The Pageless Book

My lovely wife is currently writing a series of blog entries on the self improvement elements of the movie Labyrinth, which you can read by clicking on the link above. While researching for this particular project, Cathy came across another interesting post about the religious elements of the movie Labyrinth. Right up my alley, yes? Not really. Emily, the author of this piece, has tried to claim that Labyrinth is a Christian morality play. I can relate to the idea that the movie can be symbolic of a spiritual journey, but Emily tries forcing metaphors where they simply do not belong.

How so? Well, lets start with our protagonist, Sarah - Emily claims that Sarah is with child and is projecting her emotional confusion over what to do with her unborn child onto her little brother. It is made pretty obvious by the, er, uh… what proof of this exists in the movie? Are we so sure that it is not Ms. Emily who is projecting?

It gets worse, though. She claims that Hoggle is a personification of Jesus Christ. Hoggle, the coward - Hoggle, the gruff loner - Hoggle, the reluctant traitor, is Jesus Christ? If Hoggle is anything, he is the voice of Sarah’s own doubts and fears, playing a foil to her outward optimism and naivete.

When we first see Hoggle, he is just outside the gates of the labyrinth killing fairies with a pesticide. According to Emily, we are suppose to infer that these fairies are instead the embodiment of the homosexual culture, which Hoggle… er, um, I mean Jesus, is seeking to eradicate. Could it simply be that they serve as a lesson for Sarah that not all things are as they seem? Nah! That apparently isn’t Christian enough, so Emily projects her homophobia into this children’s movie.

And the article continues from there, drawing the conclusion that the talking door guards are symbolic of true and false religion, the cleaners symbolic of cults, and the wise man is symbolic of Eastern Religions. In an apparent fit of racism, she calls the fire gang “blacksploitation jive turkeys,” claims that The Bog of Eternal Stench is symbolic of an abortion clinic, and claims Sir Didymus is symbolic of the fallacies of science. At this point, it behooves me to ask whether this particular article is a parody or serious. I’m not entirely sure, to be honest.

“The Christian Themes of Labyrinth” does one thing right, however unintentionally. It shows how easy it is to ignore obvious explanations in favor of rationalizing the interpretation we expect to be true. We each see what it is that we want to see. Unless we make the truth that which we most desire, we will only see the contrived metaphors of our imagination. If I may suggest, perhaps the lesson we are supposed to learn from Labyrinth is the importance of balancing the imagination of childhood against the required clarity and purpose of adulthood in order to seek truth over fantasy. Then again, it now might be me who is projecting.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Christian, Metaphors, Morality, Movies, Religion

Photo Above by Rodrigo Achá. Photo Below by Hobvias Sudoneighm. Final Photo by Martin Kingsley.

In the science fiction movie “I, Robot” Will Smith plays the part of Detective Spooner who is paranoid of artificial intelligence and robotics. His reason for distrusting AI is very telling. Both the Detective and a young girl had been in a major car accident, trapping them in cars that were taking on water. The emergency rescue robots evaluated the situation and decided that the Detective had a slightly better chance of surviving, so they disregarded his demands that the child be saved first and saved his life instead. By the time the rescue robots turned their attention to the girl, she was already dead. In Detective Spooner’s mind, this was a serious flaw in the robot’s programming - they were too logical to be trusted to make moral decisions.

Morality is a particular process of human reasoning that dictates what the best course of action would be for humanity both as a whole and as an individual. Sometimes, such as in the example made by this movie, morality requires that we sacrifice ourselves for the greater good of all humanity. Most of the time, it is what we don’t do that defines our morality. However, to assume this means that we would be able to define what is moral and immoral in any given circumstance invites the formulation of an absolute morality without any choice involved.

Ultimately, it is choice which makes morality valuable. When choice is removed from the equation, morality ceases to be a noble characteristic. If choice in moral decision is stripped away, human emotion concerning morality no longer has meaning. Morality becomes a mathematical equation to be used and potentially abused by the best and worst of humanity in equal measure. It becomes a tool, and morality should never be reduced to being merely a tool.

