You Can't Boycott The Gay Away

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/27/507005/abc-news-invents-fictional-anti-gay-oreo-boycott/?mobile=nc

The recent string of gay pride support from companies like Oreo, Pop Tarts, Chevrolet and the like has inspired anti-gay individuals to suggest boycotting the companies. And in response, supporters of gay rights have taken this suggestion to its most absurd and amusing conclusion: those people should boycott all companies that support gay rights in order to be consistent, which includes Facebook where they first started these protests. The question arises, of course, as to whether political involvement by companies is ever appropriate. It goes without question that limitations on political support and funding from companies are justified. But merely taking a general political position such as supporting marriage equality or the like is distinct in the same way that churches can hold such positions, but not directly support or oppose political candidates, as I spoke about in “Where Religion and PoliticsShould Not Cross”  This sort of qualification of the degree to which a corporation, like a church, can be involved in politics, which should fundamentally be done by the public, composed of individual private citizens, enables the political process to be as fair and objective as it can with so many voices coming together about the big problems, such as the economy and human rights. To outright prohibit that interaction of private groups in public affairs stifles what should be a free market of ideas. But there should be reasonable restrictions based on considerations of the relevance of those private groups to politics. Both church and corporation can have involvement, but economic prohibitions should apply as consistently as those on houses of worship And the involvement doesn’t mean that there is any attempt to force the issue on the buyers, but merely that the company’s ideals are in line with GLBT rights. One can still shop there without aligning politically with those beliefs. Economics and politics can be fundamentally separate in practice even if they can be lumped together in principle.

Any individual can personally disagree with something, but boycotting a company because they don’t share your views, especially on gay rights and such, is not only ridiculous in that the corporation is not forcing gay rights on you, but it’s also not going to change them unless you get a large enough group. Not that the group would be terribly large or have a huge affect on sales anyway. On the contrary, the evidence is pointing towards more and more people supporting gay rights.  And if you really want to boycott all companies that support gay rights, with a bit of research, you’d find there are more companies that support GLBT than those who are more “traditional”, such as Chik Fil-et. And boycotting them as a supporter of gay rights isn’t solving the problem either, since they’re inevitably losing business anyway. A better solution is merely to not be a customer without formally boycotting them. At times, this sort of practice is more beneficial than making a large political statement, though as civil rights in the past were threatened, boycotting those establishments who were the most egregious in violating those rights sent the right message. Simply supporting “traditional” marriage is not the same as treating GLBT employees unfairly, which would be grounds for boycotting justly. While corporations shouldn’t really get into politics, especially when it comes to funding candidates and the like, stating that you stand for basic civil rights for minorities like GLBT is not bad as long as it doesn’t become intrusive. A policy of neutrality is prudent, but at the same time, it can be a business venture, but also reflective that corporations are not just focused on profits, but people as well, so it can work for both aspects.

The economic and entrepreneurial aspect focuses on the likelihood of expanding your demographics. It isn’t just the GLBT community that you’re appealing to, but those who support GLBT rights, which is fast becoming more and more acceptable to one degree or another. It makes perfect sense to state in commercials that you support gay rights. It isn’t necessarily breaching any unspoken ideas about whether companies should speak about these sorts of things. It’d be one thing for companies to start funneling in exorbitant amounts of money to radical gay rights groups (if there are any) in the same way if Chik Fil-et was funneling money to particularly mean anti-gay groups. But merely saying they offer their name in the quest for further advancing GLBT civil liberties isn’t excessive by any means. Just as other companies would have a right to make an advert saying they support the traditional family, it wouldn’t bother me. It just means they’re really hoping that the social conservatives are going to buy their stuff in lieu of many social liberals choosing not to. Either way, there’s a business risk, but that’s what you do in such situations; you gamble.

But companies are not just about advancing in the business world, but also existing in a world of people with feelings, with basic needs and a responsibility on the part of a corporation to not be greedy, but merely covetous of profit and efficiency. The notion of virtuous egotism seems contradictory with a common ethic in American culture rooted from Christianity, which is about selflessness and essentially sacrificing your ego for the advancement of a greater good. While this can be beneficial in a particular setting, it is not absolutely forbidden to be interested in one’s own good alongside being concerned for the welfare of others. One should not coddle or provide excessively for those in need, for this makes them complacent and not motivated to work for their own profits. With companies, this is a matter of moderation. Individuals can become greedy within a company, but that should be restricted as well with principles of self control and not seeking out money at the cost of those under you. The idea that they can be replaced or outsourced is not only callous, but can be considered fairly un-American in the sense of not granting jobs to those who are willing to take them in the very country your company exists. To not give those jobs to the skilled and those who even want to creates a sense of hopelessness and even could encourage the unmotivated to seek more government welfare to provide for them in lieu of gainful employment. In that sense, providing jobs and even being charitable are not signs of any sort of weakness or flawed economic logic, but simply a way everyone can benefit in some sense, though not equally, but within the means of each individual and group associated with them. Families, communities, companies, the interactions are sometimes unrecognized, but are as important as the predictions made for each quarter.

