Now that ISIS hostage Kayla Mueller has been confirmed killed, in whatever circumstances, folks can renew the debate over whether the U.S. did enough to secure her release.
People want to know if the government tried harder to retrieve Bowe Bergdahl (an alleged army deserter) than it did to get Kayla.
In a TV interview, Kayla's parents were recently asked if the government acted fast enough to attempt a rescue. They were asked if they felt the government bore some responsibility for what happened to her.
Here's a question nobody asked them: What responsibility do you bear for what happened to your daughter?
The TV news critters showed a Skyped message from Kayla saying something like: "I hope I never forget that everything happens for a reason."
In a letter written in the spring of 2014 (maybe eight months into her captivity), she said: "I remember mom always telling me that all in all in the end the only one you really have is God."
She writes of submitting to God's will. Oddly, that's an attitude at the center of Islam. (The word "islam" means submission.)
At some point we might want to speculate how much Kayla's actions as an aid worker were based on her Christian faith. I think we can conclude the faith in question was at least reinforced by her parents.
(Actually, those beliefs were almost certainly placed in her head by her parents and later reinforced by the culture in which she lived—a culture that wholeheartedly approves this nonsense.)
So, do Kayla's parents bear any responsibility for putting their daughter on the path that led to ISIS captivity?
I've read they were surprised to hear Kayla had left her aid work in Turkey to enter the Syrian war zone. If they ever considered urging her to get out of there, they might have been stopped by their daughter's sense of duty, her selfless joy at being able to help people.
I think it's clear from her letter she held an expectation that God would protect her in Syria. Or, at the very least, that she thought getting kidnapped was also part of God's plan for her. In any case, she wasn't complaining.
"Everything happens for a reason."
When people make that statement they appear to be saying that God (or some other supernatural force) is directing their lives.
If you jump out of a window high up on a tall building, a very natural force called gravity will direct you toward the ground at an accelerating pace until the electromagnetic forces associated with the atoms of your body come into contact with similar forces attendant to the pavement you've just smashed into.
That's cause and effect. Very open and above board—not the sort of thing people are referring to when they talk about stuff happening for a reason.
They're talking about hidden forces. Occult forces. Reasoning forces. Actions put in motion by forces that possess personalities. One is urged to accept such forces in one's life, but in a different way than accepting gravity or other prosaic forces.
Supernatural forces are usually thought to be benign. You are meant to be on the path you find yourself. Take heart, brother. You're being guided by a higher power for a higher purpose. All will become clear some day.
It may be African slaves were taught Christianity in America so they could take comfort in the fact their lives (as slaves) were in complete compliance with God's will. Look forward to Heaven, sure, but in the meantime pick that cotton.
(As a bonus, slave owners could sleep well knowing all was right with the world, according to God's mysterious plan. God loves white people!)
The fact is, there's no evidence any of us are on a path directed by an unseen power, benign or otherwise. But that doesn't mean folks aren't capable of seeing such a wondrous path.
Being human means you can expect to receive constant reminders from the universe that every random thought in your head is literally true. If you know you're on God's path, you'll find proof of that fact everywhere you look.
Sure, it means nothing—but it can affect everything.
It can lead you into very dangerous situations, buoyed up by a deeply held faith in your Higher Power.
If Kayla Mueller's parents instructed her in God's glorious actions, they bear some responsibility for placing her in harm's way. Fortunately for them, they can also take comfort in knowing they (and she) did exactly the right thing.
And they know she's in Heaven right now with Jesus.
It all makes perfect sense when you know how to process the clues. And we definitely have the knack for that.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Friday, February 20, 2015
THREADING THE NEEDLE
President Obama has again attempted to pry ISIS-type terror groups away from their Islamic base. He rejects the notion such groups are in any way inspired by religious content for their horrendous operations.
It's like trying to say the actions of the Spanish Inquisition were unrelated to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
(According to former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, if Obama is not willing to condemn Islam for terrorism—at least partially—the man must not love America. Really?)
The fact is, potential fighters flock to the war zone to support ISIS for pretty much Simon-pure religion-based reasons. ISIS is actively defending Islam from American attacks and the newcomers simply want to do their part.
Obama naturally says the U.S. is not in a war against Islam, but such a statement cannot counteract the facts of our history of invasion in Muslim countries, or the way we always end up with "collateral" blood on our hands.
It's a nightmare scenario: People attack us and if we fight back we legitimize the original attack.
It's a situation that calls for the most subtle response, a procedure not in the inventory of our political system, where bold action puts you in power and keeps you there.
