Protesting Proverbs

You know that proverb: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Is it though? When was the last hellish thing that started with good intentions? Sure, we can all come up with examples of trying to do something good and it went wrong. But the saying isn't, "The road to mild unpleasantness is paved with good intentions." — that's a statement I could get behind. No, it's the road to hell, where you're headed straight to Satan but you couldn't afford the same toll as AC/DC. How often do truly hellish things happen because of good intentions? There's a few, but probably not enough to act as a practical paving surface. 

The other problem with the saying is that it doesn't consider that the road to heaven is probably paved even more completely with good intentions. You know, not often that heavenly things begin with bad intentions. Okay, continuing the metaphor of second-rate versions of religious rock allegories, it would be the ladder to heaven because you couldn't find the stairway. See, even if good intentions sometimes result in a little satanic asphalt, it's far more likely to actually do some good.

Really, this saying just exists as an excuse to be an asshole. You know, i'd like to help, but this saying tells me that it would only result in our eternal damnation. Sorry, my hands are tied.

And good thing your hands are tied, because Idle Hands are the Devil's Plaything. Or the Devil’s Playground, though that sounds more like a documentary on pre-safety-code city parks. Either way, it’s another convenient-religious-excuse saying. First, have you seen idle hands? The fidgeting is annoying, but if that's what the devil is working on these days, then humanity has nothing to worry about. Secondly, if you have to keep your hands occupied to keep from doing evil, you're either in a really low-rent horror movie, or you're not that good to begin with. In that case I'd rather you stay idle. Just get yourself a nice fidget spinner.

Mainly Because Of The Meat

My local supermarket has a small section of the meat case reserved for halal meat. Halal, as you may know, is the Islamic seal of approval that's sort of their equivalent of kosher, though I'm Muslims and Jews alike would have a problem with my saying that.

I just read about a far-right politician in Sweden who also has a problem with halal food. He claimed that eating halal meat makes you Muslim. That comes as news to most people, including most Muslims, who were under the impression that there was a little more to their religion than that. The incident happened a couple of years ago, but somehow with the backlog of neo-Nazi Islamaphobia I'm only finding out about it now.

It may seem like the garden-variety xenophobia, but it got me thinking about how many of us have become Muslims without knowing it. I don't know that I've ever knowingly eaten halal meat, but I assume I have unknowingly. I mean, at least half the food outlets here in downtown Kitchener are shawarma places now. I've never checked, but I'm assuming shawarma from a restaurant run by people from the Middle East would be halal. So there you go, the whole city has been converted.

And I remember going to an Egyptian restaurant when I was in university. That means I've been Muslim for most of my life now. Wow, I am really behind on my prayers. And I have to plan a trip to Mecca. They don't normally allow non-Muslims into the city, but apparently I just have to show them a receipt from the pita place down the street.

But it gets weirder when you realize that logically, this has to work with kosher products too. Lots of foods are kosher: Coca-Cola, for instance. So a huge portion of the world's population are unknowingly Jewish. And many people - myself included - are both Jewish and Muslim. So now we all have no choice but to get along with each other. Thanks, crazy Swedish politician.

Tso Long And Thanks For All The Chicken

There's a Tums ad running where a guy finishes a meal at a Chinese restaurant, then receives a declaration of war from General Tso, who - in the form of some sort of meatball avatar - proceeds to pelt him with chicken pieces. It's a reasonably funny ad, even though it's likely a historical abomination.

Okay, I looked it up, and yes, General Tso was a real person. Though at least General Tso's Chicken did originate in Taiwan, which makes it more authentic than much Westernized Chinese food.

But speaking of General Tso Chicken, it also brings up a point I've wanted to make for a while now: For the last time, people: It's General Tso, not General Tao.

You could understand if it was a simple misspelling or something, but this is a rather awkward misremembering in which people confuse two of the few Chinese things they've heard of. Worse, Tao is a religious concept, so it's a particularly touchy thing to confuse. Imagine that Apple Crisp became popular in China, but they couldn't remember the word "crisp," so they started calling it, "Apple Christ."

What's especially embarrassing, this seems to be a largely Canadian problem. Americans get the name right. But here in Canada, companies like President's Choice put "Tao" on their packaging. Even Chinese restaurants give in and use the wrong name. So let's take this ad as proof we need to change; there's no way we can get out-ethnic-diversitied by Tums.

