Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category
Many who advocate civil unions for gay couples argue that it is a practical way of granting equal rights to gays without ruining the ‘sanctity’ of marriage as that between one man and one woman. Some even argue that marriage is fundamentally a religious institution. Buy wait- there is a problem here.
First, if civil union couples have the same legal rights as that of married couples, then what is actually the difference between the two? Tradition? Religious distinctions? But the government does not have the constitutional right to be engaged in either of these issues.
If marriage is a religious institution, why is the state handing out marriage licenses? This would be a violation of the separation of church and state. And separating marriage and civil unions by name only for matters of tradition? This is just as bad as ‘separate but equal’.
If we as a society recognize marriage as an institution that the church has a say in, then the state should only issue civil union licenses, even to straight couples. But as long as the government sanctions ‘marriages’ for straight couples, it must do so for gay couples as well.
Without real legal differences between marriage and civil unions, granting one to straight couples while another to gay couples would be unconstitutional, while distinguishing the two with real differences in legal benefits would be discriminatory.
From The Telegraph:
At least 50 people have lost their sight after staring at the sun hoping to see an image of the Virgin Mary, according to reports.
Alarmed health authorities in India’s Kottayam district have set up a sign dispelling rumours of a miraculous image in the sky and warning of the dangers of looking into direct sunlight.
Forty-eight cases of sight-loss, allegedly caused by photochemical burns on the retina, have been recorded at St Joseph’s ENT and Eye hospital in the region since Friday.
Despite warnings, and the potentially harmful effects of their actions, believers are allegedly still flocking to a hotelier’s house in Erumeli near where the divine image is said to have appeared.
Here we are, surrounded by computers and aircrafts, and people are still stupid enough to do this kind of thing. As somebody famous said, ‘We take airplanes to get to an astrophysics conference. But when is the last time somebody got on a magic carpet to get to the spirituality conference?”
The Swarthmore Christian Fellowship held a meeting today, where three of its members gave a personal testimony about God in their lives. I attended out of curiosity.
As I suspected, the talks themselves were incredibly personal and moving – but also lacking in evidence. Everytime a speaker used the word “God”, you could have replaced it with “aspiration”, “motivation” or something similar. In other words, while the emotions they were feeling were genuine, they are also identically available to the nonbeliever- except with the knowledge of truth that it’s only the workings of our very complicated psychology, not anything supernatural.
At times, I wanted to get up and ask point-blank “Do you believe that Jesus was literally born from a Virgin?” Afterall, isn’t that one of the most important aspects to being a Christian? And I suspect that their true beliefs about this is a complicated amalgam of wishy-washy, poetic, metaphorical certainty and faith. But in the end, it is a perfectly plain question with a perfectly plain answer- either Jesus of Nazareth was born from a virgin, or he was not.
One thing that struck me greatly was the kindness and candor of the people there. I have been aware of the very pleasant, but sometimes saccharine, kindness of Christians, but it struck me in a new way when I experienced it myself. It is all very pleasant and nice, and made me realize that many stay faithful for the wonderful community more than anything else.
But all that nice atmosphere, kind generosity, and genuine emotions have no bearing on objective reality. For that, we must turn to dispassionate testing and observation. I think the biggest “flaw” many modern American Christians have is mixing emotional conviction with truth. Just because you “feel” something doesn’t mean it’s true. It must be verified independently.
In the end though, these people are pretty harmless. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the religious in other parts of the world.
From the Washington Post:
By Alan B. Krueger
Tuesday, September 11, 2007; 12:00 AM
Six years after 9/11, all too many Americans still have only a vague idea of what does — and doesn’t — motivate terrorists. It doesn’t help that many politicians exploit the anxiety that terrorism evokes to promote their own agendas. Here are five key urban legends:
1. Terrorism is a random act carried out by irrational people who hate our way of life.
If only it were that simple. In fact, terrorists are typically motivated by geopolitical grievances, not blind hatred. The agendas of individual terrorist groups vary, but their tactical goal is always more or less the same: to sow fear and confusion by deliberately targeting civilians in order to intimidate a country into changing its policies and ways.
So political calculations are key here. Citizens of countries that occupy other countries, for example, are more likely to be targeted by terrorists. In addition, wealthy democracies are more likely to be the targets of terrorist strikes than are totalitarian regimes, which suggests that terrorists deliberately strike countries that are susceptible to public pressure.
Another reason not to see terrorist attacks as random: They’re often timed to occur when they can have maximum impact, such as the eve of pivotal elections. In Israel, for example, attacks by Palestinian terrorist groups bent on sabotaging peace talks are more frequent before elections when left-wing governments hold power, in hopes of pushing Israeli voters in a more hawkish direction, according to research by Claude Berrebi of the Rand Corporation and Esteban F. Klor of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
There’s even a cold logic to the time of day that terrorists pick for their attacks, which also suggests a rhythm that’s far from random. My analysis of U.S. government data from the National Counterterrorism Center reveals that terrorists are most likely to strike in the morning — in time to enter the day’s news cycle.
