Rich Religion

According to this research, it pays to be Hindu. This data shows that Hindus in USA have a higher level of education and the highest amount of over 75K earning individuals.  If you are bothered that your particular religion is not faring as well, its not that hard to reconcile this numbers and ameliorate your own relative religious position. Because we know that  God helps those who help themselves! Anyway, a quick recall of the basics of statistics will tip you off to the fact that there are significantly more Baptists still in USA than Hindus - and a larger sample number means that there is a greater chance of the that larger sample landing closer tot he mean (average). So multiple gods may not have as direct a correlation with wealth and education as it appears on this graphic. A smaller sample group landing on the higher education and more wealth side is significant since according to statistical theory they could just as easily land on the negative side. Interestingly, "the way of suffering" (Buddhism) leads to a nirvana of cash and degrees as well.
What might be a little more significant is that the health and wealth Pentecostals ought to check out what the Anglicans are doing cause they are kicking their blessed rear-ends. So take a moment and basque in your relative wealth and academic achievement - unless of course you are Jehovah's Witness - in which case...
Now snap out of it people. Seriously, isn't the whole point of religion supposed to be about being satisfied with the unexplainable truth - taken as faith? And isn't the reward of the afterlife the thing to strive for? Come on a little bit poorer and an little bit dumber never hurt anybody right? Ignorance is bliss and simplicity is true riches.
I think it is interesting that a rhetorical frame like this one can dance into the social head space and force education and wealth as a rubric of evaluation on religion. I think its cool our social sphere can be that banal. I think its perverse for those who might claim to hang onto any vestige of faith to exacerbate this issue further. So then what do you make of this post? God thing it goes mostly unread...

Do you really wanna be that private?

It’s interesting how some notions seem to function like currency in the social sphere. Take Facebook’s recent breach of Canada’s privacy laws (see news item here). Whenever social/cultural values seem to elevate one social dynamic over another I get suspicious that there is a type of stratification happening in the social context that advantages some and not others. Boil it down: Could it be that manipulating privacy might be a way of gaining social/cultural/economic power?
Now I understand that a certain amount of privacy is good thing. We just do not want to know every sordid or banal detail of each other’s lives. There are also times when knowing certain private information can be used to take advantage of another person (the pin # to your mastercard for instance). But on the whole even in those cases some basic social hygiene might prevent most of these problems. Instead we have been given to understand that privacy is a right we deserve to have protected. On top of it all our privacy, it seems, needs to be protected by external forces. The bank we keep our money at, the store we shop at, the internet site we are addicted to, and even the government ought to protect our privacy for us. Which seems kinda odd doesn’t it since after all our privacy can only really be protected by us. It seems we want to act in an increasingly public manner, revealing ever more ‘private’ information, while expecting outside agencies to protect us from our own indiscretions. We are more voyeuristic than we have ever been – just take a peak at YouTube…
But even if our privacy has been breached-big deal! Let’s look at a few examples: A) your private credit card information in used to make an enormous purchase. Well we already know that credit card companies are swift to deal with charges that are not made by the actual card holder. It’s gonna be pretty easy for me to tell when an $8000.00 purchase has been made on my account. There’s always the ability to revert to cash… B) your child’s private online information is used to for the benefit of some pedophile (if you get my meaning). This one boggles me. If your kids is spending time on the computer and you are not aware as a parent of what they are doing online – there is a problem and it’s not with the issue of privacy it is with the issue of parenting. Getting an education degree has revealed to me that if someone wants the personal details of your child they can access them quite easily even though there are FOIPP plans that seem to protect that information.
So there are two examples - extreme perhaps but those are the sort of things that are bandied about in the media as reasons for increased levels of privacy.
But do we really want a world with more privacy. Well aside from the public/private conundrum I mentioned earlier it seems like privacy holds a lot of social power. Privacy fences or houses designed with the garage in front so that I never have to talk to my neighbours are two examples of the pervasive presence of privacy in the cultural ethos. I am not sure that a more private world benefits us that much. We seem to feel increasingly vulnerable and seemingly more helpless to create the privacy we need. We also seem to want to keep private things that would be better revealed. Sickness, relational difficulties, financial struggles and personal addictions are all things that are better dealt with publicly than privately.
The conclusion to the matter: It seems that the ability to control the private/public domain of one’s life wields a social power. Look at our celebrities they reveal more private information than most of us might and use to their advantage to increase their star power. The proletariat (the rest of us) fight to hang on to as much privacy as we can so as not to become victims of horrible things. Agencies that claim to protect our privacy give us a false sense of security since they really can’t protect our privacy at all. And as we retreat into our freaked out individualism scraping together as much personal space as possible, we yell and scream to be noticed, worried about, cared for - that stuff only happens in a public setting.

