Waking Up, Geek Style

by Kyle Cupp on May 15, 2012

Post image for Waking Up, Geek Style

We had a rough morning with the boy, who protested getting ready for the day from the moment I opened his window blinds.  He was still in full Occupy Waking Up mode when I walked him into his school building to receive his first and very much deserved tardy.

And yet his awaking began with such promise.

When I gently prodded him and told him to rise and shine, he yawned, stretched, and said, still half asleep and dreaming, “I caaaan’t. I haven’t found a save point yet.”

This made my morning, and then everything went to hell.

I would say someone’s been spending too much time playing video games, but everyone knows that can never be the case.  Alas, the boy’s misbehavior has cost him his playtime this afternoon.

I didn’t bother telling him that his losing video games is one of those punishments that hurts me more than him.

{ 9 comments }

The Benefit of Panic

by Kyle Cupp on May 12, 2012

“Woman is less qualified [than man] for moral behavior. For the woman contains more liquid than the man, and it is a property of liquid to take things up easily and to hold onto them poorly. Liquids are easily moved, hence women are inconstant and curious. When a woman has relations with a man, she would like, as much as possible, to be lying with another man at the same time. Woman knows nothing of fidelity. Believe me, if you give her your trust, you will be disappointed. Trust an experienced teacher. For this reason prudent men share their plans and actions least of all with their wives. Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison with his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she herself cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one’s guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil…. In evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.”

- Albert the Great

“And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert— that is, death— even the Son of God had to die.”

- Tertullian

“Arising from whatever reason the act of government is coercive and is burdened with all the coarse and painful qualities of coercion. And if anyone asks what is the use of insisting on the ugliness of this task of state violence since all mankind is condemned to employ it, I have a simple answer to that. It would be useless to insist on it if all humanity were condemned to it. But it is not irrelevant to insist on its ugliness so long as half of humanity is kept out of it.”

- G.K. Chesterton

There was a time in my life when I, with no doubt or hesitation, would have judged today’s rise of atheism, diversification of culture, advancements of secularism, and relativism of conventions such as marriage to be all definitive signs of societal decay.  I would have voiced my conjectures that we were nearing an American apocalypse, a fall of civilization due to our cheerful delight in concupiscence and drunken embrace of sin.  I did sometimes imagine myself as one among a few who would stand firm amidst such a cataclysm and, like a heroic rescuer after a hurricane, help rebuild society on the bulwarks of True Religion and True Philosophy and all other fields of True Thinking.  To say I was an egomaniac would be an understatement, but I didn’t see my pride at the time because I believed I had the truth, by the balls as it were.  Some would say I’m still full of myself, if more skeptical.  To them I raise my glass and no objection.

So what’s with the statements I quoted above?  I post them not as expressions of arrogance, but as heartfelt beliefs by very intelligent men that, in time, were proved to be not only erroneous, but also, from the standpoint of moral progress, prejudiced and ugly.  Each of these statements, misogynist to our ears, expressed a disposition toward women that had all the theological and philosophical backing years of study could buy.  These were the orthodox views.  These were Truth.  And a lot of serious reflection and other intellectual work went into fashioning and justifying them.

I assume that when women started demanding the right to vote and insisting they were morally and intellectual the equals of men, the champions of orthodoxy panicked in fear that the right and just order of society was in danger of collapsing.  All that men had built over the centuries risked frustration or maybe even ruin because women no longer wanted to be “women,” to live and be in their proper place.  They wanted to vote. They wanted to work.  In religion they wanted to approach the altar, raise their voices, teach, minister, and not have to abstain from entering a church for a period of time after that “filthy business” of giving birth. We see this same sort of panic today surrounding social changes to the meaning of marriage, the growing religious diversity of the country, the acceptance and coolness of atheism, and women still demanding equality and autonomy.  I escaped this panic when I would have been more prone to it.  Self absorbed and silly to a fault, I imagined social collapse, but I was really thinking of myself and my knightly role in its wake.

