Thanksgiving—more than any other holiday, I've realized—has the potential to bring about the sorts of benign vexations, the airing of which give this blog its general purpose.
I come from a big family. A big, fantastic family, full of love and—I want to say "freakish" diversity—though I know I'd be exaggerating slightly.
Each year, the majority of us gather in Spokane, WA at my aunt and uncle's beautiful lakeside home, where countless pies and casseroles converge and in the span of a couple hours, are reduced to remnants the likes of which are usually too meager to justify the use of tupperware.
At these gatherings the sheer buoyancy of the family geist is enough to keep even a space-case like myself from receding into familiar cubbies of introspection. Still, part of my mind (the part that constitutes "the back of my mind") scrawled a few napkin notes for later processing at God, LLC.
After all, what better grounds for study than a big ol' Catholic family?
Not that I was raised Catholic.
On the contrary, I was given a pretty much cursory religious education—bare bones, you might say. But, it turned out to be just enough to ensure that, try as I may, I will probably never fully escape the senseless guilt and feelings of blind duty that come bundled with a God complex.
I suppose I could always ask my mom what it's like—hers is the side with strong Catholic roots. Did I mention Thanksgivings in Spokane consist largely of my Mom's side? Where was I even going with this anyway. Oh, right... benign vexations and napkin notes.
I'm afraid, after all this build up, I'm getting cold feet about continuing with this family portrait. It's bound to be too lopsided. Suffice it to say, my only aim was to try and describe some of the frustrations that arise when you get a big group of people together, with a broad sampling of differences—especially when those differences are religious differences.
On the one hand, differing opinions give life meaning and kinesis. It's easy to forget this while in search of some mirage-like utopia.
On the other hand, though, it's individual constituents that amount to the elephantine machine that churns and croaks and takes donations and panders to the weak and hijacks minds and reshapes them into an image of itself perpetuating this credulity—you follow?
I will always choose people over ideas.
In this way, I guess I'll just have to continue venting my frustrations cryptically into the cybersphere, hoping that paint doesn't begin to un-dry.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Swiss ban minarets
Too bad, they sure are perdy...
Swiss voters back ban on minarets - BBC News
Minaret, Serrières, Switzerland
Photo: Tambako the Jaguar
Photo: Tambako the Jaguar
Swiss voters back ban on minarets - BBC News
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Jefferson and Ridicule
A debate was held recently in London, the topic: "Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?" I wasn't there but I've watched enough Christopher Hitchens clips on youtube to know how these things tend to go, so I wasn't surprised at the Telegraph's account of the debate.
Hitchens is a professional. On the one hand, he's meant for the stage with a sardonic wit and the ability to project his version of the truth with impressive clarity. On the other hand, and more importantly, he has a sturdy academic base, as evidenced by his erudition, professorship and biographical works. These more serious credentials (along with the above mentioned wit) collide with the sweaty impatience of an everlasting hangover to produce the sort of heroic condescensions seen here, and here.
But how does Christopher Hitchens exist in the potent form we see today? Perhaps it was his proximity to the writings of Thomas Jefferson (Hitchens has written biographies on Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and George Orwell) that attuned him to the necessity of ridicule:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
"Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April 1803
Jefferson, a deist and author of the Jefferson Bible, clearly had a point. Where reasoned argument fails, ridicule is a last resort. Or perhaps a first one...
After all, ridicule—for better and for worse—is the invisible gargoyle guarding all of societies norms. Laws provide necessary structure and recourse, but ridicule plays a fundamental, albeit amorphous role in governing all that falls outside its domain.
For example, there's no law against owning a Hummer. But ridicule has surely done its part to regulate the expanded growth of Hummer sales (in fact, they've sharply fallen off!)
Inversely, there are wide-spread laws against committing acts of violence. And yet, in cultures where violence is glorified, an unwillingness to commit violence might be met with charges of softness or cowardice.
Even in the polite world of academia, ridicule is a significant force. It acts as a deterrent. One needn't always employ it because the potential of ridicule is itself enough. It's written onto our psyches.
I have this hunch that it's ridicule that keeps the faithful from getting more specific about their beliefs, meanwhile allowing atheists like Christopher Hitchens to be outspoken and trample them in debate. Hitchens, like Thomas Jefferson, knows the utility of ridicule, and is using it to great effect.
