Category: Cultural Observations

Posted on

My Trip to Greece and Italy

By Jim Spiegel

Recently, I returned from a 17-day sojourn through Greece and Italy.  The trip was led by Footsteps Ministries and traced the “footsteps” of the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys as recorded in the book of Acts.  More than 50 Taylor students were on the trip, which functioned as a Biblical Studies course.  The leaders of the trip—David and Elizabeth Sparks, as well as Dave Sparks, Jr. and Kleanthis Iliadou, were tremendous guides, extremely knowledgeable in Greek and Roman history as well as biblical literature.  They also demonstrated a wonderfully pastoral touch.

At the Parthenon

Our journey began in Thessaloniki, where we visited the Arch of Galerius, the Basilica of St. Demetrios, and the Roman forum.  From there we went on to Philippi, where we visited the site of Lydia’s baptism and had a tour of the archaeological site: tour of the archaeological site: the agora, basilicas, theater, city walls, and the traditional location of Paul’s imprisonment.  Next we traveled to Berea to see the Rostrum of Paul and the Jewish Quarter with its synagogue.  Then we continued on to Vergina, site of the royal tombs of Philip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great.

Next, we traveled to Delphi, but on our way we stopped to visit the monasteries of Meteora, which are perched high atop gigantic rock formations.  In Delphi we visited the sanctuary of Apollo, the Delphic agora, theater, and stadium.  This is where the oracle at Delphi, reputedly speaking for the god Apollo, declared that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens, which is was our next destination.  We stayed in Athens four days, visiting the theater of Dionysios, Hadrian’s Arch, the Temple of Zeus, the Acropolis, where the Parthenon, Erectheion, Temple of Athena, and other sites are located.  We

Ruins of Aristotle’s Lyceum

also visited Areopagus (Mars Hill), where the Apostle Paul gave his discourse recorded in Acts 17.

While in Athens I used a free day to hike up to the northern part of the city, wending my way through the tangled, cramped city streets to visit the remnants of Plato’s Academy.  I also made my way over to the ruins of Aristotle’s Lyceum.  Although these sites are not as visually dazzling as many of the other destinations on this trip, they were highlights for me—just to walk amongst the remnants of the schools founded by these two great Greek thinkers, whose writings have so deeply impacted Western history.

At the Roman Colosseum

We also visited Corinth, visiting the extensive ruins of the ancient city and climbing up to the Corinth acropolis, where the views are spectacular.  Then it was on to Italy, where we spent the final four days of the trip, visiting numerous sites in Rome, including Piazza del Popolo, Trevi Fountain, the Pantheon, the Colosseum, St. John Lateran Church, St. Paul’s Basilica, the Church of St. Sebastian, and the Roman catacombs.  We also spent a day in Vatican City, visiting the Bridge of Angels, St. Peter’s Square (which isn’t really square), the Vatican Museum, and the Sistine Chapel.

What an extraordinary experience!  If you decide to visit Greece and/or Italy, then by all means do it with Footsteps Ministries.  The Sparks family are the best!

Posted on

Viewpoint Diversity and the Academy

By Jim Spiegel

Generally speaking, we all value—or ought to value—diversity.  Be it ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic, aesthetic, methodological, culinary, or human developmental (i.e., age), we know—or should know—that human diversity is a good thing for a community and a good thing for us as individuals to experience.  On this much, hopefully, we can agree.  And it is appropriate for any school, business, or organization to cherish and pursue diversity.  But why this is a reasonable value is seldom explained or defended.  What is it exactly that makes diversity a human good?  Why, in particular, is diversity a valuable thing at a university?  And why is this especially true for a Christian university?