In retrospect (at the very least), it's easy to see we should never have invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq did nothing to us and was not a threat. And we ended up dealing with Osama Bin Laden—the real 9/11 attacker—in a third country, without invading.
You can say we're not in a war against Islam, that our actions only look that way to lunatics, but this position only works if you can convince the world that groups like ISIS are in no way motivated by religious matters.
Which is ridiculous.
So, what do we do now? How do we move forward? Simply denying we're fighting this religious war cuts no ice with the people who count. Actions speak louder, and in their eyes all our actions are despicable.
It's not enough to explain to the world that we get it, that it really does look like we're attacking Islam, and appeal to Islamic leaders to guide us out of this dilemma. (Though it helps that some of the more moderate Muslim countries are losing patience with ISIS and their bloody shenanigans.) In any case, we seem unwilling to make such a statement.
To reach the real problem we need to delve several layers below our dicey military actions.
Go deep enough, you'll find a fundamental jam-up caused by the fact human beings are primitive lunatics and likely to act badly for all sorts of bizarre reasons.
Well, we're not going to fix that one any time soon, if ever.
But move one layer up from there, and we discover a mountain of dangerous nonsense we can at least try to chip away: religion.
The origins of religion are bound up in early man's profound misunderstanding of how the universe operates. We bestowed upon inanimate objects a supernatural personality we could appeal to when we needed something done for us: a successful hunt, a good crop, protection from bad weather and hungry animals.
We foolishly thought we could bargain with the universe on a personal level, that we could reason with it for our safety and wellbeing. Our powers of reasoning were (and are) so faulty we actually saw positive results from those encounters—results that were in fact purely random.
Turns out, we're easily duped. As far as we know, our prayers are answered. Maybe not every time, but often enough to bolster our belief in the system we've invented.
(Or, more likely, in the system of belief invented by some hard and noisy fellow who is driven to impose it on us.)
Over the years, science has attempted to demonstrate that the universe operates by way of a short list of impersonal rules. Unfortunately, science has had little affect on most individuals. Superstition holds sway over us now and in the forseeable future.
It would be impossible for an American president, even one past the middle of his last term, to stand up and declare religion itself at least a smidge responsible for the problems we face here on earth.
But until something like that happens, we will be stuck trying to apply secondary solutions to primary problems.
On the other hand, maybe we deserve it.
It's like trying to say the actions of the Spanish Inquisition were unrelated to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
(According to former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, if Obama is not willing to condemn Islam for terrorism—at least partially—the man must not love America. Really?)
The fact is, potential fighters flock to the war zone to support ISIS for pretty much Simon-pure religion-based reasons. ISIS is actively defending Islam from American attacks and the newcomers simply want to do their part.
Obama naturally says the U.S. is not in a war against Islam, but such a statement cannot counteract the facts of our history of invasion in Muslim countries, or the way we always end up with "collateral" blood on our hands.
It's a nightmare scenario: People attack us and if we fight back we legitimize the original attack.
It's a situation that calls for the most subtle response, a procedure not in the inventory of our political system, where bold action puts you in power and keeps you there.
In retrospect (at the very least), it's easy to see we should never have invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq did nothing to us and was not a threat. And we ended up dealing with Osama Bin Laden—the real 9/11 attacker—in a third country, without invading.
You can say we're not in a war against Islam, that our actions only look that way to lunatics, but this position only works if you can convince the world that groups like ISIS are in no way motivated by religious matters.
Which is ridiculous.
So, what do we do now? How do we move forward? Simply denying we're fighting this religious war cuts no ice with the people who count. Actions speak louder, and in their eyes all our actions are despicable.
It's not enough to explain to the world that we get it, that it really does look like we're attacking Islam, and appeal to Islamic leaders to guide us out of this dilemma. (Though it helps that some of the more moderate Muslim countries are losing patience with ISIS and their bloody shenanigans.) In any case, we seem unwilling to make such a statement.
To reach the real problem we need to delve several layers below our dicey military actions.
Go deep enough, you'll find a fundamental jam-up caused by the fact human beings are primitive lunatics and likely to act badly for all sorts of bizarre reasons.
Well, we're not going to fix that one any time soon, if ever.
But move one layer up from there, and we discover a mountain of dangerous nonsense we can at least try to chip away: religion.
The origins of religion are bound up in early man's profound misunderstanding of how the universe operates. We bestowed upon inanimate objects a supernatural personality we could appeal to when we needed something done for us: a successful hunt, a good crop, protection from bad weather and hungry animals.
We foolishly thought we could bargain with the universe on a personal level, that we could reason with it for our safety and wellbeing. Our powers of reasoning were (and are) so faulty we actually saw positive results from those encounters—results that were in fact purely random.
