Just something I can't get out of my head these days...

This has admittedly been prompted by the currently #1 trending Youtube video in Australia entitled 'All Men Are EVIL'. It feels like a dangerous admission acknowledging that I agree with him pretty much 100% but I do. I think what largely maddens me is that in the efforts to fight for justice for genuinely disenfranchised and underprivileged groups of people, efforts that should continue to happen and causes that should continue to be fought for, instead what seems to continually end up happening are these apparently 'acceptable' broad stroke judgements about entire groups of people and I actually feel myself recoiling when I read them. Very current examples? So many statements related to men and white people these days. For the record, I am neither. I'm simply someone who will always feel physically uncomfortable by broad generalisations and narrow assumptions and genuinely confused as to why people are so willing to make them. 

Harmful generalisations, stereotyping and blanket assumptions make this world miserable. The odd thing is we like it so much. Sure, it seems simpler somehow to say that one group's action allows us to define a whole bunch of people's identities because at that point, we get to just stop trying and land on a conclusion. What I've never understood is why people are happy to do such a thing. Is it really that comforting to be able to say to yourself that an entire race/religion/star sign/any other arbitrary identifier is evil or horrible and therefore not worth any further human consideration? 

Humans sure can be weird sometimes. 

Humans of New York - Lagos, Nigeria

View this post on Instagram

“I’m studying human development. A few years ago I came across an article that said there were no successful black nations in the world. It really angered me. I thought: ‘Some fellow is trying to run us down.’ But then I discovered the author of the article was Nigerian. And the more I read, the more I realized it was true. And I started to think that maybe we should be mad at ourselves. I always hear my friends complaining about the politicians in this country. I tell them: ‘Imagine that lightning strikes and suddenly you’re the president. Would you know enough honest people to form a government?’ And they freeze. Because our culture doesn’t ascribe a premium to honesty. People will laugh at you for being honest and broke. Nigeria has the highest concentration of black people in the world. So this is where it should happen. But development doesn’t begin with things, it begins with people. I’m not saying that self-criticism is the answer. But it’s the beginning of the answer. Maybe we should be a little less proud and a little more discontent. Maybe we should stop blaming our immorality on poverty. I grew up in the slums and I don’t want to hear it. Don’t blame it on colonialism, nepotism, racism, or any of the ‘isms.’ And don’t blame it on the slave trade. Because slavery didn’t begin with white people. White people purchased slaves from our shores—that’s true. But black people did the selling. And we were paid for what we sold.” (Lagos, Nigeria)

A post shared by Humans of New York (@humansofny) on Sep 26, 2018 at 7:30am PDT

My (edited) response to the above post and various comments from people about the validity of his opinion, his experience and HONY's right to share his story:

'Reading the majority of comments from people who are actually from Nigeria leaves me disinclined to disagree with this man's perspective and ultimately it sounds like what he's trying to say is that where people can make change and take responsibility for their future, they should, in spite of what has happened in the past. That's how positive change and forward movement work. 

It's also oddly condescending reading some of the statements of those who disagree, almost like they don't believe he can know his own country and own mind. I mean, if that's what you think, ok, but maybe give the guy some credit without immediately assuming he's a brainwashed simpleton. 

Lastly, for anyone decrying this story being shared at all? The world is full of stories, experiences, opinions and ideas that may or may not be in line with yours, that is reality. Hiding from them or avoiding them doesn't help anyone learn anything. Engage, disagree, argue, do whatever, ignore if you really must, but they have a right to be spoken and shared, just like any of your own opinions, opinions that might seem equally as heinous to someone you may have never met and whose life is nothing like yours.' 

Another attempt at putting together pieces of the neverending puzzle...

There are a lot of topics rolling around in my head and I want to construct cogent pieces or essays around them. I also know that if I look this stuff up, I’ll find other people trying to do and say the same.

The world is weirdly deceptive in that way. You’re surrounded by particular voices, narratives and opinions and how you can even think you have a glimpse of a global truth seems oddly arrogant considering how much your own world, your own ears and eyes are missing. That’s how I see the world, and that’s why I sit where I sit and see the fence as the only logical place. It doesn’t mean I don’t stand for anything, what it means is I stand for ensuring I have all the right information, or as much of it as I can possibly get, before I make up my mind and doing so aware of the fact that I’m not only surrounded by bias, but that I carry so much of my own.

And besides, it’s not like I don’t stand for anything, I'm clearly just as opinionated as the next person about a lot of things and I know where I stand on a number of the most 'controversial' issues, but I do so without pretending that other intelligent and logical human beings haven't reached their opposing stances with valid reason and experience. Therefore while I am tempted by sheer temper to get mad and get confused and flabbergasted by these opposing opinions, I know I have to understand that they think the way they do for a reason and what I want to do is find those reasons.

Writing is such a funny thing. Before I got onto this, I was already afraid of having to construct arguments about some of the topics I mentioned above and ended up here. A place that makes a lot more sense to me.

Saying that, I don’t want to relinquish myself of the responsibility to write out cogent arguments and I need to do that.

I am completely sick of being presented by a world that is determined not to listen. That sees it as their right not to listen.

