Culture and the Bible

"It rains on the just and the unjust alike. What do you think that means?"

"Oh, teacher! It means good things happen to both good and bad people."

 

That was an exchange I had with my class in Yemen. The saying is from the Bible (I can't remember where in there) and my first reaction to the student was that they had it completely backwards. WIth just a second's worth of thought though, I realized that their view of what rain means is probably a lot closer to the Bible's than my Euro-centric vision. Rain is a good thing when you live in a parched place. While we usually associate rain with melancholy, cancelled picnics, and general ickiness, they rightfully see it as a life giving gift.

It made me wonder what else we have been getting precisely wrong out of the Bible because of the culture we are in now. Some things that seem obvious to us might have had a very different meaning back then. We need to remember who was being taught to. I don't have any hard evidence, but it certainly seems like Yemen is much closer in climate and culture to 30 AD than we are in the US. With that cultural filter put into place, let's take a look at two different well known teachings from the New Testament.

But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

This is usually seen as a straightforward appeal to pacifism by Jesus. If a guy hits you, you shouldn't resist, right? Well, it could be a little different… The translation of that passage is pretty consistent, with most translators using slap, some use smite. The really interesting thing is that they all say "cheek." None of them say, "If someone gives you a black eye, don't hit him back," or even "If someone slugs you in a bar…" No, it says if someone slaps your cheek, you should offer the other one to be slapped as well. What's the significance of a slap on the cheek?

Even in western culture, a slap across the cheek is the universal symbol of disrespect. There is no damage involved, there are far more violent things you can do than slap someone. What a slap offers that a punch doesn't is shame. I was warned by some of the expat "old timers" in Yemen to never slap a guy. If I got into a fight, well, that can happen. But if you slap him, he will be forced to defend his honor and that will have much worse endings than a brawl.

With that in mind, that passage may not have much to do with pacifism but with keeping your cool and not escalating things. Don't let concepts of "honor" drive you to committing a worse sin than the guy that hit you did. Modern day Yemen, and I'm sure all of Semitic culture going waaaaaaay back has many problems with honor related violence. I'm pretty convinced this passage is addressing that instead of being a blanket exhortation of pacifism.

 

Homosexuality isn't actually mentioned all that much in the Bible. Lots of conservatives will point to the Old Testament's "sodomites" as a counter example but word is a really dodgy interpretation. The King James version sounds weighty, but most Bible scholars lament its awful translation. A more accurate translation is "temple prostitute." It certainly makes more sense when read that way.

Jesus didn't actually say anything at all about homosexuality. I think that's significant as I put the most weight on what "The Man" says more than anyone else. But others disagree. Paul was pretty straightforward in his commendation of homosexuality though, and that's where a lot of nontrivial discussion about it in Christian circles comes from.

My personal opinion is that a lot of Paul's writing sounds like Paul spouting off. He certainly doesn't sound like Jesus, and he wasn't around for any of Jesus's teachings. But let's ignore that for the time being… It shouldn't be a surprise, but there is actually a fair amount of confusion about the translation of the word Paul used that most conservatives assume is homosexual. It could mean a variety of other things instead. But let's ignore that too and concentrate on the audience that Paul was preaching to.

One of the worst kept secrets in the middle east is how much guy on guy sex there is. To our eyes, it is clearly homosexual sex, but they have a little different view of it in Yemen. Keep in mind that guys never see any women over there that aren't their mother or sister until they get married. Starting in puberty, guys are only with other guys. Hormones being what they are, things go on. From a western perspective, they are all engaging in homosexual acts. Over there, people tend to mostly ignore younger guys fooling around with each other. It's a little more tricky when they are older. Yemen, like most Arab countries doesn't consider the one "giving" to be engaging in a homosexual act. It's my understanding that if you're married and doing this, it's a much more serious problem...

My point is this, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that the same behavior was going on back then. Taken in that context, I think it very likely that Paul would be addressing the guys screwing around because they are horny. That's a far cry from people wanting to marry each other.

Maybe I'm full of it, but I really do believe that a lot of the stuff we supposedly learned from stories in the Bible have been twisted around completely. That is a translation issue, but we need to understand how big a role culture plays in understanding what is said. Somehow we need to put ourselves into the hot, arid, conservative culture of 30 AD. Yemen is about as close as we'll get today.

Photography? (Maybe)

I've been following the Facebook page dedicated to former employees of Penn Camera and participating in the nostalgia. People are digging out old pictures and we're all remembering what it used to be like.

