Jessie Patterson

Tonight (well technically last night now) was the eigth annual Poehler Lecture. This year, our speaker was Dr. Carl Schoeneck. He spoke on the integration of faith and learning, titling his lecture "Teaching the Children Well: One Educator's Prespective." Dr. Schoenbeck has had a great impact on the University. He was a professor here from 1981 until his retirement in 2006. Also, he was the Chair for the Division of Education (1989-1995) and the the appointed Vice President of Academic Affairs (1995-2006). Durring his lecture, Dr. Schoenbeck built upon the idea that effective teaching leads to effective learning. This 'effective teaching' is best done when it integrates all disciplines, hopefully developing a passion for learning. Also, he provided us with that he called the "Recipie for Passion for Learning." This recipie consisted of Connections, Application and Questions. I really liked his ideas for passionate learning and I think he summarized it very well. From his perspective,  there is no better place to create this passion than Concordia University. We use internship and service to make connections to our lives and apply what we've learned. Also, we are comfortable with ambiguity because we value change and growth. His suggestions to continue on this path were to build on things that we know work, such as the Honors Program :) as well as celebrating the potential conflict that topics such as the number of Non-Lutheran students and the ideas they bring up.

Seeing how the topic for the Poehler Lecture is "Integrating Faith and Learning," and one of the fundamental principles of the Honors Program is that as well, this lecture directly related to our course. This lecture didn't relate simply to a certain section or project in Honors, but the program itself. I strongly believe that the passion for learning that he spoke of is ingrained withinin every single member of the Honors Program.

I really enjoyed the lecture tonight. Now that we're on the end on the last semester, it was good to hear a reminder of exactly why we're here doing all this work right now. I thought everything he brought up was very relevant to Concordia and it's future. Also, I liked his jokes :D. For the record, Dr. Mark Schuler and Dr. Rhoda Schuler are my favorite Pair-O-Doc's.

Last night, at about this time, we got to hear from another speaker in the immigrant community. This week our guest was Mr. Seexeng Lee, and Hmong artist and art teacher. Art in itself is a very elusive topic, but when I heard Seexeng explain it to us it made much more sense. He said that art was not the product itself, but the end prodct that displays the entire journey. Hmong art is a good discriptor of this because it's isn't really made to be looked at, but to be used. Traditionally, Hmong artists are silversmiths, blacksmiths, weavers, singers or embroiderers among other things. By far, the Hmong are most known for emboidery. One piece of embroidery, the Paj Ntaub, is used to intrigue the spirit so that it dosn't stray away. With time and the shift to America, Hmong art has been forced to change. Seexeng does not see this as a bad thing at all, he views the mixture of the two cultures as a blessing in disguise. As Hmong art continues to change, there have been many successes expecially here in the Twin Cities. Some of these include different hmong art organizations, the oportunity to obtain a MA or BA in art, and simply being able to share the story of the Hmong culture.

I thought it was very interesting to see Seexeng's art in the exhibit a few weeks back, and now being able to actually hear him speak, the pieces hold much more meaning. I almost had to laugh, when he started speaking about Folk Art and how Hmong art is not made soley to look at. I distinctly remember looking at his pieces at the exhibit and often quickly moving on to a more aesthetically pleasing piece. When I was viewing his pieces earlier, I didn't understand the importance of gold leafing, and the idea of art in a functional way such as intriguing the spirit. Last night's presentation helped me to have a greater appreciation of the art that we viewed a few weeks back.

Well, last night we got another different viewpoint on the Hmong culture.For this week we had 3 CSP students as our guest speakers. Xang Lee, PaHoua Yang and Xia Yang all spoke with us for about 2 hours. We covered everything from their Past in Thailand, coming to America and their life now. It was very interesting to see our own peers up there in front of the class room. For me, it made the experiences much more real. All three were born in refugee camps in Thailand and immigrated from those at various points. They discussed nearly everything in those two hours! Xia learned what exactly a placenta is as we learned about the different cultural practices of the Hmong.We learned from first-hand experiences the gender division within the culture and the different practices of their religion. We even discussed a previous assignment, Gran Torino.