Maybe this is just projection on my part, but I have an inkling that more than a few of the panic-stricken souls in our postmodern era are fearful not only for the fate of civilization and their beloved institutions, but also, perhaps unknowingly, of the possibility that their worldviews may be wrong.  Our grip on “truth” can loosen when we’re faced with realities that, according to our hearts and minds and guts, shouldn’t exist.  Well-adjusted, morally upstanding young men and women who were raised by two moms or two dads? That can’t be! Only deceitful propaganda disguised as children’s books tell such a story.  Atheists who profess their belief in absolute, object moral norms?  Impossible.  They have to be “anything goes” relativists, right?  They must only be fooling themselves.  Muslims want to build a mosque in our neighborhood?  We can’t let them.  They might turn out to be good neighbors and that would mean…

It may be too late for me to avoid the charge of relativism myself, but, for the record, let me state clearly and unequivocally that, yes, some of what passes for good in our society is misguided, villainous, or downright evil.  Our economic and political structures suffer from corruption and injustice.  Culturally, we’re hedonistic and consumeristic.  We’ve mastered the art of giving legitimacy to killing so we feel safe while pleasuring ourselves in one fashion or another.  We all stand in need of confession, forgiveness, and penance for the deeds we do and for traditions we retain.  Not every old tradition needs foundational reform, but even the most time-tested traditions warrant questioning and scrutiny from time to time.  The moral panic we experience when our world and worldviews begin to tremble often leads to hatred, bigotry, and high cable news ratings, but it also has a benefit if we’re willing to listen: it invites us to a little introspection.

{ 6 comments }

Weekend Geekery Contest

by Kyle Cupp on May 11, 2012

Recast The Lord of the Rings movies with actors and actresses from Joss Whedon television shows.  Bonus points for explaining your selections.

Strive to cast at least nine characters, but submissions of any size are welcome.  You may include Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. Go!

{ 9 comments }

For the Love of Sex and Marriage

by Kyle Cupp on May 11, 2012

The groundwork has been set.

On the front page, Tod Kelly is ready for the country to have it out over same sex marriage, and he’s optimistic that the proponents will win. I suspect a mostly universal acceptance of same sex marriage will take longer to arrive than Tod does, but there’s little denying he’s generally right about this, despite the slow-going progress and political setbacks the gay rights movement has seen.  They’ve made incredible gains, especially in the culture, where it may matter most.  We’re at a turning point, no mistake.

It occurs to me that in none of my recent commentary and analysis on events and topics related to sexuality and marriage have I clearly stated how I understand the meanings of sex and marriage.  With President Obama taking his cue from his tight-lipped VP, the voters of North Carolina enshrining their view in their state constitution, and my fellow bloggers here at the League giving their individual takes, now seems as opportune time as any to gather my thoughts and, as plainly as I can, state my irrelevant views.  Yes, you read me right.  The meaning of sex and marriage as I understand them are mostly irrelevant to the discussion.  I’ll explain why below.

First, my confession: I am quite smitten with the contemporary, still developing Catholic conceptions of human sexuality and marriage, which to my mind belong together.  What is marriage?  It is a sacred, insoluble, in some cases sacramental bond in which a man and a woman become one flesh, potentially creating new life; it is an institutional union that, ideally, supports a lifelong commitment of love, the good of the spouses and the community, and, if literally fruitful, gives order to the rearing and education of children.  That’s how I define marriage.

But here’s the thing: this definition ain’t the legal definition anywhere in this country.  Engaged couples can obtain a marriage license without any belief in the sacred, with no intention of staying true to one another, with every intention to prevent pregnancy, and with a signed prenuptial agreement just in case things don’t work out.  Their good needn’t be an end of their marriage.  They don’t even have to love one another.    Marriage means to each couple whatever they want it to mean.  Once joined, they are legally united and receive the legal rights associated with the institution, but the rest is up to them.  As practiced overall, the convention of marriage is little more than a shell.

This is why people who for whatever reason oppose same-sex marriage will lose this culture war.  The groundwork has already been set by heterosexuals in their marriages.   If memory serves, Dan Savage has made this point repeatedly.  My co-blogger at Vox Nova, Mornings Minion, echoes it.  So to an extent does Mark Shea.  As the Joker says to Batman, “You’ve changed things. There’s no going back.” Regardless of whatever Maggie Gallagher, the Catholic bishops, or I think marriage means, the concept also has a basic social-legal meaning, a meaning that does not correspond to our ideas.