Hitchens is a professional. On the one hand, he's meant for the stage with a sardonic wit and the ability to project his version of the truth with impressive clarity. On the other hand, and more importantly, he has a sturdy academic base, as evidenced by his erudition, professorship and biographical works. These more serious credentials (along with the above mentioned wit) collide with the sweaty impatience of an everlasting hangover to produce the sort of heroic condescensions seen here, and here.
But how does Christopher Hitchens exist in the potent form we see today? Perhaps it was his proximity to the writings of Thomas Jefferson (Hitchens has written biographies on Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and George Orwell) that attuned him to the necessity of ridicule:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
"Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April 1803
Jefferson, a deist and author of the Jefferson Bible, clearly had a point. Where reasoned argument fails, ridicule is a last resort. Or perhaps a first one...
After all, ridicule—for better and for worse—is the invisible gargoyle guarding all of societies norms. Laws provide necessary structure and recourse, but ridicule plays a fundamental, albeit amorphous role in governing all that falls outside its domain.
For example, there's no law against owning a Hummer. But ridicule has surely done its part to regulate the expanded growth of Hummer sales (in fact, they've sharply fallen off!)
Inversely, there are wide-spread laws against committing acts of violence. And yet, in cultures where violence is glorified, an unwillingness to commit violence might be met with charges of softness or cowardice.
Even in the polite world of academia, ridicule is a significant force. It acts as a deterrent. One needn't always employ it because the potential of ridicule is itself enough. It's written onto our psyches.
I have this hunch that it's ridicule that keeps the faithful from getting more specific about their beliefs, meanwhile allowing atheists like Christopher Hitchens to be outspoken and trample them in debate. Hitchens, like Thomas Jefferson, knows the utility of ridicule, and is using it to great effect.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Second thoughts
Don't ask me how I come across this stuff at 2am, but I watched this video clip and found it utterly disturbing. I thought I'd post it. In doing so, I thought I'd title the post "Christian radicalism running amok" and call it a night. But that left me with a nagging feeling. What good does it do to contribute to bad air? to add to the already stifling tensions in the world at present? Why insert a link when it only leads to disheartening news? Not even news in this case. Just another anxiety-inducing tid-bit that affirms something you already know.
Maybe tomorrow I'll have something redeeming to say...
Monday, November 16, 2009
Regarding my last post...
News of the Federal Reserve's crack-down on banks for the dubiousness of their overdraft fee policies was unforeseen and abrupt enough to bring a victim of such criminality to near-tears. For an ecstatic moment, it seemed as if the clouds had parted and the big-man-himself was waving his finger at me saying "You see, I told you so! For shame, for shame."
In an instant, I came to regret my every utterance on this blog and I wanted to make things right. I wanted to apologies to all the poor souls I'd surely led astray, to all the radio stations I'd ever offended. This fervency proved fleeting, but I went on thinking along these lines for the rest of the day... and into the next—UNTIL! I realized the true nature of this occurrence...
It happened like this. I was just settling into my chair—new lease of life—ready to begin praise of His almightiness in a last-ditch attempt at favoritism, when I noticed the numbers... Let me explain.
It seems, in three years—three joyful years of apostatizing and bestowing the merits of skepticism on this blog—I have posted exactly 9 entries each year. This is evidenced by the blog archive scheme positioned to the right of this post (which, it's worth noting, should now indicate 10 posts for 2009 as opposed to 9 [at least at the time of this post]).
On a personal note, to this I say—Not bad! Twenty-seven posts in thirty-three months isn't shabby, especially, considering I never gave myself any sort of quota. On a demonic note, however, I say, this does not bode well...
Tracking with me? That's three 9's. Three 9's that, when turned upside down, make for three 6's! And as Wikipedia tells us, these particular characters when presented in succession amount to a certain number, a certain number of a certain someone who—as it turns out, aparently has a sense of humor, as I interpret this to be a direct message from BEELZEBUB HIMSELF!
Wow! Whoa is me! A personal acknowledgment from Satan, a nod of approval, the equivalent of a Hallmark card from Hell (Hellmark® card, count it!) saying "Keep up the good work!"
And so, my hungry readers, you must pardon me for last week's knee-jerk reaction and the resulting polemic. It was all false on account of this fiendish prank, and the sentimentality that it bore I'll wear like a cheap smock I got at Old Navy that's short, wide and unflattering.
Stay tuned for regularly-scheduled programming...
In an instant, I came to regret my every utterance on this blog and I wanted to make things right. I wanted to apologies to all the poor souls I'd surely led astray, to all the radio stations I'd ever offended. This fervency proved fleeting, but I went on thinking along these lines for the rest of the day... and into the next—UNTIL! I realized the true nature of this occurrence...