Using My Religion

Last week I saw a woman in a grocery store who was talking on the phone while shopping. That's not unusual these days, of course. And she was wearing a hijab. That's also not unusual these days. But here's what's notable: She had her phone tucked into her hijab so she could talk hands-free, while pushing the cart with both hands.

Of course this is a time when public displays of Islam are controversial, what with Europe having a hissy-fit over the "burkini." Yes, in Canada it was a joke on Little Mosque on the Prairie, but in Europe it's apparently the last straw. So I'm wondering if the phone-hijab will lead to more or less acceptance.

Sure, people who are just looking for something to get angry about will combine their hate of cell phones with their Islamaphobia. But for other people, I think they'll see this as something that humanizes muslims. Yes, they have silly little practical problems just like everyone else, and occasionally come up with clever little ideas.

And this isn't unusual, apparently. I've found that there are a number of practical secrets of hijab wearers, other than the phone trick. They can be used to cover both items and fashion faux pas. For instance, you can cover both earbuds and their wire, and no one will know you're listening to music. And here's the kicker: they'll be the only people on earth who won't be losing Apple's new bluetooth earbuds.

I'd always wondered if hijabs had more practical applications. I've seen women wearing ball caps under them, and wondered if they couldn't combine them into one item. A hijab with a built-in bill, presumably with logos of your favourite team on them, that would probably sell. I can't find any evidence of such things, despite the existence of sports yarmulkes. So there's a revenue source for you, sports teams. Now, my idea of a combined hijab/bike helmet may not be physically possible, so I won't hold my breath. Though I am pleased that there are some oh-so-Canadian knitted toque hijabs.

A Sudden Sense Of Liberty

One mystery in the Donald Trump phenomena is his appeal to evangelical Christians. After all, Trump hasn't exactly led a pious life: even if you don't find his politics abhorrent to Christian principles, he is a casino magnate on marriage number three. And he runs a beauty pageant.

The cynical might argue that America's conservative Christians have become so focused on their few chosen issues (abortion, gay marriage, trans bathrooms) that they'll enthusiastically support anyone who can forcefully push those issues, whatever their other faults. But even that argument didn't add up. In that area, his religious bona fides turn out to be, well, not all that bona. In his acceptance speech, he spoke positively on gay rights, albeit as a pretense to demonize immigrants. He defended a trans woman's tight to be in a beauty pageant. And he's another in the long line of Republican politicians who had a pro-life revelation conveniently before a national run.

I'm not saying evangelicals wouldn't support him, I just thought they'd fall in love with a more hard-core social conservative like Ted Cruz first, then reluctantly back Trump a la Bernie to Hillary supporters. So why are they so enthusiastic?

It hit me recently that the appeal could be faith. Faith is, of course, kind of important in religion. But for many people today, their religious faith is somewhat amorphous and tinged with doubt. For instance, they won't think of the Bible as literally true. And that attitude is not unlike how most people look at politics: they have basic values, but acknowledge that the world is complicated and politics will always be an inexact science.

But if you're used to a religious belief based on absolutes, politics won't deliver the certainty you're used to. And that's where Trump comes in: The one thing he does have in common with American evangelicals is a lack of ambiguities. So that's my explanation,  that Trump presents a message of certainty that youcan have faith in.

Jesus Built My Hotrod

There are a lot of situations where different people have very different attitudes and actions. Take speeding. Lots of people go over the speed limit. On highways, here in Canada, it's the vast majority. But even there, there's a lot of variations. Some just go a little over the limit. Some act as though there is no limit. Most, I think, are like me: pick the maximum speed that won't get you a ticket, and treat that as the limit. And actually feel guilty when you realize you've gone over this pseudo-limit even though it's actually well beyond the posted limit.

But the important point is that even though we all have such different attitudes to speeding, we all know that we have all these different attitudes. That's for the simple reason that we drive in public, so we can all see the general approaches we take. I may not like people who drive as fast as they can, and I may feel morally superior for staying at an arbitrary but still-illegal speed. But I'm not surprised that some people drive like that. My world view includes people who think the laws don't apply to them, both the laws of the road and the laws of physics.