As pointed out before, morality is a function of human reasoning - should this not mean that morality must be logical? No. It is not merely logic, if only because our emotions and personal experience form an integral part of our human reasoning. There is this dangerous and faulty notion that logic is synonymous with reason, and that morality can be broken down into a few phrases that require no interpretation. Trying to boil morality down to a set of absolutes, no matter how eloquent in their simplicity, removes the human element which defines morality. Even the Golden rule - “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” - requires a large dose of thought and common sense.

Detective Spooner understood this, even though he didn’t know how to properly express it. He knew that it would only be a matter of time before the artificial intelligence found a logical interpretation of the morality coded into it’s system that was inherently immoral. In the movie, that interpretation lead the AI to believe that in order to protect humanity from itself, all choice must be taken away. The robots, which had become such an important part of human life, turned on the humans who had made them and threatened to place all of society under their tyrannical rule.

While we don’t face such a drastic turn of events outside our works of fiction, those who ascribe to an absolute version of morality frequently make poor decisions that affect us all. Morality is not separate from the human experience; assuming that all moral decisions, can be reduced to binary thinking is not only laziness, but also dangerous to us all. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of moral absolutes. So when I tell you that morality is a function of human reasoning, do not assume that I am telling you how to think or what to think - instead hear me as telling you to think and come to your own conclusions.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Artificial Intelligence, Humanity, Morality, Reason, Will Smith

Photo Above by Hickory Hardscrabble. Photo Below by Jason Meredith.

“Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.”
- Albert Einstein, 1879-1955.

It is commonly accepted that morality is intrinsic to religion and spirituality. The first thing that most people think in regards to other religions is the list of rules and restrictions concerning conduct for members of that religion. While some of these rules are common sense, such as “thou shall not kill”, other rules, such as keeping the Sabbath or abstaining from pork, seem frivolous. These rules are theoretically the basis for the morality taught by any given religion. Is it just an assumption that leads us to associate religious mores with morality? Are we wrong to think that morality and spirituality are mutually inclusive?

I’m not so sure. My immediate reaction would be to say that morality is a construct of society, rather than the mandate of the Divine. I find the majority of the thou-shall-nots associated with religions are meaningless and, in some cases, detrimental. However, when I really think about the subject of morality in regards to religion, part of me cannot help but wonder if I might be over simplifying.

I think part of my indecision lies in the spiritual nature of simply doing the right thing. While rationally I know that my idea of right and wrong was formed by the example of my parents and, to a lesser extent, the stories and traditions of our society, the experience of the connection and appreciation of another human being is deeply spiritual to me. It is that appreciation, not the laws written in any given holy text, which drives me to do the right thing and strive to be a “good person.” I don’t even know how I would go about defining the term “good person” in an objective manner, making it hard for me to speak of morality in any useful way.

The most universal moral teaching that is found in almost every religion, “The Golden Rule,” may provide a clue as to the deeper relationship between religion and morality. The Golden Rule simply states that each person should treat others in the same manner they would want to be treated. In the simplicity of this universal teaching, we find the one thing that all moral teachings attempt to protect; every member of society. Morality is an attempt to keep society functioning and to protect every member of that society equally. Humanity is a social creature by nature, so it stands to reason that we would each be adapted to a social life and have inherent rewards for acting in a way that benefits society. One of these inherent rewards could very well be a feeling of spiritual connection.

Perhaps religion, a social construct and vehicle for spiritual experience, is associated with morality because morality is a social construct which can sometimes lead to spiritual experiences. This doesn’t mean that morality is the sole domain of religion, or that everyone who is religious is moral. It does explain how the two could become so entangled that we might believe that morality to be an exclusive function of religion, even though it isn’t. I am yet to completely make up my mind, however, as to the role that spirituality (as oppose to religion) plays in morality. I would like to hear other opinions regarding this subject. Please, if you have any comments about the ideas I’m presenting in this article, I’d like to hear from you.
Originally Published October 16, 2007

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Humanity, Morality, Questions, Reason, Spirituality

Photo Above by Jarnocan. Photo Below by Ralph Hockens. Last Photo by Tracy Olson.

