Bullies, or The Readily Apparent Impact of Religious Bigotry

In late September, four kids killed themselves because of the bullying they endured as a result of their sexual identity1. Seth Walsh, 13; Tyler Clementi, 18; Billy Lucas, 15; and Asher Brown, 13; all committed suicide because of the unfathomable torment they suffered in school. One of these scenarios, however, is more terrifying to me than the others.

I like to describe public school as a rat cage with an electrified floor: The rats have no escape from the shocks, and so they attack each other, desperate and blind with rage and terror. It is also the first time the kids will encounter people different from themselves, and they judge based upon their own egos, inflated by their parents' praise, or overcompensation for its absence.

Bullying begins early, and for the pettiest of reasons, because that's what children are.

But the problem isn't simply racism or sexism, or any kind of outmoded bigotry that the school system and greater community has a readiness to alleviate. The problem in these cases is that homophobia is still to a large extent institutionalized and propagated. Parents take their children to church, and their pastors beat Leviticus 18:22 into their heads.

There is no other rationale for homophobia. It is merely, much like many other instances of institutionalized prejudice in our society, religiously justified. The Mormons believed that Africans and African-Americans were the cursed decendents of Ham, and for women, we followed the advice of the Apostle Paul in I Timothy 2:8-15.

Leviticus 18:22 is the only mention of homosexuality in all of the Bible's 2000 pages, and we act as though it is the only verse that matters, and our children take this to heart. Our children go to school, and like their maladjusted parents, lash out at this difference because they see their parents doing it.

It is bad enough when bullying is perpetrated by children without their parents'--and society's--influence, but in this case, we are responsible as a society for the behavior of our children, not because of the media, but because of what we have expressed ever since Jerry Falwell began to run his mouth in the 80s.

The Christian conservatives may claim that they have "a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong," but when that view is passed on to their children, who lack the self-control of their parents (who also lack a degree of self-control), and harass and discriminate against their peers because of what they have been told to believe, I see a problem. If they believe in Leviticus 18:22 (the only verse in the entire OT they will ever follow), then they should take to heart Jesus' "Judge not lest ye be judged," "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and most important for their role in society, John 18:36: "My Kingdom is not of this Earth."

No one is more disenfranchised as a result of society's errors than our children. They take what they are taught--even if only when it suits them--and apply it to their own lives. Leviticus 18:22 is probably the most easily-exploited verse in the entire Bible, and it is incredibly tragic that children as young as thirteen have taken to using it as a weapon against others, just like their parents.

Tyler Clementi, of the four cases, is in my mind the most terrifying. College was the greatest time of my life. I didn't think anyone could still care who or what one is enough to harass or discriminate against him or her. By the end of high school we were supposed to have grown up at least enough to get along with each other--and if we didn't, there is too much for us to do for us to bother anyone else. This is why I find Tyler Clementi's suicide so tragic, the product of a very sick and determined mind, to record him having sex and put it on the internet in order to destroy him.

Matthew Shepherd's murder did not deliver to us the full impact of what we are teaching our children, would these four suicides in the span of a month manage to sway us?

To me, and hopefully to my readers the consequences of belief--any belief--are readily apparent, and greatly influence what we choose to believe. But many people, such as the religious leaders whom their parents listen to, may be blind to the sea of blood that follows in the wake of their words.

What about the other children who endure this every day, and who are yet still alive? Can we save them from that terrible decision they shouldn't have to make? One of my good friends told me a story of her friend who came out as a homosexual and was pulled out of school by his parents. What will happen to him? Has he any recourse? Our children don't deserve this, and we can no longer afford to propagate this belief in our society.

The object of our education system is in part to make us more tolerant of one another, and we are failing miserably. I, unfortunately, have no solution beyond that of school psychologists and tolerance programs. Unfortunately, overriding the beliefs of the parents is difficult, if not impossible because many of these parents can simply choose to homeschool their kids if they disagree with what their children are being taught, defeating the purpose of education. This means we need to offer psychological counseling to the victim, and find him or her help in order to make their life at school and/or at home more tolerable.

That said, teachers, at least in my own experience, are hugely supportive, but it's not enough to counterbalance the overwhelming oppression that exists wherever those teachers do not, and they certainly do not help to find friends for the oppressed students, as they may be further ridiculed for being a "teacher's pet."

