From a Facebook comment on Republican attacks on Obama for apologizing to the Islamic world for the accidental mistreatment of the Koran by US forces:
Message to the Republican Party:
A manly apology is not a weakness. It is a strength. An adult, secure in his position, confident in his masculinity, is not afraid to apologize. This, of course, is also true of an adult woman who is self confident and self-assured. The insecure, the frightened, those lacking in self-respect, these are the ones who are afraid to make a sincere honest, apology when an error has occurred.
As a retired elementary school teacher and principal I am quite familiar with this particular problem. Actually, I think every parent is quite familiar with this particular problem. Every kindergartner needs to learn, if their parents have not already taught them this essential fact, that throwing a temper tantrum, hissing and shrieking, and flatly refusing to apologize to everyone who dares to disagree with you is not actually the way to appear to the world to be a big boy or a big girl. The simple fact is, grown-ups apologize.
It does not hurt them to apologize. It does not weaken them to apologize. It shows that they are polite, self-assured, and secure. It bears repeating, grown-ups apologize. Spoiled little children do not.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
From the LA Times today. :
'We have a biology for reciprocation. I call oxytocin "the moral molecule." It's a chemical that motivates us to engage and care about others — and that's the basis for moral behavior. '
Yes, but there is much more to the story! The chemical has a dark side:
http://www.ibcsr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=287:connor-wood&catid=3:newsflash&Itemid=61
'Oxytocin, a hormone produced in the brain during bonding activities such as breastfeeding, childbirth, and sex, helps humans to relax, trust one another, and feel comfortable with others. Its pleasant effects are so well-known that it's often referred to as the "love hormone." But researchers at the University of Amsterdam have recently uncovered a dark secret: oxytocin appears to prime humans to prioritize in-group members over out-group persons, prompting questions of whether oxytocin is the key ingredient of ethnocentrism and prejudice.'
Scientists should know better than to oversimplify. Flattered by the attention, honest scientists simplify and "clarify" complex data. The popular press seizes on such carelessness, and later, when the full facts come out, the public assumes that science is untrustworthy and is constantly changing it's view of reality. Not true, but it looks so to careless and poorly informed minds. Minds that vote.
Errata:
Bobby, back in the days of the Philosophy Club, I once made point about humans as biochemical robots. I pointed out that naked mole rats made lousy fathers and unfaithful mates, until dosed with oxytocin. Then they became nurturing fathers and stayed loyal to one mate. I have since discovered that the actual research was done on prairie voles. In my defense, a story about prairie voles' sexual conduct has less amusement value than one about naked mole rats...you know, like Rush Limbaigh, the nakedest mole rat ever to insult American women.
'We have a biology for reciprocation. I call oxytocin "the moral molecule." It's a chemical that motivates us to engage and care about others — and that's the basis for moral behavior. '
Yes, but there is much more to the story! The chemical has a dark side:
http://www.ibcsr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=287:connor-wood&catid=3:newsflash&Itemid=61
'Oxytocin, a hormone produced in the brain during bonding activities such as breastfeeding, childbirth, and sex, helps humans to relax, trust one another, and feel comfortable with others. Its pleasant effects are so well-known that it's often referred to as the "love hormone." But researchers at the University of Amsterdam have recently uncovered a dark secret: oxytocin appears to prime humans to prioritize in-group members over out-group persons, prompting questions of whether oxytocin is the key ingredient of ethnocentrism and prejudice.'
Scientists should know better than to oversimplify. Flattered by the attention, honest scientists simplify and "clarify" complex data. The popular press seizes on such carelessness, and later, when the full facts come out, the public assumes that science is untrustworthy and is constantly changing it's view of reality. Not true, but it looks so to careless and poorly informed minds. Minds that vote.
Errata:
Bobby, back in the days of the Philosophy Club, I once made point about humans as biochemical robots. I pointed out that naked mole rats made lousy fathers and unfaithful mates, until dosed with oxytocin. Then they became nurturing fathers and stayed loyal to one mate. I have since discovered that the actual research was done on prairie voles. In my defense, a story about prairie voles' sexual conduct has less amusement value than one about naked mole rats...you know, like Rush Limbaigh, the nakedest mole rat ever to insult American women.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Stop and Frisk, aka, Walking While Black or Brown
According to Vanguard on Current TV, more people are being arrested for marijuana possession in New York City than at any other place or time in history. The great majority of these arrests, in fact almost all of them, are being made for minor possession. This is happening because of a policy which is called stop and frisk. Tens of thousands were arrested for minor marijuana possession last year. That's right, in one year.
