An English Major Thinking Stories Have Value... How Odd

I've been spending more time at the Food Pantry now that I'm able to. It's been a lot of helping Sister Lynn with the organization of everything. I do get to see a lot of the families of the neighborhood who come in to get their food.

Honestly, they don't really talk that much about their lives. They mostly ask about hours, what extra food they can take, and when they should come to pick up their bags. I did hear someone talking about the free meals around Dubuque and which ones were the best (I can't remember them, so sadly I can't give a Guide to the Best Free Meals in Dubuque...), but other than that, talk is mostly oriented on the Food Pantry services.

I really like hearing about people's lives, so this makes me a little sad. We aren't really encouraged to talk with the people who come in- I assume to make them feel less awkward. I think some of the people who do come in would like to talk more, but they don't. It could be because everything is run so methodically, or it could be that they feel awkward, or it could be some other reason.

We've been taking requests for Christmas baskets, and I think the thing that surprises me the most is the large number of people who have asked for them. I've had to sort the sheets, and I always think, "This isn't just a sheet; this is a person."

I think that a lot of different kinds of people come into the Food Pantry. Many of the people who enter you would never even guess would need a food pantry. I'm curious and maybe I shouldn't, but I always wonder what's brought them there. I think that it's harder to make ends meet in this economy, and I'm sure a lot of them would have a story about that. I always think they could shatter a lot of perceptions and stereotypes people have about the lower classes with their stories. As Nussbaum points out, "Most of us have fears and blind spots that militate against the acknowledgement of some of our fellow citizens" (99). I think that if too many people are prejudiced againt the poor (e.g. they're just lazy), then there's a chance they won't get the help they need. If more of them have their stories told, people can sympathize and also be able to better help them. They will be more aware of their needs. They will also be able to see them as relatable people.

I would hate for the Food Pantry to be shut down, because it does help so many people. It won't be any time soon. Many people donate, but it would be terrible if all of the sudden everyone stopped. (Unless, of course, it was because no one required the services anymore. That would be awesome.) I know a lot of people are afraid of the Washington neighborhood. I've heard people say that they are. I think if they heard the stories they might be less afraid. They also might learn how to better help the people there and be able to respond more to their needs.

When I read the Nussbaum chapter, I formed the opinion that she thinks similarly on this issue. She pointed out that literary works could help in forming sympathy or thinking from another group's perspective. I think it can do this. She also pointed out how there are underlying prejudices in novels, and I think this is also important to keep in mind. I'm an English major, so I'm naturally going to think books are even better than sliced bread. I think starting to read to children early on, especially books that can help them understand things- like how it feels bad to be bullied, can only aide them in the future. Nussbaum agrees when she says, "As children grasp such complex facts [like fairness for being bullied] in imagination, they become capable of compassion" (90). I think Nussbaum thinks books have great value, and naturally I agree with her.

I always understand concepts the best when I hear a story about them. I think a lot of people learn similarly. When I'm trying to explain words or phrases to my friends who don't speak English, I give them the meaning, but I also always give examples of when the word or phrase is used. One of my friends told me that he liked this approach because it helped him understand way more than if I had just given him the definition. I think this is true. Sometimes a definition isn't enough. Sometimes you need more than that to truly understand something. I think it's the same way with history. I can say, "The Great Depression was bad. A lot of people lost their jobs and didn't have enough to eat." And you'll maybe think about it for a second. If I tell a tale about a specific family who had to eat the rats that lived in the sewers for food because they didn't have enough money, you'd think about it a lot more. (That's not a story I've heard, by the way... It was just dramatic-sounding.) People have been telling stories for as long as they could communicate... I think there's a reason for that.

Controversial Catholicism

First off, Liz: fabulous job. Very thorough presentation!

I always knew that Catholicism was large, but I had no idea that it was 1/6 the world’s population. I feel like that makes sense though. I can see even more why Protestants would be a bit nervous about a Catholic president. We are a rather large group to deal with... and only getting larger.

One thing I’ve always liked about the Catholic Church is its consistency with the message about life. I never thought it made sense to be ok with abortion but not capital punishment or the other way around. I like that they vote for life in both areas. I find it consistent. I like consistency.

I liked that Ann (was that who Liz was talking to? Whoever Liz was talking to) mentioned that she didn’t think the abortion protestors were providing many alternatives. I think this is important. You need to have alternatives to issues. You can’t just say, “You shouldn’t do this.” And then leave it at that. Who’s going to listen to you? Really, why should they?

I also think it was interesting that she mentioned that the people of Dubuque haven’t taken that much interest in the things that don’t concern them. I think this is how most people feel. I know I often get this way. It’s probably a reason not as many Catholics are as active as they should be.