I have to say

I have heard this -as good as it is - referenced a few too many times...

What has affected us the most?

Our Sociology prof asked us to do this little assignment that got me thinking.
Here's the question she posed:
What are the five most significant developments that have occurred during your lifetime. (The development can have happened in any field: technology, historical events, attitudes, consumption, education, politics etc.) These should be developments or events of social, not personal, significance. And rank them in importance...
Here's where I started:
1. Advent of the personal computer, cell phones, etc.
2. US foreign policy
3. The cultural impact of entertainment – Hollywood,
4. Affects of the baby boom on generational dynamics including: employment, economy, education, opportunity, morality, etc.
5. Affect of the Oil/Gas Industry on mobility, wealth, transportation, technology, etc.

Harry Potter as an example of the weapon of choice in the new world order

Information:
I talked to one of the managers of our local Chapters outlet she commented on the strict policy governing the release of the new Harry Potter book. She said that no one was allowed to open the boxes they were packed in until a certain time before their release. She said there were security guards at the unloading of the shipment to each store. This all to ensure that a copy of the book could not be released/pirated early.
Then on Q, I heard about how a copy of Michael Moore’s latest film Sicko:

…has been circulating around on the web on file sharing and YouTube. What’s funny about this is that Moore is on record for stating that he is opposed to the copyright rules that govern this type of material. The company that distributes his yet to be released documentary is claiming that it will take a very aggressive approach in rectifying the problem.
Then my buddy Evie posts a cool little take on how ignorants get to set the budgetary agenda of an entire province. He’s got a point too.
All boils down to this. The power of this world belongs (or will soon belong) to the one who can control information. Our access to it. Our possession of it. And ultimately our use of it – which will become secondary. Look out for the new democracy of the web that will insist that every one deserves to know. Look out for the info twisters of this new world who wish to manipulate the information in much the same way those old apothecaries did in the early 1900’s. Look out for the Information Protectors who hoard and with-hold information for their own purposes.

So now what do you know?

"they've got gospel in the air..."

Shaun Groves is a musician, a follower of Jesus and someone I have grown to respect. He made an interesting remark in a recent article in Christianity Today. The article is the first in a series of articles on the state of Christian radio.
"The bulk of the listeners are Christians," says Groves, "and this is music by Christians and for Christians. The trouble is, Christian radio tells stories to make you feel like they're evangelistic, but they're not. Say what you are. Don't lie to me and tell me I'm saving teenagers."
(click here to read the rest of the article)
This first article features a brief history and some insightful evaluation of the 'industry'. Although the piece is from an American perspective it’s not too hard to make some important connections to the same issues in Canada.
Shaun's comment and the article raise some interesting thoughts for me. One of the main rationales for the Christian music industry’s existence is the idea that by marketing the music commercially – evangelism will happen (that is people will get ‘saved’). What Shaun is drawing out is the reality of dynamics at play in the industry. Commercially it could be argued that Christian music could not thrive the way it has without a publicly accessible venue such as Christian radio. But the reality is that Christian radio is only marginally evangelistic at best in terms of who it market is reaching. So Shaun is asking marketing execs to tell the truth and reveal what more than few of us have believed for a while. This is primarily that:
Christian radio is a lucrative financial enterprise. It capitalizes on a niche market that is relatively easy to serve because of its general propensity to settle for lower quality music. And it uses the pretence of being an evangelistic tool further bolster support when in actuality Christian radio mostly, ‘preaches to the choir.’
I thought it was incredibly revealing to note Michael Card’s comments which suggested that had the church embraced the musicians of the early Jesus movement we might not even have such a thing as an ‘industry’ to talk about. Now that is likely an over statement but…
There are a few things about the concept of Christian-radio-as-witnessing-tool that are give pause. How did anyone get to thinking that a ‘searching’ person was going to make the choice to listen to a Christian radio station? Isn’t it arrogant to think that people who are looking for truth and redemption will naturally turn to a Christian radio station (or even TV station) for the answers to their quest? Who is comfortable feeding/supporting a growing chasm between the people who purport to hold the truth and the ones that seem to need it? Is it right to make profit off of music intended to please and glorify God? Does the music glorify God?

you need to know this

Everett(e) is an accountant - he has made these calculations.

he is so brilliant

the question?

Is it worth your while to stop a pick up a stray coin on the sidewalk?

answer...