The stop and frisk system allows police to stop anyone an officer decides is suspicious. The person is not accused of any crime. All that needs to occur is that a policeman decides that that individual is suspicious. Having stopped that individual for no discernible reason, the policeman then has the right to frisk them. In case you think I'm exaggerating, according to the records of the New York Police Department, yes that's right, the NYPD themselves-they made over 600,000 such stops last year alone!
If we are to believe the NYPD, the fact that almost 90% of these 600,000 who were stopped were either Black or Hispanic was not a result of blatant racism. That means the Black and Hispanic people in New York City somehow managed to behave in a suspicious manner nine times more frequently than the White people in New York City, and that's ignoring demographics and assuming there are equal numbers of White citizens and Black and Hispanic citizens.
Included in the criteria for suspicious behavior are two very interesting items. One is furtive behavior. This is, of course, means anything the policemen doesn't like about you. Another item is the clothing being worn by an individual. That's right, if the NYPD doesn't like the way you walk, talk, look, or act or if it feels that the fashion choices you have made are unacceptable, they can stop and frisk you. No other requirement is needed.
Unsurprisingly, the NYPD refused to discuss the matter with the reporter. A prosecutor did agree to be interviewed. She said the stop and frisk policy was to protect people from the danger of guns. Of course, almost no guns are actually found during the searches. The math works out to about one gun found in every 700 stops. What's found most commonly is small amounts of marijuana. It is also interesting to wonder why the NYPD thinks that Blacks and Hispanics are nine times more likely than whites to be carrying a gun. It is an interesting question, isn't it?
How many arrests for small quantities of marijuana being possessed have been made? About 50,000 a year. Please remember, that whatever your position on the possession of marijuana, these are individuals with small amounts of the drug clearly intended for their own personal use. These are not dealers. These are not drug lords. These are ordinary citizens who were doing the equivalent of caring around a bottle of beer or a pint of whiskey.
But those are legal, you say? Okay then, this is the equivalent of an 20 year old carrying around a bottle of beer or a pint of whiskey. Should such an 20 -year-old be arrested or have the bottle confiscated and be given a citation? That's a fair comparison.
But wait! There's more! In New York City possession of small amounts of marijuana should get you only the equivalent of a traffic ticket. So why are these people being arrested? The answer is that while you are allowed to have a small amount of marijuana for personal use in your possession, you may not have it in public view. That is grounds for arrest. So how do the police justify an arrest? You won't believe this, but this is the truth. They order the individual they have stopped because he's suspicious or they don't like the clothes he is wearing to empty his pockets. When he obeys that order and takes the marijuana out of his pocket, it is suddenly in public view! This is the excuse for an arrest.
In other words, the individual is being arrested because he complied with a police order. Of course, if he refuses to empty his pockets, he would then be arrested for refusing to comply with a police order.
The result of this is almost 400,000 arrests for marijuana possession in public view in the last nine years.
Not everyone arrested is formally charged. However, merely being arrested gives you a record. This can lead to a number of consequences including eviction from your apartment, especially of you have had a prior arrest on any charge.
The cost of all of this to the city is $75 million a year. That's just the cost of the prosecutions. The cost of police time, especially considering that most of these arrests result in a release rather than prosecution, must be enormous by comparison.
It's hard to believe that things can be even worse, but they are. A local politician sponsoring legislation to stop these abuses points out the NYPD's own statistics demonstrate that 9 out of 10 of the people stopped are immediately released, on the spot, because they have committed no offense whatsoever. 9 out of 10.
Please remember that all this is taking place in a system which is overloaded with serious cases. The court dockets in New York City are full of robberies, rapes, murders, and other serious crimes. But huge amounts of court time is being spent on charging people with having a small amount of marijuana in public view, after, of course, complying with the police order to put it in public view.