It happened like this. I was just settling into my chair—new lease of life—ready to begin praise of His almightiness in a last-ditch attempt at favoritism, when I noticed the numbers... Let me explain.
It seems, in three years—three joyful years of apostatizing and bestowing the merits of skepticism on this blog—I have posted exactly 9 entries each year. This is evidenced by the blog archive scheme positioned to the right of this post (which, it's worth noting, should now indicate 10 posts for 2009 as opposed to 9 [at least at the time of this post]).
On a personal note, to this I say—Not bad! Twenty-seven posts in thirty-three months isn't shabby, especially, considering I never gave myself any sort of quota. On a demonic note, however, I say, this does not bode well...
Tracking with me? That's three 9's. Three 9's that, when turned upside down, make for three 6's! And as Wikipedia tells us, these particular characters when presented in succession amount to a certain number, a certain number of a certain someone who—as it turns out, aparently has a sense of humor, as I interpret this to be a direct message from BEELZEBUB HIMSELF!
Wow! Whoa is me! A personal acknowledgment from Satan, a nod of approval, the equivalent of a Hallmark card from Hell (Hellmark® card, count it!) saying "Keep up the good work!"
And so, my hungry readers, you must pardon me for last week's knee-jerk reaction and the resulting polemic. It was all false on account of this fiendish prank, and the sentimentality that it bore I'll wear like a cheap smock I got at Old Navy that's short, wide and unflattering.
Stay tuned for regularly-scheduled programming...
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Jesus and Satan "Spirit Brothers" according to Mormons
Eh, why not? It's no crazier a claim than countless others found in various, older (and thereby surely more credible) religious texts.
Of course, nowadays the trend is toward a more figurative reading of things like Genesis.
But what will become of the world's faiths as adherents increasingly look on their texts as fable?
That is, as religions continue to transform to stay relevant—at what point do they become akin to Greek mythology?
Or will MORMONISM be the next rung on faith's evolutionary ladder?
I sincerely hope not. For myself, and for the people of this website:
http://www.exmormon.org
I found this thread particularly distressing:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon311.htm
Jesus or Zeus?
Of course, nowadays the trend is toward a more figurative reading of things like Genesis.
But what will become of the world's faiths as adherents increasingly look on their texts as fable?
That is, as religions continue to transform to stay relevant—at what point do they become akin to Greek mythology?
Or will MORMONISM be the next rung on faith's evolutionary ladder?
I sincerely hope not. For myself, and for the people of this website:
http://www.exmormon.org
I found this thread particularly distressing:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon311.htm
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Heavenly Churches
Are fancy churches a testament to God's glory, or Man's ego? Or both? Whatever the case, there is something about church building that seems to tap into an architect's sense of otherness.
Notre Dame du Haut – Le Corbusier
Photo: 黃毛
Church of Light - Tadao Ando
Photo: Chris He
Pilgrimage Church - Gottfried Böhm
Photo: seier+seier
Grundtvig Memorial Church - P. V. Jensen Klint
Photo: seier+seier
Bagsværd Church – Jørn Utzon
Photo: James Woodward
St. Mary's Cathedral, Tokyo - Tange Kenzo
Photo: Shinjuku1
Notre Dame du Haut – Le Corbusier
Photo: scarletgreen
Notre Dame du Haut – Le Corbusier
Photo: scarletgreen
Notre Dame du Haut – Le Corbusier
Photo: Rory Hyde
St. Mary's Cathedral, San Francisco - Pier Luigi Nervi
Photo: Thomas Hawk
Notre Dame du Haut – Le Corbusier
Photo: 黃毛
Church of Light - Tadao Ando
Photo: Chris He
Pilgrimage Church - Gottfried Böhm
Photo: seier+seier
Grundtvig Memorial Church - P. V. Jensen Klint
Photo: seier+seier
Bagsværd Church – Jørn Utzon
Photo: James Woodward
St. Mary's Cathedral, Tokyo - Tange Kenzo
Photo: Shinjuku1
Notre Dame du Haut – Le Corbusier
Photo: scarletgreen
Notre Dame du Haut – Le Corbusier
Photo: scarletgreen
Notre Dame du Haut – Le Corbusier
Photo: Rory Hyde
St. Mary's Cathedral, San Francisco - Pier Luigi Nervi
Photo: Thomas Hawk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
