2012: A Warning

I recently went to see the new movie "2012," and I was impressed by the special effects, and even the interesting story line. It was similar to other "end-of-the-world" films but this one possessed an intriguing quality that others lacked: the realness of a specific date that has people talking.

Of course, most of us are familiar with the Mayan calendar and its ending date of 2012. I am not educated in all the details of the calendar and its implications, but it certainly has started a conversation. Now, people are reading deeper into Nostradamus, the teachings of religious books, and anything having to do with astronomical or mystical import. I have even heard of one case where a biblical scholar, Dr. Wayne Stanton, is developing a numerical code of reading the teaching of Christ, and finding that Jesus was warning us of world-ending events in 2012.

What is going on here? Has there ever been a time in history when humans have entertained the idea of the end of their species with such specificity or degree?

As a younger person, I used to read Christ's words in Matthew 24 about how not to believe the false prophets, and that "no one knows the day or hour," and that the Son of Man would come as a thief in the night. I thought the only sure way to obviate any eschatological encounters with the Son of Man would be to wake every morning and say out loud, "Today, Christ will come again." If no one knows the day or hour, how could you say that on the day? You couldn't, and therefore would save yourself from the "end times"

But when does this talk cross the line from amusing predictions to certain expectation? The shades are gray, but the more we discuss this date, the more it is cemented in our minds and even as I type this, I am adding to the visibility of 2012.

The problem with this cementation is a psycho-social one. We will wake up on January 1st, 2012, and continue on with our lives as usual. But, in these years preceding the date, we will have time to effectively "talk up" 2012, and make it into a year of novelty, standing apart from others. If this talk is successful (in a certain sense) then our days of 2012 will be lived with our minds harboring background thoughts, like shadows of crumbling buildings; "what if this is THE year of THE end?"

My fear is that this question will lead us into expectation, expectation will lead us to more proclamation, proclamation will breed more expectation. If this cycle occurs, then the phobia/reverence/fascination with 2012 will drive people to take matters into their own hands. I hate to say it, but proclamation and expectation leave room for failure and disappointment. If the fear of failure and disappointment outweighs the fear of our own species death, then we have a dire situation on our hands. A dire situation of our own creation.

To use the words of Bill Maher, "The only thing worse than prophesy is self-fulfilling prophesy." If 2012 was not the end, all this talk may make it be.

If you like to think of 2012 and to flirt with the tantalizing idea that it may indeed be the end of our species, then do it. But do it cautiously. Make sure that as you provoke the idea it doesn't provoke you back to do something rash.

Jon Stewart Analyzes FOX News

Long video, but sooooo worth it if you want to laugh....

Wal-Mart: All Your Needs from Cradle to Grave?

Wal-Mart has released the news of its stores now being outfitted with coffins. Just when you thought there was no more local businesses they could drive out of town, they "bury" the funeral competition.

This undertaking (pun intended) aims to be a marketing research strategy for Wal-Mart, to find out what the customer demand would be on cheap coffins. As you can see on the BBC, these coffins run under the model names "Mom Remembered" or "Dad Remembered."

The most interesting thing about this news is the last few paragraphs of the article. When interviewing a "real-live human undertaker" he submits that Wal-Marts business will fail in this arena because people value the "human contact" when it comes to planning and executing (pun not intended) their funeral services.

Now, did the jeweler say the same thing about "human contact" when it came to picking out engagement rings? Because Wal-Mart renders those services quite successfully. Did the local "Cribs N' More" baby store owner brush aside Wal-Mart when it began selling strollers and pacifiers due to lack of "human contact?"

Maybe both of these things happened. Maybe at some point we believed it was impossible for Wal-Mart to sell shoes or underwear or plumbing parts because as a large department store they lacked "human contact." The truth is, they cornered many markets, and a lack of human interaction has not seemed to slow them down.

The truth is, most people aren't looking for the human element as much as they used to. It is sad to see, but in a culture where most things are available for purchase online, we obviously don't value the face behind the counter the way we used to. (Sidenote: How long do you think we will have virtual "shopping carts" on webstores that we must "proceed to checkout." One day, a child might see that and say "Mommy, what is a shopping cart?")

Wal-Mart has set the standard now for marketing and convenience. I certainly do hope that Pat Lynch is right, that we won't outsource something as sacred to our culture as burial to corporate convenience. But the cynical side of me is skeptical (as it should be).

Wal-Mart, our souls are easier to win this side of the grave. Please let us rest in peace, and not by providing a low-cost coffin.