As cognitive creatures, humans are inherently doxastic beings, naturally forming beliefs all day every day about all sorts of things.  And for beliefs to be rational they must be adequately informed.  Humans are also social animals, as Aristotle famously noted.  Human societies are inherently plural, so our operation within communal atmospheres is fundamental to our existence.  As doxastic social beings, then, we rely on others within our communities to instruct, challenge, and correct us as we form beliefs about a whole range of subjects.  And if all members within a given community believe the same things about all issues, then there may be instruction, but there won’t be challenges or corrections to our beliefs.  Given that all of us hold some false beliefs that need correction, a lack of doxastic plurality would leave us with little hope for escape from the grip of these falsehoods.  Any further enlightenment would be limited by the confines of the already agreed upon set of beliefs that everyone in our midst already affirms.

If this is true for any community, then it is especially the case in an academic community. Diversity of views is inherent to the original and on-going purpose of the university, as a place where many different perspectives and belief commitments co-exist and integrate in creative, cooperative, and innovative ways.  Of course, it is not enough to have the “versity” without the “uni” of “university.”  Something must unify us in the midst of the plurality of perspectives and convictions.  And this is what distinguishes the Christian university, which regards Christ as the star of the academic solar system.  As the Apostle Paul says, “in Christ all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”  So in the Christian university, Christ is the hub and focal point of everything we learn, teach, and practically implement.  At least that is our goal, even if we constantly fall short of attaining this ideal.  This conviction is rooted even in the creative order itself.  God is the maker of all things, and the universe is inherently diverse, so if we are to properly worship and understand God, we must appreciate the diversity within his creation.  So the good of diversity for the Christian university is grounded both in Christology and divine creation.

But notice that this diversity good is essentially doxastic—it has to do with the variety of beliefs, viewpoints, and perspectives.  Yet when diversity is promoted and celebrated in academic communities these days, it is not the first thing many people think of.  Rather, we often think of racial or gender diversity (and, perhaps, to a lesser extent, diversity of age or physical ability).  This is not to say that these forms of diversity are not themselves valuable, but these biological differences have no communal value in themselves any more than other biological factors, such as eye color, height, or the shape of one’s bicuspids.  We properly value racial and gender diversity only because they are somewhat reliable indicators of the deeper essential value of viewpoint diversity.  But they are not infallible indicators of diverse perspectives.  Biological diversity (plurality of races, genders, etc.) does not guarantee viewpoint diversity.  Nor does the lack of such diversity within an academic community guarantee a lack of viewpoint diversity.

So is the current obsession with biological diversity in the American academy misguided?  To the extent that it ignores or fails to appreciate the deeper value of viewpoint diversity, I think it is.  After all, if the end in view is plurality of perspectives, then racial and gender diversity are, as just noted, not infallible indicators of the achievement of that end.  Of course, one might point out that biological diversity within a community is important for another reason, specifically as an indicator of fair hiring procedures.  But, important as that is, it is a separate issue.  And here, too, biological diversity or the lack thereof is not by itself an infallible indicator of fairness in hiring or the lack thereof.

So, again, diversity of biological attributes such as race and gender within an academic community is valuable, but only secondarily or derivatively.  My contention is that they are not valuable in themselves but valuable because of a deeper good, namely viewpoint diversity, the plurality of perspectives which is so crucial to the advancement and enhancement of learning, which of course is the ultimate good of any academic community.

Posted on

Risk Takers

By Jim Spiegel

Great artists and intellectuals take risks.  They dare to challenge prevailing paradigms of thought and popular practice, which guarantees they’ll receive resistance and ridicule.  Gregor Mendel’s pioneering work in genetics was ignored by his peers.  Claude Monet endured abuse by both critics and the public.  Marcel Proust was rejected by publishers more times than he could count.  Galileo’s and Einstein’s insights were profound and eventually world-changing, but they were strongly opposed before their ideas eventually took hold.  Aldous Huxley and Bob Dylan were hated by many even after they were established in their fields.  And Socrates, Joan of Arc, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King were killed because of the risks they took.

