The first is the comic “Therefore Repent!” by Jim Munroe. It depicts a world where the Rapture went down more or less like how Christian groups described it would, complete with people floating up one day in the thousands. We see it through the eyes of a young couple that just happen to dress as a mummy and a raven. On the day of reckoning, the boy clung onto the girl rather than floating away with everyone else, because “he didn’t want any part of a heaven that didn’t want her.” Around their sweet little post-judgement day existence revolves a world which can’t seem to get the details of the Rapture right: the angels are dressed as Vietnam era American GIs that gun down people on the street with M16s and animals have begun conversing intelligently with the scattered remnants of humanity.

The second is an episode of the anime “Kino’s Journey: The Beautiful World“, specifically the third, entitled “The Land of Prophecies: We No The Future”. The anime itself is about a traveler, Kino, who never stays in one place for more than 3 days at a time, for that person “would cease to be a traveler otherwise”. Each country Kino travels through takes some concept of governance or human society to the extreme while exploring the consequences of doing so, such as a land where everyone can read everyone else’s minds, a land that has ended war forever, and a land with absolute and perfect democracy. The episode I’m talking about here focuses on three separate lands, each influenced by an obtuse book of poetry whose original meaning has been lost. In one land the book is taken as a proof positive that the world will end on a particular day, the eve of which happens to be the day when Kino wanders by. While everyone in the capital city prepares for the end by huddling with their loved ones or praying in their temples, Kino takes the pragmatic approach and uses the opportunity to take food and bullets from shopkeepers who feel that they no longer have any need for money or inventory.

What I particularly like about both pieces is that for stories about the apparently supernatural and clearly scripted out end of the world, they wrap up in ways that are unexpected, satisfying, and touchingly human. Here’s to the hope that you manage to finish enjoying them before Jesus gets to you.

He’s your typical pinoy living in the streets of Manila, one among 94 million other residents of this country of ours. He drives his trusty jeepney everyday to support his family of 8. Still happily married all these years, he’s also a grandfather whose kids now have kids of their own… and they all live in the house he built with his own two hands.

But this story isn’t just about Mang Rogelio. Half a world away, Josh also makes a living driving people around the city. He’s a bus driver working the streets of London. Josh also comes from a large, close-knit, god-fearing family.

Two different people, two different lives in two different parts of the world… but having the same job and same family background. Yet for all the similarities their lives may have, these two people are about to realize just how different a hand fate has dealt them. By a simple accident of birth, one was fortunate enough to have been born in a first world country while the other lives here.

Josh has agreed to live a week in the shoes of Mang Rogelio and the BBC film crew was there to document all the tears, trials, and tribulations each person faced when their worlds collided. It’s not your typical reality-TV show where they take clueless idiots out of their comfort zone and wait for them to make fools of themselves. Josh and Mang Rogelio are genuinely nice guys who try to make the most of what life throws at them. But in the process of their own personal discoveries, they also allowed people a continent away a glimpse of life in Metro Manila as it is being lived by hundreds of thousands of Filipinos everyday. This is life as seen through the eyes of one who lived through it all… the hardships, the love, the camaraderie, and everything in between.

As Josh lands in Manila, “one of the most densely populated cities in the world”, as the program narrator describes, he gets a sobering look at life in Manila’s urban jungle. He meets his congenial host Mang Rogelio for the first time and gamely tours the 10′ x 10′ house Mang Rogelio built himself to house his family of 8. Filipinos will be happy to note that for a jeepney driver, Mang Rogelio has an impressive command of the King’s speech and has no problems conversing with the very British Josh without the aid of a translator.

He meets Mang Rogelio’s neighbor Elsie, who lives in a house half the size Mang Rogelio’s, yet still manages to fit all 13 of her children. She says she had her first child at age 14 and has had another one every year thereafter. She admits that she doesn’t know anything about family planning. Even now, she’s pregnant and is asking for Mang Rogelio’s help to take her to the hospital. Being the good, reliable neighbor that he is, Mang Rogelio opts to take the day off to help his sick neighbor. They reach the largest maternity clinic in the metro where things look even grimmer.

The facility has gone way beyond overloaded and has long past reached breaking point. Because of the lack of beds, 4 mothers have to share one bed among themselves. They talk to the resident doctor who explains the situation to the evidently disturbed Josh.

“In the Philippines, there is strong cultural opposition to contraception, from one of the biggest influence in the country, the Catholic church,” the doctor explains.

“Children are a gift from God,” he goes on, “they are a resource for you, source of help for you in your livelihood.” Which leads one to wonder if the proper way to treat “gifts from God” is to make them beg on the streets… or worse. Is this all children are to over-population deniers? Cheap, if not free, child labor?

Mang Rogelio, being more sensible and pragmatic than his neighbor Elsie, stopped at 3 kids. “I know it’s a sin against the church but rather than having a lot of kids that will die of hunger, I chose to go ahead with contraceptives,” his wife admits.

But Josh’s odyssey is far from over. He travels to Tondo, “one of the most densely populated areas on earth“, the program narrator says, with over 90,000 residents per sq.km. This is where hope is bleakest, living conditions in its most dire. Here, you have to do whatever it takes to get by.

He gets his first look at pag-pag… literally garbage that has been thrown away but scavenged and re-cooked for human consumption. The shock value is palpable. If this is the first time you’ve known about conditions like these, your mind will be sent reeling at the depths of depravity one would stoop in order to survive.

This is the depth of poverty Manila has to offer… poverty that will be experienced by a hundred more newborn babies each day. Who’s to say is to blame? Society? The government? Their parents?  Sometimes, it’s easier to finger-point than to start working on practical and sustainable solutions.

Should one ask the question “Am I my brother’s keeper”? But we know that charity is rarely a practical long-term solution. The better choice would be to teach a man to fish. But how can one go out to “fish” when he already has 12 mouths to feed at home? It’s already a full-time job taking care of a dozen babies,  so how can one even find the time to actually earn a living? If you can afford to hire a nanny or a private tutor for your kids then well and good, but if not, what then? Will the thousand or so churches in the country open their doors and provide day-care support for all their faithful followers, gratis? Will Pro-Life? When one preaches about the “dignity” of human life, one should consider the fate of the baby even after it’s out of the womb.

Clearly, if we treat only the symptoms and not the root cause, then we won’t get very far. We’ll just be wasting donor or taxpayer’s money handing dole-outs forever. We have to get to the root cause of the issue, which is unplanned pregnancy. No matter how much rhetoric people spout about how government corruption is the root of poverty or the lack of education or opportunities, the plain and simple truth is that even if we fix all that, you still can’t go and earn a living when you’ve already got your hands full with more babies than you can handle.

We need to assist and educate the next generation of Filipinos to become responsible parents, to straighten out their own lives before they even think of bringing new one into the world.