Yesterday I wrote about the questionable policies of the Church of Scientology, in my attempt to show why I applaud Anonymous in opposing the Church of Scientology. Today, I am interesting in talking about some of the more specific acts of this organization - in particular, illegal acts. However, I find myself at a loss. When I went to research for this article, I found that I could barely scratch the surface in the 500 - 700 words I normally write. As such, I’ve decided to only detail a few of the more grievous offenses this so-called Church.

Operation Snow White is the code-name of the Scientology project to infiltrate government agencies (both U.S. and Foreign) and destroy undesirable documents related to the Church of Scientology and its founder, Ron L. Hubbard. The FBI uncovered the operation as apart of a raid on Scientology property in 1977. The documents included plans to not only steal and destroy documents, but to plant false documents, and wiretaps on the IRS. This led to the conviction of eleven of the top ranking members of the Church, including Ronnie’s wife, Mary Sue Hubbard. You can read more about Operation Snow White here.

During the same raid, the FBI uncovered another project, Operation Freak Out, which targeted the journalist and author Paulette Cooper. In the early 1970’s she had written a book on the church which was considered libel by the church. The purpose of Operation Freak Out was to incriminate Paulette Cooper in anyway possible to destroy her credibility. This first began with escalating sexual harassment including subscribing her to pornographic magazines, obscene phone calls, and letters to her neighbors with various unsavory claims about her sex life. Then they forged bomb threats on stationary they had stole from her home and mailed it to the New York Church of Scientology in such a way to make it seem like she sent them. The final phase of Operation Freak Out conspired to frame Paulette Cooper with the Federal crime of making threats on the life of the President of the United States. You can read more about Operation Freak Out here.

Thankfully, the Church of Scientology was raided before they could put this plan into action. However, what I want to point out about this is the timing; these acts of harassment all occurred after the Fair Game policy was supposedly discontinued. All evidence suggests that the Fair Game policy is still in effect. What evidence? The evidence found on Xenu.net - claims of harassment, assault, false imprisonment, extortion, and invasion of privacy backed up by court documents. These are only the people who have come forward.

Now, to be fair, these are individuals who are outside the Church. We should judge the Church of Scientology by the good it does for its members, employees, and their children. You should keep this in mind, while reading the following stories:

Adeline Dodd-Bova describes her time as a teacher in Scientology schools and writes of troubling cases of insufficient sleep and children having little or no food. Even more disturbing is her description of children whose sexual and physical abuse were not reported to Social Services.

Mary Tabayoyon’s sworn affidavit describes several instances of women coerced into having abortions under threat of severe punishment. Note that Scientology considers abortion to be a serious sin, so these women were also being coerced into committing a grave violation of their religious beliefs.

Stacy Young’s sworn declaration states that RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force) “slave labor” is used to build luxury facilities for Scientology celebrities and are paid $5 a week for 70-hour weeks.

Lisa McPherson died in the custody of Scientology in Clearwater, FL. She was treated by a Scientology doctor who was not licensed to practice in Florida. In addition, it appears that Scientology had put Lisa on the Introspection Rundown. Her family is suing Scientology for wrongful death.

The Church charge its members hundreds of thousands of dollars to be treated in this manner. Worse yet, because they have declared themselves a religion, they are not required to pay taxes. The organization known as the Church of Scientology is, in my opinion, the most corrupt cooperate enterprises in the English speaking world today. This is why Scientology deserves to be protested against. A cry for justice must not be misconstrued for religious intolerance.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Crime, Death, Morality, Religion, Scientology

Photo Above by Bryan Gosline. Photo Below by Vincent Diamante. Last Photo by Todd “Hryckowian”.

Little more than two months ago, I first wrote about the actions of an internet group going by “Anonymous” and their war against the cult of Scientology. At that time my main question was whether or not the actions of Anonymous are religious persecution, or whether they had a valid reason to protest against Scientology. It was my opinion that Anonymous had excellent reasons why we should protest against Scientology. I was one of the first, if not the first, blogger to write about Anonymous and the brewing confrontation. For standing up and voicing my opinion, I was rewarded with a huge influx of traffic and comments to my site.

I would be lying if I said that it didn’t scare me a little. I didn’t want my site to become a strictly Anti-Scientology website. I was afraid that the popularity of that particular article threatened to limit the scope of what people expected of me as a religion and spirituality writer. So, I avoided that topic for the next two months.

