On the occasion of Father’s Day, I am pleased to reflect on the qualities that make a man a good father. As a man with four children ranging in age from 3 to 11, I know that spending time with the kids is very important. The kids crave my time and attention. It makes me realize what a position of honor it is to be a father.
There are so many things a man can do to be a good father, but I want to suggest that the most important two things that a man must do is love God and love his wife. If you do these two things, everything else a father does for his children will be more meaningful.
A man can show his love for God in all kinds of ways; keeping the commandments is one of the more obvious ways. Let me focus on two of the commandments: No. 1, “Love God with all your heart and have no strange gods before me;” and No. 4, “Honor your father and mother.”
Let’s look at the first half of the first commandment. One of the most important ways to show your love for God is to pray to Him. As parents, we are teachers, and one of the very important lessons that we teach our children is to pray to God, to talk to Him regularly, to develop a relationship with Him. It is very important for children to see their father praying to God. In our own home, I am pleased to lead prayers every evening for our children. In addition to standard prayers, we mention specific needs, asking for God’s grace.
Not all prayer is done in a group. I encourage each of the kids to pray on their own. Sometimes if my kids get up early they will see me praying by myself. I think it is important for them to see that for me, prayer is real. I mean it when I am talking to God, or trying to listen to Him. They see me on my knees, taking time to communicate with my Maker. There is no more powerful teacher than example and my sincere hope is that each of the kids will develop meaningful prayer habits that help them grow as close to God as possible.
It is typically said there are four kinds of prayer: praise, penance, petition and gratitude. In terms of being a father, I particularly want my kids to focus on those prayers of gratitude. We are so richly blessed, living in the United States in the early 21st century. We have a better life than most of the kings in history had. It is so easy to take our blessings for granted and this is a mistake. I really try to encourage my kids to take time at the start of every day to thank God for all that He has given to us.
While we can all work on being more grateful, I think gratitude is an attitude that is particularly important to develop in children. Media bombards our children with messages about things they should want. Those TV commercials are always telling kids they should want more. No matter what they already have, TV is pointing out the things they don’t have and encouraging them to want more. This sets a kid on the road to materialism, which never brings true happiness.
It is reasonable for a person to want the things that he needs, and perhaps a few things he doesn’t. Consider, however, that if a person allowed himself to be influenced by all the advertisements out there, he would want far more things than anyone could ever buy; he would be miserable. Perhaps adults can make distinctions about when to draw the line on more things to want, but I don’t think a kid is naturally equipped with that ability. I child will always want more and more, especially if the child is encouraged by the messages he sees and hears.
While we can shield our kids to an extent from these messages, the real antidote to want is gratitude. If a person has a healthy attitude of gratitude, those messages won’t sink in so quickly. If a child gets used to thinking about all the things they already have, they are less inclined to focus on the things they don’t have. I once heard someone say that one of the great tricks in life is to want the things you have, not the things you don’t have. That’s a definition of gratitude, and it is something I believe every good father needs to try to cultivate in their children; prayers of gratitude are one great way to do that.
The second part of that first commandment – ‘Have no strange gods before Me” – speaks particularly to fathers. We don’t typically think of false gods in today’s world. Nobody worships a golden calf anymore the way they did in the Old Testament. But in today’s world, I think men are particularly susceptible to making a false god out of their work. Many men relish their role as provider and some men get carried away. They focus all of their energy on their work and forget about their wife and kids. They justify consuming work schedules by telling themselves that they are providing for their families, but if a father can’t provide some time for his kids then the money he provides is far less meaningful.
My own house, like the homes of any family with four small children, is chaotic. For me, going to work is an escape. It is a place of peace compared to my house. It would be easy to begin to think of the office as my temple. It would be easy to begin to think of my work as my god. It would be easy to fool myself into believing that I need to work seven days a week, and that as long as I am earning money, it is okay that I don’t have any time for my family. What a mistake that would be. But I think a lot of guys make that mistake.
Work is important, but it cannot become our god. The second part of that first commandment is an admonition to keep our priorities in order. In any man’s life God comes first, then wife, then children and then work. The first commandment should help fathers remember this, even in the face of temptations to fiddle with that order.
The other commandment I really like to think about in terms of fatherhood is the fourth commandment. Of course, I like the idea that children are supposed to honor their father and mother. I make sure my kids know this commandment. I remind them of it whenever I can. But the real power behind this commandment is not what my kids should be doing for me, but what I should be doing for my own parents. Commandment No. 4 doesn’t stop when I turned 18. I had parents then and I still have parents, so the commandment still applies. I am still required to honor my parents, and I have to be mindful that my kids are watching.
One of the biggest issues for many people like myself –- people in their 40s –- is figuring out how to care for aging parents. My parents are living independently on their own at this point, but what will happen in the future if they really need my care? I need to be there for them. This means really caring for them, offering them my home if they need it. Just like being a good father means being there for your children, being a good child in adulthood means being there for my parents.
Living up to the demands of the fourth commandment is a big responsibility, and it requires planning. Where will mom and dad live in their old age? Where will the surviving spouse live after one of them dies? Although it is highly unfashionable for elderly parents to live with their children, I really think people should consider this arrangement and make plans for it as a possibility. Although thousands of people die every year surrounded by strangers at a nursing home, I can’t believe anyone really wants that. We don’t want to see our parents living in a nursing home. And I don’t believe any elderly person really wants to be there. People naturally want to be around the people they love, who typically come from their own families.
So honoring mom and dad means thinking about these end-of-life issues and making plans to deal with them in a meaningful way. Of course, this is not easy. Many older parents don’t want to talk about it. Many aging parents have judgment that is adversely affected by their pride and sense of independence. They consider themselves to be a burden rather than the gift from God that they truly are. Adult kids have to talk with siblings about this; they have to plan as best they can, and they have to be willing to consider the welfare of their parents to the same degree that they would consider their own welfare or the welfare of their children.
Children will always watch how their mom and dad treat their parents. I know I did. I was fortunate as a child to have the example of my own father who cared lovingly for his dear aging aunt. I watched as he visited her daily, took care of her affairs and brought her to our home frequently for visits. So honoring your mother and father is an important commandment from at least two perspectives. First, as adults we need to care for our parents as part of our own obligation, and second, the degree to which we care for our parents is likely to be the degree to which our own children one day care for us.
In addition to heeding the commandments, the other thing a man can do to be a good father is love his wife. I can think of at least a couple of ways to do that.
