Last night I watched a surrealistic swedish film called Songs from the Second Floor. It takes an ironic apocalyptic view of where the hedonistic materialism of the western world is taking us and how that nice person Jesus just doesn’t really fit in the increasingly paganistic world(in Sweden/Europe). Although, it ends on a note that moves towards a need for the renewal of the Christian faith in Sweden. Its the sort of movie that requires that you think and watch more than once to understand, as it is full of symbolism and irony. But the movie is very beautifully shot with no cuts in a given scene. I look forward to watching it again.

I also watched a romantic comedy called Jalla! Jalla!. It was about a Lebanese Swede who has a traditional Swedish girlfriend that he has not told his family about yet. They arrange for him to get married to a Lebanese woman, who doesn’t want to get married either but will have to go home to Lebanon if she does not marry. The movie was kind of like “My Big Fat Greek Wedding“, but it was less rigid in the way it portrayed the relatives and it dealt with how Arab immigrants have adapted to Sweden.

I mean, in the US, there is nothing unordinary about having rather diverse cultural enclaves, but this is somewhat more new in Sweden. Unfortunately, the answer the movie provides the cultural conflicts is for the Lebanese young people to adopt almost wholesale the swedish freedom, including freedom from their family. The movie had some funny parts, but it was kind of sad how the lebanese culture gave way to a swedish culture. A culture that I, as an evangelical Christian, have seriously difficulties with. But, it did provide yet another take on swedish culture as it is developing today with an often shortsighted embrace of individual freedom. Although, I guess the same can also be said for an increasing portion of the US, as well.

dlw

I posted earlier about the Swedish film Miffo. Today, I had lunch with a group of Swedish Lutheran ministers and Seminarians. I had a conversation with the Lutheran minister who is responsible for the Orebro university. It was good talking with him to get another perspective on Sweden. He and his wife had seen Miffo and didn’t like it. It seems that there are few movies in Sweden that portray priests in a positive light. They are either portrayed as rigid dogmatic types or insecure naive idealists. IMO, it isn’t surprising that the ruling swedish social democratic elites would tend to be the ones to produce Swedish films and do so with an anti-clerical bias. The reality is, of course, far more complex. There is even a group in the Swedish Lutheran church called the Swedish Evangelical Mission that is trying to reform the Lutheran church from within. My friend commented that the film Luther was a step in the right direction of portraying a religious leader in the right light, but that it required too much historical religious knowledge to be appreciated by most people. We also both agreed that Gibson’s Passion was too gory and with far too little information on the ministry of Jesus to impact many people.

I then got a chance to talk with him about my own background. He commented when he heard that I was from Minnesota that he didn’t think I would be from Texas. It was then that I shared with him about how I had lived in Texas when I was very young, ages three to nine. It was during that time I deeply imbued a southern form of fundamentalist/dispensationalism, after I was hit by a car at age seven and almost killed. I shared a bit about how the experience affected my theological/cultural development and how it now helps me to better understand the different cultures in the US.

I also shared some of my own theories about how the northern states’ treatment of the southern states after the civil war and death of Abraham Lincoln led to a persistent regionism within the US. IMO, it was this regionism that intensified the racism in the south and contributed to the fundamentalist-modernist schism in the early 20th century in the US and has contributed to the US’s current problems caused by the cultural wars.

IMO, I don’t think many USAmericans, much less foreigners, understand the historical roots that have helped to lead to our current political dilemma in the US. And I would never claim to understand it all, but I do like to look for bigger pictures in history. I believe a general apology ought to be made to both the African Americans for their treatment during slavery and probably some reparations. But I think an apology also ought to be made to the majority of southerners for how their ancestors were treated politically after the Civil War. It should also be noted that if the southern whites had not fought as well as they did early on in the Civil War that there would not have been the Emancipation Proclamation. There were better ways to secure more rights/protections for the freed slaves in the south than to exclude the southern states from having any say-so in the US nat’l gov’t. Practically, what was required to permit the development of the African-Americans were some form of guaranteed political compromises between them and the local southern powers that be, including some transfer of property. But you could not guarantee the creation and continuation of such institutions if you were involved in the social engineering and subjugation of the south that the radical republicans of the north were engaged in.

Abraham Lincoln would have done things very differently if he had not been assassinated. The US would have developed very differently. Imagine if you would what the consequences would have been if there had not been a solid south, always voting mainly Democrat or Republican? Imagine how much more effective and less corrupt the local gov’t would have been? Imagine if the concentration of industry/wealth in the north were limited by the need to share more power with the south(We’d have had lower tarriffs for starters and that would have reduced the concentration of economic power.)? Imagine if the levels of economic development and education had been more highly developed throughout the US? Would there have still been a Fundamentalist/Modernist schism? Would not there have been a better chance that more Christian Churches in the US would have been able to take the time to research and understand the developing facts of evolution and how they did not require a rejection of the Christian faith if properly understood?

