Yesterday (Saturday) was the first day of Ramadan, the holiest month in the Muslim calendar. In this sacred time, which celebrates the revealing of the Quran to Mohamed, followers of the god of the Old Testament, New Testament and Quran have three major reponsibilities: Fasting from sunrise to sunset, prayer, and reflection upon the Quran (the final book sent to Man by God). In honor of the start of Ramadan, and since I have been reading the Quran at bedtime the last several weeks, I thought we might celebrate this holy time with some inspirational messages from God. At the end, I will also post President Obama's official video marking the start of this holy month.
I will conduct this celebration of Quranic wisdom over the course of several posts. If you wish to follow along with me and celebrate the perfect religion, as sent to earth by God, you can either get your own free copy of the Quran at www.yourmuslimneighbor.com, as I did, or buy a copy (use the link at the bottom of this post).
It is worth pointing out that the god of the Quran is the same god who authored the Old Testament and New Testament. The Quran, this god tells us, is the final revelation, the perfection of religion. If you are a Christian or Jew, this is your God talking to you. We know this the same way we know of the validity of his previous works: because he says so.
Below are some passages that I have highlighted (with my Holy Highliter). Verses from the Quran will be italicized (These were not cut and pasted, I typed them directly from the Quran, so any typographical mistakes are mine). My comments will reflect, I hope, an open mind and an open heart, both of which my friends at yourmuslimneighbor.com said were required to read the Quran. I have tried not to read anything into the passages.
I will start with Chapter Two, since Chapter One doesn't have much content:
2:2 - This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear God.
2:6 - As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
2:7 - God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
2:10 - In their hearts is a disease; and God has increased their disease; and grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
If I understand the above correctly, this god chooses who will believe, and then gives those chosen to choose not to believe heart disease. This is something quite verifiable: Muslims, according to the Quran, should not get heart disease -- only non-Muslims should get heart disease. Has this study been done? If the results of such a study showed that some Muslims do get heart disease, we could conclude that they are obviously not true Muslims.
And since heart disease is a direct result of the actions of this god, I think we could safely conclude that fighting heart disease is a direct affront to this god. Therefore, anyone who works to cure heart disease, no matter how indirectly (funding heart disease research, investing in companies that make heart drugs or related technology, etc.) must be a Unbelievers.
Such a study could be cross-referenced during Ramadan. Since true believers will be observing Ramadan, then anyone eating between sunrise and sunset could easily be identified as Unbelievers and as such, will either have or will be getting heart disease.
Some might think that the use of the word "heart" is metaphoric in nature, but I would counter that God would not mislead His Believers like that. Also, having a full knowledge of human anatomy (he invented it, right?), if he meant the prefrontal cortex or whatever part(s) of the brain is/are involved in such matters, He could have said so.
In 2:65, about those "who trangressed in the matter of the Sabbath" this god points out "[b]e you apes, despised and rejected."
Wow, that's a little rough on the apes. I find it odd for two main reasons: 1. Apes must be a creation of this god, so why should they be despised and rejected? Why (and how) would a perfect god create something that is to be despised and rejected? And why the apes? If something in creation was to be despised, why that which is closest to humans and not viruses, or tapeworms, or other things that harm the pinnacle of creation? Which brings us to 2. Humans are a type of ape. If you believe in the creation of all existence by a god such as the one in the Quran, you have to suspect that the fact that we are nearly identical to other ape species might imply that the other ape species should be held in higher esteem, not despised and rejected. Odd.
As for people who do not worship the god of the Quran: 2:170 - When it is said to them: "Follow what God has revealed:" they say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?
I have actually had a similar discussion with some Christians on MySpace. One of these Unbelievers, as predicted by the Quran, wanted proof of God's word. Many, many times in the Quran, the fate of those who question Faith is made explicit: they will be "Companions of the Fire" and no help will be given to them despite their cries. These discussions, I have to remind myself at some point, are useless, because we know that God decides who will be the Believers and Unbelievers.