I think the Catholic Church has some very nice messages about helping the poor. I think the poor should be helped. I know charity is the most effective immediate way, but sometimes I wonder. Like I mentioned in my first entry, I’ve been working at a homeless shelters since I was seven giving out food to people who needed it. I knew that for some of the people, this was the only way they would get food. Even at seven, I knew that. But sometimes I’m not entirely sure it really is helping them. I watch these same people get food week after week, and I almost feel like I’m doing them a disservice. I’ve sometimes felt like by giving them this food every single week, year in and year out that I’m actually hindering them. I’m providing them with too much to fall back on. They don’t really need to try because I’m just handing it to them. I suppose it would be different if they didn’t come every single time, but they come so often that the nuns know them by name and they know how to get as much food out of each visit as they can. I know it sounds crazy, but I sometimes feel like I’m really making things worse for them. I know some of them really need it, but I sometimes doubt how charitable charity really is. It’s going to sound conservative, I know, but in my experience helping people TOO much actually hurts them. I’m not saying don’t help people, that would never work. I just think handing them too much has always proven to be a bad idea. I do think that the lowest should be looked at first, but I think sometimes we focus so much on the lowest that we neglect EVERYONE else. I would say look at the lowest, but if it’s hurting everyone else it’s not really for the common good.

I thought that Health Care Reform letter was one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a long time. When they wrote, “Decent health care is not a privilege, but a right and a requirement to protect the life and dignity of every person.” I wanted to say, “duh, that’s not the issue at hand.” Every single person in the United States of America, regardless of their legal status, has access to health care. It’s against the law NOT to treat people. If someone goes to the ER, they legally have to be treated. The reform is actually insurance reform. I feel like the letter completely neglected this. It was like, “Yay, flowery sentiments about everyone being treated… OH AND ABORTION IS EVIL.” That section on abortion was so long and became such a focus that it became a joke. I feel very strongly about the health care bill, but I really don’t think the main issue is abortion in this. I expected more about helping people get health care insurance that would protect them or something. I feel like the bishops really dropped the ball on that one.

Yeah, I have a feeling I’m probably going to make some people mad with this entry. Ah well, it’s how I feel.

Adding the Presbyterians

I had to go off of the readings for this one and a little bit off of what blogs had been posted. (Sorry that I missed your presentation, Ed and Joe. I wish I could have seen it.)

The first thing that struck me was that, like the Lutherans, Presbyterians also have the faith with works following idea. I did like reading, “Many commentators have been bewildered that these theological convictions have not bred passivity in Reformed churches but instead have fostered vigorous activity and impulses toward societal transformation.” This is actually something I always expect to happen when I hear the faith thing first. I would expect that to take over and the works to get lost somewhere along the way. The reading claims that works are seen as a way to express your faith, an idea which I like. I think that because of Jesus’ ministry, the best way to show that you received the message and agree with it would be through works. I suppose I’ve never really thought about that before. I’m glad that’s one way it manifests itself.

I also think it’s interesting that the Presbyterian Church, as a whole, tend to be from more educated classes. I would think this would affect the way they view things. Educated people would be more concerned with reason and order, so it makes sense that they tend to be this way. I also find it interesting that they seem to have such a positive view about the abilities of the government. I suppose mine have always been slightly clouded, so I find it interesting when a group thinks there is a “’common grace’ available to persons to shape social institutions for the common good and not merely to restrain human sinfulness.” I suppose I agree that COULD be the case, but in my experience when someone tries to shape it for the common good, it usually ends up backfiring. But perhaps I’m a bit too cynical- I am from Chicago. We aren’t exactly known for our upstanding politicians. I’m glad they do acknowledge that this power can be corrupted, though.

I like the structure more than the UCC and Lutheran structures. I wouldn’t expect the entire church to get involved in every tiny detail, but I’m glad that they have lay people represented. It sounds like they are able to represent more of what the people from congregation to congregation want. The UCC seemed to be more just a bunch of liberal ministers deciding things. I don’t really think it was that reflective of anything in the church because so many of the churches branched off and went their own direction. I prefer a bit more stability in doctrines and ideas. It also seemed a bit more decisive than the Lutheran church.

One thing I have noticed is that not one of these churches seems to slack on human dignity. None of them seem to have an uncaring message that says, “As long as you believe in God, it doesn’t matter what you do.” I wasn’t expecting this message, but I suppose it could have existed. The churches focusing on faith before works could have fallen into this trap, but I’m very glad to see they haven’t. All in all, I think they all have a very similar message when it comes to social justice.