Gabby DeMarre

Eric Dregni gave a very interesting presentation on his stay in Norway at which time he was writing In Cod We Trust. His talk about experiences in Norway made me think of my family's friends in Norway, and the different things I was able to relate from his talk to our experience with them. So, this is my Norwegian story time, but first a political sidenote...
I was a bit disturbed, but not surprised, by his comments on Norwegians attitude towards welfare. He said one woman said, "I don't understand why Americans are ashamed of taking welfare, that is what government is there for." That is the way that citizens of socialist countries are conditioned to think; in America, we are (or once were) traditionally conditioned to believe that government is there to keep you free--not to help you, not to give you money, simply keep you free and leave you alone. This is the same attitude that our Norwegian friends share. Every time they have come to visit us, each has a beer in his hand every second of his stay. Why? Because it is so expensive, and so difficult to obtain in Norway, because the government runs the liquor business. Most of our Norwegian friends make their own moonshine because of this. They have to ask the government before they paint their house. All sorts of things like this. They think they are free, but I would say they are not. Everything is so expensive, most likely because everything is taxed so heavily that it cannot sell for any cheaper.
When my mom went rafting in Norway, she and the others in her group were given a wetsuit (or whatever it was) to change into. Then, everyone in the room just started changing into the suits, right there--men, women, kids...everyone. Obviously, this was not a comfortable situation for an American. Really odd. This reminds me a bit of what we talked about in sociology about Hmong culture having no word for "privacy." There are vast cultural differences even between Norway and Minnesota (Norway's "colony" as Eric put it).
Our friend Herman, on his first visit, wanted to drink some Mountain Dew, because they don't have that in Norway, but they are big into Mountain Dew, for some reason. So, when he first arrived, my mom took him to the Tom Thumb to buy some Mountain Dew, when they returned to the car, he said, "Wait," then took his Mountain Dew, leaned on the back of the car, and continued, "I want to take my first sip of Mountain Dew while looking over America." So, he took his first sip of Mountain Dew while looking over the fruited plains of the Tom Thumb parking lot.
Eric said he knew nothing of the language before he went to Norway. Here's just a few last stories about language...
My mom knew a little bit of Norwegian when she went there. One night, a family she was with shared some of their homemade alcohol with her. When she left, she wanted to be a polite guest, and thank them for their hospitality. Obviously, she had had a few to drink though, and the word for moonshine was not there, so she quickly Norwegianized a word and said, "Tak fer alcoholen."
I believe she was at a bar when the song "Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver came on the radio. Every single person could sing all the words, but very few of them knew what they were singing. 
Herman would always comment on the food we served him when he was visiting us. He would take a bite, say, "That was good" and continue eating. We had a little fun with him, and asked, "Is the next bite good? Or just that last one?"
The application of this would maybe be gaining a greater appreciation of cultural differences. His stories brought all of these stories and more to mind, all about the cultural differences between our culture and the Norwegians. We have been talking about this respect for other cultures throughout this semester, and this was a really interesting addition to our discussions.

The Poehler Lecture in Faith and Learning this year was given by Dr. Carl J. Schoenbeck. His lecture was titled "Teaching the Children Well: One Educators Perspective on Integrating Faith and Learning." The lecture was a very interesting discussion of the relation between faith and learning and teaching. Good teaching, Dr. Schoenbeck says, integrates all disciplines, addresses the learner as a whole, and integrates faith into the subject; good teaching is demonstrated by a passion for learning.
The recipe for passion for learning is this: connection, application, and questions. Making connections, or integrating different disciplines as we do in the Honors Program, is vital to teaching the whole person, as Dr. Schoenbeck put it. Application is demonstrating a use for learning in a practical sense. Showing how one can use knowledge spurs a desire to learn more. (For an example of this, I read various politics/government books, listen to talk radio, and keep up with the news because I have a great interest in learning about politics and government. To some, keeping up with the news is depressing, political books are gibberish, and talk radio is boring; myself and other like me have an appreciation for this learning because we see the application for the knowledge.) Another aspect of application is learning to value learning for the sake of learning. Lastly, asking questions is vitally important to learning, namely in faith and learning. If questions stop coming, learning ceases. Dr. Schoenbeck commended the idea of "questioning the questions," or asking, "Why do you want to know this?"
Dr. Schoenbeck gave a great illustration of learning as a multi-thread cord, with faith as its core, strengthened by all of the various disciplines. Connecting faith to learning is something I have always done since I went to Christian schools all my life, which Dr. Schoenbeck said he also did. It is interesting to hear his perspective on integrating different disciplines, and tying them all in with faith as the core. Because I have been doing this all my life, I have not ever given attention to the way the whole idea should work, and how the hierarchy works, with faith at the core. 

