So, I fully expect this essay or "blog posting" may offend some and confuse others, while causing still others to change their former view of me (for the worse, I'd imagine), but here goes:
I'm a Jew trapped in a black man's body.
To anyone who truly knows me, this is not startling news, but for those who only casually know me, it may sound like I prefer being Jewish to being black. That's not fully the case, though it is partially the case - but don't worry, it's not what it sounds like - of course I'll explain.
Apart from all the things one might stereotypically (or accurately) associate with Jewish people (overbearing & nagging mothers, social awkwardness, personal guilt, self-deprecating humor, over-the-top sensitivity to racism, reading billboards aloud, etc.), I actually feel a sort of kinship with the Jewish community. Despite the many setbacks and the historic oppression of the community, they have managed to create and maintain a system where the community still stands, powerful and active, with higher than average income and lower than average crime and poverty rates. As a whole, Jews are very influential in arts, culture and academics, as well as science and business. It has become almost canonical that they, as a community, are great at anything worth being great at.
I realize that their community is not perfect, as none are, but I've often said regarding perfection that, as a model, it's probably the closest thing the black community will ever have. And they've even offered it (their model) to us. Granted, one can always debate the nature of that offering, and many of those debates are valid, still, if you're a hungry man, does it really matter why bread is being offered? In the PERFECT world it should matter, but in the REAL world it doesn't matter.
The historic relationship between blacks and Jews in the United States though complicated, has generally been good. The strain of the past twenty years or so, though not at all unprecedented, has been something of an anomaly.
It's no secret that many of the people (besides other blacks) who supported an end to slavery and who looked to hire blacks after slavery, were Jews. Often, the wages were low and the hours were long, but it was something where nothing had existed before. By the turn of the 20th century, black men had coined a term for their Jewish supervisors at work - "Goldberg". It was a derogatory term that definitely heralded things to come, but there was no violent antipathy between the communities at that time (outside of the crime world).
Blacks and Jews developed jazz dance and music together, and often, the closest interracial friends in any given music grouping were the blacks and the Jews. Both suffered violent racism and antisemitism wherever they went, including the murder of one black man and two Jewish men traveling together in Mississippi in 1964, and together, blacks and Jews turned the tide of racial segregation through legislation.
By the time of the late 1970's, relations between blacks and Jews slowly began to devolve, until a full-on collapse throughout the 1980's and early 1990's. However, the Jewish community didn't simultaneously implode in the way the black community did. There were many factors involved in this. Jewish people were not still working primarily in low-wage and/or blue-collar fields at this time, so even though the black community had built and sustained a decent-sized middle-class by that time, when those jobs started disappearing, the black community was disproportionately affected. As well, the crack epidemic wasn't a major problem in the Jewish community. In addition to these, there are many institutional ways in which black people lose money that others don't. Loans to blacks have higher interest rates - both business and private, and blacks are denied more often than others - even when their credit rating is outstanding. Rents charged to black businesses are often higher, and mortgages for black home owners are often higher. This, of course, is rarely known to the black owners until they talk to someone else or do more research, and are forced to take legal action.
The Jewish community is nearly synonymous with the history of merchants; our history as merchants (in the European system of trade) is not nearly as lengthy, and that also contributes to a lack of respect from non-black merchants, clients, and associates.
All of this clearly makes it more difficult for us as a community to succeed - but difficult does not equal impossible. Blacks in the US have again reached a point (financially) where the Jewish (and Asian) models of community success in the US are models we can adopt and "put our spin on". The idea of opening our own businesses in our own communities and patronizing them is first and foremost. This has already started taking a strong foothold in communities from New York and Philadelphia to Atlanta, on the east coast, as well as many other cities throughout the country. Chicago, in the Midwest, is a wonderful example, and Cleveland is beginning a similar (albeit slow) reawakening.
Where we still have some distance to cover with Jewish people is the reverence for education and the balance between entertainment and general commerce. No one can deny that Jews are all about the entertainment industry. But for every one Jewish entertainer, you can find twenty Jewish Lawyers, Doctors, Professors, Politicians, Accountants, Physicists, Chefs, Contractors, Entrepreneurs, etc. There isn't an askance view of professions other than entertainment. The Jewish community values education and what it can provide. However, we are at a point where our youth - and many of those youths' parents - look only to sports or pop music as an outlet. We largely only look for quick money ways to success, and that is a problem. And of those that actually do achieve in those areas, only a select few actually try to help to build something from it. Most just buy expensive homes, cars, clothes and jewelry.
There are other areas too where we lag behind - political influence comes to mind. We largely support and endorse corrupt politicians, who actually hurt us. At least other corrupt politicians rarely hurt their own people - they use their corruption to steal from others. Our politicians keep us in poverty and crime. How many blacks actually supported former mayor Marion Barry for re-election after his crack scandal (one scandal among many)? Well, this much is accurate for sure:
1. He won re-election, and
2. It wasn't on the strength of non-black votes.
Another apt scandal (one of his many) was former mayor Sharpe James in Newark, New Jersey. James was convicted of abusing a program to revitalize Newark's South Ward. The project was intended to help rebuild poor inner-city neighborhoods by selling and granting property and money for redevelopment in a city that had become synonymous with poverty and joblessness. Instead, James sold city-owned property to a former girlfriend for approximately $46,000, which she then flipped for a profit of over $600,000. Few new jobs were created and minority-owned businesses did not get the support they expected and needed. Recently, another mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit was implicated in multiple scandals. This, in the midst of his city and his people falling apart around him. If you're going to do a disservice, don't. Period. But if you're going to do it anyway, don't do it to your own people.
Also, regarding political influence, we need to impress upon ourselves the importance of voting people in whom we trust, but voting people out in whom we don't. We need to stop marching and complaining, and take action. Voting is a powerful action. We need to get after our politicians the way other communities get after theirs - to keep our streets paved, our schools funded, and our hospitals operational. All this beyond fervent, rhetorical, sermon-esque speeches. And they should pay with their jobs if they don't. But if 70% (or more) of a community doesn't vote, no one listens to that community's complaints. Equally so, we need to take action when voting isn't working. When other communities want something that politics won't provide, they, as a community, pool their individual resources into it or seek wealthy members of their community to assist. Our wealthy black people just put their resources into in-ground pools - shaped like dollar signs.
So, it is in these senses that I wish to be Jewish - or at least have my community follow the Jewish model. Though the black community as a whole, over time, has misplaced a great many of its values, historically, we are very family-oriented, self-sufficient, and innovative. We need to reclaim these traits, cast aside "street-credibility" as something noble, and accede to the throne of respectability. And looking at the model of how the Jewish community has done so over the centuries could be a start. And there's nothing wrong with saying that.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Yeah? Well, I love him too, but...
I suppose the death of Michael Jackson demands a big, public funeral such as the one we've witnessed, just by the nature of who he was and what he did, but I can't help but feel that this is so much a production and though necessary, it kind of takes away from the man.
I imagine that last week everybody in Hollywood was running around, A Mighty Wind-style, on their cell phones with their agents and managers trying to figure out how they could "get in on this" event, no doubt causing the delay and growth from the original service at Neverland Ranch to the current one at the Staples Center. Replace the fictional G-list celebrities with A-List real ones. Among the contrivances, Mariah Carey, at the end of her performance, whispered "we miss you" and I don't think I've ever heard emptier words exit her mouth - and I'm talking about Mariah Carey here. I understand she was ultimately just expressing everyone's feelings, but still - maybe if she hadn't whispered it. It felt so contrived.
I know it couldn't be, but in a respectful and compassionate world, it should have been a small private ceremony in Gary, Indiana, where he was born and raised. It should have been private, because Jackson never enjoyed a single, solitary moment of privacy. He was born in a room full of doctors, nurses, and his parents. He came home to a house with six siblings, which later grew to eight. With no privacy at home, he was thrust onto stage and into public life at age ten. From that moment to this one, he has never been able to have the privacy that so many of us take for granted. Yet in the midst of this lack of privacy, it was noted by a very smart person, he clearly suffered tremendous loneliness.
Undoubtedly, this, and a lack of childhood, led to the events that caused him to be accused of inappropriate contact with children along with the eccentricities we have come to witness from him. And for these reasons, and for all he did for us, we should grant him one moment of private interaction with those he loved and who loved him - I refer to his family (excluding his father) and true friends.
This, before he receives eternal privacy.
I imagine that last week everybody in Hollywood was running around, A Mighty Wind-style, on their cell phones with their agents and managers trying to figure out how they could "get in on this" event, no doubt causing the delay and growth from the original service at Neverland Ranch to the current one at the Staples Center. Replace the fictional G-list celebrities with A-List real ones. Among the contrivances, Mariah Carey, at the end of her performance, whispered "we miss you" and I don't think I've ever heard emptier words exit her mouth - and I'm talking about Mariah Carey here. I understand she was ultimately just expressing everyone's feelings, but still - maybe if she hadn't whispered it. It felt so contrived.
I know it couldn't be, but in a respectful and compassionate world, it should have been a small private ceremony in Gary, Indiana, where he was born and raised. It should have been private, because Jackson never enjoyed a single, solitary moment of privacy. He was born in a room full of doctors, nurses, and his parents. He came home to a house with six siblings, which later grew to eight. With no privacy at home, he was thrust onto stage and into public life at age ten. From that moment to this one, he has never been able to have the privacy that so many of us take for granted. Yet in the midst of this lack of privacy, it was noted by a very smart person, he clearly suffered tremendous loneliness.
Undoubtedly, this, and a lack of childhood, led to the events that caused him to be accused of inappropriate contact with children along with the eccentricities we have come to witness from him. And for these reasons, and for all he did for us, we should grant him one moment of private interaction with those he loved and who loved him - I refer to his family (excluding his father) and true friends.
This, before he receives eternal privacy.
Monday, July 6, 2009
I Respect Your Right to Hold that Opinion - Now Get Out...
That's basically the gist of the response (with a few exceptions) whenever I've told someone I'm atheist. It never matters that I was the same person I was when walked in the door. It never matters that I've helped the helpless cross the street safely, given money / food to the homeless, or done something as simple as listened politely while supposed theists have, without apology, spewed vitriolic rhetoric, while defending and promoting a deity that is supposedly averse to such outbursts.
It never matters that I brought the pie they're eating, talked about the game engagingly, go to work everyday and pay my bills on time, have taught kids at summer camp, etc., etc. All that matters now is that despite everything else that says I'm a regular guy, this one thing suddenly makes me evil beyond evil. One, seemingly nice old black lady, once hurried away from me when I enlightened her after she petitioned me to attend her church. I replied that I could and would not, and after she pressed me at length, I informed her of my stance on organized religion and the idea of Gods overseeing us, by use of that abhorrent and reprehensible term: atheist. The woman then made it her immediate and pressing business to vacate my presence and barely let me complete my sentence once the word had parted my lips.