But the fact is, children living in the slums are exposed to sex at a very young age. With hundreds of thousands of people all living under such crammed conditions, privacy is a luxury few can afford. It would be impossible to not witness someone having sex behind a cardboard partition or flimsy blanket even before reaching puberty.

In a news article published in the Inquirer, it stated that the “latest data from the National Statistics Office showed that of 1.7 million babies born in 2004, almost 8 percent were born to mothers aged 15-19. Almost 30 percent of Filipino women become mothers before reaching their 21st birthday.”

Not yet finished with school and already a mother. How then can people still claim that proper sex education as taught in schools is obscene? Isn’t it more obscene to leave children ignorant about their bodies only to find themselves pregnant at age 15? It’s high time for the bishops to get down from their ivory towers and see how life really works in the areas most in need of family planning and sex education.

All the tools for this to work are already there in the RH Bill but there is still vocal opposition against it. Their rationales are off the mark, citing irrelevant, and often times inaccurate basis for their objections. But when it comes down to it, actual lives are at stake here. While anti-RH groups are rallying to save the lives of imaginary babies threatened by condom usage, meanwhile real babies are dying everyday brought about by poor living conditions and parents who are hardly equipped nor prepared for the challenges of parenthood.

The sad fate of our country’s Reproductive Health policies are already being talked about all over the world in different forms of media. The sick man of Asia, now with a dozen crying babies in tow… While people in other countries just shake their head in disbelief, we here are unfortunate enough to live it first-hand.  What do foreigners visiting the Philippines see the most when they walk the streets of Manila? Child beggars. They swarm around any foreigner naive enough to hand out a few coins to a begging street urchin. Before you can blink, there are a dozen more of his friends with palms outstretched, hoping to receive the same. Dig a little deeper and you come across a darker side to the dangers faced by these street children. The Philippines is widely known in shadier circles to be one of the world’s capital in child prostitution and pedophilia. Not convinced?

Take a look at Google’s backroom for a few worrying statistics:

• Which country tops the most Google searches for PEDOPHILIA [click here]
• Which country tops the most Google searches for CHILD PROSTITUTION [click here]

Now, we can continue to ignore the reality of all these dangers faced by children born of parents who cannot provide a safe, nurturing home for them, continue blaming government corruption for the problem of poverty, or maybe… just maybe… we can help empower all these would-be parents to take control of their lives… postpone having children until they’ve earned enough to provide a good environment for their children to grow up in. Then maybe we can finally see  a future where a thriving population becomes blessing instead of burden to this country.

——————

For more information on the program cited above, visit the BBC’s program profile at:

BBC – Toughest Place to Be

Meet Diana Goodman.

Loving mom and devoted wife. Everything seems picture-perfect in their cozy little home. Their daughter Natalie is growing up to be a talented young girl.  but its her son that she had a special fondness for…  a son she lost in childbirth but is still very much alive in her mind, even more so than the rest of her family. Diana is bi-polar and her delusions are getting worse. She’s losing more of herself as the years go by. Pieces of her memory flitter in and out her consciousness as the drugs and electric shock therapies takes its toll. Her family tries to cope, but as her symptoms get worse, it becomes harder and harder to ignore.

Who’s crazy, the husband or wife?
Who’s crazy to live their whole life
Believing that somehow things aren’t as bizarre as they are?

Who’s crazy, the one who can’t cope?
Or maybe, the one who’ll still hope?

Soon the family must make a decision: continue to fight or let go.

Next to Normal is the Tony-Award winning stage musical about a family trying to cope with the ups and downs of having a loved one in the throes of mental illness. It mixes equal parts of pathos and dark comedy to narrate the tragedy of losing someone you love little by little until the familiar is all but replaced by the unrecognizable.

Mental illness is an issue rarely talked about. More often that not, instead of having a rational discourse on a subject matter as serious as this, people tend to couch it in humor. Jokes like “kung mahirap ka, ang tawag sa iyo sira-ulo. Kung mayaman ka, you’re eccentric” only help to mire the topic in myths and misconceptions.

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think about mental illness? A raving lunatic in a straitjacket or a psychotic killer from a horror film? Fact is, there are thousands of ways the brain can go wrong and just as many gradients of “normalcy”. But then again, what defines “normal”? What if you have an unusual phobia? an addiction or obsession perhaps, or maybe even a bout of depression now and then… what separates normal from abnormal then? With all the different personality quirks one can have, Who actually fits all the standards of normalcy?

I don’t need a life that’s normal
That’s way too far away
But something next to normal
Would be okay
Yeah, something next to normal
That’s the thing I’d like to try
Close enough to normal
To get by

The first time I saw this play two years ago, I found merely entertaining but I couldn’t relate much to it. The  show’s topic was controversial and it received mixed reviews from critics. Some called it exploitative, sensationalizing, or even trivializing the plight of those suffering from mental disorders. Others praised it for bringing to the mainstream a topic that is rarely discussed in polite conversation. How do you deal with someone who is manic-depressive, schizophrenic, or suffering from autism?

Should you empathize?

sympathize?

or just ignore their bizarre behavior altogether?

At that time, I treated the subject matter merely as a curiosity but years after I first saw the play, I actually met real people who are coping with mental illnesses… young people who’ve had the misfortune of having their brain chemistry misfiring at the prime of their lives, older relatives who are in various stages of dementia. The issue becomes even more painful when relatives and loved ones are involved.

The sensation that you’re screaming, but you never make a sound.
Or the feeling that you’re falling, but you never hit the ground.
It just keeps on rushing at you day by day by day by day.
You don’t know, you don’t know what it’s like to live that way.
Like a refugee, a fugitive, forever on the run.
If it gets me it will kill me, but I don’t know what I’ve done.

Suddenly, it became all that more real… the uncle who took you to the park when you were young now rocks to himself in his own little world, gibbering nonsensical phrases at phantoms only he can see, or that classmate from high school who now has to take medication for severe bouts of manic-depressive episodes… They’re no longer things you just see in the movies, it could happen to you… or people you know. And its that sinking realization of just how fragile our brains are that makes one question all the preconceived notions on consciousness and the sense of “self“. Are we just the sum total of the electrical impulses jumping from neuron to neuron? a glorified biological computer that can break down just as easily? and if something goes wrong with the circuitry, do we also say goodbye to our sense of self? And just how much of our personality is actually self-determined and how much is merely chemistry?

They tried a million meds and
They strapped me to their beds and
They shrugged and told me ‘that’s the way it goes.’
But finally you hit it!
I asked you just what did it.
You shrugged and said that no one really knows.

It becomes harder to consider the notion of a “soul” or a consciousness independent of our physical brains we realize that so much of our memories and personality is dependent on brain chemistry. The more we understand how the brain works – what drug influences which chemical reaction in the brain which in turn regulates a specific behavioral pattern, the less “mystical” it all becomes. In fact, its a sobering thought – realizing how easy it is to influence a person’s behavior either by nature or by design. Can you blame a person for being  immoral when his brain is telling him to act that way?

