Godheval

Read More »

A world such as ours – where child slavery and the murder of innocents take place on a regular basis – cannot possibly be a reflection of a benevolent divinity.  I am willing to accept that some grandiose plan for the universe would not necessarily be to the benefit of humanity, which is only a mote in a cosmic sea.  But an all-powerful god or gods – meaning they have the power to stop travesty – cannot be said to be benevolent if they do not stop that travesty.

On the other hand – and this is the idea I am more likely to accept – is that to whatever extent god or gods exist physically or metaphysically, or any higher beings exist that have a hand in the proceedings of the universe, they are not all-powerful, not all-knowing, and are completely fallible.

And if the nature of the gods is more along the lines of what I suspect – that they are extensions of the human collective consciousness – then it makes sense that they would be imperfect.

Following this line of thinking not only allows me to reconcile the concept of conscious divinities with the reality of human suffering, but makes the god(s) seem more personable, more accessible.  Because we have that in common – fallibility.

But to think that a god or gods could be both omnipotent and benevolent is to be completely delusional or intellectually lazy.  They can be one or the other – or neither – but certainly not both.

«

Read More »

In fact, not too long ago, I trivialized the issue of gays’ right to marry, not because I would deny them anything, but because I also trivialized marriage.  I also dismissed the issue under the pretext that there were “more important” things to talk about.  But in truth, it is not my place to say what should and shouldn’t be important to other people, especially when I do not even have the ability to relate to their experiences.  It was not until very recently that I recognized my privilege as a straight person to even be able to take marriage for granted.

What we must remember in dismissing or downplaying the significance of marriage is that we – as straight people – will presumably always have the option of marrying or not. We can turn our noses up at the institution now, only to change our minds as we get older and – perhaps inevitably – become more conservative in our thinking.

Same-sex couples do not have this luxury. So I think, while we should continue making arguments for universal civil unions as the truly legally-recognizable social contract between partners, we should maintain some sensitivity to the privileges we have as straight people, and not begrudge anyone the desire to form that contract in the way of their choosing – be it “marriage” in some official ceremony, or civil union before a judge.

«

Read More »

President Shimon Peres of Israel

What he said:

“I think the Iranian nation will topple these leaders – leaders that do not serve the people. In the end, people will understand this.”

and:

“To our dismay, our diplomatic relations are at a low point flowing from the desires leading the current leaders of your land to act in every way possible against the state of Israel and its people, but I am confident that the day we are hoping for is not far, when the good neighborly relations and the cooperation will flourish in all fields for the welfare of our nations and for the betterment of our common future.”

Why he should shut up:

Today President Obama released a video calling for a new relationship between the United States and Iran, a symbolic gesture given that it came on Nowruz, the start of the Iranian new year.  Obama, as usual, was savvy and tactical in giving his speech, even going as far as to refer to Iran by its official name – the Islamic Republic of Iran, something which shows recognition of its current leadership.  It is under this current leadership – following in the wake of the revolution of 1979 – under which Iran-U.S. relations deteriorated, beginning with the hostage crisis that same year, and perhaps culminating in George W. Bush naming Iran a member of the “Axis of Evil”.  Obama’s gesture throws such combative rhetoric out the window by accepting and acknowledging the current leadership in a proactive way.

Unfortunately, Peres timed his comments to coincide with those of Obama, as if he were joining in this venture towards peaceful collaboration.  The trouble is that while Obama’s words were friendly and optimistic, those of Peres were critical and condescending.  Not only does he take legitimacy away from the Iranian leadership by suggesting that the people will overthrow them, but he places the blame for poor relations between Iran and Israel solely and squarely on their shoulders.

One would think by listening to Peres that Israel was a country singlemindedly dedicated to Middle East peace, while the Iranian leadership are merely the antagonists standing in the way of that goal.  It would seem to imply that Israel’s own actions played no role in its adversarial relationship with Iran or other Arab nations, which is not only ridiculous but offensive.