Someone might object that our definitions share the one-man/one-woman aspect of the typical legal definition, so there’s at least some correspondence.  This is true, but it’s irrelevant.  Because marriage has, legally and socially speaking, no intrinsic link with procreation and the good of the spouses as a complementary unit, nothing grounds the notion that legal marriage should be limited to couples of complementary sex.  Without the transmission of life and this good of the spouses being natural ends of marriage, what logical reason is there to prohibit same sex couples from marrying?

Same sex marriage opponents are destined to lose the philosophical battle for the foreseeable future because very few if any of them will insist on incorporating openness to life and the good of the spouses into the legal definition.  Advocates for same sex marriage are just being consistent.  Contrary to Dennis Prager, whom Tod quotes, the push for same sex marriage is not the most radical redefinition of marriage in history: that redefinition already took place!  It’s done, Dennis.  Rush Limbaugh’s changed things. There’s no going back. Culturally, socially, legally—it’s done.  The door is open.  The opposition can try and shut the door all they want—and they will try—but there’s no bolt without a link between marriage and procreation.  Without that bolt, there’s no locking the door.  Same sex couples want equal treatment under the law.  Why would they settle for anything less?

{ 22 comments }

Your humble blogger in May 2008

Unless it’s brutally hot or there’s lightning in the air, I ride my bicycle to and from work.  I’ve been regularly doing this for the past few years in an effort to save money.  We’re a frugal family.  You’ll notice I’m half dressed for work in the picture to the left.  I bring my shirt and pants in a bag.

I enjoy the rides very much, but unfortunately my city, one of the fastest growing suburban areas of the country, is less than friendly to cyclists.  Despite having the (redundant) motto of “Progress in Motion,” the city streets feature no bicycle lanes, and the sidewalks, though plentiful, are reserved for pedestrians.

Let me tell you: some residents are very touchy about no bicycles being on the sidewalks.  Back in February, I wrote an article for our city magazine about my perceptive as a cyclist on the city’s rapid development.  The next month’s issue published a letter from a fellow resident complaining that I was on a sidewalk in one of the photographs that accompanied the story.  The particular street was a perfect location for a photo shoot, but the road itself was much too narrow and busy for us to use.  So I rode on the sidewalk.  Admittedly, I do that sometimes.  I value my life and limbs.  North Texas drivers are particularly insane and uncaring about what’s right in their path.

Here’s what gets me, though.  By law I’m supposed to stay on the street and off the sidewalk.  I get the logic in this.  Don’t want pedestrians run down by a reckless bicyclist.   However, the traffic lights, despite having cameras, don’t notice me.  If there’s no car behind me or in front of me, then I wait indefinitely.  The only way to make my presence known to the signal is to hit the crosswalk button.  To get to that button, I have to get onto the sidewalk.  While on my bike.  In violation of the law.

Color me irritated.  I really do understand why cities  make laws for riding bicycles, but it’s also clear to me that those in charge of writing these laws don’t think about those who will be affected by them.  A common tale, that.

{ 46 comments }

Post image for Moments in Parenting When You Don’t Know What to Say

As the boy is still a little too young to participate in everything that occurs at Mass, we let him draw pictures while he listens to the readings, homily, and prayers.  He likes to make cards and drawings for the people sitting around us, which we allow him to pass out after the conclusion of the service.

This past weekend, while the liturgy was still in full swing, he held up a drawing he’d made of an X-Wing fighter from Star Wars.

Only it didn’t really look like an X-Wing.

The body of the ship was too round at the end, and the engines, of which you could see only two, were oval-shaped rather than cylindrical.  And he hadn’t drawn any recognizable wings.  No one seeing it, and I can only assume those sitting behind us saw it, would think X-Wing.  Except the boy. He was very proud of it and didn’t understand his mom’s frantic attempts to block it from view.

We’re totally keeping the picture. I plan to bring it out at his wedding reception.

{ 1 comment }

Post image for Don’t Call North Carolina’s Amendment 1 a Ban!

So says Ryan T. Anderson at National Review, splitting hairs and missing the point:

Today’s vote in North Carolina is not about banning anything. Nothing will be made illegal as a result. In all fifty states across the nation two people of the same sex can live together, have their religious community bless their union, and have their workplace offer them various joint benefits — if the religious communities and workplaces in question so desire. Many liberal houses of worship and progressive businesses have voluntarily decided to do so. There’s nothing illegal about this. There’s no ban on it.