The story asks this very question – chemistry or consciousness? who’s really in control? Can you shock people’s brains back to a semblance of normalcy? (Even today, electro-shock therapy is still one of the viable options medical doctors consider to treat certain mental disorders). If one believes in the soul, does the soul turn crazy as well? Where then should be the focal point of treatment?

What happens if the medicine wasn’t really in control?
What happens if the cut, the burn, the break was never in my brain,
or in my blood, but in my soul

These and many other questions will fill your mind after watching this riveting drama.  If you want a story that’ll get you thinking about how we think, don’t miss out on this.

Next to Normal shows on March 11-27, 2011
Fri & Sat – 8pm, Sat – 2pm,

Sun – 3pm & (March 27)8pm

at the 4th Floor Carlos P. Romulo Auditorium RCBC Makati, Philippines

For more information, visit the show websites at:

http://www.atlantisproductionsinc.com

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Next-to-Normal-in-Manila-2011

The latest salvo from the anti-RH faction is now a “position paper” from some UP students, faculty, and alumni. You can read it here in full. Let’s break it down, shall we?

First off, they start their letter saying that they have a secular educational background, as if that meant anything. Having a secular college education does not mean you are free from the influence of Catholic dogma. One has to wonder why they even needed to emphasize their secular education, given that no one really cares as long as their arguments are sound. In their obvious effort to shy away from Catholicism, all they did was make me think was that this position paper was forwarded by Catholics in defense of their church’s position.

Now to the meat of the matter:

But if your country is already burdened with the 12th largest population in the world, with high rates of poverty, low standards of living, poorly equipped teachers and schools, high student to teach ratio, rampant corruption, and high unemployment rates, does adding almost 2 million more mouths to feed every year really help our country’s development?

They add that “he (Kuznets) argued instead that a more rapid population growth, if properly managed, will promote economic development“. Did you notice the bolded part? I wonder what part of “keeping people ignorant of their choices when it comes to family planning” can equate to “properly managed population growth”?

2. They claim that “the government has to channel limited funds to job creation and education“. Well, you can use this argument to just about ANY OTHER PROPOSED BILL that we have right now. Why not ask them to just stop introducing any other bills and just concentrate on “job creation and education”? Oh, wait, because there’s more to running a country than just “job creation and education”.

3. They claim that “fertility rates in the Philippines are progressively decreasing“. Yes, that is true. But does that really mean anything when our country is already the 12th most populous country in the world? In fact, a Total Fertility Rate of 3.1 is still well above the world average of 2.5. That’s like a basketball player boasting that he has continued to improve his scoring every year and is now up to 10 points per game, when the average player scores 14 points a game. It’s not really something to brag about.

And then they pull the “Japan is experiencing an aging population” card. Guys, can we talk about that when we get to be the economic powerhouse that Japan is? Do you really, REALLY believe that our country is comparable to Japan in any way? They claim that our “best asset” is our people. Really? Our best asset is a population of under/uneducated, unskilled laborers that we export to other countries en masse? Are the authors happy to keep the status quo?

4. They claim that “the government has to channel limited resources to address the leading causes of death“, which is basically the same as argument #2. Besides, what makes them think that we cannot do both at the same time?

One, that because countries like Thailand has high condom usage and yet has high HIV infection rates, and the we have one of the lowest, even without much condom use. They site that the cause is due to Risk Compensation. In a nutshell:

Risk compensation is an effect whereby individual people may tend to adjust their behaviour in response to perceived changes in risk. It is seen as self-evident that individuals will tend to behave in a more cautious manner if their perception of risk or danger increases. Another way of stating this is that individuals will behave less cautiously in situations where they feel “safer” or more protected.

Their second reason is that condoms cannot prevent all STDs. Well, that’s like saying that two-time NBA MVP Steve Nash should not shoot free throws because he does not make all of them (he hits over 90% of them). Nobody is saying that condoms can prevent all STDs. Let me ask the the authors who are MDs: Can you name me one medical intervention that is 100% effective, 100% safe, and works 100% of the time? You can’t, can you? Using this argument, ALL medical interventions should be scrapped.

Also, they fail to mention that while OCPs can increase the risks of certain cancers, it has also been shown to REDUCE the risk of other types of cancers. In fact, the American Cancer Society has this to add in the list of carcinogens they have on their website:

Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)

Do you know what else is on IARC list of Group 1 carcinogens? X-Rays. DO we see any position papers asking for the ban of their use? And here’s another one on their list: Solar Radiation. Yes, SUNLIGHT. So, where’s the position paper asking for the ban on sun exposure?

In a nutshell, the core of their argument is that “The RH Bill will not solve all our problems, therefore it must be scrapped.” The things is, nobody is saying that passing the RH Bill will solve all our problems. It is merely a small step in the right direction.

In the end, this position paper offers nothing new from the anti-RH Bill faction. It’s the same arguments they have made time and again, only under the guise of being “secular” .

Furthermore, I must question, if only in my mind, the academic integrity of the authors of this position paper. If they are willing to twist logic and bend truths for personal agendas, how trustworthy can they be in the realm of academia?

One of our members posted this on Facebook:

An Atheist Nation

1. There will be more schools
2. There will be more hospitals
3. More kindness to people
4. No wars about religions
5. No suicide bombings
6. Less poverty, as people will work very hard for this only life
7. No fall back position so people will be working hard also
8. No time wasted thru praying.
9. No funds wasted for icons, images and unneccesary stuff for worship like Mecca trips, Prosisyon, rebulto and the like
10. Less suicide, people who believe in afterlife think they can make it better in the second life.
11. Maybe less schizophrenics in the hospitals
12. More gizmos, more computers, more science developments
13. More science researches to cure illnesses
14. Less crime, as people will be too afraid to go to prison and spend their lives there as there is only one life to live
15. More rationality and critical thinking..
16. More women empowerment as women were oppressed by religions
17. There will be no population explosion as ‘there is no – go and multiply”, thus, we will have quality NOt quantity.
18. More scholars, geniuses as the resources are there.

I felt the need to address this post because, in my opinion, this does not help us one bit, and will only do more damage to atheists as a group. One can say that this is a pretty arrogant post to make (no offense to the OP). So I’d like to break down each point:

#1 & #2: There will be more schools and hospitals

Non sequitur. Just because religion is gone doesn’t mean there will automatically be more schools and hospitals. In fact one can even argue that there might be LESS, since religion’s main goal is to spread itself, and what better way to do it than to indoctrinate children (schools) and to put up a facade of caring (hospitals)?

#3: More kindness to people

Again, non sequitur. Why would people be kinder to each other just because there is no religion?

