Happy Halloween!!!

After all this posting about the Bible and Socialism and the election, etc., I almost forgot to wish everyone a Happy Halloween!

This is, of course, the most important religious holiday of the year. ;)

Quote of the Day: Luke 17:20-21

Again, I'm all about the Gospel of Luke lately. And not for the reason I am using it on the blog to discuss Jesus' or Luke's economic radicalism. My reasons lie elsewhere. But, it should be little surprise that my quote of the day also derives from Luke:

Being asked asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God is coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

That last bit can also be understood "in the midst of you," but I tend toward "within you." It fits, I think, the undermining of expectations. First Jesus undermines the expectation of when. It is not a when. It is not imminent. It is not in the future (or the past). Although we might say it is in the present. But neither is it a where. It is not here nor is it there. That is why I don't like "midst." I like it inside. You carry it with you all the time. Is it possibly a who? Or a collection of who's? If the kingdom of God is IN you, is it a part of you? Is it something that only you can activate, create, call into being? If it is in your midst, it is because it is inside you and you have allowed it to break forth. Or it gains strength with a collection of who's who have gathered together, each with the kingdom inside.

Is the Bible Socialist? Luke-Acts (Part 4)

This is still the same chapter as "part 3," but that post was getting long, so I thought I would be nice and break things up a bit. The second half of Luke 16, in fact, deals with economic issues. One might begin to think that Jesus (or Luke) is obsessed with relations between rich and poor, wealth, and, well, giving it all away.

So, here is a famous story by Jesus about the rich man and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom:

"There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. At at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may corss from there to us.' And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Ok...I know that was long. And this is a famous story. By the way, this is not the same Lazarus that Jesus rose from the dead...although the coincidence of resurrection language and the name Lazarus is suspect! But here the point is that Lazarus will NOT be raised from the dead, because it would be pointless.

But let's see what is going on in the dynamics of this story. The first thing I noted was that the rich man wore purple. Purple was a luxury item, and in this period is highly associated with the imperial regime--the emperor wore the most purple. Senators next, and so on. This detail, at least, narratively evokes that imperial apparatus. This man lived well and ate sumptuously in stark contrast to Lazarus, the beggar outside, who wishes for just a scrap, but, it seems, does not receive it. Both die, and we have the literary technique of reversal: the first becomes last and the last first. The rich man is taken to Hades in torment, Lazarus receives comfort. In a nice inverse parallel, just like Lazarus wanting a scrap from the rich man's table and evidently not receiving it, the rich man wishes for just a bit of water from Lazarus, but cannot receive it. Just as he refused to give in this life, he will not receive in the next. In the end, the rich man wishes to send warning to his five brothers through Lazarus. But Abraham notes that they already have warning by Moses and the prophets. If they cannot learn by Moses and the prophets, what good would a guy rising from the dead do? Let me pass over briefly the obvious theological irony here with regard to Jesus' own resurrection. The rich man wants to send Lazarus so that his brothers will repent. Repent of what? Why, exactly, is the rich man in Hades? My first inclination is to say that he is there because he failed to let Lazarus eat from his table. He should have given his scraps to the poor, right? But, if the afterlife is an inversion of this life, and getting what you gave, the inversion would be that he would be in Hades and get some relief from time to time. How does Abraham explain why they are in their respective positions? He says: "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received good thigns, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish." You get the opposite in the afterlife that you get in this life. So, what should his brothers repent of? If they want to ascend to Abraham's bosom and not be in Hades, they need to repent of their wealth. This, in fact, is very consistent with Jesus' earlier pronouncements of one not being able to serve God and mammon. It also is consistent with his command to sell everything you own and to give the proceeds to the poor. It is, I think, the understanding that keeps true to the story itself: comfort in the next life is the luxury for those who have none in this life. Luke's Jesus, indeed, is a radical one. Whether Jesus' economic vision is one you think is viable is a different matter.