Do any of you have any solutions better or more specific than those I have presented?

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04suicide.html

List of Freeware PC Games I've Played Over the Past Year

As requested, here is the list of freeware PC games. None of these games have malware/spyware, nor will any of them otherwise screw with your computer.

1) Hero Core - http://www.remar.se/daniel/herocore.php

I finished this game last night in an hour and 23 minutes, but I didn't get everything in it. I would estimate that it should take 2 hours to get 100%. Despite the Atari graphics, this is an incredible Metroidvania game that sort of also plays like a space shooter. There's no blood, and no language. Totally worth downloading. Walkthrough unnecessary.

2) The Journey Down: Over the Edge - http://www.bigbluecup.com
/yabb/index.php?topic=41648.0

This game is rather short, and it must be played full-screen at a 320x200 resolution, because it's much too small to be played in a window. Despite that, the animation is beautiful, and the puzzles are decent, but it's otherwise no different from any other point-and-click game. It's still worth playing, though. Walkthrough required. Takes about 2 hours to complete.

3) The Yahtzee Quadrilogy - http://jayisgames.com/archives/2007/12/the_chzo_mythos.php

You know the stuck-up Australian dude who talks too fast when he reviews games on The Escapist? This is that guy. These are the very best freeware games I've ever played. WARNING: Intense pixellated violence.

The order is:

5 Days a Skeptic
7 Days a Stranger
Trilby's Notes
6 Days a Sacrifice

Each takes about an hour or 2 to complete. Also, a walkthrough is required.

4) The McCarthy Chronicles: Episode 1 - http://www.bigbluecup.com/games.php?action=detail&id=1243

This is second only to Yahtzee's work. It's absolutely amazing. There is even voice acting, and its surprisingly good! WARNING: Instense violence. Walkthrough required. This one takes maybe 2-3 hours to complete, if I remember correctly.

5) A Second Face - http://www.bigbluecup.com/games.php?action=detail&id=1115

This is a bizarre story of an archaic totalitarian regime. I kind of forget the point of it, but I remember it being really, really good. The voice acting is a little off though, so bear with it. It's also a bit longer than the previous games I've listed, maybe about 4-6 hours. WARNING: Nudity/sex. Walkthrough required.

6) The Marionette - http://themarionette.game-host.org/downloads.php

Unfortunately, I forget a lot about this game, but I remember enjoying it a lot. WARNING: Violence, disturbing themes. It should take about 2 hours to complete. Walkthrough required.

7) Cave Story - http://www.miraigamer.net/cavestory/

This game was released recently on the Wii, and so I played it on the computer for free. It's a Metroidvania game that can be intensely frustrating under its cutesy exterior. Every time you get hit, your weapon power gets reduced, and this can really SSSUUUCCCCCCKKKKKK. WARNING: Intensely frustrating. Accounting for the number of times you will die, I would estimate completion time at about 10 hours. Walkthrough recommended.

8) Ever Eternal Winter World 1 & 2 - http://nifflas.lpchip.nl/index.php?topic=3737.0

I haven't finished either of these yet, so I can't say how long it should take you to finish them. They are much like Cave Story/Hero Core.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many games I've downloaded but haven't started yet, and a few that I wouldn't really care to pass on. These should get you guys started though :D

September 11th, the Wound We Don't Want to Heal

It has been 9 years since 3,000 people were horrifically killed when two planes deliberately crashed into the WTC as the result of religious nihilism. Since that time, America behaved just as perhaps to be expected, much like a traumatized psychiatric patient, who makes bad decisions and hurts himself and others in order to protect himself from the pain. This person may engage in heavy drinking, drugs, and self-mutilation. America, just the same, retreated into bigotry and misguided policies, including wire-tapping, the abandonment of habeas corpus, and the preemptive invasion of another country.

For 9 years this pattern of irresponsible behavior continued. Like a drunkard, America proudly defends itself by defecating on everything it should hold dear. "Thish ish 'Merikuh, and we dun like yer kind, sho get outta mah countreh..." In response to WTC, we have only given more ammunition to those who would destroy us, and shown the rest of the world that sometimes we aren't so great.

We have been blinded by the pain and anger we were right to feel on that day, but we failed to understand--as bigots typically do--that what a few people do is not representative of an entire group of over a billion people. That is to say that there is more to Islam than political leaders in the Middle East would have us believe. Tragically, they are doing this to us--and themselves--deliberately.