I say being presented because I know once again, that I’m only seeing and hearing certain voices, not all the voices, and I don’t trust the overall picture I’m receiving of what people really think in the world. For every voiced opinion, there are millions of opinions that were withheld, kept quiet, not given a platform.

Facebook, for example. I know that there must be countless others like me who never comment on anything. And yet, there are so many comments available to deconstruct and it’s hard not to wonder if it’s only a particular type of personality that would make comments on such a public forum where everyone can see what they have to say. If only a particular type of person would get involved in public argument. If that means that all those people of a different type aren’t getting visibly represented in Facebook commentary, which, let’s face it, is an enormous beast of a world. Without that visible representation on the forum, it’s easy to think the world must in reality only look a certain way.

But this only then makes it important to remember that the online world has never, ever been a reliable representation of reality or real discussion or interaction. The words millions would happily say from the safety of their own homes and without having to face someone in the flesh, are so often not the words that would come out were they right in front of their friend, colleague, acquaintance, stranger.

The more I write, the more I’m tempted to say I can’t possibly know the world. I mean, there are so many things I’ve encountered on there that people in real life have never heard of, like the Cotton Ceiling, Gamergate or the endless drama of the Youtube world, just to name a few.

But at the same time, I have to face the reality I am seeing, and that the words that have been said online, have been said. They exist. They represent and reveal the truths they reveal. About the people who said them, about the likely background of that person, about the community and environment in which the words were written (not spoken).

There is knowledge and wisdom to be gleaned from that reality, that aspect of reality, however virtual it appears.

And so I am back to where I started.

I can only use that information which I have been given and that which I can clearly see. I must use it and I must learn from it and I must continue the never-ending excavation. I just have to remember that what I see and hear comes with limits. And that that those limits mean that I must never allow myself to be discouraged, hurt or heartbroken by a seemingly horrible world that may or may not even exist.

Why I Write

Writing, particularly personal writing, is often looked at in the same way prayer can be by those who don’t believe – seemingly pointless, ineffective and a waste of time, unless the results are clear and obvious for all to see.

And the error in that thinking applies to both. The way in which the real power of either doesn’t usually come about in blockbuster style miracles, but more often gradually manifests in the ordinary, subtle and more nuanced changes to the person who then further, and with just as much nuance, manifests change, simple and powerful, in their surrounding world.

Never, ever, underestimate the power of either or how often they actually collide.

My recent submission to the Expert Panel on Religious Freedom C/O Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

ETA Monday, April 2: So I've come across two things that address the issue of Religious Liberty from some different sides, not necessarily straight up anti or pro, and I think they're definitely worth sharing.

I subscribe to Counter Arguments and I do encourage people to check it out. The arguments are clear and fairly comprehensive and provide great great ground for further discussions. In this video, he tackles the subject od religious freedom, specifically addressing the Kim Davis case and the arguments around civil disobedience. I think it does a great job of breaking the situation down, particularly helping to distinguish the roles of the different branches of US Government in legalising Gay Marriage and the implications for law enforcement.

An area of difficulty I found was in the idea that those advocating for religious liberty are in any way looking for a free for all pass on any behaviours claiming roots in religious belief and that is very well addressed in this article:

#KimDavis, Slippery Slopes and Religious Freedom

I think what this article does is outline the ability to have a balance that allows all cases and rights be properly examined and then dealt with accordingly which, as per my submission below, is something I strongly agree with.

**************************

Further information regarding the current review is available here:
https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review

The right to freedom of religion and belief is as fundamental as the right to dissent or criticise any form of belief. Both should be equally and adamantly protected. 

For the state to create an overriding general mandate on morality despite the complexity of core beliefs and the right to express those beliefs ultimately stifles the opportunity for genuine and open discussion which is essential to furthering human understanding in a pluralistic world. One doesn't wipe out discrimination by forcing people to act in genuine conflict with their conscience and the only real way you can distinguish between the two is through honest conversation which also must involve honest listening. 

If a case comes forward and is placed under scrutiny, then the merits of each side's arguments can actually be judged. Once the ability to even argue a side, whichever side it is, is taken away by being made contrary to law, the opportunity to judge actions based on genuine reason and merit disappears. In a democracy, such a thing would be unspeakably wrong. 

We must fight discrimination tooth and nail, but in trying to stamp out real discrimination, lumping those who intend to spread real hatred and unjustly discriminate with those who have genuine reason for their beliefs and whose beliefs have no root in hatred, does the population real injustice. In a democracy, we cannot abide by simply gagging a portion of the population. 

Our only chance is to protect the freedom of all sides to peacefully and respectfully live and express their beliefs and therefore allow genuine discussion and further encourage real understanding between all.

No one's story deserves to be diminished, whoever they are, wherever they come from, whatever they've been through, however they look and whatever they believe.

Please.

Listen.

[Repost] On the notion of Belief - Do Science and Religion really have to be incompatible?

Am I a Christian, Pastor Timothy Keller?

A friend on Facebook posted this article from the NY Times and it's a great conversation between the Pastor and the interviewer, Nicholas Kristof, about questioning faith. Pastor Kelly makes some wonderful points questioning the notions that skepticism and science are necessarily incompatible with religion and suggesting that secularists 'should be as open to questions and doubts about their positions as religious people' - all things I not only agree with, but deeply believe in. I really do recommend people give it a read, whatever they believe. 