And so, to paraphrase a popular movie line, what we seem to have here is a failure to understand. So often, when you utter the very word atheist, people will recoil as if Satan has just entered into the room. Sometimes, the reaction is so visceral, I half-expect people to hiss and form a makeshift cross out of some found object in the immediate area. And this is a serious problem, because not only do those who hate us, hate us (that's one problem), those who hate us do so without even actually understanding what it is they are hating. It's one thing to not care for peanut butter (as I do), but I have a full understanding of peanut butter. It is a spread made from peanuts with some other minor ingredients added (oil, salt, etc.). I simply don't care for it. But I don't hate it. Believe it or not, hate is a positive emotion. Not because it is good, but rather, it is positive in that it causes people to take action. People who don't care for something, stay away from it. People who hate something, actively seek to eliminate it.
In the case of Atheists, few care for us, and fewer care to understand us, in the United States at least. And being a black atheist, well, now I've exponentially increased the vitriol. Because, among the many things black people (and black men in particular) are not supposed to be, atheist is probably number two on the list (after homosexual). My own God-fearing mother has one of each. Confessed and confirmed black atheists probably rate at less than one percent of the total black population in the US. Those of us in the closet for fear of ostracism probably still rate at around five percent or less. And why?
1. Why are there so few of us?
2. Why do the few of us who exist, feel we have to hide?
These are separate questions, but they are rooted in similar soil.
The number of black atheists is likely so low because the black community, as a whole, is so connected with "the church". Well, that's obvious, you say. Of course a highly religious group of people is going to have fewer atheists than a less religious group of people. No matter where you end up in life, everything one does is surrounded by church and "the Lord", etc. Black homes are littered with bibles, and black mothers have coined the phrases "Oh, Lord" and "Help me Jesus". One is raised to attend church every Sunday (even if we don't continue as adults), and the biggest family gatherings often revolve around church functions and gospel music. Even Tyler Perry makes frequent use of religion and Gospel music in his films and plays. Being without religion and without a belief in God in the black community is difficult to say the least. There is rarely a time when one is not being indoctrinated, as it were.
Even if you fail to truly believe in what you are being socialized into, you go to church anyway, where the minister tells of how one must "believe" to get into "heaven", and those who don't believe will go to "hell". Those who don't believe are equated with thieves and murderers and all the ills of society are laid upon them. And who wants to be a member of that group? In many black communities (especially in Africa) the atheist (along with the homosexual) is considered less than a dog on the street. And so, one continues to feign belief, or even to attempt belief, to remain in the good graces of the society.
This brings me to my next point: There are so many of us in the Theist closet because of the representation of atheism by believers. When it is discovered that one is an atheist, he is often considered a Satan-worshipper, which by its very consideration, intimates a lack of understanding on the part of the believer - atheists don't believe Satan exists either. I told my mother a long time ago that I don't believe God exists (I didn't use the word "atheist" however - as I know the inflammatory power of the term). One of her responses was "What do you believe in then, Satan?" Another response was "So you think you have all the answers, then?" She was not only repulsed, but genuinely offended. My mother's reaction approximates others I have received.
Theists cast aside atheists either (incorrectly) as Devil-worshippers or as people who consider themselves greater than God. Neither is true. To be greater than God implies the existence of one, and atheists lack a belief in any God or Gods. Therefore, for atheists to be able to come out of the closet about their belief (or lack thereof), there needs to be an understanding generated between theists and atheists. Atheists are not any more evil, depraved, or corrupt, than the equivalent theist is. We all know stories of those who praise the Lord all Sunday after engaging in debauchery all Saturday.
As well, atheism does not require analysis. Many want to analyze the atheist, particularly the black atheist, as confused, done-wrong, or other. If a person claims to be atheist, he has likely thought about it quite thoroughly. Especially if he is black. It is not a psychological problem or disorder. Anyone who has claimed to be an atheist in the manner of "There is no God! It's all over! I can do anything to anyone!" is not truly an atheist, but rather a depraved person. No true, thinking atheist would harm another person and predicate it solely on "There is no God".
An atheist is one thing, and one thing only: one who lacks a belief in a God or Gods. Both by percentage and literal quantity, atheists make up the smallest number of "problem" people in society. Black atheists even more so.
The key to black atheists coming out of the closet and to the easing of friction between atheists and theists is also simply one thing and one thing only: understanding.
But that's just the opinion of One Black Atheist.
It never matters that I brought the pie they're eating, talked about the game engagingly, go to work everyday and pay my bills on time, have taught kids at summer camp, etc., etc. All that matters now is that despite everything else that says I'm a regular guy, this one thing suddenly makes me evil beyond evil. One, seemingly nice old black lady, once hurried away from me when I enlightened her after she petitioned me to attend her church. I replied that I could and would not, and after she pressed me at length, I informed her of my stance on organized religion and the idea of Gods overseeing us, by use of that abhorrent and reprehensible term: atheist. The woman then made it her immediate and pressing business to vacate my presence and barely let me complete my sentence once the word had parted my lips.
And so, to paraphrase a popular movie line, what we seem to have here is a failure to understand. So often, when you utter the very word atheist, people will recoil as if Satan has just entered into the room. Sometimes, the reaction is so visceral, I half-expect people to hiss and form a makeshift cross out of some found object in the immediate area. And this is a serious problem, because not only do those who hate us, hate us (that's one problem), those who hate us do so without even actually understanding what it is they are hating. It's one thing to not care for peanut butter (as I do), but I have a full understanding of peanut butter. It is a spread made from peanuts with some other minor ingredients added (oil, salt, etc.). I simply don't care for it. But I don't hate it. Believe it or not, hate is a positive emotion. Not because it is good, but rather, it is positive in that it causes people to take action. People who don't care for something, stay away from it. People who hate something, actively seek to eliminate it.
In the case of Atheists, few care for us, and fewer care to understand us, in the United States at least. And being a black atheist, well, now I've exponentially increased the vitriol. Because, among the many things black people (and black men in particular) are not supposed to be, atheist is probably number two on the list (after homosexual). My own God-fearing mother has one of each. Confessed and confirmed black atheists probably rate at less than one percent of the total black population in the US. Those of us in the closet for fear of ostracism probably still rate at around five percent or less. And why?
1. Why are there so few of us?
2. Why do the few of us who exist, feel we have to hide?
These are separate questions, but they are rooted in similar soil.
The number of black atheists is likely so low because the black community, as a whole, is so connected with "the church". Well, that's obvious, you say. Of course a highly religious group of people is going to have fewer atheists than a less religious group of people. No matter where you end up in life, everything one does is surrounded by church and "the Lord", etc. Black homes are littered with bibles, and black mothers have coined the phrases "Oh, Lord" and "Help me Jesus". One is raised to attend church every Sunday (even if we don't continue as adults), and the biggest family gatherings often revolve around church functions and gospel music. Even Tyler Perry makes frequent use of religion and Gospel music in his films and plays. Being without religion and without a belief in God in the black community is difficult to say the least. There is rarely a time when one is not being indoctrinated, as it were.
Even if you fail to truly believe in what you are being socialized into, you go to church anyway, where the minister tells of how one must "believe" to get into "heaven", and those who don't believe will go to "hell". Those who don't believe are equated with thieves and murderers and all the ills of society are laid upon them. And who wants to be a member of that group? In many black communities (especially in Africa) the atheist (along with the homosexual) is considered less than a dog on the street. And so, one continues to feign belief, or even to attempt belief, to remain in the good graces of the society.
This brings me to my next point: There are so many of us in the Theist closet because of the representation of atheism by believers. When it is discovered that one is an atheist, he is often considered a Satan-worshipper, which by its very consideration, intimates a lack of understanding on the part of the believer - atheists don't believe Satan exists either. I told my mother a long time ago that I don't believe God exists (I didn't use the word "atheist" however - as I know the inflammatory power of the term). One of her responses was "What do you believe in then, Satan?" Another response was "So you think you have all the answers, then?" She was not only repulsed, but genuinely offended. My mother's reaction approximates others I have received.
Theists cast aside atheists either (incorrectly) as Devil-worshippers or as people who consider themselves greater than God. Neither is true. To be greater than God implies the existence of one, and atheists lack a belief in any God or Gods. Therefore, for atheists to be able to come out of the closet about their belief (or lack thereof), there needs to be an understanding generated between theists and atheists. Atheists are not any more evil, depraved, or corrupt, than the equivalent theist is. We all know stories of those who praise the Lord all Sunday after engaging in debauchery all Saturday.
As well, atheism does not require analysis. Many want to analyze the atheist, particularly the black atheist, as confused, done-wrong, or other. If a person claims to be atheist, he has likely thought about it quite thoroughly. Especially if he is black. It is not a psychological problem or disorder. Anyone who has claimed to be an atheist in the manner of "There is no God! It's all over! I can do anything to anyone!" is not truly an atheist, but rather a depraved person. No true, thinking atheist would harm another person and predicate it solely on "There is no God".
An atheist is one thing, and one thing only: one who lacks a belief in a God or Gods. Both by percentage and literal quantity, atheists make up the smallest number of "problem" people in society. Black atheists even more so.
The key to black atheists coming out of the closet and to the easing of friction between atheists and theists is also simply one thing and one thing only: understanding.
But that's just the opinion of One Black Atheist.
An Atheist's Thoughts / Ruminations...
*Note: The following essay is a REPOST of an earlier essay, to kick off this new blog. The context of this discussion deals with the Atheist in relation to Christianity - but can be expanded to cover the other major western monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism, as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.
First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.
I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.
Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.
For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:
"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."
Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.
Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.
All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.
Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?
All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubtable, due to lack of evidence.
"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."
That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.
I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.
On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.
First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.
I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.
Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.
For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:
"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."
Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.
Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.
All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.
Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?
All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubtable, due to lack of evidence.
"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."
That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.
I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.
On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Nothing Too Important Here...
-
I'm serious.
I just want to write this down so that the idea is "out there" somewhere for someone in the NBA office to stumble upon.
My girlfriend often complains about the length of the NBA season, and I remind her that baseball is FAR more boring and FAR longer in number of games. In fact, it's DOUBLE the amount of NBA games. But she is on to one thing - Shorten the Goddamn playoffs!! Jesus, just get it over with already. I want to see the action happen and end, not languish eternally.