The first is to show complete unity with your wife in front of your children. When it comes to raising kids, I think it is essential that the kids get a consistent message from their parents. So when it comes to guiding the kids, Susan and I are always in agreement. We discuss differences in private, but in front of the kids, we display a unified front. Remember that natural order of priorities I mentioned earlier?… God, wife, kids, work. I think kids naturally understand this and they test it by occasionally trying to divide mom and dad. They play us against each other or try to win the affection of one parent over the other. But the best response from the parents is to show the child that mom and dad are in lock-step together. This might lead to some surface-level disappoint for the child but I think deep down, the child is actually glad to have the parents affirm a natural order where they love each other first, and then they love their kids.
I know one of the greatest ways I can show my love for Susan is to back her up in any situation in front of the kids. Most of the discipline in our home falls on Susan, simply because she is around the kids more than I am. So there cannot be any ambiguity about Susan’s parental authority. The kids need to know that what she says stands. Usually Susan’s own word is enough, but sometimes the kids press the situation and they need to hear from me that whatever Susan says goes. Again, while the kids might not like having to do what Susan asks, I think they are affirmed by seeing mom and dad in agreement.
The other way that a man can truly show his love for his wife is to think seriously about what it means to respect her human dignity. People are not things that should be used, like a good power tool. People are created in the image of God and therefore have dignity beyond any man-made object. So I cannot use my wife for my own pleasure or convenience. I have to respect the way she is made. Women obviously have a fertility cycle that differs from men and I have to respect that. Attempts to change that are really just me being selfish. It’s me saying I don’t really like the way God made women and I think I can do better for my own purposes.
Nobody likes to talk about this because marital relations are so deeply personal. Sex is a great gift from God and my own experience tells me I don’t need to try to improve on God’s plan for married people. He has given us the science to determine with incredible accuracy when we are fertile and infertile, and He has given us the will to act accordingly, if we choose. This isn’t something He gave to animals. This is something uniquely human, and Susan and I try to celebrate this Godly dignity in our marriage.
As my kids grow, I am gradually understanding more and more what it means to be a father. I understand now that fatherhood is a great gift from God, something I wasn’t necessarily clear on when we got our first child in 1995. I can see now that God is concerned about my salvation and one of the reasons He gave us kids is to help us get to heaven. We are born with natural selfishness and life’s journey is about moving toward selflessness. Children are really helping me along in this journey.
Before Susan and I had children, it was so easy to be selfish. It was so easy to focus on myself – what recreation I was going to pursue, what trips I was going to take, what I was going to buy next. None of that stuff is bad on its own, but collectively it was all about me.
Then the kids came along. All of a sudden, I am forced to think about someone other than me. I have to respond to my kids. And the more I do, the less I think about me. And fortunately, God understands my weakness and He gradually works me into the program. We didn’t get all four kids at once. With our first child, I really didn’t have to give up many of my personal pursuits. With the second child, I could begin to see that I would need to make some adjustments to my lifestyle. By the time the third and fourth child came along, I had given up most of my personal pursuits, and was now directing my energy and time to someone other than me. And this has been a great blessing… the great blessing of fatherhood.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Figuring out the purpose of work
This is a column I wrote for the May/June edition of Family Foundations magazine:
With four children and a wife at home, I am very attuned to my responsibility to provide. It takes a lot of money to pay the mortgage, eat three meals a day, buy insurance and household goods, maintain two cars, send the kids to the local Catholic school and pay my taxes on time. Then I read those Money Magazine articles that tell me I need to save three million dollars if I hope to send my kids to a good college some day. And they tell me I need to save a million more if I want anything to retire on!
The weight of this responsibility was casting a cloud over my work. The more I focused on what I was earning, the less I focused on what I was doing, and that made the work less fulfilling. For a long time, I used to think that the purpose of work was to earn money. After all, I have to provide. But then, as a Christian, I know that it is God who provides. If I really believe that, then I can’t say I provide. If I claim to be providing for my family and myself, then am I really claiming to be my own god?
It took me some time, but I have resolved in my own mind the dilemma between my role as provider and my belief that God provides. With this conflict resolved, I have found it easier to focus on what I do at work, and that has led to new levels of fulfillment in my work. It was a story in Matthew’s Gospel that helped me.
You know the story. A man is going away on a journey. He gives one servant five talents, another servant two talents and a third servant one talent. When he comes back sometime later, he rewards the first two servants for doubling his money and he punishes the third servant who did nothing with his talent. If the man in this story is like God, and I am like one of those servants, then my dilemma clears up: God provides, but He still expects us to work. The man in the story provided for all three of the servants, and he clearly expected all of them to work. So the fact that God provides does not mean that I am not supposed to work.
But that still leaves me with a question about the purpose of work. If the purpose of work is not to make money, then what is it? If God provides, then why does He want me to work? My wife and kids helped me to see the answer.
Before we had children, I could spend a lot of time thinking about playing softball, taking vacations, going to movies and dining out. In other words, it was very easy to be selfish. But with the arrival of each child in our family, it became a little more difficult to remain selfish. By the time the second child came along, I gave up the softball game. With the third child, weekly nights out with the guys became a thing of the past. I found myself redirecting my energy and attention on my family. And you know what? I didn’t even mind. By the time the fourth child arrived, I had given up most of the personal pastimes that seemed so important to me years ago. Clearly, God gave me a family to help me mature toward selflessness, away from my natural born selfishness.
God could have set up the world any number of ways. He could have chosen to simply create everyone as adults. But He didn’t; God created a system of children and parents called ‘family’ that naturally draws its participants closer to Him.
It’s the same with work. God could have set the world up any way He wanted and He chose a system that requires our participation in the workforce. The point of this participation is not so we can provide on our own, but to draw us closer to Him. Just like parenting is supposed to help us grow closer to God, so is working. Interacting with those in our workplace, paying attention to details, really trying to do a good job, these are all small steps on our faith journey.
For those first two servants in Matthew’s Gospel, fulfillment came from pleasing their master more than it did from doubling their money. The possibility of pleasing God makes my work far more fulfilling than my paycheck.
With four children and a wife at home, I am very attuned to my responsibility to provide. It takes a lot of money to pay the mortgage, eat three meals a day, buy insurance and household goods, maintain two cars, send the kids to the local Catholic school and pay my taxes on time. Then I read those Money Magazine articles that tell me I need to save three million dollars if I hope to send my kids to a good college some day. And they tell me I need to save a million more if I want anything to retire on!
The weight of this responsibility was casting a cloud over my work. The more I focused on what I was earning, the less I focused on what I was doing, and that made the work less fulfilling. For a long time, I used to think that the purpose of work was to earn money. After all, I have to provide. But then, as a Christian, I know that it is God who provides. If I really believe that, then I can’t say I provide. If I claim to be providing for my family and myself, then am I really claiming to be my own god?