While the controversy of gay rights may eventually become a thing of the past and accepted by a majority of the world’s population, or at least the U.S.’s, corporations have their own responsibilities to consider in relation to minorities even as they progress to greater acceptance and tolerance in society. To help those less fortunate in charitable ways is a method that has been used for a fair amount of U.S. history, at least since the post Depression era. Advancing the cause of social justice by offering one’s influence and voice within the public sphere is another way. Just saying you support gays and will not turn them away is encouraging a tolerant and progressive America without giving special treatment. Keeping political involvement as a corporation to a minimum; that is, sticking to issues instead of candidates and in general instead of partisan terms, can allow a business to be encouraging of the political process, but also be considerate of the public citizens who are the true source of change in the country, not those with the greatest profits. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Politics and Pro Life

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/my-take-rethinking-the-pro-life-label/

I’ve already blogged on this a bit, mostly in relation to a blog post of a college acquaintance who runs , a political blog of good quality, where he noted the relation of ‘pro-life” beliefs to libertarian values of freedom. In that post, “Abortion Terms Revisited”, I actually suggested a solution to this problem I’ll visit later in this post, albeit not necessarily solving what to do about the pro-life position itself.
Again, I rail on politics and its complexity, though both Democrats and Republicans could be inconsistent on the issue that divides even families sometimes. There’s always some variation on the general anti-abortion field, so as to distinguish this from the pro life issue for the moment. Some permit abortions in extreme cases, others forbid it in all situations and others are somewhat in the middle, resonating with pro choice and pro life in that they would like people to choose life, but they also respect people’s choices, as long as they don’t become abortions on demand for any situation. Of course, the pro choice thing is equally as polarizing. A side comment would enable me to transition more smoothly into what pro life would be more consistently across policies. Pro choice is not something Republicans are necessarily against. They value privatization, free market economy, freedom to choose a number of things out of various alternatives (like guns?). Their exclusion of abortion, but acceptance of the death penalty is just one of the inconsistencies many politically minded people observe about the Republican Party these days on their so called “pro life” platform.

To be truly pro life, many have begun to argue, you cannot suggest the budget for allaying the economic troubles we remain in. To cut benefits and aid to the poor is against many people’s deeply held religious beliefs. And even without religious beliefs based in the supernatural, one can argue there is still a strong compulsion for those who have plenty to give to those who have little or none. The basics of charity, generosity, and helping people live a fulfilling and satisfactory life can be said to be just as integral to a pro-life position as the commonly affirmed position of what I would call counter or anti-abortion. Pro-life is not the same as anti or counter abortion for the same reason that a counter/anti-abortion advocate can also be pro-death penalty/capital punishment or say the use of torture to advance the cause of peace is justified, among other more explicitly ‘anti-life’ positions. Of course, even the use of aggressive and excessive military strength that ignores the roles of noncombatants would appear on its face to be spitting on those lives as if they are expendable as accepted losses or collateral damage. Even soldiers, willingly putting their lives on the line, make such twisted choices in order to justify their own warped psyche’s perspective, radically changed by experiencing threats from every side and trained not to have mercy on the enemy. How does this ensure any kind of pro-life position in the general sense: that is, protecting life at all stages, whatever that might specifically be, whether it starts at birth or at conception (however questionable the latter may be). Even if I might disagree with such a a pro lifer on the abortion issue, I am more than amiable to the anti-war and anti-capital punishment positions we may both hold nonetheless.

One might say, with some backing to the argument, that Democrats are fast becoming one of the more consistent on the pro-life platform. It’s hard to find many Republicans that advocate the many things that reflect an overall pro-life policy that no doubt has cemented the appeal of the Democratic party in the wake of what might have been considered one of their weaknesses: the issue of religion and values in politics. With Democrats supposedly leaning more towards privatization of religion and separation of church and state, one might have seen them as an anti-God party, or to be fairer, a pan-religious party in that they welcomed everyone moreso than Republicans who tolerated Jews and reluctantly allowed Catholics and eventually Mormons into their fold, mostly because of shared values. But Catholics might be said to be an interesting balancer for politics and religion for Republicans against Democrats in that they were among those who criticized the Republican budget as not being truly pro-life and protecting life at all stages. The fixation on the abortion issue might be said to have hurt the present Republican Party’s support from Catholics, not to mention the fixation on fiscal policy over more imminent social issues that plague the country and the world. Then you throw in the issue of the war in the Middle East and you have a group that slowly appears to be more pro fear as opposed to pro life.

You make people afraid they’d abort a world leader or a great scientist, paranoid they’ll lose their freedoms to gun control stealing their weapons, hostile to the terrorist and motivating people to fight in wars. All this really focuses on guilt and regret over everything one does and never really affirms that we make choices, for better or worse, and that as long as we reflect on those choices, we can improve. If a woman decides to abort and then later thinks it was a bad idea, she can share her story without being obnoxious to all women who have to make those difficult decisions in those situations. If a soldier is patriotic, he can salute the flag, but he has no right to condemn someone who uses their Constitutional right to burn it just because it offends them and makes them afraid there are terrorists in their midst. And even the control of guns doesn’t mean that everyone is trying to take away all your force, but merely moderate it so we don’t have backwoods hicks using military grade equipment, thinking that martial law will be instated in 2012 or some such nonsense. If we are to be pro life, we should also be pro choice to a great extent, even if those are still polarized in popular mediums as being polar opposites. Luckily, as I blogged previously, TV stations have at least been trying to use more precise language, saying pro or anti abortion rights instead of pro choice and pro life, as if the inverse applies to each opposite. But in fact not every pro choice is pro death, and pro life is not anti choice, though sometimes it can imply anti choice in that people are afraid of the liberties people have or are afraid of them going into excess. And that’s not an unjustified fear, if you try to moderate choices yourself instead of outright suppressing everyone else’s. So pro life and pro choice people may have more in common than pundits and talking points make them think. Think for yourself, like a skeptical American should. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