#4: No wars about religions

Well, this is quite obvious since if there is no religion, nobody will fight about it. However, there will still be wars over ideology (of which religion is just one part of)

#5. No suicide bombings

Why? Plenty of people have killed and died for ideologies other than religion (nationalism, racism, anti-abortion, etc). So, there will still be suicide bombings (maybe not as frequent).

#6 & #7 Less poverty, as people will work very hard for this only life and No fall back position so people will be working hard also

Working very hard is not the only factor in eliminating poverty. To say that because people will work hard because they will know that this will be their only life (which in itself is quite a stretch), and to assume that working hard will solve poverty is oversimplifying the case.

#8 No time wasted thru praying.

Well I can agree with this.

#9 No funds wasted for icons, images and unneccesary stuff for worship like Mecca trips, Prosisyon, rebulto and the like

I can also agree with this.

#10 Less suicide, people who believe in afterlife think they can make it better in the second life.

Hmm, as far as I know, suicide is rewarded with Hell, according to Christian Mythology. So, I don’t know how this holds up.

#11 Maybe less schizophrenics in the hospitals

Why?

#12 More gizmos, more computers, more science developments

Probably.

#13 More science researches to cure illnesses

I can agree with this.

#14 Less crime, as people will be too afraid to go to prison and spend their lives there as there is only one life to live

Again, an overly simplistic view.

#15 More rationality and critical thinking.

Probably.

#16 More women empowerment as women were oppressed by religions

I can agree with this.

#17 There will be no population explosion as ‘there is no – go and multiply”, thus, we will have quality NOt quantity.

Not necessarily. I don’t think a significant portion of people “multiply” just because the Bible says so. We enjoy sex, and a healthy sexual appetite + ignorance of RH = unwanted babies. You could argue that many religions’ position of contraceptives do contribute to population explosion, but not the “go forth and multiply” line.

#18 More scholars, geniuses as the resources are there.

Maybe.

My point here is not to defend religion. My point here is that we should not assume that if we eliminate religion, all our problems will be solved. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in deities. It does not guarantee that atheists are good, rational, civilized, intelligent, law abiding citizens. We do not have a rulebook that dictates how we should act and what we should do. Each of us has our own set of convictions, beliefs and principles. And because of this, an atheist can be just as bad as the worst religionist.

It would be wise to avoid the type of self-promotion as the one above, because it only serves to reinforce the idea that atheists are arrogant. As Astronomer Phil Plait said:

“DON’T BE A DICK”

* * * * *

Last night, after weeks (which felt like years) of screening and deleting the emails I get from the Pinoy Skeptics facebook group, I decided to participate in a discussion with a few folks there. When my friend John Paraiso invited and included me to join the FB group, I loved the idea and mandate of their FB page. But as soon as the FB page got established, I noticed that a lot of the posts there focused on god or religion bashing and I also noticed quite a few rabid self-professed atheists. It’s sad because that FB group could be a great group. The presence of a few rotten apples in the basket seemed to have tarnished the image of the group as I believe some folks have decided to leave the group (including myself).

Well, in my discussion, I recognized a Dawkinian flavor in statements made by some of the participants. I also noticed the use of a few Dawkinian favorite words such as “delusion” (from his book “The God Delusion”, which many atheists hold dearly as if it is some sort of bible). That is fine and dandy; however, what is it about Richard Dawkins and his work such as “The God Delusion” that seem to induce polemic with rabid atheists such as some folks at the Pinoy Skeptics FB page? I wonder.

In a forum I used to frequent, we discussed the (in)famous [depending on which side of the fence you are in] atheist-scientist, Richard Dawkins (RD) and his book – “The God Delusion”. I would like to share with my readers some comments I had with the book. Please note that my comments do not in anyway imply that I subscribe to the beliefs and mindset that RD attack. However, I would also like to point out that I also do not necessarily embrace everything that atheist saint Richard Dawkins says.

In the first chapter, page 18, of the book, Dawkins laid out his definitions of terminology on theist, deist, and pantheist. He referred to deism as a “watered-down theism” while pantheism as “sexed-up atheism”. Of course, with theism, he refers to the belief in the traditional supernatural deity who created everything and comes in from time to time to bend natural laws and interfere with human events. So, with respect to his definitions, I do see his point.

But I guess it boils down to what one means about theism and God. If God is reduced strictly to the word, then I guess I can see the point. But if we go beyond the word and go with the meaning behind the word, it may be a different case. Some may even say that an atheist is not really an atheist. When an atheist says that there is no God, he may mean that there is no God that he has grown up with – that God is not capable of being God for him. Theism defines God as an external being (a.k.a. Supreme Being), supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky, occasionally invading the world to split the Red Sea, to bless and answer prayers…and of course, to punish disobedient ingrates. Of course, with the advent of freethought and modern scholarship, God is now unemployed. He can no longer do what he once was thought he could do. No one needs this God anymore to explain tsunamis, hurricanes, diseases, etc. So if God is strictly captured in theism, which is the belief in this unemployed deity, then the atheist may be just saying that he doesn’t believe in this theistic God anymore.

Anyway, RD brought out a good point regarding nominal religionists who are qualified as atheists. In page 14, he points out:

“The present Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, told me that he goes to church as an ‘unbelieving Anglican… out of loyalty to the tribe’. He has no theistic beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the other scientists I have mentioned… There are many intellectual atheists who proudly call themselves Jews and observe Jewish rites, perhaps out of loyalty to an ancient tradition or to murdered relatives, but also of a confused and confusing willingness to label as ‘religion’ the pantheistic reverence which many of us share with its most distinguished exponent, Albert Einstein.”

On page 18-19, RD says:

“There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like ‘God is subtle but he is not malicious’ or ‘He does not play dice’ or ‘Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?’ are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic….Einstein was using ‘God’ in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense…Let me sum up Einsteinian religion in one more quotation from Einstein himself: ‘To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense, I am religious’. In this sense I too am religious…”

Of course RD differentiated himself from Einstein with the reservation that “cannot grasp” does not have to mean “forever ungraspable”. RD doesn’t prefer to be called religious because he feels that the term is (destructively) misleading as according to him “religion” implies — “supernatural”.

I also do not think Dawkins is necessarily giving Einstein a “pass” because Einstein was such a hotshot. I think this is more of an emphasis of what RD feels of a belief that has a “Deserved Respect”, which is what the section is all about (pp. 11-19). He just gave Einstein as an example.

Further reading took me to what RD said on page 14. He said:

“An atheist…is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles — except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand”.

Granting that atheists (may) espouse the words above from RD, but are those words necessarily sound? At first glance, sure. Afterall, RD rightfully posits the improbability of God. The issue is probability, not certainty. The justification for one’s judgment is anchored from the point that observational evidence can never make a prediction or a generalization certain; it can however, gauge merely the ‘probability’. Now the question is – how probable?