Other aspects of life are not like this. Alcohol is a good one. Other than a drink with dinner in a restaurant, we mostly drink in private. Yes, there are bars, but the only people seeing you drink in bars are other people drinking in bars. The point is that people with vastly different attitudes to alcohol won't see you, and thus, may not know just how much alcohol gets drunk there. Some people drink little or nothing, some drink every day, some binge drink. But if you've only spent your life in one of those types of households, you may not know that the other types exist. Or at least, you may not know how many there are.

Of course, you may not have this problem, depending on what type of person you are. Do you talk to other people? Even people with different backgrounds? Do you listen to them? Okay, do you at least read? Or watch meaningful movies and TV? If so, you may break out of this problem. For instance, I've always lived in low-alcohol environments, but, well, I've noticed that not everyone is like that. So I'm not shocked by people at any extreme of the alcohol spectrum. But I still run into people who are shocked to find that the alcohol experiences of them and their families is not the rule.

And then there's religion. Like alcohol, it's something we do in private, or surrounded by people with the same experience. But there's also the taboo against even talking about it in public, and we tend to live around people with similar religions. So even more so than alcohol, we often have no idea that other people in our society may have very different beliefs. And that's made worse by the fact that no matter your beliefs (or lack thereof) there's people in your religious circles who are misrepresenting others.

I'm constantly amazed at what people don't know about other religious beliefs. People greatly over- or underestimate how much different religions have in common. I see theists think atheists are anything from immoral to depressed. And there are atheists think that all religious people believe the same things. In these cases, we not only suffer from not seeing how each other live, we also have people within our own communities spreading falshoods about other groups. And without the opportunity to see for ourselves, we come to believe those things. The only way out is to start getting to know others with an open mind. Only then can we make religion more like speeding and less like drinking.

Pray For Peace, Or Don't, Whatever

I've heard it said that when religions begin, they go through a period of extreme proselytizing where the adherents truly believe they are going to change the world and win everyone over. But after a while, they cool it; they haven't given up their beliefs, or even their goal of convincing the whole world to join them, but they start to realize that it's going to take a while. Any spiritual revolution will take centuries, and the current faithful will not be around to see it. It becomes clear that in the meantime, they're going to have to deal with living on a planet where most people disagree with them.

And that's how so many people around the world get along with one another. Yes, there are plenty of examples of people not accepting each other's religious beliefs, but even the most cynical has to concede that the majority of people get along the majority of the time. They may have profoundly different views of the nature of the universe, but they realize that at some point you just have to get on with your life.

Which brings us to atheism. Or specifically, "New Atheism," the more assertive brand being championed by folks like Richard Dawkins. Atheists tend to dislike being classed as a religion, so they may not like where this is going. I'm not saying it's a religion, but for the purpose of this discussion, it has sufficient similarity: it's an idea about the nature of reality, and an idea that some people agree with, and others disagree with. Even if those ideas come about in a different way than religious belief, people with that belief still have the same challenge as any religion: how to deal with people who disagree, and are unlikely to be convinced.

I think that's the source of many of New Atheism's missteps. Although atheism has been around since the dawn of time (however you see it) it's only been a cooperative, political force in the twenty-first century. And thus, it's still at the stage of seriously believing that it can win over everyone.

This came out recently with the news that Dawkins suffered a minor stroke. (Fortunately, it appears he's going to be alright.) When news of his illness came out, the Church of England put out a tweet urging prayers for Dawkins.

Prayers for Prof Dawkins and his family https://t.co/KxBBkBrECk

— Church of England (@c_of_e) February 12, 2016

A lot of people were upset by that, accusing the church of either trolling or being passive-aggressive. But really, this is a good example of the need to get along with others. Part of getting along is allowing others to do the little harmless things they feel is important but you don't believe in. It may seem nonsensical to thank someone for doing something that you are sure is not helping, but it's better for our shared society if you do.

Go Strip It On The Mountain

You may have seen the story out this weekend about the tourists who were accused of starting an earthquake in Malaysia. Of course, hearing an opener like that, I wanted to see more of the story. The explanation was, these travelers - including a couple of Canadians - got naked to pose for pictures on top of a mountain. There was an earthquake the next day, and the locals believed it was because the mountain spirits were angry. So I thought, that's ridiculous, earthquakes are about tectonic plates, modernize your religion. (And lest you call me Eurocentric, I'd say the same to Christians who blame hurricanes on abortion or gay marriage.)

But then we find out, this mountain is sacred to the locals, tourists are asked to be respectful, it's like a church to them, and you wouldn't strip down in the middle of St. Peter's now would you?

