Our New Cathedrals

A colleague of mine and I were discussing last winter about the times in which we are living. We both teach American and Latin American studies, and our positions reflect our disciplines. I believed that we are in a new Gilded Age, where a few control most of the wealth and everything around us is painted with a thin and crumbling veneer. This is becoming a popular notion, as evidenced by the article "Age of Riches" earlier this month in the NY Times. My colleague posited that we are living in a new Baroque era, where like the cathedrals of the 17th century in Europe and Latin America, institutions today create so many distractions for people, it is hard to see truth.

I like her argument. After spending a couple of hours at SuperTarget a couple of days ago, it is easy to draw parallels between the baroque cathedrals I visited during my college study abroad in Spain and the megastores of today. So much visual stimulus and wonder evoked in both, where every inch of space is shiny, polished, decorated or plastered with items to grab your attention. Baroque cathedrals overwhelmed the eye in their attempt to convey the power of the Church and kill any rebellious or irreverent sentiment in the beholder. Megastores want to overwhelm the consumer with the feeling of necessity. The more anxiety and sense of dependency on the institution created in the hearts of human beings, the more they will be stewards of the status quo.

Baroque cathedrals in the 17th century and megastores in the 21st century reflect a symptom of a greater problem: the misappropriation of power and wealth in a society. Our own landscape of excess provides such a false sense of security that we often forget it is a facade, and that there are more sinister realities underneath.

YouTube Debates, Marriage, and Why I Want More

I did not watch the entire YouTube/CNN Democratic presidential debate, but I was struck by the responses of select candidates concerning the issues of gay marriage and the Darfur crisis, primarily because of how the issue of religion was (or was not) treated in both cases.

Concerning gay marriage, Rev. Longcrier of Hickory, NC asked the important question to John Edwards why it was still acceptable to justify excluding gays from the right to marriage on grounds of religious belief. He alluded to the fact that in previous comments, Edwards has expressed opposition to gay marriage based on his Southern Baptist convictions. Edwards admitted to having a great personal struggle with the issue, not believing in gay marriage on one hand, but feeling that as President it would be wrong to use religious belief to deny anyone fundamental rights. Senator Barak Obama argued that the term "marriage" is a non-state issue: all people should have the legal privleges of civil unions, and individual denominations should decide whether to call those unions "marriage."

While I prefer both perspectives to anti-gay marriage bans, I am unhappy with the responses. Both candidates relegated religion to the private realm without challenging the notion that religion can actually be used to liberate rather than oppress, which Rev. Longcrier began to argue before being cut off by Anderson Cooper. While I agree with Edwards that religion should not be used to deny individuals of rights, I would argue that there is an alternative perspective in our political heritage (as promoted during the civil rights movement) of embracing a spiritually progressive stance on political issues and reclaiming religion from the narrow interpretation defined by conservatives.

It is notable that none of the four candidates (Richardson, Gravel, Biden, Clinton) who answered the question about what is America going to do in Darfur expressed a perspective influenced by religious belief. While the Reform Jewish community, Unitarian and other progressive faith groups have spearheaded raising awareness about the Darfur crisis in this country, Darfur, like many other topics of spiritual and ethical dimension, such as immigration, poverty, war, etc, remains a religious non-issue in the high-stakes political arena.

But there is hope, and the field is changing. While there appears to be a growing chorus of voices across the political spectrum supporting protecting the environment, spiritually progressive voices such as the Reverend Dr. William J. Barber II, President of the NC NAACP and Rev. Ched Myers are speaking out about poverty and promoting a program of "Sabbath Economics," rooted in a Hebraic understanding about economic justice.

It would be nice to have a Presidential candidate who would be comfortable and effective in challenging the notion that God does not speak with the wagging tongue of the Religious Right nor watch the human crises of the world with the corporate eyes of indifference. Is that too much to ask?

The Shared World

We are living in a heady time and people are wondering what world we are creating for ourselves. Thomas L. Friedman writes about the 'flattened' world, where distance and time have evaporated such that it is cheaper for the H&R Block office down the street to have someone in India help you fill out your 1040A while they work with wealthier clients whose tax situations and sensibilities require more delicate customer service. While Friedman focuses on the elimination of distance and paints a picture of global village capitalism, Naomi Shihab Nye, in her "Gate 4-A" in this month's issue of Tikkun magazine, reflects on the isolation of being human in this world, the gulfs that separate individuals. Refreshingly, she comes to the conclusion that humanity is still possible among people.

While Friedman's book (and 2nd edition) offers a fascinating users guide to understanding how global capitalism works, the subtext of Nye's article is that this impersonal world created by globalization is blinding us to our shared humanity, and we must retrieve it. She tells the story of an encounter at an airport, when she helped interpret for a Palestinian woman sobbing because she thought her flight was canceled--a devastating event because it would mean the woman would miss important medical treatment the next day. After communicating to the woman that her flight was simply delayed, Nye spoke with the woman's son by phone and promised to remain with her during the duration of their time at the airport and on the flight. As they waited at the gate, Nye called her father as well as a number of her friends, Palestinian poets. They all spoke with the woman and shared stories and laughter. Before the plane arrived to the gate, the woman was sharing homemade cookies with other women at the gate, none of whom shared her language or religion, but understood the value of spontaneous humanity. What struck me about the article was Nye's approach in handling the situation. Not only did she interpret for the woman and console her, but she kept calling people she thought it would be fun for the woman to talk to on the phone. By doing so, she gave the woman a sense of community, and the chance to laugh. In turn, the woman created community at the gate by sharing her cookies with others.

In thinking about this, it reminds me that there are ways to help people, and there are better ways to help people. Anything we can do to reduce the distance between ourselves and others in this increasingly isolating world will be a victory for humanity. As Nye writes, "This is the world I want to live in. The shared world." Some people would argue that 9/11 brought a fleeting sense of humanity in this country. While that may be true, it also prompted a reaction of blind fear and anger that allowed our country to support military actions we are deeply regretting. While the world may be flat, there are greater gulfs separating Americans from the rest of the world due to our foreign policies. While great tragedy inspires community, it also foments fear and revenge. If we can work to build a shared world in our everyday lives with those around us, maybe we will be more resilient and thoughtful citizens of the earth, flattened or round.