This was probably the most interesting NY Times article in Sunday's paper, at least to me. If Judge Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be six Catholic justices.
I had no idea there were so many. But the story also underscores how many different kinds of Catholics there are. It ranges from socially conservative churchgoing Catholics (like Scalia) to socially progressive nonchurchgoers (as Sotomayor may be).
Sotomayor is a product of Catholic upbringing and education. But she does not attend church, except for major family events. Her appointment underscores the disparities between Catholic church and a Catholic education.
When one listens to the Catholic mass, you are given a theology with no room for doubt. A truth is presented with no room to question it. (As in the Nicene Creed.)
However, in a Catholic education -- and I experienced 17 years of it -- the student is taught critical thinking skills and given an awareness of social justice. We are challenged to debate, doubt and wrestle with issues. We allow for other possibilities, other points of view. I liked the quote in the article from Judge Sotomayor's former schoolmate: "“We were asking, what’s wrong with the other religions, and why do you say everybody else is going to Hell?”
While the Catholic church may have little hold on Judge Sotomayor, the Catholic educational system should be proud to have helped inspire so many of our country's critical thinkers and greatest legal minds.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Don't call me a liberal, please
Let's say you are at the beach. You ask your significant other to put some suntan lotion on your back. How much do you want to be squirted on your skin?
If you are liberal and too much is used, you are left with an icky mess and a waste of suntan lotion.
Use just enough -- conservatively -- and the job has been done well enough, and more lotion is left over for future applications or for others who need it.
This is why when political discourse is expressed as conservative versus liberal, the left loses traction. When Democrats allow the battle to be described in those terms, they immediately cede voters to the GOP. (Remember George H.W. Bush, who once simply used the refined argument of "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal!")
From the point of view of a social conscious, liberal means being open to new ideas, seeing injustices and fighting to correct them and using the government to help those who need help the most. "Favorable to progress or reform," as dictionary.com describes it. It goes on to say the word means: "Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible ... free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. ... open-minded."
These are fine values, and they are rooted in those ideals that made this country great. But still, the term comes with political handicaps. From a fiscal standpoint, liberal means wasteful, excessive and blind to the realities of how much something costs.
Now, the Democrats are overwhelmingly in charge, but it is not because somehow the liberal philosophy has overwhelmed the conservative side. Part of the reason that the Democrats won was because the Republicans lost sight of their core values of fiscal conservatism. George W. Bush lost the backing of many conservatives because he made government larger, more complex and more wasteful by throwing resources into a war effort that was corrupted by greed and cronyism.
What also happened is a rise of Blue Dog Democrats, who are fiscally conservative but liberal on social issues. The Democrats have stolen a key pillar from the Republican party.
And yet, liberal remains a problematic term for the left. It needs to be retired.
So, I would prefer to be called progressive, defined by dictionary.com as "favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters."
This is a great country, but it is unfinished. It is always being improved. That is what makes it great.
I like the way President Obama put it in his inaugural address: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."
If you are liberal and too much is used, you are left with an icky mess and a waste of suntan lotion.
Use just enough -- conservatively -- and the job has been done well enough, and more lotion is left over for future applications or for others who need it.
This is why when political discourse is expressed as conservative versus liberal, the left loses traction. When Democrats allow the battle to be described in those terms, they immediately cede voters to the GOP. (Remember George H.W. Bush, who once simply used the refined argument of "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal!")
From the point of view of a social conscious, liberal means being open to new ideas, seeing injustices and fighting to correct them and using the government to help those who need help the most. "Favorable to progress or reform," as dictionary.com describes it. It goes on to say the word means: "Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible ... free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. ... open-minded."
These are fine values, and they are rooted in those ideals that made this country great. But still, the term comes with political handicaps. From a fiscal standpoint, liberal means wasteful, excessive and blind to the realities of how much something costs.
Now, the Democrats are overwhelmingly in charge, but it is not because somehow the liberal philosophy has overwhelmed the conservative side. Part of the reason that the Democrats won was because the Republicans lost sight of their core values of fiscal conservatism. George W. Bush lost the backing of many conservatives because he made government larger, more complex and more wasteful by throwing resources into a war effort that was corrupted by greed and cronyism.
What also happened is a rise of Blue Dog Democrats, who are fiscally conservative but liberal on social issues. The Democrats have stolen a key pillar from the Republican party.
And yet, liberal remains a problematic term for the left. It needs to be retired.
So, I would prefer to be called progressive, defined by dictionary.com as "favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters."
This is a great country, but it is unfinished. It is always being improved. That is what makes it great.
I like the way President Obama put it in his inaugural address: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Scraps of Time resurrected
Today, I’m restarting my Scraps of Time blog.
It was begun as a commentary on the news and issues of the day when I was working two jobs – as a newspaper copy editor and a part-time journalism teacher. I didn’t have much time for it then, that’s why I called it Scraps of Time. But what really killed it was that Gannett did not approve of one of their wire editors blogging about his opinions on issues. I kept it going as a private post, but only limped along with it. It became a place to write out ideas as I considered opinion columns for the paper.
