Wednesday, January 25, 2006

I almost said this in class, but its annoying when people start telling cute stories from their childhood. But! I have a blog, it’s already automatically self-indulgent. So, in response to Dr. Rein’s question do we agree that it is necessary but dangerous to compare our religion to that of others, I have this.

I can remember riding the bus home from first grade. Me neighbor, Jason, and I were sitting together playing some half assed version of eye spy. Thanks to careful planning on the administrations part it always took us over an hour to get home from our school which was all of 10 minutes away. We were always doing boring things. Jason used to sometimes draw mazes during lunch and then give them to me to do on the ride home while he watched. They almost never actually had a path through, everything would dead end. I’m still not sure if he did it on purpose or not. I thought he was a pretty weird kid.

Anyway, that day he invited me to go to a ice cream Sunday thingy with his youth group. I was surprised he went to church since I’d never seen him at mine. It turned out he, instead of being catholic, like I then assumed all Christians were, was a Baptist. What’s more he knew what it meant to be Baptist, and when I asked him what the difference between what I was and what he was, he knew. He started telling me all Catholics had got wrong.

This story is getting boring even for me, so I’ll just sum it up. I ended up calling him an idiot bighead or something, and he told his mom on me and we were mad each other the whole next day.

I know this is kind of a silly example, and hopefully adults are more mature when they explore things about other religions. But the same type of danger is there, its easy to get offended when talking about beliefs only one of you have. And its necessary, an understanding of being Catholic is incomplete if one doesn’t know what makes it different.

This seems really unnecessary now that I’ve typed it out. Sorry if your reading this.

Monday, January 23, 2006

I've been trying to think of something really interesting to say about the poems we had for class last time, but since it’s almost time for a new class with new readings I guess I'll just settle for a sort of incomplete set of thoughts.
Lee's poems are depressing, especially the first one, possibly only because it is more simple. There is a great deal of loss in coming to America. The second The Cleaving is beyond me. He makes some mention of Emerson, and I get the impression that the poem is to be a new Song of Myself; One that includes Lee and the other immigrants "too homesick to study" and his parents and his people and the world. But, this is not a joyful self assertion. There is more going on here, and I’m missing it.

Friday, January 20, 2006

hey,
Ignore my last post. I wrote that in class. I really didn't except it to work, but, obviously, it did.
I'm not sure what to write about but I thought we had a pretty interesting class on Wednesday. I remember while we were discussing the story I said that in the end he accepts Christianity. That’s obviously not true. Apparently in my mind accepting that many of the principles on which America was founded are Christian is the same as accepting Christianity itself. The family values this country accepts (more or less) are Christian, and Twinkle accepts them as much as the rest of the guests at the party did, perhaps with amusement, but they are a part of her life. Sanjeev doesn't but in the end seems to decide that there’s no harm in pretending, which is in essence what the rest of them are doing.
That’s written poorly, but the point I’m trying to make is that I'm very biased. Accepting doctrines of a religion is very different from believing in it and I for whatever reason didn't notice that in class.

I'm still working out these poems. I'm hoping tomorrow to have something to say about them, but I feel like there’s a lot going on in them that I’m missing.

-alex

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

this works?