On Monday night we got to hear from three Hmong students from Concordia. They told the stories of their families, the traditions of their culture, and what let them to Concordia. It was interesting to hear yet another perspective from another generation of the Hmong. 
I found it interesting what they said about their parents. All of them said that you could ask their mother or father a question and they would go on and on and on answering it--telling stories and the like. I related that to the panel from last week with Choua Thao and Long Yang. Every question we asked prompted a long, detailed answer, filled with anecdotes and experiences and advice. 
It was really interesting what Dr. Schuler pointed out, that the girls seemed to complain about the traditional lifestyle more than Xang, yet they were the ones who wanted to raise their kids more traditionally, and Xang did not. I also found it really interesting that they carry on the religious tradition of the spirits. It reminded me of when we addressed that talking about Kalia's book, and how she never really reconciled belief in spirits with belief in science, but they both were just there. I would have thought that the children who grew up in America would feel separated from that tradition, and maybe even reject it, due to being Americanized, and growing up in a culture that considers those types of beliefs to be superstitious. Also, the idea of the spirits seems very connected with their homeland as a place, and being so far separated from it for so long, the tradition would seem almost futile or discouraging, I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, but if that makes any sense...
The most important thing I think I was able to take away from this discussion is a connection. The other speakers have been really different from me. Last week, they were from a different generation, the same with Lee Pao Xiong. Kalia is a published author. These were people I go to school with, and see in the halls. It made the culture seem not so far away from my own.

Today we went to the art convocation in the music building gallery. We took a look at all the pieces and then heard a bit about the showcase from Cate Vermeland. Then a few of the artists spoke about their pieces. 
Walking through the galleries with my "esteemed colleagues," it was very interesting to look at each piece and add up all of our different thoughts on it. I particularly like the portrayal of the crossing of the Mekong River. It was so simple and straightforward, unlike the others, but there was so much written on each face in the picture--fear, sadness, loss, uncertainty--because there are so many more things going on in the general moment than in just the exact moment--losing someone from the family.
I quite enjoyed the photographs of the woman in the car with the henna tattoos. At first they just seemed like interesting photos--but Brian pointed out that both cultures were represented in the pictures--which made them even more interesting. And it was great to hear from that artist, in even more detail--saying that she loved those photos because she could not drive in her country, and she is so happy she can drive in America, but she is also proud of her Saudi Arabian culture--hence the inclusion of the henna.
Alonso's piece was one of the more interesting I have seen. I don't remember what he said exactly, but when we were talking about it, we thought that it represented Americanization--it starts with the roots, and gradually becomes something incredibly, yet not entirely different, on the rigid ends of the branches. It is representative of the stark difference between Chilean culture and American culture--and how he adapted, but did not turn into something else. I think that he said generally the same when he spoke about it.
I really enjoyed this convocation. I am glad we had this as an assignment otherwise I would not have gone to it. It was great to hear from some of the artists, and to appreciate and discuss the art. It gave a greater insight into the lives of immigrants and refugees, and showed their experiences in many unique and interesting ways.

Two Hmong refugees came to speak on Monday--Choua Thao and Long Yang. They spoke about their experience in Laos working for the United States and about their lives in America.
Both speakers were really great. The stories were fascinating. I loved how both of them saw the opportunities that America gives and didn't waste any time to take advantage of these opportunities. They did not put a huge emphasis on their setback, although I am sure there were many. That, to me, is the resiliency that Pipher talked about so often in her book. Both believe that anyone can be successful in America; Long was quietly enthusiastic about it, and Choua was vehement about it. 
What really struck me was the contrast between their lives in Laos and their lives in America. In Laos, their lives were in danger constantly. Long had to leave the country or he would likely be killed. Choua worked in a hospital where she saw her people wounded and dying too often. She said one day she sat down and cried because so many of her patients were dying. Their work for the United States only heightened the threat on their lives. When they came to America they went to school, they got associates degrees, they got white-collar jobs. I wonder how surreal the new lives was after the rough life they had lived in Laos, and how surreal their lives in Laos seem now that they have each lived over 30 years in America.
I loved hearing the personal accounts of an older generation, who made the choices, and were not just taken along for the ride. They were both dynamic individuals, and I was fascinated by their stories, their experiences, and their engaging personalities.