RD seems to recognize only two options – 0% probability (blind faith) and 100% probability (from overwhelming empirical evidence). On page 48, he said:

“The view that I shall defend is very different: … Either he exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability”.

This reminds me of RD’s lecture at the 1992 Edinburgh International Science Festival. This is how he ended the dismissal of the “God Hypothesis”.

“The alternative hypothesis, that it was all started by a supernatural creator, is not only superfluous, it is also highly improbable. It falls foul of the very argument that was originally put forward in its favour. This is because any God worthy of the name must have been a being of colossal intelligence, a supermind, an entity of extremely low probability–a very improbable being indeed…. Even if the postulation of such an entity explained anything (and we don’t need it to), it still wouldn’t help because it raises a bigger mystery than it solves.”

( For the more complete speech, please see: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dawkins_Richard/NoNothings_Dawkins.html)

I’m just wondering… how improbable? What basis is this figure determined? RD says God is “an entity of extremely low probability”. How low? On the basis of what evidence is this probability determined? I’m not busting RD’s chops (nor his followers’) but I am just wondering how RD arrives at any figure. And when does probability determine whether or not something actually exists? He did say that he will be defending the “Either he exists or he doesn’t” view, did he not?

On page 47, RD describes Agnosticism as a “fence-sitting” position. He also wittingly dubbed it as PAP which stands for Permanent Agnosticism in Principle. The PAP style, RD says, is “appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable”. I feel that this is somewhat misleading. If the scientific method (through empirical evidence) can neither prove nor disprove the existence or nature of God, then either we abandon the question (something RD does not choose to do) or we answer it on other grounds. I think that the question on God’s existence or nature ought to be a matter of intellectual integrity in which all sides of the debate – whether atheist, theist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever, seek to offer the “best explanation” of the available evidence. This is basic philosophy of science. It is not going away just because RD chooses to ignore the other explanations or he doesn’t like the non-empirical (e.g. supernatural).

Sure, I am with RD when he rejects the notion of giving equal probability of being right regarding the hypothesis of God’s existence and non-existence. If the scientific method cannot settle an issue, it does not mean that all answers have to be regarded as equally valid, or that we abandon rationality in order to deal with them. Maybe this just means that we have to consider looking at a different level. If empirical evidence is not enough (or applicable) to determine the existence of a non-empirical, then a person has to infer its existence by different means of reasoning. Why can’t God be demonstrated to exist, at least in principle, in the same way? Perhaps the scientific method alone cannot ultimately determine the God question, even though it has a lot of important contributions to give to the debate.

Another thing that caught my attention is RD’s objection to what he sees as the disproportionate privileging of religion. I do recognize RD’s objection to this. I mean what is it about religion that also deserves a uniquely privileged respect? I think this is about attitude. Discrimination may be a product of people’s bias or even fears. People with a strongly held belief may tend to move Heaven and Earth to protect such beliefs if they feel threatened. Just like how the Church has treated scientists in the past that threatened their strongly held beliefs and just like the example of the cop who wouldn’t help the atheist activist in the story told by RD in his book.

But I do not think atheists (or non-religionists) are necessarily the only ones getting the unfair treatment.

Alister McGrath, from his book “Dawkins’ God” tells of the case of an Augustinian monk who, from 1856 – 1863, grew around 28,000 pea plants and observed how characteristics were transmitted from one generation to the next. His name was Gregor Mendel. Now, I think most of us here are familiar with Mendel’s contribution to genetics from our high school biology so I would skip the details of his experiments. Anyway, during that time, Charles Darwin was becoming a very popular figure. Darwin’s theory had considerable explanatory force which was recognized by many at the time, even those who were afraid about the implications of his ideas for the place of humanity within nature. Yet there was a problem with the theory. How did nature “remember” and “transmit” new developments in species? How could a rising generation “inherit” the traits of its predecessor? At that time, Darwin and his contemporaries believed that characteristics were “blended” when they were passed to the offspring. But if that were the case, then how could a single mutation be spread throughout the species? It would be diluted to the point of insignificance, like a drop of ink in a bucket of water. In Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis, variation would simply become diluted.

Now, Darwin’s theory for the mechanics of inheritance ( known as “pangenesis” ) was based on hypothetical “gemmules” – which are supposed to be small particles that somehow determine all characteristics of the organism. These “gemmules”, at that time, had never been observed; nevertheless, Darwin argued that it was necessary to propose their existence to make sense of the observational data he had. It was an ingenious solution; yet still lacking solid support. Through Mendel’s work, Darwin’s theory would (much) later get some solid support it needed. With that, adaptive mutations could spread slowly through a species and never be “blended out”. Darwin’s theory of natural selection, building on small mutations over long periods of time, suddenly became much more plausible.

Great story, eh? But it wasn’t all peaches and cream. Mendel’s studies were ignored not until 1900 when it was acknowledged and appreciated by Carl Correns et al. B.E.Bishop’s article: “Mendel’s Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin” (Journal of Heredity 87 [1996]: 205-13) offers an explanation why Mendel’s views were ignored. The article says that Mendel’s studies were seen to be in tension with Darwin’s ideas, which were rapidly being accepted as scientific orthodoxy at the time. There was hostility towards Mendel within some circles that some even questioned the reliability of his experiments. It was argued that Mendel’s studies would oppose Darwin’s theory of evolution and they questioned the reliability of Mendel’s studies given this personal agenda. I think this suggests that discrimination (or unfair treatment) is really more about human attitude and not necessarily because of religion.

Here’s another story.

In July 1954, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ordered an increased explicit commitment to atheism in its schools. Belief in God, at that time, had not yet been eliminated by argument or force. The only option seemed to be an indoctrination of the country’s children. Soviet schoolbooks repeatedly asserted the malevolence of religion and credos such as “The Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion” flourished. For more information on this, please see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/2/022mail.html

and

http://www.uiowa.edu/~c16e051/porritt.doc

So, if RD’s arguments carry weight, can we conclude that atheism (or a non-religionist mindset) also had its share of unfair advantages? And would it be fair to say that such unfair advantages given are not necessarily specific to religion? Even if we widen the scope, not just about discrimination or unfair treatment, but atrocities and evil acts, are we to conclude that atheism (or a non-religionist mindset) is evil, immoral, given the case of the Soviets? No! Of course not! As McGrath says: “The institutional abuse of an idea does not discredit it, whether we are talking about atheism, theism, or democracy.” But I am somehow astonished that RD does not seem to care about this.