Risk is a standard feature of innovation.  This guarantees opposition, an unfortunate deterrent to proposing new ideas.  So along with the fact that innovation demands strong imagination and intelligence, the innovator must be courageous, willing to be hated or humiliated for the sake of the truth or beauty they pursue.

HistoryCollection.com

Risk also guarantees occasional, if not frequent, failure, as illustrated in the lives of Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill, and the Wright Brothers.  So eventual success requires persistence and even an obstinate personality.  The innovator, then, must be a well-differentiated person, defining him- or herself by a standard beyond public opinion.  To many s/he will necessarily appear insensitive or even insane.

The oft-repeated exhortation to “be a risk-taker”—a favored bromide at graduation ceremonies every Spring—is almost never fully serious or else it is hypocritical, because most people only like risk-takers in the abstract.  They resent and are annoyed by the real, concrete risk takers in their lives (though all of us have benefitted from them).  This is one more sad fact about the human condition.

Perhaps a better or more realistic exhortation is “be patient with risk takers” or “be open to new innovations.”  Not everyone has the disposition to be a genuine risk-taker, so why encourage everyone to do so?  But all of us encounter risk-takers and are forced to decide whether to ignore, resist, ridicule, or even hate them because their ideas cut against the cultural grain and challenge our own beliefs or values.  This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t subject their ideas to rigorous critical review.  On the contrary, rational critique is the mature, responsible response to new challenging ideas.  It is good for the world of arts and ideas and good for risk-takers themselves.

So if you’re not a risk-taker in the sense of pursuing innovations in your field, then at least take the risk of patiently considering and perhaps reasonably responding to the risk-takers in your life.  Their latest risk might be one of their mistakes, but your demonstrating this through rational argument will help them and the rest of the world more than empty ridicule or blithe dismissal.

Posted on

Politics Gone Viral

By Amy Spiegel

For many years, as a mother of four, I dreaded this time of year. The excitement and cheerful decorations of Christmas are long gone. The green and sunshine of spring seem a still distant hope. When the kids were little, these were long and grey winter days with no snow spent wishing for sledding and igloos to help burn off some of that seemingly endless childhood energy. The long and grey days with lots of snow were spent stuffing kids in and out of snow pants and wishing they would just stay inside. But my greatest dread was sickness. Inevitably, we would schedule a playdate, spend several lovely hours with friends only to have someone throw up all over one of the kids as we were saying goodbye. Okay, that never actually happened, but there did seem to be a proportional relationship between the frequency of playdates and the chances of my kids getting sick. In order to avoid whatever gut-spilling, bowel-emptying plague which was currently laying siege to our circle of friends, I would become hyper-vigilant regarding contact with others. If I saw the slightest hint of illness, runny nose, sneezing, unidentified ooze leaking from any orifice, I would yell “Retreat!” and hustle the kids off as quickly as possible, giving the offending orifice a wide berth large enough to drive the Titanic through…sideways.

This season of political divisiveness and strife has me living in the same nerve-fraying state of alertness. Politics has become a virus from which I would like to be immunized or, better yet, simply avoid all together. I know this is not the way of the informed citizen and might seem a complete shirking of my civic duties, but I’m ready to at least use a few sick days. It isn’t that I don’t care about the issues being debated. Quite the reverse. The stakes have never seemed so high: illegal immigration which encompasses national security, our legacy as a nation of immigrants, and the fate of those caught in the middle; racial equality; issues of religious freedom and tolerance; abortion; gun control; and the list goes on. All matters of vital importance and deserving of our attention. Nevertheless, on a fairly regular basis, I dream of leaving others to solve our problems and packing up husband, kids and dogs (sorry cat, you are on your own) and heading to hill country with a lifetime supply of dehydrated beef stroganoff and the complete works of Sir Conan Doyle.