Now, apart from these economic issues, what about the theological, or christological point: "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neitehr will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead." Does this completely undermine Jesus' own resurrection as in any way meaningful? Lazarus does not come back to life because the Law and the Prophets should be enough. Does this, therefore, pass the criterion of dissimilarity--meaning, we can be confident Jesus said it because it is not in the interest of the early Christian movement? It might explain why, in fact, some early Christians were having trouble getting people to believe their message. On the other hand, it suggests that there is no need of a new message--it is all there in the Law and the Prophets. All you need is Moses...or, the Lukan Jesus' interpretation of Moses.

Is the Bible Socialist? Luke-Acts (Part 3)

Today's readings of Luke are a bit less clear. It may contravene the earlier statements by Jesus to sell everything and give to the poor, or, perhaps, the ambiguity in the passage itself may be illuminated or clarified by these earlier principles.

First we begin with the story of the bad steward in Luke 16:1-13.

"There was a rich man who had a steward, and charges were brought to him that htis man was wasting his goods. And he called him and said to him, 'What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.' And the steward said to himself, 'What shall I do, since my master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that people may receive me into their houses when I am put out of the stewardship.' So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he said to the first, 'How mcuh do you owe my master?' He said, 'A hundred measures of oil.' And he said to him, 'Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.' Then he said to another, 'And how much do you owe?' He said, 'A hundred measures of wheat.' He said to him, "Take yoiur bill, and write eighty.' The master commended the dishonest steward for his shrewdness; fo rhte sons of theis world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations." (Luke 16:1-9)

First, I fully admit bafflement with this story. The steward goes from bad to dishonest. In short, he is doing the opposite of interest by forgiving part of the loan in order to have a place to go, to have some popularity among these debtors, after he is fired. The master, evidently realizing what the dishonest steward has done, commends him for it. That is odd. He recognized the shrewdness of his actions and commends him for the shrewdness (even though the master is getting the short end of the stick). But, all of this involves the actions of "the sons of this world" as opposed to the non-shrewdness of the "sons of light." So, sons of this world=shrewd; sons of light=not shrewd. In some ways, perhaps all this makes sense, showing people of this world to be slick money-dealing folk only out for their own self-interest. BUT the last sentence interrupts such an interpretation: "make friends by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations." What does that mean?

The labeling of "mammon" consistently as "unrighteous" may be a clue. Money is unrighteous. It is inextricably related to unrighteous. Unrighteous is one of its qualities. But Jesus is telling this story to his disciples, but, at the same time, is being overheard by the Pharisees. How might this dual-audience affect our interpretation? I think a key is the assumption that the money, the mammon, will fail. It is evanescent. It will not sustain itself. So, if mammon is unrighteous and it fails, why would Jesus tell his disciples to make friends by it? Perhaps they are in parallel to the bad, but shrewd, steward, oddly enough. He made money through mammon by forgiving part of debt. Instead of repaying everything or even adding interest, now they only have to pay a portion back. This costs the rich man, who nonetheless recognizes its shrewdness, while it helps the poor. Is this socialist? Not really. Not even close. But its complete distaste of money and riches is still evident.

I have a feeling I am missing something--perhaps an element of lost sarcasm? It just is so odd, and the next section is also unclear:

"He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and desipise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:10-13)

After telling the disciples to make friends by unrighteous mammon, which, based upon the story, seems to mean to make friends by mammon by relinquishing mammon owed to you or your master, to then have this section seems contradictory. The steward was, in fact, dishonest in the way he acted shrewdly. But commended as well. Was he faithful? Or unfaithful? I would think his dishonesty would demonstrate him being unfaithful with the little, unfaithful with the unrighteous mammon. So, what does this have to do with that? Moreover, the last portion seems to undermine the entire conversation: "No servant can serve two masters." But perhaps this undermining IS the point of the story and the subsequent explanation. When stuck in the story and in the interrelationships developed by money, of owing, debt, and lending, you will be judged by how well you maintain that money. You should be honest, yes, but shrewdness is definitely what is valued. But even though you are being honest with unrighteous mammon, or perhaps dishonest and shrewd (which are evidently prized as well), you are serving unrighteous mammon. You cannot serve two masters. As a steward you cannot serve both your master and his debtors. You will always be stuck in between them and will never win. But you also cannot serve mammon and God. Indeed, as a child of light, you may not be shrewd with money, but that is because you are not a servant of mammon at all. You extricate yourself from the system of lending and borrowing, of debt and credit.