Going back to my discussion at the Pinoy Skeptics FB group, there was this participant who was pontificating on the superiority of science. That is fine and dandy but does this necessarily mean that science should be the ultimate determinant of truth? On page 66 of “The God Delusion” a reference to Eugenie Scott on page 66 can be seen. Scott, as RD describes, is an activist of science and is the big cheese of the National Center for Science and Education. Anyway, in an article Scott wrote from the NCSE website, a demarcation problem in distinguishing which is science and which is pseudoscience is recognized. Here is an excerpt of the article:

“First, science is an attempt to explain the natural world in terms of natural processes, not supernatural ones. This principle is sometimes referred to as methodological naturalism. In time, a consensus of how some aspect of nature works or came about is arrived at through testing alternate explanations against the natural world. Through this process, the potential exists to arrive at a truly objective understanding of how the world works.”

(For the complete article, please refer to: http://ncse.com/rncse/23/1/my-favorite-pseudoscience )

Now, this makes me wonder again (as I have wondered about this before) about making the distinction between science and pseudoscience. Is there a science that is responsible for making this distinction? Which science is tasked to know what science is and what pseudoscience is and differentiating the two and providing the criteria for doing so? (e.g. Physics? Biology? Chemistry? Psychology?)

Professor Steven Schafersman, in his article from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html said:

“Naturalism is, ironically, a controversial philosophy. Our modern civilization depends totally for its existence and future survival on the methods and fruits of science, naturalism is the philosophy that science created and that science now follows with such success, yet the great majority of humans (at least 90% of the U.S. population) believe in the antithesis of naturalism–supernaturalism.”

Naturalism, as Schafersman tells, is a philosophy, and the opposite of naturalism is supernaturalism (which is also a philosophy). Granting that science is the ultimate determinant of truth, going back to Scott’s article, if there is no science to distinguish science (materialism and/or naturalism, whichever side you are in) from pseudoscience (supernaturalism) then how are we to make a judgment call on the two? I think, as rational individuals as we claim to be, such questions can be a very humbling question to ponder on. When we talk about metaphysics and spiritual issues, and think of them as useless, non-sense, and illogical, we may have to think twice.

Moving on with RD’s book, after RD gave his objections to the privileging of religion, he went on to attack the God Hypothesis. The very first words on that next chapter are:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction…”

He then supported his assertion with a whole series of derogatory adjectives from parts of the Old Testament. But he doesn’t mention the compassionate love of God in Hosea, the justice of God in Amos, the tenderness of God in the twenty third Psalm, the suffering servant in Isaiah.

The New Testament was not given some slack either. Dawkins asserts that the doctrine of atonement is a “vicious, sado-masochistic repellent, barking mad”. However, he shows minimal thought on the life and teachings of Jesus nor with Christian understanding of the death and resurrection. Sure, I am not a fan of the Christian theology of atonement either, but RD should have at least looked at why Christians live by the theology of atonement by looking at its Jewish roots (Yom Kippur).

Then RD goes on to attack the many failures of religious people. The fundamentalists, the foolish experiments of believers, and so on and so forth. Nothing really new there and I do recognize he is just making a point. However, RD seems to overlook the good contributions of religious people in the world and the harm perpetrated by atheist regimes.

In the third chapter, RD gives us a survey of arguments for the existence of God. For those who are not familiar with the counter-arguments, I’m sure they will find RD’s rebuttals to be spectacular. But for those who are familiar with them, there is nothing new. I do not have any major objections for chapter 3. For me, I think RD gave a nice rehash of the counter-arguments on the issue of God’s existence. I give him two thumbs up for sending the message that the arguments by theists (the ones he gave out as examples) do not prove anything. But then again, a theist may ask, who says these should be about proving God (as if it were all that possible)? A theist may say that the value is not in proving God but in exploring the rational implications of faith in terms of our experience of causality, beauty, purpose, morality, and so on. I think believers of RD may need to think about that should theists decide to throw them that curve ball.

On page 79, RD says that the mature Darwin blew William Paley’s Natural Theology out of the water. Well, I think RD maybe getting carried away with giving Charles Darwin too much credit. The theology has already been rejected by many leading theologians during that time (before the time of the mature Darwin), such as John Henry Newman (1801-1890). Sometimes, I think RD and his fanatical legion (who may very well be Charles Darwin worshippers as well) just get too carried away with their anti-religious rhetoric, as seen in RD’s book and posts in web pages such as the Pinoy Skeptics FB page.

.

The Top 10 List:

Tron versus Christianity

.(aka. The Theology of Technology)

.

First off,  the “Holy Trinity” of Tron…
1. The Father / Creator – Kevin Flynn, the programmer/creator of the digital world of the Grid

2. The Son / Savior - Sam Flynn, only begotten son of the father,  the archetypal messiah who came to their world to save it

3. The Holy Spirit - Quorra was the non-human member of the “Tron Trinity” (she was an ISO) who was the confidante/messenger/sidekick and most importantly, embodied the love of the Father (who loved her as a daughter) and Son.

Other important archetypal characters:
4. The Fallen Angel – like Lucifer, CLU was the source of conflict in their world. He couldn’t create his own minions, only the Creator can. He could only corrupt existing programs to his side. But as was later revealed, he was only doing what he was created to do.

5. The Traitor - like the Judas archetype, the movie also had its traitor in the character of Zuse who sold the protagonists off and also died without having benefited from his ill-gotten gains.

6. Humanity- the ISO’s (Quorra’s race) are obviously a metaphor for mankind, described as innately imperfect but possessing great potential. They were the catalyst for the conflict between Flynn and CLU. In biblical lore, Lucifer revolted when he refused to serve mankind, thinking them below his station. In Tron lore, CLU saw them as aberrations in the perfect world he was tasked to create.

And miscellaneous bits of flavor details which have their counterpart in Christian mythology:
7. The Soul - like the Discs on their backs, entities in the Grid have their “essence” separate from their physical selves. It held their life-force, it was their greatest weapon and most precious possession.

8. The Last Supper – one would wonder why they would have to even “eat” when they’re in a digital world… but like the Last Supper, it was  more to foreshadow the conflict to come.

.

9. The Garden of Eden - Notice the “apple” that CLU discovers in the room when he finally breaches Flynn’s refuge in the Outlands… a reference to the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. It was the place where the Creator rested and meditated. Quorra was his digital “Eve”… protected, nurtured and maintaining a pure innocence. The conflict finally escalates after the snake has entered the garden.

.

10. The Fall and Redemption of Man –

There are actually 2 different allegorical forms of redemption shown in the movie:

• The warrior Rinzler, who was later revealed to be the original Tron from the first movie, was corrupted by CLU to serve in his army. But upon meeting Sam (the Savior), repents and sought absolution for his crimes. It builds upon mythical “fall of man from grace” complete with the irksome Catholic twist that you “need” Jesus to save you.

• Sam, the allegorical Jesus, also fulfills his role as the biblical “New Adam”. Together with Quorra (the digital “Eve”), they flee the doomed Grid world to start anew. It was a rather clever bit of allegorical writing since he fits the criteria of the mythological archetype because he was a “user” and literal son of the Creator, thus free from the imperfection and limitations of the other programs and ISO’s in the Grid world. The only inconsistency was that it was his father’s death, not his own, that purchased their salvation.