I know that in the last two hundred plus years of our nation’s history there have been times of greater political division (e.g., the Civil War, Vietnam, etc.). But what I find so maddening about our current political divide, beyond the character assassinations and untethered vitriol on both sides of the aisle, is its ever-pervasive presence. Go to the movies or turn on the television and you’ll have some high school dropout lecturing you about the environment or gun control or the “wage gap.” Try to watch sports and you’ll have it turned into a political exercise about racial prejudice. You can’t even shop for school supplies or buy a cupcake without declaring your support or disapproval of one side or the other. Every corner of our culture has been infected with politics. In other words, there is no common ground. There is no place to meet in the middle and enjoy a laugh or well-played game. Everywhere is a pulpit and everyone a preacher.

I’m not denying anyone’s right to use whatever platform they have been given to propagate their particular perspective. I only ask they consider the context in which they do so. We watch movies for their artistic and entertainment value, not to be indoctrinated but to be enlightened and uplifted. We watch sports to be amazed and inspired, to feel a part of so larger than ourselves, not to be lectured and subdivided.

Maybe if we spent a little more time on common ground, rooting for the home team, laughing together, enjoying the same musical or theatrical experience, we might find the road to political compromise a little less rocky. Maybe those moments of shared experience will be just what the doctor ordered.

Posted on

The Ten Cultural Commandments of 21st Century America

By Jim Spiegel

American Citizens,

A little more than 130 years ago, through my pugnacious oracle, Friedrich Nietzsche, I announced the death of God in the West. In recent times, this prophecy has finally been realized in America, though, of course, not in the form of widespread disbelief in the Judeo-Christian deity. Alas, verbal affirmations of the deity’s existence abound as always. Rather, the death of God has occurred in the form of practical rejection of the moral standards of this being. For years, many have labored to serve this culture’s new lord—the self—though without the benefit of official guidelines for conduct. Therefore, at last, I now proclaim to you a new and definitive set of standards—a “transvaluation of all values,” one might say—which, through the faithful assistance of Hollywood, major news networks, and, especially, American institutions of higher learning, has now fully triumphed. Here, then, for your thoughtful consideration and lifelong devotion, are the Ten Cultural Commandments of 21st Century America:

  1. Thou shalt love thy own moral autonomy with all thy heart and reject all notions of external or absolute moral authority, for thou art entitled to all things of thy own choosing.
  2. Thou shalt remember that humans are merely highly evolved animals and thus have no fixed essence or nature.
  3. Thou shalt honor empirical science above all other means of knowledge acquisition and therefore render due suspicion on all truth claims related to value, design, or purpose in nature.
  4. Thou shalt not regard any metanarrative as exclusively true or even as more true than its alternatives, except to the extent that such may reinforce belief in the relativity of all values.
  5. Thou shalt respect every truth claim as valid if it is supported by appeal to one’s identity as part of any classifiable group, except, of course, that of white, heterosexual, Anglo-Saxon males.
  6. Thou shalt accept all sexual choices and family arrangements as morally legitimate so long as they are freely and voluntarily made.
  7. Thou shalt declare any expression (spoken or written) to be offensive if it makes you or anyone anywhere at any time the least bit uncomfortable, regardless of any consideration of context, nuance, or factual content.
  8. Thou shalt regard all human problems and failures as arising from flawed social arrangements rather than as resulting from an innate moral defect in the human species.
  9. Thou shalt prioritize personal feelings and experiences over logic and reason in all public discussions regardless of the subject matter.
  10. Thou shalt determine thy own identity and meaning in life, so long as when this is worked out in practice thou dost not transgress any of the above commandments.

Americans, this is the way to self-fulfillment. Fix these words in your hearts and minds, tattoo them on your upper arms, and create abbreviations of them for your vanity license plates.

Now go thou into the world, teaching others to follow these commandments, while ridiculing and destroying the careers of those who fail to respect them.