Yet, now as I look back upon that article, I realized that there was an awful lot I didn’t explain. Most importantly, I hadn’t properly explained exactly what it is that the Church of Scientology has done to incur the wrath of so many people of the internet community. Sure, there is a long history overly aggressive tactics against copyright infringements and criticism, but the same can be said of the more aggressive international conglomerates.

What has the Church of Scientology done that is so reprehensible? Well let us start from the top. Scientology represents itself as a program of self improvement which relies on techniques that have not been tested in any controlled scientific manner. While the same can be said about holistic practices and new age self improvement, everyone in the holistic or new age community would be quick to say that holistic medicine should be used in conjunction with traditional medicine.

Neither The American Medical Association or American Psychological Association have endorsed Scientology and both actively discouraged treating Scientology as legitimate medicine. Because these organizations failed to acquiesce to Ron L. Hubbard’s ambitions, he declared both psychology and psychiatry to be poisonous unfounded sciences. This would be just another ironic twist if Scientology did not then strongly discourage the use of psychiatric medicine, even for those who desperately need it.

But how is that different than Christian Science, who abstain from medical treatment? It isn’t; of everything that the Church of Scientology does, this is the least of their offenses. There is also the matter of Scientology’s disconnect policy, which has ruined hundreds of families, ended marriages, and separated parents from their children. If the Church deems a particular person to be “suppressive,” that is in opposition to an individual member’s personal development within the Church, they mandate that member to sever all ties with the suppressive person. This, of course, only serves to further isolate their members from the rest of society.

Again, similar policies have been enacted by other young religions, which forces us to ask whether or not Scientology is any worse than these. It is the Church’s “Fair Game” policy that sets Scientology apart from these legitimate religions. The Fair Game policy reads that suppressive persons -

May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. (HCOPL 18 October 67 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions)

The next year after the Fair Game policy was put in place, the Fair Game policy was allegedly canceled. However, pay attention to how the cancellation of this policy was worded.

The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP. (HCOPL 21 Oct 68, Cancellation of Fair Game)

This had left many people wondering if the Church of Scientology had merely canceled the term “Fair Game” and left the actual policy in tact. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests the Church is still operating under the assumption that any non-Scientologist may be deprived of property, injured, tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed. Tomorrow, I’ll discuss the specific crimes that the Church of Scientology has allegedly committed.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Anonymous, Cult, Morality, Religion, Scientology

Photo Above by Cory Doctorow. Photo Below by Tom Conder. Final Photo by Kyle Flood.

If you couldn’t tell, I have been on a bit of a D&D kick as of late. I guess the passing of Gary Gygax has awakened a bit of my nostalgia for the game - I grew up on this stuff, after all. Looking back, I can tell that the game influenced my spiritual beliefs along with broadening my mind and my imagination. The life lessons I’ve learned playing D&D might have been learned through other avenues of experience, but perhaps not as soon and perhaps not while having so much fun.

Life Is About Gaining Experience

D&D was the first game ever developed that used experience points and levels to measure the growth in power of the player’s “piece.” Most people don’t seem to grasp how revolutionary that idea truly is. In poker, your growth as a player depended entirely on your own mastery of the game. With chess, each player started the game on a level playing field. While in playing Monopoly, your piece gained more monetary capital and real estate, your control over the game always remained dependent on the roll of two dice. Only in Dungeons & Dragons did your playing piece, your character, have the chance to develop separately from your own experience. Of course video games have now made the concept of character levels and constant improvement through game play more popular than ever, but they all owe a dept of gratitude to D&D.

The reason why experience and levels were introduced into the D&D game in the first place was to simulate the personal growth of each individual person. For me, this provided the first and most important lesson - life is about gaining experience. While in real life I don’t have to hack up monsters to grow and to becoming a stronger person, there is little doubt in my mind that the human experience is about learning more about how to better live. With each step that we take in life, we gain the experience necessary to take the next.

Potential Failure Makes Life Worth Living

I’ve been through my fair share of characters. I’ve seen their triumphant mistakes land them six feet under more than a few times. However, if D&D did not allow for the chance of failure, than it would not be as interesting to play. In fact, if I knew the outcome of every die roll, I don’t think I would be as much of a fan of this game as I am today.