2:213 - Mankind was one single nation, and God sent Messengers with glad tidings and warnings; and with them He sent the Book in truth, to judge between people in matters wherein they differed; but the People of the Book, after clear Signs came to them, did not differ among themselves, except through selfish contumacy. God by His grace guided the Believers to the Truth; concerning that wherein they differed. For God guides whom He will to a path that is straight.
Chapter Two touches on the fairer sex (there will be much more about this later, as Chapter Four's title is "The Women")...
2:221 - Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: a slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allure you.
2:222 - They ask you concerning a woman's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: so keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.
The above two verses point out a couple of interesting facts:
1. It becomes clear as one reads the Quran that it is written for men (and maybe butch lesbians, I haven't seen anything prohibiting that yet).
2. The fact that atheism never condemns women for their reproductive biology or professes slavery, shows just how evil it is. This could be used as another test of true Muslims, by the way. We can pretty safely assume that men who approach women during their "courses" are not true believers (and, therefore, will be suffering from heart disease at some point).
2:256 - Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.
The "no compulsion" clause, while I agree with it wholeheartedly, seems to conflict with all the threats in the Quran, as does the idea that truth is self-evident. I would think that the very need to write that something is self-evident negates that claim.
2:267 - ... And know that God if Free of all wants, and Worthy of all praise.
If this god is free of wants, then why does it care what we believe? Or if we praise it?
2:272 - ...God sets right on the path whom He pleases
Again, the Unbelievers are such because God intended it that way. This is made very clear throughout the Quran.
2:276 - ... He does not love ungrateful and wicked creatures.
The fact that this god made things that he does not love is odd. But who am I to question that?
That is a nice start, for now. I suggest that you get your own copy of the Quran and read it with an open mind and an open heart.
As you watch President Obama's message to Muslims below, keep in mind that fact that the Quran makes it quite clear, as we shall see in upcoming chapters, that Unbelievers, including Christians, are to be fought, slain, and subdued (9:29, among others).
Since it is now after sunset, I am going to go find something to eat. Have a lovely week. :-)
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
"Immigration Reform."
There are a few things in this world that will piss me off pretty quickly. One of them is when people try to manipulate others, and influence public policy, with rhetoric (AKA, bullshit). I am okay with arguments for just about anything -- in fact, I enjoy hearing various viewpoints. But I get ticked when people try to slip bullshit past me (and you).
One way people try to sneak their agenda into policy decisions is by changing names or phrases. I believe George Carlin used to point this out sometimes.
One current one that bugs me is "undocumented immigrant." The subliminal image is of some innocent person showing up at a point of immigration and goings "Oops, I seem to have lost my documents." Ummm... No.
By "undocumented immigrant," these people mean someone who came into the country without an invitation or without obtaining permission. This would mean that the "immigrant" crossed international borders without legal authority. In a case like this, I prefer the term "international criminal."
If someone refuses to go through the proper legal channels before arriving in a new nation (i.e., they lack respect for the law of the land before they even step foot in it), a precedent of criminality and disrespect for that nation's laws has been set. Based on those demonstrated values, what should we expect next from such a person and their family? Not much, if you ask me.
I hear talk about "immigration reform," but I don't hear what the problem is that needs reforming. Most Americans are descendants of people who managed to immigrate legally (SEE NOTE 1). My maternal great-grandparents and paternal grandparents managed to get here legally and assimilate into American culture. In fact, one of my father's older sisters was turned back at Ellis Island and had to return to Germany and come back later when things were in order. Were her civil rights violated? Was "immigration reform" needed? No. She needed to be in compliance with US regulations, even if it meant that she had to go back while her parents and some of her siblings stayed here. Was it a hardship? You betcha. Repeat after me: "Life is not fair." If necessary, go cry a little when you say that. Then dry your tears and say it again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually, you'll grow up and take responsibility for your own actions and not feel like you need to apologize for the requirement of others to do the same.