I hope I can be cremated before they are selling urns.

The Psychology of Nigeria and Darfur’s Incentive Plans

The Obama Administration unveiled a new plan yesterday to deal with the genocide in Darfur. While there are no specifics yet, it seems that Hillary Clinton and others are taking an official stand on this issue with the new policy.

From descriptions, it looks similar to the incentive system used in Nigeria, where the Nigerian government has pledged to give rebels a 10% cut of oil cash in return for them to stop sabotaging pipelines and attacking government buildings and personnel.

Obama’s critics are saying exactly what I would say, namely, are we really going to pay people to stop fighting? The current administration has said that Bush’s policies were flawed in that they only included sanctions. So here is the conundrum. Do you make a bad situation worse by instituted sanctions, or do you affirm the actions of violence and revolution by instituting incentives? Cutting people off from the world doesn’t disarm these conflicts, but providing incentives is saying, “if you fight for long enough and hard enough, we will pay you to stop.” It is appeasement at it worst, because we are setting the standard to affirm violent conflict as a means to get what you want. Neither sanctions nor incentives will work.

But they seem like they would, right? According to the psychological laws of conditioning, positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, the plans of Bush and Obama would both work, just from different perspectives.

The problem is, conditioning doesn’t address attitude. It only addresses action. These sanctions and incentives are responses to undesired action, and they leave the attitude of the movement to continue to fester.

Think of your most heated political argument. Maybe it was with a friend or a loved one, or maybe a total stranger. Here in America, we have some drastically opposing attitudes and many people who are not afraid to voice those perspectives. This is a wonderful thing. But imagine that political argument you had, that, in your opinion was quite fervent, and ask yourself what it would take for you to decide to buy a gun and kill the person who disagreed with you. This is the intensity of these conflicts in Darfur and Nigeria. Now imagine what it would take to diffuse that attitude. This is no small task, and it is not achieved by incentives or sanctions.

The science of psychology has another principle I should bring up. There is a theory called Cognitive Dissonance Theory posed by a man named Leon Festinger. On the surface, this theory is very simple: If you believe something that conflicts internally with another belief, you obviate this dissonance by either (1) reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, (2) adopting a new belief that outweighs and diffuses the conflict or (3) by modifying the conflicting beliefs not only in degree but in form.

If I am willing to wage war, and even kill an individual for a belief, I may have created a dissonance in this situation between two beliefs. Let’s say I believe X as a political perspective, but I also believe it is wrong to kill. I have a cognitive dissonance, and I only have a few options of how to deal with it (according to the theory)

I can either:

Under possibility (1) of the theory,

-decrease my belief in X, and face the guilt that I killed someone (guilt being cognitively uncomfortable but not dissonant)

-decrease my belief that killing someone is wrong (this will probably lead to more violence)

Under possibility (2) of the theory,

-adopt a new belief that killing is permitted in regards to X (this will lead to more killing)

Under possibility (3) of the theory,

-change my understanding of the murder to say that I killed not for X, but for something else

-change my understanding of X to say that murder is permissible (similar to adopting a new belief)

Of course, the human mind and emotions are more complex than what I just described, but according to Festinger, one of the above options will inevitably occur in order to dispel the dissonance. (by the way, this psychological theory helps me to understand “thou shalt not kill,” and the non-violence of Christ, but that is another entry...)

It is sad to see that most of these options are noxious, and maybe even more dangerous than the original murder itself. My point is, throwing money at an intense psychological, pathological and sociological problem will not do anything to make these motives and options any different.

In the midst of this criticism, I am at a loss for what should be done in these situations. There may not be any better options, but I hope there is.

PEACE?

In a conversation recently with some friends, we were discussing peace, and whether it is an attainable goal. One friend of mine said two things of interest.

“Men have been trying forever to create peace. There are always those who will destroy and undermine the efforts of making a peaceful world. For these reasons, I see no incentive for supporting peace efforts. They are a lost cause.”

Two things immediately struck me about this statement, and maybe you feel the same as I do. Read on.

First, “there are always those who will destroy and undermine,” does not seem to me to be a feasible excuse for not attempting to create peace. What follows is a narrative about Bob Marley of which I have heard, but not found any written evidence for. Nonetheless, it voices the opposite perspective to my friend seamlessly.