Turns out, we're easily duped. As far as we know, our prayers are answered. Maybe not every time, but often enough to bolster our belief in the system we've invented.
(Or, more likely, in the system of belief invented by some hard and noisy fellow who is driven to impose it on us.)
Over the years, science has attempted to demonstrate that the universe operates by way of a short list of impersonal rules. Unfortunately, science has had little affect on most individuals. Superstition holds sway over us now and in the forseeable future.
It would be impossible for an American president, even one past the middle of his last term, to stand up and declare religion itself at least a smidge responsible for the problems we face here on earth.
But until something like that happens, we will be stuck trying to apply secondary solutions to primary problems.
On the other hand, maybe we deserve it.
Monday, February 16, 2015
HATE CRIMES
The Muslim community of North Carolina (and beyond) is convinced the recent murder of three young Muslims is a hate crime—convinced those individuals were killed because of their religion and nothing else.
Folks know this to be true. They also know the police are covering it up, clinging like idiots to a theory of the crime that involves a disputed parking spot, of all things.
Local Muslims take this position: Nobody ever kills anybody over a parking spot. Or loud music, or whatever. They know there are bigger issues in play here. They know this as well as they know Allah himself.
(In fact, I think I can say they know what they know in exactly the same way they know Allah.)
President Obama issued a general statement condemning crimes based on intolerance of another's race or religion or how they "look." The FBI will be investigating the murders. From outside the country comes a condemnation of this act of "terror" (starting with Saudi Arabia; other countries will surely follow).
The problem is that if it turns out the guy really did kill those people over a parking spot or other mundane concern, the folks who currently know otherwise might have to face the possibility the source of their knowledge is somehow faulty.
Ha-ha, just kidding!
There is virtually no way anybody will ever come to such a ridiculous conclusion. Our brains are perfectly protected from such bizarre notions. The organ of thought is an impregnable fortress of Human Knowledge and always will be.
It's the one thing we all know for sure: We can't be wrong.
Now, the fellow who's accused of the murders is a blogging atheist. He makes fun of peoples' belief in the Bible (according to the network news). If he should kill anyone from the category of "believer" (of whatever persuasion), the event ought to be characterized (in theory) as a de facto hate crime.
Being against religion, he is clearly the enemy of all who hold religion to be true—and that's pretty much everybody in America. As a consequence, he's likely to face extra legal jeopardy whenever he chances to murder an American. (Murdering a Frenchman would be a safer bet; something like 25% of those guys are non-believers.)
Same deal when somebody kills a black person in America. The killer must also be a racist. Especially if the triggerman is a cop. Protesters swarm the streets with signs saying "Black Lives Matter." The new banner ("Muslim Lives Matter") is already trending.
I can't argue with the signs. They're self-evidently true. I'm just not sure they're being waved for the right reasons.
Personally, I don't know if the murders in North Carolina were religion based. (I'm an agnostic on this and other matters.) Luckily, my opinion of human beings is low enough to include acts of murder over parking spots and such like. I'm not required by my ingrained thought processes to elevate every crime into a stratosphere of lofty beliefs populated by numinous beings.
I'm much more likely to believe a religious person will murder another one over a religious matter—their victim's lack of belief in the proper deity or process of worship. There's a lot of history to support my feeling.
In recent days, the Bad Boys of ISIS come to mind.
Burning a man alive is, of course, a heinous crime. But let's not forget this move comes straight out of the Christian playbook.
The most recent ISIS exploit—parading 21 Coptic Christians in Gitmo-orange jumpsuits along the Libyan shore before chopping off their heads—is drawing fire from more moderate states, this time Egypt.
It's becoming clear anybody who is not a strict Sunni Muslim had better watch his six. We're all scheduled to come under the gun (or knife) at some point.
It's the New Normal.
Contrast it with the New Knowledge: "All crimes are hate crimes."
Folks know this to be true. They also know the police are covering it up, clinging like idiots to a theory of the crime that involves a disputed parking spot, of all things.
Local Muslims take this position: Nobody ever kills anybody over a parking spot. Or loud music, or whatever. They know there are bigger issues in play here. They know this as well as they know Allah himself.
(In fact, I think I can say they know what they know in exactly the same way they know Allah.)
President Obama issued a general statement condemning crimes based on intolerance of another's race or religion or how they "look." The FBI will be investigating the murders. From outside the country comes a condemnation of this act of "terror" (starting with Saudi Arabia; other countries will surely follow).
The problem is that if it turns out the guy really did kill those people over a parking spot or other mundane concern, the folks who currently know otherwise might have to face the possibility the source of their knowledge is somehow faulty.
