An Ensuing Debate

Note: this post has been updated in the debate section within the last few hours due to newer comments ...

The article titled: “L.D.S. looks to improve education,” with the lede, below, appeared in the Samoa Observer a few days ago.

The Lede:
Raising the level of education in Samoa has now become the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ main priority.  In doing so, the church has partnered with government ministries and Non Governmental Organizations to lift educational standards across the region. 

The comments to the article became a source for the “debates” among the respondents; with some, as always, denigrating the LDS Church (and religion in general) despite the generous nature of the Church's contribution and offer to improve education.  Most posters were skeptical and paranoid about the offer as well as being suspicious about the motives behind the gesture.

The more active and sustained exchange (below), however, is the one between me and a user/poster named Impensable, who was the first to comment and criticize the offer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comments:
(The seeming lapse in the order of comments, hence disrupting their flow and order, is due to the dual threads in which the conversations are held.)

Impensable:
"Raising the level of education in Samoa has now become the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ main priority. "

All very good, but perhaps they should start by removing any reference to religion, no matter how small, from education. There can be no true freedom in education unless the shackles of ignorance are removed. And religious is the worst of shackles for Samoan children.

LV:
Sorry but LDS schools are private/religious schools - not public. Removing religious references and curriculum will defeat one of the main goals of these schools. The trend among public school systems in the US and other countries is secularization and church schools help to countervail the marginalization of God in education.

"And religious [sic] is the worst of shackles for Samoan children."

Really? Sorry buddy but that's an ignorant claim! You can say this about any other country but NOT Samoa. The young people today need God in their lives and Samoan children have always been raised that way from the a'oga a le faife'au (pastor's school) to the many church schools (Catholic, SDA, LDS, Methodist, CCCS, etc.) in Apia. These churches all have primary and secondary schools that have served Samoa's youth for years.

Impensable:
Wherefore the "sic", "buddy"? Knowest thou thy English grammar or not?
Who's the ignoramus here?

Claiming young people need an Invisible Friend is the biggest joke of all time, this is exactly the kind of ignorance that keeps Samoan children in poverty. But I imagine that's precisely what people of your ilk seek to achieve, isn't it?

LV:
There's good grammar, better grammar and then there's awkward grammar.

Anyway, methinks that thou wast not born and/or raised in Samoa or you would have known about the Samoan children's religious upbringing. Or if you were, you may have been one of those who had a silver spoon in your mouth as a child, and therefore unable to identify with most of the Samoan children who were certainly poor temporally but not spiritually. The fruits of such spiritual orientation become one's anchors later in life manifested in charity, service and love for others. And "that's precisely what people of [my] ilk seek to achieve."

LV:  A follow-up post on the reason for the [sic] tag.
Why the "sic" and who's the ignoramus here?  Heheee .... Ok, here we go. Here’s the part in question:

You wrote:"There can be no true freedom in education unless the shackles of ignorance are removed. And religious is the worst of shackles for Samoan children."

Both sentences are related/connected in thought and construction.  It’s actually one sentence if you remove the period (.) after “removed”.  So if I were proofreading the above, I would definitely use “amb” (ambiguity) and “cl” (clarity) for my symbols - oh, and “awk” (awkwardness).
So what happened was that you went from a noun phrase (“shackles of ignorance”) to an adjective/adjectival phrase (“religious is the worst of shackles”) within the same thought.  And that’s awkward, if not wrong.

Two ways you can rewrite to avoid the mistakes and awkwardness:

1. There can be no true freedom in education unless the ignorant shackles are removed. And religious is the worst of shackles for Samoan children. (adjective with adjective)

2. There can be no true freedom in education unless the shackles of ignorance are removed. And religion is the worst of shackles for Samoan children. (noun with noun)

Re: Parallel Structure rule.

Hence, for the second sentence, a much better rewrite would be: 
"And the shackle of religion is the worst for Samoan children."

In that way "shackle of religion" parallels "shackles of ignorance" in the original text.

That’s the reason for the [sic] tag, ignoramus ... or should I say sicnoramus? ...LOL!

Cheers!

Impensable

"shackle"

5. Often, shackles. anything that serves to prevent freedom of procedure, thought, etc.

I rest my case. Try and teach others, you have nothing to teach me.

LV:

Alright buddy! I hope you rest your case for good now. By the way, thank you for reminding me the meaning/definition of "shackle". Indeed according to the context of your example, poor grammatical skills can also be a shackle. So here's an advice, be teachable! No matter how stubborn you are in saying that I have nothing to teach you, you actually will (if you haven't already) in a very quiet way, and during some quiet time, thank me for teaching you something in this exchange. Believe me Impensable; if you keep making the same grammatical mistakes, here or elsewhere, someone else will correct you again. But then it's times like these that you would be grateful for aliases because no one knows who you truly are, so you don't have to be defensive to the point of denial. Just admit it! Anyhow, it was good meeting you. Hope we'll still be friends. 

