The Ark and The Dove

Averages

FoxNews is running an article on a recent survey about Americans and their religious literacy (to coin a term). The numbers are, of course, depressing on first glance. Out of 32 basic knowledge questions...

Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses. Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15.

This looks pretty bleak, if not embarrassing.

But perhaps it is worth thinking about these numbers. These are averages for the group, but the article did not indicate how many people were surveyed from each group. It only pointed out that Pew surveyed some 3400 people. How many of those people were atheist/agnostic? How many were Catholic? Or, to get to the heart of the matter, how many Catholics scored above 15 and how many scored below 15?

What would it mean if Catholics scored lower than atheists on average, but that there are an equal number of Catholics that scored as well as atheists?

My assumption is that atheists, Mormons, and Jews are smaller minorities compared to Protestants (very broad) and Catholics. But even among Protestantism, you are usually dealing with collections of small Churches.

My point here is that what we might be witnessing has less to do with a stupidity among Catholics, but a heightened awareness to religion among smaller faith groups. It's almost as if their is some kind of law of religious awareness density. The more people that are in the faith, the more diffuse the knowledge becomes. The less people in the faith, the more concentrated that knowledge becomes.

Obviously, this doesn't have to be the case. It might also have to do with the fact that Mormons are aggressive missionaries, so they have to be aware of the competition. Likewise, atheists feel strongly enough about the issue that they need to know what they are arguing against. Catholics, however, haven't been very motivated on the evangelization front, and they don't, on the whole, seem to feel particularly isolated...so there might be less sense of urgency to acquire religious knowledge.

Still, it is depressing to see the Pew survey remind us that 45% of Catholics don't know what transubstantiation is. That certainly speaks to a failure in education.

Also odd, the article failed to mention where Muslims scored on the survey.

Polish Those Beads

Okay, gang, it's job hunting season again, and one or two really enviable spots have opened up.

I'm going to do the best I can to make myself marketable, but the competition is fierce. There are plenty of other people out there who are equally deserving of these jobs -- if not moreso.

Pretty much the only way this is going to pan out is through Divine Providence -- so this is my desperate plea for the readers out there to pester Saint Joseph and harry God with prayers.

Widows nagging judges all the way!

Dog Talk

A quick thought on the latest presidential gaffe.

When describing the powerful interest groups that allegedly controlled the White House, he said (off script): "They talk about me like a dog."

What does that expression even mean?

The people in the crowd seemed to get it, because they all laughed uproariously, but I don't seem to be following the expression. Maybe it's some kind of political slang of which I am ignorant.

I could understand it if he said, "They talk to me like a dog" or "They talk at me like a dog." In either of these cases, he would be suggesting that the powerful interest groups are issuing commands that they expect him to obey -- because of a modern cultural belief that dogs are symbols of obedience and submissive loyalty.

But "talk about me like a dog?"

How do people talk about dogs that makes this so negative?

"Hey, did you see that dog over there...it is sooooooo canine! What a joke!"

See, dogness as such just doesn't seem to register very high on my criticism meter.

Calling someone a dog can be pejorative ("She's such a dog" or "Hang cur! Hang whoreson, insolent noisemaker!"), but that doesn't seem to really apply here. They aren't labeling him a dog -- they are conducting conversations about him in the manner that one would conduct a conversation about a dog.

Most times I talk about my dogs, it is with fondness...although I suppose an anecdote or two might creep in about canine excretory functions. Is that what Obama is referring to? Does he have a problem with incontinence? Does that work metaphorically?

It also makes one wonder, how does the President talk about his dog?

Reading out of Context...Again

I dare you to read the following and not, on some level, read it as a commentary on the current state of American politics:

They are absolutely wrong when they say that the people's poverty safeguards public peace--experience shows the contrary. Where will you find more squabbling than among beggars? Who is more eager for revolution than the man who is most discontented with his present position? Who is more reckless about creating disorders than the man who knows he has nothing to lose and thinks he may have something to gain? If a king is so hated and despised by his subjects that he can rule them only by mistreatment, plundering, confiscation, and pauperization of his people, then he'd do much better to abdicate his throne--for under these circumstances, though he keeps the name of authority, he loves all the majesty of a king. A king has no dignity when he exercises authority over beggars, only when he rules over prosperous and happy subjects. This was certainly what that noble and lofty spirit Fabricius meant when he said he would rather be a ruler of rich men than be rich himself.

A solitary ruler who enjoys a life of pleasure and self-indulgence while all about him are grieving and groaning is acting like a jailer, not a king. Just as an incompetent doctor can cure his patient of one disease only by throwing him into another, so it's an incompetent king who can rule his people only by depriving them of all life's pleasures. Such a king openly confesses that he does not know how to rule free men.

The excerpt is actually from the framing narrative of St. Thomas More's Utopia. It's a funny little text, Utopia. Parts of it read like they were cribbed from the Communist Manifesto, and parts of it sound like a Tea Party rally. This political inconsistency might stem from two background elements. First, More is writing a witty satire. He's being a slippery devil with fictitious versions of himself, and sly characters whose names translate into things like "nonsense peddlar." In this regard, More is composing satire akin to John Stewart or Stephen Colbert. If anyone tries to call his bluff, he can throw up his hands and say he was just being silly...and then point to seeming internal contradictions in the text.

The second element is the confusing state of late medieval / early Renaissance economics and politics. He is writing at a time when a feudal barter system is transforming into an internal mercantilism based on capitalism. Transitioning economic periods are rough, regardless of the costs and benefits of any particular system. And, of course, he's writing under a monarchy at a time where a political concept like "self-interest" pretty much only had pejorative connotations. Thus, characters in Utopia seem to advocate an almost libertarian sense that government should keep its nose out of foreign affairs and out of the subject's purse and at the same time also endorse state-coordinated efforts to regulate the economy. So, while it would be tempting to try to pigeon-hole More's text into one or another modern political body, its early modern values and conflicts keep it from being hijacked by any one group.

Of course, I'm absolutely certain someone as brilliant as More would agree with my particular position on any given matter...

Don't Blame Triggers for Crazies

Not that the media will actually blame Al Gore for inspiring the madman at the Discovery Channel, but I'd like to be the first blogger opposed to Al Gore's fanciful environmental policies to point out that I do not think Al Gore is in any way, shape, or form responsible for the lunatic's actions.

While leftwing pundits are fond of blaming rightwing pundits when mentally-disabled listeners cause harm to another person, I'd like to be above that.

Your run-of-the-mill mad bomber most likely will find a trigger somewhere. It might be Glenn Beck. It might be Al Gore. It might be his dog.

The rhetoric they spout, whether right, left, or canine, is ultimately just ornamentation to a delusional, twisted fantasy world.

We can pray for mercy for the victims and perpetrators, and that the medical community find a suitable treatment for the disorders that lead to public violence.

Unless evidence is uncovered showing that Al Gore or some official green movement intentionally cultivated this madman, then I don't really think we can blame them for his actions.

That being said, I think we can all name some organizations that do in fact seek out mentally disturbed individuals and groom them to cause harm to others.