Despite this horrendous civil rights offense on my family, we assimilated and have become, in my opinion, productive members of American society (SEE NOTE 2). We even learned to read, write and speak English, without American taxpayers having to fund my family's obligation to learn the language in which the nation's documents are written. Those hard-working, honest, law-abiding, do-something-for-America values have carried on in my family largely because of the honest example set by my ancestors.
We have more than enough things to spend tax money (i.e., money borrowed from foreigners because we can't afford our government) on without financing lawlessness and civic irresponsibility. One ridiculous argument I have heard is that we can't afford to process and deport international criminals. Absolutely. But we should not be responsible for paying for the actions of criminals who are citizens of other nations. If a citizen of Nation X requires an expenditure of our federal dollars because of their criminality, that nation gets a bill (or gets the amount deducted from whatever financial aid we are borrowing money for to send them). There's my idea of "immigration reform:" responsibility.
Another manipulative buzz word is that we should seek ways to "legalize" "undocumented immigrants." Nice: Compound bullshit. Very creative. What other criminals should we "legalize?" Thieves? Drunk drivers? Kidnappers? Murderers? After all, if we "legalized" more criminals, crime statistics would drop, as would the number of incarcerated Americans. That's a fact, based on cold, hard definitions and statistics.
And I'll add one more thing: The idea that we need to lower the standards for immigration is an insult to those who are currently immigrating to America, legally or otherwise. Given that in most of the talk about immigration, the implication is quietly that of meaning Latino immigration, I might argue that this constitutes "hate speech" (SEE NOTE 3). Are proponents of "immigration reform" saying that immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, and so many other European nations were somehow more able or willing to meet immigration requirements than those of Latino descent -- that is, that they were intellectually or ethically superior? If not, then why do we need to lower standards for them? I reject your implication. Take your "hate speech" and racism elsewhere.
Maybe I am way off base here. Perhaps my views reflect ignorance (or perhaps I am just not buying the rhetoric). As always, I am open to discourse based on fact, reason, and compassion. Feel free to enlighten me as to why we should borrow money to accommodate international criminals and accept them as members of our society with the same rights and benefits as law-abiding citizens. In all of the debates, I am not hearing real arguments, only buzzwords meant to manipulate the general public.
NOTE 1: There are exceptions, of course, most notably those who are descendants of the early colonists who showed up on American shores and knowingly and purposely decimated the native populations. It's worth pointing out that these early settlers were Christians and justified their genocidal rampages with the will of their god and his lovely son. I am not making this up, nor am I exaggerating. I have even seen this in my regional historical research. The first time I saw mention in some local historic documents of the local "savages" being removed by the grace of god for the good of the pious, I was pretty shocked. I shouldn't have been, but I was a bit more naive about the real effects and motives of religionists at the time.
NOTE 2: Descendants of my aunt who was sent back to Europe have included a school teacher, college professor, business owners, member of the military, author, nonprofit officer and other respectable and productive parts of American society.
NOTE 3: "Hate speech" is another manipulative phrase, primarily used by the same people who like the phrase "immigration reform." In the current immigration arena, it is intended to keep people from pointing out the discriminatory nature of "immigration reform."
One way people try to sneak their agenda into policy decisions is by changing names or phrases. I believe George Carlin used to point this out sometimes.
One current one that bugs me is "undocumented immigrant." The subliminal image is of some innocent person showing up at a point of immigration and goings "Oops, I seem to have lost my documents." Ummm... No.
By "undocumented immigrant," these people mean someone who came into the country without an invitation or without obtaining permission. This would mean that the "immigrant" crossed international borders without legal authority. In a case like this, I prefer the term "international criminal."
If someone refuses to go through the proper legal channels before arriving in a new nation (i.e., they lack respect for the law of the land before they even step foot in it), a precedent of criminality and disrespect for that nation's laws has been set. Based on those demonstrated values, what should we expect next from such a person and their family? Not much, if you ask me.
