my semi-annual post.

It is a new year, and about 5 months since I posted last. I am not particularly diligent about finding topics to discuss here, but today I have two. They both regard frustrations I have run into in the last week, but the first is less academic than the second. Happy new year everyone. Enjoy.

Firstly, fatherhood is a difficult road to travel. I don't really understand those men that do not find it challenging. It seems to me that there one suddenly has to be ultraconscious of how their actions are interpreted by a growing, learning little child that doesn't have the perspective to understand personal fallibility, task prioritization, or depressive lethargy. I end up doing things I do not desire or wish to do, because I care about my son. I cannot let loose with my emotions because I know he would not understand that sometimes a person just needs to let go. This last weekend I really didn't feel like being a dad. I didn't want to answer all the questions or play or deal with little toys on the floor or any of the other things that go along with fatherhood to a toddler. At the same time, he doesn't understand that I was not in the "mood" for such things. I had to put myself in a time out so I could let my frustration dissipate and then continue with the day. Fortunately, I was able to get over my momentary pissyness and the next day was much better.

Secondly, why are discussions of faith taboo? I saw an article about Brit Hume's comment about suggesting Tiger Woods consider Christianity since it has a framework for forgiveness that he could use to move past his transgressions and try to figure out his life. Apparently Brit was lambasted over the advice, but why? Is religion just a market place where things are supposed to be neatly packaged and we just choose the one that is prettier or cheaper? Can we not get recommendations or discuss the differences between religions? Supposedly Tiger is a buddhist, which means he should have recognized his actions as a source of suffering for both himself and his family and used that knowledge to avoid those actions or else endure the karmic repercussions. Okay, but what is wrong with acknowledging that people have personal failures, introducing a concept of forgiveness and then allowing them to use that experience to change future actions, is that not the idea behind Christian forgiveness? I know that the supermarket Christianity would profess that forgiveness is so abundant and flowing that it seems like one need not even think about personal effort as a part of forgiveness, but that is naive. In reality, Chrisitanity recognizes that change is hard, and extends divine forgiveness as a way to recognize that one has committed an act that is wrong, but also that one can recover from such failings. It is not easy to recover, and it may require more forgiveness down the line. However, that Grace is not cheap, one should not use it like a disposable kleenex. Self-reflection and self-determination are required so that one might change their character over time, indeed over a lifetime. I present this concept of Christian forgiveness with out the list of what is regarded as sin, since I personally believe that sin and what is wrong is circumstantial.(brief, potentially heretical diatribe about sin to follow) Sure there are things that are almost always wrong, but somehow we find ways to justify almost everything in someway, so when evaluating what is wrong and right I claim no special authority there. I mean really, in the Judeo-Christian holy books we have plenty of instances where God condones and/or requests acts that are in conflict with the big Ten that Moses brought down to the people. What that tells me is that God is more elusive and flexible than a set of commandments etched in stone, and more permanent. Jesus, in an effort to summarize the commandments said that there are only two commandments, to love God with your heart, soul and mind and then to love your neighbor as much as yourself. He said the entire Judaic Law hinged on those two commandments. In presenting the commandments in this way he reveals the spirit behind the Ten Commandments and at the same time gives a way of trying to understand why God would ask someone like Abraham to sacrifice their son. Anyway, my point was originally, that I find it a little annoying that in America, it is considered low-brow and inappropriate to truly discuss the merits and differences of religions. The dialogue almost always devolves into a discussion about the actions of adherents to particular faiths, which in some ways is irrelevant to the concept of religion, since religion is meant to transcend human failings and present an ideal to strive for, not to embody the failings of those who follow that religion. If anything those human failings serve to show how well the adherents of a particular religion pay attention to the tenets of their faith.