The way that this discussion was carried out really changed my perspective on the Hmong culture. With every other speaker we have had, it felt like we were learning something completely foreign to us. As I heard people my own age speak of their lives in refugee camps and travel to america, all the stories seemed so much more relatable. Of all the mediums we have had to learn about the culture, this has by far been my favorite. I loved watching the Hmong culture come out between the three of them as they spoke. None of them them had been trained to come speak to us, so all they had to share with us were their real- life experiences. For that reason, these three speakers have by far been my favorite. 

As you know, the focus of this semester in Honors is Hearing the Voices of Immigrants. Today we heard those voices in yet another way, through art. This month's convocation was an art show centered around the book of the year The Middle of Everywhere. Approximately 5 different artists displayed their art for all to see along the hallway. At first I was very overwhelmed, if I didn't have to work at 1 I could have been there much longer. For the first 15 minutes we were allowed to walk freely up and down the hallway viewing the different artworks. Then all the artists that could make it spoke to us about the pieces they were presenting. The artist that stuck out the most to me wing Wing Young Huie.

Wing Young Huie's photo that he shared was one of many pieces in a large project he is doing. He is currently photographing different aspects of life, more specifically immigrant life, along University Ave. As well as photographing along University, he's going into the different neighborhoods and exploring the culture there as well. Obviously this caught my attention since we are so close to University Ave. The project is supposed to be finished and displayed along the streets of University sometime in 2010. I think the concept for this project is very interesting and am excited to see the finished project. On the MPR website, there is a glimpse into the finished project. He mentioned the possibility of needing volunteers when it comes time to display, so I think I may do that when the time comes. I just think this project is so intriging and would love to learn more about it as well as all the culture that encompases this area.

A comment left on Wing's website for a similar project on Lake Street explains my feelings very well. The anonymous comment reads...

"These photos show us, real and valuable just as we are. They are sad because they aren't the perfect images of others we're used to seeing. They are empowering for the same reason. Thanks, for these images and a chance to respond. Peace"

I've only lived in Minnnesota for 5 years, and only one of those was really in the Twin Cities. The level of diversity and culture is just so exciting to me. I think it is very important that Wing is taking the time to photograph and share the different stories the city. What I like the most is the way he is presenting the finished project. Displaying the images along the 6-mile stretch of University Avenue just serves as a reminder of all the different cultures within the community. For me personally, it also serves as enouragement to explore and learn more about them. 

Another 3 hour night class done! Yay! This week we got to hear from two guest speakers, Mr. Long Yang and Ms. Choua Thao. Mr. Yang was the first to speak. He began giving us an overview of the history of the Hmong people and the Secret War, as well as his involvement in it. Contrary to what you would think upon first meeting him, Mr. Yang used to work for the CIA. This short man in an earth-toned sweater and broken english played many important roles for the US government while he was in Laos. Later, when given the choice of 'a low paying job in America or burned in Laos' he came to the United States. Ms. Thao was also a great help to the US durring the war. She was a nurse for the army while training and watching over many Hmong nurses. Again like Mr. Yang, Ms. Thao was very different from the first impression I got of her. This little, old, Hmong lady had more attitude than anyone I've met in a long time. The two things that Ms. Thao was sure to leave us all with was that no matter what, we need to dream big and be a good advocate for ourselves and the people we serve.

Suprisingly, I'm still not tired of learnig about the Hmong culture and their history in the Secret War. I love that every single person we've heard from has given a different perspective to the story. Middle of Everywhere gave insight to immigration in general while Kalia and her book gave ingisht to the life of an immigrant child and life in America. At the Hmong culture center, we got more history of the Hmong. Yesterday we added another piece to our puzzle as we learned of two people both old enough to clearly remember the war and the transition to America.

As I sat and listened to the two speakers tonight, I was moved by what they had done with their situations. I enjoyed listening to Ms. Thao the most. Her stories about training the nurses and working/ fighting with the government to make things work cracked me up while still getting her messages across. I think her first bit was the most important, that we should always have a dream. No matter how big or small it is, a dream is so important to have because it gives you a goal and passion to pursue that goal.  