This is not an ADHD thing. I have plenty of attention span for things worth watching, but watching two teams play a seven game series over two weeks when much of nothing exciting happens in the first three quarters of each is excruciating. I'd rather lose some games and watch some scripted programming. As it is, I don't watch the first two and a half quarters of most games anyway.
IDEA:
1. Shorten the NBA playoffs please. 10 teams in, instead of 16 (right now, 1+half of the league gets in, as long as they're in the top 16. No matter their record. Not a very exclusive club, I say).
The playoffs SHOULD be exclusive. It SHOULD be the elite teams. Instead of half, make it the top third. When the league has forty-eight teams, then go back to 16 in.
Right now, two LOSING teams are going to make it in the East, while Phoenix is a winning team in the West and can't get a spot. If they were on the East coast, they would be SOLIDLY in 5th place, AND would have a fighting chance of going deep. Cleveland, Boston and Orlando not withstanding, the East is an embarrassment, and has been for years. If you're good enough to have a winning record but you're not in the top five in your conference: sucks for you. Get even better.
2. Reset the first round to five games. In fact, make it three games.
3. Make the second round onward five games.
4. 10 minute quarters (Playoffs only). Makes the playoffs a much more intense viewing experience for the spectator. Creates more of that "sudden-death, death match" atmosphere.
Might be intense for the players, but for all the money they're making, the majority of them should work harder.
That is all.
I'm serious.
I just want to write this down so that the idea is "out there" somewhere for someone in the NBA office to stumble upon.
My girlfriend often complains about the length of the NBA season, and I remind her that baseball is FAR more boring and FAR longer in number of games. In fact, it's DOUBLE the amount of NBA games. But she is on to one thing - Shorten the Goddamn playoffs!! Jesus, just get it over with already. I want to see the action happen and end, not languish eternally.
This is not an ADHD thing. I have plenty of attention span for things worth watching, but watching two teams play a seven game series over two weeks when much of nothing exciting happens in the first three quarters of each is excruciating. I'd rather lose some games and watch some scripted programming. As it is, I don't watch the first two and a half quarters of most games anyway.
IDEA:
1. Shorten the NBA playoffs please. 10 teams in, instead of 16 (right now, 1+half of the league gets in, as long as they're in the top 16. No matter their record. Not a very exclusive club, I say).
The playoffs SHOULD be exclusive. It SHOULD be the elite teams. Instead of half, make it the top third. When the league has forty-eight teams, then go back to 16 in.
Right now, two LOSING teams are going to make it in the East, while Phoenix is a winning team in the West and can't get a spot. If they were on the East coast, they would be SOLIDLY in 5th place, AND would have a fighting chance of going deep. Cleveland, Boston and Orlando not withstanding, the East is an embarrassment, and has been for years. If you're good enough to have a winning record but you're not in the top five in your conference: sucks for you. Get even better.
2. Reset the first round to five games. In fact, make it three games.
3. Make the second round onward five games.
4. 10 minute quarters (Playoffs only). Makes the playoffs a much more intense viewing experience for the spectator. Creates more of that "sudden-death, death match" atmosphere.
Might be intense for the players, but for all the money they're making, the majority of them should work harder.
That is all.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
I CAN'T Be The Only One...
So, now that we have a black man as president, 'racism is over' you say?
Having nothing to do at work, I decided to drop a letter in the outgoing mail in our building's mailroom, and on the way back to my desk, I'm greeted by the security guard. This security guard is very clear about his right-wing affiliations, and likes to engage in political / social (or pseudo-political / pseudo-social) conversations, in which he predictably categorizes everyone on welfare as lazy, everyone in law enforcement as heroes, every non-white person with a gun as a gangbanger or terrorist, and every wayward child as needing a (literal) kick in the proverbial "ass". Everything is black and white and there is little or no gray area. Good is good, evil is evil, there is little or nothing in between.
He considers himself a republican, but note that I call him "right-wing", not republican or even conservative, because I've known many true conservative republicans (not RINO's) and they don't necessarily agree with this guy. I feel "right-wing" is more appropriate to the sweeping extremity of his views. So, of course, he pulls me aside (because after having talked multiple times, he knows me as not having straight-laced, conventional views on a lot of things, and also knows I don't get argumentatively defensive in controversial conversation) and opines about an at-the-moment breaking news story on television (we have a CNN feed on a flat-screen in our lobby - where he sits, presumably waiting for lazy, gun-toting, terrorist, welfare-mothers to congregate and launch their "evil" plans).
Apparently, a US ship that was hijacked off the coast of Africa was re-taken by its crew, and as we watched the reporter discuss it with a "pundit", our ever-vigilant and ever-creative security guard intimated his idea for stopping pirating once and for all. Befitting the rest of his views, he tells me: "I have a real easy way to stop pirating; find out the surrounding villages these people come from, and wipe all of those villages out." He proceeded to walk away from the screen after dropping that gem with all of the finality of Horatio Caine opening an episode of CSI:Miami.
Now, at first, of course, as you likely would also, I was pretty sure that he was kidding, so I went along with it (to a degree) and added "If only it were that easy" - with a smile - pretty much expecting it to end there. Why? I don't know. Perhaps I'm an idiot - I doubt it, but it's not an impossibility. So, past experience should have told me otherwise, but who does history think it is, that I should learn from it, right? Anyway, his reply to that was (dead seriously, stopping in his tracks and with a finger pointed at me) "No, it is that easy." Well, in addition to being thankful that he is not the Secretary of Defense (or of anything for that matter), I decided (for once) to call him on his comment, because I have to say, it struck me as one of the most racist comments I'd ever heard. Would he have said the same if this was happening off of the coast of Ireland? That's number one.
Number two, apparently he still has it in his head (thanks to good, old, non-biased "American!" education) that "these people" only live in "villages" and that they couldn't possibly be from developed cities or advanced agricultural backgrounds. They're just a bunch of mud-hutters running around in loin cloths with spears (in 2009; who somehow managed to hijack a 508-foot ship using the relative equivalent of a life boat, no less) and so, let's just wipe out the people they descend from (who have nothing to do with this) as well as their innocent women and children, for once and for all, so no more can be birthed. Because we shouldn't address the problems in Africa that cause for rampant piracy, instead, we should just kill all the Africans. That'll do it!
And of course, we should do this because they're not white, and so innocent or not, they have no intrinsic value anyway.
Number three, pirates are a diverse group of people and come from all over. They don't congregate off the coast of Africa because they're from Africa, they congregate there because those are the least protected trade routes and there is an extensive black market in the surrounding area. If the least protected routes and largest black markets were in and around Ireland, they'd be there too. And they would look the same as they do now.
Of course, this wiping-out wouldn't be genocidal or a terrorist act (in his opinion) because it's the United States doing it with a full-on state-supported military, which makes it OK. "Terrorists" are rag-tag middle-easterners. It doesn't matter that they have had their rights systematically trampled (yes, often by their own kind) over the past several centuries, and who, despite the abhorrent and disagreeable means to their end, may have a legitimate cause underlying it. Terrorism to protect commerce is OK, but not to protect (or even obtain) human rights.
Got it. Terrorism by the US; good. Terrorism by Arabs; bad. But that's a different conversation. Back to the pirates.
So, as I said, I decided to call him on it, but just as I was about to, finger raised, mouth agape and vocal cords at the ready, he was called away to make his rounds (as security guards do).
Of course.
So, left to my own devices, I began to think about other problems within the area of fighting piracy and I came to a real conclusion for the companies involved- hire those "contractors" (read: mercenaries) that everyone hates. Xe (formerly Blackwater Worldwide) comes to mind first (AirScan & Revomatica are a couple of others), but there are a number of these private "security companies" out there, that are more than happy to supply highly trained, ex-military mercenaries, er, security personnel and technology to combat this problem - to do their duty to protect the United States, her citizens, her commerce, and her interests, both at home and abroad, and further the progress of our "good, American" goals - and, ahem, for a price, of course.
But the thing is, whatever you think of these "contractors", piracy would be over. End these pointless "wars", bring our troops home or deploy them to meaningful conflicts, and use these companies to fight the lesser wars on the trade routes.
The ship that was hijacked and re-taken is owned by a company called Maersk. If the US releases these contractors from service, they'll be available for companies like Maersk to hire. If Maersk sends out its cargo ships with a small compliment of these highly trained, ex-military types on board, armed to the teeth, mind you, they'll take out these pirates on first contact. And with all of the money they'll be getting paid to do so, they will continue to develop technology and fighting techniques to outwit and outmatch the pirates. Fighting pirates is not like fighting elusive terrorists - the enemy is clear and they always go after the same targets. It's much more like a traditional military engagement, except the private mercenaries will far outpace the pirates. The pirates WILL evolve and adapt - and the companies will stay ahead of them because they'll have more money to hire more people and develop more and better technology and assets, and other companies will see how much success they're having and hire them as well.
Private military should be hired by private companies to protect their private property. The United States Navy should not be tasked with hunting pirates, and private military should not be fighting US wars. We're all mixed up. I CAN'T be the only one to see this...
Note: Didn't think I'd go the military route after the racism opening, eh? :)
Having nothing to do at work, I decided to drop a letter in the outgoing mail in our building's mailroom, and on the way back to my desk, I'm greeted by the security guard. This security guard is very clear about his right-wing affiliations, and likes to engage in political / social (or pseudo-political / pseudo-social) conversations, in which he predictably categorizes everyone on welfare as lazy, everyone in law enforcement as heroes, every non-white person with a gun as a gangbanger or terrorist, and every wayward child as needing a (literal) kick in the proverbial "ass". Everything is black and white and there is little or no gray area. Good is good, evil is evil, there is little or nothing in between.
He considers himself a republican, but note that I call him "right-wing", not republican or even conservative, because I've known many true conservative republicans (not RINO's) and they don't necessarily agree with this guy. I feel "right-wing" is more appropriate to the sweeping extremity of his views. So, of course, he pulls me aside (because after having talked multiple times, he knows me as not having straight-laced, conventional views on a lot of things, and also knows I don't get argumentatively defensive in controversial conversation) and opines about an at-the-moment breaking news story on television (we have a CNN feed on a flat-screen in our lobby - where he sits, presumably waiting for lazy, gun-toting, terrorist, welfare-mothers to congregate and launch their "evil" plans).
Apparently, a US ship that was hijacked off the coast of Africa was re-taken by its crew, and as we watched the reporter discuss it with a "pundit", our ever-vigilant and ever-creative security guard intimated his idea for stopping pirating once and for all. Befitting the rest of his views, he tells me: "I have a real easy way to stop pirating; find out the surrounding villages these people come from, and wipe all of those villages out." He proceeded to walk away from the screen after dropping that gem with all of the finality of Horatio Caine opening an episode of CSI:Miami.