GB!

Impensable:
Nothing awkward about my grammar, buddy. Just acknowledge your error, it's a very Christian thing to do, isn't it?

As for "The fruits of such spiritual orientation become one's anchors later in life manifested in charity, service and love for others,", well, hahaha.
The same old story, perpetuated by old men seeking to retain old male power within a patriarchal order. I rest my case. It's kind of weird when you would rather have children in poverty, hungry, dirty, uneducated, but ensuring their "spirit" is rich. Their opinion is never asked, is it? What happens to them if they question the "traditional order" that screws up their lives? Be honest, do not dissemble. Are they physically punished? Yes or No? "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child"?

LV:
Impensable, I’ll get to the grammar issue in a moment.

Meanwhile, how did we get from churches and education to “old men seeking to retain old male power within a patriarchal order,” and the “traditional order” screwing up children’s lives?  Are you trying to pull a red herring here?  Or are you someone with a feminist agenda, or just a lad with a bone to pick with the traditional system?  In that case, you’re right you should “rest [your] case.”  You’re definitely prevaricating.

Now to the, perhaps, more important issue and lesson.  Grammar.

You:
Nothing awkward about my grammar, buddy. Just acknowledge your error, it's a very Christian thing to do, isn't it?

Me:
Well, let me try to do the “Christian thing” (again) per your appeal.  I’ve already clarified your first mistake in a separate post, but now you have another similar, yet more glaring one.  It’s in this sentence (re: underlined words):

”It's kind of weird when you would rather have children in poverty, hungry, dirty, uneducated, but ensuring their "spirit" is rich.”

Again you have a mixture of a noun and adjectives. Correct grammar would call for all nouns/noun forms, based on the syntax and context of the sentence.  The applicable grammar rule is called Parallel Structure or Parallelism.

So therefore the following would be the better - and correct - rewrite:

“It's kind of weird when you would rather have children in poverty, hunger, dirt, illiteracy, but ensuring their "spirit" is rich.”  

Yes, use all nouns following the first one - poverty.  Try removing "poverty" and see how terrible and wrong the rest of your list will be.  Using "than" instead of "but" is also recommended.

Have a good day and Happy Halloween (if you celebrate it).

Impensable
Hahaha. Amusing.

No red herring, if you see no connection between Christianism [sic] and the patriarchal order in society, then you're wilfully blind.
Enjoy your pagan festivities. Nothing Christian about Halloween in its oorigins, [sic] as you should know. But you'll probably ignore the facts, as is your wont.

LV:
I'm glad that you find the grammar lessons amusing - now go do likewise. 

If no red herring then it must be equivocation of which you're guilty. Incidentally, Christianity is the more standard term than Christianism - and the latter is not a "parallel" for many other similar "isms" (Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Methodism, Mormonism, Evangelicalism, etc.) in case it's the reason you're using a non-standard term. So if there's nothing Christian about Halloween, then it seems like the perfect celebration and holiday for you and your pagan "invisible friend" since there's a lot of "invisible friends" associated with Halloween. Ghosts! ...LOL!

(... to be continued?  We'll see.)

(Note: For those who are interested in the other comments to the article, including the rest of my comments to other posters, click this link, then scroll to the comments section at the bottom of the article.)

No Pain No Gain... Samoan?

My translations (both): 

BYU in the News .... Again.

Top US Colleges  - Sept. 27, 2016 - Wall Street Journal

"Want a school that will engage your mind? Put Brigham Young University on your short list.
Looking for a diverse student body? The City University of New York's City College could be for you.
How about a school rich enough to pour plenty of resources into your education? Head to Harvard University.
Focused on how well you'll do after graduation? You can't do better than Yale University.
And if you want all of the above and great weather to boot? Head west. Stanford University tops the inaugural Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education College Rankings."

BYU Students Win International Language Competition - October 06, 2016 

"BYU students use Arabic to win international essay competition, address the UN General Assembly.

Rachel Lott and Jamie Clegg, two BYU Arabic language students, were selected to participate in a United Nations General Assembly based on essays written in Arabic. The pair felt honored and humbled when they realized they were among only 10 finalists chosen from applicants worldwide to represent their language."

BYU Named Safest College Campus in America

"Business Insider named Brigham Young University as the no. 1 safest college campus in America. After looking at a variety of factors such as local and campus crime rates, drug and alcohol use, campus security presence, and emergency procedures, the college review site Niche determined that the BYU campus excelled in health and safety."