The same goes for life; if we all knew exactly what to expect, I doubt that life would be as rich and vibrant. Can I handle a new management level position at my place of employment? I’m not entirely sure, to be perfectly honest. Am I going to shoot for a management level position? Yes, if only because I want that experience. I am sure I will stumble along the way, but it is worth trying if only because I don’t know what to expect.

We Each Decide Our Own Conditions For Success

As a Dungeon Master (the referee of a D&D game), I’ve seen a number of fair maidens go un-rescued due to my players deciding that the kingdom is better without her anyway. Sometimes, the goal which I had set out for the players is ignored completely and the game goes in a completely different direction than what I originally intended. I have even ran a game where the players have taken over a town which they originally had pledged to save. I may have been a little disappointed at these turn of events, but my players felt triumphant. Why? Because they have set their own condition for success and have achieved it.

In a similar manner, we can decide for ourselves the conditions for what we consider a successful life. I don’t need to be married with two children, making a six figure salary, owning a home I can barely afford filled with the newest technological gadgets to be successful in this life. That is someone else’s definition of success. My definition of success could be to live without answering to anyone, to make my own schedule, and to roam where ever my heart leads me without the tethers of responsibility. The definition of what society believes to be success is just a suggestion - a suggestion based purely on material things. I, as well as you, can make up our own minds as to what constitutes a successful life.

You Can Change Who You Become

One of the more challenging aspects of Dungeons & Dragons is wrapping your head around all the choices you have in terms of creating your character. Sure, I could make it easy on yourself and choose one of the standard classes and standard races, but what if I change my mind latter on? That is where multi-classing comes in; I can choose to alter or tweak the role of my character as I advance in levels. I may not be able to alter who that character was formally but I can change who he becomes. For example, if my brutish dwarven warrior later tires of battle and instead finds new interests and challenges in healing, he will still know everything he knew as a warrior but begin learning how to best mend wounds instead of how best to create them.

Like my dwarven warrior, you too can change who you are becoming. This is a life lesson that not many people until their later years - I’m just glad that I’ve learned it early. It may be hard to see a way out of your current circumstances, especially if you find yourself destitute. However, there is always one thing that you do control; your own personal development. Who you become as a person is still completely up to you, even if the necessary education seems out of reach. All you need to do is to put yourselves in situations which expose you to the skills you need, and challenges you in the areas you need to develop. It isn’t easy, and it will never change who you were, but we should never be lead to believe that we cannot change who we become.

Morality & Ethics Are Not Simple

The way in which Dungeons & Dragons simulate morality is through a system of “alignments” which dictate the way in which a character views the world. There are nine of these alignments, these being Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic on one axis, and Good, Neutral and Evil on the other axis. Even with the possibility of neutrality as an alignment choice, it has never been an easy task deciphering what exactly constitutes good and evil, law and chaos. These moral and ethical presumptions that are injected into the game have spawned an ongoing discussion that almost every gaming group has.

For being a dysfunctional mechanic in an otherwise fun game, alignment has taught me much about right and wrong. It is never a simple matter of one or the other. There are no absolutes when it comes to morality and ethics, and to assume to know those absolutes does not some how show more integrity, but instead points to the laziness of the one who makes that assumption. Despite the decrying of moral relativism from some, I do not see it as a downward spiral of loosening ethics and morality. Quite to the contrary, moral relativism demands constant inquiry into the nature of our deeds and their impact on those around us, for good or bad. Moral absolutism judges a thing by its name, while moral relativism judges that thing by its fruits.

It may seems strange to attribute so many virtues to something as silly as a fantasy role playing game. Perhaps it could be argued that I learned these lessons elsewhere in life which were later reinforced by the game… but there is a great deal to be said about reinforcing what is learned. For this I own a dept of gratitude to Mr. Gygax, as well as for the time spent in the presence of friends both in the past and in the future.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Dungeons & Dragons, Growth, Lessons, Life, Morality

Photo above by Janine C. Photo below is Public Domain Courtesy of the National Archives.