On Monday night, our guest speaker was Professor Lee Pao Xiong. He shared first about the Hmong Studies Center and told us what it was about. This was quite interesting, I knew it was the Hmong Studies Building , but to me all it really was is the building with the noisy machinery running outside my window at night.
He then shared the story of him and his family. I loved the way Prof. Xiong told his story. He was so happy to share it with us, and it showed his enthusiasm for his culture. I was really interested by the way he would tell about the more tragic moments of his life--he would speak lightly of them, they would roll off his tongue I the same way that any other anecdote would, and he would give a small laugh after telling them. He experienced most of these things as a child, and the way he spoke of them was through the window of childhood, in which everyone sees things differently that they would were they older. I wonder how he would tell these stories had he experienced them as an adult.
I thought Lee Pao Xiong was a terrific speaker. His story was fascinating, and the way he told it was delightful. I found it so interesting that many of the places he mentioned were the same places mentioned by Kao Kalia--Ban Vinai Refugee Camp and the McDonough Housing Projects. And both Prof. Xiong and Kao Kalia have been incredibly successful in America. It made me think of Kao Kalia and her story about the family meetings where the adults would talk about how to help their children be successful in America. The parents wanted so much for their children to have great lives. I wondered if Prof. Xiong's family was similar to Kao Kalia's in this way.

In Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood took his traditional role as the classic anti-hero--a hero with no characteristics of the average hero, save heroics. His Character--Walt--he takes no bulls* (Pardon my French, that is the best way I could describe him.). He is quick to draw his gun on any seeming threat, and does so when the gangs are causing trouble next door. Because he protected their family and protected Thao, Sue and her family are incredibly grateful to him. They shower him with at first unwelcome gifts and kindness. But Sue begins to bring him into the family and - well actually I want to pause here and say what a difference it made to speak with Kalia the same day I saw this movie. Reading her book and hearing her talk about the Hmong and their culture affected the way I watched this movie. I had a vivid description to connect with the picture on the screen, the large family, the gathering, the shaman--everything I was seeing seemed to be pulled together by Kalia's eloquent description of the Hmong family and traditions.

Walt begins to take Thao under his wings at the family gathering, but when Thao begins working for Walt to apologize for his attempt to steal the Gran Torino, the bizarre bond solidifies. Walt takes him in almost as a son--filling the spot that the two pricks he has for sons did not. (Again, sorry, but they deserve this name--they were making fun of their father at their mother's funeral...) When he sees the gangs trying to throw Thao from his path to a successful life, he does all he can do to help--even finds him a job. But the gangs do not relent, and it escalates to the point where Walt can no longer hold himself in check, and he takes action to stop it by giving the gang a firm warning and threat. But they fight back--barbarically--shooting up the home of Thao's family and gang-raping Sue beyond recognition. This was the point in the movie when I began to fall apart. My muscles tensed, my nerves shook, and my mind struggled to fathom what it was taking in, despite the knowledge that the characters and story were fictitious.

Walt knows what he must do, and he does it. A loud scene, a false threat, and a fall seen by all around him. He gave his life for the neighbors he loved as his own family.
This movie is one of the most powerful I have ever seen. I cried, I'm talking really crying here. I have never once cried during a movie. Not once. But when Thao and Sue rushed to the scene where Walt had died, I had to cry, there was nothing else to do. His body was defeated--so many holes from so many bullets from so many guns. His body was defeated but his spirit had triumphed--he had achieved his mission; he protected his family--his new Hmong family--the only way he truly could, and he had been successful.

This movie bleeds with painful reality, truth, beauty, love. In my eyes, Clint Eastwood's crude character was truly beautiful. He was true and raw and unabashed. The racial slurs stood out to many who watched this movie. Not to me. They meant nothing. Racial slurs are insignificant in comparison to his unconditional love for Thao and Sue. This is what matters. This is what this film is about. This says every good thing about every good person. This is the pinnacle of love.
"Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends."
John 15: 13

Here are some of my thoughts after reading and discussing Mary Pipher's The Middle of Everywhere--a book (And may I say, as an English nerd, really well-written) filled with the stories of refugees and their struggles before and after coming to America.