I hear talk about "immigration reform," but I don't hear what the problem is that needs reforming. Most Americans are descendants of people who managed to immigrate legally (SEE NOTE 1). My maternal great-grandparents and paternal grandparents managed to get here legally and assimilate into American culture. In fact, one of my father's older sisters was turned back at Ellis Island and had to return to Germany and come back later when things were in order. Were her civil rights violated? Was "immigration reform" needed? No. She needed to be in compliance with US regulations, even if it meant that she had to go back while her parents and some of her siblings stayed here. Was it a hardship? You betcha. Repeat after me: "Life is not fair." If necessary, go cry a little when you say that. Then dry your tears and say it again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually, you'll grow up and take responsibility for your own actions and not feel like you need to apologize for the requirement of others to do the same.
Despite this horrendous civil rights offense on my family, we assimilated and have become, in my opinion, productive members of American society (SEE NOTE 2). We even learned to read, write and speak English, without American taxpayers having to fund my family's obligation to learn the language in which the nation's documents are written. Those hard-working, honest, law-abiding, do-something-for-America values have carried on in my family largely because of the honest example set by my ancestors.
We have more than enough things to spend tax money (i.e., money borrowed from foreigners because we can't afford our government) on without financing lawlessness and civic irresponsibility. One ridiculous argument I have heard is that we can't afford to process and deport international criminals. Absolutely. But we should not be responsible for paying for the actions of criminals who are citizens of other nations. If a citizen of Nation X requires an expenditure of our federal dollars because of their criminality, that nation gets a bill (or gets the amount deducted from whatever financial aid we are borrowing money for to send them). There's my idea of "immigration reform:" responsibility.
Another manipulative buzz word is that we should seek ways to "legalize" "undocumented immigrants." Nice: Compound bullshit. Very creative. What other criminals should we "legalize?" Thieves? Drunk drivers? Kidnappers? Murderers? After all, if we "legalized" more criminals, crime statistics would drop, as would the number of incarcerated Americans. That's a fact, based on cold, hard definitions and statistics.
And I'll add one more thing: The idea that we need to lower the standards for immigration is an insult to those who are currently immigrating to America, legally or otherwise. Given that in most of the talk about immigration, the implication is quietly that of meaning Latino immigration, I might argue that this constitutes "hate speech" (SEE NOTE 3). Are proponents of "immigration reform" saying that immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, and so many other European nations were somehow more able or willing to meet immigration requirements than those of Latino descent -- that is, that they were intellectually or ethically superior? If not, then why do we need to lower standards for them? I reject your implication. Take your "hate speech" and racism elsewhere.
Maybe I am way off base here. Perhaps my views reflect ignorance (or perhaps I am just not buying the rhetoric). As always, I am open to discourse based on fact, reason, and compassion. Feel free to enlighten me as to why we should borrow money to accommodate international criminals and accept them as members of our society with the same rights and benefits as law-abiding citizens. In all of the debates, I am not hearing real arguments, only buzzwords meant to manipulate the general public.
XXX
NOTE 1: There are exceptions, of course, most notably those who are descendants of the early colonists who showed up on American shores and knowingly and purposely decimated the native populations. It's worth pointing out that these early settlers were Christians and justified their genocidal rampages with the will of their god and his lovely son. I am not making this up, nor am I exaggerating. I have even seen this in my regional historical research. The first time I saw mention in some local historic documents of the local "savages" being removed by the grace of god for the good of the pious, I was pretty shocked. I shouldn't have been, but I was a bit more naive about the real effects and motives of religionists at the time.
NOTE 2: Descendants of my aunt who was sent back to Europe have included a school teacher, college professor, business owners, member of the military, author, nonprofit officer and other respectable and productive parts of American society.