The GOP-Generally Odd Party

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/16/my-take-gop-presidential-field-jars-with-americans-self-image/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/16/huckabee-announcement-puts-evangelical-votes-up-for-grabs/

Neither Mike Huckabee nor Donald Trump are running for President of the U.S. in 2012. Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and others are in the stages of either forming an exploratory committee or working on campaigns across the country. But I wonder whether some of these candidates can stay relevant to their constituents. Newt Gingrich has been divorced three times, and Mitt Romney has become even more controversial than before by suggesting a form of healthcare many have claimed is similar to “Obamacare”, even terming it “Romneycare”. The Mormon Republican could have my vote, though there’s a stronger appeal from Ron Paul, who announced his plans to run this cycle. With these two problems alone, let alone pitfalls with other potential nominees, such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, the GOP seems to be falling behind with the times.

The main females with ambitions for presidency are appealing to Roy Moore’s methodology of pandering to the common people, aligning themselves with those values usually by design. Palin and Bachman are still popular with the Tea Party, notorious for comparisons and contrasts with the GOP, though even some Republicans running at present, such as Ron Paul, don’t necessarily agree with what might be called more neo-conservatives supporting the war in Iraq. The grassroots nature of how Palin and Bachman campaign, along with the popularity of their positions across a solid range of demographics means they might have a chance this time around, since Hilary Clinton had a decent run in 2008 for the Democratic party. Palin and Bachman share some common positions, such as opposing same sex marriage, advocating offshore drilling and general support of the war in Iraq. Any disagreements are slight, Palin opposing all abortion, while Bachman is willing to permit it in cases of rape or incest. Palin might have some conceivable difficulties due to her explicit association with the Tea Party she has, contrasting with Bachman’s incidental appeals to grassroots movements without severing her ties to the GOP. Palin also had the incident connected to Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting this year, so that’s not helping her chances. Ron Paul, ironically enough, also has some distinct connections with the Tea Party movement, though he still emulates a good deal of GOP positions, particularly the anti abortion one, though his strong opposition to the Federal Reserve System and more strict Constitutionalist leanings might clash more explicitly with the GOP’s move towards neo-conservative ideals.

Concerning Newt Gingrich, the most obvious critique is in his dissonance with the GOP focus on family values and marriage as a sacred institution. The man has been divorced three times, married twice, both times to the women he was cheating on the previous wife with; it doesn’t set the best example for fidelity. The flipside of his hypocrisy is his strong Catholic Christian background that creates a buffer against these criticisms by saying that he feels remorse and wants to set things right. I wonder if he said that the last two times he got in trouble for adultery, especially the first time when Bill Clinton was in Gingrich’s sights for the controversy of Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinski, hm? But with any incidents of infidelity, the Christian heritage and support within the Republican caucus means that as long as Newt or any other divorcee that’s remarried keeps apologizing, they’re not completely hopeless, though it doesn’t inspire confidence from a common voter as offenses pile up. It seems disingenuous to vote for people that clash with your values and think they’ll improve marriage when they can’t even maintain it themselves without letting their eyes and genitals wander from the one they betrothed themselves to. I’m not married myself, but I’d be hard pressed to screw up a relationship I put so much work into, especially since I’m so appealing to women as a provider (sarcasm much?), considering all I do is surf the net and type away various ramblings on my blog on a tri/bi/weekly basis.

And to conclude this range of candidates, we have Mitt Romney, who could have my votes if he does continue and I had to consider what Republican would be ideal if the Democratic ones all suck. Of course, I could just vote Independent, but let’s assume I go into the two-party system. Between Romney and Paul, however, the former’s too Mormon in his positions for me to take him seriously on GLBT issues, But Mormon support for Prop 8 should’ve tipped me off on that. He does have my support for his speaking against Islamaphobic discrimination, since they’re fast becoming the new group to hate in the 21st century. He has a general support for stem cell research, but is fiscally opposed to the government funding it, so there’s another strike against a plus. All in all, he’s hardly different from other candidates. The issue of trust he has with the American people and the Republican Party is no doubt due to his Mormon background, which Americans still have reservations about. Mormonism probably has tricky policies within their own church about one’s loyalty to the prophet and their proclamations, though since Romney is not himself a prophet or one of the 12 apostles right under him, it makes the situation less serious. Of course, people would still trust him more than they’d trust a candidate in his 70s or who was homosexual, even if he was celibate. It goes to show that people can ignore a great deal in politics as long as the person of interest squares with the overall party principles. It’s when they become the alleged RINO, Republican In Name Only, that people begin to accuse you of being a Democrat in disguise. Either way, the political field will always have uneven bumps on the horizon. A Mormon, a twice divorcee, at least 2 associates with the Tea Party and more to come in the future: this whole set of politicians and associated squabbles are why I try to stay out of political discussions for the most part. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Palin Pathetically Pleads Persecution

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/palins-use-of-blood-libel-invokes-ancient-myth-about-jews/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/palin-criticized-for-using-blood-libel/


