Regular readers of this blog know that I have frequently been critical of organized religion and blame it for much of the conflict that mankind has endured throughout history: persecution, terrorism, war.
I recently learned of a so-called "peace camp," which brings together children of different religions so that they can get to know one another and learn about one another's religion. One premise is that Christians are very ignorant of Islam, Muslims are very ignorant of Christianity, and so forth. So the campers visit various houses of worship, learn about holidays and, presumably, religious texts and beliefs.
With such knowledge comes the discovery that the various religions have more in common than one might realize: all advocate peace, love, friendship, tolerance, and helping your fellow man.
The man who founded the camp says that when he looks at television, all he sees is religion depicted as motivating bombings. He wanted to counter that image. I'm sure he has a valid point.
But which is the correct view of religion? I don't want to say that either idea is totally false, even though they seem to be diametrically opposite. Well, how about this thought? Maybe religion is schizophrenic; you know, having a split personality, so that it can be both.
Maybe it depends on who is in charge, so to speak. Evidently the Koran both preaches love and tolerance, and also can be interpreted to favor violent strife against non-believers. The Judeo-Christian tradition may be similarly schizophrenic. Jesus (as I understand) advocated love, peace, forgiveness, helping the poor and disadvantaged; but the Old Testament which had been the basis for the Judaism out of which Christianity arose repeatedly contains violent images and the Old Testament god is a wrathful god who is always smiting his enemies.
Maybe it's all "in there," so to speak. Maybe it depends on what part of the text is being stressed or what a particular religious leader picks out to emphasize when he or she preaches. Sort of, who is in power right now.
To close with a little anecdote: I am reminded of a little episode from a drama I saw on TV some years ago, about a Jewish family of piano manufacturers, living in Germany in the 1930s just as the Nazis were coming to power. To reports of what was happening to the Jews, the wife says, "But how can this be happening? This is the country of Goethe, Lessing, Beethoven"--the idea being that those people represented enlightenment and tolerance.
Her husband replied, "Yes, but unfortunately they're not in power right now."
Copyright © 2011 Richard Stein
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
To-Do over Ben and Jerry's
There was a certain fracus about Ben and Jerry's (the ice cream company in Vermont) bringing out a new flavor called "Shweddy Balls." Some stores have refused to carry it; an organization of women--conservative women, as one might surmise-- has vowed to boycott Ben and Jerry's. And there was an online article about Ben and Jerry's "lewd" new flavor name.
So I have to weigh in with what I think. Ben and Jerry's, if they have any clue as to how vocal the conservative elements in America are, and how anti-sex they can be as well, certainly should have known that there would be some negative reaction. And assuming they did--and one almost has to ask, How could they not?--they deserve some credit for being daring and not risk-averse as so many businesses are. Though maybe their philosophy is like what Oscar Wilde once said: The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. So they are reaping lots of free publicity.
The sad truth is that America is pretty puritanical when it comes to sex. Some years ago I saw a debate on TV between two women, one conservative and one liberal. I think the topic was the banning of books. The woman from the conservative side was wearing a dress that buttoned high up to the neck. That her dress was not revealing was--well, revealing.
A few years ago, in Europe (I think it was in Vienna), I saw a advertisement on a sidewalk kiosk that showed an image of a couple of bare-breasted women, similar to those in a Gauguin painting. You don't--and wouldn't--see something like that in America. We're just too anti-sex and the-human-body-is-dirty-and-sinful in this country.
Have I bought the ice cream in question? No, but I might, depending on what it actually is. Ben and Jerry's makes yummy ice cream. But it's "super-premium" ice cream, high in fat content--and not for the weight-conscious or those who try to eat healthy, like me.
Update, December 24, 2011
With a little bit more to say about America's sexual puritanism I would make a new posting; but here are just two more examples:
1) When TV shows even an image (e.g. a painting or a statue--and note, NOT the real thing) of female breasts or buttocks, evidently the image has to be blurred out.
2) I learned that a Roman cup from around the time of the birth of Christ was not even allowed to be brought into the country in 1953 because it shows two pairs of male lovers.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
So I have to weigh in with what I think. Ben and Jerry's, if they have any clue as to how vocal the conservative elements in America are, and how anti-sex they can be as well, certainly should have known that there would be some negative reaction. And assuming they did--and one almost has to ask, How could they not?--they deserve some credit for being daring and not risk-averse as so many businesses are. Though maybe their philosophy is like what Oscar Wilde once said: The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. So they are reaping lots of free publicity.