Why do I think this is the case? The result:

The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. (Luke 16:14).

Pharisees, of course, are just straw men to provide the antithesis of Luke's point. But, if you are someone who serves money, you should, evidently, be appalled by what Jesus is saying. In fact, the story and all else are meant to make this final point: it is not just a matter of being a good or bad steward with your money (or someone else's money), it is a matter of being a part of the monetary system at all. The system will fail, and if you have given your portion away, you will have friends in the eternal habitations.

Phoenician Genetics!

From the NYTimes:

October 31, 2008

Phoenicians Left Deep Genetic Mark, Study Shows

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
The Phoenicians, enigmatic people from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, stamped their mark on maritime history, and now research has revealed that they also left a lasting genetic imprint.

Scientists reported Thursday that as many as 1 in 17 men living today on the coasts of North Africa and southern Europe may have a Phoenician direct male-line ancestor.

These men were found to retain identifiable genetic signatures from the nearly 1,000 years the Phoenicians were a dominant seafaring commercial power in the Mediterranean basin, until their conquest by Rome in the 2nd century B.C.

The Phoenicians who founded Carthage, a great city that rivaled Rome. They introduced the alphabet to writing systems, exported cedars of Lebanon for shipbuilding and marketed the regal purple dye made from the murex shell. The name Phoenica, for their base in what is present-day Lebanon and southern Syria, means “land of purple.”

Then the Phoenicians, their fortunes in sharp decline after defeat in the Punic Wars, disappeared as a distinct culture. The monumental ruins of Carthage, at modern Tunis, are about the only visible reminders of their former greatness.

The scientists who conducted the new research said this was the first application of a new analytic method for detecting especially subtle genetic influences of historical population migrations. Such investigations, supplementing the traditional stones-and-bones work of archaeology, are contributing to a deeper understanding of human mobility over time.

The study was directed by the Genographic Project, a partnership of the National Geographic Society and IBM Corporation, with additional support from the Waitt Family Foundation. The international team described the findings in the current American Journal of Human Genetics.

“When we started, we knew nothing about the genetics of the Phoenicians,” Chris Tyler-Smith, a geneticist at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England, said in an announcement. “All we had to guide us was history: we knew where they had and hadn’t settled.”

It proved to be enough, Dr. Tyler-Smith and Spencer Wells, a geneticist who directs the Genographic Project, said in telephone interviews.

Samples of the male Y-chromosome were collected from 1,330 men now living at six sites known to have been settled in antiquity as colonies and trading outposts of the Phoenicians. The sites were in Cyprus, Malta, Morocco, the West Bank, , Syria and Tunisia.

Each participant, whose inner cheek was swabbed for the samples, had at least three generations of indigenous ancestry at the site. To this was added data already available from Lebanon and previously published chromosome findings from nearly 6,000 men at 56 sites throughout the Mediterranean region. The data were then compared with similar research from neighboring communities having no link to Phoenician settlers.

From the research emerged a distinctive Phoenician genetic signature, in contrast to genetic traces spread by other migrations, like those of late Stone-Age farmers, Greek colonists and the Jewish Diaspora. The scientists thus concluded that, for example, one boy in each school class from Cyprus to Tunis may be a descendant of Phoenician traders.

“We were lucky in one respect,” Pierre A. Zalloua, a geneticist at Lebanese American University in Beirut who was a principal author of the journal report, said in an interview. “So many Phoenician settlement sites were geographically close to non-Phoenician sites, making it easier to distinguish differences in genetic patterns.”

In the journal article, the researchers wrote that the work “underscores the effectiveness of Y-chromosomal variability” in tracing human migrations. “Our methodology,” they concluded, “can be applied to any historically documented expansion in which contact and noncontact sites can be identified.”

Dr. Zalloua said that with further research it might be possible to refine genetic patterns to reveal phases of the Phoenician expansion over time — “first to Cyprus, then Malta and Africa, all the way to Spain.” Perhaps, he added, the genes may hold clues to which Phoenician cities — Byblos, Tyre or Sidon — settled certain colonies.