It took me some time, but I have resolved in my own mind the dilemma between my role as provider and my belief that God provides. With this conflict resolved, I have found it easier to focus on what I do at work, and that has led to new levels of fulfillment in my work. It was a story in Matthew’s Gospel that helped me.
You know the story. A man is going away on a journey. He gives one servant five talents, another servant two talents and a third servant one talent. When he comes back sometime later, he rewards the first two servants for doubling his money and he punishes the third servant who did nothing with his talent. If the man in this story is like God, and I am like one of those servants, then my dilemma clears up: God provides, but He still expects us to work. The man in the story provided for all three of the servants, and he clearly expected all of them to work. So the fact that God provides does not mean that I am not supposed to work.
But that still leaves me with a question about the purpose of work. If the purpose of work is not to make money, then what is it? If God provides, then why does He want me to work? My wife and kids helped me to see the answer.
Before we had children, I could spend a lot of time thinking about playing softball, taking vacations, going to movies and dining out. In other words, it was very easy to be selfish. But with the arrival of each child in our family, it became a little more difficult to remain selfish. By the time the second child came along, I gave up the softball game. With the third child, weekly nights out with the guys became a thing of the past. I found myself redirecting my energy and attention on my family. And you know what? I didn’t even mind. By the time the fourth child arrived, I had given up most of the personal pastimes that seemed so important to me years ago. Clearly, God gave me a family to help me mature toward selflessness, away from my natural born selfishness.
God could have set up the world any number of ways. He could have chosen to simply create everyone as adults. But He didn’t; God created a system of children and parents called ‘family’ that naturally draws its participants closer to Him.
It’s the same with work. God could have set the world up any way He wanted and He chose a system that requires our participation in the workforce. The point of this participation is not so we can provide on our own, but to draw us closer to Him. Just like parenting is supposed to help us grow closer to God, so is working. Interacting with those in our workplace, paying attention to details, really trying to do a good job, these are all small steps on our faith journey.
For those first two servants in Matthew’s Gospel, fulfillment came from pleasing their master more than it did from doubling their money. The possibility of pleasing God makes my work far more fulfilling than my paycheck.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Wood: Make all the time you can for your children, while there’s still time
I had an opportunity to interview Steve Wood recently for Family Foundations, the membership magazine of the Couple to Couple League (www.CCLI.org). Steve has built a name for himself as a former Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism. He heads the Family Life Center International, based in Greenville, S.C., and frequently speaks at Christian men’s conferences. Steve is one of the originators of St. Joseph’s Covenant Keepers, Inc., an international network of Christian men. Wood is the author of several books, including the just published “Legacy – Handbook for Fathers.” Following are excerpts from our conversation:
How does a father parent differently to a daughter than to a son?
Certain things take on added importance with a daughter. For example, keeping your marriage together is critical for a boy or a daughter, but a daughter will always carry the image of the man either being faithful or unfaithful to her mother. And if she can’t trust the first man in her life to stick around, she will find a lifelong challenge trusting any man to commit to her for life.
In a similar fashion, it is important for fathers to spend generous amounts of time with their children. But with daughters, I have found, the time window of opportunity for doing that is far shorter. For instance, I could wake up my teenage sons this Saturday and say, ‘Who wants to go to Home Depot?’ and they would jump out of bed and join me. When my daughters were young, I could say to them, ‘Who wants to go to Home Depot?’ and they would all jump in the car with me. But if I say to my teenage daughters, ‘Would you like to go with your brothers and me to Home Depot?’ they would look at me with a funny look on their face because their interests have changed. There is a very natural separation that will happen more acutely with daughters. So if fathers are going to impact their daughters, they better not lose the opportunity of doing that in childhood.
How does a father weigh the role of disciplinarian and friend to a son or daughter?
Well, isn’t that what the Christian life is? Balance? Think of our Heavenly Father; some people want to make Him only a judge, and not a merciful father. He is both. The reason He is good at either one is that He is good at both.
I believe that a highly religious father commitment to disciplining his children needs to know how to have fun. One of my favorite examples is Saint Thomas More. Here is a man who wore a hair shirt. He got up in the middle of the night to study his faith, died a martyr and everything else. A lot of people don’t know that St. Thomas More kept a monkey in his home simply for the pure entertainment of his family. As the monkey did silly things, they could all sit there, as a highly religious family, and laugh. If dad can’t lighten up, and I am talking about the religious dads, it is a huge mistake to be so serious about your faith that you just can’t have some wild and crazy fun. A dad needs to do both.
Do you have any thoughts for fathers who find themselves in disagreement with their wife about how to raise their child, or about how to deal with a particular issued involving their child? The father has a headship role in the family. If he finds himself in disagreement with his wife should he assert his headship even if it means going against his wife?
I greatly prefer that both parents make a lifelong journey of learning about their faith, about marriage and about parenting. And rather than having two, opposite, inflexible opinions, ideally husband and wife grow together. So if my wife is reading an interesting article on discipline that she thinks has certain insights and a certain balance that might be needed in our family, I would like to look it over. And if I find something that really seems to strike home, then I ask her to listen to that. Rather than having entrenched opposite positions, you try to grow together, and the earlier you begin this process the better.
What is the most important thing a man can do to become an even better father?
I am going to mention what I believe is perhaps the most neglected thing – that’s a man being a man. That’s doing the things you love and making your children a part of that.
For instance, so many men feel that they love their sports life, their outdoor life, and they also love their children, their family life. But they keep these things as distinct spheres. I believe that men can and should pursue their sports and hobbies, their outdoor life, but do so in a way that whatever you love, you incorporate those you love in those activities. By doing so, you are building an incredibly strong relational bridge between you and your children because you are sharing something you really love with your children. A father who does that is setting himself up to be the best religious educator in the world because the strength of the faith conveyed by any religious teacher is directly dependent upon their relationship between the teacher and the student. And if a father builds these relationships in a special way –- by fishing, hunting, kayaking, backpacking, bicycling, whatever it is with your children –- then you do a little bit of religious instruction and it goes a long, long way, and it doesn’t pass away during the adolescent challenges.
How does a father parent differently to a daughter than to a son?
Certain things take on added importance with a daughter. For example, keeping your marriage together is critical for a boy or a daughter, but a daughter will always carry the image of the man either being faithful or unfaithful to her mother. And if she can’t trust the first man in her life to stick around, she will find a lifelong challenge trusting any man to commit to her for life.