Now, at first, of course, as you likely would also, I was pretty sure that he was kidding, so I went along with it (to a degree) and added "If only it were that easy" - with a smile - pretty much expecting it to end there. Why? I don't know. Perhaps I'm an idiot - I doubt it, but it's not an impossibility. So, past experience should have told me otherwise, but who does history think it is, that I should learn from it, right? Anyway, his reply to that was (dead seriously, stopping in his tracks and with a finger pointed at me) "No, it is that easy." Well, in addition to being thankful that he is not the Secretary of Defense (or of anything for that matter), I decided (for once) to call him on his comment, because I have to say, it struck me as one of the most racist comments I'd ever heard. Would he have said the same if this was happening off of the coast of Ireland? That's number one.
Number two, apparently he still has it in his head (thanks to good, old, non-biased "American!" education) that "these people" only live in "villages" and that they couldn't possibly be from developed cities or advanced agricultural backgrounds. They're just a bunch of mud-hutters running around in loin cloths with spears (in 2009; who somehow managed to hijack a 508-foot ship using the relative equivalent of a life boat, no less) and so, let's just wipe out the people they descend from (who have nothing to do with this) as well as their innocent women and children, for once and for all, so no more can be birthed. Because we shouldn't address the problems in Africa that cause for rampant piracy, instead, we should just kill all the Africans. That'll do it!
And of course, we should do this because they're not white, and so innocent or not, they have no intrinsic value anyway.
Number three, pirates are a diverse group of people and come from all over. They don't congregate off the coast of Africa because they're from Africa, they congregate there because those are the least protected trade routes and there is an extensive black market in the surrounding area. If the least protected routes and largest black markets were in and around Ireland, they'd be there too. And they would look the same as they do now.
Of course, this wiping-out wouldn't be genocidal or a terrorist act (in his opinion) because it's the United States doing it with a full-on state-supported military, which makes it OK. "Terrorists" are rag-tag middle-easterners. It doesn't matter that they have had their rights systematically trampled (yes, often by their own kind) over the past several centuries, and who, despite the abhorrent and disagreeable means to their end, may have a legitimate cause underlying it. Terrorism to protect commerce is OK, but not to protect (or even obtain) human rights.
Got it. Terrorism by the US; good. Terrorism by Arabs; bad. But that's a different conversation. Back to the pirates.
So, as I said, I decided to call him on it, but just as I was about to, finger raised, mouth agape and vocal cords at the ready, he was called away to make his rounds (as security guards do).
Of course.
So, left to my own devices, I began to think about other problems within the area of fighting piracy and I came to a real conclusion for the companies involved- hire those "contractors" (read: mercenaries) that everyone hates. Xe (formerly Blackwater Worldwide) comes to mind first (AirScan & Revomatica are a couple of others), but there are a number of these private "security companies" out there, that are more than happy to supply highly trained, ex-military mercenaries, er, security personnel and technology to combat this problem - to do their duty to protect the United States, her citizens, her commerce, and her interests, both at home and abroad, and further the progress of our "good, American" goals - and, ahem, for a price, of course.
But the thing is, whatever you think of these "contractors", piracy would be over. End these pointless "wars", bring our troops home or deploy them to meaningful conflicts, and use these companies to fight the lesser wars on the trade routes.
The ship that was hijacked and re-taken is owned by a company called Maersk. If the US releases these contractors from service, they'll be available for companies like Maersk to hire. If Maersk sends out its cargo ships with a small compliment of these highly trained, ex-military types on board, armed to the teeth, mind you, they'll take out these pirates on first contact. And with all of the money they'll be getting paid to do so, they will continue to develop technology and fighting techniques to outwit and outmatch the pirates. Fighting pirates is not like fighting elusive terrorists - the enemy is clear and they always go after the same targets. It's much more like a traditional military engagement, except the private mercenaries will far outpace the pirates. The pirates WILL evolve and adapt - and the companies will stay ahead of them because they'll have more money to hire more people and develop more and better technology and assets, and other companies will see how much success they're having and hire them as well.
Private military should be hired by private companies to protect their private property. The United States Navy should not be tasked with hunting pirates, and private military should not be fighting US wars. We're all mixed up. I CAN'T be the only one to see this...
Note: Didn't think I'd go the military route after the racism opening, eh? :)
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Enough Already!...
Would someone please come along and take away my "choices" in life so I can know definitively where I stand?
I walked into work this morning and noticed a flyer for a continental breakfast. The flyer touted a muffin, a yogurt, and a beverage, and in order to participate in said breakfast, one would have to make a "donation" of $5. The "choices" of yogurt were vanilla or strawberry, and the "choices" of beverage were juice or coffee. Of course, it's not really a choice of yogurts, it's "you're only getting one of these that has been made available - but you get to decide which one". They've made the decision to only provide you with two options, and that's not much of a choice - especially if you love peach yogurt, as I do. In addition, the definition of donation is a non-required payment, so their "donation" is not really so.
But before you decide this is trivial and petty (which it is), I want you to know that none of this really mattered to me in the context of this particular breakfast because it was for a charity - Harvest for Hunger. But it made me reflect on the larger society we live in; the society that tells us we have the freedom of choice.
We are made to feel happy as long as we have a choice between things, so the powers that be give us pointless choices, while they make the real decisions that affect our lives. Paper or plastic? Dress or skirt? Coffee or tea? These choices matter, of course, but we've been made to be content with these limited choices and made to feel they are really important, while the decisions "War or peace?", "Life or death?", Rich or poor?" are made for us, by others. We happily give up those choices to choose between brands of jeans or strength of coffee.
None of this will seem new to anyone who truly knows me, and indeed, I feel there are few, if any, who will find this new at all, but freedom of choice (within our current society) is an illusion. We happily buy into this illusion, placated by useless things and pointless freedoms and empty ideals - all of which are contradictory in nature - much like the wonderful but flawed constitution that supports them. We have the "freedom" to pursue a vague happiness, toward an empty American dream, but not the choice to smoke marijuana - which, consequntly, makes many people happy. We have freedom from illegal search and seizure, but not the choice to defend yourself from the authorities when they want to illegally search and seize you.
One may argue, "well, the smoke from marijuana causes a contact high, which infringes on others' rights not be drugged". So legalize it within homes. You can smoke all day in your house, but not outdoors. Of course, this still provides a limitation; much like the cigarette smokers who huddle in the cold and rain to enjoy their vice. How do you have a society where one's rights never infringe on anothers'? If smokers are returned their right to smoke any and everywhere, then shouldn't I have the right to knock that cigarette down their throat if they refuse to put it out in my presence? And if that punch draws blood, should they not have the right to draw blood from me? And then it continues to escalate until one of us is dead. Then we're back to Dodge City.
So, the answer is not to have everyone do whatever they want, but to get to a point where everyone can do what they want within reason and without infringement on others. Forcing smokers outside is OK, because second-hand smoke is dangerous and infringes on others' right not to contract cancer. As well, smoking indoors is a fire hazard. The proper way to resolve this has been to let smokers smoke in designated areas - usually outside - or to restrict it to the smoker's home - which I am also in favor of. One should not be barred from doing whatever they want to do on their own property, but they should be restricted on public or others' property if it infringes on others. Despite smokers' objections, I think we've reached the perfect middle ground with smoking: smoke at home or in a designated public area. Now smokers can still smoke, all they want, but I don't have to spend my day passing through rank clouds that stick to my hair and clothes, therefore leaving me other avenues of cancer contraction to explore.
Now, despite my ramblings, this is not about smoking, this is about pure liberty. According to our Constitution here in the United States, you have the freedom of "life" and "liberty", but in reality, this is only as long as you follow the rules and do what the authorities say is "right". Otherwise, you have no freedom-of or right-to anything. Instead, you have the freedom to shop for the limited "choices" you are presented. You have the freedom to work, and the government has the freedom to take 30% of your earnings (more if they're angry at you - see AIG CEO bonuses).
But truthfully, your freedoms, choices, rights, etc. are all an illusion. You only have them within a limited set of circumstances and those that you have, are largely (though not wholly) worthless. We "defeated" communism because the people supposedly didn't have rights and freedoms. What rights and freedoms have they gained? The freedom to own a Fendi purse and a Porsche? Are they worth it? I don't doubt that to many they are, but if those people don't awaken to realize that their freedoms have not truly returned, they may wind up in a middle-class Marie Antoinette position - completely unaware of what is happening around them until it is entirely too late.
In many cases and places, it is already too late. In the U.S. the government can legally tap your phone and read your emails and monitor everything you do now. I'm under no illusions. Truthfully, they've done this ever since they gained the capability, nearly 80 years ago, but they couldn't tell you about it. Now they can tell you they are going to do it, and then do it, and then tell you they are doing it while doing it, and you can do nothing about it. If they don't like that you received a four million dollar bonus, they can just raise the tax on it to 90%. If you are non-violently protesting something you disagree with, they can tear gas you. If you're standing in front of a store waiting for a friend, police can stop you and check your ID - even if you're doing nothing but standing and staring into space.
But, of course, you can always go to the mall.
I walked into work this morning and noticed a flyer for a continental breakfast. The flyer touted a muffin, a yogurt, and a beverage, and in order to participate in said breakfast, one would have to make a "donation" of $5. The "choices" of yogurt were vanilla or strawberry, and the "choices" of beverage were juice or coffee. Of course, it's not really a choice of yogurts, it's "you're only getting one of these that has been made available - but you get to decide which one". They've made the decision to only provide you with two options, and that's not much of a choice - especially if you love peach yogurt, as I do. In addition, the definition of donation is a non-required payment, so their "donation" is not really so.
But before you decide this is trivial and petty (which it is), I want you to know that none of this really mattered to me in the context of this particular breakfast because it was for a charity - Harvest for Hunger. But it made me reflect on the larger society we live in; the society that tells us we have the freedom of choice.
We are made to feel happy as long as we have a choice between things, so the powers that be give us pointless choices, while they make the real decisions that affect our lives. Paper or plastic? Dress or skirt? Coffee or tea? These choices matter, of course, but we've been made to be content with these limited choices and made to feel they are really important, while the decisions "War or peace?", "Life or death?", Rich or poor?" are made for us, by others. We happily give up those choices to choose between brands of jeans or strength of coffee.
None of this will seem new to anyone who truly knows me, and indeed, I feel there are few, if any, who will find this new at all, but freedom of choice (within our current society) is an illusion. We happily buy into this illusion, placated by useless things and pointless freedoms and empty ideals - all of which are contradictory in nature - much like the wonderful but flawed constitution that supports them. We have the "freedom" to pursue a vague happiness, toward an empty American dream, but not the choice to smoke marijuana - which, consequntly, makes many people happy. We have freedom from illegal search and seizure, but not the choice to defend yourself from the authorities when they want to illegally search and seize you.