Well, when you put it that way, I do hate it when people are unnecessarily insulting and confrontational. We all should me more respectful of one another, even when we disagree.

But we can't live our lives to avoid offending people. There are way too many people with way too many rules. If you're going to change your behaviour because it offends people, you're going to have everyone wearing burqas to avoid offending someone's God. Oh, I'm sorry, "G-d."

Of course, that's hardly the same thing. It is their mountain, after all. They're not telling you not to get naked in the privacy of your own home. Or your own mountain. They expect you to follow their rules in their land.

I've seen that attitude before, that moral rules are different in other places, and we should accept things that we consider wrong if it's in a place with different cultures and traditions. But I've always believed that there are - at least in the context of human beings - absolute rules of morality, and tradition shouldn't be an excuse for ignoring them.

Having said all that, we often have to accept unjust things as a matter of practicality. Its just the price of civility. In this example, I seriously doubt that their god is punishing the locals for the tourists misbehaviour. But going along with their not-very-restrictive rules on their mountain seems like a reasonable price to get along with them.

And that's why I don't like either side's knee-jerk responses on the question of offending others. To the folks who are presumably busy printing up "je suis naked tourists" t-shirts, I'd point out that we constantly curtail our behaviour for the sake of those we disagree with. And to those who always prioritize lack of offense, realize that you can't tolerate everyone, because some won't tolerate you. Sadly, this is another issue where we're forced to think, not just react.

My Own Private Israel

There's been some refreshing news from the middle East. No, it's not good news: it's more violence and intolerance. But at least it's small violence and intolerance. No one was even killed this time.

In Israel, a soldier of Ethiopian descent was beaten by police officers. That was a breaking point for Israel's Ethiopian community, and led them to protest their poor treatment. What, you didn't know there were Jews in Africa? Yes, they're everywhere.

This is a depressing situation on many levels. For one thing, this is a country founded to defend a traditionally abused minority, and they've apparently developed a tradition of abusing a minority.

• The Ethiopian Israeli situation is similar to the situation of African Americans: a cycle of poverty, mistrust from the majority, and excessive incarceration.
• Fortunately, Prime Minister Netanyahu has spoken out against the treatment of Ethiopians. That's good of him, but I'm sure I wasn't the only one who read that as, "guy who built his career on demonizing Arabs condemns racism."

I'm not Jewish, so I've never really grasped the place Israel has in people's psyche. You're part of a minority that's poorly understood if not outright hated, but then there's this place far away that you can go to, where everyone is like you. You go there, and the minority culture you've struggled all your life to explain to friends and colleagues is the majority, the expectation.

(As an aside, above when I described Jews as "poorly understood," my phone interpreted that as "porky understood." I think my phone is anti-Semitic.)

As a straight, white, able-bodied, WASPy, cis male, it's hard for me to relate to that. The closest I can get is to relate it to my my geekiness. It would be pretty nice to have a Geekland that I can go to and feel at home. Geekland? Geekistan? I don't know, we'd probably just call it Westeros.

So you get on a plane as an outsider with interests few others share, then get off it on the other side of the world as an accepted member of the majority. One problem with it is that you have lived in the outside world for so long, that you might feel overwhelmed when you go to the homeland and find you aren't geeky enough. I know I'd probably get deported as soon as they found out I only watched three episodes of Firefly. And sure enough, Israel has similar problems: people come from different denominations and different places, then find that it's hard to reconcile the fundamentalist and liberal believers.

Geekistan wouldn't fare much better. I mean, we don't even have to share the same space, and yet the culture is tearing itself apart online on two different fronts. And that's the problem with having a place for your people: even if you have one major thing common, like a religion, there are still so many ways we differ and disagree, and we'll discover them when we're forced to share the same venues and institutions.

Faith No More

I saw this interesting new study on the popularity of religions in the USA.  That is, they polled people on what they said their religion is. I'll give you the quick version:

• All Christian denominations have declined in popularity (as determined by the percent of the population that considers themselves a member.) Though Christianity still makes up a big majority.
• The proportion of white people has declined in almost all Christian denominations.
• Non-Christian religions have nearly all gained, though their numbers are still small.
• The member of people saying they belong to no religion has increased fast. And young people are more likely to have no religion, and are leaving religions faster.