It was in that spirit, that I wrote the below last year. Well, that spirit and somewhat admittedly incendiary response to comments on a topic posted to the IFLS Facebook page about giving up sugar for Lent hence of the moments of tonal aggression. Why a repost? Because pretty much any response I have to the above linked article is pretty much already summed up below. 

As always, my overarching stance on pretty much anything is that I respect the respectful, regardless of where they stand on the spectrum of belief. 

Originally posted on April 4, 2015:

'Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.'

The National Academy of Sciences on the compatibility between science and religion

I do encourage everyone to read the rest of that page linked above.

Earlier today, the I Fucking Love Science (IFLS) FB page posted a link about what happens to you if you happened to give up sugar for Lent. I'm always somewhat wary of seeing links like this on IFLS, not because I'm not religious, quite the opposite, but because I've become accustomed to the hostility and mindless bashing that comes with even remotely daring to have the notions of both science and religion in the same vicinity. I have seen it before when IFLS linked to an article talking about the potential discovery of the birthplace of Jesus. Now I understand that IFLS and any similar sites are not The History Channel or otherwise historically informative, but when I see comments like, 'Why are you reporting on a myth', I am filled with a very quiet but very real fury (look up the history for two seconds, honestly). On today's post about sugar addiction that dared to mention Lent, some choice comments included, 'If you practise Lent, there's already something wrong with your head' and 'do people who fucking love science observe Lent?'.

Clearly that first comment is far more incendiary than the second which, outside of my own bias and doubt, could have been genuinely meant. In that case, I will answer it with a resounding yes. Some people who fucking love science actually observe Lent because they are both scientists and Catholics or Christians. In fact, growing up, the majority of priests I knew were scholars in science, most notably physics. Even now, some of my friends who are scientists and engineers are also very devout Catholics who have no problem pursuing science and practising their faith at the same time. Bearing further mention are the countless Christian or Catholic scientists who have contributed so significantly to our modern understanding of the world. How many people know who Georges Lemaitre, Angelo Secchi or Roger Bacon are? Look them up.

[On a personal note, I am a happily practising Catholic with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology (although one who admittedly chose not to pursue it as a career but professionally assists others who have) who agrees wholeheartedly with the use of the scientific method to learn more about the world around us. Any qualms I may have with scientific pursuit usually fall under the umbrella of scientific ethics (an area into which I undertook postgraduate study), often in the area of bioethics (eg. cloning), but such areas are generally contentious and without medical or scientific consensus so I'm far from alone on that count, religious or not.]

Essentially, what is upsetting and angering about comments that immediately jump on the science and religion can't coexist is that these days, some such declarations (not all, I'm sure, but many) are made without having actually attempted to read or research the idea and appear to have become Pop Fact, much like the notion that religion has caused the most wars (again, fury) despite the fact that according to recorded history, only 123 out of 1763 wars and less than 2% of all people killed in warfare have been classified as religiously based, according to the Encyclopedia of Wars by Phillips and Axelrod. Yet, people seem more than willing to blindly accept that religion is a bigger source of evil than outright human greed and territorial conquest and the need for power and control.

Also, from experience, a lot of people who seem to 'love' science, have no damn clue what it actually is. As a Psych student, I was often told by people I knew in the hard sciences that 'Psych is not a science' despite the fact that the method by which I spent a degree being taught to study observable human behaviour was most definitely the scientific method and the statistical analysis that followed (which I have gladly left behind) was engaged to ensure we were obtaining results as statistically significant as possible. We didn't do that shit for fun, we were trying to see if the variables we had manipulated in order to test our hypotheses were actually making a real difference - just like people do in labs. Pardon us for trying to scientifically research something that is intangible and therefore more difficult to assess. To this day, I say those studying cognitive psychology are some of the most creative people I've ever encountered. Being able to construct experiments to test and observe memory? Insanely imaginative and clever.

But I digress. As the statement made above by the Academy of Sciences points out, scientific reason and faith and belief look at things from completely different angles and ultimately, that's how you want to view the world - from as many angles as possible. Considering we live in an age obsessed with pluralistic thought and perspective, it's odd that people are then only willing to engage in understanding the world via one very often flawed means. When journalists investigate a story, attacking it from just the one side or the one perspective, it begs questions of bias, an agenda and a lack of objectivity. Why is it suddenly completely objective to stand by science and nothing else?

I think what people get confused is scientific fact versus scientific discovery and possibility. More likely than not, what many people take on board as scientific 'fact' is nothing more than the replicated results of studies that provide evidence for particular conclusions to be drawn. These are not facts, they are findings that potentially support hypotheses and once disproven or falsified, will be altered. As an undergrad science student, I was trained to write, '... there is evidence to suggest...' ad nauseum. Even in areas of more solid and tangible results, for example, biological or medical discoveries and treatments, there are only so many treatments, medications and therapies that work 100% of the time. As a sufferer of a number of chronic medical conditions, I can at least personally attest to the fact that many treatments that have worked on many past patients have not been able to work on me and I am not alone in that at all. When it comes to science, we do what we can with the knowledge that we have and still test what works and what doesn't. The rest, we take on almost as a form of faith, eg. I have never seen these medical results in others for myself, but I have taken it on faith that the medical community backing these assertions aren't simply lying to me. In that same spirit, I have never been to space, seen the moon's surface for myself or seen the Red Spot on Jupiter with my own eyes, but I have faith and trust in those astrophysicists who have done the research for me.