One may argue, "well, the smoke from marijuana causes a contact high, which infringes on others' rights not be drugged". So legalize it within homes. You can smoke all day in your house, but not outdoors. Of course, this still provides a limitation; much like the cigarette smokers who huddle in the cold and rain to enjoy their vice. How do you have a society where one's rights never infringe on anothers'? If smokers are returned their right to smoke any and everywhere, then shouldn't I have the right to knock that cigarette down their throat if they refuse to put it out in my presence? And if that punch draws blood, should they not have the right to draw blood from me? And then it continues to escalate until one of us is dead. Then we're back to Dodge City.
So, the answer is not to have everyone do whatever they want, but to get to a point where everyone can do what they want within reason and without infringement on others. Forcing smokers outside is OK, because second-hand smoke is dangerous and infringes on others' right not to contract cancer. As well, smoking indoors is a fire hazard. The proper way to resolve this has been to let smokers smoke in designated areas - usually outside - or to restrict it to the smoker's home - which I am also in favor of. One should not be barred from doing whatever they want to do on their own property, but they should be restricted on public or others' property if it infringes on others. Despite smokers' objections, I think we've reached the perfect middle ground with smoking: smoke at home or in a designated public area. Now smokers can still smoke, all they want, but I don't have to spend my day passing through rank clouds that stick to my hair and clothes, therefore leaving me other avenues of cancer contraction to explore.
Now, despite my ramblings, this is not about smoking, this is about pure liberty. According to our Constitution here in the United States, you have the freedom of "life" and "liberty", but in reality, this is only as long as you follow the rules and do what the authorities say is "right". Otherwise, you have no freedom-of or right-to anything. Instead, you have the freedom to shop for the limited "choices" you are presented. You have the freedom to work, and the government has the freedom to take 30% of your earnings (more if they're angry at you - see AIG CEO bonuses).
But truthfully, your freedoms, choices, rights, etc. are all an illusion. You only have them within a limited set of circumstances and those that you have, are largely (though not wholly) worthless. We "defeated" communism because the people supposedly didn't have rights and freedoms. What rights and freedoms have they gained? The freedom to own a Fendi purse and a Porsche? Are they worth it? I don't doubt that to many they are, but if those people don't awaken to realize that their freedoms have not truly returned, they may wind up in a middle-class Marie Antoinette position - completely unaware of what is happening around them until it is entirely too late.
In many cases and places, it is already too late. In the U.S. the government can legally tap your phone and read your emails and monitor everything you do now. I'm under no illusions. Truthfully, they've done this ever since they gained the capability, nearly 80 years ago, but they couldn't tell you about it. Now they can tell you they are going to do it, and then do it, and then tell you they are doing it while doing it, and you can do nothing about it. If they don't like that you received a four million dollar bonus, they can just raise the tax on it to 90%. If you are non-violently protesting something you disagree with, they can tear gas you. If you're standing in front of a store waiting for a friend, police can stop you and check your ID - even if you're doing nothing but standing and staring into space.
But, of course, you can always go to the mall.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Basketball, Jews, and Prejudice...
So, I finally played some basketball last weekend - terribly. I played with two other people and I was outright better than both, but their youth overcame my abilities.
I was surprised though - I wasn't AS out of shape as I had feared. I wasn't out of breath during, or overly sore afterward. My injuries didn't flare up or anything, and overall, I played decently. Especially considering that I hadn't even touched a basketball in 22 months (save for a lonely shootaround about a year ago).
The other two guys were 20 and 14 years of age respectively, though the 14 year old looked a lot more like a small 17 year old (yes, they're both kids, but in basketball, those 3 years make a big difference in size). The 20 year old looked young in the face, but I'm proud to say my body still beat his out by a wide margin (there'd be a pun intended if you had seen him).
For no reason at all (or none that I could discern), my evening of basketball called back a memory to me of playing basketball with a group of Hasidic Jewish kids in Brooklyn a few years ago, around 2004/05.
I had gotten up that day looking to play basketball, but I was mainly looking to just shoot around and practice by myself. I rode around on my bicycle for awhile and passed two or three parks because there were people there, and on that particular day, I had no interest in competition - just solitary practice.
I finally found what I had been looking for when I came to a park with one basketball full court with no one on it. It was right next to the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and adjacent to the court were some handball courts, fenced off to contain wayward balls from either area. There were no people on the handball courts, but I did notice a group of young Hasidic men / boys / man-boys around the ages of 12-17, smoking, cussing, and fooling around with a handball over by one of the chess tables. I didn't pay them any real attention, but I kept my eye on them - not out of distrust, but out of curiosity.
I shot my basketball, practiced my dribbling, and honed my low-post moves for a few minutes, when they finally seemed to notice me - and noticed that I was in-turn noticing them. They toned down their monkeying around (but didn't stop), and moved toward me with all the ceremony of a scene from West Side Story.
"Hey, mind if we shoot around with you?"
"Not at all." I replied - nervously; because I had never seen Hasidic Jews of any age curse or smoke or be rowdy in any way - so I didn't know what to expect, but I was curious all the same. The thickly-bearded boy who asked, appeared to be the "leader", so I tossed him the ball so he (and the others) felt comfortable joining in.
He caught the ball and without even really setting himself, threw up what had to be the worst-looking basketball shot I had ever seen - or could ever imagine. I don't remember if it went in, but I do remember the group pretty much taking over the use of my ball - and though I got a few more shots in, it became some sort of awkward, Jewish basketball spectacle, that while comical, was (to me at least) somewhat surreal. And by "somewhat" I mean very.
As I mentioned, I got a chance to shoot now and again, but I was having more fun experiencing this "new" thing. Hasidic Jews curse? Smoke? Joke around about sex? I remembered an episode of Sex and the City, henceforth referred to as SATC (no, I watched it because of my girlfriend - jerk) where one of the characters dated and slept with a smoking, Hasidic Jewish artist. I also was becoming familiar with a local artist at the time who was rising in prominence named Matisyahu. Could it be true? (yes, that's a SATC reference). Were Hasidic Jews allowed to smoke, curse, play basketball (or handball), have sex out of wedlock, be painters and reggae artists?
I'm a born and raised New Yorker, why was I unaware of this? Non-Jewish New Yorkers are the most educated population in the world regarding Jewish culture. My image of Hasidic Jews was always of a strict and rigid form of living where one abstained from the world - basically, the Jewish version of Amish. I suppose I just transferred the beards and never really paid attention to the actual people. And therein lies the problem.
Not only are there multiple sects of Judaism, there are multiple sects within sects, and the Hasidic Jews are no different. Some Hasidic Jews can do nothing. Others can do anything. Depends on the sect. I looked at the beards and hats and lumped them all together; just like everyone looks at me (before they get to know me) and they already "know" what I think, "who I am" and what I'm "about". I walk around feeling that the entire world (including my own people) just sees me as "another nigger", but I'm looking at everyone else in the same (or similar) way. All Hasidics are closed off and fundamentalist. All Irish are racists. All poor black people are closed minded. Even when I have personal evidence to the contrary. My poor black family in rural North Carolina are some of the most open-minded people I know. I routinely deal with a genial and open-hearted Irish community. And, based on that basketball experience (and SATC / Matisyahu), I now know that Hasidic Jews are neither of one mind, or one action.
It's a lesson I try to carry with me daily.
I'm going to judge a book by its cover - there's no question about that, because I'm human - and that's perfectly acceptable. But I should never let my pre-judgement prevent me from still opening the book. Afterall, reading is fundamental.
I was surprised though - I wasn't AS out of shape as I had feared. I wasn't out of breath during, or overly sore afterward. My injuries didn't flare up or anything, and overall, I played decently. Especially considering that I hadn't even touched a basketball in 22 months (save for a lonely shootaround about a year ago).
The other two guys were 20 and 14 years of age respectively, though the 14 year old looked a lot more like a small 17 year old (yes, they're both kids, but in basketball, those 3 years make a big difference in size). The 20 year old looked young in the face, but I'm proud to say my body still beat his out by a wide margin (there'd be a pun intended if you had seen him).
For no reason at all (or none that I could discern), my evening of basketball called back a memory to me of playing basketball with a group of Hasidic Jewish kids in Brooklyn a few years ago, around 2004/05.
I had gotten up that day looking to play basketball, but I was mainly looking to just shoot around and practice by myself. I rode around on my bicycle for awhile and passed two or three parks because there were people there, and on that particular day, I had no interest in competition - just solitary practice.
I finally found what I had been looking for when I came to a park with one basketball full court with no one on it. It was right next to the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and adjacent to the court were some handball courts, fenced off to contain wayward balls from either area. There were no people on the handball courts, but I did notice a group of young Hasidic men / boys / man-boys around the ages of 12-17, smoking, cussing, and fooling around with a handball over by one of the chess tables. I didn't pay them any real attention, but I kept my eye on them - not out of distrust, but out of curiosity.
I shot my basketball, practiced my dribbling, and honed my low-post moves for a few minutes, when they finally seemed to notice me - and noticed that I was in-turn noticing them. They toned down their monkeying around (but didn't stop), and moved toward me with all the ceremony of a scene from West Side Story.
"Hey, mind if we shoot around with you?"
"Not at all." I replied - nervously; because I had never seen Hasidic Jews of any age curse or smoke or be rowdy in any way - so I didn't know what to expect, but I was curious all the same. The thickly-bearded boy who asked, appeared to be the "leader", so I tossed him the ball so he (and the others) felt comfortable joining in.
He caught the ball and without even really setting himself, threw up what had to be the worst-looking basketball shot I had ever seen - or could ever imagine. I don't remember if it went in, but I do remember the group pretty much taking over the use of my ball - and though I got a few more shots in, it became some sort of awkward, Jewish basketball spectacle, that while comical, was (to me at least) somewhat surreal. And by "somewhat" I mean very.
As I mentioned, I got a chance to shoot now and again, but I was having more fun experiencing this "new" thing. Hasidic Jews curse? Smoke? Joke around about sex? I remembered an episode of Sex and the City, henceforth referred to as SATC (no, I watched it because of my girlfriend - jerk) where one of the characters dated and slept with a smoking, Hasidic Jewish artist. I also was becoming familiar with a local artist at the time who was rising in prominence named Matisyahu. Could it be true? (yes, that's a SATC reference). Were Hasidic Jews allowed to smoke, curse, play basketball (or handball), have sex out of wedlock, be painters and reggae artists?