Now that I no longer work at the newspaper, I am making this a public blog. Check out my old private posts. They are interesting, even if some of my ideas turned out to be outright wrong. (For example, I said it was a big mistake for Obama to not offer Hillary the VP slot.)
But allow me to repeat what I said when I first set out to write this blog back in the fall of 2007:
“I've realized that by sitting on the sidelines, I've allowed many ideas that need to be challenged to go unchallenged. I feel as if my silence can be taken as agreement with a host of misguided notions. So, I would like to speak out now, to clarify my views and to start a discussion.”
You may not agree with what I have to say, but please understand that my aim is to offer thoughtful, respectful commentary on the issues. I want to give people tidbits to think about as issues come up.
On the outset I should tell you about myself. I’m a Democrat, but I don’t like the word liberal. Progressive makes more sense to me. (More on that later.) I am happy with Obama as president, but I don’t agree with every move he’s made. I’m a Catholic who has recently returned to the church, but I don’t think my one religion has all the answers. (Yes, that’s an interesting journey.) I respect any person of faith who uses that faith to make the world a better place. We need more of you. But I am saddened by those who use their faith to spread prejudice, hatred, division, death and destruction. The most dangerous people in the world are often those who are sure they have all the answers and know that God is on their side.
I will back people who pursue their dreams, to do what they were meant to do. That’s one reason I will always support my wife’s endeavors in karate and self-defense, why I support my friend’s effort to start a business building treehouses. It’s also why I continue to fight for a canine distemper cure discovered by Dr. Al Sears. My favorite assignment as a writer was a column for the Los Angeles Times called “Personal Best.” It was a weekly feature on people who made a difference in the world. I was often inspired by those stories. These were people pursuing dreams or helping others achieve their dreams, and I learned much from them.
And finally, I will say that this will probably be the longest post you will see from me in a while. I’m out of work, but stay pretty busy, so my plan is to post short commentary on the news and issues.
Stop in and visit now and then.
Ed Bond
Here are some Web sites to check out:
http://www.edbond.com/amy/selfdefense/
http://www.nyshidokan.com/
http://www.edbond.com/distemper.html
http://www.peacemakertreehouses.com/projects/
http://savedogsfromcaninedistemper.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-you-need-to-knowdo.html
http://artlifenewsblog.blogspot.com/
It was begun as a commentary on the news and issues of the day when I was working two jobs – as a newspaper copy editor and a part-time journalism teacher. I didn’t have much time for it then, that’s why I called it Scraps of Time. But what really killed it was that Gannett did not approve of one of their wire editors blogging about his opinions on issues. I kept it going as a private post, but only limped along with it. It became a place to write out ideas as I considered opinion columns for the paper.
Now that I no longer work at the newspaper, I am making this a public blog. Check out my old private posts. They are interesting, even if some of my ideas turned out to be outright wrong. (For example, I said it was a big mistake for Obama to not offer Hillary the VP slot.)
But allow me to repeat what I said when I first set out to write this blog back in the fall of 2007:
“I've realized that by sitting on the sidelines, I've allowed many ideas that need to be challenged to go unchallenged. I feel as if my silence can be taken as agreement with a host of misguided notions. So, I would like to speak out now, to clarify my views and to start a discussion.”
You may not agree with what I have to say, but please understand that my aim is to offer thoughtful, respectful commentary on the issues. I want to give people tidbits to think about as issues come up.
On the outset I should tell you about myself. I’m a Democrat, but I don’t like the word liberal. Progressive makes more sense to me. (More on that later.) I am happy with Obama as president, but I don’t agree with every move he’s made. I’m a Catholic who has recently returned to the church, but I don’t think my one religion has all the answers. (Yes, that’s an interesting journey.) I respect any person of faith who uses that faith to make the world a better place. We need more of you. But I am saddened by those who use their faith to spread prejudice, hatred, division, death and destruction. The most dangerous people in the world are often those who are sure they have all the answers and know that God is on their side.
I will back people who pursue their dreams, to do what they were meant to do. That’s one reason I will always support my wife’s endeavors in karate and self-defense, why I support my friend’s effort to start a business building treehouses. It’s also why I continue to fight for a canine distemper cure discovered by Dr. Al Sears. My favorite assignment as a writer was a column for the Los Angeles Times called “Personal Best.” It was a weekly feature on people who made a difference in the world. I was often inspired by those stories. These were people pursuing dreams or helping others achieve their dreams, and I learned much from them.
And finally, I will say that this will probably be the longest post you will see from me in a while. I’m out of work, but stay pretty busy, so my plan is to post short commentary on the news and issues.
Stop in and visit now and then.
Ed Bond
Here are some Web sites to check out:
http://www.edbond.com/amy/selfdefense/
http://www.nyshidokan.com/
http://www.edbond.com/distemper.html
http://www.peacemakertreehouses.com/projects/
http://savedogsfromcaninedistemper.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-you-need-to-knowdo.html
http://artlifenewsblog.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)