April 17, 2003

As a general rule, all "-isms" are troubling and the only thing that keeps people from too much trouble is that these "-isms" conflict and keep each other in check.

On a side note, I'm glad the framers of the US had the foresight to see that the greediness of human nature calls for the need of a system of checks and balances on the government. And while it is frustrating and time consuming to have the bureaucracy clamoring and bickering for power, for the most part the system works and there is a fair amount of representation of opinions. Things start becoming dangerous when the different aspects of the government start to achieve homogeneity in regards to party affiliation.

This whole stream of consciousness about -isms began when the subject of Catholicism was brought up, namely, why am I agnostic and not Catholic? I come from a racially and religiously diverse background. On one side is my White Californian dad, and on the other are my Pilipino Catholic mom and her family. I mention my mom's family and not my dad's because culturally the family is more emphasized in the Philippines as compared to the US. Anyway, I don't remember my dad criticizing religion in front of me until I started to, so I'll speak with that assumption. When presented with dinosaurs and stars and Catholicism as a kid; science made more sense to me. It was much more tolerant. Anything was possible, because nothing in science was concrete; it was all the pursuit of truth. In Catholicism there were absolutes; things were in the Bible or they were wrong. You did the ceremony and you said you believed or you were condemned. Now, after being submersed in a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male environment, I appreciate the dichotomy of Catholicism and science that I was brought up in.

This brings me full circle back to the idea that homogeneity is problematic. I guess on a smaller level, it shows the importance of sharing and hearing valid ideas even if they are unpopular.