I'm a born and raised New Yorker, why was I unaware of this? Non-Jewish New Yorkers are the most educated population in the world regarding Jewish culture. My image of Hasidic Jews was always of a strict and rigid form of living where one abstained from the world - basically, the Jewish version of Amish. I suppose I just transferred the beards and never really paid attention to the actual people. And therein lies the problem.
Not only are there multiple sects of Judaism, there are multiple sects within sects, and the Hasidic Jews are no different. Some Hasidic Jews can do nothing. Others can do anything. Depends on the sect. I looked at the beards and hats and lumped them all together; just like everyone looks at me (before they get to know me) and they already "know" what I think, "who I am" and what I'm "about". I walk around feeling that the entire world (including my own people) just sees me as "another nigger", but I'm looking at everyone else in the same (or similar) way. All Hasidics are closed off and fundamentalist. All Irish are racists. All poor black people are closed minded. Even when I have personal evidence to the contrary. My poor black family in rural North Carolina are some of the most open-minded people I know. I routinely deal with a genial and open-hearted Irish community. And, based on that basketball experience (and SATC / Matisyahu), I now know that Hasidic Jews are neither of one mind, or one action.
It's a lesson I try to carry with me daily.
I'm going to judge a book by its cover - there's no question about that, because I'm human - and that's perfectly acceptable. But I should never let my pre-judgement prevent me from still opening the book. Afterall, reading is fundamental.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Et in Arcadia Ego...
What do you do when you see a ghost? What do you do when you become one?
I saw my father this morning. The man who created me 32 years ago and left me (and everyone else) 23 years ago showed himself this morning. I see him often, actually, but normally he looks fuzzy; his features seeming to blend into those of my mother. This morning, he was crystal clear. As I pushed into my cheeks, I saw his respond under the pressure of my finger. I saw the mouth that spit on the inside of the car window when I was a child - the eyes that stared at the television as I jumped on his back - the nose that took its last breath in a hospital bed in Flushing, New York, in September 1986, alone.
He's haunted me for 23 years, and today was no less. I stared at his clear form as I washed my face. Sometimes he's not a ghost. Most times he's a shadow. A father's shadow never fades. Never lessens. It only grows. The more you do, the more you realize that you can't do enough. The more disappointment you find. The more failure becomes every option. And this morning he stared at me. He pleaded with me to live up to his dreams. I now realize, all of my dreams are his.
The plaque that bears his name where he rests, is a sign in my mind; a memento mori. It reminds me that nothing that I can do will suffice. And, no matter how successful I may become in the eyes of this world, his future and present will beckon me.
I saw my father this morning. The man who created me 32 years ago and left me (and everyone else) 23 years ago showed himself this morning. I see him often, actually, but normally he looks fuzzy; his features seeming to blend into those of my mother. This morning, he was crystal clear. As I pushed into my cheeks, I saw his respond under the pressure of my finger. I saw the mouth that spit on the inside of the car window when I was a child - the eyes that stared at the television as I jumped on his back - the nose that took its last breath in a hospital bed in Flushing, New York, in September 1986, alone.
He's haunted me for 23 years, and today was no less. I stared at his clear form as I washed my face. Sometimes he's not a ghost. Most times he's a shadow. A father's shadow never fades. Never lessens. It only grows. The more you do, the more you realize that you can't do enough. The more disappointment you find. The more failure becomes every option. And this morning he stared at me. He pleaded with me to live up to his dreams. I now realize, all of my dreams are his.
The plaque that bears his name where he rests, is a sign in my mind; a memento mori. It reminds me that nothing that I can do will suffice. And, no matter how successful I may become in the eyes of this world, his future and present will beckon me.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Non Sequitur(s) on Death... (Or, Death and the Spider)
What is it about death? Is it really that painful? Scary? It certainly is unwelcome by most of us, but can it really be that bad, if all of us have to eventually do it?
Well, what does one have to do with the other? That is, what does the fact that we all have to die, have to do with whether or not it is as bad as many of us believe it will be?
I don't know. But it seems like there is something there to be mined.
Last night, I saw a jumping spider on my stove and I debated whether or not I should kill it. I ultimately decided not to, because I don't generally like killing things just because they scare me, or gross me out, or inconvenience me in some other cosmetic way. I do make an exception to this for house centipedes though. Anyway, only if something is a real threat, will I deem it necessary to kill it - roaches (disease), mice and rats, (bites, disease), large spiders and insects (bites). Flies, small spiders, and anything else I can "catch and release", usually get just that - caught and released.
So, as I mentioned, I decided it wasn't necessary to kill the spider, and since spiders kill other insects, I may even be serving a purpose by letting it live. Besides, how would I like it if I were minding my business and a giant napkin squashed the life out of me and flushed me down the toilet or threw me in a trashcan. Any conscious part of me after that would likely think I had lived a pretty useless and meaningless existence if something else could so casually kill me without a second thought. Then my life meant nothing. So, I tapped the stove, which I knew would startle it and cause it to run off and hide. It did. I was pleased.
Not too long after, I hear my girlfriend pounding on the kitchen counter (I was in bed). "What are you doing?" I asked with all the innocence of a toddler about to enter a crime scene. "Trying to kill this jumping spider" she replied. "I got it!" she celebrated. I wasn't as celebratory, but I didn't tell her that.
For a second, I hated that spider for it's stupidity. I thought "You idiot! I spared your life, only so you could return to the scene of the crime to be killed less than an hour later!! Maybe it was your time, and maybe you deserved it." But my second thought was "What was I trying to spare this spider from?" Spiders live in a life and death struggle everyday. They know the risks of their lives better than anyone else. Everytime they face off with a mantis or have a run-in with a predatory bird, they are reminded soundly of the deadly struggles of life (if they survive these encounters).
(And here's the non sequitur part, because on the surface, what I'm about to say has nothing to do with what I just said, but somehow - for me - they're connected - I haven't found the exact connection though - but I'm looking...)
So why are we any different? Are we any different? Somehow the death of that spider has led me to the conclusion that death is probably not all that bad, or, if it is, life is meaningless anyway, so who cares?
If life is meaningless what do I care if I go to work, get paid, have a child, rob a bank, kick a cat, or whatever? Therein, lies a paradox, because I do care (to some degree) about those things. Some, more than others, but I care, nonetheless. But I care within the context of knowing (for me) that these things are all ultimately meaningless, and it is something I've struggled with since I became an atheist (or Adeist - if you've read my earlier article).
It doesn't bother me that everything is pointless. Rather, it bothers me that everything is pointless and that I'm here anyway. Because, why? Why be here at all then? I find some peace in the idea that I'm just one of the many processes in the Universe - a flail - if you will, but ultimately, pointless or not, life is damn enjoyable. Why have it to lose it? I suppose if I had a gambler's outlook on life this idea would suffice, but I don't and it doesn't.
I'm in no hurry to leave life (at least not yet), but I have to wonder what the point is.
There's really no ending to this post and there's not much within it that one could connect (without being in my head). Just some thoughts that are somehow and for some reason conflated within me and had to get them out...
Well, what does one have to do with the other? That is, what does the fact that we all have to die, have to do with whether or not it is as bad as many of us believe it will be?
I don't know. But it seems like there is something there to be mined.
Last night, I saw a jumping spider on my stove and I debated whether or not I should kill it. I ultimately decided not to, because I don't generally like killing things just because they scare me, or gross me out, or inconvenience me in some other cosmetic way. I do make an exception to this for house centipedes though. Anyway, only if something is a real threat, will I deem it necessary to kill it - roaches (disease), mice and rats, (bites, disease), large spiders and insects (bites). Flies, small spiders, and anything else I can "catch and release", usually get just that - caught and released.
So, as I mentioned, I decided it wasn't necessary to kill the spider, and since spiders kill other insects, I may even be serving a purpose by letting it live. Besides, how would I like it if I were minding my business and a giant napkin squashed the life out of me and flushed me down the toilet or threw me in a trashcan. Any conscious part of me after that would likely think I had lived a pretty useless and meaningless existence if something else could so casually kill me without a second thought. Then my life meant nothing. So, I tapped the stove, which I knew would startle it and cause it to run off and hide. It did. I was pleased.
Not too long after, I hear my girlfriend pounding on the kitchen counter (I was in bed). "What are you doing?" I asked with all the innocence of a toddler about to enter a crime scene. "Trying to kill this jumping spider" she replied. "I got it!" she celebrated. I wasn't as celebratory, but I didn't tell her that.
For a second, I hated that spider for it's stupidity. I thought "You idiot! I spared your life, only so you could return to the scene of the crime to be killed less than an hour later!! Maybe it was your time, and maybe you deserved it." But my second thought was "What was I trying to spare this spider from?" Spiders live in a life and death struggle everyday. They know the risks of their lives better than anyone else. Everytime they face off with a mantis or have a run-in with a predatory bird, they are reminded soundly of the deadly struggles of life (if they survive these encounters).
(And here's the non sequitur part, because on the surface, what I'm about to say has nothing to do with what I just said, but somehow - for me - they're connected - I haven't found the exact connection though - but I'm looking...)
So why are we any different? Are we any different? Somehow the death of that spider has led me to the conclusion that death is probably not all that bad, or, if it is, life is meaningless anyway, so who cares?
If life is meaningless what do I care if I go to work, get paid, have a child, rob a bank, kick a cat, or whatever? Therein, lies a paradox, because I do care (to some degree) about those things. Some, more than others, but I care, nonetheless. But I care within the context of knowing (for me) that these things are all ultimately meaningless, and it is something I've struggled with since I became an atheist (or Adeist - if you've read my earlier article).
It doesn't bother me that everything is pointless. Rather, it bothers me that everything is pointless and that I'm here anyway. Because, why? Why be here at all then? I find some peace in the idea that I'm just one of the many processes in the Universe - a flail - if you will, but ultimately, pointless or not, life is damn enjoyable. Why have it to lose it? I suppose if I had a gambler's outlook on life this idea would suffice, but I don't and it doesn't.
I'm in no hurry to leave life (at least not yet), but I have to wonder what the point is.
There's really no ending to this post and there's not much within it that one could connect (without being in my head). Just some thoughts that are somehow and for some reason conflated within me and had to get them out...
Monday, March 9, 2009
And... ?
So here I am, 2:34pm on Monday, March 9th, 2009, sitting in the office, stressing over a spreadsheet that will track the path of "lost" grant money allotted to us by the county. And I could not care any less than I do right now. At least I don't think so. If this money is not accounted for, the department I work in could be in dire straits and lose many jobs (mine among them), and the school on a larger scale, will likely feel the impact as well.