Now, if someone has no belief or has chosen not to believe in the supernatural (I don't, however, tend to adhere to the notion that anyone chooses what they believe. While specific beliefs can be altered, belief in itself is simply that. You believe something or you don't), then fine, if you have no room for any form of spirituality in your life or are happy in the notion that biological or neurological processes or quantum mechanics are enough explanation for the more intangible aspects of life, then by all means, that is absolutely your call. This does not, however, give you the authority to declare as fact beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those who do believe in a supernatural aspect of the world are either dead wrong and intellectually pitiable because in some cases, the likelihood will be that those people have put a lot more thought into it because that which is intangible bears far more need for thought by nature of its invisibility.

I do understand that there are people out there who have thoughtlessly decided to follow one belief system or another, among them Catholics and Christians, however, this type of believer is not strictly bound within the arena of religious faith. There are blind adherents to scientists, philosophers, hell, nowadays, even celebrities (I'm looking at you, Jenny McCarthy, incidental anti-vax champion. More fury).

Rather than demonise, however, as I've always stood by the notion that everyone believes what they do for a reason, whatever reasons they may be, at the end of the day, by all means, disagree, mock, even, if you really must, but maybe once in a while, instead of burrowing comfortably in your warren of disbelief/belief, ask someone you just do not understand - why?

[Repost] Islamophobia: more mindless generalistic demonisation of religion

Honestly, I really do hope to put something up that isn't quite so heavy some time soon because I'm not loving the general wave of tone I've been posting in the last month or so. That being said, the current state in which the world is simmering, boiling, burning, however you want to put it, does lend itself to moments of unavoidable painful reflection and self-reflection so it simply is what it is.

In that spirit, current events, particularly in the US and Europe this last month, have only shown that despite the flurry of events, so many core realities don't change. In trying to find answers to the horrors of the world, people respond in a myriad of ways, some as hopeful and as positive as can be mustered under the circumstances, some innocently misguided and others resorting to outright hatred, anger and vitriol.

It is that last point my original post looked to address. Anger, fear and hatred are actually genuinely natural responses to horror. But at the end of the day, if we've voluntarily chosen to remain blind to any further human consideration for other individuals, we have to take responsibility for that and any damage it may cause which, let's be honest, it often will.

I don't condone the notion of never questioning the beliefs, backgrounds and histories that lead to acts of violence, in fact that can only be a huge step in hopefully addressing the roots of so many problems. However attacking genuinely innocent people is simply unjustifiable. We can argue till we're blue in the face about systemic ignorance leading to extremism going unchecked (has that peacefully practising Islamic family passively condoned acts of terror simply by being Muslim? I personally absolutely do not think so, but the scores who disagree will) but ultimately, those who acted and those who encouraged and trained them to do so are entirely responsible. Any retaliation aimed elsewhere is just wanton and pointless vengeance.

Though ideally, I identify as a pacifist, I do believe in fighting for what's right and fighting for what you believe in which is why I can often admire even those who fight vociferously for things with which I absolutely do not agree. However I definitely believe in fighting against those who decide to attack who we are and what we believe in.

What I will never believe in is attacking innocent people.

Originally posted October 6, 2014.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over the last week, the two videos below have been all over my Facebook, Twitter and news feeds. Both tackle the question of Islam and Islamophobia and the impact generalisation has on how people view Islam. I finally got to watch them today and, well, let's be honest, I love watching spirited debate and both delivered, just in very different ways.

'Criticize the person doing it, not the [country]'

It is odd to find myself potentially siding with Bill Maher because in general, I've never liked the man. I'm not a fan of his smug, sarcastic brand of commentary and his 'documentary', Religulous, while certainly entertaining, could hardly have been called objective and the fact that it is now treated as a factual representation of all (not some, all) religious folk by some still makes my blood boil. 

However, at the beginning of the video, particularly in comparison to Ben Affleck heatedly spluttering his disgust for their views, it was difficult not to see Maher and Harris' calm reiteration of the statistics as more reasonable. It wasn't until further on in the video I was able to see what Affleck was trying to say underneath his irritation and that, I believe, is the same point that Reza Aslan was far more eloquently able to make in the next video.

'To say that 'Muslim countries' as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same, as though Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are the same... is stupid.'

His point was so very clear and yet Camerota insisted on using the term, 'Muslim countries' as though Aslan hadn't already pointed out that the term was invalid about 5 times. Within the first few minutes, he succinctly points out that the examples that Maher was using to criticise Islam are in fact not representative so much of the religion as they are of the countries in which they are practised. I understand the point that Maher and Lemon and Camerota were trying to make about the statistics of mainstream Muslim belief and their own belief that this is indicative of a faith that ultimately promotes violence at its core and not just in its extremes, however it still doesn't change the fact that they cannot use that to justify a broad judgement of all or even most of who identify as Muslim - and yet they continue to do so. 

People say statistics don't lie. I don't imagine they do, but they certainly don't always tell the whole truth. If anything, the picture they end up painting more closely resembles an incomplete puzzle than a crisp and clear photo of reality. 