I’d like to think so. Although, I can understand how such speculation can be difficult to accept; inasmuch as the extent we may muck up history with our free wills, in the short run, can be a considerable source of angst for some. For me though, it is the reason why we must learn from history, so as to avoid repeating its mistakes.

dlw
ps, Bob at I Am A Christian Too has a well done post that is critical of the culturally captivated manner in which Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals(NAE) runs his megachurch. I found it interesting and am a bit tiffed such a person is leading the NAE. As I’ve posted before, I don’t care for how he has turned the NAE into a yet another special interest group, but I’m not sure what is the best way to proceed to change the way things are developing.
dlw

As you may know, the U.S. Navy has used the eastern part of the Puerto Rican island of Vieques as a practice bombing range. This has caused some very serious contamination and there is now a proposal to measure whether the metal contamination has been caused by the Navy or may be natural to the island. Apparently, there is a strong concern that the study may be just a cover for the Navy to get out of the cost of clean up. To make sure that the study will be more accurate, people are asking for others to send emails/letters to Daniel Rodriguez, Rodriguez.Daniel@epa.gov, at the Environmental Protection Agency. This needs to be done by the 15th of June.

Here is the sample letter that I sent myself.

Dear Mr. Rodríguez:

I am writing because I am concerned that the proposed background investigation of soils at the former bombing range in eastern Vieques will lead to an incomplete and distorted understanding of the impact of more than 60 years of bombing by the Navy on the island. It is important that the study contribute to remedying the environmental and health impacts of the Navy’s actions. The federal government should not use poorly designed studies to dodge its responsibility for cleaning up what it polluted.

To determine the naturally occurring levels of metals and compounds in the soil or water of a place, one must choose “control” or reference sites for study that are not already significantly impacted by human activities that may have affected the amount of those metals or compounds. Only in this way can you accurately measure whether the levels of contamination found at a site suspected of contamination are the result of human activity.

I am aware that Vieques community representatives have for three years objected to the Navy’s use of locations in Vieques as control sites for establishing background levels in western Vieques. The same mistake should not be repeated in the east, which was much more heavily impacted by bombing, experimental munitions, missiles, small-arms firing, use of unconventional munitions such as depleted uranium and napalm, and the ordinary contamination of a military camp.

Navy photographs and archives, on which the proposed plan relies for determining what areas have been used in the past and should be investigated, are notoriously unreliable. For example, it is not known whether the Camp Garcia dump is 50 acres or 200 acres.

Contamination that is unique to explosives was detected in the civilian area of Vieques as early as 1978, demonstrating that air is a probable pathway of contamination on the island. Contaminants that were transported by air could migrate even further after they were deposited, in water. Through surface water flow or filtration, soluble compounds could end up far away from where they were originally found.

In light of these facts, the Navy must locate an adequate number of control sites, with geology similar to the impacted areas in eastern Vieques, which are sufficiently free of contaminants generated by the Navy so as to be acceptable as a reference point or control. There is no evidence that these sites exist in Vieques.

The Navy plan proposes to study only 29 sites in an impacted area of some 10,000 acres. Yet the selection of even these few sites shows that no set of sites in Vieques is apt for determining natural background levels. For example, the Navy proposes some reference sites only 100 yards away from known contaminated sites, or downstream or downhill from those sites.

The Navy also proposes that no sample be analyzed for the presence of explosives, insecticides or organic compounds, and that only a small number of sites be tested for semi-volatile organic compounds. Because neither explosives nor insecticides occur naturally, inclusion of these analyses would show whether or not the sample location has been affected by human activity. If it has, the location would be discarded as a control site.

The Navy also proposes that no sample be analyzed for the presence of explosives, insecticides or organic compounds, and that only 6 out of 58 sites be tested for semi-volatile organic compounds. Because neither explosives nor insecticides occur naturally, inclusion of these analyses will show whether or not the sample location has been affected by human activity. If it has, the location would be discarded as a control site.

I urge that the Navy’s proposed study on background levels of contaminants in the soil of Vieques be amended as follows:

* Relocate the sites that serve as reference or background control to locations on the main island of Puerto Rico that meet similar criteria for geology, geography, ecology and climate as Vieques.
* Independent of the location of the background reference samples, the study should gather data and analyze the presence of explosives, insecticides and volatile and semi volatile organic compounds.

Sincerely,

dlw

I’d hope that others would also join me in urging that the studies be amended. It is wrong for the US to abuse science to shirk its responsibility for the environmental damage that it has caused. This is the sort of poor int’l leadership that drives people from the two-thirds world to reject the radical nonviolent gospel message of Jesus that our missionaries testify to.

dlw

Next Page →