It works in their favor if we hate them, it works in their favor if we appease the least among us and deny Imam Feisal Rauf his project, and it works in their favor if Terry Jones burns their book. It works because that is what they want. They are exactly like some of us, who emphasize what they perceive as dangerous differences and dreams of domination, who justify discrimination and fear. The more we are given reason to hate Islam, either by ourselves or the Wahhabis, the worse off everyone is. Paradoxically, immediately after Sept 11th, a large portion of the American population drove bigger and more gasoline-demanding vehicles. This, of course, fed right into their hands as we were essentially paying also for the other side of the wars we were waging. Is it American to fund both sides of a war, especially when one side of that war was none other than us?

Nine years later, and the wound is still festering. We are as resistant to tolerance as some of those in the Middle East. Why should we be afraid? Of what must we be afraid? Are we really afraid of some moron who shoves incendiary substances into his underwear, or some ignorant kid who leaves a blatantly suspicious vehicle in the busiest and most vigilant area of NYC, complete with a long paper trail so specific it takes law enforcement just two days to find him? I can only laugh!

But here's where our bigotry really begins to hurt us. In a Pew poll released last month, 18% of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim, and what's more than a little worse is that they believe that because they view both as alien1. Couple that with--if Soledad O'Brian is truly correct--the fact that 71% of Americans now believe that Imam Feisal Rauf's project is a bad idea. It is abundantly clear at this point that Imam Rauf is precisely the kind of person we should empower in order not only for us to present a better America to the Middle East, but also in order for us to learn more about Islam itself and begin to heal the wounds we suffered on 9/11.

I was a bigot once, and it took a full year in college for me to even begin to understand not only myself, but others as well, and it's only now that I've really engaged others in constructive dialogue, and just now understood to the point of deciding to do something I never before thought I could ever do in order to help someone else through the same thing. I cannot imagine how long it could possibly take for an entire nation to forgo its prejudices, even though it has repeatedly gone through the same cycle several times. Some sociologists say that every "new" group of immigrants goes through a phase where the Public (in Heidegger's terms) is immediately intolerant of them.

But Muslims have it perhaps more difficult than most groups, as, in the eyes of the Public, Muslims (or Islam itself) killed 3,000 people on American soil, and all America knows is the despotism and misanthropy of small-minded Middle Eastern leaders. What America likes to forget is that Christianity also is prone to exhibit the same kind of misanthropic and despotic charlatans who feed on the blood of their followers. Have we so soon forgotten Terry Jones?

"Hey! That's not fair! I thought you appreciated Christianity now!" I do, but it's true all the same. Here, I will repeat what I said in "A Mosque? In MY NYC!?" Is Terry Jones representative of all Christianity? No, he is absolutely not. So if we accept that Terry Jones for all intent and purpose has nothing to do with Jesus, what right does the public have to still believe that Osama bin Laden (and by extension the 9/11 hijackers), Hezbollah, Hamas, and Ayatollah Khomeini are representative of all Islam?

The point is, and this is also from that same essay, that Islam and Christianity (The Bible itself is often keen to describe the fate of "wicked prophets." See Micah 3:9-12) exhibit entirely equal amounts of beauty and depravity. If we are able to see beauty in Christianity, what could possibly prevent us from seeing beauty in Islam?

The only way we could ever heal this wound is for Imam Feisal to build his Islamic Cultural Center, though I doubt that anyone outside of his supporters and the Muslims who live in the area would ever visit. So I have just one question for Imam Feisal: How would you try to reach out to those 71% of Americans who do not want to heal September 11th, 2001?

1) http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/19/pew-poll-18-think-obama-is-a-muslim/

I Could Never Be Religious Again

I've been kind of thinking about this recently, especially as I continue to think about religion generally, and the hypothetical conversation I might have with the Jehovah's Witnesses who occasionally come to our house (with whom I kind of enjoy speaking), and I have concluded that no, there is absolutely no way I could ever be religious again. This is not another attack on religion; all of these are personal and are not intended to discourage others' beliefs.

1) I simply do not have the capacity for blind obedience to an enigmatic authority. I'm one of those annoying belligerent people who ask "why?" all the time. Remember Imago from the song I examined a month or two ago? I'm basically him and Ivan Karamazov.