The prosecutor who agreed to be interviewed refused to believe that policemen were ordering people to empty their pockets and then arresting them for having marijuana in public view. This is unsurprising, since if she did believe it, it would be her job to seek the arrest and prosecution of those policeman as such an act would, in fact, be false arrest.
I strongly support effective and fair law enforcement. I also strongly condemn breaking the law under the color of authority and racism. In fairness to the NYPD, these stop and frisk abuses can also be interpreted as as much anti poor as anti minority. Virtually no one is ever stopped and frisked in wealthy or even middle class areas of the city; it's all happening in poverty stricken neighborhoods. But outright racism or prejudice against the poor, it's still prejudice and it's still an abuse of the police authority of the government--being under the color of authority only makes it worse.
The stop and frisk system allows police to stop anyone an officer decides is suspicious. The person is not accused of any crime. All that needs to occur is that a policeman decides that that individual is suspicious. Having stopped that individual for no discernible reason, the policeman then has the right to frisk them. In case you think I'm exaggerating, according to the records of the New York Police Department, yes that's right, the NYPD themselves-they made over 600,000 such stops last year alone!
If we are to believe the NYPD, the fact that almost 90% of these 600,000 who were stopped were either Black or Hispanic was not a result of blatant racism. That means the Black and Hispanic people in New York City somehow managed to behave in a suspicious manner nine times more frequently than the White people in New York City, and that's ignoring demographics and assuming there are equal numbers of White citizens and Black and Hispanic citizens.
Included in the criteria for suspicious behavior are two very interesting items. One is furtive behavior. This is, of course, means anything the policemen doesn't like about you. Another item is the clothing being worn by an individual. That's right, if the NYPD doesn't like the way you walk, talk, look, or act or if it feels that the fashion choices you have made are unacceptable, they can stop and frisk you. No other requirement is needed.
Unsurprisingly, the NYPD refused to discuss the matter with the reporter. A prosecutor did agree to be interviewed. She said the stop and frisk policy was to protect people from the danger of guns. Of course, almost no guns are actually found during the searches. The math works out to about one gun found in every 700 stops. What's found most commonly is small amounts of marijuana. It is also interesting to wonder why the NYPD thinks that Blacks and Hispanics are nine times more likely than whites to be carrying a gun. It is an interesting question, isn't it?
How many arrests for small quantities of marijuana being possessed have been made? About 50,000 a year. Please remember, that whatever your position on the possession of marijuana, these are individuals with small amounts of the drug clearly intended for their own personal use. These are not dealers. These are not drug lords. These are ordinary citizens who were doing the equivalent of caring around a bottle of beer or a pint of whiskey.
But those are legal, you say? Okay then, this is the equivalent of an 20 year old carrying around a bottle of beer or a pint of whiskey. Should such an 20 -year-old be arrested or have the bottle confiscated and be given a citation? That's a fair comparison.
But wait! There's more! In New York City possession of small amounts of marijuana should get you only the equivalent of a traffic ticket. So why are these people being arrested? The answer is that while you are allowed to have a small amount of marijuana for personal use in your possession, you may not have it in public view. That is grounds for arrest. So how do the police justify an arrest? You won't believe this, but this is the truth. They order the individual they have stopped because he's suspicious or they don't like the clothes he is wearing to empty his pockets. When he obeys that order and takes the marijuana out of his pocket, it is suddenly in public view! This is the excuse for an arrest.
In other words, the individual is being arrested because he complied with a police order. Of course, if he refuses to empty his pockets, he would then be arrested for refusing to comply with a police order.
The result of this is almost 400,000 arrests for marijuana possession in public view in the last nine years.
Not everyone arrested is formally charged. However, merely being arrested gives you a record. This can lead to a number of consequences including eviction from your apartment, especially of you have had a prior arrest on any charge.
The cost of all of this to the city is $75 million a year. That's just the cost of the prosecutions. The cost of police time, especially considering that most of these arrests result in a release rather than prosecution, must be enormous by comparison.
It's hard to believe that things can be even worse, but they are. A local politician sponsoring legislation to stop these abuses points out the NYPD's own statistics demonstrate that 9 out of 10 of the people stopped are immediately released, on the spot, because they have committed no offense whatsoever. 9 out of 10.