Freedom of Speech in Samoa

My two cents in an article on democracy and freedom of speech in the Samoa Observer.
__________________________________

Freedom of speech in the context of modern democratic societies is complex, controversial and convoluted. And it has become more so with the advent of the Internet.

In Samoa, we should not be surprised at how vague the freedom of speech concept is because of the country's fledgling political experiment with democracy. The two seem to be strange bedfellows thus far, to say the least.

Metaphorically speaking, Samoa's traditional socio-political system is a square peg trying to dovetail into the round hole of democracy.
Compounded by the divisiveness, stubbornness, reluctance - and sometimes defiance - of the present government to yield and conform to some of the democratic principles, the results have been less than compliant and/or favorable.

It is disappointing and disheartening especially when one of the country's main political goals is that of becoming a more democratic society.

The clashes between Samoa's traditional political system and its modern counterpart have been well documented through the years. We therefore should be tolerant and patient with Samoa's shortcomings and struggles in the process. She however has been making some important strides and headway in this seemingly inevitable challenge, but there's still a lot more that needs to be done.

Freedom of speech in the article tends to focus more, if not exclusively on oral speech, and the right to express oneself within a more traditional authoritarian and despotic village setting and environment. Samoa, still largely an unsophisticated and rudimentary society, politically (at least in the villages), has not yet acquired the more advanced and modern applications of the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes expressions of different kinds, not just oral speech. In fact it even includes not speaking at all especially while in protest of something. It also covers the creation and dissemination of information.

There is a bigger irony however.

Contrary to what we have come to believe through a more modern lense, Samoa's traditional system has always had - and allowed - freedom of speech. Yes. In fact a lot freer than we thought; albeit more arbitrarily than by invocation of contemporary individual rights. Though some of this traditional freedom was/is regulated, by the village councils mostly, much of it was/is not.

With regards to oral speech, traditional freedom of speech was/is maintained via the chiefly rank relations (va to'oto'o) and status quo, often propelled by the expression "O Samoa ua uma ona tofi" (Samoa has been classified). Adherence to these protocols would deter or discourage anyone from speaking out of turn, or spew any slanderous remarks or comments. Moreover, chiefs are the spokespersons for the family, village or other individuals. This social order helps keeps freedom of speech, notably among the common people, in check and under control; it also indirectly discourages and/or limits free speech, unfortunately.

Notwithstanding, however, it's Samoa's traditional culture of violence and contention that freedom of speech thrives unabridged and unbridled. Included in the above "cultures" or behaviors are words and speeches that are taunting, incendiary, provocative, threatening, inciting, etc. Obscenities, profanity, offensive actions and expressions such as sigo (mooning), faaumu (incitive whoop) are freely demonstrated often without retribution in most cases. During feuds and contentions between families and individuals, hate speeches also are freely exchanged and retaliated.

Ironically, in most democratic countries, today, many if not all of the above are illegal and punishable by law, as having fallen under disorderly conduct or other criminal acts and violations.

Samoans need to understand that restrictions on certain speeches, expressions and rights are intrinsically linked as parts of the convoluted and more comprehensive freedom of speech. In other words, certain "freedoms of expression" enjoyed in the traditional system may already be restricted and illegal in today's democratic system.

So Maui Has Been Stripped of His Costume?

Disney has acquiesced and has halted/pulled the Maui costume as a result of some complaints by a few vocal Polynesians in the name of cultural appropriation, skin color, etc.  And these fellow insular and territorial Poly’s seem to be feting this as a “victory” now, and probably are having a costume party of their own. Malo!

But, if I may crash such a party and say that Disney assented, like any other big corporation would, not necessarily because of any cultural infringement, appropriation, concerns or reasons, but, more or less, for their own bottom line. Speaking of bottom line, the whole squabble was, to borrow from The Bard, a much ado about nothing.  And in a slightly different context yet still applicable - and still Shakespearean - “.... [it was] a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” ...implicating of course a particular “almost Poly” YouTuber. (Ahem!)

Now that Disney has decided to settle its case, let me try to settle some of the things that have been misconstrued by certain protesters during the controversy.

Polynesian Culture or Cultures?
Polynesia means “many islands” and therefore “many cultures”. Obviously. The many archipelagos are diversified geographically and culturally and have evolved to create unique cultures of their own despite some similarities, mostly in legends and mythologies.  I submit therefore that there is no such thing as a Polynesian culture, in the simplest and most basic meaning of the word. Polynesia is used more as an abstract identity and label. And in case you didn’t know, at least for kicks, there is an island group called French Polynesia in Polynesia (chew that!). But this particular complainant seemed to have tried to make references to some Hawaiian practices and traditions as tenets of a larger and homogenized Polynesian culture. One culture should not intentionally and/or actively transfer or impose its peculiarities on others. That simply is far-fetched, if not blatantly ethnocentric.