Resilience was certainly a strong theme in this book. I believe the Pipher's consistent repetition of the word was very deliberate. Resilience is a part of every person in these stories. Here in the United States, we live in a culture that has taught us that it is healthy to whine. I am not saying that we were born on third believing we hit triples, to paraphrase, because I know this is not true of my father and many others like him. However, we are encouraged to dissect anything and everything in our lives that may have caused us unhappiness. Basically, we live in a land of therapy and psychoanalysis. The refugees in this book saw their families killed before their eyes. They saw war, rape, torture, death, and oppression, but in spite of these horrors, each of these seemed like they were building lives for themselves, and many even seemed hopeful at the lives and opportunities that lay before them. In contrast, here in America it seems like people curl into the fetal position and shut down because their mother never hugged them, or their father never said "I love you." Obviously I am being a bit facetious, but my point: we struggle little in America. Since we have always been protected from war and tumult, we have found new worries and new burdens, which seem dwarfed by the incredible stories of the refugees. I suppose this is an unintended consequence of living in a country that keeps us safe in a way that few other countries can.

These stories, though heartbreaking, offered so much hope. I was able to manage the worst parts of these stories because I already knew the end result.  The end result: telling their story to Mary Pipher and so many others in America. They are in America where they are at the very least safe. They have so many troubles with language, money, employment, and assimilation, and my intention is not at all to downplay these or their past troubles, but I was so happy for them to be in a safe place--far from war, oppression, and turmoil--a land where the police are there to protect them, and not to frighten them into submission, or kill them for criticism of the government. I am so happy that they found a way out. I would like to quote a line from Linh's story in Chapter 3, "[Her brother] told her that he didn't believe in destiny and that in America she could become whatever she wanted" (65-66). Maybe it is naïve, but those are my thoughts exactly on America, and why these stories of these resilient people gave me hope.

On a side note, our discussion really got me thinking about the title, The Middle of Everywhere. I realized how many immigrants I have encountered, without a second thought. My friend Hana, who came to go to school, and lives with her aunts and uncle--all from South Korea. Kind Mrs. Novak, whose parents sent her and her sisters away from Ireland at a young age so that they would have opportunities. Before coming here, she spent her childhood in fear of British soldiers. Ana's comment about the paperwork involved in immigration made me think of  the Samuels--close family friends who lived in America for 16 years, and are just now becoming citizens because of all the hoops to jump through. I could think of so many more just off the top of my head, these stories really are everywhere, but I think I will stop here, I have already talked too much!

Introduction
 In Galileo, Darwin and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Religion and Reason, Phil Dowe makes an argument in attempt to reconcile God with the chance worldview, which states that the world exists in a chaotic, unpredictable state. Here is a brief summary of strengths and weaknesses his argument holds.
Summary
Dowe basically concludes that either God causes chance or that He does not, and that neither result should pose a significant problem for theists. If an event has meaning, it is caused by God, if an event is inconsequential, then it is by chance. 
He begins by introducing the Calvinist belief, which is that God is the cause of all things. He then contrasts this view with deism, which says that God set the world in motion and walked away. He makes the argument that though the world could appear to be made in a deistic way, that this may only apply to the way the world works and chance occurs, and does not rule out the personal God.
He then delves into Bell's theory, which apparently says that determinism is false. However, this theory would not apply to God, because God exists without limitation of locality. He finally comes to the conclusion, as already stated, that God is responsible for chance, unless it is of no consequence.
Strengths
The strength of the argument lies in the fact that it is difficult to refute, or that there are ways to work around conclusions about chance which still provide for a provident and all-knowing God. If one argues that chance happens by nature, and God is not the cause of it, there is not an argument that God is not working in the world. "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). There is also the fact that no one can say with certainty that chance actually exists, for it is not impossible that God is the cause of everything that is interpreted as chance, and people simply do not understand it. Also, even if the providential God could be disproven, the personal God could not.
The idea of chance seemingly rules out the possibility of God being all-knowing. However, this is not necessarily true. Now, this may stretch the mind a bit, but try to follow this train of thought. God is all-knowing, and the Bible says, "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:16). The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines chance as, "something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause." It says that chance is something that "happens;" a happening is an event, and an event implies time. God exists outside of time, so it is possible for God to have knowledge of a chance occurrence. It is not a concept easily grasped, and some might say it makes no sense at all. 
Weaknesses
There are weaknesses when combining the idea of God with the idea of chance. One already addressed above. Another is that chance implies that God is not in control of everything. This poses a problem for those who believe in absolute providence.
A weakness is that the Bible does say, "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:16). One could say that this passage says there is not chance. It does not say, "All the significant, consequential events that happen in my life were written in your book..." It says "All the days," which, one could argue, includes those inconsequential events which Dowe says are due to natural chance.
Dowe uses John Polkinghorne's theory that chance occurs in the universe and God "goes with the flow." God creatively responds to the chance occurrences. This almost makes it seem like a game--like the universe is some sort of cosmic pinball game--God sets the ball (the universe) into play, it is bounced around by the obstacles (chance), and He makes certain it stays in play. If this is the way things are, then Calvary makes no sense. The gift of Jesus Christ shows a God who loves the world, not a God who plays pinball with the world.
Conclusion
 This is just a brief overview of a very complex argument. It is obvious that this paper only scratches the surface of Dowe's argument, and much more could be said. Dowe's example in quantum physics can easily go over the head of many readers, hence this paper's general focus on the philosophical part of the argument, rather than the physical. Nevertheless, it is the hope of this writer that this paper provided some insight to Dowe's argument of reconciling God and the chance worldview.