Please remember that all this is taking place in a system which is overloaded with serious cases. The court dockets in New York City are full of robberies, rapes, murders, and other serious crimes. But huge amounts of court time is being spent on charging people with having a small amount of marijuana in public view, after, of course, complying with the police order to put it in public view.
The prosecutor who agreed to be interviewed refused to believe that policemen were ordering people to empty their pockets and then arresting them for having marijuana in public view. This is unsurprising, since if she did believe it, it would be her job to seek the arrest and prosecution of those policeman as such an act would, in fact, be false arrest.
I strongly support effective and fair law enforcement. I also strongly condemn breaking the law under the color of authority and racism. In fairness to the NYPD, these stop and frisk abuses can also be interpreted as as much anti poor as anti minority. Virtually no one is ever stopped and frisked in wealthy or even middle class areas of the city; it's all happening in poverty stricken neighborhoods. But outright racism or prejudice against the poor, it's still prejudice and it's still an abuse of the police authority of the government--being under the color of authority only makes it worse.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
We all know about Rush Limbaugh's smear of American women. We know he wants to enjoy seeing our wives and daughters having sex for his enjoyment. I must comment.
The bottom line is that Limbaugh had insulted every American woman who has ever used contraceptives covered by thier health care insurance. He not only calls them sluts and prostitutes, he says they should post videos of thier sex acts for him to enjoy. Millions of American men should be defending the honor of their wives and daughters. Of course, some of us are American males and some of us are American men. Limbaugh has made it easy to differentiate.
Let me add that free contraceptives are not at issue. Contrary to the hysterical men like Limbaugh, the contraceptives in question were either covered by the University's health plan or not covered. That was the issue. Since health insurance is never free in this country, no ones' precious money was being given away.
I suppose a wealthy donor to Georgetown University might make a contorted argument that some of his donation might be used to help insure women's health (what a waste of precious money!), but everyone else should shut up, until and unless they donate a large sum to the university.
I also answer the "Why should I pay for it," crowd by asking, why should I for your being saved by a fire department or police department or military paid for with my money? We live in a society. We work together to make it better. This is being human.
Don't want to do your share? Drop out and live alone in the mountains without any help and without any of society's benefits, like roads, electricity, stores, doctors, and so on. Have fun, rugged individualist
The bottom line is that Limbaugh had insulted every American woman who has ever used contraceptives covered by thier health care insurance. He not only calls them sluts and prostitutes, he says they should post videos of thier sex acts for him to enjoy. Millions of American men should be defending the honor of their wives and daughters. Of course, some of us are American males and some of us are American men. Limbaugh has made it easy to differentiate.
Let me add that free contraceptives are not at issue. Contrary to the hysterical men like Limbaugh, the contraceptives in question were either covered by the University's health plan or not covered. That was the issue. Since health insurance is never free in this country, no ones' precious money was being given away.
I suppose a wealthy donor to Georgetown University might make a contorted argument that some of his donation might be used to help insure women's health (what a waste of precious money!), but everyone else should shut up, until and unless they donate a large sum to the university.
I also answer the "Why should I pay for it," crowd by asking, why should I for your being saved by a fire department or police department or military paid for with my money? We live in a society. We work together to make it better. This is being human.
Don't want to do your share? Drop out and live alone in the mountains without any help and without any of society's benefits, like roads, electricity, stores, doctors, and so on. Have fun, rugged individualist
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Yellow Rose of Texas
Long time gone! I'm banking on the success of my IPad in other areas by moving my blog access here. We will see if this is more effective. First post using the pad is a reprint from my Facebook account to a friend regarding the Aamo and ultimate Texican victory.
Two interesting points on the whole Alamo/Mexican-American war situation. Point one: isn't it interesting that throughout American history slaveholders often screamed and shrieked and pontificated on the desperate need to fight for their rights; and when pressed on the point, would loudly and proudly declare that meant the right to enslave other human beings? Point 2: as the son of a Texan, I am well aware of certain folklore elements regarding Santa Anna's ultimate defeat. Many Texans to this day insist that the true story of that "siesta" is that the famous Yellow Rose of Texas seduced Santa Anna in order to distract him from the business at hand, thus giving the Texicans a great advantage. And that is why she is memorialized forever in the Texas national anthem, "The Yellow Rose of Texas". A strange irony for a slaveholding state, since the term, "Yellow Rose", referred to a certain skin tone in a black woman.