It got me thinking about photography again. I haven't been shooting much in years. I brought back a smattering of old pictures from mom's place, mostly stuff I did in school and decided to share some of them on Facebook. Looking at, and holding these things brought back a lot of memories.

Digital photography has never done much for me. I just can't get excited about it. When I looked at the prints and polaroids I made in school, I remember shooting it, but I also remember making that object. THe process of developing the negatives, cutting them up, making the prints in the darkroom, even matting and framing them are all part of the interest for me. There is a difference between capturing an image and taking a step in making an object. The film I develop was what received the light, and the chemicals I chose determined how that light would look on the film.

I know, it all sounds silly, but it does make a difference. Digital photography to me puts almost all of the emphasis on getting the shot. Yes, there is post processing, but I always feel like I'm doing a spreadsheet or something when I'm manipulating data.

I have been thinking that I should get a "real" digital camera soon. They really are remarkable these days, far far better than when I was selling them. No matter what comes out, I just can't get excited about the gear, or the process. Certainly not excited enough to spend what it will take to get one of the cameras that interest me.

Then it struck me. All of the most recent pictures that I have a connection to were taken with cameras I still own. My best pictures in Yemen were taken with a Chinese folding camera from the mid sixties and a pinhole camera. Here was my rather radical idea; why not shoot film?

I immediately liked the idea. I figured I'd do a "last hurrah" with the cameras I own. Thought maybe I'd use the B&W slide service I've used in the past. The slides you get back from them are just gorgeous. Shooting film in the quantities I have in mind isn't all that expensive, or at least it wasn't until I looked at those slides. It would almost $20 a roll in processing, etc. Way too much, no matter how beautiful.

The second thought that struck me was why don't I develop it myself? Film processing is dead simple, and incredibly cheap. Now we're talking...

I'll need to buy a few more things like a light meter, processing equipment, and the chemicals. The big expense will be the scanner. Yes, I could buy a passable digital camera for that kind of money, but I wouldn't use it. I may have finally grown up, the thought of owning the niftiest camera doesn't really excite me any more. The few things I have to buy are less expensive enow than they were when I sold them.

Here's my plan. I am going to primarily shoot with medium format film with small cameras. I'll develop the film myself and scan it myself. I'm going to try to use a single film type but probably use two different developers. This all sounds really exciting to me now, with any luck I'll be ready (and still excited) when spring comes around. It'll be good to flex my creative muscles again.

Child Labor

I cringe whenever I read about child labor laws. Western, prosperous countries have a real aversion to the thought of child laborers and anew quick to denounce and to combat it. Every time another concession is reached to limit child labor the success is trumpeted and progress is seen to have been made. Funnily enough, I have never seen any of those organizations track the outcomes of the children themselves to see if they are being helped.

Like everything else in life, the issue of child labor is about options. I can guarantee that whenever you find child laborers, you will find crushing poverty as well. I believe the best way to think about child labor is to imagine what they will do if they are not allowed to work legally. Clearly, if they needed to work before, the passing of a law will not change that circumstance. We have an analog of what happens right here in this country with illegal aliens. When you are not permitted to work legally, you are driven underground. You might find regular work, but at a much lower rate of pay. The ones that aren't lucky enough to find work as gardeners, carpenters, cooks, etc. or aren't willing to accept the low wages end up in the black markets. Drugs, prostitution, and other types of illegal activities are careers open to people that can't find legal jobs.

I don't have any evidence, but there are plenty of anecdotal accounts of sheet children being forced out of jobs by the new laws and into much less savory occupations. The stories from Yemen alone are heartbreaking, I can't imagine what its like in more urban places like SE Asia.

I wish that people that pursue these laws would spend as much time worrying about what the kids will do once they lose their job. I also wish that people in the US and Europe would understand that they don't really have a good idea of what real poverty is like and what choices people living in it face. Child labor is a terrible thing, no doubt, but if we're going to take that away from kids, we need to provide them with something other than the thing they are avoiding by working...