In a similar fashion, it is important for fathers to spend generous amounts of time with their children. But with daughters, I have found, the time window of opportunity for doing that is far shorter. For instance, I could wake up my teenage sons this Saturday and say, ‘Who wants to go to Home Depot?’ and they would jump out of bed and join me. When my daughters were young, I could say to them, ‘Who wants to go to Home Depot?’ and they would all jump in the car with me. But if I say to my teenage daughters, ‘Would you like to go with your brothers and me to Home Depot?’ they would look at me with a funny look on their face because their interests have changed. There is a very natural separation that will happen more acutely with daughters. So if fathers are going to impact their daughters, they better not lose the opportunity of doing that in childhood.
How does a father weigh the role of disciplinarian and friend to a son or daughter?
Well, isn’t that what the Christian life is? Balance? Think of our Heavenly Father; some people want to make Him only a judge, and not a merciful father. He is both. The reason He is good at either one is that He is good at both.
I believe that a highly religious father commitment to disciplining his children needs to know how to have fun. One of my favorite examples is Saint Thomas More. Here is a man who wore a hair shirt. He got up in the middle of the night to study his faith, died a martyr and everything else. A lot of people don’t know that St. Thomas More kept a monkey in his home simply for the pure entertainment of his family. As the monkey did silly things, they could all sit there, as a highly religious family, and laugh. If dad can’t lighten up, and I am talking about the religious dads, it is a huge mistake to be so serious about your faith that you just can’t have some wild and crazy fun. A dad needs to do both.
Do you have any thoughts for fathers who find themselves in disagreement with their wife about how to raise their child, or about how to deal with a particular issued involving their child? The father has a headship role in the family. If he finds himself in disagreement with his wife should he assert his headship even if it means going against his wife?
I greatly prefer that both parents make a lifelong journey of learning about their faith, about marriage and about parenting. And rather than having two, opposite, inflexible opinions, ideally husband and wife grow together. So if my wife is reading an interesting article on discipline that she thinks has certain insights and a certain balance that might be needed in our family, I would like to look it over. And if I find something that really seems to strike home, then I ask her to listen to that. Rather than having entrenched opposite positions, you try to grow together, and the earlier you begin this process the better.
What is the most important thing a man can do to become an even better father?
I am going to mention what I believe is perhaps the most neglected thing – that’s a man being a man. That’s doing the things you love and making your children a part of that.
For instance, so many men feel that they love their sports life, their outdoor life, and they also love their children, their family life. But they keep these things as distinct spheres. I believe that men can and should pursue their sports and hobbies, their outdoor life, but do so in a way that whatever you love, you incorporate those you love in those activities. By doing so, you are building an incredibly strong relational bridge between you and your children because you are sharing something you really love with your children. A father who does that is setting himself up to be the best religious educator in the world because the strength of the faith conveyed by any religious teacher is directly dependent upon their relationship between the teacher and the student. And if a father builds these relationships in a special way –- by fishing, hunting, kayaking, backpacking, bicycling, whatever it is with your children –- then you do a little bit of religious instruction and it goes a long, long way, and it doesn’t pass away during the adolescent challenges.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Rome in Milwaukee
Rome is a great destination, but if you can’t get there any time soon, you might consider Milwaukee, at least between now and the end of the month. The Milwaukee Public Museum is hosting a fantastic exhibit called “Saint Peter and the Vatican: Legacy of the Popes.” I had a chance to tour the exhibit on a recent Saturday and found it to be well worth the six-hour drive from Minneapolis.
The gold, silver and jewels in the crosses, chalices and other items on display are striking, but the most impressive part of the exhibit for me was the historical account of the popes and St. Peter’s Basilica. The story of the largest church in the world points to two very controversial periods in the history of the Catholic Church.
The first period was three or four decades after the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Often, it is purported that Peter, the impetuous apostle whom Christ designated the leader of His sheep, died in 64 a.d. This exhibit notes, however, that Rome was largely destroyed by fire, perhaps set by the emperor Nero himself, in 68 a.d. Nero blamed Christians for the fire, so there is speculation that both Peter and Paul were executed at that time. Either way, the belief is Peter was crucified upside down in Nero’s circus, or stadium, and buried in a non-descript grave nearby. After the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312, he built a church on the site of the grave, which eventually became the St. Peter’s Basilica we know today.
Fast forward to the 20th century. In 1939, workers accidentally discovered the cemetery below the basilica. Pope Pius XII authorized exploration. They discovered monuments which appeared to honor Peter. They found human bones of a man who was ultimately declared to be Peter. The skeleton believed to be Peter was cut off at the feet, which scholars speculate is consistent with Peter’s execution. Supporters likely stole his body in the middle of the night, ripping him in haste from the cross. An ax may have been used to cut his feet which were nailed down. In 1968, Pope Paul VI declared the find to be the actual bones of Peter.
As the Milwaukee Public Museum exhibit explains, the Vatican offers a tour under St. Peter’s Basilica where one can view the burial place and the bones. My wife and I actually took that tour when we were in Rome in 1994. It is impressive, given the proximity of the find, which is directly below the high altar of the church.
But the bones are controversial. Of course there is no way to know for sure whose bones they are. Many scholars claim Peter’s tomb is in Jerusalem. And, another church in Rome, St. John Lateran, has long claimed to have Peter’s skull enshrined in its altar. People who attack Catholicism have been known to point to this discrepancy to prove the fallacy of papal infallibility. A pope’s pronouncement regarding an archeological find, however, does not carry the assurance of infallibility. The Church always has taught that infallibility only applies to papal pronouncements regarding matters of faith and morals.
The other controversial period in history highlighted by St. Peter’s Basilica is the beginning of the 16th century. The original church built on St. Peter’s burial site fell into dangerous disrepair so the construction of a new basilica was begun in 1506. Martin Luther began the reformation in 1517 when he nailed his 95 theses on the door of the castle church at Wittenberg, Germany. Luther built a following partly because of widespread ill-will generated by the collection of money around Europe for the construction of the basilica in Rome. Many people grumbled about having to pay for a church building they were unlikely to ever see themselves. (Perhaps the debate back then was a little like the one in Minnesota now about whether residents all over the state should pay for a new stadium in the Twin Cities.) Of course there were many other factors that contributed to the rise of the reformation, but the funding arrangement for the new basilica didn’t help.
History is very complicated, filled with conflicts and disputes. The history of the Church is no exception. The Milwaukee Public Museum exhibit gives us a great look back at some of that history. I would encourage everyone to go, if possible, regardless of your faith. My family went on a Saturday and it was very crowded; perhaps the crowds would be smaller during the week. The exhibit originally was scheduled to conclude today, but it has been extended through the end of the month.