The song is grossly racist, of course. Nevertheless, it is so strange to think that one of the most fervent slaveholding states, as part of it's origin myth, regards a black woman as key to their victory.
Two interesting points on the whole Alamo/Mexican-American war situation. Point one: isn't it interesting that throughout American history slaveholders often screamed and shrieked and pontificated on the desperate need to fight for their rights; and when pressed on the point, would loudly and proudly declare that meant the right to enslave other human beings? Point 2: as the son of a Texan, I am well aware of certain folklore elements regarding Santa Anna's ultimate defeat. Many Texans to this day insist that the true story of that "siesta" is that the famous Yellow Rose of Texas seduced Santa Anna in order to distract him from the business at hand, thus giving the Texicans a great advantage. And that is why she is memorialized forever in the Texas national anthem, "The Yellow Rose of Texas". A strange irony for a slaveholding state, since the term, "Yellow Rose", referred to a certain skin tone in a black woman.
The song is grossly racist, of course. Nevertheless, it is so strange to think that one of the most fervent slaveholding states, as part of it's origin myth, regards a black woman as key to their victory.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Atheist, Not Amoralist
The Los Angeles Times --December 20, 2009
I discovered that I had tucked this article away for a future blog entry. The article reports that Cecil Bothwell became a city councilman in North Carolina. Because he is an atheist, conservative groups describe him as "satan's helper", and a"radical extremist" who is "bashing religion". In fact, none of these apply. He simply does not believe in God.
An individual named H. K. Edgerton and individual known for wearing a confederate army uniform weaving a confederate flag and other actions would most would regard as unusual, except down South, has threatened to sue to prevent an Bothwell from serving. He states that he has a problem with a atheist serving in public office, which is banned by the North Carolina constitution. Since six other states also have provisions outlawing atheists in public office the matter is one of concern throughout the nation. Of course, the constitution forbids there being a religious test for holding office. Those who advocate States' rights might very well claim that this is a matter to be settled out of Federal Court. But since this is a matter of fundamental rights, the constitutional issue is one which should be decided at the Federal level.
What most interests me about this affair is the fact that atheists are considered to be one of the worst possible groups to which one may be a member in the United States. Numerous polls in recent years have indicated that an atheist is regarded as unacceptable as a candidate for public office by a majority of Americans. This is regardless of the persons positions, moral character, or other attributes. Simply because the individual is an atheist a large number of Americans would refuse to vote for him.
Of course, there are always groups with whom we have problems as a people. I certainly would understand, indeed would agree, that a neo Nazi is automatically disqualified as a reasonable candidate for any public office. However, that is due to the inherent racism and violence in the neo nazi movement. Atheists, on the other hand, are not inherently violent, racist, or immoral in any way. Many make the rather odd assumption that only those who believe in God can possibly have any morals. They assume that this is so because God is the single and sole source of all morality. But this cannot be true. If morality is moral only because God says so, then if God changes his mind, morality immediately changes.
This would mean that if tomorrow got decided that cannibalism was worth a try, it would immediately become moral and just to eat other! If God decided that Saint Augustine was correct and that sex was inherently evil, indeed, that the sex act itself is the disease vector through which original scene is passed from generation to generation, and that sex should be forbidden, then even married couples would be unable to be considered moral if they consummated their marriage.
Morality, therefore, must come from some other source than God. Surely, if God were to suddenly declare that rape and mass murder were good, we would not then begin to perform these acts. One of the reasons we so justly condemn cults is that the cult leader often performs brutal and cruel sexual acts upon its members, claiming that God has told him that this is the correct thing to do. The cult members may be deceived, but the rest of us see that these acts are immoral and just plain wrong. Of course, we do not assume that the cult leader is actually receiving these instructions from God. Instead we assume that He is either lying or is mentally ill. But even if god were to make such declarations, I am confident that the majority of us would not begin engaging in what we currently regard as depraved and reprehensible behavior.