NOTE 3: "Hate speech" is another manipulative phrase, primarily used by the same people who like the phrase "immigration reform." In the current immigration arena, it is intended to keep people from pointing out the discriminatory nature of "immigration reform."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Too Bad I Don't Believe In Ghosts
I received a call from a writer (producer?) at the Travel Channel today. He wanted me to consult on a program (SEE NOTE 1). If I was as credulous or dishonest as much of the human population, I could get myself on TV. That's too high of a price, though.
The program is an episode of Ghost Adventures (or something like that). They are doing an episode on the Execution Rocks Lighthouse. This lighthouse, in the western part of the Long Island Sound, has a mystique related to its name.
There's a tireless story that says the rocks are named for a British practice of chaining revolutionary colonists to the rocks at low tide and allowing the rising tide to claim them (and take them off to Davey Jones' locker, I suppose). This story has also been told as one of local natives killing early colonists this way. In my 2004 book, Long Island's Lighthouses: Past and Present, I quoted two highly respected local historians from about 1800 that showed that the name of the rocks came from their knack for claiming ships bound to or from New York and the Hudson River. Not quite as exciting, right? (SEE NOTE 2)
I suspect that my skeptical historian attitude came through in the phone conversation. Not only is the story of tabloid-quality historicity -- actually, it's pretty safe to say that it is just plain BS -- I also have not yet been persuaded that ghosts exist. I am open to the possibility, as I am with most things, but I have yet to see any serious research that showed anything resembling proof. On the other hand, I have seen lots of respectable research in neuroscience that shows that the brain is not to be trusted too easily; that it plays lots of tricks on us that are easy to demonstrate but tough to control in everyday life.
I was invited to come along for the filming of the episode, but I doubt I will do it. Sure, it'd be nice to take a day off of work, take a boat ride, get on TV again and establish some new contacts in the media, but I value my reputation as a reliable source of information and don't need to be associated with ghost stories. Besides, a guy quoting reliable sources and questioning sensationalist stories is not as marketable to the American-Idolized general public as someone with a "gee whiz, I once heard something go bump in the night and I felt cold and got goose bumps and nearly wet myself" story. I'll probably be listed in the credits and that's about as close as I need to get (unless they want a counter-point, which I doubt).
NOTE 1: Those of you who don't really know me might be surprised by this, but I have been in a couple of documentaries, been interviewed on TV and radio, consulted on movies, magazine and newspaper articles, books, etc., been the subject of some newspaper articles, blah, blah, blah. It's not as common as it used to be, but every so often I get a message that someone saw me -- or saw me mentioned -- somewhere. Although my wife likes to joke that I am a "media whore," I prefer to remain largely anonymous (what's more anonymous than being a bass player?). If there is a cause that's needs and deserves publicity, I'll step up, but it requires a major gear change for me.
NOTE 2: My experience as a historical researcher is part of the reason I don't read religious scripture as historical texts. Humans are much better at being storytellers than historians. Even very recent events get distorted with sensationalism and various agenda. Expand that over multiple (often anonymous) authors, various translators, and hundreds or thousands of years and you end up with extremely poor resources for history. Think about all the people you know: How many of them are trustworthy historians? Now how many are quite often full of shit? See what I mean?
The program is an episode of Ghost Adventures (or something like that). They are doing an episode on the Execution Rocks Lighthouse. This lighthouse, in the western part of the Long Island Sound, has a mystique related to its name.
There's a tireless story that says the rocks are named for a British practice of chaining revolutionary colonists to the rocks at low tide and allowing the rising tide to claim them (and take them off to Davey Jones' locker, I suppose). This story has also been told as one of local natives killing early colonists this way. In my 2004 book, Long Island's Lighthouses: Past and Present, I quoted two highly respected local historians from about 1800 that showed that the name of the rocks came from their knack for claiming ships bound to or from New York and the Hudson River. Not quite as exciting, right? (SEE NOTE 2)
I suspect that my skeptical historian attitude came through in the phone conversation. Not only is the story of tabloid-quality historicity -- actually, it's pretty safe to say that it is just plain BS -- I also have not yet been persuaded that ghosts exist. I am open to the possibility, as I am with most things, but I have yet to see any serious research that showed anything resembling proof. On the other hand, I have seen lots of respectable research in neuroscience that shows that the brain is not to be trusted too easily; that it plays lots of tricks on us that are easy to demonstrate but tough to control in everyday life.