The gold, silver and jewels in the crosses, chalices and other items on display are striking, but the most impressive part of the exhibit for me was the historical account of the popes and St. Peter’s Basilica. The story of the largest church in the world points to two very controversial periods in the history of the Catholic Church.
The first period was three or four decades after the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Often, it is purported that Peter, the impetuous apostle whom Christ designated the leader of His sheep, died in 64 a.d. This exhibit notes, however, that Rome was largely destroyed by fire, perhaps set by the emperor Nero himself, in 68 a.d. Nero blamed Christians for the fire, so there is speculation that both Peter and Paul were executed at that time. Either way, the belief is Peter was crucified upside down in Nero’s circus, or stadium, and buried in a non-descript grave nearby. After the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312, he built a church on the site of the grave, which eventually became the St. Peter’s Basilica we know today.
Fast forward to the 20th century. In 1939, workers accidentally discovered the cemetery below the basilica. Pope Pius XII authorized exploration. They discovered monuments which appeared to honor Peter. They found human bones of a man who was ultimately declared to be Peter. The skeleton believed to be Peter was cut off at the feet, which scholars speculate is consistent with Peter’s execution. Supporters likely stole his body in the middle of the night, ripping him in haste from the cross. An ax may have been used to cut his feet which were nailed down. In 1968, Pope Paul VI declared the find to be the actual bones of Peter.
As the Milwaukee Public Museum exhibit explains, the Vatican offers a tour under St. Peter’s Basilica where one can view the burial place and the bones. My wife and I actually took that tour when we were in Rome in 1994. It is impressive, given the proximity of the find, which is directly below the high altar of the church.
But the bones are controversial. Of course there is no way to know for sure whose bones they are. Many scholars claim Peter’s tomb is in Jerusalem. And, another church in Rome, St. John Lateran, has long claimed to have Peter’s skull enshrined in its altar. People who attack Catholicism have been known to point to this discrepancy to prove the fallacy of papal infallibility. A pope’s pronouncement regarding an archeological find, however, does not carry the assurance of infallibility. The Church always has taught that infallibility only applies to papal pronouncements regarding matters of faith and morals.
The other controversial period in history highlighted by St. Peter’s Basilica is the beginning of the 16th century. The original church built on St. Peter’s burial site fell into dangerous disrepair so the construction of a new basilica was begun in 1506. Martin Luther began the reformation in 1517 when he nailed his 95 theses on the door of the castle church at Wittenberg, Germany. Luther built a following partly because of widespread ill-will generated by the collection of money around Europe for the construction of the basilica in Rome. Many people grumbled about having to pay for a church building they were unlikely to ever see themselves. (Perhaps the debate back then was a little like the one in Minnesota now about whether residents all over the state should pay for a new stadium in the Twin Cities.) Of course there were many other factors that contributed to the rise of the reformation, but the funding arrangement for the new basilica didn’t help.
History is very complicated, filled with conflicts and disputes. The history of the Church is no exception. The Milwaukee Public Museum exhibit gives us a great look back at some of that history. I would encourage everyone to go, if possible, regardless of your faith. My family went on a Saturday and it was very crowded; perhaps the crowds would be smaller during the week. The exhibit originally was scheduled to conclude today, but it has been extended through the end of the month.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Religious awakening spurs Medved’s socio-political conversion described in 'Right Turns'
I have long been interested in people who find ways to integrate their faith into their work and I was pleasantly surprised when I read Michael Medved’s “Right Turns” that such integration is the theme of his autobiographical book. The only thing I knew about Medved before I picked the book up was that he hosted a movie review program on PBS called "Sneak Previews" for a dozen years. Given that I don’t think much of most of the movies that come out of Hollywood, I wasn’t expecting much from the book.
But I was pleasantly surprised. Medved hooked me early and his robust writing style kept me all the way through the 400-plus pages. Published in 2004, I understand the book is just coming out in paperback. Of course it was interesting to read about his association with a number of famous people –- political people such as John Kerry, Hillary Rodham, Bill Clinton, and movie stars such as Barbara Streisand and Mel Gibson. But much more interesting to me was the transformation that took place within his life.
Medved chronicles his conversion from a far-left liberal to a conservative who currently hosts a right-wing talk radio show. At the foundation of his conversion is his devout Judaism. Medved grew up in a secular home that was Jewish in name only. As a young man, be brought home a girlfriend who happened to be Catholic. When it became apparent to his parents that the relationship might lead to marriage, Medved’s father expressed serious concern. He was angry that his oldest son would consider marrying outside his own faith. This shocked Michael, given he has seen so little to lead him to believe that his parents took their faith seriously. But Medved’s father was serious; he did not want Michael to marry a gentile.
Medved reacted with anger against his father and he left his parents’ home unsure about the possibility of an ongoing relationship with mom and dad. His girlfriend, however, sensed the family tension and decided she didn’t belong with Michael. They broke up not long after that meeting with Medved’s parents. Medved now found himself without a girlfriend and with a strained relationship with his parents.
He reacted by digging into Judaism. He wanted to learn what it meant to be a Jew; he wanted to understand why it was so important to his father that he get married within the faith. As he studied, he grew more interested in his faith. Judaism appealed to him. He started keeping the Sabbath and even the strict dietary laws.
As his faith became more important to him, he migrated toward the conservative end of the political spectrum. As a movie reviewer, his ideas founded in Judaism began to find their way into the reviews he would present on television. He wrote articles claiming Hollywood’s offensive films were out of touch with most Americans. He summed up those ideas in a 1992 best seller book called “Hollywood vs. America.” Today on his radio show, he regularly argues against left-wing political ideology, weaving in Judeo-Christian religious ideals.
Medved’s story impacted me because I know how powerful a father’s reaction can be to a young man’s dreams about marriage. When I was engaged to Susan, I told my parents we planned to travel together to Hawaii, where I happened to be traveling on business. I did not expect my parents to care. My parents graciously did not make a scene upon my announcement, as there were other family members present. But the next day I got a phone call from my dad. He expressed his displeasure with me. He urged me not to travel with Susan. He said it would be bad for Susan and for me. And he said it would set a bad example for my siblings. I was shocked. But in the end, I agreed. I couldn’t disappoint my dad.
That was a turning point in my life. My dad took a stand when it would have been so easy to look the other way. I was, after all, an adult. But Dad made his point, and it impressed me. Medved’s father also took a stand. And it made a lasting impression on him. My story, which I describe in my memoir, “Emerging Son,” and Medved’s story, described in “Right Turns,” shows the impact a father can have on a son –- especially when the son is a young man. A father’s responsibilities don’t stop when his children become 18. Medved’s father apparently understood that, and so did my dad. In my own case, I am very glad that he did; in the case of Michael Medved, a father’s loyalty to his faith shaped the life of a young man who went on to a very interesting, influential life described in this thoroughly enjoyable book.