People and statistics are two separate entities and one thing I've grown to hate is one being mistaken for the other. They are indicative of either what has happened or what people think but they don't determine everything. I don't care if say, for example, a lower socio-economic area in society has a statistically higher rate of crime, unemployment or teen pregnancy or any other category of marginalisation for that matter. If you live in that area, until you as an individual finally act in a way that makes you fall into one of those categories, those statistics do not represent you as a person and are therefore in no way a determinant of your future. They do not define you until you let them.

It is based on this point that I agree with Ben Affleck more than I did his counterparts (until Sam Harris acknowledged that they were speaking of ideas as opposed to people). His point was that judgement should always fall on those who are perpetrating disaster. Not the faith they claim to represent, not the race or country from which they came, but the perpetrators, the terrorists themselves. The end. To focus the blame elsewhere based on statistics is misguided and dangerous because then the victim count extends beyond those directly affected by terrorism or genocide to even more innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't condemn dangerous ideas. Ideas are what drive these attacks and to pretend they don't serve a vital role is naive. But that still provides no excuse to unfairly judge and demonise innocent people who haven't adopted those more violent ideas. The beheadings in Iraq do not make it ok for the beatings and harrassment of innocent Muslims in Australia to have occurred as they did after the police crackdown this last month. That they did is abhorrent and a tragic manifestation of blind and uninformed hate. No number of bombings, attacks, beheadings or kidnappings will ever justify retaliating against the innocent and I say this as someone who has lost a family member to a terrorist attack. 

As Aslan said, those individuals, those societies or those governments that actively oppress and abuse people should be condemned but to breed fear and misunderstanding based on blanket generalisations leads to discord beyond borders because therein lies a very dangerous idea - that we have the right to judge people based, not on their own actions, but on the terrible actions of someone else. 

A response to fear in light of all that's going on in the world...

We

There is little else to do but continue.
Let the music play on
The words write themselves
And the smiles shine on.
Fear is a friend, not an enemy
It reminds us of what we have
What we could have
Who we could be
It only becomes a foe if we let it
If we allow it to consume us
To blind us to what's true and good
And keep us from doing all we can
Being who we can be
Even then, it isn't the fear that acts
Or doesn't act.
It is us.
We make the choice.
We are the cause.
We.

******

As most who know me would be very well aware, fear is the consistent underlying aspect of my character. There's no lie in my ease or in my laughter or moments of joy, there simply exists an acknowledgement that either hovering alongside or not far beneath is that little stratosphere of anxiety and doubt that has been formed over three decades of often hyper-sensitivity, over-awareness and an unrelentingly vivid and dramatic imagination.

Saying that, I still think the world is just as scary as it's always been, simply with more coverage. What I can't control, I can't, but because I'm often mired by the fear I so feverishly ramble on about above, it's too often easy to just allow the burial to take place and sink into dead mode. Not a difficult thing to do when I picture the people I love potentially being slain as they innocently go to Mass in the morning as they do every day and when I think of family members already lost having simply gone to do their job to provide for their family and, through no choice of their own, never come back. Fear throws aside realistic probability of risk or the fact that others have lived their entire lives this way and allows the notions to grow beyond proportion making me even 'happier' to sink into nerve bending oblivion.

The above is just a brief reminder that it is no excuse. I've always been of the opinion that my life is no one else's fault but mine and so I continue to think that way, fear notwithstanding. Atop that, is the broader reality that, so far as I'm concerned, my world is also no one else's fault but mine. I acknowledge the impact of other's choices but my responsive actions will always be mine and mine alone and for that I will always hope to take ownership of everything I choose and do and, following that, everything I inflict upon the world.

Now, to put some of that fear-taking into action, I post. Regardless of its triviality, putting anything up on this takes a chunk out of me and truth be told, I know of it garnering little impact, whether it be negative or positive. It is simply here and it is simply me. For the purposes of what I do on this thing, that is enough. I understand those who question that but truly, I assure you, the purpose is vital... in the absolute purest sense of the word.

Anyway, here's to ensuring that the sense of helplessness doesn't lead to actual uselessness in the face of all the crazy in the world.

Or... we could just go full Homer, a clearly viable option.

A dangerously close description of public commentary these days...

Although, as an immediate antidote, a rather refreshing take on the issue can be found here: The 'Other Side' Is Not Dumb by Sean Blanda.

The whole notion of fighting fire with fire loses all integrity when it comes to bigotry and this article addresses the issue of actual bigotry - the intolerance of difference in opinion, whatever those opinions may be and not based on one notion of moral superiority.

(Although a difficult notion to postulate without sounding like a soapboxer. Hurrah the joys of hypocrisy!)

The ONE tattoo I would ever get...

... would be this.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure my threshold for ongoing needlepoint pain is far too low.

Maybe one day, eh?

On the notion of Freedom of Speech and Millenial Student Protest - a Cracked comment

Cracked too often allows me the opportunity to be lazy and not have to construct my own points of argument. Nevertheless, the comment made below on this story, by JF Sargent, pretty well outlines exactly how I feel about this issue so cheers, Rowangirl.