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/my-take-sarah-palins-bogus-persecution-complex/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4021/new_theory_for_tucson_tragedy:_blame_the_atheists/

I can’t say I’m surprised that Sarah Palin has gotten into my blog again after half a year of nothing since Christine O’Donnell took her place for inept female politicians (and there are adept ones, don’t misunderstand me). And now she’s painting herself into a corner with her ignorance on Jewish-Christian issues. In particular, she thinks the term “blood libel” can be separated from the history it has of Christians slaughtering Jews; since many thought that the Israelite descendants kidnapped and killed Christian children and used their blood for various occult rituals. Any appropriate use of the term would have to involve actual persecution of Jews. But Palin says she, a good Christian woman, is the target of a blood libel against her since she can’t admit she might be somewhat guilty in using decidedly gun heavy rhetoric in rallying Tea Party members to fight against big government, by any means necessary, I imagine. And this rhetoric persisted in using what appeared to be target signs on various politicians in Arizona, including Gabrielle Giffords, nearly killed by a shot to the head from Jared Lee Loughner, who killed at least 6 people in his rampage in Tucson. Some claim Palin’s use of the targets may have motivated Loughner to the act against Giffords by association the target with a gun and Palin’s own phrase that she throws around of “Don’t retreat, reload,”

There’s a tragic irony in this, since Giffords herself was a Reform Jew, so it’s like twisting the knife in her parent’s wounds. Saying you’re the victim of a “blood libel” from people accusing you of influencing a maniac to make an assassination attempt on a Jew is like a Christian using the term “witch hunt”, which I imagine might not be uncommon in some areas today even with Wicca becoming more popular (though Wiccans are NOT witches, I must clarify). The Anti Defamation League strongly objected to Palin’s use, along with scholars of religion, such as Stephen Prothero and Mary C. Boys, who concentrates on this area of religious studies. While it has become part of English parlance, not unlike the phrase witch hunt, to use “blood libel” with a meaning separate from its historical context of Christian anti Semitism; which I admit is a minority today, since it is popular in Christian circles now to pray for Israel and such; it seems unfair to Jews in some way to use that term in such a nonchalant fashion, as if the Jews have just forgotten it, like the Holocaust, or just silently accept that people will always indirectly use anti semitic phrases in new unrelated ways. The medieval paranoia that might have just been a cover for anti Semitism under the similar hysteria around vampires; the Jews allegedly used blood in their rituals, therefore in the medieval mindset, they were kin with vampires. Makes as much sense as any other conspiracy theory.

I don’t think anyone is going to outright criticize Palin for her attempt to defend herself against these accusations, which, while plausible on some level, seem no different from scapegoating that has happened throughout times of crisis, creating someone to be the one to take the blame and otherwise become a pariah. Palin’s rhetoric might have only been a slight factor alongside Jared Lee Loughner’s alleged favorite books, including Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He may very well have been unstable from the beginning and the outside environmental influences may have triggered what was already somewhat genetically predisposed. There’s little reason to place the blame completely on any one person for even triggering Loughner’s insanity or his behavior, since he might have been behaving in what he believed to be a rational course of action, even if everyone else around him would have thought otherwise. There’s a justified criticism of sorts by Democrats of Republicans, Tea Party supporters especially, of the ease with which the assassin got a weapon with which to commit his crime, since they’re all for gun rights being increased (right?). The fact that Jared Loughner had no previous mental health evaluations or even any significant crimes on his record eliminated any difficulties that would’ve been clues from the start that he was someone that probably should not have gotten a gun at all. His belief in conspiracy theories was one of many manifestations in recent years that he was unstable, though the reason he was never forcefully taken for evaluations was because his erratic and outright insane behavior was nonetheless regarded as not posing any direct danger to anyone else around him. He was expelled from community college for this behavior, only allowed back in if he got a certified examination demonstrating his sanity. Later on, the military rejected his application on the grounds that he was mentally unfit. I would think at this point the military might’ve suggested that Loughner get evaluated by a psychologist/psychiatrist, but again, by this point, he may’ve been so far gone that it didn’t register.

And one last irritant in this whole terrible incident are claims that Loughner’s actions were motivated by his alleged atheism. There are already issues with this, since his reading list varies from theistic to atheistic authors, Plato and Hitler both having theistic tendencies and Ayn Rand and Karl Marx atheists of one stripe or another. The picture showing what appeared to observers to be a shrine with a skull doesn’t seem to show anything of atheism, since an atheist wouldn’t probably feel any need to erect any kind of area of worship, since it would be unnecessary to make pleas to divinities to dole out rewards or punishments. Not to mention that, regardless of whether you believe or disbelieve in the divine, when you’re stark raving mad, I don’t think you’re going to rethink that existential question so quickly when you take a Glock and starting firing wildly into a crowd. It’s pretty clear that the individual is the primary agent of responsibility in committing a crime, but there’s always room for considering a secondary agent as responsible by negligence. If you suspect someone is a danger to others by their behavior and thought patterns as far as they indicate them and you don’t do anything about it, then one can say you are nearly as culpable on some level as the person who takes a box cutter to a stranger’s throat. All in all, the blame game everyone’s playing is a start, but with Palin’s particular term being used outside of actual Jewish persecution, it’s no wonder that she’s spiraling down into mediocrity both politically and culturally to the level of Michael Jackson still being used as the punch line. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Prayer For Politicians, Meditation For The Mind