But I was pleasantly surprised. Medved hooked me early and his robust writing style kept me all the way through the 400-plus pages. Published in 2004, I understand the book is just coming out in paperback. Of course it was interesting to read about his association with a number of famous people –- political people such as John Kerry, Hillary Rodham, Bill Clinton, and movie stars such as Barbara Streisand and Mel Gibson. But much more interesting to me was the transformation that took place within his life.
Medved chronicles his conversion from a far-left liberal to a conservative who currently hosts a right-wing talk radio show. At the foundation of his conversion is his devout Judaism. Medved grew up in a secular home that was Jewish in name only. As a young man, be brought home a girlfriend who happened to be Catholic. When it became apparent to his parents that the relationship might lead to marriage, Medved’s father expressed serious concern. He was angry that his oldest son would consider marrying outside his own faith. This shocked Michael, given he has seen so little to lead him to believe that his parents took their faith seriously. But Medved’s father was serious; he did not want Michael to marry a gentile.
Medved reacted with anger against his father and he left his parents’ home unsure about the possibility of an ongoing relationship with mom and dad. His girlfriend, however, sensed the family tension and decided she didn’t belong with Michael. They broke up not long after that meeting with Medved’s parents. Medved now found himself without a girlfriend and with a strained relationship with his parents.
He reacted by digging into Judaism. He wanted to learn what it meant to be a Jew; he wanted to understand why it was so important to his father that he get married within the faith. As he studied, he grew more interested in his faith. Judaism appealed to him. He started keeping the Sabbath and even the strict dietary laws.
As his faith became more important to him, he migrated toward the conservative end of the political spectrum. As a movie reviewer, his ideas founded in Judaism began to find their way into the reviews he would present on television. He wrote articles claiming Hollywood’s offensive films were out of touch with most Americans. He summed up those ideas in a 1992 best seller book called “Hollywood vs. America.” Today on his radio show, he regularly argues against left-wing political ideology, weaving in Judeo-Christian religious ideals.
Medved’s story impacted me because I know how powerful a father’s reaction can be to a young man’s dreams about marriage. When I was engaged to Susan, I told my parents we planned to travel together to Hawaii, where I happened to be traveling on business. I did not expect my parents to care. My parents graciously did not make a scene upon my announcement, as there were other family members present. But the next day I got a phone call from my dad. He expressed his displeasure with me. He urged me not to travel with Susan. He said it would be bad for Susan and for me. And he said it would set a bad example for my siblings. I was shocked. But in the end, I agreed. I couldn’t disappoint my dad.
That was a turning point in my life. My dad took a stand when it would have been so easy to look the other way. I was, after all, an adult. But Dad made his point, and it impressed me. Medved’s father also took a stand. And it made a lasting impression on him. My story, which I describe in my memoir, “Emerging Son,” and Medved’s story, described in “Right Turns,” shows the impact a father can have on a son –- especially when the son is a young man. A father’s responsibilities don’t stop when his children become 18. Medved’s father apparently understood that, and so did my dad. In my own case, I am very glad that he did; in the case of Michael Medved, a father’s loyalty to his faith shaped the life of a young man who went on to a very interesting, influential life described in this thoroughly enjoyable book.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Book offers glimpse in battle over our future
Kenichi Ohmae is a management consultant who has written more than 100 books and I just finished reading his latest: “The Next Global Stage: Challenges and Opportunities in our Borderless World.” The book is a good primer on the global economy. Ohmae makes a convincing case that communities defined by capital flows are more meaningful than communities formed by political interests. If nothing else, he demonstrates that the two are on a collision course.
Just as sure as water will always move toward the lowest ground, capital will always gravitate toward the places where it produces the greatest return. This has always been true but until the advent of the internet and other technology, physical and political barriers distorted the flow of capital, the same way a dam can prevent water from flowing down a hill. The technology which converts currency to electronic impulses, however, is enabling the natural migration of money. The result is investors are moving money to the most profitable places with greater ease than ever before.
Ohmae notes that money is flowing completely independently of political boundaries. Decades ago, when it was cumbersome to invest internationally, capital often stayed home, even if the homeland offered poor investment options. Now that money is flowing across political borders and oceans into places that offer attractive investments. Politicians who embrace a role in the global economy will see their countries prosper, while those that resist by passing protectionist laws, will put their countries on the sidelines. The way Ohmae describes it, capitalists really control things in the macro sense, not the politicians; the influence of elected officials is really limited to local, short-term situations.
For example, politicians may pass laws preventing outsourcing of jobs, but in the long run, foreign investors won’t look to those countries to set up new companies if they know they are handcuffed on their employment practices. Even home-grown companies are likely to look to foreign countries for starting new ventures if the local hiring laws are more favorable than the domestic ones. Over time, countries permitting the greatest flexibility for the investment of capital will attract much more of it than countries that hold investors to numerous restrictions. Countries that attract capital, inevitably position themselves to offer their citizens a higher standard of living than countries which have trouble attracting capital.
The incongruity of populist political agendas with the natural global flows of capital sets up a battle. Watch Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and members of congress over the next several years to see how they accommodate these often competing sets of interests.
As a book, “The Next Global Stage” has some drawbacks, such as periodic awkwardness in its use of language, and repetition. Ohmae also makes an unconvincing argument that a high-interest rate economy is better than a low-interest rate economy. These deficiencies aside, “The Next Global Stage” offers some useful insight into the battle for our future.
Just as sure as water will always move toward the lowest ground, capital will always gravitate toward the places where it produces the greatest return. This has always been true but until the advent of the internet and other technology, physical and political barriers distorted the flow of capital, the same way a dam can prevent water from flowing down a hill. The technology which converts currency to electronic impulses, however, is enabling the natural migration of money. The result is investors are moving money to the most profitable places with greater ease than ever before.
Ohmae notes that money is flowing completely independently of political boundaries. Decades ago, when it was cumbersome to invest internationally, capital often stayed home, even if the homeland offered poor investment options. Now that money is flowing across political borders and oceans into places that offer attractive investments. Politicians who embrace a role in the global economy will see their countries prosper, while those that resist by passing protectionist laws, will put their countries on the sidelines. The way Ohmae describes it, capitalists really control things in the macro sense, not the politicians; the influence of elected officials is really limited to local, short-term situations.
