered the wrong information and don't want it saved, you usually hit shift-delete once you have it highlighted to get rid of it.

If you have a mac laptop, hit shift-Fn-delete instead.

Also, we may have a place in harlem.

Stay tuned...

Wandering Brooklyn through the day with Yulia, Jeanne, & Avigail looking at apartments.

A no show landlord at Parkside, followed by a nice apartment in an abysmal location near East New York - followed by seeing an abysmal apartment in an excellent location (Bedford in the heart of Williamsburgh) - mediated by a bus ride through Bed-Stuy (generally not referred to as an up and coming area), the location of a (since canceled) appointment-to-be on Sunday to look at a place purportedly in Clinton Hill (generally considered to be an up and coming area).

For some reason, the bus driver said "last stop" at the outskirts of Williamsburgh well before the actual end of the bus route. Our walk through Williamsburgh, though considerable, was lightened by the walk through the block which contains strong whiffs of the nearby Peter Lugers.

That and posters in authentically Chasidic Brooklyn, full of writing in Hebrew and Yiddish, and a two paneled poster that showed first a concentration camp oven, and secondly various pieces of technology, including cell phones and (IMHO) a 1994 era Mac Centris. The caption (as translated to me) implied that both led to the destruction of Jewry...

Oy.

Dinner (with Bill & Katie, and sans Avigail) was at a Thai place in Bedford called See, which is apparently the restaurant that was used to film the early crappy asian restaurant scene in Garden State. See has great atmosphere, and rather mediocre food.

In lieu of going out, we decided to be lame and stay in. PBS won out this evening, with renditions of The Candidate (not only with Robert Redford, but also a much younger incarnation of Peter Boyle, of Everybody Loves Raymond) and Stardust Memories.

Fantastic Fantastic Earlier Allen.

Tomorrow, the Search continues, in Roosevelt Island, Long Island City (props to Bill for that recommendation) and further along in Queens.

Also, the Onion's AV Club this week has a really nice interview with newbie scifi director ___. There's this great little bit about the role of science fiction in culture today that was really nice:

O: Science-fiction movies are usually big-budget action films set in space. Was Primer intended as a corrective to that? Does science fiction in film need to be redefined?

SC: I wasn't trying to change the industry or anything, that's for sure. It does seem like there's the aesthetic of science fiction, with the aliens and chrome and neon and explosions in space, and then there's science fiction that's used as a literary device. That's the kind I'm interested in. The Greeks had their mythology, and they had a great shorthand. They could assign a human trait to a god and suddenly be able to talk about all sorts of things. I feel like we've got science fiction, which is an even better shorthand, because if you do it right, it's not a matter of "What if this happens?" It's "When this happens..." What will be the reaction, how will we cope with it, and what does it mean for who we are? People complain about I, Robot not being about ideas, and then it makes a ton of money. It's weird. I know I'm not doing anything that's going to change that.