A couple of interesting things stand out to me. One is how universal the dripping Christian numbers are. The impression I had was that moderate denominations were leaking members on both sides, with people either leaving churches all together, or getting drawn to more conservative sects. This would lead to a "hollowed out" religion made up of the fundamentalist and the lapsed with few in between. But that's not what's happening. It does appear that liberal denominations are losing members to the conservative denominations, but that's small compared to the numbers they're both losing to "none of the above."

The other interesting point involves those people who say they aren't a member of any church. The survey has options for "atheist," "agnostic," and "none." While all three have been gaining, there are far more people in the last category (at 3.1%, 4.0%, and 15.8%, respectively.)

That could mean a number of things:

• They're Christian, but don't feel right saying they belong to a particular church given that they haven't been there since childhood.
• It could be that these people still have some religious beliefs, but they don't fit into Christianity.
• They are no longer sure what they believe in, as with people who give that cryptic description "spiritual, but not religious."
• They don't know what "atheist" or "agnostic" mean.
• They're straight-up atheist, but even they are turned-off by the the attitude of the new atheist movement.

Fortunately, they say future research will look into that, it seems like a big distinction. Among young millennials, self-described Christians make up only 56% of the population, so this is a pretty big slice of the population for us to not understand.

What's Invisible And Read All Over?

Everybody is talking about this week's issue of Charlie Hebdo.  And no one is showing it.  I'm trying to think of something that has been as talked in the media without being shown in the media.  The only other things I can think of are celebrity sex tapes.  Even then they usually show a few brief clips.  No one is daring to even show part of the Mohammed cartoon on the cover.

On the one hand, I can't blame them.  During the Danish Cartoon Controversy, a lot of smaller or more ideologically-motivated publications published the cartoons as a matter of principle.  I didn't really agree with that: I don't think you need to help spread people's message in order to defend their right to speak. 

To put it another way: they say the test of your commitment to free speech is defending the right to speak even for a speaker you disagree with or are offended by.  Thus, it's entirely possible that you would want to support a person's right to speak while not wanting to help them speak (or listen to them.) From that perspective, I would think it was appropriate not to reproduce the cartoons, since many publications would support the right to publish them while not supporting the sentiments expressed in them.

In this case, it just seems strange.  People are talking about this magazine that is mysteriously absent from the reports about it.  It got really weird when one reporter held up some of the inside pages for the camera, even though they were careful not to allow even a glimpse of the cover.  So the usual images you would expect from a story about a magazine (like showing it on a newsstand) are suspiciously absent.  At this point it's getting pretty silly: we're worried the extremists are going to go after every news outlet in the world for catching view, in the background, of a cartoon drawing of Mohammed.

You Gotta Have (At Least One More) Faith

In my continuing mission to make Canadian versions of interesting maps of the U.S. I will now tackle religion.  This map shows the most popular non-Christian religion in each state.  Mostly it's Buddhism out west, Jewish in the North-East, and Islam everywhere else.  And for some reason, Baha'i has taken root in South Carolina.  And I never thought Arizona and Delaware would have anything in common, but apparently it's Hinduism.

So I looked up the Canadian figures, and here are the most popular non-Christian religions in each province and territory:

• I assume "Eastern Religions" refers to Taoism and Confucianism.
• As you might guess, Islam is also the next most popular religion for Canada as a whole.
• "No religion" scored higher than any non-Christian religion in each province and territory. And in B.C. and Yukon, it beat any Christian denomination.
• P.E.I. has no Sikhs, and Nunavut has no Jews.  Everybody else has at least a few of each major religion.
• Apropos to yesterday's post, Turks & Caicos next most popular religion is also Islam.

Yes! Deer!

Now there's a new zodiac based on native North American spirituality. That's great to see. I'd much rather base my life on misinterpretations of ancient spirituality that's been produced locally. Those Greek pictures in the sky never did me any good.

So apparently - in the new zodiac - I'm a deer. That's odd; I don't think I have much of a connection to deer, other than a childhood affinity for Bambi. But I do like their description of me: "The Deer is inspiring lively and quick-witted. With a tailor-made humour...this combined with his/her natural intelligence make the Deer a must-have guest at dinner parties."