.

.

With so many biblical references buried within the storyline, one would expect the religious crowd to grow fond of this movie like they did with the Narnia series (where Jesus was a friggin’ lion! *Rowr*)

Actually, the sentiments were quite the opposite. If you trawled through the online discussions about the movie, some very vocal Christian critics were appalled or even offended by the movie.

So what has gotten them so riled up about the movie?

• The “Creator” is portrayed as helpless and impotent, trapped within his own creation and forced into a stalemate by something of his own making. In fact, he had to sacrifice himself in the end to negate the threat posed by CLU. Imagine the implication that the ultimate creator is just at par with the arch nemesis he himself created. *ouch*

• CLU was just following what he was created to do – that is, to help create the perfect world. In order to achieve his primary objective, he had to get rid of the innately imperfect ISO’s. It wasn’t pride or personal ambition that drove him to usurp power from the Creator, it was his programming – it required him to do everything that is necessary to ensure perfection in their world, even if it meant the genocide of all the ISO’s. And therein lies the ultimate blame – the Creator’s own bad programming of his chief steward.

• The ISO’s weren’t even created by Flynn intentionally. They were accidental beings whose genesis was spontaneous and unplanned.

No. They manifested. The conditions were right and they came into being.

- Kevin Flynn

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design?

Bingo.

But at least Flynn recognized their great potential and sought to keep them despite their “imperfection”, at least in the eyes of CLU who saw them as flawed because unlike him who was literally made in the image and likeness of the Creator, they were creatures of chance (or perhaps of natural selection) instead of design.

• If Quorra were the new “Eve” then that would make Sam her “Adam”. But he was already playing the archetypal “Messiah” role. And we already know from the “Da Vinci Code” what happens when Hollywood tries hint at the notion of Jesus in a love team… Jesus and Mary Magdalene? Ooh, the righteous indignation! Jesus and Eve? Sacrilege!

Caught up in the layers-upon-layers of deeply philosophical underpinnings of the story, you can’t help but ponder upon life’s most sublime existential questions like what is love? what is true happiness? Am I Team-Edward or Team-Jacob?

Ahhh, the eternal questions to life’s greatest mysteries….

So you wonder where all these thoughts come from… what is it about vampires that capture the rapt attention of people everywhere to the point of irrational devotion?

Hmmm… fictional undead dude that rose from the dead with super-powers beyond that of mortal men… where have I heard that before…

Oh riiiiight… him….

Need more proof that they’re actually quite similar? Then here’s the :

Top 10 List Why Jesus and Vampires are Alike

1. Loosely based on historical figures
2. The tale gets passed on from generation to generation, each time adding a twist to the original tale until it becomes larger than life.
3. Very popular in pop-culture. Every year or so, there’s bound to be another re-hashed movie or best-seller about him. Ranges from the teeny-bopper, “cool” versions popular with younger crowd to the bloodier, more R-rated versions. (and it can’t get any more bloodier than Mel Gibson’s version).  Anne Rice even wrote a book about him/them.
4. Came back from the grave as an immortal undead with super-powers
5. Only reveals his true nature to a select few, preferably those he’s already gotten under his thrall
6. Can’t enter uninvited into your house (or heart)
7. Allergic to crosses, prefers not to be impaled with or into woody stuff but in the official storyline gets staked anyway.
8. Likes to be called “prince”, though one prefers the moniker of “prince of peace”, the other likes the title “prince of darkness”.
9. Keeps flying critters as pets which usually come out on special occasions or when specifically summoned. One like doves, the other prefers bats.
10. Has his own rabid fan-base. Don’t mess with his fans, they can appear to be all nice and normal, but say one bad thing about their master and they bare their fangsssss…

- O -

Need more food for thought? Even vampire lore in general, when you think about it, sounds awfully close to Christian beliefs, so here’s the follow-up list :

Top 10 List Why Vampire Lore is like Christianity

Lore states that you too can have eternal life. When you die, the master has the power to bring you back to life

Your salvation is dependent on you consuming the blood of your benefactor in a special ritual

You are not automatically born as one, you have to be converted into one via special rites

There is a strict code of obedience to one’s sire

Minions like to mind control more hapless victims by using their brainwashing powers

Usually has warring sub-factions which recruits humans to use as pawns or cannon-fodder

Hates other supernatural beings (like witches, warlocks, werewolves)

Despite claims to having a lot of supernatural abilities, nothing really ever gets scientifically proven or recorded.

They only reveal themselves to the public when an apocalyptic battle is about to occur, otherwise they only leave traces of unproven tales and rumors in history.

The “good” guys are usually required to practice total and complete abstinence. The “bad” guys are often portrayed as bestial brutes who can’t suppress their instinctive urges, there doesn’t seem to be a middle ground either way.

- O -

But there are alternatives to Stephanie Meyer’s bunch of mormon-inspired “vegan” vampires in the small screen. The closest approximation would be the other teeny-bopper favorite The Vampire Diaries. Though it still falls into Cliche No.10 of  “good vampire totally abstaining from human blood and the bad vampire sucking everyone in sight” (aka. the PG-13 cutesy metaphor for pre-marital sex), its one redeeming value is that the heroine Elena Gilbert is no wimpy Bella Swan (who in Book 1, upon seeing how rich Edward was, thought of quitting school altogether and living with Edward in a state of co-dependent bliss… obviously, growing up to be a self-successful, independent and liberated woman was never part of Bella’s long term goals).

- O -

But another rung up the vampire band-wagon is HBO’s True Blood (now on its 3rd season!). Based on Charlaine Harris’ series of novels set in the south, the spunky heroine Sookie Stackhouse played by X-Men’s Anna Paquin is a force to be reckoned with. Even though she’s no Buffy, she holds her own against the things that go bump in the night.  This is one gritty series that isn’t afraid to dip into controversy.

It deals with diverse, socially-relevant issues like interracial relationships, bigotry, xenophobia, and the like. And unlike the usual vampire stories, the twist here is that instead of  protecting people from the monsters, religious people are the ones doing the oppressing. Some see this as an allegory of religious persecution against gay people. There are several hints in the show which mirror this sad reality with clever twists like  “God Hates Fangs” (God Hates Fags) and “Coming out of the coffin” (coming out of the closet).

In this world, they have found a viable blood substitute – True Blood, which is the namesake of the show. Vampires have no need to prey on humans and are now trying to get accepted into mainstream society.  But people still fear what is different and stoking the flames of paranoia and hatred are the religious zealots who are using scriptures to justify the eradication of all vampires… good or bad.

In a pivotal episode, the protagonists seek an audience with the Queen of the vampires who let them in on a little secret…

“They’re still waiting for the god who’ll come…”

“Does he ever come?”

