I've just recently been reading about Eleanor Roosevelt and some of her quotes and was impressed and thought I'd share some of her words here. What would the world be like without our beloved, strong, smart women?
A little simplification would be the first step toward rational living, I think...
Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself...
We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together and if we are to live together we have to talk...
Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world...
The word liberal comes from the word free. We must cherish and honor the word free or it will cease to apply to us...
When you know to laugh and when to look upon things as too absurd to take seriously, the other person is ashamed to carry through even if he was serious about it...
For it isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it...
When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Eleanor Roosevelt Quotes
Thursday, July 14, 2011
A trillion here and a trillion there...
According to a Reuters repot (citing a Brown University study), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan total between $2.3 and 2.7 T-T-Trillion-with-a-"T" thus far and that costs will continue to explode when we factor in the care of the wounded and survivors of the killed. The final bill is estimated to be between $3.7 and 4.4 trillion.
Added to that, between 220,000 to 250,000 people have died from the warfare, with many more deaths attributable to the war indirectly, from the loss of clean water, healthcare and poor nutrition.
An additional ~365,000 have been wounded. 7.8 million people have been displaced/lost their homes.
This "war on terror" with fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq is our longest-running war and our second most costly (after WWII).
I feel compelled here to recall the giddy early days of our invasion in Iraq, where then-Secretary Rumsfeld estimated the cost of the Iraqi war at $50 billion, but that might be going to high, because others will help chip in and pay for it...
Rumsfeld (answering a question about the cost of the Iraq war):
Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question...
Oh, silly, silly, evil Donald! A few billion, several trillion, what's the difference?!
Unless you hold to that old-fashioned conservative notion that goes... "a trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there and pretty soon, it starts adding up!"
And what is the debate going on in Washington right now, even as we speak (or write)? Why the GOP is insisting on $4 trillion in budget cuts. Hmmm, what COULD we possibly have done over the last decade to save ~$4 trillion? Oh, here's an idea! Why don't we NOT INVADE Iraq and Afghanistan. Why in the WORLD did the Democratic President insist on making that $4 trillion expenditure in the first place?! What was he thinking??
Oh, wait a second: It WASN'T a Democratic president who led us into this on-going $4 trillion + fiasco, it was a REPUBLICAN plan (one that too many stupid Democrats caved in on and went along with, despite an unprecedented public outcry against it).
Okay, enough with the sarcasm. My point is, if we don't want to be $4 trillion in debt, then perhaps we shouldn't have wrongly and foolishly invaded Iraq. Perhaps we should have been content in Afghanistan to do the initial retribution against those who supported the 9/11 attack and ended our role there.
I can't say how sickened I am by the GOP's preening about this massive debt when it can be largely laid at their feet.
Finally, it has been noted that the Bush-era protests against the war have gotten much more quiet since Obama has taken office. Charges of partisanship have been made. This is not the case, of course. We who opposed the wars, STILL oppose the wars. We strongly oppose Obama's own foray into invading nations in Libya.
But the reality is that Obama inherited these wars from Bush and we're IMpatiently waiting for him to deliver on his promises to end the wars.
But this is one of the reasons that the anti-war crowd opposes especially these sorts of invasions is precisely because, once you're there, it's hard to know what the right thing to do. "If we leave, the nation might collapse and mass killings might occur. If we don't leave, people are STILL being killed (the last six months in Afghanistan have been the deadliest for civilians, yet, according to a BBC report)." There is no good resolution to this swampy morass we were led into.
The analogy might be made to a forest fire. If some idiot started up a forest fire in a dry region and immediately set out to try to put it out... and KEPT trying to put it out and, after six months, the fire was still burning, what is the right answer? JUst leave and say, "Well, I tried..." or keep trying to put it out with no end in sight? It's not easy to leave, even though, leave we must. But the RIGHT answer is, "Don't start the fire in the first place." ESPECIALLY when that fire is going to bankrupt our nation and place us trillions of dollars in debt.
Bush started a fire, with the support of most in Congress. There is no easy way to put this fire out and no easy way to get out of the fire-fighting business. It's a lesson in WHY WE DON'T INVADE NATIONS or engage in nation-building-by-war in the first place. IF you're going to want a military, then have the decency to reserve it for protection against invasions.
As President James Madison noted...
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes... known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Bible and Economics
Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.
The last post in this series was back in April, where I looked at the first 15 chapters of the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy. Today, I'm looking at chapters 16 through 20. Because of the nature of the book, it's sort of a hodgepodge of this and that, but there are definitely economic/wealth/poverty themes found in this book.