Furthermore, Peres seems to be suggesting that at least since 1979 the people of Iran have been misguided in their acceptance of the current leadership, and that is only a matter of time before they become “enlightened” and see things the right way (i.e. the Israeli way), and overthrow those leaders.  Such an implication undermines the overwhelming public support that came behind the 1979 revolution, and the judgment of the Iranian people in selecting their Presidents since then.  Oh, poor misguided Iranians, one day you will see the truth!

At a time when any peace in the Middle East is tenuous, the next phase of war only an impulse away, the country at the center of the tensions might not want to get on the high horse when speaking to those who view it as the antagonist.

So President Peres, with all due respect, please shut the hell up.

Pope Benedict XVI

Ever since taking over the papacy in April 2005, the new Pope has become notorious for making controversial statements.  In October 2006, he quoted a 14th century emperor – who at the time was at war with the Muslim Ottoman Empire – saying:

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Within the context of the intensely adversarial relationship between that Christianity and Islam through the proxy of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, the quote’s obvious bias can be understood.  In 2006, without any pretext, Benedict’s use of the quote was irresponsible and offensive.

Most recently, during a trip to Cameroon, he said:

“HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.”

These comments, which fly in the face of every scientific conclusion with regards to condoms and HIV prevention, place ideology above practicality. Such comments, made by a figure of immense visibility and influence, to the people of a region where millions are infected with HIV/AIDS, are outright dangerous.  They undermine the efforts of health workers and global initiatives to combat the deadly disease.

All for the sake of pushing for abstinence, a position the Pope also says should be taken by homosexuals indefinitely in order to uphold the mandate of the creation, but on which, hypocritically, he was more lenient when it came to the moral weaknesses – i.e. pedophilia – of his fellow clergymen.

As his tour of Africa continued, the Pope offered some additional words of wisdom, this time drawing upon the church’s pro-life ideology:

“Today it is high time to place greater emphasis on this: every human being, every tiny human person, however weak, is created in the image and likeness of God.  [...] Every person must live. Death must not prevail over life. Death will never have the last word.”

Actually, sir, death by its very definition does have the last word.  Now while I recognize that he is invoking the Christian ideal of an afterlife, a person so focused on the afterlife might not be the best one to talk to those who are struggling to survive in this life.  In talking about earthly issues such as abortion and the AIDS epidemic, it might be prudent to limit the discussion to this realm.

And so, your Holiness, with all due respect, just shut the hell up.

«

Read More »

Have you ever heard about Juiced with O.J. Simpson, the ill-fated television show where he played pranks on people?  Even if the show itself had any merits whatsoever – which it did not – there’s something cavalier about a man who most people think committed a most heinous crime engaging in buffoonery.  It probably would’ve been prudent for Simpson to keep a low profile – maybe for the rest of his life.

There was also his unbelievably audacious, insensitive, and downright unethical writing of “If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer”, a book in which Simpson explains in detail how he would’ve committed the murders, but maintaining of course, that he didn’t.  The mere premise of this book is offensive enough, but one look at the cover plumbs the depths of the asshole that is O.J. Simpson.

I know very little about the Las Vegas case, but again we have a situation where a man who, thoroughly vilified by society – deserved or not – should probably be nowhere near a hotel where he has at least some knowledge of a pending robbery.  His inability to keep a low profile, and his obvious penchant for making the worst conceivable decisions, is what makes him an asshole, and what more or less ensures that he will receive no sympathy from most people.  While I admire SALI’s devotion to righting injustice, they are probably alone on this one.

In other news about assholes, the rage in government over the AIG bonuses has led to one senator – Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa – suggesting that the corrupt executives end it all.  He was quoted as saying:

“I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little better toward them is if they follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, ‘I am sorry,’ and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide.”

Ouch.  I wonder if AIG life insurance policies cover suicide…

«