“Of course not…  gods only exist in the minds of men, like money and morality”

- O -

Author’s addendum: Whoops, forgot to acknowledge the help of everyone who pitched in ideas to complete the Top 10 lists, many thanks to Den, Johnster, Mack, and Mr. He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, hehe… though you guys are all dyed-in-the-wool, church-going Catholics, you never fail to surprise me on how far your sparkling wit can actually break into actual heretical humor… see you all guys in Hell, hehe

The above quote is a sad fact; instead of leading to a better life, a better world, religon has been used to hate, think less of the unbeliever, and dehumanize anyone who is different.  Society has many problems today and the religious groups still have this illusion that going back on the old ways will solve everything.

Maybe it is an oversimplification to say, at least from the three major religions, that there is one God and we are all his creations in one earth.  The closest analogy I can think of is parent (or father since the three refer to God as a man) and the children.  Do brother and sister fight over what their parents say to the point of killing each other?  Would any parent love to see that happen?

In the end we always end up fighting on how one God is better from the other; we fight over who has the correct idea of God, never minding if we end up killing one another.  If God really is a father, then with fatherly instincts I believe he would be furious seeing the world destroy each other over useless things.  Sam Harris was right in his view – religion leads to misplaced priorities.

Religion should never again take hold of government and society. It has no answers. It had its chance in the Middle Ages when it ruled and failed as depicted in the movie Kingdom of Heaven (2005).

Orlando Bloom played the lead, going from Middle Earth to the Middle East in this period-piece. Set in the religion-mad era of the Crusades, the Lord of the Rings heartthrob now plays a lost and tortured soul searching for salvation.

He is Balian, a blacksmith fresh from losing both wife and child.  He thought himself to be cursed and far from the grace of his God until some good news knocked on his door. A crusader knight named Godfrey who as it turns out was his father, a lord and member of the King’s court in Jerusalem, wants his company. So cursed by God, he thought, what else he could do than look for God in his city: in Jerusalem.

Now the place that he went to, Jerusalem, it was at this time far from heavenly because it was a drowning kingdom in a sea of Arabs led by an effective leader, Saladin.  Also, the city was fractured by two powerful religions hell bent on killing each other.

First, a warning: this film is by no means historically accurate. It has been commented more than once that Hollywood creates its version of history into something more palatable and sexy on the big screen, with the American audience having the highest consideration. What really happened in those days you have to read on your own, as I did – well at least a few pages of articles.

Saladin, like in the film, was a great general for the Arabs and was highly respected by both sides. Some have the point of view that Christians had a better respect for him than the Muslims. Jerusalem was indeed lost though I am not sure in which crusade or war did it fall. The odds of holding the city were just insurmountable.

But what I really agree with this film is that barbarism chooses no religion; the film even proposes that one needs no religion to do the right thing.

In Kingdom of Heaven the Templars were the most brutal, always with the insane line of “God wills it!” a phrase not so different from suicide bombers who cry out “God is great.”  Present day’s prominent version of those two statements is George Bush who said God wanted him to invade Iraq, and the western world’s villain of the hour, Bin Laden.

My favorite line in the film was made by the Hospitaller and it goes: “I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the Will of God.”

He goes on by saying, “Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What God desires is here [points to head] and here [points to heart] and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man – or not.”  Wise words in a movie filled with insane religious men.

That quote made me think of what happened then and what is happening now with religion coming in the forefront of many national debates here and abroad.

There are reported inequities in the theocratic states in the Middle East especially in the lines between the sexes.  Somewhere in Palestine and even in the United States there are still incidences of honor killings.  In Saudi Arabia women are not even allowed to drive.

The Catholic Church can’t even protect the interests of children, yet they have the gall to demand the right to dictate national policy.  Why give them the control over state policy when one, they don’t pay taxes and two, they don’t respect the state!

Cardinal Sean Brady, who is at the heart of Ireland’s current church scandals, was quoted as saying that there was ‘no moral obligation’ for him to report to the police. According to Irishtimes.com he said, “Is it a sin against the law of God not to report matters to the police…no I don’t think so…because there are certain people exempt from this moral obligation to report to the police.” Is that what you call respecting the state, much less the child?

A crime has been done to a child.  Talk with anyone less than a priest who confessed of pedophilia and you’ll be wondering where your children are, hoping they are far away.  If your children are victims then you would not even not care about internal mechanisms that an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times have credited the Pope for spearheading.

There is a system of laws, justice, criminal investigations; a penal system, available for every citizen who needs or deserves it.  Why have they not availed of it?  Is this the pro-family, pro-life, heavenly existence we can expect if religion is back in the forefront?

In the film Balian made his decisions outside of religion.  He ordered the cremation of the dead to avoid an epidemic, ordered the city to be abandoned, and made military decisions not out of Christian conceit that victory is assured.  He faced Saladin and his aides with respect even in the midst of the war.  The irony there is that he thought of himself as cursed, went to Jerusalem to find God; in the end did what he could outside of anyone’s concept of God – and found his salvation.

The film has an interesting message in that the kingdom of heaven is achievable out of religious hands, especially if you know enough history or read enough news and see that with religion in the forefront, full control in fact, little good has been achieved.

“Holiness is in right action,” the movie says.  It is time for us to find a way for just that to be enough.

Also seen in my blog.

“The unique feature of Gordon Brown’s government is not its economic incompetence. Rather, it is doctrinaire secularism. For the first time in British history, no one sitting around the Cabinet table holds traditional Christian views that defy the liberal consensus on social issues or sexual morality.”

Send your stories via The News Thread or the comments.  Theme suggestions are also welcome.

==========

Gay church blessings and a crisis of faith (via The Telegraph) link – Brilliant analysis of secularism in the UK and how it has allowed for certain bills to pass

3D BIBLE MOVIE IN THE WORKS!!! (via Deadline New York, Gawker) link

Pope’s brother: sexual abuse at choir school not discussed (via inquirer.net) link

“Koran says – you’re free in your religion” – Muslim cleric (via RT) link – Cleric issues fatwa against terrorism; insists ‘fatwa’ was mistranslated and does not mean ‘holy war’

Which came first – religion or the brain? (via Eurekalert) link – Press release on new book proposing that the brain needs religion; here is a good interview of the author by Mcleans link

Pope’s path to sainthood delayed by miracle doubts (via The Telegraph) link – Pope John Paul II is not a faith healer after all!

Funeral flap: religion and free speech rights (via wired.com) link - Apparently some bigots want the government to uphold their (alleged) free-speech right to disrespect funerals of homosexuals

Violence in Nigeria – food not faith (via The Guardian) link - Analysis on the murders in Jos

6 questions for an atheist undercover in an evangelical church (via The Huffington Post) link

Oregon faith healers get 16 months for son’s death (via AP) link – Faith healing could lead to negligent homicide!