Teabaggin'

Wow.

The Agenda

Liam Fox over at Secular News Daily does a very good job of summing up the speech and intentions of Glenn Beck at the anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech. Essentially, Beck looks to take the control of the social safety net and to put it in the hands of the church (actually, churches). As a social worker and as a Humanist, the prospect is a scary one. There's already a lot of trust put into the place of churches in providing spiritual guidance and as a result we see them failing that trust. This is seen in the heightened case of abuses by the many church officials (I cannot say it's just the Catholic, as there's too much proof otherwise). We can also see that throughout history the Church cannot handle this responsibility as huge places of worship are built while the provided social services are delapitated versions of what the lower class would consider acceptable.

Now, as a Canadian, should I be worried about the words of Glen Beck? I mean, there is a dogmatic border at the 49th isn't there?

Unfortunately, no. This sort of Nationalistic rhetoric doesn't stop at the border and also has a privilege that the movement in the US doesn't have. That's a big brother from which to learn what not to do. The Nationalistic agenda will likely occur in a much more quiet and subvert manner than a Gerry Forbes making a speech from Regina where Louis Riel plead his case for the Metis and his own innocence.

And in Canada we have seen the disastrous effects of Church run social service delivery. We don't even have to look that far back when we consider the case of residential schools, of which the last pone was only closed in 1986 (For those of you who have no idea about this travesty, stay tuned as I hope to do an entry on this alone). In residential schools aboriginal First Nations Children were exposed to a number of abuses in the name of assimilation by the Catholic, Anglican, and Seven Day Adventist churches (just to name a few).

In the book The Armageddon Factor by Marci McDonald, she outlines just how this movement will occur. It will start in the ultra right wing halls of the Centre Street Churches and the Rock Point Churches. We in Canada do have something to worry about and that is the dependability of our social security net. As soon as churches enter the fold, we will see holes in this net where secular families will fall through and religious families will receive a service that is motivated by personal benefit, rather than a legitimate desire to help others.

Hint: You're Not.

A Shout Out!

I didn't get to this last week but I did want to give a shout out to the local Secular Humanists Meetup group who met last week and were a very interesting group to chat with. Lots of good ideas coming out of the meeting. Expect to see a podcast in the next month or so as well as community outreaches (cleaning public parks and leaving our marks). See you folks in September.

A climate of racism mixed with outspoken nationalism=?

Today in the Metro Calgary, the front page story discussed an ad for a house for sale in Calgary's Southwest. The ad explained the details of the home in question, as any such ad would, however there was something unique about this ad. It was open only to white people and existed in a white neighborhood. The house was described further as having "good white craftsmanship". It also said that the home had a private fence to keep "colored people from peaking in". Quotes unedited.

I hate to say the sky is falling, and saying so would be far from the truth. Crime has continuously decreased and I do believe that people are searching within themselves for real identity and reason. However, we should look at this article in context with events that are occurring across North America. When we do this we see that there is an anxiety provoked. This anxiety, when inspected in detail shows how fragile a balance is.

The controversy over the building of an Islamic Cultural Centre on the Grounds of the World Trade Center is cutting deep into the consciousness of Americans (and thereby Canadians). At first, the cries and protests of those involved on the side against sound a bit like harmless Nationalism, however when we look at the messages and who they're directed towards we can see that this nationalism is mixed thoroughly with racism. The results of which we know well, and I hate to point to the Second World War as I know the context is left in older times, but the message is strong. Hate leads to disaster.

Where does this hatred come from though? I would argue that it is a dialogue of comparison and self definition. In a plight to define ourselves we turn to that which is accessible and feeds the need for belonging. We look to the nation we were born in or the city in which we live. Professional sports play on this in a very innocent way, but ideologies do it in a destructive way. When we get into the discussion on identity, humans seem inclined to discuss so in a matter of comparisons. "My ________ is better than _______ because of ________." In terms of the Tea Party movement the saying could be "My ideology is better than Islam because they caused harm to my nation."

It really doesn't matter if the statements are true or not, what matters is if a whole lot of people are saying and finding a solidified belonging in it. That's when it gets dangerous. Racism by itself is a horrible entity but looks foolish when it's a douchy twenty something telling a joke at a party. When it's destructive is when millions are telling the same joke and claiming it's their right to do so because of the geographic location they're born in.