My unexpected Yemen bonuses

I had been working at Penn camera off and on for almost 7 years when I decided to move out of the country. I had learned a lot at Penn. My sales technique was honed there and I learned how to deal with people, both customers and employees. I thought it was time for a change, so I decided to move.
I eventually decided to move to Yemen. The decisions leading up to that are a whole other story. By the time the date for me leaving came up, I had saved up over 20 grand for the trip. Believe me, I thought long and hard if spending  that money was the best thing I could do. Ultimately, I spent my mid-life crisis  over there, you can read my blog on my time over there if you want.
I could have invested that money, or I could have put it down on a house. All the while I would still be working at Penn. While I was in Yemen, the stock market tanked and I lost about half of my investments. I would have undoubtedly have invested that 20 thousand the same way, so I would have probably lost 10 grand. I felt pretty good about that, my experiences in Yemen were certainly worth that! Of course, I could have bought a house. We all saw what happened to housing prices...
So, looking back, I cannot believe how lucky I am to have spent my money on that experience. Looking back, it was the very best thing I could have done. May be the only time I've done that...
When I came back, I needed a job. Ramona was more than happy to hire me again. I really wanted something different though, so I stayed unemployed for a while longer while I looked around. After I got diagnosed, I was even more in need of a job. I had finally gotten through to the company I had wanted to work for, and they offered me a job, at  little more than half of what Penn had been paying me. Ugh. That was a tough decision. Ultimately, I couldn't shake the feeling that Penn was on shaky ground going into the future. Photography just wasn't what it once was, and it's all Penn really did. So I took the hit in pay in the short term.
It has payed off. Penn Camera declared bankruptcy the other day. The company I work for is incredibly stable and I now make what I used to. Plus, the benefits are quite a bit better. I was about 50/50 at the time I made my decision, thank God I did what I did. I also think that my trip to Yemen helped with this as well. If I had been working at Penn all along, it would have been much more difficult, maybe even impossible to take that hit in pay to work somewhere else. Starting from scratch, I didn't have the baggage of a rent or lifestyle maintenance to worry about. I had gotten used to being poor, I even lived in a third world country!
So maybe my trip to Yemen was divine providence. It was the best use of my money, it was an amazing experience, it was the very last time I could do something like that, and I think it helped me start a new career. If I had stayed put, done the safe thing, at best I would now be on disability. I certainly would be a lot poorer in spirit.
 
My heart goes out to the folks that were still working at Penn. Starting over is tough, believe me I know.
I'll miss Penn Camera, and I'm thanking God I made the decisions that I did. Who would have ever thought that Yemen would be the best thing to happen to me?:)

An honest defense for voting for Obama

Glenn Greenwald hits one out of the park when describing the relative shortcomings of the two more "liberal" candidates in this year's presidential running, he gives what he calls an honest, candid, and rational way for a democrat to defend voting for Obama.

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

 

He was comparing Obama's policies to Ron Paul's. Greenwald does a good job of pointing out why people might want to vote for either one, but it is important to look at what "liberals" should value more highly. Not enough liberals admit to Obama's shortcomings, and they are numerous from a liberal's point of view. In the same vein, liberals seem to have a knee jerk reaction to Ron Paul without giving enough credence to his strong points. The article is illuminating in that it exposes the desire to instantly discredit "the competition" for any negative parts of their plank. Of course doing that requires you to overlook the very real problems of your own candidate. No politician is free from taint, free from problems. What needs to be done is to prioritize what is important to you and then decide if a president can wield much power over those things.

I've written at length about how disappointed I am with Obama's foreign policy, war mongering, executive power grabs, solidifying of Bush doctrine, bailouts, and erosion of civil liberties. Ron Paul is directly opposed to all of those things, and has been for 40 years. Yes, some of Paul's theories make my skin crawl, I don't like his stance on immigration, and I'm not sure I agree with his abortion policy objectives, but I'll take the trade off. I'd like to think that all of the people that hated Bush Jr. would also like Paul more than Obama simply because Obama is a lot closer to Bush in all the worst ways.

I've met plenty of people that don't like Obama, but have shrugged their shoulders and said, "What choice do I have? Perry? Gingrich?" It may still come to that, but there is a chance that we might have a very real alternative this next time around. Say what you want about Paul, but he is very different than Obama, and I think his positives outweigh the negatives. Suffice it to say that he really differs from the rank and file of the republicans too, so he still may not get the nomination. If he does win the nomination, I will have no choice but to vote for him because I hate war. War on other countries and war on our own citizens (both through military actions and the war on drugs). If he doesn't get the nomination, who will agitate against war? Certainly not any of the other republicans, and Obama can't exactly repudiate all of his foreign policy. Read the article and watch the video clips, Ron Paul is the only one saying what needs to be said.

 

Progressives and the Ron Paul Fallacies