-------------------------------------------
Imago:

I can never submit to all the things you've said God
If you want me dead, I'm right here God
But fear is a funny thing God
In that it gives you the strength to resist just about anything God
And friend turns to enemy
So easily
When you defend your legacy with guilt
And talk of blasphemy
God
You know
You created a golden cage for you sheep
A stage too wide and deep for us to even see the play
But hey
You know what they say about catching the bird
But you can't make it sing?
You lose the bird the second it loses its wings
Just like I reckon you will lose your herd
To choirs of "I am, I am, I am"
And mountains and mountains of money and things! -- Pain of Salvation, Diffidentia

----------------------------------------------

2) The reward - I can see no reward, at least one that 1) doesn't exist here on Earth or 2) would not be considered a vice and therefore an unsuitable reward for supposedly good works. Imagine that Allah really did give his true faithful 72 virgins--after a life of chastity! Doesn't really make sense, as we could simply have that on Earth. Why would a being who encourages chastity and platonic love reward those with their opposite? Do we really all need to be good until Judgment Day, and then immediately afterward we can all be hedonists without consequence? What kind of system is this?

What about other things that I enjoy (aside from sex and heavy metal), like literature and philosophy, and even politics? In a static utopia, it would be absolutely impossible for politics to exist, but what about literature? I'm quite sure that in either of the two monotheistic metaphysical systems, Jesus/Allah would have eliminated any and all philosophers and writers who did not honor them. That means no Socrates, Plato, Camus, Aristotle, Sartre, Russell (definitely not Russell), or Heidegger. Geez, what fun is that?

I'm not even sure the popular idea of Heaven is how it's even described in the Bible, it is merely an amalgamation of what we project as our greatest desires (seeing family members again, lots of sex, and lots of lesbians). But on the family members part, no one can even decide if we even look the same as we did on Earth, and if that's the case, then how are we supposed to find each other in the first place? It also doesn't help that our deepest desires run entirely contrary not only to God's Will, but the entire Christian dynamic, and as I said before about Allah, it makes absolutely no sense for our reward to be what we want during our time on Earth.

There is one major problem with the Judgment Day cut-off, too: Shouldn't we always be good? Dostoevsky, speaking as Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov, feared that without God, anything goes. But even with God, anything goes, albeit after Judgment Day. The goal should be to get us all to want to be good, even after Judgment Day. And are there other ways to be "good" outside of the religious system? Am *I* (me/the author) good?

3) It is the characteristic of the Judeo-Christian God and of what little I've heard about Allah that one must--in order to qualify for the "reward", you must first believe in them (either one). So I'm basically screwed every which way, even through both ears and my nose, because while someone could cry "Pascal's Wager!", what if one believes (as I do) that all religious systems rely on the same arguments and claims to their existence and are therefore of absolutely equal chance of being true across the board, making it impossible to choose?

I tried this thought experiment on my dad and it worked: Imagine that you have no prior knowledge, except that you could read. Imagine placed in front of you were a Bible, a Koran, and the Hindu Vedas (I could include more but this is headache enough). How could you choose between them?

In my own opinion, it's simply a blind crapshoot. I could pick one, and then get screwed by Zeus. Or Ra, or Damballah, or Quetzalcoatl. Pascal's Wager was no help to me!

4) This is an extension of 1: The nature of the revealed God. As you read especially the Bible, it becomes apparent that there are some people God just doesn't like. And this list of people God doesn't like eventually becomes rather long. And it becomes evident that God maybe likes only a few thousand people, perhaps even less as we narrow down how many people are actually good, let alone who believes in the 'correct' religion. This is a problem because there are now over 7 billion people on this planet, and we've become rather interconnected, which makes it much more difficult to justify prejudice. It becomes more and more impossible for God to sustain his prejudices, especially when the world becomes more rationalistic and respectful towards others. If at least some of us can learn to become tolerant, why can't God?

There is one reason why God can be intolerant after a millennia: The simplest answer is that he can afford to be because he is alone. But in my view, this answer is not true, as I will show. However, I think this answer is also quite intriguing.