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/25/christine-odonnell-says-prayer-impacts-her-polls/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/26/can-meditation-change-your-brain-contemplative-neuroscientists-believe-it-can/
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/25/meditation-focus-on-now/

I can’t believe Christine O’Donnell keeps making herself a target for my articles. It hasn’t been weekly, but she can’t seem to stop herself from succumbing to what must be some genetic idiocy that was recessive beforehand. Honestly, is she just addicted to this attention? I guess that would be an excuse to get into politics and have people shower you with praise. She was formerly a witch, so now she can relate to the pagan, but doesn’t know the First Amendment so she can make herself seem teachable (she’s not, it appears). Now she thinks people praying for her campaign actually affect the popularity she’s been gaining. You couldn’t be more narcissistic if you tried; to think that people praying to God would actually have effects on your political run for Senator is incredibly naïve, not to mention selfish. To think God cares about whether you win or the Democrats? This is the same ridiculous tripe that’s been persisting since the 50s when people thought that teaching that the U.S. was a Christian nation would beat the “Godless Communists”. Evidently Christine O’Donnell has bought into this alteration of history and culture that communicates what is to a neutral observer a laughable proposition.

The idea that our country was founded on supposedly unique Biblical principles fails on two levels. The first one I’ve brought up at least once before: why would God care about any nation if its kingdom is not of this earth or if it is, it’s got to be way better than any worldly government could promise. But apparently people, educated or otherwise, can be swayed by patriotism and emotional bondage to feelings of guilt to believe either: God either wants our country to prosper or that the rules of Judeo Christian religion should be given favor in law. This may not be the case with all conservatives, but it leads right to my second point. Even if the majority of the founding fathers were Christian, it follows in no way that they wanted to enforce Christianity as some favored religion or place its laws in a political context. The First Amendment alone gives any sensible person a hint that the writers of the Constitution did not favor Christianity in terms of a government and did not design the country as a “Christian nation”. If anything could be noted as a Christian property of the U.S., it’s demographics. There are more self professed Christians (Protestants, Catholics and Mormons altogether) in the U.S. than any other religion, so that’s the closest you could brag about America being a Christian nation. To say we favor Christianity any more in why we develop our laws is not only mistaken in terms of how jurisprudence should work, impartial to faith, but protecting its practice nonetheless, but selectively observes the monuments and such that exist in government centered buildings, like the Supreme Court and Arlington National Cemetery. Religion and ethics are not dependent on each other; in fact, you could say we develop the latter before we even care about the former.

Most importantly, though, I’m just disappointed that someone would really have any kind of regard for prayer in relation to things that are for all intents and purposes separate from what are genuine religious concerns: famine, disease, natural disasters, adoption, anything but whether a Democrat or a Republican wins an election! The fact that you depend on pleas to some deity, singular or plural, is pitiful when you direct even a fraction of your energy in begging that someone wins an insignificant election for an insignificant country.

On a much more interesting, though still a bit questionable, note is the growing field of contemplative neuroscience. To be brief, it is an area of psychology that specifically studies brain function in the process of varying forms of meditation. I myself haven’t done any persistent meditation beyond some Tai Chi and Wado Ryu breathing exercises, which I admit do have an effect if only by basic physiological observations of how we can calm ourselves without recourse to drugs. The studies are still new from what I’ve read, not to mention the samples are both small and potentially biased so that the brain could very well be tricking the subjects. The tests have shown that different areas of the brain are activated or function at higher levels based on the particular kinds of meditation they do, which range from mindfulness to concentration to empathy. What is of especial relevance is the somewhat agreed upon notion that the brain can be trained in a similar, though distinct, sense that we train our bodies. With the brain, it’s not as if you’re exercising muscles so much as you’re channeling neuron firings in ways that begin to affect the brain’s processing. The best example coming to mind is that of a computer and enhancing it through software that cleans or defragments various areas. Similarly, if you alter various habits that the brain has built over time, you can alter how the brain takes in information, processes it and affects our behavior in general with our environment, people and non people both.

If Christine O’Donnell wants to improve anything with her campaign, maybe she could advocate people combining meditation with their faith journey with God, Jesus and Casper the Friendly Ghost. Not that she would eschew prayer, but suggest that people also look inwardly as well as outwardly. Maybe she could even try it herself and figure out how to save herself from such a grand disappointment that may be around the corner. One can only imagine the future of these polls already starting a week or so ago. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Forgive Them, For They Know Not What They Talk About

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/27/tennessee-islam-and-our-disposable-constitution/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/27/tennessee-gubernatorial-candidate-takes-heat-for-islam-comments/?fbid=Q3IwpbhZU3p