The first experience with racism was when I was five or six… but it was not as you might think. I accused a black child of drinking my beverage when I wasn’t looking. My so-called proof was the swirling of my own saliva in my cup. I believed, at that time, that what I was looking at was his ‘blackness’ that had come off from his skin. When I told an adult, I felt the squirming warmth of revenge uncoil in my heart and was satisfied that justice had been done.

Later, when my mother had pointed out that it was my own saliva I was looking at, I felt guilty and foolish. However, for a brief moment hatred had taken seed in me. Now, it would be easy to dismiss this childhood memory as a simple misunderstanding. You shouldn’t. That is how any form of bigotry takes root - from the inability or the unwillingness to understand one another.

And to be completely honest, that isn’t the last time I have had to struggle with my own innate racism, or the racism of others. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I’ve heard disparaging remarks about African Americans and did nothing. My own cowardice is proceeded only by my arrogance in thinking that I am not racist. No matter how many times I say I am color blind, I still see black and white. No matter how friendly I am towards those who are different than me, there is a part of me that is trying to prove something. And the more sensitive I am about another person’s race or ethnicity, the more I avoid trying to understand them.

February is Black History Month, a month long reminder of the great accomplishments and contributions that African Americans have made despite their struggle against racism in the States. If you haven’t guessed by now, I have a lot of mixed feeling about Black History Month. The fact that we have to attribute a full month to one racial minority is a tribute to how little we understand each other as human beings. That so many other minorities, such as the American Indians, do not have the same distinction also makes my heart uneasy. But it is our history as a species, blighted by so many atrocities, that worries me the most. I’m not entirely sure that we are making progress.

It isn’t enough for individuals to hide their misunderstandings of each other under thin veils of politeness. Race deserves open and honest discourse through which we can come to understand each other. We need to each admit to ourselves our own blind spots and try to broaden our vision. Without that, we are merely ignoring the problem.

Of course none of this is easy. If it were, my parent’s generation would have eliminated racism long before my conception. Its specter still looms over American history, threatening to taint our future and darken our doorstep. I don’t believe that this is a lost cause, but I still have trouble taking anyone who says they are color-blind seriously.

With this in mind, I humbly pray for mutual understanding among all people. God, we are your children; Please make us see!

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: America, God, History, Holidays, Morality, Racism

Photo by Sharon Mollerus

Two weeks ago, I wrote an article debating that, while there are problems with modern religion, aspects of religion were both true and helpful, and could not be discounted as being a factor concerning the validity of religion as an institution. This was in response to Greta Christina’s article regarding the nature of the debate between atheists and theists. While I was hoping to garner the attention of the queen bee herself, she made it quite clear that she may not have the time to respond properly. No problem. I figured if she didn’t have time to respond that there was an atheist somewhere who would rise to the challenge.

It wasn’t until this past Thursday that I received a response. John B. Hodges was polite enough to comment on my lonely post and point out a few weaknesses in my argument. He wrote, “AFAICT you seem to be saying that (1) religion minus claims of Truth = Practices and values, and (2) the practices and values can be beneficial, even if the associated story is fiction… If ethics and practices are based, in any degree, upon false stories, thay (sic) are likely, to that degree, to be bad ethics.”

While I wouldn’t say he disproved my argument with this, he did manage to dent it. I hadn’t sufficiently addressed why I felt that religion and/or spirituality was “true”. The problem is that, Mr. Hodges and I are speaking about two different types of truth, neither of which are incompatible or all encompassing.

Logic, one method of understanding the universe, derives truth from a series of binary decisions. This method of inquiry has the amazing capability to allow us realize technologies and live richer then we would otherwise be able to do. Only fools dismiss the possibilities. Logic is mankind’s greatest tool for understanding the perceivable world. Yet it isn’t perfect.

The universe does not conform to logic, rather it is logic that must conform to the universe. We may only apply logic to something that we can perceive and that can be verified independently of any outside influence. Most importantly, logic does not describe the totality of the human existence.

We human beings have an emotion element, which defies logic, cannot be perceived or quantified, and yet plays an essential part in our experience. Emotional truth, found in art and spirituality, is far undervalued. It is also a type of truth, but unlike logic, does not fit nice little boxes. To be sure, emotional truth should not be applied to outside world, but by the same token, logic should not be applied to the world within us.