Dr. Wells, a specialist in applying genetics to migration studies who is also an explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society, suggested that similar projects in the future could investigate the genetic imprint from the Celtic expansion across the European continent, the Inca through South America, Alexander’s march through central and south Asia and multicultural traffic on the Silk Road.

Hubble Bubbles

As Exploring Our Matrix has recently noted, Hubble is back online! And has produced this image:




They also have some other very amazing images. See this for example:



I think the Carina Nebula is stunning. But so is this:



If that is not enough for you, check out the official Hubble site here.

Quote of the Day: You Guess!

As I mentioned in my previous post, I administered a midterm exam today. Part of that exam was to identify a passage, who wrote it, who's speaking, and why it is significant within the work as a whole. They had to do about six of these before writing their essays.

Here is one of those passages. Can you identify it?

Ever do we build our households,
ever do we make our nests,
ever do brothers divide their inheritance,
ever do feuds arise in the land.

Ever the river has risen and brought us the flood,
the mayfly floating on the water.
On the face of the sun its countenance gazes,
Then all of a sudden nothing is there!

Hmm...I guess I can't put any labels on this post until someone correctly identifies the passage!

Is the Bible Socialist? Luke-Acts (Part 2)

I should clarify that I think there is no single position in the Bible on economics...or anything else for that matter that I can think of off-hand. Unless ambivalence is a consistent position.

Nonetheless, I was giving a midterm today and continued reading Luke while my students wrote their essays. And, again working through Luke, we this gospel's portrayal of Jesus' economic positions. Anticipating the communal living situation in Acts that I noted in my earlier post, which was made possible by everyone selling their property and giving it to the group so that everyone's needs would be met, we find this statement from Jesus:

"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For wherever your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:32-4)

Perhaps to update this passage a bit, we might say, "where no market nosedives, where no banking systems fail." This is a passage that defers enjoyment of riches until the kingdom, or reign, of God / Heaven. But until then (or, in a different reading, to create the kingdom or allow the kingdom to break through), one sells everything and gives the money to the poor. This, in fact, comes just after the famous passage that one should not worry about your life, what you eat, your clothing--you know, your most basic needs--because God knows you need these things. This statement against being anxious for your basic needs is then sandwiched between the above-quoted passage about selling all of your possessions and giving the money to the poor and a parable against hoarding wealth:

And he told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man brought forth plentifully; and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?' And he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepeared, whose will they be?' So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." (Luke 12:16-21)

Indeed, the rich are not coming off very well in any of Jesus' stories. So, we move from a parable against the long-term pointlessness of hoarding, of storing up treasures here, to a passage of not worrying about anything, to a passage of selling everything you own and giving it to the poor. We might ask what exactly it means to be "rich toward God" or to have "treasure in the heavens"? One answer here is just to "trust God" with everything. But this is not the prosperity gospel message of believe it, achieve it and God will give you that car. If it is to trust in God, it is to trust that God will provide your needs when you sell all of your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor.

Systematically, Jesus, in this portrayal, has broken down the economic policy that encourages "growing your portfolio." Not only should one not hoard or build bigger barns, but one should not have possessions at all! Again, WHOA! Socialist? Perhaps, indeed, that is an anachronism, since these are stories and exhortations and not a systematic philosophical proposition. Nonetheless, we see the abolishment of private property and a very radical "redistribution" from selling everything and giving it to the poor.

There may be some pockets of Christians throughout history who have lived this way--at least in hagiography...and perhaps some monastic organizations--but it is rare and has never been the dominant position in Christian movements, despite it being so prominent in the accounts of the purported founder's message. Perhaps different forms of Christianity have been so concerned about who Jesus is for so long that they have forgotten what he said (or reportedly said).

Ok...Why Obama is not a Socialist

There have been a lot of misuses of the term socialist by the McCain campaign with regard to Obama. I think true socialists are appalled that people are giving the ultimately capitalist underpinnings of Obama's economic package such a lofty and advanced title!

Let's take the bail-out of Wall-Street as an example.