2. Terrorists are no different than ordinary criminals.
Wrong. Criminals tend to be poor and uneducated. But terrorists tend to come from families with above-average means and are often well-educated. For example, Jitka Maleckova of the Russell Sage Foundation and I found that members of the military wing of the radical Shiite group Hezbollah who were killed in action in the 1980s and early 1990s were better educated and less likely to be poor than their Lebanese countrymen. Other researchers have found similar results for other terrorist groups. People who join terrorist organizations often have legitimate, well-paying jobs, unlike common criminals.
3. Terrorists are likely to cross into the United States from Mexico.
This is a favorite chestnut of some activists and politicians keen to tighten immigration and build a fence on the Mexican border. But the historical record doesn’t bear it out. Of course, the past may not be a good predictor of the future, but terrorists have rarely crossed into the United States from Mexico. In a recent Nixon Center study of 373 Islamist terrorists, Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke concluded: “Despite widespread alarms raised over terrorist infiltration from Mexico, we found no terrorist presence in Mexico and no terrorists who entered the U.S. from Mexico.” By contrast, the authors found “a sizeable terrorist presence in Canada and a number of Canadian-based terrorists who have entered the U.S.” For example, Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian terrorist who tried to blow up Los Angeles International Airport in December 1999, was caught trying to cross the border from Canada into Washington state.
4. Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims.
Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism. (Sri Lanka, for instance, has grappled for decades with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that pioneered suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic and hopes to create a homeland for the country’s mostly Tamil minority, who are largely Hindu.) Although radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq, the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.
After all, it was not long ago that homegrown villains such as Timothy McVeigh and the so-called Unabomber were the most notorious terrorists. That makes sense; the vast majority of terrorist incidents are local, motivated by local concerns and carried out by natives. Even international terrorist events tend to be local affairs, most frequently carried out by local militants who target foreigners who happen to be in their country. (Just think of last week’s foiled plot to attack U.S. targets in Germany.) This suggests that the likelihood of attack by homegrown terrorists is far greater than the threat of another 9/11-style attack by foreigners.
5. Terrorism never succeeds.
If terrorism didn’t work, it would be far more rare than it now is. Sometimes terrorists do achieve their goals, which is why others continue to try the tactic.
Of course, it’s not always easy to determine what the terrorists’ objectives are, but sometimes their goals are pretty clear. Consider the devastating commuter-rail bombings in Madrid in March 2005, three days before Spain held congressional elections. The Islamic radicals who set off the bombs reportedly hoped to change the Spanish government. It worked. A new study by Jose Garcia Matalvo, an economist at Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, compared absentee ballots cast before the bombings with votes cast after them on a province-by-province level. His work convincingly shows that the shock of the bombings led the Socialist Party to defeat the incumbent conservative government. Upon assuming power, the Socialist Party immediately withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq.
akrueger@princeton.edu
Alan B. Krueger is the Bendheim professor of economics and public policy at Princeton University and the author of “What Makes a Terrorist.”
This would be funny, only if it weren’t so close to what happens in real life.
From
Apparently, Fox News viewers have the least knowledge about domestic and world affairs. Not very surprising, really, if you have ever watched Fox News for more than ten minutes. What I fear the most is that America is breeding a very dangerous generation of ignorant farm-boys raised surrounded by conservatives only, watching the Fox News Channel, and not really have a clue about what the world is like outside of their community. Mixing ignorance, politics, and religion is a dangerous concoction. This, together with the religious fervor and dogmatism that are on the rise in the middle east (for both Jews AND Muslims), is setting the stage for what I only fear will be the most devastating period for humanity. And these different beliefs can never be reconciled because they are based on faith, not evidence. In deed, how can any amount of evidence and rational thinking bend the will of God (or what they perceive to be the will of God)? This is grim indeed.
My roommate is in the math research program with me. He is a physics and math double major, and is pretty smart. And he is Mormon. And he does not believe in evolution. What force, other than religion, could make such a smart man of science reject perhaps the most important and the most well-documented theory in the history of science? Religion.
It’s one thing to believe in something for which there is no evidence one way or the other, like God. Call it faith, if you will. But it is quite another to actively ignore evidence and believe in something which the evidence has clearly ruled out, like creationism. This is just pure stupidity.
It is sad that, despite the back-breaking efforts of so many scientists, faith and religion is putting people back in the 16th century.