Deuteronomy 16 begins with rules about remembering Israel's departure from the economic and social oppression/slavery they lived with in Egypt. As the passage continues, there are repeated calls to "remember that you were slaves in Egypt..."
Count off seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain. Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the LORD your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the LORD your God has given you...
Celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles for seven days after you have gathered the produce of your threshing floor and your winepress. Be joyful at your festival — you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites, the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns...
Each of you must bring a gift in proportion to the way the LORD your God has blessed you.
Deut 16:9-10, 13-14, 17
Then, there is a short point about appointing judges...
Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the LORD your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent. Follow justice and justice alone...
Deut 16:18-20
Chapter 17 offers some rules for kings...
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
Deut 17:16-17
Israel's rulers "MUST NOT" accumulate wealth? How very anti-capitalist of the author!
The first eight verses of chapter 18 tells us that the tribes of priests - the levites - were to have no land inheritance, but were to have food provided for them out of the surplus of the other tribes within Israel, and further outlines the rules regarding their special status.
Chapter 19 begins by establishing the concept of "Cities of Refuge," which were to be created equally out of shares of the land of each tribe. The purpose of these cities was to be a refuge for those who "kills a neighbor unintentionally, without malice." In modern terms: Manslaughter. The idea was to provide a place so that an angry family member won't kill - in anger - someone who killed another merely as an accident.
I mention this mostly because of the concept of shared economic burden, but also because it is an interesting aside into a penal system vastly different than ours and because our penal system costs so much in both lives and dollars.
Then, there is this one verse that deals with land ownership...
Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you receive...
Deut 19:14
Chapter 20 has some very interesting rules about going to war, rules that relate to how Israel was to pay for wars and about the size/formation of their military...
When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you...
The officers shall say to the army: “Has anyone built a new house and not yet begun to live in it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may begin to live in it. Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her.” Then the officers shall add, “Is anyone afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his fellow soldiers will not become disheartened too.”
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
Deut 20:1, 5-8, 10-14
Not that I'm advocating that as a model, just pointing out the economic aspect of this approach to "defense" and expansionism.
This first verse (don't worry about the great size of the enemy's army) is touched on elsewhere, where God commands Israel NOT to strive to have a large standing army, but a small militia called upon in times of need only. The point there is to NOT trust in large armies that come at a great cost (economic and spiritual) for their defense, but to trust in God. This would stand in stark contrast to the norm in today's approach to defense, even amongst most churches, where the model is "More is Better, Most is Best..." when it comes to bombs and guns and other implements of destruction.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
All those "ALL"s...
And so, keeping in mind the previous post and noting that I'm not wanting to be argumentative or divisive, I DO have a question I'm curious to hear some thoughts on...
As I've said before, I'm not a universalist. I believe God has given humanity the option of choosing grace or not, and that some people can and DO reject God's gift of grace. Now, having said that, I'd have to say that there is some biblical and logical reasons to think that some universalist-ish positions.
I got to thinking about this because of hearing some more fundamentalist/conservative types insist that ALL people truly sin (not merely have a sinful nature, but sin) - including babies. The reason they think this, they say, is because "the Bible says it and I believe it!" They point to passages such as Romans 5...
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned...
And where I see "all sinned" to be a hyperbolic way of stressing that we all are imperfect humans, prone to sin and who, given the chance, DO sin. But I would insist that it's hyperbole because, obviously, babies do not sin. A newborn just out of his mother's womb obviously has not/can not sin, just because there is no capacity there to make deliberate choice to sin.
"Not so," came the response in a recent conversation. "Babies sin, too. They're EVIL!" Seriously, some fella just asserted that babies were evil.
Anyway, I say all of that to say that, IF you go on to read that passage that says "all sin," you see the complementary passage, saying Jesus' work of grace was to save "ALL people." And I wonder about the more literalists who say "All sin" means that everyone sins, if they think that "ALL people will be justified" and saved means "ALL people," and, if not, on what basis do they claim literalism for the one sentence, but not for the other.
The passages that some more universalist-types would point to are below. Thoughts?
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for ALL people.
Romans 5: 12 - 18
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way ALL Israel will be saved...
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and God's call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that God may have mercy on them all.
Romans 11: 25-32
since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:21, 22
For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Colossians 1: 12, 20
Not looking for divisiveness or disrespectful disagreement, just wondering what your opinions are, for what they are worth?
To be clear, what I'm looking for is along these lines...
"When I read these passages, I think that 'all' is/is not to be taken literally. I think this because..."
No need to point to HIM or HER or name names about another's opinion and give your thoughts on OTHER's hunches, I'm just curious what you think about all these "ALLs."
