In the following T. S. Eliot makes a fascinating claim about the relationship between Europe (perhaps the West) and Christianity. Would you grant any validity to what he holds?
Yet there is an aspect in which we can see a religion as the whole way of life of a people, from birth to the grave, from morning to night and even in sleep, and that way of life is also its culture…. The dominant force in creating a common culture between peoples each of which has its distinct culture, is religion. Please do not, at this point, make a mistake in anticipating my meaning. This is not a religious talk, and I am not setting out to convert anybody. I am simply stating a fact. I am not so much concerned with the communion of Christian believers today; I am talking about the common tradition of Christianity which has made Europe what it is, and about the common cultural elements which this common Christianity has brought with it.
[. . .] It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe have—until recently—been rooted. It is against a background of Christianity that all our thought has significance. An individual European may not believe that the Christian Faith is true, and yet what he says, and makes, and does, will all spring out of his heritage of Christian culture and depend upon that culture for its meaning. Only a Christian could have reproduced a Voltaire or a Nietzsche. I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Christian Faith. And I am convinced of that, not merely because I am a Christian myself, but as a student of social biology. If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes."
--Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948)
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Orphan(?) Trade
Compelling article and slide show discussing the international adoption trade. A tragic example of bad things happening when we think are actions are helping others.
Visual of the day - Fat and Happy
In light of our upcoming discussion, I decided to go back to the OECD Social indicators data and plot obesity against happiness. Each dot represents a nation.Notice that there is slight positive correlation - the nations with higher obesity report somewhat higher life satisfaction. Correlation does not imply causation, but this is interesting for a curious mind nevertheless.
Is New Urbanism a Fantasy?
This is the opening to the 1996 Charter for New Urbanism:
The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society's built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge.
We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.
We recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community stability, and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework.
We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.
We represent a broad-based citizenry, composed of public and private sector leaders, community activists, and multidisciplinary professionals. We are committed to reestablishing the relationship between the art of building and the making of community, through citizen-based participatory planning and design.
We dedicate ourselves to reclaiming our homes, blocks, streets, parks, neighborhoods, districts, towns, cities, regions, and environment.
The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society's built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge.
We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.
We recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community stability, and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework.
We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.
We represent a broad-based citizenry, composed of public and private sector leaders, community activists, and multidisciplinary professionals. We are committed to reestablishing the relationship between the art of building and the making of community, through citizen-based participatory planning and design.
We dedicate ourselves to reclaiming our homes, blocks, streets, parks, neighborhoods, districts, towns, cities, regions, and environment.
The full set of principles can be accessed at http://www.cnu.org/charter .
Two other sites worth viewing are:
http://www.newurbannews.com/AboutNewUrbanism.html
http://www.newurbanism.org/newurbanism/principles.html
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Visual of the day - Taxes; Obesity
The above image shows that US is one of the least taxed countries in the world, if we look at tax revenue as percentage of the total economy. Granted, these are 2005 stats. Some things have changed. (From thinkorthwim; full 4 page report here).
On an unrelated note, but possibly useful for our Tuesday discussion - this image relates recent OECD statistics about eating time in various nations to obesity in various nations. Interesting, isn't it? This comes from Econmix.
'til Divorce Do We Part?
Historian of law and religion John Witte, Jr. describes four models of marriage in the Western Christian tradition that have had an important impact on early marriage, divorce, and family law in the United States.
1) Within Roman Catholic tradition, marriage has been understood as a sacrament that, while a natural and contractual association of a man and a woman for the purposes of propagation, childrearing, and companionship, is primarily a spiritual union that brings grace to the couple and to those touched by their marriage. Such marriages might be annulled, but they can not be dissolved by divorce.
The three major streams of magisterial Protestantism each in turn rejected Catholic sacramentalism, but often borrowed many particulars from Catholic canon law.
2) Lutheranism stressed that the Christian life shares in two kingdoms, an earthly, political one and a spiritual, heavenly one. Marriage is a natural and civil institution, and thus both marriage and divorce are earthly, public acts that involve the judge, the magistrate, and the priest. In turn,
3) Calvinism stressed marriage as a covenant that involves the whole community--parents, witnesses, the minister, and the magistrate. As an act that shares in the creation, marriage has in mind the spiritual and moral well-being of the couple and of their children. God is a part of every covenant. Even though divorce might become necessary in cases in which the covenant has been broken, it is a serious undertaking, and it must encounter a large number of barriers to prevent easy suits.
4) Anglicanism pictured marriage as a little commonwealth in which the serious covenant with one's spouse serves not only to teach the couple the moral and spiritual virtues, but also to act as a "seedbed and seminary" for the local church, polity, and community in these virtues. Divorce was almost entirely prohibited in this tradition.
Arising in the 18th century, the Enlightenment view of marriage was often to void the sacramental and covenantal assumptions about marriage for purely contractual ones representing a voluntary bargain between two persons with agreed-upon terms and time limits. This view argued for the removal of conditions of parental consent, community witness, or ecclesiastical blessing. While these notions only marginally made their presence known in the U.S. during the 19th century, by the mid-20th century they became more and more predominant with divorce becoming easier and easier to obtain, especially after the rise of no-fault divorce and more fluid definitions of marriage and consensual relationships.
What does this brief history have to teach us about the nature of marriage, divorce, and family law? Any thoughts?
1) Within Roman Catholic tradition, marriage has been understood as a sacrament that, while a natural and contractual association of a man and a woman for the purposes of propagation, childrearing, and companionship, is primarily a spiritual union that brings grace to the couple and to those touched by their marriage. Such marriages might be annulled, but they can not be dissolved by divorce.
The three major streams of magisterial Protestantism each in turn rejected Catholic sacramentalism, but often borrowed many particulars from Catholic canon law.
2) Lutheranism stressed that the Christian life shares in two kingdoms, an earthly, political one and a spiritual, heavenly one. Marriage is a natural and civil institution, and thus both marriage and divorce are earthly, public acts that involve the judge, the magistrate, and the priest. In turn,
3) Calvinism stressed marriage as a covenant that involves the whole community--parents, witnesses, the minister, and the magistrate. As an act that shares in the creation, marriage has in mind the spiritual and moral well-being of the couple and of their children. God is a part of every covenant. Even though divorce might become necessary in cases in which the covenant has been broken, it is a serious undertaking, and it must encounter a large number of barriers to prevent easy suits.
4) Anglicanism pictured marriage as a little commonwealth in which the serious covenant with one's spouse serves not only to teach the couple the moral and spiritual virtues, but also to act as a "seedbed and seminary" for the local church, polity, and community in these virtues. Divorce was almost entirely prohibited in this tradition.
Arising in the 18th century, the Enlightenment view of marriage was often to void the sacramental and covenantal assumptions about marriage for purely contractual ones representing a voluntary bargain between two persons with agreed-upon terms and time limits. This view argued for the removal of conditions of parental consent, community witness, or ecclesiastical blessing. While these notions only marginally made their presence known in the U.S. during the 19th century, by the mid-20th century they became more and more predominant with divorce becoming easier and easier to obtain, especially after the rise of no-fault divorce and more fluid definitions of marriage and consensual relationships.
What does this brief history have to teach us about the nature of marriage, divorce, and family law? Any thoughts?
Article Link
Here is the link to the article discussing the German economy and social services. The Families name is actually Fuerstenberger. They have four children and receive monthly compensation from the German government for each child. both parents are currently but have zero concerns regarding providing for their family.
Of course, they will continue to pay taxes at an oppressive rate as they re-enter the workforce.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30363790//
Of course, they will continue to pay taxes at an oppressive rate as they re-enter the workforce.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30363790//
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)