And so the fuck what.
My boss is a wonderful woman. I remarked to my mother that working for her is like working for family. You can't beat that. Many of my co-workers - likewise. But frankly, who cares? I mean, if the school doesn't re-obtain this funding and starts to suffer for it, it won't be the worst thing (in my view) because my only gain from it is a pittance of a weekly paycheck.
I'm over-reacting to some degree, of course. I just came off of a weekend where I completed work on photo installations for a world-premiere of a play, met two muralists, and appeared at a reading where I was a part of the creative arts world - not just a pencil-pushing, spreadsheet-generating, number-crunching, data miner. I did what I loved and people liked it and if not, they still respected me for who I was and what I do. Here, I'm just someone they can replace easily if they need to.
So of course, this falls into the category of narcissism, and just like that, I'm propelled into an understanding of celebrities and the like who go "Do you know who I am?"
"I don't care about your grant spreadsheet! I'm a photographer whose work will appear in a world-premiere play this very week. Do you know who I am?!"
No one. But still, at this stage of my life, where opportunities are appearing in front of me every single day and where people care about what I have to say and equally so, how I say it, I feel I am only a short time away from casting off the work-a-day shackles and tackling something infinitely more interesting and important in my opinion - my own life...
And so the fuck what.
My boss is a wonderful woman. I remarked to my mother that working for her is like working for family. You can't beat that. Many of my co-workers - likewise. But frankly, who cares? I mean, if the school doesn't re-obtain this funding and starts to suffer for it, it won't be the worst thing (in my view) because my only gain from it is a pittance of a weekly paycheck.
I'm over-reacting to some degree, of course. I just came off of a weekend where I completed work on photo installations for a world-premiere of a play, met two muralists, and appeared at a reading where I was a part of the creative arts world - not just a pencil-pushing, spreadsheet-generating, number-crunching, data miner. I did what I loved and people liked it and if not, they still respected me for who I was and what I do. Here, I'm just someone they can replace easily if they need to.
So of course, this falls into the category of narcissism, and just like that, I'm propelled into an understanding of celebrities and the like who go "Do you know who I am?"
"I don't care about your grant spreadsheet! I'm a photographer whose work will appear in a world-premiere play this very week. Do you know who I am?!"
No one. But still, at this stage of my life, where opportunities are appearing in front of me every single day and where people care about what I have to say and equally so, how I say it, I feel I am only a short time away from casting off the work-a-day shackles and tackling something infinitely more interesting and important in my opinion - my own life...
An Open Window...
I sat down at my desk early this morning with a sense I hadn't experienced in a long time - if ever; a sense of accomplishment. Cleveland has all of a sudden turned into a place of possibility for me - this city, dubbed "foreclosureville" by the New York Times, this city, deemed on life support (if not dead) by many who live here or know of it. This city, rotting from a disease called "The Past", that has the automotive and corporate rats abandoning ship while the crew of artists and small businesspeople work tirelessly to keep it afloat over the financial deep.
I could not imagine, when leaving New York City, the Mecca of American arts & culture, the anointed and supposed land of creative opportunity, and heading for Cleveland, a city pronounced by many these days as DOA, that it would be the place where everything I could want would be. I came to the city that (at the time) was widely accepted to be the fourth poorest in the entire nation, and found a job almost immediately. I quit that job and found another almost immediately after that. They both paid substantially less than I made in NYC, but allowed me to have a standard of living here that was impossible in NYC - even while making 1/4 of my weekly NYC salary.
I've met several artists, all very serious and motivated. In NYC, I managed to meet only a few, and there was such a social ladder-climbing game, that they would only associate with you if they felt you could advance their career. I went from a plankton in an ocean to a perch in a lake. Not a big fish, mind you - but at least swimming and respected - as opposed to drifting on the current at the bottom of the food chain. We hunt together in schools and share the catch, as opposed to fighting each other for it.
In addition, despite the fact that I LOVED my NYC apartment, and we had a lot of space in it, relative to other NY'ers, considering what we paid, I now have an even better apartment (albeit, with one less bedroom and still unfurnished), in a better location (relative to NYC) and I pay just half of what I paid in NY. The equivalent apartment in NYC (in proximity to arts, culture, events and nightlife) would likely be a loft in Chelsea.
And now I reevaluate my plans to move to California. As much as I really want to go for the lifestyle and weather, it'll be the same "people-wise". Here, we have good Summer weather and the people are so much better. Overall, Clevelanders are not as liberal, however, in the particular areas that I frequent, they are.
As of Friday March 6th, I have completed my first professional / credited project with the Cleveland Public Theater, have assisted for a friend on a photo shoot of an American Idol contestant, have met filmmakers, painters and musicians (and have spent meaningful time with them - not just shaken their hands), have met a striking muralist in my lobby who I can't wait to work with, have attended several cultural events I could never afford in NYC, have become friends with the Executive Artistic Director of the Public Theater, and may have a chance to revive my (previously believed-dead) project "Whips & Chains". I did stand-up comedy multiple times at the Cleveland Improv. And all of this is in one year and seven months. I lived, worked and struggled in NYC for 30 years. I have little to show for it.
What adds to the wonder is that Cleveland is not (as many suspect) a po-dunk city (when it comes to arts and culture). The Cleveland Orchestra is one of the "Big Five" American Orchestras (New York , Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston housing the others). The Cleveland Public Theater is one of the most well-known and respected theaters in the country. Case-Western University is on par with Ivy-League Universities. The Cleveland Institutes of Music and Art and the Cleveland Museum of Art curators and staff are routinely courted by NYC, Chicago and other "Major City" museums and conservatories. In fact, the director of the Cleveland Museum of Art just left to head up the Met in NY. Being at the top of the Cleveland art world puts you a step away from the world market. Not to say that's my interest, but it is to say I was unaware. I married NY before I had sufficiently dated (which happens as a New Yorker).
And so, for possibly the first time in my life, I feel like I'm achieving. I feel happy (that is, as happy as I can be - so this says a lot). I am part of a (slowly) rising power couple in the art community here and that is seductive. Los Angeles? NY? Chicago? Cleveland?
There's a saying (that I'll paraphrase): When life closes a door, it opens a window...
With so many doors closed on me, it's good to slide the pane open, sit on the ledge for once and breathe, watching the workmen repair the broken door below.
I could not imagine, when leaving New York City, the Mecca of American arts & culture, the anointed and supposed land of creative opportunity, and heading for Cleveland, a city pronounced by many these days as DOA, that it would be the place where everything I could want would be. I came to the city that (at the time) was widely accepted to be the fourth poorest in the entire nation, and found a job almost immediately. I quit that job and found another almost immediately after that. They both paid substantially less than I made in NYC, but allowed me to have a standard of living here that was impossible in NYC - even while making 1/4 of my weekly NYC salary.
I've met several artists, all very serious and motivated. In NYC, I managed to meet only a few, and there was such a social ladder-climbing game, that they would only associate with you if they felt you could advance their career. I went from a plankton in an ocean to a perch in a lake. Not a big fish, mind you - but at least swimming and respected - as opposed to drifting on the current at the bottom of the food chain. We hunt together in schools and share the catch, as opposed to fighting each other for it.
In addition, despite the fact that I LOVED my NYC apartment, and we had a lot of space in it, relative to other NY'ers, considering what we paid, I now have an even better apartment (albeit, with one less bedroom and still unfurnished), in a better location (relative to NYC) and I pay just half of what I paid in NY. The equivalent apartment in NYC (in proximity to arts, culture, events and nightlife) would likely be a loft in Chelsea.
And now I reevaluate my plans to move to California. As much as I really want to go for the lifestyle and weather, it'll be the same "people-wise". Here, we have good Summer weather and the people are so much better. Overall, Clevelanders are not as liberal, however, in the particular areas that I frequent, they are.
As of Friday March 6th, I have completed my first professional / credited project with the Cleveland Public Theater, have assisted for a friend on a photo shoot of an American Idol contestant, have met filmmakers, painters and musicians (and have spent meaningful time with them - not just shaken their hands), have met a striking muralist in my lobby who I can't wait to work with, have attended several cultural events I could never afford in NYC, have become friends with the Executive Artistic Director of the Public Theater, and may have a chance to revive my (previously believed-dead) project "Whips & Chains". I did stand-up comedy multiple times at the Cleveland Improv. And all of this is in one year and seven months. I lived, worked and struggled in NYC for 30 years. I have little to show for it.
What adds to the wonder is that Cleveland is not (as many suspect) a po-dunk city (when it comes to arts and culture). The Cleveland Orchestra is one of the "Big Five" American Orchestras (New York , Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston housing the others). The Cleveland Public Theater is one of the most well-known and respected theaters in the country. Case-Western University is on par with Ivy-League Universities. The Cleveland Institutes of Music and Art and the Cleveland Museum of Art curators and staff are routinely courted by NYC, Chicago and other "Major City" museums and conservatories. In fact, the director of the Cleveland Museum of Art just left to head up the Met in NY. Being at the top of the Cleveland art world puts you a step away from the world market. Not to say that's my interest, but it is to say I was unaware. I married NY before I had sufficiently dated (which happens as a New Yorker).
And so, for possibly the first time in my life, I feel like I'm achieving. I feel happy (that is, as happy as I can be - so this says a lot). I am part of a (slowly) rising power couple in the art community here and that is seductive. Los Angeles? NY? Chicago? Cleveland?
There's a saying (that I'll paraphrase): When life closes a door, it opens a window...
With so many doors closed on me, it's good to slide the pane open, sit on the ledge for once and breathe, watching the workmen repair the broken door below.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Whose Chair is it Anyway?...
The woman whose job of mine it was to sit in for while she was out recovering from a stroke, returned Monday. Her return has thrown everyone for a loop, as she has returned far sooner than expected and without much notice. I can imagine that in many circumstances this would be welcome. You can dismiss your temp (and the exorbitant temp service fees) as well as have your REAL employee back, who actually knows how to do the job correctly and has access to resources your temp didn't (databases, networks, files, etc.). Not only would everything be more or less back to normal, you might even expect to see a phantom boost in production (phantom - because it's not a REAL boost - just a return to "normal" production as opposed to what you lost with the training and learning curve of a new but temporary employee).
Well, not here.
Almost no one is pleased about the return of this woman, whom they seemingly lost so much to when she left. The few who are pleased (or at least not threatened) by her return are only notable for the lilliputian nature of their numbers.