The sad truth is that America is pretty puritanical when it comes to sex. Some years ago I saw a debate on TV between two women, one conservative and one liberal. I think the topic was the banning of books. The woman from the conservative side was wearing a dress that buttoned high up to the neck. That her dress was not revealing was--well, revealing.
A few years ago, in Europe (I think it was in Vienna), I saw a advertisement on a sidewalk kiosk that showed an image of a couple of bare-breasted women, similar to those in a Gauguin painting. You don't--and wouldn't--see something like that in America. We're just too anti-sex and the-human-body-is-dirty-and-sinful in this country.
Have I bought the ice cream in question? No, but I might, depending on what it actually is. Ben and Jerry's makes yummy ice cream. But it's "super-premium" ice cream, high in fat content--and not for the weight-conscious or those who try to eat healthy, like me.
Update, December 24, 2011
With a little bit more to say about America's sexual puritanism I would make a new posting; but here are just two more examples:
1) When TV shows even an image (e.g. a painting or a statue--and note, NOT the real thing) of female breasts or buttocks, evidently the image has to be blurred out.
2) I learned that a Roman cup from around the time of the birth of Christ was not even allowed to be brought into the country in 1953 because it shows two pairs of male lovers.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Not Conservatives but Libertarians (Who Don't Believe in Paying Tax)
In an earlier blog posting, I talked about conservatives who believe that they should not have to pay any taxes. I confess to an error: people who believe that should be called libertarians. I am going to try to be fair in presenting their political philosophy as regards taxation.
The argument goes like this: A person owns his labor, because it is a part of his person, and he owns his person.
Therefore he owns the fruits of his labor, that is, his wealth. And they believe that a man's right of possession of his wealth is so absolute that the government does not have the right to confiscate it.
First of all, the US Constitution says that the government shall not seize a man's property without due process of law--and the qualification, in italics, is very important.
And, as far back in human history as the ancient Egyptians, rulers and governments of every type have levied taxes. In the early days of the United States, a Supreme Court decision established the right of the government to assess taxes to pay for high schools. Also for a very long time, there have been those who resisted this or that particular tax. Look at the various "tax rebellions" in American history, as an example.
However, I would like to ask the folks who argue against taxes how they expect the fire department to be paid for, or the police, or the army, or the building of roads.
I saw a very interesting program on TV. It seems that a Harvard law professor had been speaking before a very large audience of students on various political philosophies, including Libertarianism in, presumably, a modern incarnation. He then asked three students who identified as libertarians to come forward and deal with a few questions.
One of the questions was, Should a man be prosecuted for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family? At least one of the students said Yes, maintaining that the man's theft violated another man's property rights, so he should be punished. Apparently, to this man, the right of property is so absolute that there can be no mitigating circumstances. I can't help but be reminded of 19th-century (or maybe 18th-century) England, where the thief in question would definitely have gone to prison. Personally, I have to say, "That is not a nice young man. He has no humanity."
Copyright © 2011 by Richard
The argument goes like this: A person owns his labor, because it is a part of his person, and he owns his person.
Therefore he owns the fruits of his labor, that is, his wealth. And they believe that a man's right of possession of his wealth is so absolute that the government does not have the right to confiscate it.
First of all, the US Constitution says that the government shall not seize a man's property without due process of law--and the qualification, in italics, is very important.
And, as far back in human history as the ancient Egyptians, rulers and governments of every type have levied taxes. In the early days of the United States, a Supreme Court decision established the right of the government to assess taxes to pay for high schools. Also for a very long time, there have been those who resisted this or that particular tax. Look at the various "tax rebellions" in American history, as an example.
However, I would like to ask the folks who argue against taxes how they expect the fire department to be paid for, or the police, or the army, or the building of roads.
I saw a very interesting program on TV. It seems that a Harvard law professor had been speaking before a very large audience of students on various political philosophies, including Libertarianism in, presumably, a modern incarnation. He then asked three students who identified as libertarians to come forward and deal with a few questions.
One of the questions was, Should a man be prosecuted for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family? At least one of the students said Yes, maintaining that the man's theft violated another man's property rights, so he should be punished. Apparently, to this man, the right of property is so absolute that there can be no mitigating circumstances. I can't help but be reminded of 19th-century (or maybe 18th-century) England, where the thief in question would definitely have gone to prison. Personally, I have to say, "That is not a nice young man. He has no humanity."
