Ferguson and Beyond

The situation in Ferguson, MO, is a lot like the situation in Gaza. If people are oppressed for a long enough time, they eventually go crazy and start fighting back. The odds are the same as well. Israel is affluent and well supplied with American arms. Ferguson and St. Louis police (and now the National Guard) come from an entirely different economic culture and are also very well armed. As a consequence, Israelis have suffered little damage and only a few lives while Gaza residents have suffered huge losses. The result will be similar in Ferguson. The fight is desperate but it is also hopeless.

It is impossible for most Americans to understand the hopelessness of life for young black men in American ghettos. They are treated like trash and, when they fight back, they are shot dead. The only hope for the entire situation is a huge investment in urban re-development, education, and job training. But that is not going to happen so long as the ultra-wealthy of this country have so tied up our Congress that there will be no new funds for any such program. The whole situation will continue to descend into chaos. I can only imagine that there will be many more Fergusons. But the ultra-wealthy will have no problem with that because they have well insulated themselves from the rest of the world and country and, indeed, can pay for their own security. 

One of the really spooky aspects of this discussion is that America's situation in the world as a whole has a lot of resemblance to Gaza and Ferguson. While Americans naively see themselves as "peace keepers," the underdogs of the world see us as the great oppressors. We can carry this just so far and then they will begin to fight back just like any other oppressed people. That has, of course, already begun and we call them "terrorists." But, at what point, will the rest of the world come to see America's passion for domination as a grave danger and what will they have to do in order to reign us in? The remainder of the 21st Century is not going to be a pleasant experience for Americans.

Israel and Gaza

I cannot stand what Israel is doing to the people of Gaza. It is simply immoral and reprehensible. And so I cannot stand the fact that my government continues to support Israel. What Israel is doing is diametrically opposite to what Americans supposedly believe. But our government goes on its merry way in spite of what it supposedly believes. It's been doing this almost as long as I can remember, and now I am fed up with it. 

I have supported the Democratic Party all my life but I see little difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to these issues of foreign relations. Hence, I condemn both. I will vote for neither in the coming elections.

Gaza is little more than a concentration camp. People are trapped there and the Israelis are bombing them quite literally to pieces. Israel says that they must be allowed "to defend themselves". Do they really expect us to believe this trash? They have already killed more than 1500 people in Gaza and they have lost fewer than 50 of their own. 

So how does this relate to the Holocaust? Israelis seem to think they can do anything because of the Holocaust. But what they are actually doing is proving that they are little better than Hitler himself. 

They have asked our government for more ammunition, and we will undoubtedly give it to them. But as a citizen of the US, I do not want to be responsible for this slaughter.

Killing

Why is it that human beings like killing other human beings so much? Other species don't do this sort of thing to each other. Why do we?

Other species kill species other than their own for food; humans are no different in that regard. We kill huge numbers of fish and other animals. The only difference is that it is all industrialized, sanitized --- no blood on human fangs. Oh, there is one other difference --- waste. Humans waste enormous amounts of what they kill for food. In the natural environment, there is little waste. Whatever predators leave is picked on by smaller kritters. Almost nothing remains at the end of the chain.

Yet we take enormous pride in who we are and tell ourselves (and anyone else listening) that we are superior to the animals --- actually we don't think we're animals at all, but divinely created species of a different kind. How ridiculous.

Consider the Second World War. In that regard, consider thousands of men dying on beaches along the French coast or on Pacific Islands --- thousands in just a single day of mayhem. Can you imagine horses waging war of that kind against other horses? Lions vs other lions?

Actually, the history of humans killing humans goes way back farther than writing. It doesn't seem to have diminished; it has simply gotten more efficient. Technology has blossomed with the fruits of massive destruction. At Hiroshima we proved that we can kill thousands of people with just one instrument, and we have spent the intervening time developing more destructive weapons and better delivery systems. If we got together and synchronized attacks, we could actually blow up the world and destroy the human race entirely. I suspect that we will do that one day but we still seem to be a few years distant from that last example of human insanity. 

I'm not sure that 'like' is the correct word, but how else should we say it. If we don't like it why do we do it? Let's face it. If we really do not like doing it, wouldn't we do something about it? We claim to be the most intelligent beings on the planet, but this may demonstrate that "intelligence" isn't really a survival trait.

I'd like to hear what other people think about this.

Gun Violence in America

The 74th school shooting incident since Sandy Hook happened yesterday. When schools are in session, shooting incidents happen 1.37 times per week! Of course, this is only a small but highly visible part of gun violence in America.