Wow! Who would have thought such a small little buliding could hold so much valuble information?! Honestly, last night was the first time that the buliding had been on my mind for longer than 30 seconds. I knew it existed and that was about it. In the hour we spent there, I learned so much more about the Hmong culture and Concordia's involvement in it.

As always,  I was the last one to get there seeing how I had gotten out of class at 6:57 so I came in a bit flustered. We started off with Professor Lee Pao Xiong explaining to us just how deep Concordia's involvement in Hmong life it. I had no idea little old Concordia was the first place in the world to offer a Hmong Studies minor! It was kind of sad to learn that for how deep our connections go, when we hold lectures or other Hmong events such a small percentage of attendees are from here. After an overview of the Hmong Studies on campus, Prof. Xiong told us a little about his past as well. He was an immigrant as well and actually lived in the secret US camp in Laos where his father was stationed. This reminded me a lot of Kalia's stories from when she came and spoke with us. In fact, her and Lee lived at the same refugee camp! From what we've been told though, Prof. Xiong's experience was much more pleasant than Kalia's presumably becasue of his father's standings with the US government. Finally, we took a short tour of the Center for Hmong Studies and got a chance to look at some of the artifacts we have here.

Our visit to the Hmong Center  opened my eyes a lot more than I thought it would. I didn't even know that the big biannual lectures even existed! Now, I will definitley look out for them, and may even volunteer for them! I was glad to learn as well that the Center is open to everyone. I think I may be stopping by there everynow and then to look closer at the artifacts or even just for a quiet study spot! 

I finally made it to Gran Torino!! It seemed like everyone I knew had been before I got the chance to see it. My parents even saw it before me, they NEVER go to movies! Consequently, I had heard everything about the movie expect for its actual premise. People told me the language was too much, it's going to make me cry (it didn't), some of the actors are from St. Paul.... and so on. The general concensis was that I would love it though, and I did.

Gran Torino takes place in a predominantly Hmong neighborhood in the Midwest. The main character, Walter Kowalski, was your typical grumpy old man, bitter and very racist after his experience in the war which he holds secret for a majority of the movie. As the movie progresses, he (against his own wishes) befriends two of his neighbors; Thao and his sister Sue Vang Lor. Thao is facing extreme pressure to join a gang lead by his cousin, and his way in is to steal Walt's Gran Torino. As Thao and Walt become closer, Walt feels the need to protect him from the pressures of the gang. When the gang does a drive-by shooting on Thao and Sue's house and beat & rape Sue, it is the last straw. While Thao is eager to seek revenge, Walter comes up with a 'better' plan. He visits the gang on their territory and makes them think he it pulling a gun, so they all shoot him with the whole neighborhood as a witness. Though Walter loses his own life, he does something that means much more to him: getting the gang put in jail. He give the life back to one Hmong boy after years of guilt over the life of the young boy that he took in Vietnam.  

From what I heard, I took this movie a lot differently that most people did. I didn't cry when Sue came in all bloodied up, I didn't cry and quite frankly I wasn't even suprised when Walt died. The things that hit me were the liking Walter took to his young Hmong neighbors, and oddly, the credits. I felt like I related very well to Sue, so when she was the one that came back beat up, I was a bit shocked but I did not cry. I felt like she was the strongest character in the movie. She stepped out of her boundaries many times to teach 'Wally' little things about the Hmong culture. Once Walt learned something about the culture, he quickly lost much of his prejudice. The other thing that stood out to me in the movie was the credits. When the movie ended, it didn't simply go to the black screen for the credits to roll over, it stayed on the image of the road that Thao and Walt's dog were driving down, Call me a nerd, but I LOVED this ending. It was the perfect contrast to Walt just dying. This way the viewer wouldn't focus on the somberness of death, but on the opportunities that Walt's choice opened up.

Another thing I loved was the way this movie fit into the rest of the course so far. Though the contrast was huge between Kalia's flowing, poetic memoir and Eastwood's rough, in-your-face movie, it was perfect. It gave us an opportunity to see similar stories in a completely different light. Also, it fit well with our winter reading The Middle of Everywhere. The challenges that Thao faces are very similar to those we read about there. Personally, I really liked the diversity that this movie provided to the course. It was nice to get out and DO something for class rather than just sitting and reading something.