So now I'll have a new smart-ass answer for "what's your sign?" I will no longer say, "a neon sign that reads 'I don't believe in Astrology.'" Now I will say, "I'm a deer." I'm not sure how they'll react:

• "You mean Capricorn? Isn't that a goat?"
• "Which Chinese restaurant do you go to? I don't remember seeing 'deer' on my place-mat."
• "That's not a sign."

And I can just react to that last one with, "Yes it is, you Eurocentric clod."

The Awkward End

Word is, Fred Phelps is dying.  If the name doesn't ring a bell, he was the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, and if that name doesn't ring a bell, they're the ones that picket funerals telling people they're going to hell.  My reaction - which seems to be shared by many others - is, well... that's happening.  It's hard to know how to react to the death of a hated person.

This brings up memories of Osama Bin Laden's death.  I certainly wasn't sorry to see him go, but I also wasn't comfortable with the celebrations following his death.  I'm okay with the idea that killing someone is sometimes the least-bad option. But even when it is your enemy, it should be done with a sense of regret, not cheerfulness.

So how do you react when a really bad person dies?  I think it can be summed up in a quote that I saw after Bin Laden died, attributed to Mark Twain: 

I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.

That is, asking for someone's death seems wrong, but rejoicing in the absence of their evil is perhaps more appropriate. 

A Valentines Proposal

Now this may come as a surprise to you, but Jesus probably wasn't born on December 25th. No, this isn't some atheist rant accusing Christians of hijacking pagan holidays; even Christian scholars basing their work on the bible agree it doesn't sound like the gospels are happening in early winter.

Some people will be upset by this idea, but I think most Christians would agree that celebration of Jesus and his teachings is the important thing, not whether it's on the correct date or not.  Which brings me to my proposal: if we agree that Christmas isn't really at the right time, and we agree that it isn't a problem, then why not move it to a more convenient time?

The unfortunate thing about the timing of Christmas is that it comes at the start of the winter. We get the most joyous part of winter over with just as the worst of the weather is about to hit. That's especially unfortunate given that we have turned Christmas into a two-month holiday. Wouldn't it make more sense if those two months were over the most depressing weather of the year, brightening our darkest (literally) times. Once we have the letdown that Christmas is over, we'd have spring coming up.

So I think Valentine's Day would be the best time for Christmas. No one will miss Valentine's Day - singles hate it, the in-love don't need it. So switching it with Christmas shouldn't be a big problem. We just need the Catholic church's okay. So come on Francis, give it a go.

So This Is Holiday

As always, there's controversy this year about people saying, "Happy Holidays" rather than, "Merry Christmas". Normally I don't care too much.  If people are going around wishing nice things to one another, I won't look that gift horse in the mouth.

But I do have to point out that this year the replacing of "Christmas" with "Holiday" has entered a new and awkward phase, as advertisers have tried expanding use of the H-word beyond slogans and signs, and into more natural speech. I mean, I can understand using "holiday" when addressing a large public group ("Here's wishing everyone in Moose River a Happy Holiday"), but people don't really use it when discussing it with well known friends. ("What are we having for Holiday dinner?")

The prime example is that heart-warming Apple commercial where that teenager makes a family movie with his iPhone. It's a nice ad, but the video begins with the title, "A Harris Family Holiday." That sounds artificial, and not just because we're supposed to believe that a family called "Harris" might be celebrating a different holiday.

It's one thing to talk about the population as a whole celebrating "Holidays" in a generic sense, but no single person/family celebrates "Holidays." I doubt anyone would feel left out if we just acknowledged that the family in the ad is celebrating Christmas. Or, alternately, I doubt any reasonable person would find the commercial any less touching if it were "A Savarkar Family Diwali."

Pope-ularity

I - like a lot of people - have to say that Francis is by far my favourite Pope. Again like most people these days, I only have three choices in my lifetime, at least since I've been conscious of what a Pope is. So how about if I call him my favourite fully-observant Catholic. Though that is also a pretty small pool.

Time has notably given him their Person Of The Year. However, I started writing this when I read this article which praises him as the leader we wish we had in other religions, and in our politicians.  At that point, I have to call apples-and-oranges.

It's a pet peeve of mine that comes up whenever someone tries to push the idea that some unelected person's popularity (a royal or a religious leader) somehow proves that they are "better" than any and all politicians.