God, too, must behave in a moral manner. One of the ways we differentiate Satan from God is in their conduct and the demands they make upon us. Another time I will discuss the issue of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and of Jephtha's sacrifice of his daughter. For now I simply wish to note that while the God of the old testament is an angry and a jealous god, He is, nevertheless, a just God.
It certainly cannot be denied that very religious people sometimes commit very horrible acts. It is not commonly acknowledged that Hitler was a very religious man. It is true he was not a churchgoing man, but it is very clear that he believed that he was doing God's work in cleansing the world of what he regarded as the Jewish infection. On the other hand, there are historical cases of atheists taking moral positions and even of suffering harm for doing so.
I believe that the fear of atheists grows out not simply of ignorance, but of an even deeper fear on the part of the religious that the atheist might just be right. In other words, I believe that the religious who fear the nonreligious have a very weak faith. If your faith a strong, there is no way an atheist can threaten it. If your faith is weak, than the mere fact that someone else expresses doubts becomes a very serious threat.
Consider the demands of the Religious Right for a return to prayer in public schools. They suggest that this is the only way to keep children and our nation moral. Which suggests that as parents they have no faith in their own ability to influence their own children. One of the reasons Christianity took root in the Roman world was because of the obvious faith which strengthened questions facing martyrdom. Those early Christians had no doubt that their faith was stronger than the Roman Empire. Today's American Christians of the Religious Right and have a different view. It is clear that they feel that without the government teaching their religion to their children for them, their faith will fade and die. One of the saddest things about this situation is how little faith the Religious Right has in the power of God.
I discovered that I had tucked this article away for a future blog entry. The article reports that Cecil Bothwell became a city councilman in North Carolina. Because he is an atheist, conservative groups describe him as "satan's helper", and a"radical extremist" who is "bashing religion". In fact, none of these apply. He simply does not believe in God.
An individual named H. K. Edgerton and individual known for wearing a confederate army uniform weaving a confederate flag and other actions would most would regard as unusual, except down South, has threatened to sue to prevent an Bothwell from serving. He states that he has a problem with a atheist serving in public office, which is banned by the North Carolina constitution. Since six other states also have provisions outlawing atheists in public office the matter is one of concern throughout the nation. Of course, the constitution forbids there being a religious test for holding office. Those who advocate States' rights might very well claim that this is a matter to be settled out of Federal Court. But since this is a matter of fundamental rights, the constitutional issue is one which should be decided at the Federal level.
What most interests me about this affair is the fact that atheists are considered to be one of the worst possible groups to which one may be a member in the United States. Numerous polls in recent years have indicated that an atheist is regarded as unacceptable as a candidate for public office by a majority of Americans. This is regardless of the persons positions, moral character, or other attributes. Simply because the individual is an atheist a large number of Americans would refuse to vote for him.
Of course, there are always groups with whom we have problems as a people. I certainly would understand, indeed would agree, that a neo Nazi is automatically disqualified as a reasonable candidate for any public office. However, that is due to the inherent racism and violence in the neo nazi movement. Atheists, on the other hand, are not inherently violent, racist, or immoral in any way. Many make the rather odd assumption that only those who believe in God can possibly have any morals. They assume that this is so because God is the single and sole source of all morality. But this cannot be true. If morality is moral only because God says so, then if God changes his mind, morality immediately changes.
This would mean that if tomorrow got decided that cannibalism was worth a try, it would immediately become moral and just to eat other! If God decided that Saint Augustine was correct and that sex was inherently evil, indeed, that the sex act itself is the disease vector through which original scene is passed from generation to generation, and that sex should be forbidden, then even married couples would be unable to be considered moral if they consummated their marriage.
Morality, therefore, must come from some other source than God. Surely, if God were to suddenly declare that rape and mass murder were good, we would not then begin to perform these acts. One of the reasons we so justly condemn cults is that the cult leader often performs brutal and cruel sexual acts upon its members, claiming that God has told him that this is the correct thing to do. The cult members may be deceived, but the rest of us see that these acts are immoral and just plain wrong. Of course, we do not assume that the cult leader is actually receiving these instructions from God. Instead we assume that He is either lying or is mentally ill. But even if god were to make such declarations, I am confident that the majority of us would not begin engaging in what we currently regard as depraved and reprehensible behavior.