It is this that I am defending when I defend religion. It should be understood that religion is emotional truth, not logical truth. When I talk about the stories of the Bible being taken literally, I’m talking about applying logic to something that should remain only emotional.

Morality, however, is one of those tricky animals that deal with both emotional truths and logical truths. When logic or emotion overcomes the other as the primary deciding factor of morality, we have frightening results. Religion should not have the final say in regards to morality, but neither should science.

I conclude by saying, yet again, I don’t know how well I’ve defended my position. I like putting myself in the precarious position of agreeing and yet disagreeing with those whom I debate. Inevitably, someone will come along and find yet more holes in my argument. I personally think that’s the fun part of theist-atheist dialogue - being challenged to think.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Art, Atheism, Bible, Morality, Reason, Religion, Spirituality

If there is one thing I cannot wrap my brain around, is how naming a teddy bear after the prophet Muhammad could ever be considered insulting. In case you haven’t heard, a visiting British teacher was imprisoned by Sudan on November 25th for letting the children in her class name a teddy bear “Muhammad.” She could have gotten up to 40 lashes with a cane and 50 days in jail. The good news is that the President of Sudan stepped in and pardoned the lady after a few days in jail. The bad news? There were actually protests against her release in Sudan.

As a Westerner, I can’t hope to understand why this would be an offense that warrants even an hour of jail time or one dollar fine. If I were to name my Cthulhu Plush after Jesus Christ (which I have not done - by the way), it would be tasteless and insulting. Yet, most Christians would just shake their heads, tell me that I am an idiot, and go about their day. And rightly so. To do anything else is adding more power and meaning to the actions of one fool.

And yet, this action was not the action of a fool, but instead the decision of her class. Children as young as 9 felt that a cuddly stuffed animal, the symbol of childhood innocence, should be named after the Prophet Muhammad. This is so saccharine sweet that I’m getting a tooth-ache just thinking about it.

Can anybody help me understand this mess? I’d like to believe that I’m a tolerant and open minded individual, but I just can’t be tolerant of this. Is there anyone else who feels as I do?

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Current Events, Islam, Morality, Reason, Religion, Religious Tolerance

What happens to a human being when you take away all hope? You can see the results of this happening to fellow human beings on a daily basis. All you need to do is turn to your favorite twenty-four hour news channel, let your eyes lose focus, and absorb the massive amounts of homicide, suicide, and abuse. While I would not say that all violence is a result of hopelessness, I do think we can attribute a substantial amount of violence as such. Horrible things often occur in the vacuum of hopelessness.

One of the most potent examples of this can be found in Genesis - the story of Cain and Abel. God rejects Cain in favor of Abel. When scorned by one’s own creator, how can anyone continue to hold hope? So Cain killed his brother in response to God’s rejection. Cain takes vengeance upon God himself, and then lies to his creator when asked about his deed. For this God rejects Cain yet again, and then binds Cain into his own living hell of pain and anguish by forbidding anyone from doing him harm. Cain wants to die, but cannot kill himself nor be killed by anyone else.

Is that harsh? That is down right brutal for a supposed loving God. However, if you think about it, Cain personifies hopelessness as a result of his punishment. Abel, whose name means “whisper” in ancient Hebrew, personifies the last shard of hope within Cain. Snuff that out, and he becomes a murderer. Strip someone of their own self acceptance, and they are no longer truly human. It’s this Cain-mentality that drives young men to walk into their school and shoot up their classmates. This is the same pain that bring some to walk off roof tops, breathe carbon monoxide, and shoot antifreeze into their own veins.

Is that the end of Cain’s story? No, Genesis tells us that Cain lives on. Cain goes on to father a list of characters, of who we only know by name, and then fades into distant history. You see, the Bible doesn’t just give us a symbol of hopelessness, it also hints at how we can overcome it. While we aren’t told what happens when Cain wanders into the land of Nod, we can understand what it means to walk, one step at a time, through darkness. The only way out is through.

In Cain we see a painful lesson in what it means to be human. We’re also given something we didn’t expect… hope. If I were to believe in evil, hopelessness would be one of its manifestations. Through Cain, we come to understand evil’s weakness as being patience.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Bible, Faith, God, Inspiration, Morality, Spirituality