When it comes to politicians, they have two distinct disadvantages compared to everyone else:

A high threshold for success

A politician has to win elections. So no one cares if you got a lot of votes, they care if you got the most votes, and that's harder than just winning over a few fans. As I've pointed out before, a TV show only needs a few percent of the audience to be a hit. A politician is a massive failure with only a third of people's support.  Or to put it in 1980's terms, more Americans voted for Walter Mondale than bought Thriller.

This Pope is just getting nice things said about him, by some people. And as a liberal leader of a traditionally conservative sect, he's getting soft treatment in the media.

No power

Everyone seems to be saying nice things about his pro-poor talk. But it's easy to support rhetoric. It's not like he's actually making you give to the poor, regulating capitalism etc. Once the issues start affecting people lives, suddenly people won't feel so warm and fuzzy about it.

One Set Of Footprints On The Crosswalk

Today in downtown Kitchener, there was a guy at speakers' corner (yes, we have one, at King and Benton.)  Anyway, he was preaching.  And not inspiring, Jesus-loves-you preaching, this was fire-and-brimstone stuff.  That happens from time to time, but usually it's one guy speaking on his own.  Today it was a big production.  He had his own soundsystem, and people on each corner of the intersection handing out literature.

It's pretty common for charities to have people canvassing downtown at street corners.  I'm sure I'm not alone in that I don't want to be rude, but I also don't want to get caught receiving a long, awkward pitch.  Normally I'm good at using other pedestrians to avoid the canvasser in a basketball-style pick-and-roll manoeuvre.

But here I was a little worried, because I had to go to the diagonally opposite corner, which meant that I'd have to go past three of the folks handing out stuff.  The first one handed me a pamphlet, and I accepted it politely but kept going.  At the second corner, a woman tried to hand me a gospel-themed business card.  I turned that down, showing that I already had the pamphlet.  But I thought that was unusual, that they seem to have something different being distributed at each corner.  So I look across the street to see what I'm about to be offered at the next corner, and I see a guy with a big wooden cross over his shoulder.  I thought, great, how am I going to politely refuse that?

May I Be Frank?

Earlier I pointed out that the reaction to Pope Benedict's resignation was highly polarised between people who see the Catholic church as hopelessly out of touch and people who see it as vital and hopeful.  And now the reaction to the new Pope has fallen along similar lines.  Either Francis is a great and wonderful light for the whole world who possesses every possible positive attribute, or he's too conservative, won't change things for women or gays, so nothing's changed:  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

But he is changing some things.  He's putting a new emphasis on helping the poor.  I don't know whether this is a product of his being from a developing country - and thus something we should expect from popes in the future - or maybe just his style.  It's just not the change that liberals were hoping for.

Here's my radical new way of looking at it.  Maybe this is still a good thing.  Don't get me wrong, I wish he was introducing new and modern ways that are fairer to women and more accepting of homosexuals.  But I ask you, what does the world need most?  Gay rights are gaining momentum, and women in the developing world are starting to stand up and make themselves heard.  These things are being done without the church's blessing.

But fighting for the poor?  Let's face it: we're losing badly. The poor-bring-it-on-themselves philosophy has become dominant in the west, and the aid-does-more-harm-than-good belief has allowed cynicism to hold back international aid.  Yes, my fellow progressives, I hate to admit it, but we're in over our heads on this one, and we could really use the church's help.  Moreover, we need their help on poverty more than we need their help on gay and women's rights.  It may just be that for all our disagreements with him, Francis is just who we need right now.

Pope Culture

Last week the Pope resigned.  Yes, it's been a while, and I'm only now writing about it, but it's not laziness.  I'm commenting now because I'm really discussing the reaction to it.  Yeah, that's it.  It was one of those awkward news stories that was so big, every news service had to report on it, but so straightforward that it didn't give them anything to talk about.  The whole story came down to, "Old, Ill Man Retires From Tough Job."

As for people's reactions, they came down to one of three possibilities: committed Catholics praised him for maintaining traditional values, atheists and liberal Christians saw him as just part of the decline of organized religion, and everyone else gave him glowing but extremely vague praise.  I'd point that out to those predicting the imminent end of religion: I'll find that easier to believe when people start saying what they really feel about the Pope.

The outcome is that no one has really assessed his papacy.  Instead, people looked for any reason they could find to give him a positive review, often resorting to complementing the man himself.  He does seem like a pleasant person, but that’s not usually how we judge world leaders.  Certainly George W. Bush would have seemed better judged by his personality rather than his decisions.