Is baptism a choice

The way we talk about baptism to our children does not describe it as a choice. In the Choose the Right manual in use in primary, we have to get past the 'I can choose the right', the 'I chose to follow Christ', and the 'I can make right choices' lessons before we make it to baptism. In this lesson we get 'baptism is a commandment', and 'baptism makes Heavenly Father happy', before the statement, "When we are eight years old, we can follow the example of Jesus and be baptised." The 'can' in this statement does not indicate choice, but rather a removal of restrictions.

This approach does not make obvious the fact that this is a choice, and certainly does not show that there are alternative options. These children do not know how much they still do not know. In practise this is a choice with only one answer. If they choose differently we as concerned and compassionate parents explain that it is wrong and why it is so.

This leaves our eight year olds in the position to technically choose against getting baptised. But in order to make that choice they have to come to the conclusion that the faith of their parents is wrong, that the commandments to get baptised are therefore not valid, that they don't care if Heavenly Father is unhappy, and then defend this choice against their parents and peers. All this without being made aware that this is a choice, or that there are ways of loving and honoring God that do not involve getting baptised into the Mormon church.

Our eight year olds do not have exposure to alternative nomos, to other modes of thought and cultures that may be just as valid as our own assumptions. If we only ever boil our chicken our children may be incapable of frying the thing. We accept the fact that children are not fully capable of making all sorts of important life choices. Why is this one different?

Strategic voting and the systemic devaluing of choice

There are many problems that arise with the current first-past-the-post electoral system, one of which is that it encourages strategic voting. Strategic voting causes people to not vote for the candidate or platform that is most representative of how they think and believe that the country should go forward. Instead they vote for a candidate who they think is capable of winning a seat. That tendency is exaggerated when there is a situation like the one Canada is in right now, where we might again have a government that is supported by a surprisingly small segment of the population. This means that even when the party you voted for gets into power, that government is still not ‘your’ government. In this situation, even when we win we lose.

This also sends a message to the parties and the rest of the population that you support a certain vision and platform when this may not be the case. When you toss your ballot to the challenger party in the hope that they will edge out the hated party, no one can tell that you are voting against a platform instead of for a platform. Party leaders assume they know something about your convictions based on your vote. When standard party modus operandi is to appeal to the most people so as to garner the most votes … Well, your original problem is compounded. The platform you liked could not possibly win, and now that platform is de-emphasized as parties scramble to offer you more of what you actually voted for.

Strategic voting thus causes a bias against the newer, smaller or more radical parties and concentrates power into the hands of a few major parties.

Voting by strategy also causes a polling problem. A poll comes out that spurs people to vote strategically, and suddenly we do not have a proper democratic system anymore. Pollsters should not have the power and means to effect an election. We also have to remember that polls are wrong — by their very nature they cannot be accurate. They are the opinions of a small selection of people which may be distorted by numerous errors in the collecting process. That sample is run through complicated algorithms and presented as a clear portrait of reality. Remember the situation of the 2000 US election? Gore was announced as winner before all the votes had been cast and counted, only for it to be revealed hours later that it was actually Bush who had won. Pollsters had gotten it wrong.

This is a problem even when polls are nonpartisan. However, what happens when these polls begin to be designed to produce a certain outcome? Or even where individual pollsters start misreporting data gathered? Right now we are giving undue power to an at best incomplete picture and opening the doors for polls to profit from unethical actions.

We need to keep votes from being ‘thrown away’ on a candidate and platform that gets no representation in government even though they are capable of garnering 10% of the popular vote. (Yes, that was a shoutout to the Green Party.) We need the government to have these voices in it, to have a true representation of Canadians and their ideas. We need the system to take the ideas of the small parties seriously, especially when these parties are capable of getting such support in the face of a system that is stacked so completely against them. We need to celebrate these voices, and we need to bring them to the table. If we need to change the system so that we can include them, then let us change the system. Well we can do that, the NDP wants to do that, the Green Party wants to do that, and so do the Liberals, kind of. We all despise a system that ignores its population. It is time for change.

Degrowth

Degrowth is a movement that attempts to supplant our current societal goals of continual economic growth with the growth of relationship.

Our society and economy is based on the assumption of continual growth, so much so that when it is reported that we only have a 1% increase in economic growth over the quarter it is a disappointment and a worry. This model and method is unsustainable. We are living on a finite planet and thus there is a limit to growth. Considering the fact that our current growth model is built on using planetary resources, many of which are non-renewable and/or used in excess. contributing to the global environmental issues. This means that growth needs to be tempered and pursued in a different manner.

Thus Degrowth, a movement based on community and sharing. More and more we attempt to turn our lives into Islands, our own homes, our own kitchens, our own cars all full of our own stuff. But this also helps keep us from belonging, and it makes us happy and proud to not need to rely on anyone else.