The annual toll of deadly gun violence in most European and other developed countries is near 100. America distinguishes itself with a total over 10,000 gun-related deaths per year! Are we proud of this?

It is not surprising that our government does nothing to stop this because by and large our government has become completely ineffective in doing anything for the common good. So called law makers have mostly been bought off by the NRA in combination with manufacturers of guns and ammunition. 

But I really am skeptical that guns are the problem anyway. Obviously, mental health is a big problem too --- yet another problem that we seem incapable of dealing with. But I believe a far greater problem exists and that is the character of the American "melting pot" itself. Frankly speaking, the "melting pot" was a foolish experiment, one that virtually guaranteed cultural disaster. Americans gathered under the banner of "free for the taking" throughout the frontier era. Gradually, this moved into the era of hard core Capitalism, upward mobility, and profit at any price. The central element of American culture is greed --- our one distinguishing value. But something has changed in a couple generations. Most of my older friends will tell you that they worked their way up from small jobs by hard work and eventually "made good." And they did that. But young people don't do that anymore, at least not with the reliability that was possible generations ago. I think people are frustrated today, and picking up a gun and shooting someone has a real cathartic feeling.

Don't get me wrong. There are lots of great people out there who do fine things for one another. But they are not the majority and they have little cultural influence over the majority.

Religious Rights and Tolerance

The ultra conservative Christian group in Arizona that was responsible for pushing the recent legislation to allow discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is called the Center for Arizona Policy. Cathi Herrod is the group's president. Other recent legislations sponsored by this group are Criminalizing Assisted Suicide, "Women's Health Protection Act" (which allows police to inspect abortion clinics without warning and without warrant), Corporate Scholarship Tax Credit (which gives tax breaks to corporations that give money to school tuition organizations), and Property Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions. You can find out more about the organization and their successful legislations at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/arizona-anti-gay-bill_n_4860817.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

What is happening here, under the banner of "religious rights," is a constant process of trying to use political influence to require the people of a state to conform to specific behaviors promoted by their Christian faith. In effect, they are trying in every way possible to make Arizona a Christian state. Of course, the first amendment to the United States Constitution that supposedly gives them their "religious rights" also prohibits the formation of a national religion and, thereby, also prohibits the formation of a state religion. In the United States, we have the right to pursue any religious faith, including pursuing no religious faith. This means that citizens of the United States must be tolerant of others who pursue different faiths.

Consider the case of abortion. Whether an individual approves of abortion or not, it remains a law of the land that women have a right to pursue an abortion within a certain time period. Yet religious groups of several varieties, because they abhor the idea of abortion from within their own religious beliefs, have done everything in their power to prevent women from pursuing their legal rights. Where is tolerance?

I always thought that tolerance and love were mainstays of Christian beliefs, but a large number of Christian groups behave as though tolerance means only welcoming those who behave your way. That, of course, is not tolerance but rather dominance.

Religious Rights

The recent skirmishes over a bill in Arizona that would allow business owners to discriminate by refusing to serve certain people of their own choosing were defended by the claim that "religious rights" were involved. But Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill and that produced even more screaming that religious rights were being violated. "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer makes Christians in her state second class citizens," tweeted one person. It's interesting that in this person's mind it is only Christians who are being deprived of their rights. Is it really only Christians who want this bill so that they can refuse to serve Gay and Lesbian couples? It's interesting how something that is proposed and defended on the basis of broad rights nevertheless comes down to just one thing, hatred of the LGBT world.

What interests me in all of this is the way Christians evidently feel threatened and how the concept of "religious rights" is used. The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part of this sentence means that in the eyes of our government Christians have no more clout than any other religious or non-religious group. For to elevate Christians above Muslims, for instance, would be to establish a state authorized religion. The thorny part is the second half of the sentence, providing that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Does this mean that members of any religious group can do anything they wish so long as it is defended as an authorized "practice" of that religion? Hence, should American Muslims be allowed to follow all practices of Sharia Law? Should conservative Mormons be allowed to have numerous wives, many of them under age? Obviously, we are not ready to embrace every "practice" that comes along.