Over Winter Break, our assignment was to read Mary Pipher's book The Middle of Everywhere. Now that we're back in the swing of things, we spent our first monday night discussing it. As hard as reading some of the stories were for me, I really enjoyed the book. Even moreso, I enjoyed our discussion of it. It was amazing to hear all of the different profiles of immigrants' lives. I also liked hearing how these stories affected others as well because I know they affected me. I think my favorite part about the whole discussion though was learning about the experiences of everyone in the class.

I am really glad that we started out our semester on Immigration with this. Mary Pipher managed to get very personal stories from the immigrants she interviewed. As I learned about the different people it broadened my view of the immigrant population in the US. I think it's very important to start out making the issue personal and realistic, so I'm glad we are opening this way.

To be honest, as I read this book I often got pretty discouraged. I loved the book and was so interested in hearing each person's story, but every story reminded me how unappreciative I am sometimes. The thing I was more reminded of is how weak my faith in God is sometimes. I can't even fathom what living through some of these experiences would be, let alone still trusting in God and believeing that it would all be ok. I definitley did a lot of self reflection after reading this, and all in all, I think it turned out to be for the good.

Jessie Patterson

Honors

Dr. Schuler

                As part of the book Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking, Phil Dowe tackles the concept of miracles. More specifically, he presents the question of whether or not miracles can provide a rational basis for believing in God and where science's role is in proving or disproving them. For "even if we think of science and religion as separate domains, each legitimate, miracles seem to force a point of contact between the two" (82). Though his arguments do prove interaction points between the two topics, Dowe often just leads the reader right back to the starting point. Since miracles don't actually prove anything this entire explanation is really just a waste time if one's looking for answers.

                Before Dowe can begin proving or disproving miracles, he must first define exactly what a miracle is. Though he never states it very clearly, he tends to define a miracle as a violation of a law of nature in that they "challenge the naturalistic idea that scientific domain of explanation is all-embracing" (82). His definition is very fruitful for interactions between science and religion though.  By his wording, he implies that science isn't "all-knowing" and that in some cases, religion may reign supreme. At one point he even states that a miracle is a violation of nature by a Deity. Once he defines a 'miracle' he begins his argument against the rational belief of miracles.   For most of his discussion of arguments, Dowe follows the analysis done by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. The basis of this argument is his two rules: That one can never rationally believe on the basis of testimony that a miracle has occurred and that there are three explanations for every miracle.

For the first rule, one must proportion their belief to their evidence. The problem with this, Dowe argues, is that it leads you nowhere. If there is full proof of the law of nature and of the miracle, one is left agnostic with no conclusion either way on the existence of God. On the other hand, if there is little proof of the miracle and full proof of the law of nature, one must apportion their belief. By apportioning belief though, God can never be proved nor disproved. This obviously shows a weakness in the argument. By 2/3 of the routes of following this rule it is very tough for one to prove their stance. By the other, the reader is left right where they started.

In the second rule, Hume says that there are three possibilities for every argument; that it was an act of God, that there is a natural explanation that is unknown at this time and that there simply is no explanation. Clearly, the last explanation is the weakest of the three. The first two, while they are strong arguments are very hard to prove or even disprove. Dowe argues you must use inference to the best explanation rather than deriving your explanation from all the data. Though structurally this argument seems weak, it is very helpful again in finding the interaction between science and religion. For now, he is not only trying to prove miracles but trying to show their correlation to God himself.

Many of Dowe's points are very strong in their basic form and he brings up many very good points of interaction between science and religion. His strongest argument is the idea of proportioning one's belief based on the evidence given. For this he gives the equation P (E|H1) >>P (E|H2) where H1 and H2 are the miracle and the law of nature, E is the evidence and P is the probability of the event. This is a very rational point in that it is fair to both sides and lets them defend for themselves without and bias. Because of this, it brings a very strong interaction between science and religion. The equation allows the reader to fairly look at both the religion and science sides of the miracle and lets the stronger case reign in that specific miracle. It allows interaction between the two and admits that while religion may be stronger for one miracle, science may be stronger for another. In the case that science reigns supreme, Dowe suggests that the part of the Bible that was used as proof of the miracle should now be read metaphorically instead of literally.

