Friday, March 12, 2010

Flexivores welcome, or not!

You may remember my post from February 14, 2010. In that post I discussed Cambridge Massachusetts' recommendation for a mandatory meatless day to help the environment. Well, this intrusive proposition appears to have been embraced even across the river in Boston.

Today, my cafeteria within the university's research building, actually had a food station labeled for "flexivores." What's a flexivore, other than a made-up word? According to the creators of this word, a flexivore is a person that eats meat, but chooses to incorporate less or no meat meals into his diet.

You know why this made me so angry? What was so infuriating is the fact that, rather than just presenting this food station as a vegetarian option, the cafeteria publicized this station with some imaginary flexivore label. This label, provided with the definition outlined above, was in plain view in what was essentially a brain-washing propaganda effort to plant the seed in our minds that we should become more conscious of cutting out meat from our diet.

I'm sorry, but this manipulation is deeply disturbing and alarming. In addition, it's insulting that the catering group or even the university would condone displaying this message. As if this silly flexivore label would make it easier to swallow the fact that we were being subjected to a forced dietary restriction.

Later, when I went online to find contact information to send a letter to the catering company hired by my university, I discovered that this organization has implemented a "Meatless Monday" at one of our university's Cambridge based dining facilities under a new "sustainability" initiative. Let me just say that I told the catering organization that they would lose my business if its policy was to infringe on our rights.

If you enjoy being in charge of what you do or do not eat on a daily basis, then join me in saying flexivores are NOT welcome! More importantly, don't let government or organizations start to chip away at your rights and personal freedom. If you do, you'll wake up one day and realize you have none left.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Heating up in Boulder Colorado

Over the last week, things are heating up in Boulder Colorado. As stated in the linked CNN news article, a lesbian couple is upset that its child was not allowed to re-enroll in a private Catholic school. To top it off, supporters have rallied behind the couple and think the Catholic school is in the wrong.

The arguments levied against the church are that this is an intolerant viewpoint and only punishes the child for the parents' sin. They have also made the case that many Catholics use birth control or get divorced, and yet their children are still allowed to attend. Therefore, if all parents are not forced to adhere to the Catholic teachings, then why is this lesbian couple being singled out?

In a culture that is becoming more restricted and suffocated by political correctness, I can see how it is easy to side with the lesbian couple. But if you step back from the emotional gut reaction, and really think about this issue, I think the Catholic Church's position is the correct one.

The Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, is the oldest sect of Christianity. Its belief structure, has been relatively unchanged for centuries. Part of its appeal and exclusivity comes from the strict adherence to original doctrine, and that continuity through the ages unites people around the world in one common faith. You don't have to like their belief structure, and if that is the case then you can choose to affiliate with another Christian or religious faith.

As the Colorado Archdiocese states in the linked article, the Church's position is not intolerant, in fact it is "quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ." Knowing this primary tenet of the Catholic and Orthodox Christian faith, how can one be surprised or even angry about the Catholic Church's position on this matter?

Being a Catholic isn't a right, it's a choice. You may be baptized in the church, but you must earn the right to be a Catholic and receive communion through years of classes, followed by regular confession and mass attendance. In addition, you are expected to strive to live by the teachings of the Church. This is a religion that requires a commitment, and yes some stray here or there, but overall there is a universal understanding among Catholics because of these unwavering practices.

Furthermore, for a child to be baptized in the Catholic Church, typically your parents and god-parents are screened to determine whether they meet the strict standards of the Catholic Church. Why is this necessary? Because the parents and god-parents are making a promise before God, that they will instill the values of the Catholic faith in that child.

One can still try to argue that this is unfair and something horrid on the part of the Church. But this is not a practice unique to the Church. I think this is analogous to how people with a history of illicit drug-use are, in general, not welcome in governmental agencies like the FBI. Now, this isn't because all of these people are horrible criminals. Instead, it's because the FBI wants to recruit people that have demonstrated and lived the values that the FBI espouses, most paramount of which is strict interpretation and respect for the law.

So, with regard to the Boulder incident, I think the mistake was admitting the child in the first place. Not because of anything wrong on the child's part, but simply because the lesbian parents simply do not meet the Catholic standards that must be met by all heterosexual couples seeking to raise or educate their child with the Catholic faith.

For some reason the civil rights and woman's liberation movements have created this notion that nothing in this life is not within reach, and that social justice is universal. Unfortunately, not everything in life is an automatic right. There are many things that you have to earn. Quite frankly, being brought up in the Catholic faith is one of those. I'm sorry to the child involved, but I think the Catholic Church was correct in this matter.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Texas book storm

In continuation of my Saturday posting regarding curriculum, I found the recent discussion of the Texas text book controversy to be interesting. Of late, Texas has been the battle ground for intense debates on curriculum revision.

Last year the fight was over science material. The issue was whether creationism and or intelligent design should be incorporated into the evolution discussion. Eventually these theories were not mandated, but teachers were required to at least discuss the strength and weaknesses of the evolution theory.

The more recent debate has focused on the social studies curriculum. Apparently, some groups want to repaint the American historical landscape. Points proposed to be expunged from the texts include the religious heritage and "exceptionalism" of American. Why this sanitization? Because some feel that it is potentially offensive to people and has no place in a secular public school system.

Frankly, whether you believe in God or not, I don't see how you could decide to ignore a facet of history or assert one theory as fact while lowering the burden of proof. In fact, doesn't such a white-washing of the curriculum seem radically closed minded and less enlightened? Shouldn't we divulge all perspectives in an unbiased way and encourage independent analytical thinking? Otherwise, you're not educating, you're indoctrinating.

To me, choosing to erase the religious dimension of American history is akin to the Iranian President Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and 9/11. It's unfathomable to me to think any intelligent and educated person would do something so extreme. Whether you like it or not, religion and history have been inextricably linked for centuries. Regardless of your religious affiliation, to accurately study a past era you often must understand the religious context of the historical event.

I don't know about you, but to deny the existence of religion is to deny our past, present and future. Would you really want to half teach your children about history? I worry about this reactionary rejection of religion in all its forms. Such unchecked revision will lead to a lost generation in our nation's history, one no longer anchored in the continuum of the human experience that is both less cultured and less educated. Is that really future you want for your child?

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Cats sense death

This story is a few years old, but no less fascinating. I remember hearing about it on the news several years ago, probably around the time the linked CBS news article was published. But, I came across Oscar the cat's incredible story in a recent Smithsonian magazine article and it rekindled my original astonishment.

Oscar is an orphaned cat that now resides at a Rhode Island nursing home, along with many dementia patients. Somehow, Oscar knows when patients are approaching death. In those final hours, he will wander into the patient's room, jump into their bed and keep watch. Shortly after the patient has passed, Oscar makes his exit.

What fascinates me about this story, is this scientifically unexplained bond between human and animal. Some unknown signal, potentially an undiscovered chemical pheromone, alerts Oscar to the patient's impending death. While it is incredible that Oscar signals the doctors to notify the patient's next of kin, this isn't the most remarkable part of the story. I think it's even more amazing that Oscar seems to give the dying person company in their final moments. It really makes you wonder how much more animals understand about the world that escapes our notice.