Listen
A couple of posts back, I referenced some of the many biblical injunctions against "argumentativeness" and "divisiveness." I think it's a good thing to keep in our minds and so I'm repeating them here, as a post.
Given other biblical examples of Godly people (including, and especially, Jesus) debating/calling out others, I think we need to acknowledge its a balancing act of speaking truth when you fear others are in error (at least at times), and doing so strongly, and doing so in love respectfully, AND choosing NOT to do so when it's mere contentiousness.
The trick is knowing when its a GOOD "speaking of truth," and when it's a foolish "quarreling over words" and useless debate over opinions.
As I've stated, my main measure for such disagreements is actual, real-world harm. That seems to be a starting place. If someone is being HARMED by another's actions (or societal practices), then speaking out for "the least of these" - those being harmed - that seems to me to be the main biblical practice.
But for most of our disagreements over relatively harm-less opinions (I think it's okay to drink, she thinks not, he thinks it's okay to smoke, they think not, I think it's good to marry, they think not, I think the Trinity is the right way to think of God, she thinks not, etc, etc, etc), it can be okay to discuss these and offer our opinions, but I just am not convinced that it's anything to get riled up about or to spend TOO much energy in divisive, strife-ful dissension.
And so, I offer these passages for a reminder to keep our eyes on the important things and lighten up on the less important...
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
~Galatians
A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.
~Proverbs
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.
~Titus
If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
~1 Corinthians
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
~Romans
For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
1 Corinthians
Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy.
~Romans
Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
~2 Corinthians
Ouch. "Those who do such things will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God." Now, THAT is a serious warning, one that I'm striving to take to heart. So, if in the future, I seem reluctant to argue too much with you, you'll know why.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Just Ask the Donkey
In keeping with my mood following some of the previous comments and my vacation, I'm offering up a poem from ancient Persian Poet/Wise Man, Hafiz...
Why
Just ask the donkey in me
To speak to the donkey in you,
When I have so many other beautiful animals
And brilliant colored birds inside
That are all longing to say something wonderful
And exciting to your heart?
Let's open all the locked doors upon our eyes
That keep us from knowing the Intelligence
That begets love
And a more lively and satisfying conversation
With the Friend
Let's turn loose our golden falcons
So that they can meet in the sky
Where our spirits belong—
Necking like two
Hot kids.
Let's hold hands and get drunk near the sun
And sing sweet songs to God
Until He joins us with a few notes
From His own sublime lute and drum.
If you have a better idea
Of how to pass a lonely night
After your glands may have performed
All their little magic
Then speak up sweethearts, speak up,
For Hafiz and all the world will listen.
Why just bring your donkey to me
Asking for stale hay
And a boring conference with the idiot
In regards to this precious matter—
Such a precious matter as love,
When I have so many other divine animals
And brilliant colored birds inside
That are all longing
To so sweetly
Greet
You!
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Grace Enough?
I've a question specifically for more conservative/traditional types of Christians. Not really looking for debate, just a straightforward answer to what seems like to me a straightforward question:
We recently had a lengthy discussion with a fellow claiming to Christianity yet you said that grace was not enough for salvation.
His claim?
That one must be saved by grace AND by agreeing that gay marriage is wrong. One cannot believe that gay marriage is a good and holy thing and be saved by grace, he contends (and he is free to offer his own statement if he does not think I'm stating his position correctly).
His exact words were...
One cannot be saved by grace alone when one's beliefs so blatantly counter clearly revealed teachings on human sexual behavior
Since that is so far afield from basic orthodox Christianity, I was hoping to hear from other conservative types who'd agree with me that God's grace is sufficient.
EVEN IF you disagree with those who think gay marriage is good (or even if you disagree with those who'd say Christians can go to war or with those who'd say that God sometimes commands people to kill babies or whatever the topic might be), orthodox Christianity does not teach that we must be "right" or have perfect knowledge on all topics or even on some topics. We are not saved by our good understanding, but by God's grace, through faith in Jesus.
I was wondering if I could find any conservatives who'd affirm this basic Christian tenet. How 'bout it?
Friday, June 10, 2011
Summer Boys
Since the crazy heat outside tells us it’s summertime, even if the calendar doesn’t, I thought I’d repost a summery essay from a few years back. Enjoy…
Riding jet skis, if you are unfamiliar with them, looks like riding a motor scooter on the water, blasting over waves and Riding the Sea, Victorious! It couldn't be much harder than riding a bike, we figured.
We were wrong.
My friend, Eddie, and I were at the ocean and wanted to try jet skiing. To save money, we decided to rent one and take turns. Eddie went first.