Copyright © 2011 by Richard
Friday, October 21, 2011
When Personal Is Really Nothing of the Sort
It all started more than 60 years ago, when television was beginning to enter a lot of American homes. The host of the show would break from the regular show content, turn to face the camera, hold up a pack of cigarettes, and start to extol the advantages of that particular brand of cigarettes (yes, they used to have cigarette commercials on TV, and yes, rather than "breaking" to have a well-demarcated commercial that was shot on another set, the host—say, Arthur Godfrey, for anyone old enough to remember him-- performed the commercial.
The brilliant idea of the people who made TV—or the sponsors who paid for it—was to make the commercial message "personal" by having it seem that the host was speaking directly and specially to you.
By now we are so used to these devices that we don't give them any thought. If we did, we'd find them pretty ridiculous. The other day I saw a commercial for a cough remedy. A guy in bed is talking to the camera to complain that the over-the-counter medication he took didn't help his cold symptoms. Who is he talking to? Me? The cameraman? Why doesn't he say, "Hey, who are you and what are you doing in my bedroom?" Is he used to strange people in his bedroom?
And a voice explains that what he took doesn't work for coughs. Hey, who the hell is that? Not only, presumably, yet another person in the guy's bedroom—since whoever owns that voice heard what the guy said—but someone we can't see. Why doesn't the guy in bed say, "Whoa, now I've got invisible people in my bedroom!"
One thing I hate, and don't quite grasp the reason for: At some point TV "spokespersons" who do commercials began the practice of talking for a good minute or two and only then saying, "Hi, I'm Ann Hoggis Torde." Why don't they start out saying Hi and introducing themselves?
Written things are personalized to or for us, also, in ways we don't give much thought to. It's been part of technology for a long time that not only can form letters addressed to us have our names and addresses in the same type as the rest of the letter (this is a feature called "mail merge" and goes back to the early days of word processing and even before, when there started to be sophisticated typewriters that could read name-and-address records from a paper tape—if I'm remembering this stuff correctly). A similar technology lets catalogs be printed with your address, and those form letters, again, have your first name in the middle, so that, supposedly, you feel they're written personally and especially to you. Of course we don't believe that at all, but maybe when these things were first used, the recipients really believed that.
Recently I joined a web site (for which you have to pay, or subscribe) that gives you ratings of home remodeling businesses, plumbers, professional services, and so forth. Then I got a mailing from them that says, "Welcome to A___ L__, we're ridiculously happy to have you." Not just happy, but "ridiculously" happy. Wow, they must think I'm really special, I guess.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
The brilliant idea of the people who made TV—or the sponsors who paid for it—was to make the commercial message "personal" by having it seem that the host was speaking directly and specially to you.
By now we are so used to these devices that we don't give them any thought. If we did, we'd find them pretty ridiculous. The other day I saw a commercial for a cough remedy. A guy in bed is talking to the camera to complain that the over-the-counter medication he took didn't help his cold symptoms. Who is he talking to? Me? The cameraman? Why doesn't he say, "Hey, who are you and what are you doing in my bedroom?" Is he used to strange people in his bedroom?
And a voice explains that what he took doesn't work for coughs. Hey, who the hell is that? Not only, presumably, yet another person in the guy's bedroom—since whoever owns that voice heard what the guy said—but someone we can't see. Why doesn't the guy in bed say, "Whoa, now I've got invisible people in my bedroom!"
One thing I hate, and don't quite grasp the reason for: At some point TV "spokespersons" who do commercials began the practice of talking for a good minute or two and only then saying, "Hi, I'm Ann Hoggis Torde." Why don't they start out saying Hi and introducing themselves?
Written things are personalized to or for us, also, in ways we don't give much thought to. It's been part of technology for a long time that not only can form letters addressed to us have our names and addresses in the same type as the rest of the letter (this is a feature called "mail merge" and goes back to the early days of word processing and even before, when there started to be sophisticated typewriters that could read name-and-address records from a paper tape—if I'm remembering this stuff correctly). A similar technology lets catalogs be printed with your address, and those form letters, again, have your first name in the middle, so that, supposedly, you feel they're written personally and especially to you. Of course we don't believe that at all, but maybe when these things were first used, the recipients really believed that.
Recently I joined a web site (for which you have to pay, or subscribe) that gives you ratings of home remodeling businesses, plumbers, professional services, and so forth. Then I got a mailing from them that says, "Welcome to A___ L__, we're ridiculously happy to have you." Not just happy, but "ridiculously" happy. Wow, they must think I'm really special, I guess.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Some Roots of the Conservative Mindset in America
Norway may be the classic example of what at one time in America was called the welfare state. The government provides for many human needs, including health care; and in turn, taxes are high.