Tattoos Sacred?
They may have been “sacred” in the distant past, but not anymore.  Culture is a social phenomenon and therefore changes with time, especially with the introduction of Christianity that changed many of the taboos in Polynesia, including tattoos.  Samoa, one of the most religious countries and may be the only Polynesian culture to still actively practice the art of tattooing does not consider its tattoos as sacred anymore, at least in the strictest sense of the word; as well as how it was used in the argument against Disney. Tattoos instead have become commodified and therefore have largely lost their original meaning and significance.  The patterns and designs are now abused and prostituted; printed/duplicated on fabric, clothes, plastered and etched on automobiles and other surfaces.  That’s hardly appropriate for anything that’s considered sacred, I must say.  And this commodification, unfortunately, has been perpetrated from within - by the natives themselves.  Which brings me to the next point.

Cultural Appropriation?
If Disney were a Polynesian company, the intrusions and appropriation would have been fine with other Poly’s regardless of any offensive improprieties.  Cultural appropriation does not necessarily have to be committed by outsiders only - it can be from within as well, especially within a diverse group like Polynesia with its varied cultural constituents.  For example a Samoan filmmaker can appropriate other less dominant Polynesian cultures. But I’m guessing, therefore, that we’re still preoccupied, burdened and hurt by the aftermath of the colonial and imperial eras that we’ve duly become overly sensitive and adamantly adversarial against outsiders.  I think it’s about time that we move on. (“Can we all just get along?”)  Sometimes when one keeps insisting on his/her rights and  “right of way”, the outcome is often a crash and/or clash with others. I’m not saying that we should be absolutely passive in all things - far from it. But a mere costume is something that shouldn’t ruffle our feathers, cause our combs to stand up (Chicken!) and get our adrenaline rushing. Save them for many more important issues.  There’s too much of this PC business today!  And believe me, whatever modification or change is made to the costume, there will always be some who will be offended.  And then when there’s no costume, someone will accuse Disney of prejudice and discrimination since all other Disney characters have costumes - but not Maui.

Sole Proprietor of Brown Skin?
And since when did we Poly’s copyright, monopolize and patent brown skin?  There are many other brown-skinned people in the world, mind you. As I said previously, does that mean that we shall now start protesting the sunbathers at the beaches and customers in tanning salons?  And most certainly, by the way, there are also those whose skin colors are fair, darker, etc. who’d claim to be true “Polynesians” or trace their origins and roots to Polynesia.  So we can blame Disney for marginalizing Polynesians; but how about Polynesians marginalizing Polynesians?

So, again, please lighten up (multiple puns intended)!

Finally, with reference to the protesters’ stance, one of my favorite Samoan adages is “Atonu e sa’o ae le a’o” (“[you] may be correct but not right”).  In a nutshell, correctness often connotes a particular conformity within a specific time, setting and subject whereas rightness involves a broader and more inclusive sphere, context and continuum.

Faafetai Lava!

Book of Mormon Lessons for Our Day

It was my turn to teach our Sunday School class (English) this past Sunday.  The lesson was on chapters 1-5 of the Book of Helaman in the Book of Mormon (BoM).

One of the claims about the Book of Mormon is that it was “written” for the latter days (today, our day).  And this lesson certainly supports that claim.  These particular chapters contain some of the parallels and similarities between the BoM societies and those of today.  The chapters describe - among other things - secret combinations which are groups/individuals that engage in secret dealings, carry out killings, murders, violence and have secret signs, codes, communication, etc.  And in light of the events of this past weekend in New York and New Jersey (explosions and bombs), present-day gang activities, etc. the lesson seemed all the more pertinent.

The chapters/lesson also cover some political pandemonium of the times and which has relevance to the present pandemonium in US politics, specifically the current presidential election. There are warnings in the lesson that need to be heeded, at the very least by America, considering not only its association with the BoM (Americas being the “lands” of the BoM) but also its role in the world as a leader in democracy and  religious freedom.  Remember, too, that America was founded by people who were mostly seeking freedom of religion.

This election again is already known for its strange, demeaning, vicious and degrading nature with its two final candidates unlike any others before.  According to polls and surveys, they are the most untrustworthy and the least popular.  It’s the first time that this has happened.  The real unfortunate thing about the two nominees is that they can be a direct reflection of the present American electorate - The People.  Despite other mechanisms in the American electoral process, the people, in a very real sense, are still “the voice” in these elections.