As Eddie zoomed away from the shore, he beamed with joy. However, I quickly noticed that he spent an awful lot of time trying to stand up on the jet ski, as they are supposed to be ridden, only to fall over. Once you fall off, jet skis have been designed to ride in circles around you.
Presumably, this is to ensure that you do not get stranded in the ocean as your jet ski putters off into the sunset. Watching from the shore, it looked more as if the jet ski were taunting him.
With each failed attempt to mount the monster, I had to laugh. Clearly, Eddie was just too tall to ride this thing. I’d be able to do better.
After many attempts to ride the jet ski, Eddie lay there, hands on the handlebars to keep it from doing its victory laps, but going nowhere. His stomach lay on the jet ski footboard and his long legs just dangled like spaghetti.
He was whipped.
"Bring it in!” I yelled. “It's my turn!"
He returned to shore and collapsed like a long, skinny beached whale.
"Ed, you know that you're supposed to stand up on the thing, right?"
"Go ahead. Laugh," he said. "You'll see. It's not easy."
He tried to warn me, but I wouldn’t listen – it was my turn to Ride the Sea, Victorious!
What I learned later Eddie was trying to tell me: Beware the Jets.
Ideally, when you ride a jet ski, you give it some gas to get some speed going and then quickly jump to your feet and ride the waves. The key thing is to get up QUICKLY.
The problem in not promptly standing has to do with the placement of the jets on the jet ski. Picture this: the jets are right at the back of the jet ski. When you are getting started, your hands are on the handlebar, your belly is on the footboard and the jets are blasting out what feels like a million gallons of water right below your gut.
Each time you gun the gas, it's like getting a crotch shot in softball. And, if this unkind kick weren't enough, you also have to worry about you going one way and your swimming trunks, the other.
Soon, the jet ski was doing victory laps around me. It was all I could do to pull my trunks back up.
When I returned to shore, Eddie was smiling, but not taunting. He knew my pain. I didn't even care that I no longer had my pride.
I was just glad to have my swimming trunks.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Anniversary!
Was never a face so pleased my mind;
I did but see her passing by,
And yet I'll love her till I die.
Her gesture, motion, and her smiles,
Her wit, her voice my heart beguiles,
Beguiles my heart, I know not why,
And yet I'll love her till I die.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Thoughts on Tradition and Learning Styles
Tradition can be a fine, fine thing. We can learn from traditions, benefit from traditions, pass on traditions and these can all be good things.
But tradition itself does not guarantee a practice is a good thing. There are good traditions and bad traditions and those in between.
I say all of this because I was recently reading a person on the internet who was wrong. (ha!)
This person (and there are many like this person - again, it's the idea that I'm speaking of, not the person) was bemoaning the fact that churches don't tend to keep children in their church services. Instead, they coddle them by taking them out for their own "special service," and thus deprive them, they contended, of the benefits of learning to sit through and endure a church service that means very little to you.
The reason, of course, this person wanted to see kids sit through church services was because the Bible is so clear on the point. "Thou shalt keep the little ones in the synagogue, yea even though the little ones are bored out of their skull..."
No, wait, that's not right. In fact, there is no biblical demand to keep children in a service or, in general, to treat them as adults to make them learn by sheer repitition the value of sitting through something that makes no sense to them.
No, the reason that this person wanted children to sit through services was because of all the pedagogical studies that show the benefit of forcing children to sit still and listen to stuff that makes no sense to them in the learning process.
Wait, that's not right, either. There ARE no such studies.
In fact, as far as I can tell, there was one reason and one reason alone that this person wanted children to remain in their church service: It was the way they were brought up and if it was good enough for kids back then, it's good enough for kids today.
Tradition.
This person said...
I come from an older generation. When we were kids, we went to church with our parents. We sat quietly and listened or doodled or something, but we sat there.
Me, too. I'm from that generation, as well. I remember that tradition.
But what is the logical or biblical or pedagogical reason for this? None, so far as I can determine.
I mean, the reasoning is, "IF they learn to sit through this and be still now, while they're kids, then they'll be able to sit through boring sermons in the future, too."
And there IS some value, I think, to learning patience and to endure through things, even things that are extremely boring and irrelevant to you. But is forcing kids to sit quietly through a service a good way to do this?
I don't think so.
This person reasoned...
I don't believe it's because the kids won't understand the preaching. I think it's because the kids will disrupt the preaching. I don't think it's because the children aren't mature enough to understand. Nor do I think it is less than valuable for them to remain. It's my conviction that the primary reason children are dismissed from church services at the edge of the sermon is that they lack the discipline not to be a distraction to the people around them. It's not a maturity problem or even that kids are better taught at their own age level. It's a parenting problem.