Singer/songwriter and reggae genius Bob Marley was the target of an assassination during his career. He was shot, but the bullet missed any crucial organs. At the hospital, he asked for release because he had a concert the next day. The doctors released him from the hospital against their better judgment, and Marley went on to perform in the concert the next day. After the performance, he was asked by an interviewer why he left the hospital and chose to risk his health and perform. He responded with something to the effect of “The men fighting to make this world destructive are not taking a day off, and so neither can I.”

This is my point. People struggling to create a chaotic world are invigorated and energized by the possibility of those doing good, as it offers a new target of sabotage. Why can’t the reciprocal relationship be true? Can the presence of evil in the world energize peace-makers rather than enervate or discourage them?

Second, “men have been trying forever to create peace.” Really? Trying? Are we trying to create peace as courageously as we try to solidify our careers? Are we trying to encourage reconciliation as vigorously as we try to catch television and movie premiers? Do we demand peace as often and as strongly as we demand cell phone service, web access, satellite reception, and amenities for ourselves? The answer is clearly “no.” We receive successfully what we demand. It is not harder work to create peace than it is to create a blog. It is just refocused work. If we did indeed demand peace as intensely as we can demand these other things, it may have been attained right now.

Even if I am wrong, the fact that it has been demanded in the past does not make it a null point of interest today. People have always demanded new technology and better economic standing for all of history, the fact that we haven’t perfected it does not discourage anyone in pursuit.

Think today: Do I demand peace and reconciliation as intensely as I demand other things?

The Matrix and The Bible

You might not be aware, but The Matrix trilogy by Andy and Larry Wachowski is teeming with Biblical symbols and parallels. To read about it view this article.

Watch The Matrix films again with this perspective. Try to look past the guns and kung-fu, and see the deeper meaning.

Article on "Where The Wild Things Are"

I have published a new article on Suite 101 reviewing and analyzing Spike Jonze's new film, Where The Wild Things Are. If you are interested in the film, read my article.

Enjoy!

The Political Blindness of Christianity

A few days ago, I was engaged in a conversation with some Conservative Christians (whom I appreciate and respect mind you), and they were voicing their opinions on health-care, Obama's administration, and the current State of the Union.

The dialogue was amicable, even delightful, as we exchanged perspectives and ideas. I happen to have a more liberal stance than this couple did, but nonetheless we journeyed into the subjects with mutual friendliness.

Although I continue to respect these individuals, the woman said something that struck me. It was something to the effect of; "the reason I appreciate George W. Bush so much more than Obama is not because of his policies or actions, but because he never missed an opportunity to acknowledge God and the Lord's authority over his presidency and this country." This woman was also upset by Obama's impassivity in addressing the National Day of Prayer, and then she went on to site that Muslims prayed together outside of Congress recently.

Stop there. At the time, I thought to myself "Is George W. Bush a good international symbol for the Christian faith?" The obvious answer I arrived at was "no." However, after contemplating this statement in the following few days, I realized it stands for a much larger and more profound sentiment than she intended. Namely, this:

When did it become a necessity or even a comfort to have a national leader affirm a Christian belief? This is the epitome of the minimization of the Christian message and action. We have arrived at a place where Christian duty and narrative is enhanced by a political leader supporting it, and this is wrong. Christians DO NOT need the bolstering efforts of a political leader, and when we believe that we do, we have sold ourselves out to a lesser and weaker road; one where our Christian duty becomes nothing more than a specific voting record or arguing for a political perspective because it is "more Christian." In this position, we can rest assured that the political parties have successfully co-opted our narrative, and used it for their own ends.

We have been blinded into believing that Obama's endorsement or ignorance of the National Day of Prayer somehow affects our spiritual lives, when in reality the power of prayer rests in none of these external forces. Indeed, if the potency of prayer depended upon such things, then it would not be a spiritual force of any importance.

I believe that Christians should act politically and should stand up for what they believe, whether it is a campaign, a certain political leader, or a specific public policy. However, do not make the mistake in thinking that you support these things BECAUSE of your Christian faith. Do not make the mistake that picketing against certain legislation qualifies as Christian action. These things are as lame as writing your thoughts on a blog. Remember that Christ holds us to higher standard of action, one of compassion, forgiveness and social providence. No one is clothed by George W. Bush never missing the opportunity to say "God Bless America." No one is fed by Obama disregarding the National Day of Prayer. The actions of the Body of Christ don't happen at those levels, they happen at the level in which you and I live. Do not confuse these to a degree in which you are paralyzed and blinded by your political perspective, missing the larger action and purpose of Christ.