What’s at issue is whether the government will recognize such unions as marriages — and then force every citizen and business to do so as well. This isn’t the legalization of something, this is the coercion and compulsion of others to recognize and affirm same-sex unions as marriages.

Anderson is correct in so far as same-sex couples can, under the amendment, call their relationships “marriage” and, under some conditions, receive benefits associated with the institution.  He’s wrong, however, in concluding that there’s therefore no ban.

The amendment stipulates that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” With it in place, same-sex couples are prohibited from obtaining legal recognition of their unions by, say, challenging in court the prohibition of same-sex marriage already on the books.  Any change in the law to allow same-sex unions would be unconstitutional in the state.  There’s a ban there, in effect if not explicitly in the words of the amendment.

Voters in North Carolina supported the amendment in an additional effort to stop a small percentage of their fellow residents from entering into legal unions to which they object.  They should own up to the effects of their endeavors.  So should Ryan T. Anderson.

{ 0 comments }

A Rational, Religious Mind

by Kyle Cupp on May 8, 2012

Post image for A Rational, Religious Mind

Alex Knapp summarizes the reason why many Christians reject the science of evolution:

For some Christians, evolution would, if true, completely shatter the doctrine of Original Sin. After all, if humans evolved, then there wasn’t an Adam, there wasn’t a Garden of Eden, and there wasn’t a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If that’s the case, these Christians believe, then there wasn’t a Fall and there wasn’t a reason for Christ to be crucified. Thus, in their minds, evolution is completely incompatible with Christian teachings.

As Alex notes, not all Christians think this way.  Some approach the story of Adam more as figurative myth than as literal history.  That’s pretty close to my take.  Others reject the doctrine of original sin.  I’m personally dubious of its traditional formulation.  The Roman Catholic response has been to acknowledge the insights from evolutionary theory while maintaining something of a literal reading of the Adamic narratives.  As recently as 1950, the pope, then Pius XII, had this to say:

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

You’ll notice that Pius treated an alleged historical-biological fact as an article of faith: Catholics must believe in a literal Adam from whom all humanity takes its origin.  He also maintained that original sin passes through generation, thus grounding a theological claim in a biological one.  As far as I know, the magisterium has not repudiated these assertions in Pius’s encyclical letter.  The phrase “now it is in no way apparent” leaves room for a change, however, as it could, to the Church’s mind, become apparent that science rules out the possibility of all humanity originating from a single individual.  The Catholic Church is, at least in theory, open to reforming its theology and doctrine in light of scientific conclusions.

I can’t speak for my coreligionists, but, personally, I wish they’d break the bad habit of making supposedly authoritative scientific truth claims from the standpoints of theological orthodoxy and devotion to doctrine.  The religious mind–which conceives the world in terms of myth, mystery, ritual and wonder–has its own value apart from the rational endeavors of the scientists and the philosophers.  The religious mind seeks a unique truth, even when its truth discloses a reality also pursued in other disciplines.  Its methods of inquiry and verification are different than those of science and philosophy.  Let them dialogue, but let’s not confuse them.  Because each has its own truth to offer, religious faith and reason have much to say to one another.  In my opinion, we benefit from listening to both and from cultivating a mind informed by both religiosity and reason.

Speaking of a rational, religious mind, my son, who’s five, complained to me this past Sunday about having to go to church.  He asked why we had to go, and I told him that God asked us to gather with others to celebrate the Mass.  His response: “Well, I didn’t hear him.”  I imagine some religiously-minded parents would have been horrified.  I was quietly pleased, and smiled as I helped him get ready.

{ 6 comments }

A Pause to Listen: Janis Ian

by Kyle Cupp on May 8, 2012

“At Seventeen”

{ 2 comments }

For one thing, it would have to give up its claim to infallibility.  Over at Vox Nova, I explain briefly what other changes the church would have to make, how the lives of gay and lesbian persons challenge traditional Catholic doctrine, and why we’re almost certainly not going to see the hierarchy budge on this issue.

{ 62 comments }