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html?npt=NP1

As if Tennessee couldn’t appear more bigoted or ignorant than with the issues with racist emails surrounding Obama and his wife, Ron Ramsey, candidate for governor (supported by the same friend who blogs for In Defense of the Constitution) has opened his mouth and pushed the state down the ladder even more. Both he and Lou Ann Zelenik, a candidate for Congress, insist that Islam is not a religion, but a political movement according to Zelenik, or in Ramsey’s words, a cult. Not to get into academic analysis of how problematic his claim is, I hardly see evidence of Islam as a whole being a cult in the sense of a counter cultural fringe movement, except in the context of America’s relationship with Islam’s Shia and Sunni sects. The evidence would be there, except the imams are not considered unquestionably true as opposed to Mohammed, who is technically not considered dead. Then again, there are aspects of a cult’s fixation upon a founder’s persistence and authority in either Shia or Sunni Islam (I forget which exactly) about the imminent return of the 12th imam, who is apparently in a well. But Islam in the form of Ahmadiyya (which boasts around ten million adherents) is not only moderate, but accessible to American minds in the sense of adherence to religious ethics without becoming resistant to change or dangerously authoritarian. The difficulty with understanding Islam is that the initial public exposure to any unfamiliar religions or philosophical idea is commonly regarded as more authoritative and credible than actual academic research from accredited individuals in those fields of study. Even well read political figures like Ramsey and Zelenik apparently don’t want to read further than how they feel their constituents would want them to about Islam. Since the vast majority of Republicans seem to be at least opposed to more Islamic presence in the West, particularly in the form of mosques or even cultural centers like the one in New York, Ramsey and Zelenik are just going along with the bandwagon and spouting the talking points. “Oh, we respect freedom of religion for Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and others, but Islam has to be a cult because authoritative conservative voices like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin say it’s so, therefore it must be true,”

The double standard is pretty evident even to a pot smoking high school student: you don’t say you respect freedom of religious practice and worship and then say you don’t want to respect one religion because you have concluded it must be wrong because of the actions of even a large part of the group. Even if many Christians I speak to through forums or in real life occasionally are excessively devout and even insulting towards non Christians, that doesn’t mean I must conclude Christianity is a cult or shouldn’t be respected and tolerated, allowed to practice its faith in churches and witness to belief in the salvation through Jesus Christ through privately funded missions, etc. And neither should we inevitably conclude that every person raised in Islam in any form is automatically a fundamentalist that insists that Islam should dominate every society in the world under sharia law. With a mosque’s building being fought against in Murfreesboro, not unlike the even bigger situation in New York, this doesn’t make me proud or even want to say I’m a native born of Tennessee. With people like Ron Ramsey spouting out this borderline hate speech laced with magnanimous bigoted ideals like protecting the Christian values of America and protecting us from infiltrating terrorists (as if every person from the Middle East automatically hates the U.S.) this situation can best be solved by education and a spirit of receptiveness. No one’s asking Republicans to accept Islam or other religions as equally valid paths to salvation, but they should at least give the same respect that many American non Christians give them to worship and believe as they will without infringing on their rights to free practice; though this goes back to my thoughts on minority religions in America, which is a demographically Christian society, and the difficulties inherent in accepting your position as a minority but not letting the majority trample over you.

On a somewhat related note, a church in Florida (home state of my last roommate) has apparently planned a Quran burning on September 11th for protesting what they think is an innately oppressive and violent religion. I’m all for freedom of speech, even such things as flag burnings or Neo-Nazi and KKK rallies, but it seems counterproductive to try to protest something by going back to Middle Ages tactics. Burning or destroying something that represents what you disagree with isn’t the way to argue against it. Showing that you have the power to destroy something seems to reflect insecurity of the efficacy of the thing you hold sacred or valuable, such as the Bible for the Florida preacher and his flock. Showing you have the power to generate new borders and ideas seems to reflect a more Christian spirit, since Jesus crossed borders people weren’t willing to in his time, like associating with tax collectors, lepers and other people of ill repute. Even some of his parables and stories associated with his preaching note his acceptance of truth’s spirit being discovered through people that were regarded as blasphemous or heretical in those times, like the Samaritan and the Syro Phoenician woman respectively. In this way, it’s important to reflect that Islam doesn’t have any disrespect for Jesus, in fact regarding him as a near equal to Mohammed in terms of his value to presenting the message of Allah/God/YHWH. The fact that Muslims don’t believe Jesus is the “Son of God” only suggests they disagree theologically, it doesn’t mean they think Jesus is less important or not to be respected as a messenger of God/prophet (there is a distinction there by Islamic philosophy/theology, I believe).

All in all, these problems can be solved by a combination of things like my blogging, but more ideally, activism to try to bridge these barriers that have been generated by American conservatives to try to turn people against each other for personal belief and faith, when they share values in common that transcend their race or culture or faith. Why can’t American Christians and Muslims (for the topic at hand anyway) seek out common ground? They can accept that there are things they will disagree about, but more importantly can join to confront more pressing and universal problems, like abuse of military power, human rights abuses and poverty and famine that still exist in the 21st century? Whether one believes Jesus is God incarnate or a prophet of God in a line that has concluded with a guy flying up to heaven on a horse shouldn’t be the primary concern. That is, unless you are so focused on religious differences that you feel you have to reinforce the Christian demographic by saying Islam is a cult or an evil religion, as opposed to letting the Christian majority just exist as it does. Not to mention that the limited government these Republicans spout so much hot air about seem to care a bit too much about what God one believes in or whether one believes in God at all, as if that is a requirement to be American or even a human being. Why should the government care at all about how one worships or doesn’t worship any god or gods (like myself for example) except as it infringes on others’ rights to freely practice as well in the privacy of their places of worship? It seems like the Republican’s ideal government is only limited in regards to fiscal concerns. But religious belief or lack thereof is still somehow fair game for a society whose government is built on a document whose first amendment specifically says that there is a right both to religious freedom and to freedom from state alliances with religion. And this is one reason out of many that I choose to be anarchist as opposed to purely “Democrat” or “Republican”. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