True free-market capitalists are perhaps uneasy about the GOVERNMENT intervention into the capitalist system that Wall Street represents.

Socialists are uneasy about the government intervention into the CAPITALIST system that Wall Street represents. The Bail-out, in the socialist view, ultimately reaffirms the capitalist system rather than truly developing a socialist system.

It is one thing to distinctly disagree with your opponent's economic policies--that is part and parcel of Presidential debate and politics--but it does not excuse fear-mongering by mislabeling (this particular label, I don't particularly see as a negative one, but a great deal of Americans do).

By the way, Ken Schenck has a very nice, thorough post on the philosophical and historical developments of modern economic theory here.

Gridiron Politics

What does politics have to do with football? Rachel Maddow of MSNBC News explains:

College Tuition

College tuition, of course, is still on the rise even in the midst of economic crisis.

The Chronicle has a database by state or by institution type here. Note: it only gives tuition and fees and not room and board rates...which will push the price even higher.

My alma mater, Illinois Wesleyan University, is up to $32,434.

Columbia is $39,326.

April DeConick's Rice is at $30,486.

Ken Schenck's Indiana Wesleyan is $19,376.

Harvard is at $36,173.

U Penn stands at $37,526.

Not far from U Penn is a small liberal arts university, Ursinus College, which happens to have a position open in NT and Early Christianity this year, is very close to these top prices: $36,910.

Wash U in St. Louis is $37,248.

If you can't access the site and would like to know how much a certain institution costs, just ask and I'll look it up.

Painting: Frog on Leaf with Twirling Night Sky

As mentioned sometime before, I paint. And here is my most recent painting done for my niece, Rebekah, for the occasion of her birth a couple weeks ago--yes, I am a newly minted uncle.

Unfortunately, there is a glare on this photograph, losing some of the depth of color, particularly at the bottom of the painting at the bottom of the leaves and losing some of the contrast between the blues and purples in the swirls of the night sky. The contrast, to the naked eye, is as strong as it is at the top of the painting. Moreover, the contrast of the swirling stars is also stronger to the naked eye, again being obscured by a glare unavoidable due to the lighting in my apartment.

As is now appearing to become my style, the painting emphasizes secondary colors--oranges, greens, and purples--more than primary colors. In contrast to the paintings I posted earlier in the year with almost dizzyingly detailed leaves, I went with larger patterns and shapes on this one. I like how it looks on my wall next to other paintings with similar color schemes, star patterns, although with different representational schemes (like a human eye-ball or a hand reaching out), but very soon it will be traveling west, to the house of my sister, brother-in-law, and niece to live in my baby niece's room right above the rocking chair...so she can look at it whenever she is burped, fed, or rocked to sleep. ;)

Is the Bible Socialist? Luke-Acts as an Example

Here's a nice quote for today from a statement attributed to John the Baptist:

"He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise" (Luke 3:11; RSV).

John the Baptist must be a socialist, at least by John McCain's loose definition, since he wants to redistribute the wealth!

In fact, Luke-Acts (the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostle were written by the same author) shows a lot of instances of communal living. See, for example, Acts 4:32-5:5:

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought hte proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus JOseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

But a man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it waws sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died.

Sapphira dies subsequently. I am sure that most Christians who promote free-market capitalism, as many evangelicals do, skim through these passages, overlook them, or ignore their message. With the passage from Luke, many people might see this as giving change to the guy on the street...which is a very little help, instead of seeing it as a lifestyle change and challenge that it is meant to be. The passage from Acts is more difficult to ignore. While some people will focus on the issue of obedience, which is clearly there, they ignore the social implications of the passage and merely spiritualize it. But that would be the miss the larger impact of a cohering community that holds all things in common. Here the communal lifestyle of redistributing wealth to those who need it is presented as the ideal and, uh, godly. Holding back property, maintaining one's private property and not giving it to the community, is portrayed as Satanic! Unfortunately, we tend to tame the radicalism of the Bible and the implications of many of its social positions...something important for those who claim to live a "biblical lifestyle." Ultimately, if redistribution of wealth is un-American, so is living a "biblical lifestyle," if a biblical lifestyle is remotely related to the social organizations illustrated by the earliest Christians, the redistribution of land in the year of Jubilee, etc.