The “voice of the people”

“Voice of the people” is a phrase that is found throughout the Book of Mormon.  It is a metaphor whose meaning is the same as today's majority rule. It underscores the wisdom and trustworthiness of the voice of the majority especially in democratic elections.  So in the beginning of the lesson, I told the class to ponder this question: “Should the voice of the people always be trusted and/or right?”

The consensus was a  “No!”, and the implication is that it depends on the general disposition of the people, whether good or bad.  Simply, if the people are good, their voice would be right; if they are bad/wicked, their voice would reflect that disposition.

The BoM affirms that:
“... it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right ....” (Mosiah 29:26)

In the first four chapters of the text (Helaman 1-4), the voice of the people appointed the right and good individuals to be leaders (judges), including Helaman himself in chapter 2:

“And it came to pass that Helaman, who was the son of Helaman, was appointed to fill the judgment-seat, by the voice of the people.” (Helaman 2:2)

This means that the majority of the people were still good/righteous and were in control, but within the space of about 20 years, the voice of the people had changed.  Those who chose evil outnumbered those who chose good.

“For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.” (Helaman 5:2 emphasis mine)

In other words society had become so corrupt and immoral that the majority of the people chose bad over good, and wrong over right.

In political philosophy, this condition is akin to what is often referred to as the “tyranny of the majority”. ( “Tyranny” can be substituted with other words like wickedness, ignorance, pride, etc.)  It’s a nightmare for any civil and moral society when such condition exists.  The hedonistic and corrupt changes in the BoM societies came about because the people had abandoned and rejected God and their hearts were set on their wealth and riches.  Pride had therefore been planted  in the hearts of the people who had shunned the commandments, hence their downfall. Do these have any parallels today?  I think so.

Again this presidential election is unlike any other before. The Republican Party which is a party of conservatism and traditional values is apparently in turmoil.  Its foundation has been rocked and shaken and will likely never regain its traditional footing and religious leanings. And the people are actually supporting these changes much to the chagrin of the party’s base supporters.  The numbers of those who would choose the bad leaders seem to be gaining in popularity more than those who would choose otherwise.  What is more interesting perhaps is that this hypothesis/trend coincides with other related findings like the one below.

A recent article in a local paper cites this from a Pew Research survey:

The share of religiously unaffiliated voters [“nones”] in the Democratic Party has surged over the last 20 years, leading to a growing God gap between America's two main political parties, according to a new Pew Research Center study.

The percentage of Democratic voters who identify as "nones" has nearly tripled in two decades, growing at a faster rate within the Democratic Party than in the U.S. population as a whole. "In 2016, nearly 3 in 10 (29 percent) Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters are religiously unaffiliated — describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or 'nothing in particular' — up from just 10 percent in 1996," Pew reported.

Today, 12 percent of Republican voters are religiously unaffiliated, a 6 percentage point increase over 20 years, the study noted.

A separate study by the Public Religion Research Institute notes that

...nones now make up 25 percent of the American population, making them the single largest “faith group” in the U.S., ahead of Catholics (21 percent) and white evangelicals (16 percent).

The trend is worrisome because obviously these numbers (“nones”) will not likely to decrease.  America in general is becoming more secular and godless.  Within a period of 20-50 years, who knows what kinds of leaders will be appointed by the voice of the people if the present trend holds - starting with this year’s elections.  Another perhaps more disturbing finding in the above survey is that most of the “nones” are found among young people, who will be the “voice of the people” in the future.  Alarming?  I definitely think so.

There’s some optimism and hope however at least by a well-known pastor and theologian Timothy Keller in his new book “Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical" in which he claims that secularism, not religion, is set to decline.  But this is more a global prognostication.  In America alone, sadly, the trend is in the opposite direction according to this finding:

It should be noted that many of the fears and warnings surrounding secularism's increase stem from a 2015 Pew Research report that found the share of Christians in America decreased from 78.4 percent in 2007 to 70.6 percent in 2014.

This finding seems to reflect the current and recent socio-political issues and changes in America.

The obvious question is: What would the “voice of the people” be like in 20 years in America? What kinds of leaders will they choose?  If the present pattern continues, it doesn't look encouraging.

So is there hope?  Despite the gloomy outlook, my answer is “Yes!”  The lesson’s solution - and mine too - is found in the sure foundation mentioned in this verse:

And now, ... remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.  (Helaman 5:12 - emphasis mine)

(Note: Being unaffiliated with a religion does not necessarily mean or imply not believing in God.)