I was invited to come along for the filming of the episode, but I doubt I will do it. Sure, it'd be nice to take a day off of work, take a boat ride, get on TV again and establish some new contacts in the media, but I value my reputation as a reliable source of information and don't need to be associated with ghost stories. Besides, a guy quoting reliable sources and questioning sensationalist stories is not as marketable to the American-Idolized general public as someone with a "gee whiz, I once heard something go bump in the night and I felt cold and got goose bumps and nearly wet myself" story. I'll probably be listed in the credits and that's about as close as I need to get (unless they want a counter-point, which I doubt).
XXX
NOTE 1: Those of you who don't really know me might be surprised by this, but I have been in a couple of documentaries, been interviewed on TV and radio, consulted on movies, magazine and newspaper articles, books, etc., been the subject of some newspaper articles, blah, blah, blah. It's not as common as it used to be, but every so often I get a message that someone saw me -- or saw me mentioned -- somewhere. Although my wife likes to joke that I am a "media whore," I prefer to remain largely anonymous (what's more anonymous than being a bass player?). If there is a cause that's needs and deserves publicity, I'll step up, but it requires a major gear change for me.
NOTE 2: My experience as a historical researcher is part of the reason I don't read religious scripture as historical texts. Humans are much better at being storytellers than historians. Even very recent events get distorted with sensationalism and various agenda. Expand that over multiple (often anonymous) authors, various translators, and hundreds or thousands of years and you end up with extremely poor resources for history. Think about all the people you know: How many of them are trustworthy historians? Now how many are quite often full of shit? See what I mean?
Monday, August 3, 2009
Why Darwin, and Not Einstein? Or Newton?
Superstitionists really, really don't like Charles Darwin. I sometimes find this odd.
Darwin is generally regarded as the father of evolutionary biology, a field that has become the central point of all modern biological thought. Remove evolution from the sciences and lots of things don't make sense.
Things unavailable to Darwin when he was alive, like a massive (and ever-increasing) fossil record and the discovery of DNA, have independently shown the brilliance of Darwin's ideas. In fact, it can be argued that Darwin predicted the discovery of DNA, which happened about a hundred years after he published On The Origin Of Species.
Einstein and Newton, however, somehow escape the wrath of the supernaturalists. This despite the fact that their work, especially with regard to gravity, is much more assailable than Darwin's. Gravity is a problem. Newton's calculations have proven to be only estimates (this was verified by the work of the Apollo missions, which showed that the moon was not where Newton's equations said it should be). Einstein's General Relativity, which is essentially a theory of gravity, does not fit in with the Standard Model of physics, which has proiven to be quite accurate (if not yet complete). Einstein spent the last thirty of years of his life unsuccessfully trying to get gravity to make sense in a quantum world. The greatest physicists of all time have yet to crack this one (although string theory MAY be on the right path, but it requires a bunch more dimensions than written in any scripture).
Wouldn't the work of Einstein and Newton be easier targets for religious fundamentalists? You bet it would. Especially since "gravity is just a theory" and is not something you can see. Gravity could easily be dimsissed by these people as their god just putting things where it wants them. So why not tackle Einstein and Newton, two of the biggest names in the history of science, in the name of their god? Why Darwin? I have two suspicions:
1. Elitism. Religionists have a proven track record of thinking that they are better than others (and killing millions to prove it, if necessary). Sure, their god is better than other gods, and their culture is superior to other cultures, and their race is superior to other races, and their myths are true while other myths are just stories. It is all part of the tribal ideology. But tell them that their species isn't really that miraculous, and that it fits right in with the rest of life on earth, and you hit at the core of their arrogance. They freak out. Of course they are special: Their mommies told them so, and so did Jesus, and Jesus' invisible daddy in the sky. Darwin's work, and the mass of evidence since discovered to support it, shows that we are a part -- a twig at the end of a nondescript branch -- of the tree of life, not its Johnny Appleseed. While we have great abilities, we owe them to the work of the life that has come before us and around us.