Last Sunday, I visited a local Mormon ward (equivalent of a church) with my Mormon roommate. It was a ward composed mainly of the tenants living in my apartment, and the service took place inside a chemistry lecture hall on the BYU campus. I could not help but notice the irony of the fact that there was a huge Periodic Table of the Elements hung at the front of the lecture hall. I was curious as to why we did not have service at one of the gorgeous (or cult-like) looking Mormon Temples I had seen around town, and I would soon find out the sinister answer to this later.
So the service broke apart into 3 parts. The first part is the most similar to a typical Christian worship – singing hymns, doing congregational prayers, etc… And you can bet that during the prayers, I proudly kept my head up and kept my eyes open. I was proud to be the only person in the room who was not superstitious. The one different thing about a Mormon service is that there is no sermon. In fact, the Mormons don’t have a pastor. They only have a Bishop, which is more like a guidance couselor for the ward with a direct line to God. So instead of a sermon, they have “testimonies”. And this is one of the most brilliant brain-washing schemes I have ever witnessed.
Here is the idea: during Testimonies, any ward member is free to volunteer, come up to the podium, and deliver a “testimony”. They usually talk about how they personally experienced the love of God, how God helped him/her during the week, etc. And nearly every person who walked up to the podium started crying. Mormonism is not a passive religion, folks. It’s not like the typical Methodist who just shows up to church every Sunday out of habit. It’s a bonified cult. The most striking part about the testimonies was that EVERY person repeated the line “I believe in Joseph Smith the prophet, Gordon B. Hinkley the president of the church, a seer, revelator, and a prophet, and I believe that this is the only true church on this Earth.” Of course, no body ever explained WHY they believe these things. Only a repetition of “I KNOW this to be true” could be heard. Talk about faith.
This really is brilliant. Rather than have some authority figure (like a pastor) lecture you on why you should believe, they have your Peers do it. How much more effective this must be! And the self-riteousness of these people who walk up to the podium and do these testimonies. They must feel as though they are somehow spiritually superior for doing so. The whole ceremony is a total brain-washing tool, driven by peer-pressure and a collective sense of riteousness.
From my experience, the main difference about Mormonism in practice (as opposed to its theological backgrounds) to other forms of Christianity is its emphasis on Revelations. They claim that because they are the only ones in direct communication with God, they are the only true Christian church. All the other churches and denominations are wrong because they have fallen into “apostasy”. In fact, the president of the church is believed to communicate directly with god. And so the president has the right to say “God told me this, so we will now do this.” This is how Polygamy was started and this is also how it also ended. The current president is Gordon B. Hinkley, a poor old 95 year old man having to carry the burden of divinations from God. What a pathetic lie. And then there are the 12 Apostles, which are sort of like the 12 board members of the Mormon Church, and they are also expected to communicate directly with God. How bizzare is this? In the 21st century, here is a group of people who literally think that their leader really sees, hears, and talks to God. And they don’t mean this in a metaphorical sense.
The second part of the service is akin to a Bible study, broken up into little groups. I followed my roommate to his group. There was alot of unjustified claims and igonrant remarks made during this session, and I had to constantly stop my self from voicing my concerns. But at on point, someone said “I think Science is alot like religion too in that sometimes, it is progressed through revelations.” I couldn’t take this any longer. I spoke out and said: “I think that is a gross mischaracterization of Science. Science progresses thorugh EVIDENCE. For you to think that Science progresses through revelations like your religion does is to spit in the face of millions of scientists who devote their entire lives to objectivity and collecting evidence.” After a silence, they just moved on. I was fuming.
The third part of the service was a meeting among just the male members of the church. The females also had their own meeting. I will not get into the sexual discrimination practiced in Mormonism in this post. In the male meeting, or the “Priesthood” meeting, we talked about the practice of sacraments. Nothing too exciting there.
All in all, I got the impression that if you are inclined to be religious, Mormonism might be very tempting. There is something about it that really draws you in. Perhaps its the fact that the Book of Mormon places the Americas at the center of Chrisitian Theology. Or maybe its the claim that Mormons are in direct communication with God. If that was true, Mormonism would indeed be the only true religion. From an atheist’s perspective, this makes it all the more dangerous. There are things Mormons believe that not even a Christian would admit to believing in. It was Hitler who once said “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”
And as to why the service did not take place at a Mormon temple, the temples are apparently not for worshipping in. In fact, they are closed on Sundays. The temples are used for Baptisms, Endowments, and other Mormon cult-like ceremonies. An Endowment is a ritual similar to a Masonic ritual where Mormons learn a secret hand-shake that will allow them to enter heaven (I am not making this up). Also, you need a “temple recommend” to be allowed to enter a Mormon Temple. Furthermore, you dress in all-white robes called “temple garments” to enter the temple. Needless to say, all this is very cult-like.
If you have free time, go search for images to a Mormon Temple. It certainly looks very beautiful. So beautiful, in fact, to the point of being haunting.