God, too, must behave in a moral manner. One of the ways we differentiate Satan from God is in their conduct and the demands they make upon us. Another time I will discuss the issue of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and of Jephtha's sacrifice of his daughter. For now I simply wish to note that while the God of the old testament is an angry and a jealous god, He is, nevertheless, a just God.
It certainly cannot be denied that very religious people sometimes commit very horrible acts. It is not commonly acknowledged that Hitler was a very religious man. It is true he was not a churchgoing man, but it is very clear that he believed that he was doing God's work in cleansing the world of what he regarded as the Jewish infection. On the other hand, there are historical cases of atheists taking moral positions and even of suffering harm for doing so.
I believe that the fear of atheists grows out not simply of ignorance, but of an even deeper fear on the part of the religious that the atheist might just be right. In other words, I believe that the religious who fear the nonreligious have a very weak faith. If your faith a strong, there is no way an atheist can threaten it. If your faith is weak, than the mere fact that someone else expresses doubts becomes a very serious threat.
Consider the demands of the Religious Right for a return to prayer in public schools. They suggest that this is the only way to keep children and our nation moral. Which suggests that as parents they have no faith in their own ability to influence their own children. One of the reasons Christianity took root in the Roman world was because of the obvious faith which strengthened questions facing martyrdom. Those early Christians had no doubt that their faith was stronger than the Roman Empire. Today's American Christians of the Religious Right and have a different view. It is clear that they feel that without the government teaching their religion to their children for them, their faith will fade and die. One of the saddest things about this situation is how little faith the Religious Right has in the power of God.
3-25-11 The cherry blossom festival
In the face of the terrible tragedy in Japan I understand that a number of traditional ceremonies have been canceled. It is ironic that the cherry festival will be proceeding in Washington, DC. The cherry blossom in Japan has long been seen as symbolizing the brief beauty of life. Cherry blossom trees in Washington that donated to our country by Japan in 1912. At that time our two nations regard each other with respect and friendship. When World War II began there were calls to destroy the cherry trees as a symbolic gesture of the enmity to ground between us. Thankfully, this was not done. And so today, the trees are a symbol not only of the briefness of life, but if the ability of two nations to come back together in friendship even after a terrible war.
As this nation celebrates the cherry blossom festival in our capital we will surely remember the suffering of Japan and the courage of her people.
I wrote the above on the date indicated. In the time that has passed since then, so much has changed. the whole world is questioning nuclear power and the Japanese people are wondering if their dedication to harmony has been abused by a government which failed to regulate the nuclear industry and protect its citizens. An article by Stephen Bezruchka makes the point that, “The most important of all Japanese social values is "wa," or harmony...” But at what price? The Japanese people must decide. In any event, my thoughts, prayers and support remain with them.
In the face of the terrible tragedy in Japan I understand that a number of traditional ceremonies have been canceled. It is ironic that the cherry festival will be proceeding in Washington, DC. The cherry blossom in Japan has long been seen as symbolizing the brief beauty of life. Cherry blossom trees in Washington that donated to our country by Japan in 1912. At that time our two nations regard each other with respect and friendship. When World War II began there were calls to destroy the cherry trees as a symbolic gesture of the enmity to ground between us. Thankfully, this was not done. And so today, the trees are a symbol not only of the briefness of life, but if the ability of two nations to come back together in friendship even after a terrible war.
As this nation celebrates the cherry blossom festival in our capital we will surely remember the suffering of Japan and the courage of her people.
I wrote the above on the date indicated. In the time that has passed since then, so much has changed. the whole world is questioning nuclear power and the Japanese people are wondering if their dedication to harmony has been abused by a government which failed to regulate the nuclear industry and protect its citizens. An article by Stephen Bezruchka makes the point that, “The most important of all Japanese social values is "wa," or harmony...” But at what price? The Japanese people must decide. In any event, my thoughts, prayers and support remain with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)