2. It is precisely the ridiculous amount of confirmation of Darwin's work and its centrality in modern science that makes it a target. If you can convince the masses, in an Orwellian manner, that there is some sort of controversy or question about the most successful theory in science, then you can use that as a keystone to discredit scientific thought as a whole. If you can persuade people that gravity is wrong, no big deal. It doesn't fit anyway. But if you convince people that evolution is wrong, you crack the foundation of science (and the progress of mankind, while you are at it). Aim big.
The hideously dishonest irrationalists would have you believe that evolution somehow tarnishes the nobility of life; that it makes it less special. Well, I can't scream "bullshit" loud enough to express my disagreement.
For the last 36-or-so hours, I have been spending lots of time with a cat and her newborn kitten. When I look at them, or hold that kitten, I see grandeur and awesomeness that those xenophobic freaks will never allow themselves to experience (lest they become -- gasp -- compassionate to all living beings). I don't see these two felines as lesser animals. I see them as other animals: Fellow mammalian travelers through space and time who are able to experience much of what I do and have the ability to teach me about the important things in life. I am not better than them; I am different than them and have the ability to make decisions that greatly affect their lives.
If we want to progress as a species, we would do well to accept the facts of life, even if they don't massage our egos. We should continue to encourage critical thought and compassion. We should encourage people to be nice AND to constantly ask questions about the world around them.
Take a little time and think about what that would be like. I'm going to go hold a kitten. If we were keeping him, I'd name him Darwin, just to remind me how special life is.
Darwin is generally regarded as the father of evolutionary biology, a field that has become the central point of all modern biological thought. Remove evolution from the sciences and lots of things don't make sense.
Things unavailable to Darwin when he was alive, like a massive (and ever-increasing) fossil record and the discovery of DNA, have independently shown the brilliance of Darwin's ideas. In fact, it can be argued that Darwin predicted the discovery of DNA, which happened about a hundred years after he published On The Origin Of Species.
Einstein and Newton, however, somehow escape the wrath of the supernaturalists. This despite the fact that their work, especially with regard to gravity, is much more assailable than Darwin's. Gravity is a problem. Newton's calculations have proven to be only estimates (this was verified by the work of the Apollo missions, which showed that the moon was not where Newton's equations said it should be). Einstein's General Relativity, which is essentially a theory of gravity, does not fit in with the Standard Model of physics, which has proiven to be quite accurate (if not yet complete). Einstein spent the last thirty of years of his life unsuccessfully trying to get gravity to make sense in a quantum world. The greatest physicists of all time have yet to crack this one (although string theory MAY be on the right path, but it requires a bunch more dimensions than written in any scripture).
Wouldn't the work of Einstein and Newton be easier targets for religious fundamentalists? You bet it would. Especially since "gravity is just a theory" and is not something you can see. Gravity could easily be dimsissed by these people as their god just putting things where it wants them. So why not tackle Einstein and Newton, two of the biggest names in the history of science, in the name of their god? Why Darwin? I have two suspicions:
1. Elitism. Religionists have a proven track record of thinking that they are better than others (and killing millions to prove it, if necessary). Sure, their god is better than other gods, and their culture is superior to other cultures, and their race is superior to other races, and their myths are true while other myths are just stories. It is all part of the tribal ideology. But tell them that their species isn't really that miraculous, and that it fits right in with the rest of life on earth, and you hit at the core of their arrogance. They freak out. Of course they are special: Their mommies told them so, and so did Jesus, and Jesus' invisible daddy in the sky. Darwin's work, and the mass of evidence since discovered to support it, shows that we are a part -- a twig at the end of a nondescript branch -- of the tree of life, not its Johnny Appleseed. While we have great abilities, we owe them to the work of the life that has come before us and around us.