Of course.
This person goes on to concede...
You know, under the age of 1 with nursing and all, I can imagine the need for a nursery. I was thinking more of the age where kids are being taught, not simply present.
So, at 18 months, apparently, this person thinks that children can be effectively taught something in church services and they lament that parents no longer see the value in raising children as this person was raised.
The thing is, EVEN THOUGH, learning to sit and learn can be a good thing, we don't ask five year olds to sit through a physics class, insisting they be relatively still so the adults around can learn what is being taught. We don't ask two year olds attend and sit quietly through a medieval history class. There is the concept of age-appropriate material and teaching styles that are suited for children of particular ages.
When we force most kids to sit through class after class (in a church service or a school or wherever) and endure something that is being taught in a manner that is over their heads, time after time, most kids DO learn something: They learn, "BOY! That's boring! I don't want NOTHING to do with that!"
How much better to take children out of a church service (or other adult-themed class) and teach them something they CAN learn in a teaching style suited to children, not to adults? My concern would be that we're teaching kids the wrong things when we teach them in the wrong way.
There is something to the concept of age-appropriate teaching and just because it isn't in your tradition to have age-appropriate teaching does not mean that your tradition is right.
I think a good question to ask is, "Is there any logical, biblical, study-based, common sense reason to believe this tradition is a good one?" and if the answer is No, then perhaps it's time to let that tradition go, or at least quit suggesting that people are wrong for following a tradition simply for tradition's sake.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Earth Day 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Bike to Work...
...to school, to church, to play, to shop...
Tomorrow, we in Louisville celebrate Bike To Work Day and it is a good day to recall that, as Grant Peterson noted, the bicycle is "rideable art that can just about save the world."
An astounding claim, but not a hyperbolic one, I'd suggest.
It's also a good time to recall how important bicycles were at least for a small part of our history. Here, I'll quote from a fine essay from the American Studies website at the University of Virginia...
Amongst the bicycles most important, and perhaps most enduring, legacies is its effect upon women's issues; indeed the mark the bicycle left upon gender relations in the 1890s is difficult to underestimate. One must remember that the America of years past was one of rigidly defined gender roles, with distinctly separate spheres of activity for men and women. The distinctions between the sexes were certainly as rigidly defined as ever in the years leading up to the 1890s--the years we popularly refer to as the Victorian era.
However, as the 19th century came to a close, women were gradually making headway into the male-dominated public sphere, through increased roles in education, social and political organizations. Perhaps as a response to the seemingly increasing potential for equality amongst the sexes, men begin to more and more delineate themselves in terms of physical prowess. Cycling, then took its natural place amongst football, baseball, and other male dominated spheres of activity. One can imagine the indignation, often expressed in terms of health or morality, that many a male felt when the woman was shown to be just as adept at handling the cycle as her counterpart.
Simply put, the bicycle allowed for movement into new spaces, literally and figuratively. The woman of the 19th century who had been given little opportunity to cultivate or express her autonomy now had a vessel with which one could not only develop autonomous power, but do so while leaving behind the old reliance upon men for travel. It's easy to see then, why Susan B. Anthony, women's rights advocate and future star of an ill-fated dollar, was to say that the bicycle had "done more to emancipate women then anything else in the world"...
Rational dress aside, the bicycle, despite being heaped with scorn by outraged men, was consistently trumpeted by progressive women as a tool for increased freedoms. Indeed, many feminist tracts of the day frequently invoked the bicycle as a metaphor for increased self-control... the author of Bicycling for Ladies, Maria Ward, bluntly notes that "Riding the wheel, our powers are revealed to us...".
Ride or DieIt is precisely this sort of attitude, empowerment coupled with visions of an increasingly egalitarian future, that angered many men greatly. Simply put, the woman on wheels was a threat to the well ingrained system of practical inferiority that men had been taking advantage of for centuries, and outraged men were quick to point to the bicycle as a threat to the social order. The cycle, it was argued, would disrupt the delicate sphere of the family unit by allowing the woman to travel beyond her previous limits without the surveillance of a knowing husband nearby. The younger woman, too was vulnerable to a bicycle induced lapse in morals, for it allowed her to stray farther a field with members of the opposite sex during courtship.
The leveling effect acheived by the woman on the bicyle was so great that the coming of the automobile and subsequent demise of the bicyle can be though of as a major step backwards for women's empowerment.
So, take an historic stand. Ride a bike. Save the world.