For example, politicians may pass laws preventing outsourcing of jobs, but in the long run, foreign investors won’t look to those countries to set up new companies if they know they are handcuffed on their employment practices. Even home-grown companies are likely to look to foreign countries for starting new ventures if the local hiring laws are more favorable than the domestic ones. Over time, countries permitting the greatest flexibility for the investment of capital will attract much more of it than countries that hold investors to numerous restrictions. Countries that attract capital, inevitably position themselves to offer their citizens a higher standard of living than countries which have trouble attracting capital.
The incongruity of populist political agendas with the natural global flows of capital sets up a battle. Watch Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and members of congress over the next several years to see how they accommodate these often competing sets of interests.
As a book, “The Next Global Stage” has some drawbacks, such as periodic awkwardness in its use of language, and repetition. Ohmae also makes an unconvincing argument that a high-interest rate economy is better than a low-interest rate economy. These deficiencies aside, “The Next Global Stage” offers some useful insight into the battle for our future.
Friday, March 31, 2006
D’Souza offers insight into Iraq, American appeal
Dinesh D’Souza, an India-born Hoover Institution Fellow, addressed a business group in Milwaukee recently on a wide range of foreign affairs. Before his think tank gig, D'Souza was a policy analyst at the Reagan White House. He is author of several books, including "What's So Great About America."
D’Souza is a sharp guy and a very good speaker. Telling our group that radical Islamism has replaced Soviet communism as the great threat facing America, D’Souza give us his insight into America involvement in the Middle East.
The reasonable question is what is America doing in Iraq today and what is the prospect for success? Iran is the closest thing to a democracy in the Middle East. The kind of country we like -- like America -- does not exist in the Middle East. There are no countries there with an independent judiciary, free elections, separation of powers, checks and balances, minority rights, free enterprise. And no such country has ever existed. America is taking the grand and risky experiment to see if the alien seed of democracy can take root in the Arab world. And if democratic winds begin to blow to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, Egypt, you could see the beginnings of a historic transformation that would be more incredible than the old Soviet Union.
Fifty years ago, democracy was a Western idea. But now you see a rash outbreak of democracy in Asia and Latin America. But in the Middle East, it has been nil, and that is what Bush is trying to change, it seems to me.
Many say we can’t win in Iraq and we have to get out but common sense revolts against that. You have a country of Iraq with 25 million people. The Shia are 60 percent, the Kurds are 20 percent, and the Sunni are 20 percent. You will never find a more pro-America population than the Kurds. The Shia are on the American side because they have come to the conclusion that if you have the mathematical advantage, democracy is a good thing. The insurgency is drawing from the Sunnis. But even then, they are drawing from only a fraction of that 20 percent. So you have a fraction of 20 percent against 80 percent and the wealth and power and technological sophistication of the United States. Who’s going to win that war? There is no way the U.S. can lose that war.
There is only one way we can loose. That is to lose the war in the American mind. The war is being fought on the battlefield of the American mind. Walt Whitman said force in a war is a product of your weapons, you skills and you wealth, times your will.
Muslims will argue that American society is based on freedom, but Islamic society is based on virtue. So they think they have a higher calling. They don’t dislike what we have, but they don’t like what we’ve done with what we have. They say freedom can be used well or bad, and America has used it bad. They say, in America you have freedom, you see material prosperity but cultural decadence. You see technological expertise but moral decay. In the Islamic world, we might be poor but we are trying to fulfill the will of God. We might be failing, but at least we are trying. And that makes us a hundred times better than you because virtue is a higher calling than freedom.
The problem with that thinking is there is no real virtue without freedom. Virtue is not virtue if you are forced to act that way. It is not virtuous to wear a burka if you are forced to do so.
D’Souza said people the world over still want to come to the United States.
There is an expectation of opportunity here. More than any other society, America is distinguished by the fact that even more than the countries of Europe, it gives a pretty good chance of success to the ordinary guy. In Europe, you have greater security, protection from cradle to grave, but there is less opportunity and less mobility. If you meet someone rich in France or Germany, the chances are pretty good they come from an affluent family. If you find someone who became rich, that story is striking because it is not normal. In America they are commonplace. In other countries, the rich have an aristocracy, something you cannot buy in the United States. It seems to me a country is judged by the opportunity it gives to the common man. As an immigrant, I am startled to see that the common man has it pretty well in America – a place where the poor people are fat.
In America, a person is the architect of his own destiny. In America, your life is more like a blank sheet of paper and you are the artist. (In India, he said, his future would have been pretty much laid out before him. He would have had choices, but within relatively limited parameters.) In America, your destiny isn’t given to you, it is constructed by you.
The core idea of America is the self-directed life. This is a clue about what is so appealing about America, especially among young people.
D’Souza is a sharp guy and a very good speaker. Telling our group that radical Islamism has replaced Soviet communism as the great threat facing America, D’Souza give us his insight into America involvement in the Middle East.
The reasonable question is what is America doing in Iraq today and what is the prospect for success? Iran is the closest thing to a democracy in the Middle East. The kind of country we like -- like America -- does not exist in the Middle East. There are no countries there with an independent judiciary, free elections, separation of powers, checks and balances, minority rights, free enterprise. And no such country has ever existed. America is taking the grand and risky experiment to see if the alien seed of democracy can take root in the Arab world. And if democratic winds begin to blow to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, Egypt, you could see the beginnings of a historic transformation that would be more incredible than the old Soviet Union.
Fifty years ago, democracy was a Western idea. But now you see a rash outbreak of democracy in Asia and Latin America. But in the Middle East, it has been nil, and that is what Bush is trying to change, it seems to me.
Many say we can’t win in Iraq and we have to get out but common sense revolts against that. You have a country of Iraq with 25 million people. The Shia are 60 percent, the Kurds are 20 percent, and the Sunni are 20 percent. You will never find a more pro-America population than the Kurds. The Shia are on the American side because they have come to the conclusion that if you have the mathematical advantage, democracy is a good thing. The insurgency is drawing from the Sunnis. But even then, they are drawing from only a fraction of that 20 percent. So you have a fraction of 20 percent against 80 percent and the wealth and power and technological sophistication of the United States. Who’s going to win that war? There is no way the U.S. can lose that war.
There is only one way we can loose. That is to lose the war in the American mind. The war is being fought on the battlefield of the American mind. Walt Whitman said force in a war is a product of your weapons, you skills and you wealth, times your will.
Muslims will argue that American society is based on freedom, but Islamic society is based on virtue. So they think they have a higher calling. They don’t dislike what we have, but they don’t like what we’ve done with what we have. They say freedom can be used well or bad, and America has used it bad. They say, in America you have freedom, you see material prosperity but cultural decadence. You see technological expertise but moral decay. In the Islamic world, we might be poor but we are trying to fulfill the will of God. We might be failing, but at least we are trying. And that makes us a hundred times better than you because virtue is a higher calling than freedom.