2. It is precisely the ridiculous amount of confirmation of Darwin's work and its centrality in modern science that makes it a target. If you can convince the masses, in an Orwellian manner, that there is some sort of controversy or question about the most successful theory in science, then you can use that as a keystone to discredit scientific thought as a whole. If you can persuade people that gravity is wrong, no big deal. It doesn't fit anyway. But if you convince people that evolution is wrong, you crack the foundation of science (and the progress of mankind, while you are at it). Aim big.
The hideously dishonest irrationalists would have you believe that evolution somehow tarnishes the nobility of life; that it makes it less special. Well, I can't scream "bullshit" loud enough to express my disagreement.
For the last 36-or-so hours, I have been spending lots of time with a cat and her newborn kitten. When I look at them, or hold that kitten, I see grandeur and awesomeness that those xenophobic freaks will never allow themselves to experience (lest they become -- gasp -- compassionate to all living beings). I don't see these two felines as lesser animals. I see them as other animals: Fellow mammalian travelers through space and time who are able to experience much of what I do and have the ability to teach me about the important things in life. I am not better than them; I am different than them and have the ability to make decisions that greatly affect their lives.
If we want to progress as a species, we would do well to accept the facts of life, even if they don't massage our egos. We should continue to encourage critical thought and compassion. We should encourage people to be nice AND to constantly ask questions about the world around them.
Take a little time and think about what that would be like. I'm going to go hold a kitten. If we were keeping him, I'd name him Darwin, just to remind me how special life is.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Why Abrahamic Fundamentalists Hate America
In a recent online discussion prompted by Glenn Beck's desire for people to pray against President Obama, someone asked why fundamentalist Christians hate America. It seems obvious to me...
The two main reasons for the Christian hatred for America, as I see it, are:
1. Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, not an American one (notice how our spending on that area of the world, both in dollars and in American lives, has gone WAY up since Christian fundamentalists have taken a great portion of control of the federal government -- ca. 1980?).
2: The Constitutional ideal of LIBERTY is anathema to most religions (Buddhism being the sole exception of which I am aware), especially superstitious Middle East ones. Liberty breeds critical thinking, honesty, scientific inquiry, and a diverse array of religious thought (AKA, religious freedom). These things are bad for phony foreign ideologies trying to grab power in the US.
There are more reasons, but those two are enough to explain most of what these anti-American freaks do and say. It makes sense that Beck wants people to pray to his Middle East god against an American president educated about the Constitution: An American president who has studied the Constitution is not an easy pawn to control.
Fortunately, prayer has proven that it ranks with homeopathy, rain dances, pyramid power, Uri Geller, and ghost-hunting in its efficacy. Don't worry about the prayers; worry about the anti-American sociopaths who have been loading up on weapons and ammo since the presidential election.
The two main reasons for the Christian hatred for America, as I see it, are:
1. Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, not an American one (notice how our spending on that area of the world, both in dollars and in American lives, has gone WAY up since Christian fundamentalists have taken a great portion of control of the federal government -- ca. 1980?).
2: The Constitutional ideal of LIBERTY is anathema to most religions (Buddhism being the sole exception of which I am aware), especially superstitious Middle East ones. Liberty breeds critical thinking, honesty, scientific inquiry, and a diverse array of religious thought (AKA, religious freedom). These things are bad for phony foreign ideologies trying to grab power in the US.
There are more reasons, but those two are enough to explain most of what these anti-American freaks do and say. It makes sense that Beck wants people to pray to his Middle East god against an American president educated about the Constitution: An American president who has studied the Constitution is not an easy pawn to control.
Fortunately, prayer has proven that it ranks with homeopathy, rain dances, pyramid power, Uri Geller, and ghost-hunting in its efficacy. Don't worry about the prayers; worry about the anti-American sociopaths who have been loading up on weapons and ammo since the presidential election.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)