Triumphally yours,

Zarathustra

Posted on

The Old Grey Mare

By Amy Spiegel

Recently, our church held their annual Thanksgiving service and Jim and others in our congregation took a few minutes to share something for which they were thankful. They each did a great job, and as I listened to them I pondered the previous year and thought about gratitude-inspiring experiences, people, and situations I have encountered this year. Of course, there are the usual suspects: health, friends and family. While I certainly don’t mean to discount these blessings, I wanted to find something more specific to this season of life. What I settled on might surprise you.

I discovered that I am truly grateful for getting older. Now, a few decades ago, when birthdays brought new privileges, the ability to drive, to vote, to enjoy adult beverages, advancing in years was much easier to give thanks for. I suppose I still have senior citizens discounts and social security to look forward to, but, in the world’s eyes, there aren’t too many largely recognized perks to being on this side of the hill. And that is why I am so thankful for having been given a different vision through which to see my accumulating grey hairs and wrinkles. While those without hope look at the signs of aging as something to be denied and conquered, I am learning to see them as the scars of battles waged and won, of medals awarded for bravery in the face of the enemy. For those who call this life home, growing older is one step further in a finite journey, while for me and my brothers and sisters in Christ, this life is merely the womb in which we are being shaped and developed, and we are on a journey homeward bound.

This perspective is one I am working to cultivate and grow within myself as I face the indignities of middle age, especially in a culture which worships at the altar of youth. I don’t want to see myself as a clock which is slowly winding down and wearing out. Rather, I want to be a tree that is sending down deep roots, providing shade and shelter for those around her. There is an eternal aspect to trees which grow and produce seeds and eventually die and provide nourishment to the next generation of trees growing around them. They don’t cease to exist but rather take on a new form. The same is true in the life of a believer. My body might be a little slower, my mind not as quick or sharp as it once was, but each day I leave behind a little more of this world and the true me within grows a little bigger, growing to better reflect my true self. “The old grey mare she ain’t what she used to be,” and I say, thank heavens!

This fall, I had the immense honor of sitting with my mother-in-law, holding her hand and reading her the Psalms as she passed from this life to the next. I am infinitely thankful that God arranged circumstances such that I was able to witness this lovely lady going home. As she took her final breath, I felt sorrow at being left behind, but great joy in imagining her arrival in Heaven. She wasn’t leaving but arriving, and one day I will join her. One day, I will die, or in truth one day I will truly be born. And rather than filling me with a sense of dread or fear, this idea is a thrilling one.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not making plans to go skydiving without a parachute any time soon. Just like a baby in utero, I have some maturing to do before I go head first into the cosmic birth canal. I hope to live to pluck many a chin hair and continue for years doing my best to do my best. But one day this heart will stop beating, these lungs will stop breathing, this brain will stop functioning. And then I will know what it is to truly live. And for this hope and knowledge, I am and will be eternally grateful.

Posted on

Pod Shots

By Amy Spiegel

I have a lot of sitting-at-loose-ends time in my life. Time between one activity or commitment and another; time spent twiddling my thumbs in a doctor’s office and driving hither and yon. Being the task-oriented person that I am, I dislike feeling this time is being wasted. I have become an expert cultivator of zombie killing plants, but one of my New Year’s resolutions was to try to put this time to better use. So I took to Facebook and asked for some podcast recommendations. Below I have reviewed a few of them for your listening pleasure.

This American Life: Given that, according to its website, This American Life airs on more than 500 stations to about 2.2 million listeners and is “often the most popular podcast in the country,” it probably doesn’t need much of an introduction. But in case you have been living in Wi-Fi-less cave for the last ten years or so, here is the basic concept behind TAL: “There’s a theme to each episode…and a variety of stories on that theme. Most logo-v5of the stories are journalism, with an occasional comedy routine or essay.” Pretty sure this was the first podcast I ever listened to. It is my Saturday morning, headphones-in-walking-through-the-grocery-store listening fare. I have made a fool of myself mid-aisle laughing to the point of snorts and awkwardly holding in sobs as well as boring my family and anyone who will sit still to listen to me recap the various episodes. A must-listen to for anyone.