A majority of the people in Norway—of course not everybody—think it's a good system and are happy with it.
This would never fly in America. I even think that if Social Security were up for a vote in our Congress right now, it would not pass.
There is a lot of anti-government feeling in America and even a conviction that the government cannot do things well because it is too bureaucratic and wasteful of taxpayers' money. Conservatives would like many things left to private enterprise and, for example, would like to privatize Social Security.
Okay, maybe you know all this. Let's look at sort of a history of ideas in America for a bit. I've blamed Ronald Reagan for boosting the idea that big government is a bad thing. But he didn't originate that way of thinking, it's a result of the history of this country. For a long time there's been an ethos in America that esteems personal independence and self-reliance. It's the vision of the pioneer on the frontier who might have had no one around to aid him. Maybe even the Army or Cavalry was not available, most of the time, to help him defend himself against hostile Indians.
So the noble American pioneer is the very picture of self-reliance. He does it all himself, building his house, plowing his fields, making most of what he needs, etc.
But this figure is pretty much obsolete. And why should not needing the government mean despising the government and saying that the government should not aid that guy over there? I'm not sure, but there seems to be a strong idea of "What I need and want (or don't want) should be okay for you, too."
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
A majority of the people in Norway—of course not everybody—think it's a good system and are happy with it.
This would never fly in America. I even think that if Social Security were up for a vote in our Congress right now, it would not pass.
There is a lot of anti-government feeling in America and even a conviction that the government cannot do things well because it is too bureaucratic and wasteful of taxpayers' money. Conservatives would like many things left to private enterprise and, for example, would like to privatize Social Security.
Okay, maybe you know all this. Let's look at sort of a history of ideas in America for a bit. I've blamed Ronald Reagan for boosting the idea that big government is a bad thing. But he didn't originate that way of thinking, it's a result of the history of this country. For a long time there's been an ethos in America that esteems personal independence and self-reliance. It's the vision of the pioneer on the frontier who might have had no one around to aid him. Maybe even the Army or Cavalry was not available, most of the time, to help him defend himself against hostile Indians.
So the noble American pioneer is the very picture of self-reliance. He does it all himself, building his house, plowing his fields, making most of what he needs, etc.
But this figure is pretty much obsolete. And why should not needing the government mean despising the government and saying that the government should not aid that guy over there? I'm not sure, but there seems to be a strong idea of "What I need and want (or don't want) should be okay for you, too."
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
A Word for Conservatives
Ronald Reagan, when he was running for president, did a pretty good job of convincing a lot of Americans that "government is the problem," and we'd all be better off with less government regulation, smaller government bureaucracy, and so on. A lot of people believed what he said, and still, some 30 years later, it's common to hear people say that government is bad.
To these people I say, if you don't like government, let me make a suggestion for you. Move to Mississippi, where there are very low taxes. Also--just coincidentally--they have the worst education, the lowest literacy, the lowest life expectancy, the greatest rate of obesity. They rank at the bottom of almost every list. All because of very low government spending--which correlates with the low taxes they have.
At the other extreme might be a country like Norway, where taxes are very high but the government provides nearly everything everyone could want, pretty much cradle-to-grave.
Maybe, my imaginary anti-government friends, once you've abolished the government, you might find you need to try to get together with your neighbors to arrange for fires to be put out, criminals to be caught, roads to be built, traffic lights and stop signs to be put up--oh, and how about trying to ensure the safety of the food you eat, the medicines you take. . .
Sure, you could form some kind of association with your neighbors to do these things--but then you'd have a government!
By the way, I posted this (in pretty much these words) as a comment on an AOL/Daily Finance article on the Republican candidates--and a reply to my comment called me a "commie." Nice, reasonable refutation of my ideas.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
To these people I say, if you don't like government, let me make a suggestion for you. Move to Mississippi, where there are very low taxes. Also--just coincidentally--they have the worst education, the lowest literacy, the lowest life expectancy, the greatest rate of obesity. They rank at the bottom of almost every list. All because of very low government spending--which correlates with the low taxes they have.
At the other extreme might be a country like Norway, where taxes are very high but the government provides nearly everything everyone could want, pretty much cradle-to-grave.
Maybe, my imaginary anti-government friends, once you've abolished the government, you might find you need to try to get together with your neighbors to arrange for fires to be put out, criminals to be caught, roads to be built, traffic lights and stop signs to be put up--oh, and how about trying to ensure the safety of the food you eat, the medicines you take. . .