Now, this should likely come as no true surprise to me, as I was well-informed of the "nature of the beast" when I began the replacement assignment. Not only did my co-worker and immediate superior inform me, but people would often come by to talk to one of them, or to inquire when I started this new assignment (because I previously worked in other departments in the same building, where said people frequently saw me) and would drop horrific forewarnings whenever I reached for anything or so much as squirmed in my chair, like "If Stella were here, she would have a fit", or "I know Stella can't wait to have her desk back", and my personal favorite "Don't let Stella know you did that". Oftentimes (in fact EVERY time) the most I was doing was typing or reaching for a sheet of paper, or using the stapler - things normally expected of a person working in an office - but not those sitting in for "Stella". Apparently, the very idea of even having someone sit in to complete some of the work she left behind was blasphemous.
However, it all became clear to me just how heavy-handed she was and how she was able to wield so much fear-assisted power when she actually called in (while she was supposed to be recovering). She simply called to flat-out tell me (a stranger to her) "Don't touch anything on my desk. Leave it just the way you found it." All of her important things in the office (like important files that I needed access to, in order to do some of my job) were already locked away (by her) anyway, so I told her this was fine by me, but with no actual intention of following through (with those few things that were accessible to me), as I wasn't being paid to sit still with my hands folded for eight (eventually ten) hours a day.
I informed them that I didn't want to do that, knowing the type of person she was, and that I would rather continue trying to work around her lästiggeist (to coin a term) than to create potential for future friction. As well, I told them that if I moved anything, it would be just my luck that she would return the next week and "have a fit", as it were.
Well, this went on through November and December 2008 and partially into January of 2009 (at which point she had already been gone almost five months). Finally, with a mountain of paperwork on my desk, I agreed that it was unreasonable and ridiculous to work this way, and finally decided to go ahead and (very neatly and very carefully) box her things up in an organized way and put them away. At this point, it was being made fairly clear that they didn't really didn't expect her back at all.
Finally some space to work. I decided to leave her pictures and religious implements where they were - just in case. That way, I'd only have to put files back and not pictures (and have to try to figure out how they were arranged). This was mid-January. On February 16th, "Stella" stopped in to announce that she would be returning on February 23rd.
Everyone was surprised of course - except me.
I was hurried to a new office for the "Return of Stella" and when she arrived on that Monday, she promptly began complaining about how her desk (which I had completely cleaned off and restored) was a complete mess, how I "filled up" the one drawer she had left unlocked with "shit" (I put ONE labelmaker in there - which she personally kept upon her return, by the way, though I had ordered it for the whole office) and complained that she had to reorganize everything (though it was the same as when she left it). She also complained that one or more of her pictures were missing (which they weren't) and that "someone" (me) had stolen "her" chair, which "they" (I) hadn't, and had replaced it with a broken one (again - didn't happen).
All of that nonsense and bullshit brings me to this: Why are our lives as people so mundane and uneventful, why are we so disillusioned and bitter, that we "fight" over chairs in an office where none of the chairs belong to us anyway? Because that is what it has come down to. Having had our youthful dreams of being singers, dancers, musicians, magicians, astronauts, presidents, firemen, millionaires dashed against the rocks of reality in this turbulent ocean of life, we've instead been reduced to pen-hogging, chair-claiming, title-mongering, adult children.
We covet the next employees' cubicle and guard our post-it notes with a ferocity normally reserved for light infantry. We hide paperclips and staples and we consider this important work while we're filling the coffers of some overpaid executive. The collapse of the American Dream is not just about greedy corporate executives, it's about the people who buy into the system that creates them. The executives get to be millionaires and musicians and presidents because they throw a roll of tape and some white-out at ten people, and while we fight over it, they get rich. And it's OUR fault as much as theirs, because we allow it - and the ones in control know it.
I feel anger toward this woman individually, but I also feel pity - for all of us. She thinks some of her family pictures are missing and that it's my fault. I never touched those pictures, but even if I had, what would I have done with the family pictures of a complete stranger? This is what she wakes up for? To come into a job she probably didn't aspire to, to complain about trivialities and fight over which chair she gets?
Her life (like all of ours) is likely already marred by disappointment after disappointment, and finally, she has to claim some minor (even trivial) victories to maintain sanity. This clawing-at-sanity of course forces her into insanity. This is what we've ALL been reduced to. And we continue to do this while asking for change at the top.
We're doing the same thing, but now we want different results.
Well, not here.
Almost no one is pleased about the return of this woman, whom they seemingly lost so much to when she left. The few who are pleased (or at least not threatened) by her return are only notable for the lilliputian nature of their numbers.
Now, this should likely come as no true surprise to me, as I was well-informed of the "nature of the beast" when I began the replacement assignment. Not only did my co-worker and immediate superior inform me, but people would often come by to talk to one of them, or to inquire when I started this new assignment (because I previously worked in other departments in the same building, where said people frequently saw me) and would drop horrific forewarnings whenever I reached for anything or so much as squirmed in my chair, like "If Stella were here, she would have a fit", or "I know Stella can't wait to have her desk back", and my personal favorite "Don't let Stella know you did that". Oftentimes (in fact EVERY time) the most I was doing was typing or reaching for a sheet of paper, or using the stapler - things normally expected of a person working in an office - but not those sitting in for "Stella". Apparently, the very idea of even having someone sit in to complete some of the work she left behind was blasphemous.
However, it all became clear to me just how heavy-handed she was and how she was able to wield so much fear-assisted power when she actually called in (while she was supposed to be recovering). She simply called to flat-out tell me (a stranger to her) "Don't touch anything on my desk. Leave it just the way you found it." All of her important things in the office (like important files that I needed access to, in order to do some of my job) were already locked away (by her) anyway, so I told her this was fine by me, but with no actual intention of following through (with those few things that were accessible to me), as I wasn't being paid to sit still with my hands folded for eight (eventually ten) hours a day.
I should also note that I began the assignment in November and she left on sick leave in September - there were two months between her vacation of the position and the start of my assignment. (This comes to play later in this posting... )
All the while I worked in her place, I put everything back where I found it, every night, for the duration of my time at her desk. In addition, I went out of my way to not physically move anything that I could not easily put back, even if it was VERY MUCH in my way. I worked this way to the point that MY WORK on the desk was completely disorganized, because when I took her space, I tried to fit every piece of paperwork or utensil that I needed into the small amount of empty spaces that were available. When I needed a file that I had created or brought with me, or some office supplies that I ordered, etc., I had to dig through massive stacks I had built just to not touch any of her things. My co-worker and superior had gotten to the point where they were nearly ordering me to get rid of "Stella's" stuff (box it neatly and put it away) and make the desk mine so I could have more workspace and have a neater space to work in. I informed them that I didn't want to do that, knowing the type of person she was, and that I would rather continue trying to work around her lästiggeist (to coin a term) than to create potential for future friction. As well, I told them that if I moved anything, it would be just my luck that she would return the next week and "have a fit", as it were.
Well, this went on through November and December 2008 and partially into January of 2009 (at which point she had already been gone almost five months). Finally, with a mountain of paperwork on my desk, I agreed that it was unreasonable and ridiculous to work this way, and finally decided to go ahead and (very neatly and very carefully) box her things up in an organized way and put them away. At this point, it was being made fairly clear that they didn't really didn't expect her back at all.
Finally some space to work. I decided to leave her pictures and religious implements where they were - just in case. That way, I'd only have to put files back and not pictures (and have to try to figure out how they were arranged). This was mid-January. On February 16th, "Stella" stopped in to announce that she would be returning on February 23rd.
Everyone was surprised of course - except me.
I was hurried to a new office for the "Return of Stella" and when she arrived on that Monday, she promptly began complaining about how her desk (which I had completely cleaned off and restored) was a complete mess, how I "filled up" the one drawer she had left unlocked with "shit" (I put ONE labelmaker in there - which she personally kept upon her return, by the way, though I had ordered it for the whole office) and complained that she had to reorganize everything (though it was the same as when she left it). She also complained that one or more of her pictures were missing (which they weren't) and that "someone" (me) had stolen "her" chair, which "they" (I) hadn't, and had replaced it with a broken one (again - didn't happen).
All of that nonsense and bullshit brings me to this: Why are our lives as people so mundane and uneventful, why are we so disillusioned and bitter, that we "fight" over chairs in an office where none of the chairs belong to us anyway? Because that is what it has come down to. Having had our youthful dreams of being singers, dancers, musicians, magicians, astronauts, presidents, firemen, millionaires dashed against the rocks of reality in this turbulent ocean of life, we've instead been reduced to pen-hogging, chair-claiming, title-mongering, adult children.
We covet the next employees' cubicle and guard our post-it notes with a ferocity normally reserved for light infantry. We hide paperclips and staples and we consider this important work while we're filling the coffers of some overpaid executive. The collapse of the American Dream is not just about greedy corporate executives, it's about the people who buy into the system that creates them. The executives get to be millionaires and musicians and presidents because they throw a roll of tape and some white-out at ten people, and while we fight over it, they get rich. And it's OUR fault as much as theirs, because we allow it - and the ones in control know it.
I feel anger toward this woman individually, but I also feel pity - for all of us. She thinks some of her family pictures are missing and that it's my fault. I never touched those pictures, but even if I had, what would I have done with the family pictures of a complete stranger? This is what she wakes up for? To come into a job she probably didn't aspire to, to complain about trivialities and fight over which chair she gets?
Her life (like all of ours) is likely already marred by disappointment after disappointment, and finally, she has to claim some minor (even trivial) victories to maintain sanity. This clawing-at-sanity of course forces her into insanity. This is what we've ALL been reduced to. And we continue to do this while asking for change at the top.
We're doing the same thing, but now we want different results.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
A Short Musing on Simone...
Beautiful... (but does not see it)
Brilliant... (but does not believe it)
Giving... (but rarely receiving)
Infuriating... (hey, nobody's perfect)
My life's savior, my (not always) better half, perfect, flawed, paining, pained, fun, loving wife.
I hope we have 31 more - times infinity...
Happy Birthday... :)
Brilliant... (but does not believe it)
Giving... (but rarely receiving)
Infuriating... (hey, nobody's perfect)
My life's savior, my (not always) better half, perfect, flawed, paining, pained, fun, loving wife.
I hope we have 31 more - times infinity...
Happy Birthday... :)
Friday, January 23, 2009
An Atheist's Thoughts / Ruminations...
*Note: The following essay / discussion deals with the Atheist in relation to Christianity - but can be expanded to cover the other major western monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism, as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.
First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.
I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.
Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.
For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:
"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."
Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.
Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.
All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.
Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?
All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubt-able, due to lack of evidence.
"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."
That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.
I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.
On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.
First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.
I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.
Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.
For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:
"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."
Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.
Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.
All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.
Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?
All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubt-able, due to lack of evidence.
"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."
That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.
I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.
On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)