All of Dowe's arguments are very helpful in finding the harmony between science and religion. They give each topic its own space and ability for prove itself. At the same time though, they give little proof for explaining these points. His arguments essentially lead the reader nowhere. Even if the reader were to come to a conclusion based on Dowe's thinking, miracles don't prove anything. For miracles don't prove anything about faith, they mere create it.

The late eighteenth century was a time of great change throughout the world. It was the height of the Age of Enlightenment and a "rationalistic religion" (Deism 1) called Deism. Also in this time, The Declaration of Independence was being written by the Congress of the newly claimed United States of America. During the time of the Enlightenment, nearly everything was subjected to a test of reason and nature with the hope of change and progress. With Deism, not even God was safe from at least a few tests of reason. People felt that they "were ready to shrug off the shackles of tradition and custom and participate in the progress of civilization" (Harrison 469). This is exactly what the people of America wished to do as they wrote their Declaration of Independence from a country that allowed little participation in their civilization.

                One of the main principles of the Age of Enlightenment was reason. At that point, many enlightenment thinkers felt that "traditional institutions or customs should not be accepted because they have been long-lasting but rather should be examined critically and held up to the standard of reason" (Harrison 469). In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and others were careful to specify that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes" (Jefferson 1).  They felt that if something that has stood for that long is to be changed, it should be done for very good reason. That is why a good amount of the Declaration was spent critically examining the ways of their former King through reason. In these examinations they not only state what had been done wrong, but why it was wrong.

                Nature also played a strong role during the Age of Enlightenment and influenced the Declaration of Independence. In the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson mentions the "Powers of the Earth" and the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" (Jefferson 1). He explains that people must put them into use with a "decent respect of the opinions of mankind" (Jefferson 1) when previous political bonds have failed.  People in the time of the Enlightenment felt that "a move to nature is a move toward wholesome vigor and freedom" (Harrison 469) which were exactly the principles that American wished to base herself upon.

                Another concept strong in this time period was Deism. Deism is defined by the Dictionary of Christianity in America as a "correspondence between the rational structure of the physical universe and the rational capacity of the human mind" (Deism 1). It "focused on the glories of nature" but "assigned God to the outer reaches of the universe" (Deism 1). This form of religion is seen throughout the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson uses the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" to justify the break from Great-Britain and claims that the truths of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" are all "endowed by their Creator" (Jefferson 1). Obviously Jefferson uses religion to justify many of his arguments, but tends to give God less of a role and gives nature a stronger, more evident one.  Like many other people of the age, Jefferson seemed to feel that "God revealed himself in nature and through reason" (Deism 1).

                The main purpose of the Declaration of independence was the Enlightenment principles of change and progress. Jefferson and many other Americans were frustrated with the ways of their former King and his lack of reason. They felt that when a long enough course of abuse was designed for their demise, it was "their right... to throw off such Government and to provide new guards for their future security" (Jefferson 1).  The entire document is a demand for change. A common enlightenment thought that was shared in the Americas was that "Change... liberates individuals and should be pursued" (Harrison) and for them at least, it did liberate and it was very strongly pursued.

                In this time of great change, the eighteenth century, many ideas seemed to fuel and mold each other. Two of the main ideas that greatly influenced the Declaration of Independence were the Age of Enlightenment and Deism.  The religion of Deism and the Enlightenment view of Nature gave many ideas in the justification of the arguments. Jefferson and the other men favored the simplicity in the Laws of nature. Because of this, they also found security in "Nature's God" (Jefferson 1). The writers of the Declaration of Independence also relied strongly on reason. The reason for this Declaration was that they felt the King had no reason. They challenged and examined his ways through reason and created their own, new ways. They were bringing about another basic concept of the Enlightenment, change, so that they could "build for themselves a more perfect society" (Jefferson 1).