The Phil Vischer Podcast: Being a huge Larry and Bob fan, I was predisposed in favor of Phil Vischer’s podcast, but sadly what works in the produce aisle isn’t nearly as successful without the funny voices and catchy songs. With so many recommendations to get through, I confess that I only listened to this podcast once. It lacked focus and the hosts, Vischer, Christian Taylor and Skye Jethani, seemed more concerned with having a conversation with one another than they did with engaging the audience. I only have so much time and frankly this podcast didn’t seem to respect that fact. Get to the meat and cut out some of the chit chat. The topics covered do seem very interesting though, so maybe I will give it another chance…after I run out of new episodes of This American Life to listen to.

Pass the Mic: Pass The Mic is the premier podcast of the Reformed African American Network which includes “discussions and high profile interviews addressing the core concerns of African Americans biblically.” Hosted by Jemar Tisby and Tyler Burns, this podcast was out of my comfort zone which can be, well, uncomfortable. I don’t like the current trend to constantly segregate people to categories, by race, gender, economic class, political affiliation, etc., but then my race hasn’t defined me in the same way it has defined others so it’s easy for me to say “Can’t we just all be people rather than black people or white people; female people or male people?” I intend to keep this one on my subscribe list. I may have some one-sided arguments with it every now and then, but hopefully listening to the perspective of others will keep me from seeing the world from too narrow a vantage point.

Sheologians: I have really enjoyed this podcast despite the cheesy affirmations and giggles of the hosts, Summer White and her co-host Joy (I worked for about 45 minutes to find her last name and finally gave up.) Their tagline is “Theology for women, no doilies allowed,” and that is a pretty good summary of the show. Jane sheolgians-transparent-logo-smallAusten references abound amidst discussions of a variety of cultural topics including feminism, atheism, and Hollywood’s portrayal of love and atheism. It’s one I am especially looking forward to listening to with our daughter. Love the idea of her hearing strong and well-reasoned women unapologetically expressing their views on important issues. The overall whimsical tone of the podcast balances the seriousness with which they approach the issues discussed and makes it clear that while Summer and Joy don’t take themselves too seriously, they are on a mission to inform and challenge.

The Briefing:  Hosted by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary and Boyce College, The Briefing is a “daily worldview analysis about the leading news headlines and cultural conversations.” The Briefing is like a shorter version of All Things Considered for conservative evangelicals. I like seeing current events through Mohler’s lens and particularly appreciate his thoughtful and rational analysis. Wouldn’t use this as my only news source, but makes for a quick and informative listen.

Posted on

An Open Letter to Two Dots

By Amy Spiegel

Dear Two Dots,

Let me begin by saying that I, as a mother of four busy kids, have very little “me” time. I do have lots of time to kill waiting in orthodontists’ offices and sitting in parking lots waiting to pick up my kids. Since discovering your game a few years back, many of those periods of waiting have been made a little less boring. I love the simplicity and aesthetic of your format and appreciate having my brain challenged a little each day with your clever puzzles.

Two Dots has been a little patch of sunshine in my day…until now. As a political conservative, I was shocked to open my game today and be greeted not by the usual cheery music and playful graphics of your game, but IMG_0580[1]rather by an obvious dig at our President and a plea for my support of the ACLU, a liberal organization which seeks to limit the religious expression of others rather than defend the freedoms of all. I didn’t vote for President Trump and share the concerns of many regarding his moral character, and certainly as a company, it is your right to support a group such as the ACLU if they align with your values and priorities. However, I don’t play Two Dots as a means of entering into political debate. I play it because it is fun.

Have we really reached the point where we have to politicize every aspect of our lives? Does it not concern you that by incorporating a political message and appeal for financial support into the very format of your app that you would be alienating many of your players? I don’t want political slogans included on my grocery or retail bags. I don’t want to get a lecture before being allowed to order at a restaurant. And I don’t want you asking me to donate to the ACLU before I can play your game.