Ha-ha, just kidding!
There is virtually no way anybody will ever come to such a ridiculous conclusion. Our brains are perfectly protected from such bizarre notions. The organ of thought is an impregnable fortress of Human Knowledge and always will be.
It's the one thing we all know for sure: We can't be wrong.
Now, the fellow who's accused of the murders is a blogging atheist. He makes fun of peoples' belief in the Bible (according to the network news). If he should kill anyone from the category of "believer" (of whatever persuasion), the event ought to be characterized (in theory) as a de facto hate crime.
Being against religion, he is clearly the enemy of all who hold religion to be true—and that's pretty much everybody in America. As a consequence, he's likely to face extra legal jeopardy whenever he chances to murder an American. (Murdering a Frenchman would be a safer bet; something like 25% of those guys are non-believers.)
Same deal when somebody kills a black person in America. The killer must also be a racist. Especially if the triggerman is a cop. Protesters swarm the streets with signs saying "Black Lives Matter." The new banner ("Muslim Lives Matter") is already trending.
I can't argue with the signs. They're self-evidently true. I'm just not sure they're being waved for the right reasons.
Personally, I don't know if the murders in North Carolina were religion based. (I'm an agnostic on this and other matters.) Luckily, my opinion of human beings is low enough to include acts of murder over parking spots and such like. I'm not required by my ingrained thought processes to elevate every crime into a stratosphere of lofty beliefs populated by numinous beings.
I'm much more likely to believe a religious person will murder another one over a religious matter—their victim's lack of belief in the proper deity or process of worship. There's a lot of history to support my feeling.
In recent days, the Bad Boys of ISIS come to mind.
Burning a man alive is, of course, a heinous crime. But let's not forget this move comes straight out of the Christian playbook.
The most recent ISIS exploit—parading 21 Coptic Christians in Gitmo-orange jumpsuits along the Libyan shore before chopping off their heads—is drawing fire from more moderate states, this time Egypt.
It's becoming clear anybody who is not a strict Sunni Muslim had better watch his six. We're all scheduled to come under the gun (or knife) at some point.
It's the New Normal.
Contrast it with the New Knowledge: "All crimes are hate crimes."
Sunday, February 8, 2015
BUGLIOSI AND JESUS
Back in 2011 Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book called The Divinity of Doubt. Bugliosi is probably best known as the man who prosecuted the Manson Family for the Tate-LaBianca murders, which occurred in Los Angeles in the summer of '69.
In his book, Bugliosi makes the case for agnosticism in the matter of God and a number of other issues (evolution, for instance).
Though he grew up Catholic, he now finds nothing convincing there to latch onto. Oddly, he still thinks Jesus of Nazareth roamed the earth prior to the creation of the Christian church. He says the founders must have known Jesus in order for them to be sufficiently inspired to start up a religion.
I'm not so sure.
In the years following the establishment of Christianity a lot of folk went to their deaths just for refusing to deny they were Christian. People walked into public arenas knowing they were about to be torn apart by wild animals. And they did it without ever having met the man at the center of their faith.
Bugliosi's argument is akin to saying where's there's smoke there must also be fire. Does he mean to suggest all religions have their origins in a real life fellow who walked among us at some point?
Did the so-called Pagan gods hobnob with humans in the dim past, establishing their reality for future believers?
Could it be that all outlandish beliefs have a kernel of truth in them? Big Foot, Nessie, the Flying Dutchman, and (for that matter) flying saucers: Are they all based on certifiably real events and situations?
I guess an agnostic like Bugliosi would have to answer: "I don't know. Maybe yes, maybe no."
When the book was reviewed on one Catholic Website, the point was made the Church was 2000 years old and had already formulated answers to Bugliosi's objections.
Possibly the irony of that statement was lost on the author of the review. The fact the Church has stood for 2000 years is a strong refutation of its plausibility. The early Church was firmly apocalyptic, founded on the message of Jesus of Nazareth: The Kingdom of Heaven was at hand.
The time was bloody nigh, baby. The world (and the Church contained within it) should not have survived the crucifixions of its founding fathers (Peter and Paul). By the time the Gospels were being written (starting around A.D. 70), the world should already have ended.
According to Jesus of Nazareth.
It's also troubling to me that God's vessel is so leaky it needs 2000-years worth of plugs and explanations and work-arounds to make it float. If God is so powerful, why doesn't he settle the question of his existence once and for all? Why are we still pestered with arguments pro and con?
The Church can have only one explanation for this failure to act: God is like that, take it or leave it. (And if you leave it, prepare yourself for an infinite sojourn in Hell.)