The problem with that thinking is there is no real virtue without freedom. Virtue is not virtue if you are forced to act that way. It is not virtuous to wear a burka if you are forced to do so.
D’Souza said people the world over still want to come to the United States.
There is an expectation of opportunity here. More than any other society, America is distinguished by the fact that even more than the countries of Europe, it gives a pretty good chance of success to the ordinary guy. In Europe, you have greater security, protection from cradle to grave, but there is less opportunity and less mobility. If you meet someone rich in France or Germany, the chances are pretty good they come from an affluent family. If you find someone who became rich, that story is striking because it is not normal. In America they are commonplace. In other countries, the rich have an aristocracy, something you cannot buy in the United States. It seems to me a country is judged by the opportunity it gives to the common man. As an immigrant, I am startled to see that the common man has it pretty well in America – a place where the poor people are fat.
In America, a person is the architect of his own destiny. In America, your life is more like a blank sheet of paper and you are the artist. (In India, he said, his future would have been pretty much laid out before him. He would have had choices, but within relatively limited parameters.) In America, your destiny isn’t given to you, it is constructed by you.
The core idea of America is the self-directed life. This is a clue about what is so appealing about America, especially among young people.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
What will be the impact of all the talk about Polygamy?
Have you noticed all the editorial commentary on polygamy lately? It seems like I couldn’t pick up a newspaper last week without finding an essay about polygamy. There was John Tierney’s column in the New York Times on March 11; Katherine Kersten’s column in the March 15 Minneapolis Star Tribune and Charles Krauthammer’s March 17 column in the Washington Post.
HBO got the discussion going because of the new television show it debuted on March 12 called “Big Love,” about a man in Utah married simultaneously to three women. I haven’t seen the show, but from what I read, the show is unique because it portrays polygamy as normal. The main character goes through the same trials as most other middle-age men in America, the only difference is he moves between three wives and three sets of kids. The HBO web site notes there are 20,000 to 40,000 people practicing polygamy in the country, although it is, of course, illegal.
In Minnesota, I have to wonder what all this attention on polygamy will mean for the prospects of gay rights advocates. Minnesota has a law defining marriage as an institution that can only happen between one man and one woman, but many people (including me) would like to see that definition written in the state’s constitution. The legislature is in session now and many people are hoping lawmakers put the question of a constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage to voters in the form of a referendum this fall. There will be a rally at the Capitol on Tuesday organized by supporters of the amendment.
The vast majority of Minnesotans want marriage limited to one man/one woman, and the state House of Representatives would gladly put the question on the ballot. Senate majority leader Dean Johnson, however, opposes an amendment, although he says he opposes gay marriage. His thinking is that the law is sufficient and that the matter is not serious enough to warrant a constitutional amendment. Laws, however, can be struck down by judges, as happened on the national level with abortion. Those of us who believe traditional marriage is the foundation of our culture would like to see the institution of marriage protected by the constitution.
I am struck by all the talk on polygamy lately because I have long thought that the arguments in favor of gay marriage are the exact same as arguments for polygamy. Gay rights advocates generally talk about marriage in terms of commitment, natural yearnings, and rights to self-determination, which is exactly the same way polygamists talk about marriage. If you talk about broadening the definition of marriage beyond one man/one woman, it seems to me the leap to one man/two women is much smaller than the leap to one man/one man. At least polygamists retain the function of procreation within marriage.
Gay rights activists say the current definition of marriage discriminates, and they are right. If you change the meaning of marriage to include gays, it will still discriminate –- against polygamists, against people who want to marry their siblings, against people who want to marry minors, against people who want to marry animals. When ever you “define” anything, you discriminate against the things not included in the definition. The question is not “are you going to discriminate?” but “where are you going to draw the line?”
Minnesota and the United States are not theocracies, but they are absolutely Judeo-Christian cultures. And law follows culture. The definition of marriage in our law should reflect the meaning of marriage given to us by our Judeo-Christian heritage. It will be interesting to observe what impact, if any, the focus on polygamy brings to the debate over a constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage.
HBO got the discussion going because of the new television show it debuted on March 12 called “Big Love,” about a man in Utah married simultaneously to three women. I haven’t seen the show, but from what I read, the show is unique because it portrays polygamy as normal. The main character goes through the same trials as most other middle-age men in America, the only difference is he moves between three wives and three sets of kids. The HBO web site notes there are 20,000 to 40,000 people practicing polygamy in the country, although it is, of course, illegal.
In Minnesota, I have to wonder what all this attention on polygamy will mean for the prospects of gay rights advocates. Minnesota has a law defining marriage as an institution that can only happen between one man and one woman, but many people (including me) would like to see that definition written in the state’s constitution. The legislature is in session now and many people are hoping lawmakers put the question of a constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage to voters in the form of a referendum this fall. There will be a rally at the Capitol on Tuesday organized by supporters of the amendment.
The vast majority of Minnesotans want marriage limited to one man/one woman, and the state House of Representatives would gladly put the question on the ballot. Senate majority leader Dean Johnson, however, opposes an amendment, although he says he opposes gay marriage. His thinking is that the law is sufficient and that the matter is not serious enough to warrant a constitutional amendment. Laws, however, can be struck down by judges, as happened on the national level with abortion. Those of us who believe traditional marriage is the foundation of our culture would like to see the institution of marriage protected by the constitution.
I am struck by all the talk on polygamy lately because I have long thought that the arguments in favor of gay marriage are the exact same as arguments for polygamy. Gay rights advocates generally talk about marriage in terms of commitment, natural yearnings, and rights to self-determination, which is exactly the same way polygamists talk about marriage. If you talk about broadening the definition of marriage beyond one man/one woman, it seems to me the leap to one man/two women is much smaller than the leap to one man/one man. At least polygamists retain the function of procreation within marriage.
Gay rights activists say the current definition of marriage discriminates, and they are right. If you change the meaning of marriage to include gays, it will still discriminate –- against polygamists, against people who want to marry their siblings, against people who want to marry minors, against people who want to marry animals. When ever you “define” anything, you discriminate against the things not included in the definition. The question is not “are you going to discriminate?” but “where are you going to draw the line?”
Minnesota and the United States are not theocracies, but they are absolutely Judeo-Christian cultures. And law follows culture. The definition of marriage in our law should reflect the meaning of marriage given to us by our Judeo-Christian heritage. It will be interesting to observe what impact, if any, the focus on polygamy brings to the debate over a constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)