I have deleted your app from my phone. It will be missed, but I guess that is a price I am willing to pay for my principles. I hope you are willing to pay a similar price for yours.

Disappointedly yours,

Amy Spiegel

Posted on

Why Tattoos Bug Me (and perhaps you)

By Jim Spiegel

For as long as I can remember, I have been annoyed by tattoos. Well, mainly the kind that are prominently displayed, especially on people’s torsos. And for as long as I’ve been bothered by them, I’ve wondered why they bug me. After all, people adorn their bodies in all sorts of other ways—with jewelry, piercings, make-up, etc.—and those things don’t usually annoy me. So why tattoos? My frustration at not knowing why they bother me so much has only been aggravated by the fact that, apparently, they bother many other people too. Yet, as I’ve discussed the matter with a lot of folks who feel the same way, they are almost always at a loss to explain their displeasure and usually throw it up to inexplicable personal distaste. Well, recently the reason for my distaste finally dawned on me, and so I will now share it with you, gentle reader.

from NextLuxury.com
from NextLuxury.com

We’ve all had the experience of encountering the elaborate dragon, butterfly, skull, jungle scene, abstract image or geometrical shape tatted on the back of that guy or gal in front of us at the grocery store, and we’ve been impressed by the exquisite detail or perhaps completely perplexed by what we were seeing. Then when s/he suddenly turned around, we looked away just in time before the person caught us gawking at her/him. Whew. But, then again, while staring at the tattoo, was it really her/him we were looking at?

Tattoos are typically intended to be artistic or, one might say, even genuine works of art. And works of art are supposed to be enjoyable objects of aesthetic pleasure. Art works also welcome study and analysis, and in the case of visual arts this means careful and extensive visual examination. However, the bodies of fellow human beings whom we do not know very well are not properly objects of intensive visual study. To stare at or closely examine another person’s body in public is, well, rude and inappropriate.

And there lies the problem with many tattoos, it seems to me. A prominent, eye-catching tattoo invites or tempts others, even complete strangers, to closely examine the person’s body—that is, to do something that is rude and inappropriate. And the stronger one’s visual aesthetic sensibility, it would seem the stronger that temptation will likely be. Now the tattoo fan will likely respond here by saying “too bad, just ignore it.” Well, of course, that’s just what I struggle to do every time I encounter someone in public who has a prominent tattoo. I restrain myself and look away—anywhere but at that person’s body. But in doing so, I must exert mental energy to avoid doing so. And, the more artistic and aesthetically interesting the tattoo, the more mental energy I must expend and the harder I must work to distract myself from looking at the image.

Now here’s an analogy. We all know—or should know, anyway—that it’s often rude to whistle tunes in public spaces. While the whistler might enjoy the melody s/he is making, it is unwelcome to others and a sonic distraction. Of course, the whistler might say, “too bad, just ignore it.” But that is to give oneself license to sonically impose on others for the sake of their own “art.” Yes, we can ignore it, but many times that’s difficult, and it requires an extra exertion of mental energy to do so. Which is why the whistling is rude and inconsiderate. Similarly, prominent tattoos are an imposition on others—a visual imposition that places a burden on others to exert a bit more mental energy to “ignore” it. And, similarly, it is rude and inconsiderate. But what’s worse in the case of tattoos, the imposition they place on others is also a temptation to do something inappropriate—gawk at a stranger’s body in public. So as annoying as the public whistler is, at least they don’t tempt me to do something inappropriate (assuming their whistling isn’t so bad that I’m tempted to slug them).

In sum, then, prominent tattoos are a rude imposition on others, as they invite people to see the human body as an object and in so doing tempt them to do something inappropriate. That’s why tattoos bug me. And perhaps that’s why they bug you, too.