'Rowangirl
11-24-2015 | 9:24 PM

I don't want to spend too much time on this because there are already over a thousand comments and most of them seem to agree with what I have to say. But the issue I have with this article is that he's basically arguing that 1) these students are just exercising free speech and not actually trying to take it away from anyone else, and 2) they have no power, so what they say/do is irrelevant anyway. Both of those things are false.

If you want some examples, look at my alma mater, Northwestern University. A few years ago, a student published an opinion piece in the student newspaper arguing against affirmative action. Minorities were outraged, and demanded the newspaper remove it from their website. That, my friends, is censorship. They made this girl's name dirt on campus. And by the way, THAT SAME ISSUE ran a column arguing FOR affirmative action as a counterpoint. It was literally a perfectly balanced issue, but it didn't matter. Someone had dared to suggest that minorities should not be treated preferentially in admissions, and everyone blew up.

Every year at NU, students are told what they are NOT allowed to do or wear on Halloween and certain holidays. On Cinco de Mayo one year, a Hispanic student group was given access to send out a campus-wide email laying out precisely how students were and were not allowed to celebrate the holiday. And, I s**t you not, they claimed it was offensive for white people to eat tacos and burritos on that day. This isn't harmless waving around of signs; it is actively policing other people's behavior.

Another example: recently, a sorority on campus was going to have a fundraiser called "Jail & Bail." The premise is that the sorority girls would stand in these pens until people put in enough money to "bail" them out. Again, minorities threw a fit. You see, because so many minorities are in actual jail, it was offensive for the sorority girls to pretend to be in jail. The event was to raise money for low-income kids to learn to read, by the way. It was cancelled.

At Northwestern, as at Princeton, demands are being made to remove the names of people important to the histories of the schools from buildings and such due to past ties with racism. At NU, they want John Evans's name removed from everything. 

And there was a speaker, hosted by the College Republicans, I believe, who students also demanded not be allowed to speak because he supposedly said racist things at one time or another. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of this speaker at the moment. I do remember that, despite the best efforts of these students to stop the event, he was ultimately allowed to speak, though dozens of students camped outside the lecture hall in protest while he was doing so. But again, this was most definitely an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints. And while we're talking about silencing viewpoints, protesters at one of these colleges (to be honest, I'm losing track of what's happening at all of them, so I can't remember which) released a statement explicitly requesting media that covered them to give statements saying they agreed with them, and basically telling media outlets that didn't agree with them not to cover them. But no, they're not trying to interfere with free speech.

And it goes beyond simply stating viewpoints. If they were just waving around signs that said "Racism is a problem here!" well, they'd still have backlash, but not nearly as much as they're having now, because they're not just trying to make themselves heard. At Dartmouth, BLM protesters swarmed into a library, shouted obscenities, pushed people against walls, and screamed in their faces. At Columbia and elsewhere, students are reporting feeling pressured to join in protests and walkouts, or else they're called racist. These groups are intimidating people and being disruptive. At Princeton, 200 students barged into the president's office and refused to leave until he signed an agreement. At Mizzou, they interrupted the homecoming parade, refused to move even when it was clear people wanted them to. At Northwestern, protesters just interrupted a groundbreaking ceremony for a very expensive new building. That's part of the reason they're getting so much backlash. They're being obnoxious, and it comes across as childish, not to mention makes people angry.

And these people aren't just trying to get a message out. They're making DEMANDS. They want people fired. They want school history to be erased. They want dorms just for black people. They want professors to be forced to undergo sensitivity training. (I.e., classes where they're told what they are and aren't allowed to say.) At Princeton as well as Northwestern, they want to change the curriculum of every single student to make it mandatory to take a "diversity" class. At Northwestern, they're demanding a "technology hub" for black students. (I should mention that they already have the Black House, so I'm a bit unclear on why they need a technology hub, too.)

And this is a problem because, contrary to what J.F. Sargent says, these groups are not powerless. In this day and age, people bend over backwards to accommodate these groups. That charity event? It was cancelled without an argument the moment people complained about it. How did the Hispanic group send out a campus-wide e-mail about not eating tacos and burritos, when that listserv access is necessarily strictly limited? Someone thought their message was important enough that they deserved that platform, so they gave it to them. Professors and administrators are either stepping down or being forced to resign. At Mizzou, a professor sent out an email encouraging students to come to class, telling them not to let "bullies" win. He sent this email before it was widely known that there were serious threats of violence, and for this unforgivable misunderstanding, immediately handed in his resignation because people were offended. So no, these groups are not powerless. Administrators bend over backwards to appease them. And when you look at the kinds of demands these groups are making, it's disturbing to think what will happen if colleges continue to give in so easily.'

We... They... Us... Them - anyone else tired yet?

I'm done reading about Zaky Mallah.

It's been said before and it will be said again - reading the news is so tiring. It doesn't end with whatever article you're reading either. Venture, if you dare, into the comments and soon enough, you're drowning in vehement, and often madly vindictive, declarations about 'The Left' or 'The Right'. Yes, I know I've said all this before but honestly, it still applies and it's still tiring.

You've gotta love modern hypocrisy. From all sides.

The Left, The Right, The Religious, The Secular, The Rich, The Poor... are all groups. If we were talking about just one person, that would be complex enough but we are talking about huge groups of groups (apparent typo absolutely intended) of people and the groups and the individuals are all complex unto themselves. Generalised statements about any of those groups and any other similarly and arbitrarily categorized pockets of people are therefore not only always going to be open to question, but also only add further fuel to the fire that is ongoing Us and Them mentality which seems inescapable when discussing any matters of complexity and ultimately paralyzes any progress.

Sadly, for too long, I myself have fallen for this way of thinking and it's time to stop because it is hypocrisy in itself.

Today on Facebook

Sunrise

MUM'S POWERFUL FACEBOOK POST ABOUT THE INSENSITIVE THINGS PEOPLE SAY ABOUT HER BABY WITH DOWN'S SYNDROME...

"Here is my baby girl, Louise. She is 4 months old, has two legs two arms, and one extra chromosome. Please, when you meet a Louise, do not ask her mother, “Was it not detected during pregnancy?” Either it was, and the parents took the decision to keep the baby. Or it wasn’t and the surprise was great enough that there’s no need to revisit it. Bear in mind that mothers have a tendency to feel guilty about each and every thing, so a surprising extra chromosome… I don’t need to tell you.

Don’t tell her mother, “It’s your baby no matter what.” No. It’s my baby, period. Plus: ‘nomatterwhat’ is quite an ugly name; I’d rather call her Louise.

Don’t tell her mother, “As she is a Down’s baby, she will… etc.” No. She is a 4-month-old baby who happens to have Down’s Syndrome. It’s not what she IS, it’s what she HAS. You wouldn’t say “she’s a cancer baby.”

Don’t say, “They’re like this, they’re like that.” “They” all have their features, their character, their own tastes, their life. “They” are as different between them as you are from you neighbour.

I know that if you haven’t experienced it, you don’t think about it, but words do matter. They can comfort and they can hurt. So just give it a thought, especially if you’re a doctor or nurse of any kind.

I usually don’t make my status ‘public’ on Facebook, but this one will be. You can read it and share it as you want. Because each year (in France) there are 500 new ‘mothers of Louise’ who can have a day ruined by those kind of words. I know it’s not meant to hurt. But you just need to know."

#sun7

This is one of the most beautiful reply threads I've ever seen on Facebook.

I've only scrolled down so far but even though, thus far, every reply is a voice of support (highly uncharacteristic for your typival Facebook comment thread) and ultimately understanding of a fundamental truth.

Disability of any kind doesn't make anyone less of a person. Clearly, Peter Singer I am not. Thank God.

The fact that anyone thinks it does is just plain sad. Doubt your ability to handle the challenge or wonder about what hardships may come, but don't ever, ever think that child is any less than they are.

Every person has intrinsic value and is important. Nothing on Earth changes that. Not a single thing.

The severe underestimation or outright disregard of that value lies at the core of every atrocity any person has ever committed against anyone else.

We have got to stop treating that assumption as though it were normal. It is absolutely not.

The Common Sense Atheist on the Logical Christian Philosopher

'In this post I want to celebrate what Craig and I (currently) agree about. I do this for two reasons:

1. So you can correct me if you think I’m wrong.

2. So atheists can stop wasting time by disagreeing with Craig even when he’s right, and focus on where he’s wrong.'

Luke Muehlhauser on William Lane Craig

It's a bare snippet of what Muehlhauser has to say so I do suggest clicking and giving it a read, however alongside the points made, it's the spirit in which the post was written than I am so happy to share. Modern debate of any kind has only become more and more exhausting because people seem to have no interest whatsoever in actually listening to what the other sides have to say.

Sure, when you go into any debate or any argument, you enter into it carrying your own personal beliefs and convictions which will inevitably colour your response to whatever you're presented with, but too often debates descend into agenda bashing, name calling and outright childish denial of any possibility that those with whom you disagree may actually have, if not a point, but backing for what they're trying to say.

Hence it is more than refreshing when someone, as Muehlhauser has done above, is so willing to focus on where he and Craig stand on common ground so that they can finally stop wasting time on mindless disagreement and actually try to genuinely hash out the roots of their differences. It's not just better debate, it's an actual exercise in real respect, something sorely lacking in so many argument these days.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I respect the respectful, wherever they may lie on the spectrum of belief and opinion. Cheers, Muehlhauser, from a Christian who respects you and our differences.

On the notion of Belief: Do Science and Religion really have to be incompatible?

'Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.'

The National Academy of Sciences on the compatibility between science and religion

I do encourage everyone to read the rest of that page linked above.

Earlier today, the I Fucking Love Science (IFLS) FB page posted a link about what happens to you if you happened to give up sugar for Lent. I'm always somewhat wary of seeing links like this on IFLS, not because I'm not religious, quite the opposite, but because I've become accustomed to the hostility and mindless bashing that comes with even remotely daring to have the notions of both science and religion in the same vicinity. I have seen it before when IFLS linked to an article talking about the potential discovery of the birthplace of Jesus. Now I understand that IFLS and any similar sites are not The History Channel or otherwise historically informative, but when I see comments like, 'Why are you reporting on a myth', I am filled with a very quiet but very real fury (look up the history for two seconds, honestly). On today's post about sugar addiction that dared to mention Lent, some choice comments included, 'If you practise Lent, there's already something wrong with your head' and 'do people who fucking love science observe Lent?'.

Clearly that first comment is far more incendiary than the second which, outside of my own bias and doubt, could have been genuinely meant. In that case, I will answer it with a resounding yes. Some people who fucking love science actually observe Lent because they are both scientists and Catholics or Christians. In fact, growing up, the majority of priests I knew were scholars in science, most notably physics. Even now, some of my friends who are scientists and engineers are also very devout Catholics who have no problem pursuing science and practising their faith at the same time. Bearing further mention are the countless Christian or Catholic scientists who have contributed so significantly to our modern understanding of the world. How many people know who Georges Lemaitre, Angelo Secchi or Roger Bacon are? Look them up.

[On a personal note, I am a happily practising Catholic with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology (although one who admittedly chose not to pursue it as a career but professionally assists others who have) who agrees wholeheartedly with the use of the scientific method to learn more about the world around us. Any qualms I may have with scientific pursuit usually fall under the umbrella of scientific ethics (an area into which I undertook postgraduate study), often in the area of bioethics (eg. cloning), but such areas are generally contentious and without medical or scientific consensus so I'm far from alone on that count, religious or not.]

Essentially, what is upsetting and angering about comments that immediately jump on the science and religion can't coexist is that these days, some such declarations (not all, I'm sure, but many) are made without having actually attempted to read or research the idea and appear to have become Pop Fact, much like the notion that religion has caused the most wars (again, fury) despite the fact that according to recorded history, only 123 out of 1763 wars and less than 2% of all people killed in warfare have been classified as religiously based, according to the Encyclopedia of Wars by Phillips and Axelrod. Yet, people seem more than willing to blindly accept that religion is a bigger source of evil than outright human greed and territorial conquest and the need for power and control.

Also, from experience, a lot of people who seem to 'love' science, have no damn clue what it actually is. As a Psych student, I was often told by people I knew in the hard sciences that 'Psych is not a science' despite the fact that the method by which I spent a degree being taught to study observable human behaviour was most definitely the scientific method and the statistical analysis that followed (which I have gladly left behind) was engaged to ensure we were obtaining results as statistically significant as possible. We didn't do that shit for fun, we were trying to see if the variables we had manipulated in order to test our hypotheses were actually making a real difference - just like people do in labs. Pardon us for trying to scientifically research something that is intangible and therefore more difficult to assess. To this day, I say those studying cognitive psychology are some of the most creative people I've ever encountered. Being able to construct experiments to test and observe memory? Insanely imaginative and clever.

But I digress. As the statement made above by the Academy of Sciences points out, scientific reason and faith and belief look at things from completely different angles and ultimately, that's how you want to view the world - from as many angles as possible. Considering we live in an age obsessed with pluralistic thought and perspective, it's odd that people are then only willing to engage in understanding the world via one very often flawed means. When journalists investigate a story, attacking it from just the one side or the one perspective, it begs questions of bias, an agenda and a lack of objectivity. Why is it suddenly completely objective to stand by science and nothing else?

I think what people get confused is scientific fact versus scientific discovery and possibility. More likely than not, what many people take on board as scientific 'fact' is nothing more than the replicated results of studies that provide evidence for particular conclusions to be drawn. These are not facts, they are findings that potentially support hypotheses and once disproven or falsified, will be altered. As an undergrad science student, I was trained to write, '... there is evidence to suggest...' ad nauseum. Even in areas of more solid and tangible results, for example, biological or medical discoveries and treatments, there are only so many treatments, medications and therapies that work 100% of the time. As a sufferer of a number of chronic medical conditions, I can at least personally attest to the fact that many treatments that have worked on many past patients have not been able to work on me and I am not alone in that at all. When it comes to science, we do what we can with the knowledge that we have and still test what works and what doesn't. The rest, we take on almost as a form of faith, eg. I have never seen these medical results in others for myself, but I have taken it on faith that the medical community backing these assertions aren't simply lying to me. In that same spirit, I have never been to space, seen the moon's surface for myself or seen the Red Spot on Jupiter with my own eyes, but I have faith and trust in those astrophysicists who have done the research for me.

Now, if someone has no belief or has chosen not to believe in the supernatural (I don't, however, tend to adhere to the notion that anyone chooses what they believe. While specific beliefs can be altered, belief in itself is simply that. You believe something or you don't), then fine, if you have no room for any form of spirituality in your life or are happy in the notion that biological or neurological processes or quantum mechanics are enough explanation for the more intangible aspects of life, then by all means, that is absolutely your call. This does not, however, give you the authority to declare as fact beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those who do believe in a supernatural aspect of the world are either dead wrong and intellectually pitiable because in some cases, the likelihood will be that those people have put a lot more thought into it because that which is intangible bears far more need for thought by nature of its invisibility.

I do understand that there are people out there who have thoughtlessly decided to follow one belief system or another, among them Catholics and Christians, however, this type of believer is not strictly bound within the arena of religious faith. There are blind adherents to scientists, philosophers, hell, nowadays, even celebrities (I'm looking at you, Jenny McCarthy, incidental anti-vax champion. More fury).

Rather than demonise, however, as I've always stood by the notion that everyone believes what they do for a reason, whatever reasons they may be, at the end of the day, by all means, disagree, mock, even, if you really must, but maybe once in a while, instead of burrowing comfortably in your warren of disbelief/belief, ask someone you just do not understand - why?