No True Tea Party

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tea_party_concerns

With the Tea Party’s favorite day of the year for protests today, I’m reminded of the alleged racial slurs and even violence that may have been associated with Tea Party sympathizers. Admittedly, that poses a potential error of correlation versus causation (i.e. I may just be connecting Tea Party extremism I see with the violence even though it may have just been perpetrated by whack-jobs that have no life outside of saying how angry they are at big government) but onto more relevant consideration. The organizers are worried that the protests might show a bad image of the Tea Party. I find this funny since even without the alleged connections of violence against supporters of the recent healthcare reform to the Tea Party that I blogged on a few weeks ago the Tea Party still seems like disgruntled ill educated citizens that are frustrated at being a minority group. Though another article I’ll note (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html) suggests through a poll (though we know those aren’t always the best indicators of overall thought from my blog post on the Meaning(s) of Easter) that Tea Party members are actually relatively wealthy and educated. That doesn’t mean they’re not a minority, since the poll notes only 18% of the people polled identify as Tea Party affiliated.

Back to the Tea Party Day celebration, some of the more controversial speakers that were invited (like Mike Huckabee?) have now been politely declined, security has been enhanced and people were asked to bring cameras to catch interlopers in the act. Some have suggested that the protestors that drew attention at Tea Party protests were agents placed to make the Tea Party look bad. I can’t validate this one way or another, but if we’re talking about a relatively small group of citizens that are commonly white, Republican, over 45 and married, you can’t put it past them to feel defensive, however well educated and wealthy they might be. Put another way, imagine you put an otherwise mellow domestic housecat (say a Persian) in a cage for a week with minimum food and water and I guarantee you’ll find that pussy will be less than happy to see people when you set it free. Similarly, I imagine these people feel underrepresented, marginalized and more than a minority, if not a silent majority as one image I found while searching through Google suggested. In this way, the message is communicated quite differently. Instead of being a minority that’s oppressed, they’re just the majority that’s being silenced by a minority that holds more power. I’m not even going to get into potential conspiracy theories about the Jews in politics or the NWO (New World Order).

The thing I find most amusing about this is the allegations from Tea Party members that the people who use offensive language or in some cases, imagery such as President Obama depicted in the style of the Joker from The Dark Knight are not representative of true Tea Party members. This shows what is called a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The gist of this problematic argument form is that it refuses to admit that its initial premise is wrong because of a counterexample; instead they modify their original position and suggest that “true” members of their group are not like the counterexample offered. In the case of Tea Party activists, they insist that people that use offensive language or imagery or extremist rhetoric are not associated with their group. Problem with this is that they would suggest that people only pay attention to their status quo and ignore what is a demonstrable problem in their ranks as a grassroots movement. If they have no structure to speak of in arranging and managing their members, then it’s no wonder people think of them as little more than a fringe group that poses little to no threat except their bomb threats or the suggestion of some states (Oklahoma in particular) to start state militias. Now a counterpoint would appear in the form of a Latin phrase abusus non tollit usum, translating roughly to “misuse does not remove use”. A sincerely progressive Tea Party member (if it exists, and it may) would argue that excessively emotionally charged speeches and rousing of the masses to change being the common mantra of even non extremist Tea Party members does not suggest that the Tea Party ideal is not something with merit. Historical comparisons to the original namesake of the present movement aside, conservative ideals are something I respect, along with liberal ideals, so even the Tea Party has merit in some sense. The difficulty comes in the form of how it presents itself. A group for the common people is one thing, but a group maintained by mob rule and pure majority dominance is only going to survive for as long as people remain uneducated and willing to be ignored or dismissed. And I sincerely doubt that’s going to continue to be the case for longer in either case. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

History According to Texas

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/ns/us_news-education/

(Disclaimer: I have nothing against Texans, my girlfriend is from Texas. I just see this as something that’s probably common to the South in general to an extent, or some fundamentalist idea of traditional “values”. Just to clarify)

I read a few days ago about the troubling movement in Texas’s State Board of Education to rewrite history to fit a particular preference: such as emphasizing the conservative resurgence in the 80s and 90s, emphasizing the “religious” background of the founding of the country, and generally pushing the ideology of tradition and small government over and against any “liberal” ideas. Now I can appreciate their goal of moderating and balancing the curriculum since in all fairness there is probably something of a bent towards leftist politics in some regards. But I was raised with the prior textbooks and I don’t recall feeling like we needed excessive government to solve our problems. Even reading about FDR’s New Plan and other associated “socialists” like Lincoln and Washington (that surprises me) didn’t make me think that the notion of a limited government was unrealistic or archaic. On the contrary, the general theme of history textbooks that I recall was valuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, though admittedly there was a bit less emphasis on the counterparts to MLK Jr. and other nonviolent protestors. I find it ironic that the goal here is to have a group of people that are so called representatives of the parents voting on what they think the parents want their children to be educated on. Many have already criticized this as hypocritical and for good reason, since these people only seem to want limited government when it suits their desires. Otherwise, they want bureaucrats and plutocrats to wield the power, since they know what’s best for everyone else. So parents can’t get into this? I’m hoping they will in the May voting that will revive the discussion.