But back to the martyrs who died without ever having met Jesus.
Turns out, martyrs play an important political role in the establishment of a religion. A second-century Christian apologist named Tertullian (Apologeticus) said "the blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church," a sentiment recently echoed by Pope Francis: "The blood of many Christians has become the seed of unity" (bringing together various Christian factions).
If that's true, maybe it's because of a particular error in logic favored by human beings: Folks seem to think the value of a thing is accurately reflected in the price they pay for it. (For examples of other such faulty calculations, see the section entitled "The Mathematics of God" in the book: What's Wrong With Us.)
If something comes free, people may feel justifed in having contempt for it. If, on the other hand, a thing costs a lot, it must be worth a lot.
If you're willing to give your life for something, it must literally be worth the ultimate price. If not, you'd be a rank idiot to pony-up the mortal dough. And nobody wants to think of themselves as an idiot. It's demeaning.
Bottom line: If you can be buffaloed into sacrificing yourself for a cause, you can be assured the holy cause is the most important thing ever.
So strap on your bomb vest and go on the hunt for appropriate victims. The very fact you're willing to take that action is proof your cause is just.
No matter what a steaming load of crap that cause might be.
Lovely.
In his book, Bugliosi makes the case for agnosticism in the matter of God and a number of other issues (evolution, for instance).
Though he grew up Catholic, he now finds nothing convincing there to latch onto. Oddly, he still thinks Jesus of Nazareth roamed the earth prior to the creation of the Christian church. He says the founders must have known Jesus in order for them to be sufficiently inspired to start up a religion.
I'm not so sure.
In the years following the establishment of Christianity a lot of folk went to their deaths just for refusing to deny they were Christian. People walked into public arenas knowing they were about to be torn apart by wild animals. And they did it without ever having met the man at the center of their faith.
Bugliosi's argument is akin to saying where's there's smoke there must also be fire. Does he mean to suggest all religions have their origins in a real life fellow who walked among us at some point?
Did the so-called Pagan gods hobnob with humans in the dim past, establishing their reality for future believers?
Could it be that all outlandish beliefs have a kernel of truth in them? Big Foot, Nessie, the Flying Dutchman, and (for that matter) flying saucers: Are they all based on certifiably real events and situations?
I guess an agnostic like Bugliosi would have to answer: "I don't know. Maybe yes, maybe no."
When the book was reviewed on one Catholic Website, the point was made the Church was 2000 years old and had already formulated answers to Bugliosi's objections.
Possibly the irony of that statement was lost on the author of the review. The fact the Church has stood for 2000 years is a strong refutation of its plausibility. The early Church was firmly apocalyptic, founded on the message of Jesus of Nazareth: The Kingdom of Heaven was at hand.
The time was bloody nigh, baby. The world (and the Church contained within it) should not have survived the crucifixions of its founding fathers (Peter and Paul). By the time the Gospels were being written (starting around A.D. 70), the world should already have ended.
According to Jesus of Nazareth.
It's also troubling to me that God's vessel is so leaky it needs 2000-years worth of plugs and explanations and work-arounds to make it float. If God is so powerful, why doesn't he settle the question of his existence once and for all? Why are we still pestered with arguments pro and con?
The Church can have only one explanation for this failure to act: God is like that, take it or leave it. (And if you leave it, prepare yourself for an infinite sojourn in Hell.)
But back to the martyrs who died without ever having met Jesus.
Turns out, martyrs play an important political role in the establishment of a religion. A second-century Christian apologist named Tertullian (Apologeticus) said "the blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church," a sentiment recently echoed by Pope Francis: "The blood of many Christians has become the seed of unity" (bringing together various Christian factions).
If that's true, maybe it's because of a particular error in logic favored by human beings: Folks seem to think the value of a thing is accurately reflected in the price they pay for it. (For examples of other such faulty calculations, see the section entitled "The Mathematics of God" in the book: What's Wrong With Us.)
If something comes free, people may feel justifed in having contempt for it. If, on the other hand, a thing costs a lot, it must be worth a lot.
If you're willing to give your life for something, it must literally be worth the ultimate price. If not, you'd be a rank idiot to pony-up the mortal dough. And nobody wants to think of themselves as an idiot. It's demeaning.
Bottom line: If you can be buffaloed into sacrificing yourself for a cause, you can be assured the holy cause is the most important thing ever.
So strap on your bomb vest and go on the hunt for appropriate victims. The very fact you're willing to take that action is proof your cause is just.
No matter what a steaming load of crap that cause might be.
Lovely.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)