Posted on

On Lying to Children about Santa Claus

By Jim Spiegel

Have you seen this story about a ten-year-old girl, Belle Adams, whose belief in Santa Claus was dashed by her mother?  My wife texted me little Belle’s letter with the comment that the story “confirms one of our parenting decisions.”  That decision, which we made early on (when our oldest son, Bailey, was a toddler), was that we would not lie to our kids about Santa Claus but rather tell them the story while also informing them that it is a popular Western myth.  And to reinforce the fictional nature of it all, I would sometimes throw in extra narrative flourishes, such as that: 1) Santa is a chain-smoker and 2) Santa cheats at golf.  (These additions were not themselves lies, of course, since we were admittedly dealing in the realm of fiction.  When trafficking in cockamamie myths, why not augment along the way?)

Seriously, though, our reservations about participating in the Santa deception (despite the fact that some good friends of ours have done this) boiled down to a few fundamental concerns.  First, it constitutes a lie to one’s kids.  From the start, Amy and I have been committed to being truthful and as trustworthy as possible with our kids, whether regarding ole St. Nicholas or the weightier issues of life.  Being a systematic lie, the Santa deception certainly defies commitment to truthfulness and, when that lie is exposed, parents’ trustworthiness is necessarily undermined.  Little Belle Adams’ furious letter to her parents demonstrates just how serious the impact of this can be.  We might be tempted to think, “Oh, that’s just an immediate reaction; she’ll get over it.”  But, as the testimony of several adults I know confirms, in some cases the recovery is not so swift, and anyway a child’s “getting over it” emotionally is no guarantee that her trust in her parents is not damaged to some degree.  And that is a serious thing, no matter how much fun and silliness might be involved in perpetuating the deception.

Secondly, the Santa deception could set a child up for religious skepticism.  Consider the mythical attributes of the portly fictional elf.  He is omnipotent (as implied by the notion that he can travel at the speed of light and flawlessly deliver billions of presents to children worldwide in just a few hours); he is omniscient (“he knows when you are sleeping; he knows when you’re awake”); and he is omnibenevolent (he’s a moral judge, distinguishing the “naughty” and “nice” —“he knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!”).  Notice that these are all essentially divine attributes.  So when a child is eventually shown that her “faith” in Santa was misplaced, an unfortunate precedent is set: when it comes to testimonies about a wondrously wise, powerful, and loving being, don’t believe it, even if the reports come from the authorities in your life that you trust most—your own parents.  Such stories are just too good to be true, a set-up for disappointment.  As they say, fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

I’m not saying that participating in the Santa deception will necessarily turn your kids into agnostics or even incline them at all in the direction of religious skepticism.  But, again, I’ve had adults tell me that their enlightenment about the Santa story did prompt them to consciously entertain doubts about God for just this reason.  And this, too, is a serious thing, however much fun parents and their children might have along the way.

But perhaps, after all, I am the one who is taking Santa Claus too seriously!  I mean, come on—it’s just a fun story that adds to the magic of the Christmas holiday, right?  To that I say:  Is the real Christmas story not magical enough?  Who needs a goofy cultural myth to add to the joy and wonder of the Lord of the universe taking on human flesh?  What good is a remote bearded elf in a funny suit visiting us once yearly when we have an omnipresent Lord who attends to our every prayer?  Who needs an imperfect judge to dole out toys or lumps of coal, depending on one’s degree of goodness, when the real Judge of the world is also the way of atonement, the one who suffered, died, and rose again on our behalf?  In short, why pollute the greatest story ever told with the most kitschy tale ever told?  So, in the final analysis, perhaps the best reason to scuttle the whole Santa story (at least as anything more than a cultural myth) is an aesthetic one:  to emphasize St. Nick over the baby Jesus is to exchange a profoundly beautiful narrative for an insipid one.  Santa Claus might not be a chain-smoker or cheater at golf, but he’s an incomparably less interesting character than the Christ child.