What we need to think through is what it means to "practice or exercise a religion." Catholics are counseled to shun birth control measures and to have as many children as possible. The exercise of Catholicism evidently means ignoring birth control when it comes to one's personal behavior. But does this give Catholics the right to disapprove of non-Catholics who want to behave otherwise? And how far can they go with their disapproval? It seems clear to me that the free exercise of a religion is the freedom to think in certain ways, to join with others of a similar faith, and to regulate one's own behavior in accordance. But everyone must remember that the very same right to religious freedom is held by every other person, which includes the right to be completely non-religious as well. So there must be an "edge" to personal behavior beyond which the practice of one's religious beliefs is no longer appropriate. This is because going beyond that edge begins to imply that all others must practice the same religious beliefs as you do. Interestingly, the First Amendment has a tricky side. If the Constitution in saying that free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited were to mean that any religious group can require others to conform to its standard of behavior, that would actually constitute an infraction of the first part of the amendment, that Congress shall not establish any religion. So clearly the First Amendment does not grant the free exercise of religion in any sense that allows religious groups to require their preferred behaviors of others. 

Now in the Arizona law the issue is whether a Christian business owner can refuse to do business with someone who behaves in a non-Christian way. The question is whether running a business is an authorized part of a Christian practice. Or, in running a business, does a person leave the free exercise of his/her religion behind and, instead, commit to working with people of any belief as guaranteed them by the Constitution. The answer seems obvious to me.

Is There Really a Science vs. Religion Debate?

Very recently there was a staged debate between Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and Ken Ham, the Genesis Guy (founder of the Creation Museum). The question posed was the limited question of the earth's history --- the Bible's version of a 6000-year history vs. Evolution's version of millions of years. Ham suggested that there are really several "sciences" and that his "Historical Science" based on the Bible deserves as much respect as so-called "Observational Science" favored by Nye. Ham claims that his Historical Science "works at least as well" as Observational Science. It is very interesting that Ham put it this way because his claim follows straight down the avenues of American Pragmatism, especially the version popularized by William James. Meaning and truth follow because something works for us. 

What concerns me is what it is, in Ham's mind, that works for him and his followers. I will illustrate, below, something the works pretty well for observational science. 

The general idea that trees have rings of annual growth works for us because we can cut a cross section from a tree and both show and count the rings. We can also demonstrate that rings increase in size or decrease in size in concert with the annual amount of precipitation. This gives the pattern of rings a unique "finger print" belonging to the weather history in the area where the tree grew. This works for us because we can compare trees that grew in the same region and whose histories are known. If one tree was cut down years earlier than another, we can still match the finger prints for the years that they overlapped. In this way, scientists have been able to map trees backward in time, producing a weather history through ring patterns. The bristlecone pines of the White Mountains are of special interest here because they are very slow growing and very old. Dendrochronologists have reconstructed ring sequences that go back 10,000 years and several living trees are on record as being very old indeed --- a 5,000 year old bristle cone pine and a 9,550 year old Norway spruce in Sweden. Dendrochronology also works for us as a comparison to radio-carbon dating for similar time periods. The two procedures compare very well; that is, they reinforce each others results. 

This is what observational scientists mean when they say that science works for them. Not only can we show things to one another but we can write about our observations in journals which can be read by others around the world (no matter what their religious beliefs are) and they can make similar observations of their own. The scientific community is a world community that shares observation of the natural world. It does not depend upon any particular object of reverence or a religious icon. 

What Mr. Ham needs to do now is to actually tell us what it is that works for him in his historical vision guided by the Bible. One of the first things we can say is that Ham's community is not a world community but only a segment of the Christian community. Furthermore, it seems to me that what works for this community is a kind of self-satisfied commitment of faith to a particular religious icon.

I want to go back to the title of this blog --- Is there really a religion vs. science debate? I don't want to put down the self-satisfaction of Ham's Christian community and I don't particularly want to elevate the satisfactions of observational scientists like dendrochronologists. What seems obvious to me, in fact, is that there is no debate and there is no possibility of a debate because there is no common ground. Both of these are what Wittgenstein called language-games and they have very different rules and goals for playing them. 

It is fair, it seems to me, for each group to get into the other's language-game and ask critical questions that aim at clarification. If Ham's intention is to understand the Bible literally and if we ignore, for now, the fact that the Bible has been translated out of its original language and gone through many different editions, it is still fair to ask, it seems to me, how we can calculate the age of our earth when Genesis admits that the order of creation doesn't admit the tools for defining 'years' for several days. At the same time, it is fair for Creationists to get as deeply into observational science as they can and ask whether God can fairly be excluded from a scientific account of the universe. These are interesting questions, it seems to me, but they do not stand as a "debate" in which either side might be construed as winning.