Bush Tries to Pardon Himself

Buried deep within new legislation before Congress is a provision for Bush and his cronies to exculpate themselves of any possible wrongdoing regarding detainees. In short, Bush is trying to pardon himself for war crimes (i.e., violating the Geneva Convention's prohibition of torture, which has now juridically--and correctly I think--been interpreted to apply to alleged terrorist detainees). If charges of war crimes are brought to Bush and his administration, it carries a felony charge with punishments ranging from imprisonment to death.

India to the Moon, Modern Traditionalism, or Hindus and Science

I just read a nice, succinct op-ed article in the NYTimes discussing the recent India shuttle launch to the moon, noting that this is the first mission to the moon by people who have regarded the moon as a god! A great moment for science; a great moment for religion. The article notes, in fact, that modern Hindus do not see much contradiction between religion and science and, moreover, are often aghast at, say, Christians in the U.S. who do.

See full article as follows:

October 29, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

Fly Me to the Deity

By TUNKU VARADARAJAN

AN unmanned spacecraft from India — that most worldly and yet otherworldly of nations — is on its way to the moon. For the first time since man and his rockets began trespassing on outer space, a vessel has gone up from a country whose people actually regard the moon as a god.

The Chandrayaan (or “moon craft”) is the closest India has got to the moon since the epic Hindu sage, Narada, tried to reach it on a ladder of considerable (but insufficient) length — as my grandmother’s bedtime version of events would have it. So think of this as a modern Indian pilgrimage to the moon.

As it happens, a week before the launching, millions of Hindu women embarked on a customary daylong fast, broken at night on the first sighting of the moon’s reflection in a bowl of oil. (This fast is done to ensure a husband’s welfare.) But reverence for the moon is not confined to traditional Indian housewives: The Web site of the Indian Space Research Organization — the body that launched the Chandrayaan — includes a verse from the Rig Veda, a sacred Hindu text that dates back some 4,000 years: “O Moon! We should be able to know you through our intellect,/ You enlighten us through the right path.”

One is tempted, in all this, to dwell on the seeming contradiction between religion and science, between reason and superstition. And yet, anyone who has been to India will have noted also its “modernity of tradition.” The phrase, borrowed from the political scientists Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, might explain the ability of devout Hindus — many of them, no doubt, rocket scientists — to see no disharmony between ancient Vedic beliefs and contemporary scientific practice.

The Hindu astrological system is predicated on lunar movements: so the moon is a big deal in astrology-obsessed India. That said, the genius of modern Hinduism lies in its comfort with, and imperviousness to, science. A friend tells me of an episode from his childhood in Varanasi, the sacred Hindu city. Days after Apollo 11 landed on the moon, a model of the lunar module was placed in a courtyard of the most venerable temple in the city. The Hindu faithful were hailing man-on-the-moon; there was no suggestion that the Americans had committed sacrilege. (Here, I might add — with a caveat against exaggeration — that science sometimes struggles to co-exist with faith in the United States in ways that would disconcert many Indians.)

Of course, the Chandrayaan is also a grand political gesture — space exploration in the service of national pride. This kind of excursion may provoke yawns at NASA, but judging from round-the-clock local coverage it has received, the mission has clearly inflamed the imagination and ambition of Indians. Yes, even moon-worshipping ones.

The Best Electoral Map Ever

As I mentioned yesterday (or a few days ago...I'm losing track of time!!!), I really am fascinated by the shifting electoral maps that various news outlets have been releasing, but, by far, this Op-Art one contributed to the NYTimes has to be the best one I've seen so far!

Jon Stewart's "Gaffe-in"

This is so sad...yet so funny!



Looks like Biden has competition for being the worst gaffer!

Kierkegaard for President!

Ok...so I appropriated this from James McGrath's blog, Exploring Our Matrix, but I thought it was funny enough to duplicate.

Here's Friedrich Nietsche's attack ad on Kant:



Here's Kierkegaard's attack ad on Kant and Nietsche...if only we had a three-party system!



And if you are unsure about which to choose, just see how well they play soccer: