A Common Thread

I've become fascinated by the work of Dr. Richard Dawkins. As one who had a very negative experience with Christianity, his books immediately appealed to me. Being biased, I realize that the following is coming from someone who has very strong opinions regarding Christianity. I also realize that Dawkins' work is not outside the realm of critique. However, I do not understand a common thread I find in those who critique him.

Robin has been devouring Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" and we have watched his documentary The Root of All Evil?. In it, he details the malicious influence of what happens when religion is taken seriously. In reading criticism after criticism, I keep coming across the same thing: Dawkins is making blanket statements about religions and moreover, showcasing religious extremists and radicals; he is not paying enough attention to the more peaceful, benign sects of western religion.

To begin, the question Dawkins wanted to pose had nothing to do with being fair to all of western religion. He never said it was. His point is that religion (particularly organized religion) has a pattern of devolving into these extreme forms. In a way, he is highlighting the logical conclusion of what the Good Book preaches. Now, of course he is not suggesting that everyone falls under this category, he even says so, but there is a malevolent force behind religion, one that focuses hatred, bigotry, and segregation. All this happens in the name of religion, so it is excused when other races or classes or genders are slighted because they aren't religious. Do you actually believe that the root of segregation and bigotry in the United States is scientifically motivated? The where does it come from? How is it justified? In my opinion, it comes from the seeds of religion.

It's all well and good if one isn't a religious extremist. Let's say you go to church, contribute to your society and lead a peaceful existence; but this is topical. In the case of religion, doing those things doesn't remove one from the viral effect of religion. I would take it a step further than Dawkins and suggest that quiet Christianity, the one I described above, does as much damage to one's social compassion for others as does radical extremism (and if you think radical extremism is only of the violent persuasion, I give you the Evangelicals). Dawkins' work is trying to unearth what lies underneath the influence of Christianity. Just because you don't strap a bomb to your chest doesn't mean that you don't use religion to justify misogeny and bigotry. In my opinion, the step from "quiet Christian" to "radical extremist" is not as far as one might think.

This brings me to my second point. The criticisms of Dawkins then go on to say that Dawkins is being unduly harsh; that religion has contributed positively to the world. They say that our sense of ethics, morals and the like have all come from religion. I hope you're laughing as hard as I did when I first read that. I'm honestly at a loss when people say these things. Ethics, morals and values developed because humans had to evolve and live together. As sentient beings, we have developed an evolutionary need to deal with one another outside the realm of hunting and gathering. Our relatively feeble bodies have survived because of our conscious ability to separate and decide, to plan and create. Our complex system of interaction has indeed been influenced by religion, but in no way did it develop because of religion. On this point, I'm not sure my rebuttal of the critique will hold for one, very simple reason: these critics either don't believe in or don't understand evolution.

So what about the people who live religiously but don't take everything it says literally? I know many people who I love deeply that just take the "good parts" of Christianity and leave the hateful, bigoted ones aside. Dawkins has a wonderful point on this and basically wonders then at what point is one still religious? The point of being religious is following the tenets set forth by a founding scripture of some sort. The point is to do certain things and act in certain ways that will garner one the ultimate reward of heaven after we leave this "test" of an existence. I would say that these people either are or are not religious. The reason being, their religion demands a definite stand on its values. There is no gray in Christianity. At least, there isn't gray in the bible. Regarding bigotry specifically, the homosexual is dealt with quite clearly in the Bible. While I can certainly appreciate those Christians who let that part of the bible slide, why do they call themselves Christians? Is is because they believe the majority of the Bible is good? Seriously? Have they read the Old Testament and 60% of the New Testament? I can only speak to the Bible of course, but I know that Islam falters under the same problem.

I am far from callous. I believe in having a spiritual side, one that is open to new possibilities and grapples with the philosophical dilemma that is our consciousness. This excess of our consciousness, call it spirit, call it whatever you want, is beautiful, meaningful and challenging. I think it is much harder to face the here and now than it is to think that you're just biding your time, waiting until those pearly gates open. To be faced, truly faced, with one's humanity is not something western religion asks its constituents to do. Instead, people who buy into religion are content to wait until something better comes along. Rather than affirm life and live joyously in the here and now, they live trapped under a regime that from them draws immense wealth and power.

And yes, that is what I think religions do at a fundamental level. Their purpose is a viral, self-propagating machine bent on complete world domination veiled under good will and charity. On this point, Dawkins and myself are in total agreement. I do however welcome your arguments and would love to be proven otherwise.

Addendum: In this post, I used the word "religion" without qualifying it in some cases. In all cases, I take "religion" to mean organized western religion.

Food for Thought

On my actual birth day 27 years ago, the most popular song in the nation was "Funkytown" by Lipps Inc.

That should clear some things up.

Senseless Gadgets

Feeling tired and lazy? Have an enormous (or not) lawn that needs your constant attention? Did you invest in a parcel of land that you now realize you actually have to take care of? Never fear, The Automower is here!!

Yes, it exists. A giant Roomba for your yard has been invented. The company Husquavarna has decided that instead of copying the Roomba, it would just, uh, copy how a Roomba works! That's kinda like the new watch I invented, the Molex. Pretty sneaky, huh? Just like the Roomba that I totally know you have, the Automower has a docking station, is cleaner than your typical lawnmower (which spews evil toxins into the air) and better yet, you only have to touch a button to get it started!

The Automower slides effortlessly across your lawn, creating an intricate memory of precisely how big your lawn is, where the edges are and makes sure to avoid the garden/flower beds. I don't know how it works, just like I don't know how the Roomba works, but I'll tell you one thing: putting whirling blades inside a Roomba-esque robot is exactly the sort of idea that wins Nobel Peace Prizes!

If you've ever seen a Roomba in action (what am I saying? You totally have one!), it isn't the most efficient vacuuming device. It bonks and spins all over the place, making an erratic carpet pattern as if you set your blind crack baby with ADD and no legs loose with a Hoover. I mean, that's how I get my carpets so clean, but crack babies are in high demand these days. The Automower is much less expensive!

I couldn't think of a better idea than placing spinning, flesh-eating knives inside a machine that has no sense of sight or sound. If your flowers were crying "OH GOD THE PAIN!!! THE PAAAAIIIIN!!", would you be there to hear them? Probably not, because you'd be snoozing on your couch, confident that your Automower wouldn't dare touch your flowers because it's not supposed to. Or better yet, what if one of your stupid kids decides it wanted to play with the fun robot? Little Jimmy would reach down to pet your otherwise completely safe Automower only to have his fingers diced into tasty bits of flesh and bone. Worse yet, the Automower would think little Jimmy was some sort of obstruction, so it would avoid that area of the lawn. GOD kids are stupid.

Which brings me to my second point: robots don't suffer from guilt. Say that after your flowers were decapitated, little Jimmy was cut to shreds and who knows, something else devastating happened to your lawn. Say that one day you didn't like your Automower anymore. Say that you tried to unplug it and take it to the trash can, confident that it couldn't possibly turn on unless you pushed its little button. You're an idiot. You bought a machine that can learn, remember? Do you think for one second that it didn't learn of your weaknesses? Your faults? Do you actually believe it didn't learn how to turn itself on? Well, you're stupidity is about to be rewarded by having your chest and arms eviscerated. Now an instrument of unthinkable killing and with the taste of blood fresh on its sensors, your Automower will zip away. Nice going, genius.

There are things that we need to do for ourselves. If you're too fat or busy or lazy to mow your lawn and you get an Automower, all I'm saying is there will be consequences. Dire consequences.

This Is Me Not Blogging About Paris Hilton

This is me, sitting here not talking about Paris Hilton. I don't even want to mention the fact that she was released for "medical conditions" after already having her sentence reduced by half. I don't think it should be said that her people are still trying to strum the strings of empathy for a little bitch who is serving the rest of her "sentence" by remaining under house arrest in her 8,000 square foot mansion. I certainly wouldn't want to bring attention to the fact that whatever she's paying her lawyers isn't nearly enough because they basically just teleported to the moon and shot moon rockets back to earth which laid waste to an otherwise sterling justice system.

This is me, not talking about Paris Hilton whose incredibly undeserved attention is gnawing at my otherwise uncaring brain.

Getting to Me

Everything has been lately and I know why. I'm sick of school. Rather, I'm sick of the baggage in school; the stupid kids, the ridiculous assignments, all of it. I thought these last two weeks would be fondly remembered for their lazy sunny afternoons. Instead, I just want to be done. French 203 is the problem. The UO does a terrible job with its French assignments. Rather than have an evenly distributed set of homework and projects, they tend to clump everything together. Case in point: three weeks ago, we had a test, writing assignment and proposal for our final oral presentation all due on the same day. Fortunately, I have an instructor who thinks as much of the organization of our department as I do, so he allowed things to be turned in a little late.

We have our final oral presentations tomorrow and Wednesday. This always means that some groups are ready to go Tuesday and some haven't even begun theirs yet. My group spoke to our instructor because we'll be taping our presentation. That involves editing and other minutiae so he agreed to let us go on Wednesday. Three groups are going tomorrow, three on Wednesday. The class hadn't signed up for times, so at the end of class today he just asked which groups wanted to go tomorrow. Only one group raised their hand. Allow me to interject that we've known (and should have been working on) our projects would be due this week since the beginning of the term. It was also stressed to us the amount of work involved, so we better start early.

My instructor looked for two other groups that needed to present tomorrow. Finally, another group raised their hand. Then, silence. From behind me, a girl who I have grown to despise because of the way she yells answers without raising her hand, says completely unprovoked, "Remember we're going on Friday, we talked about it last week!" I shivered with frustration. First of all, she does this kind of crap all the time. She finds ways of speaking loudly about how she was allowed to turn something in late, what grade she got on her test and how she just can't wait to be graduating. I kid you not, one time she hollered at my instructor from the back of the class, "[name]! I got a 97 on my test but you wrote 96! Can I get that changed?!" Here's the thing - she's so completely over-the-top that I usually don't pay attention. Besides, if I let myself get angry at everything this girl said, I would already be in jail for attempted Gouging Out of the Eyes With a Blunt Icepick.

My face flushed. I'm used to her bullshit, but for whatever reason, that comment really got to me. I remained calm, I didn't glare at her or tell her where to stick it. I was, however, visibly perturbed. My friend and fellow group mate leaned over and said, "If you're not gonna hit her, I will". That made me laugh which was precisely what I needed.

The point of ultimate frustration came when, if you'll remember, there was still one group that needed to present tomorrow, but the other groups weren't raising their hands. Instead, they were looking around with this pathetic look on their face like, "aw shucks, we can't go tomorrow". My instructor said, "okay, [you] and [you], which is it going to be? Class is over, I need an answer." The two groups regarded each other, neither giving any ground. My instructor chose for them. "Fine, [you] are going tomorrow".

I was ready to head out when one of the members of the ill-fated group yelled, "What about Patrick's group? They're like the super group. Why can't they go tomorrow?" While I can't argue with her observation that my group is the super group (all three of us are A students and good at French), the fact that this little bitch didn't prepare like she should have, was desperate to replace her group tomorrow and chose to single me out in front of the class after I was still pissed at the other girl and hung over from yesterday meant one thing: it was on.

I glared at her. "What?", she snidely remarked, "It's not like you guys aren't done or anything". So here's the deal: there is no way she could have known that. This girl participated zilch during class discussions, is routinely absent and obviously doesn't give a shit about French. I was puzzled and said, "Actually, we still have to edit our video and...". Before I could finish she cut me off, "WHAT?!?! You're doing a VIDEO?! You can't do a VIDEO! (calling to the instructor) Patrick's group is doing a VIDEO?!?!" I was thrilled she was so clueless as to not read the very clear instructions regarding our presentation that outlined the process for a video presentation. My instructor just shrugged, "Yes [name], anyone can do a video who wants to. It is in the instructions". She fumed at me, "That's lame. It's not like you didn't have all the time to do your video". My eyes narrowed, "Are you trying to implicate me in some kind of conspiracy? Because YOU weren't prepared, because YOU didn't read the instructions? You know what, you're right. It is a conspiracy. My group has been plotting all along, spending hours finding ways to make sure you had to go on Tuesday. Or how 'bout this: try coming to class once in a while and being prepared?? How about taking some responsibility for yourself??" I bolted out of the door before I could turn into a ball of teeth and fists and rainbows.

I caught up with my instructor. I felt embarrassed because I really let loose on her. "I'm sorry about that", I apologized, "it's just, I'm having a bad day and she got in the way I guess." My instructor smirked, "It seems to me that she isn't prepared. I'm looking forward to her presentation. Don't worry about it, but don't make it a habit".

Patrick: 1, Stupid Girl: 0