What about free speech? Is there really such a thing to begin with? It has become the veil that hate mongering is hiding behind, so we cannot ignore the concept when discussing nationalism. I am by no means advocating a policed language where people are censored based on the wavering values of another which are themselves based on flimsy reason. I am also not advocating completely free speech. That too is harmful. I think of Nate Phelps' (son of Fred Phelps) quote; "Your right to free speech stops at my nose."

What am I suggesting? I am suggesting a bit of humility and consideration of how our dialogue affects others. I am suggesting a bit of concern for others. Empathy, really.

I leave you with an even better quote from the great Harvey Pekar... "Nationalism is for stupid people."

Atheist Social Worker Music V3

Okay, I lied in the last edition of ASWM saying that I'd try to pull away from the prog. I can't help it, as it really is the thinking human's music. There's so much going on and so much depth that it's hard not to appreciate. Most music afterwords just feels boring and disappointing.

I've heard prog referred to as my generations jazz music. I can see the comparison as I comb the web looking for the next forgotten treasure as dictated by those connoisseurs of music. I've had a hard time finding a good Hawkwind or Van Der Graaf Generator song to fit into this series. I'm really digging those two bands right now and that thick hammond organ with sax. Very special stuff.

But here in this third installment of ASWM I am going with something a tiny bit more contemporary and in line with my previous posts. Yes, it is another Dream Theater song and no that isn't the only band I listen to. There's just such a fecund spring of exploration with them. Where else would you find a 13 minute song about stem cell controversy where both sides are presented and the artist gives their own interpretation of the dialogue (The Great Debate off of the Six Degrees of Inner Turbulance Album).

The song I have here is The Silent Man off of the Awake album. I think the quote that best sums the song up is "Where there is reason, tonight he's awake." The video is a good early nineties fare too, which in my opinion was a heyday for experimentation in the medium.

The Rise of Empathy

I have been interested in empathy and its implications for some time, and it likely has largely to do specifically with the career I have. As I am in a helping profession that has so many different programs that essentially do the same things therapeutically, one can't help but consider that empathy likely has as close a place to our survival as anger and individualism, possibly even more.

So, as a social worker, when I hear more discussion on empathy I think it's likely due to the fact that it is what I am looking for. When someone expects something, it's often the lens they see the world through. However I am discovering that it's not just me and that in fact the interest in empathy is on the rise.

A bold statement? Scientifically speaking it is a bold statement to say interest in empathy is on the rise as I have no studies to back up my point. All I do have is observation (lots of new books coming out on the topic < Bruce Perry's Born to Love, Age of Empathy by Frans de Waal>, and increased interest in magazines ). CBC on the other hand has recently reported on the rise in interest. You can listen to the specific episode here.

In the episode of CBC's The Current they are joined by a psychologist who gets into the workings of "mirror neurons" which cause some to wince when someone else is hurt or in pain. It's been studied in doctors, with underwhelming results where most doctors studied don't have this ability to wince when they see someone hurt or involved.

Have a listen to the podcast though as it is pretty good. It's hard to digest some of the ideas of Jeremy Rifkin, but I'd be interested to hear from people who've read his recent book The Empathic Civilization.

Just stepping back to the idea of mirror neurons though, I have to wonder why or how it is that some would wince or some wouldn't. What causes one person to tend to a drunkard while the rest either walk by or ridicule.

I've heard of this notion of "tend and befriend" and I think it fits into this conversation. I am not a neurologist by any stretch and don't claim to be, but I would assume that these so called "mirror neurons" would work the same as any neuron in that if it's unused, it simply won't exist for that person. Or, on the flip side if it is used it is built on by other experiences. Can we cultivate ourselves or others to a reaction of tend and befriend rather than the common instinct of fight or flight? The implications of such an ability would be huge, and wouldn't just fall into the realm of social work or the social sciences. It would have implications on health, education, and even more devastatingly for religion. Possibly the biggest consequences would be on how we view the task of parenting. It would make the stakes for parenting all the more dire.