 Deism and Enlightenment thought are said to have had a significant effect on the formation of the United States, as they are believed to be the key philosophies of the Founding Fathers. So, this paper will take a look at the Declaration of Independence to identify patterns of these two philosophies within this document written by Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson's ties to Enlightenment thought and Deism come out in the very beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Look at the first sentence:
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinion of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
 There are a few things one should pick up on in this sentence. First, notice the capitalization. Throughout the entire document, Jefferson seems to be capitalizing any word which he finds to be particularly significant and important. He capitalizes words like "Events" when referring to human history, "People," and "Opinions of Mankind," among others. Harrison (et al) says, "Like Renaissance humanism, deism focused on the glories of nature, especially human nature with its rational capacity" (470). The capitalization of these words demonstrates a belief in their "glory;" it almost characterizes them, and places them in a place of honor. As the one continues to read the document, it is interesting to see which of these words he chooses to capitalize. It gives great insight into his beliefs, and reveals a subtle pattern of Deistic Enlightenment Thought. He seems to be capitalizing those words which he believes have innate value. Some more particularly interesting capitalized words will be pointed out later.
 The second thing one should notice from the first sentence ties in very nicely with the first. This is that he basically says the powers being taken by the Declaration of Independence are allotted by "the Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God." In reference to Enlightenment concepts, Harrison (et al) says, "Nature constitutes a standard for judgment" (469). According to Jefferson, the people are entitled to certain things because of the laws of nature and nature's God. Otherwise stated, he is using nature as a "standard for judgment." Now consider the capitalization of the words. He capitalizes law, nature, and god. Again, these seem to be words which Jefferson believes have innate value. Notice also that he says the "Laws of Nature" first, and calls God "Nature's God." This is definitely placing Nature in a high place of honor, just as Enlightenment thought does. 
 The next section which would be significant to the subject of Enlightenment thought and Deism would be this: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The key phrase here is "self-evident." This implies that this--rights, liberty, etc.--is the way things should be, the way they were intended to be--more specifically the way things were intended to be by nature. According to Harrison (et al), "A move to the nature is a move toward wholesome vigor and freedom" (469). This seems to be a belief shared by Jefferson when looking at this passage. And again, notice the capitalization. The capitalization of truth, men, creator, and rights is showing what Jefferson believes has value.
 Here is the next key passage from the Declaration of Independence: "...Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed." This statement has strong overtones of Enlightenment thought. In its full context it is almost an expression of happiness at a long-overdue return to the way things should be, or nature. The capitalization works basically the same as it has above, but one clarification must be made. The capitalization does not just apply to that which Jefferson believes has innate value, but also that which he believes has innate significance. As one can see, the word "evils" is capitalized, and evils are significant, but not necessarily valuable. 
 So, these have been some of the more notable references to Deism and Enlightenment thought in the Declaration of Independence. The passages covered are good examples of the strong value for people and nature that relate closely to Enlightenment thought and Deism. The look at the odd capitalization which Jefferson used are also reminiscent of these things. These things which Jefferson identifies through capitalization as significant or valuable often line up with the thing which these two similar philosophies find significant or valuable. Deism and Enlightenment thought are skillfully peppered throughout this document by Jefferson, who, when looking at this document, seems to share the ideals of both.  
 
Works Cited
Harrison, John Baugham, Dennis Sherman, and Richard E. Sullivan. A Short History of Western Civilization: Renaissance to the Present. New York: Mcgraw-hill Companies, 1994.
Reid, Daniel G. "Deism." Dictionary of Christianity in America. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.