God is off in some non-space observing the Earth--or, at least that's how people normally envision him. Despite how the world has changed in the last 500 years, God still believes that we are dependent upon him, yet he is not dependent on us. Therefore, as some Christians like to imply, God has no morality, and everything he does has absolute justification in his own mind regardless of the consequences to us; our "temporary" suffering is irrelevant in view of his "Master Plan." This means that God can still hate entire groups of people, and annihilate them without batting an eye, as we are mere ants under his magnifying glass.

I find this to be terrifying, and this God is one I don't believe anyone should worship even if it did exist. Such a God should be hated by us in turn, even if we are destroyed (we would probably be destroyed anyway, so we might as well go down with a fight). This further proves what I said on Facebook about the essential difference between believing in (a) (G)od(s) and worshipping said (G)od(s), as some gods are not to be obeyed for the good of humankind.

What gives me the right to place humanity above God? We are humanity! We have rational faculties, we are capable of similar (albeit significantly lesser) acts, we can love and hate! Aren't our ideas of gods and goddesses reflective of our own experiences--interpreted and mythologized (see Fandango by Pain of Salvation)?

God is therefore not alone. We created God (could be any (G)od(s)) to create us. We devised stories and legends detailing our origin and purpose involving entities far powerful than even we (for we are indeed powerful beings).

As long as we believe in God, God will exist, at least within us. As long as we exist, God will exist. And therefore God needs us as much, if not more than he needs us. And in truth, because God exists within our minds, we can change God.

You read that correctly. Did Christianity not change God from a tyrannical warlord who flooded the entire planet save a single family, commanded a man to murder his firstborn, and grant the death penalty for a multitude of bizarre offenses into a more forgiving (albeit equally sexist) entity? Did not Islam further transform God, and Mormonism even further than that (whether or not one respects Mormonism)? And what about--here comes another headache--all of the schisms within those monolithic traditions; each split off and defined God differently still. And what about the very first monotheistic religion, upon which Judaism and Christianity were based--Zoroastrianism?

Then who is to say that it would be impossible to further purge God of personality traits unbecoming of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being?

Just for fun, I'm going to lay out a few criteria I think any god or god-like being should meet in order for me to be inclined to follow him/her/it. I'm starting from scratch.

1) The god must be sexless, and therefore would be inclined to treat both sexes fairly in all regards. Even Socrates in the Republic agreed that the difference of anatomy between the sexes did not determine a difference of treatment generally. If Socrates can do it, so can God.

2) The god must not have been responsible for the creation of our world. This is pretty big for me, because as beautiful as our world is (or once was), there are particularly nasty things in it that I don't think quite fit the "benevolent" quality. I'm talking about things like earthquakes, Brazillian Wandering Spiders, and ebola, as well as certain parasites found in the Amazon river.

3) The god must understand rational discourse and the value of skepticism. It must appreciate the possibility of someone not believing in it, and respond not by murder but by presenting evidence, which would be as easy as a five-minute conversation. And the Christian god had to get all angry over it! How much violence could have been avoided if he just talked to some people? He must have had horrible PR...

4) The god must not favor any human faction over another; it must have equal respect for the well-being of all humans UNIVERSALLY. It must not advocate the annihilation of any group of people ever.

5) The god must be willing to offer advice to those who seek it.

6) The god must not care about the private lives of humans insofar as they are not hurting one another. The god must not say absolutely anything about sex. Unless it says that it's good for you. Hey! You know what? Let's turn Kurt Vonnegut into a god. That would be fun. Second thought, he probably wouldn't like that.

7) The god itself must not desire absolute totalitarian control, or feed upon those who worship it; it must not be avaricious and arrogant. This is the fatal flaw of all human-devised gods.

What's interesting is that the god I've devised doesn't seem to be much interested in being worshiped, especially taking into consideration the final clause. It is also hard to imagine any such being interfering with human affairs in the first place, unless it was avaricious or simply desired something in return. However, it would be strange to see a god in need of anything, unless that he was simply bored (like the aliens in the final Ayreon album).

Why else would any immeasurably powerful being care for us in the first place, if not out of the existential boredom that comes naturally with immortality? And wouldn't that being eventually get bored of us?

I've come back around to the reward again... If we were truly to get what we expressly desire--eternal life, albeit in an ethereal realm--would we not get bored? Our parents and grandparents would tell the same damned jokes and stories they told back on Earth, and finding new material would be impossible in a static world. In fact, even the most desirable reward would eventually become the most unbearable torment.

Heaven is Hell, and our temporality is the real blessing in disguise.