Sure, you could form some kind of association with your neighbors to do these things--but then you'd have a government!
By the way, I posted this (in pretty much these words) as a comment on an AOL/Daily Finance article on the Republican candidates--and a reply to my comment called me a "commie." Nice, reasonable refutation of my ideas.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Reading HuffPost: How Any Liberal and/or Gay Can Get Very Disheartened
I mentioned in an earlier posting that I have been spending time reading articles on AOL/HuffPost, reading other readers' comments, writing my own comments and replying to other comments.
I think I spend too much time doing this and I am resolving to stop doing it, not because of the time I'm spending but because it's too discouraging to read what other people think and say.
For one thing, there are so many conservatives who want to bash Obama and the "libs" (or, one time, "libbs"). They demonstrate the stereotypes and animosity they hold. Of course they are entitled to their opinion, and I must recognize that there are people out there—and even a great many people—who do not or would not agree with some of my ideas. But it's looking like America is getting to be very polarized; there could almost be another civil war, I sometimes think.
Secondly, any time there is an article relating in any way to homosexuality (and HuffPost has a subsection called "Gay Voices"), all the homophobes come out of the woodwork. They are quick to state their opinion that homosexuality is wrong, it's immoral, it's a sin (their Bible tells them that). One woman said thinking about it "makes her skin crawl."
It's a disease, a disorder, it's sick, it's unnatural, it's evil. We've heard all this before. We've been hearing it for many years. And all this anti-gay prejudice is one reason why being gay is still difficult (even though, supposedly, things have gotten better in the last 50 years), and why there is a much higher rate of suicide among gay teens than for non-gay young people in the same age group.
And people will chime in with their disbelief about climate change and their antipathy to illegal immigrants (as I said elsewhere, this usually boils down to "we hate Mexicans").
All in all, I see so much bigotry, ignorance, close-mindedness, belief in misconceptions and discredited ideas. (It is a sad characteristic of human beings that they are capable of believing things that are not so.) And, as I have said before, the rhetoric of the Right often includes asserting things which they even know to be incorrect. As an example, a Right-wing anti-abortion group was actually slapped with a lawsuit for incorrectly asserting that "Obamacare" (as they delight in calling it) includes taxpayer funding of abortion.
I wrote in another blog posting about my overall, philosophical view of humanity and its prospects. I think I have become more pessimistic: I don't think we're much further along than the days when people who were nonconforming or in some way odd were burned as witches.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
I think I spend too much time doing this and I am resolving to stop doing it, not because of the time I'm spending but because it's too discouraging to read what other people think and say.
For one thing, there are so many conservatives who want to bash Obama and the "libs" (or, one time, "libbs"). They demonstrate the stereotypes and animosity they hold. Of course they are entitled to their opinion, and I must recognize that there are people out there—and even a great many people—who do not or would not agree with some of my ideas. But it's looking like America is getting to be very polarized; there could almost be another civil war, I sometimes think.
Secondly, any time there is an article relating in any way to homosexuality (and HuffPost has a subsection called "Gay Voices"), all the homophobes come out of the woodwork. They are quick to state their opinion that homosexuality is wrong, it's immoral, it's a sin (their Bible tells them that). One woman said thinking about it "makes her skin crawl."
It's a disease, a disorder, it's sick, it's unnatural, it's evil. We've heard all this before. We've been hearing it for many years. And all this anti-gay prejudice is one reason why being gay is still difficult (even though, supposedly, things have gotten better in the last 50 years), and why there is a much higher rate of suicide among gay teens than for non-gay young people in the same age group.
And people will chime in with their disbelief about climate change and their antipathy to illegal immigrants (as I said elsewhere, this usually boils down to "we hate Mexicans").
All in all, I see so much bigotry, ignorance, close-mindedness, belief in misconceptions and discredited ideas. (It is a sad characteristic of human beings that they are capable of believing things that are not so.) And, as I have said before, the rhetoric of the Right often includes asserting things which they even know to be incorrect. As an example, a Right-wing anti-abortion group was actually slapped with a lawsuit for incorrectly asserting that "Obamacare" (as they delight in calling it) includes taxpayer funding of abortion.
I wrote in another blog posting about my overall, philosophical view of humanity and its prospects. I think I have become more pessimistic: I don't think we're much further along than the days when people who were nonconforming or in some way odd were burned as witches.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