There is a difficulty in that our world view has been creating workaholics, workaholics who have been developing consumption habits to support their excess incomes. This shift in life is a very hard thing to do especially for anyone who has been successful in advancing in our current world view. However this will be made easier by a handful of trends

First is the failure of the system for the aging population, and their inability to retire. Thus they stay in the job market, This means there are less jobs for the young generations, especially full time career jobs. So the age that we get our first full time job continues to go up. Eventually we will have to work fewer hours to keep everyone employed.

This shortening of the work week would lead to lower incomes and this would force us to live closer, closer to work, closer to the land, closer to family, and closer as humanity. We would be unable to own everything ourselves, so band together to split the costs.

Personally I think this is exciting, When we get to the point of being able to introduce ourselves to someone else without our major marker of self being ones career. And maybe what we prefer to do with Wednesday the newest addition to our weekend.

Awesome

Wait so how did I not know that Ben Folds and Pamplamoose collaborated on a video? My first thought was that this was going to be the best thing since,  since that other video on YouTube.* Anyway Folds and Pamplamoose are greatly wonderful, yet the best part is Nick Hornby. sigh, or perhaps the moment they said "You got pretty sailor on that one." :) oh internet you treasure trove of virtual happiness.

* the other video is referencing this one. If you haven't seen it then go see it now. See pretty much the awesomest thing ever. It is so awesome I had to run out and buy three of those things, and I don't even have a rug. Hmm,  it actually might work better to steal them, for then the constant guilt would always remind you that you once stared into the face of Awesome.

If I am not authentic then I am nothing.

There is no such thing as an inauthentic self. Perhaps if you were a forgery or a replicant. But then you are not yourself either, well you would be yourself but that self wouldn't be you... uuh , or rather, them. What I mean to say is there is no way to not be yourself. Like it or not, what you see is what you get, the irritations, the angers, the depressions and the fears. We try to distance ourselves from all that we don't like to see in ourselves, but if we do this by distancing ourselves from ourselves then we have progressed nowhere.  What are you talking about Ryan, you say, of course we are ourselves. So I keep talking 

We like to have reasons, excuses for our shortcomings, we excuse our physical natures because we have a genetic predisposition, we excuse our societal mishaps because of our socialization and the way we were raised, we may even try to excuse ourselves of inexcusable actions because of an uncontrollable addiction. So is this a legitimate claim, that because we didn't have a say or part in our biology and early socialization that this self has been inflicted upon us and is not our fault, not our true self? Are we seeing ourselves with a pre-birth existence and that we now act in a way untrue to this previous self, but this current dual nature would still be combined to make one oneself. Harking to the past for accurate measures on self is no answer. Or do we claim that being something different from what we imagine or hope causes this inauthentic state? But if this were the case would there ever be authenticity? Who doesn't see themselves different from reality? And what of competing views and desires. Harry Frankfurt while discussing free will and determinism came up with an idea that I rather like, it splits desires into first and second order desires. And we often have competing first order desires, such as a desire to eat healthy and a desire to eat ice-cream.   And we then have a second order desire based on the first such that we have a desire that our desire to eat healthy will be effective. We can also have a second order desire to have a first order desire, such as a desire to want to exercise regularly even though we don't have a first order desire to exercise regularly.  So our desires seem to fall short in a measure of true self. Frankfurt also states that moral responsibility does not require that an agent have the freedom to choose otherwise. Or rather that we are responsible for our actions regardless of their source and influences.

There is something to the idea of improper assumptions on the part of another. Where you are not what the other thinks you are. But this is inevitable, you can never guarantee that others see you as you wish to be seen or as you truly are. You are the one defining yourself to the world around you by the descriptors which you attach to yourself. and actions which others see. I fully respect another's desire of self definition but shouting inauthenticity is a weak mans effort to excuse themselves, to distance themselves from themselves.  We are who we are and we should not feel the need to excuse ourselves to others, but we will need to take responsibility for that which has been dealt to us.

We are sheep

Ok, so I cannot embed the video directly here (oh, the pains of living in Canada) but you can go watch it here.

Sometimes I feel like this is how church classes seem to go, all we need is to add a few personal experiences and we are set, "I once wanted to buy a car but realized I didn't have the money. So I didn't. It taught me *sniff* how powerful and true this principle is." We start with a fairly simple principle attempt to fill the class with a build up to it. Are we truly inspired by the obvious or are we just incapable of handling anything more difficult and advanced.

Thats all for today. Class dismissed.

I wake up dreaming

What do you do when you wake up at 2 and don't like life. and the only glimmer of hope you desperately cling too soon reveals itself as a fleeting image of a lost life. How do I wake up so lost in my own bed, in my own skin. How do I let myself return to sleep when I know there is nothing left, but the nightmare, within.