To outright remove Thomas Jefferson from textbooks would frustrate even much more libertarian and conservative college friends of mine. Just because he happens to be a Deist and values the separation of church and state (however he meant it, it’s not necessarily agreed on) doesn’t mean you should replace him with John Calvin. I’m all for a comparison and contrast of views on church and state and the like, but there’s no reason to remove Jefferson from the textbooks entirely. No more reason than removing MLK Jr., however “liberal” he might have been to some political analysts. And changing the word capitalism to free-enterprise system seems unnecessary. There are other synonyms that would work: free market, laissez faire, and other terms that escape me. Similarly with the issue they have with labeling the country a democracy as opposed to a constitutional republic. It’s both in some regard, but there’s also the term representative republic coming to mind. But one could go on and on analyzing each point they’re attempting to change and find either stark inequalities or just willful ignorance to the idea of moderation of education (such as NOT putting such a large emphasis on the Second Amendment.) Guns are nice, but they’re not the best thing since sliced bread. That would be the printing press, which helped to spread the Bible many Americans love to read. A gun doesn’t spread knowledge, it spreads power, and they’re hardly identical, however related they may be.

Not to mention there’s a larger issue at hand here. From what I understand, Texas purchases a vast majority of textbooks that are published in the United States. So by association of economics, Texas has a larger influence on the publishers themselves. If they put forth such a reform in the textbooks themselves as opposed to just altering their curriculum, they could essentially rewrite history books and associated subjects to their worldview. The problem with this advocacy of the principle of majority rule is that this is more like a mob pressuring change in the system. They have advantage of numbers, so they can push through whatever they want. It’s a problem in any political or economic system when the inequality isn’t tempered by the valuing of the minority even when they lose. But the phrase “History is written by the victors” comes to mind here quite poignantly. This also connects to the issue of homeschooling, since the way I keep reading about these changes to the books you’d think they were rewriting history to completely remove non Christians from the books. It stands to reason that they might as well just purchase textbooks that do that, unless there somehow aren’t textbooks that are based in the prevalent fundamentalist Christian patriotic school of thought that pervades the homeschooling environment. But to do yet another thing that tries to cross the wall of separation of church and state to the detriment of learning about the historical influence of Jefferson, Lincoln and the like on culture and politics is going beyond any understanding of an informed education. I can only hope this goes through more stages of adjustment in May, or my future children will suffer an ignoble blow to their understanding of the complex nature of such things like history, politics, economics and even religion. And I don’t think I have the capacity to homeschool, since I can barely teach myself to remember things half the time. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

On Gun Rights and "Civil War"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185?GT1=43002

While searching for an article to mull on, I stumbled across one concerning a "liberal" argument for gun rights by extension of a similar argument for bodily autonomy justifying abortion rights and more precisely civil liberties in the sense of freedom of volition. Not to mention the counterpart that is privacy, a right to responsibly behave in whatever way you deem fit as long as it does not interfere with either the public at large or the government in general. And within 10 minutes of reading the article, I thought; why not connect this real issue to a fictional one brought up in comics regarding superheroes and other superpowered individuals (anti hero or otherwise)?

What I speak of in particular is a well known conflict that occurred in Marvel Comics, known by the name Civil War. The premise hinges on the formation of a Superhero Registration Act. While it doesn't do anything like what the government attempts in the tv series Justice League Unlimited which was outright creating a counter force to act against the potential threat that the Watchtower and its associates posed to the world, this act would require all superpowered beings: mutants, mutates and even those such as Iron Man or Punisher, to register with the government as "living weapons of mass destruction". The difficulty comes about when Captain America and others oppose the act by virtue of it violating both civil rights (the pursuit of happiness in particular, I'd wager, but also liberty) and the right to privacy granted as a given to all superheroes with secret identities. But those on the side of Registration, including Spiderman, argue that "with great power, comes great responsibility" and that the Registration would enable superheroes to become accepted by the general public and not be viewed as a rogue threat or a danger to society.

Now I imagine you're wondering how this has any relevance to the continuing debate on gun rights, but bear with me. Imagine you have a single gun in your house. Even a basic revolver or 9mm possesses a comparable level of power to any person in Marvel with enhanced skills or special abilities. You can wound someone, but without proper training, you can just as easily kill them. Now this doesn't mean I'm arguing for more or less gun control by this line of argument. My point is similar to the dichotomy in "Civil War". Superheroes could be very dangerous if they take the law into their own hands and become vigilantes in the strongest sense. An example comes from the series Justice League and DC by association. The Justice League in an alternate timeline overthrew the world government. And this was when it was merely 6 people: Superman, Green Lantern, Hawkgirl, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter and Batman (Flash having died in this timeline). The point is that without self control, restraint and general moderation of one form or another, anything can become an excess or a deficiency, particularly superpowers. You can possess a weapon, but not know how to use it and it becomes useless to protecting yourself or your loved ones. But you can view the weapon as a means to any end, including taking justice into your own hands and it threatens the same lives you meant to protect. So my general thoughts on gun control are similar to if I possessed superpowers. While others might use it in a variety of ways, I choose to take responsibility and not only train my powers, but also use them prudently and within a limit that I enforce upon myself: not only because I think it is necessary for myself, but because it protects the people around me. And similarly if I possess a gun or if in some alternate universe, my hands were considered deadly weapons, I would exercise an equal amount of self control and discipline so that I could both protect people from harm outside myself and from harm that might be caused by myself.