A Mosque!? In My NYC?

I don't see what the big deal is about the Islamic Cultural Center that is to be built next to...Burlington Coat Factory. We didn't make Ground Zero a national landmark (which we should have), and so it's fair game, despite the ridiculous and xenophobic protests by most Americans.

According to Bloomberg News, "[Sarah] Palin, in a July 22 Facebook entry, described the proposed mosque as 'a stab in the heart' of the attack victims’ families. She also said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, suggested that U.S. policies in the Middle East helped create attitudes that led to 'the crime that happened.'"1 Well, the truth is that Rauf is correct on that point. Our policies in the Middle East fueled the fires of fundamentalism, with the installation of the Shah of Iran (who was, ironically, much better than his replacement), and in Afghanistan, where we baited the USSR into their own Vietnam, only to create a power vacuum when they finally left. That power vacuum was filled by the mujaheddin who fought against Soviet Union and formed the Taliban. And let's not forget about oil, which I've covered multiple times and should now be considered self-evident. On her second claim regarding Rauf, I don't immediately trust her judgment, which is why I did not address it. Palin has proven herself on occasions sufficient enough in number to be hopelessly ignorant of absolutely everything she talks about, and so I am willing to give Rauf the benefit of the doubt until what she says is confirmed by someone far more informed.

But we expect this from Sarah Palin, so it comes as no surprise that Anyone Who Speaks the Truth is Inherently Anti-American. But there's also something about this issue that has nothing to do with American foreign policy, and it's written quite explicitly in our Constitution: The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This should settle the issue quite satisfactorily, but it is the underlying cause of this xenophobia that has me so enraged.

When I was intolerant of religions and the religious, was it OK for me to say that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and the Catholic Church were representative of all of Christianity? Absolutely not. Therefore, what makes it OK for we as a nation to say that Osama bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, RevolutionMuslim, and Hezbollah are representative of all of Islam?

In the words of Rudy Gulianni during his presidential campaign, "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11! 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11!" ad infinitum. But this is no excuse! It's been 9 years since 9/11, and we've merely allowed this wound to fester and gangrene our politics.

And on CNN during the RevolutionMuslim fiasco, conservative commentator David Frum, whom I otherwise respect, was hard-pressed to admit that Christianity could be responsible for the same egregious offenses as contemporary Islam. Must I again recount at least a few of the atrocities and injustices committed by and in the name of Christendom?

1) The subjugation and genocide against the Native Americans prior to the founding of the United States
2) The countless wars of medieval Europe between Catholics and Protestants.
3) The Spanish Inquisition
4) The Catholic genocide against the Gnostic sect
5) The excommunication of Galileo Galilee (noted for the same kind of anti-intellectualism)
6) Christianity is guilty also of the same subjugation of women, however, psychological harm is more often employed in lieu of physical abuse.
6a) In relationships, however, Christian fundamentalism is positively related to higher instances of domestic violence2.
7) Homophobia is also something these two religions have in common.
8) Theocratic governance is something both religions aspire to, and both have more or less achieved it at different points in history.

The two religions are, for all intent and purpose, entirely equal in their capacity for violence, and therefore it follows that if we can see beauty in one despite the violence, we could--and should--seek out beauty in the other.

I just don't understand Islam in the same way as I understand Christianity, and I think my situation is reflective of America generally, and we've seen that we cannot hope that any mass of people would stand up for the greater good, even when it is written right into our founding document (which they probably have not read anyway). I have ordered an English translation of the Koran. Unfortunately, as I said before, I don't know any Muslims, so getting a good history of it, understanding the references to Christian and Jewish theology (I know plenty of Jews, but I don't think many of them are religious), as well as differentiating between metaphor and literal text may prove somewhat difficult. However, I have the Internet, a functioning brain, and there's a mosque in the next town over.

You know, it's funny. In an ironic turn, leave it to the kid who doesn't believe in any (G)od(s) at all to stand up for those that do.

1) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/ground-zero-mosque-plans-move-forward-after-new-york-landmarks-panel-vote.html

2) http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/Research/Koch%20Ramirez%20Religion%20and%20Partner%20Violence%20Final%20Feb%2009.pdf

Xenogears - Full Review

I actually finished Xenogears over a month ago, and it took a while to digest it. As I said in my previous review of the first 20 hours (of about 60), the game is extremely linear--there are almost NO SIDEQUESTS. And the game only gets even more linear in a bizarre and unprecedented narrative shift, where the actual plot is told to the player in an incredible bombardament of text. The popular internet connotation "TL;DR" [Too long; Didn't Read] is surprisingly accurate. The shift in delivery is a major turn-off when it first hits the player, but ultimately I have come to believe that it was necessary in order to cram all of the things that Xenogears wants to say into the game.

I do not want to spoil the game for those of you who may want to play it, and this may be what some consider blasphemous, but Xenogears is even better than Final Fantasy 9 (my favorite Final Fantasy). The plot, characters, and themes are that strong, and they greatly resonate with who I am as a person and what I believe. The game was almost not going to be published in the United States because of what it dealt with.

I spent $30 on this PS1 game, and I think it is worth far more than that. I was actually sad when I had finished it, because I had enjoyed it so much.

I realize this review is incredibly short, but there isn't much else to say about it if I'm not going to mention the plot. If I did, your jaw may hit the floor, but still the plot would be spoiled. I'm actually of the opinion that Xenogears is at once the most ambitious and the most beautiful game Square-Enix/Squaresoft has ever produced. Surely, though the graphics have not aged well unless you use texture smoothing, the depth of the plot, the meaning of the plot, and the character development is something I cannot at present describe.

The only major drawbacks to the game are if the enormous walls of text would bore you (it shouldn't if you care about the plot and characters), and the intensely frustrating Babel Tower--the jumping mechanics in the game are extremely flawed. Also, navigating the final dungeon (which seems much more labyrinthine than it actually is) the first time is frustrating. Learning characters' deathblows is also a chore, as I have yet to figure out exactly how characters learn new deathblows. Of course, you only need to know Fei's, Citan's, and Elyham's deathblows. And their Gear deathblows are learned automatically as you progress in the game. Lastly, spend the time to level F, C, & E to 80, though grinding is tedious and boring, because you will need the cash. I ended up with 3-4 million Gold, and I still needed more for Gear parts.

Xenogears receives an A+: If you can wade through the frustrating segments, you will be rewarded handsomely.

Response to Henry Giroux's "The Disappearing Intellectual in the Age of Economic Darwinism"

Last night, I read an article on truth-out.org that defended higher education better than I ever could. Instead of providing the URL at the end of the essay, I feel it necessary to provide it now.

http://www.truth-out.org/the-disappearing-intellectual-age-economic-darwinism61287

The article first and foremost made me feel better about learning what I wanted to learn, and ultimately defended the entire point of that $100,000 piece of paper even against the reality that English majors don't easily get jobs.

But more than that, Mr Giroux looks at the whole picture, and sure, while one can see the enormous impact on one kid's personal growth, there is a much wider problem as the institutions which form the backbone of our age are consistently attacked by smaller people, and as those institutions start to give way to what is useful, rather than what is good for both society and the individual: The ability to make informed decisions across all aspects of one's life: From one's own worldview to on the job.

There are people who can go to college, be considered fairly well-educated, but not know how to think critically. I know two people who went to prestigious universities, have excellent jobs, and sit around watching Fox News all day. How is this possible? Because they didn't care about making good decisions, they cared about getting a job.

This in itself isn't bad, BUT getting a job should be second to exploring ideas, especially if our democracy is to be preserved. Let's look, for a moment, at our political landscape, not just in the present, but all the way back to the Scopes Monkey Trial. Mr Giroux lays the picture out very well, but in my mind this is not simply a contemporary problem, it is both all-encompassing and life-long.

From the Salem Witch Trials to the Confederacy to William Jennings Bryan to Joseph McCarthy to Ronald Reagan to George W Bush (and Harriet Miers), to Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann, and no other example provides such a clear picture of American intellectual bankruptcy as Supreme Court nomination hearings because the nominee is so terrified of offending a constituency that prides itself on its Philistinism that he or she cannot give a straight answer. In fact, GOP Senators, in response to Elena Kagan, have actually attacked Thurgood Marshall, though, as usual, without justification1.

But that isn't to say that we don't have intellectuals. Conservatives have come up with all kinds of ideas, such as Rand Paul, who wants to forgo a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits private enterprise from discriminating against people. He's gone so far, in fact, as to say that he wouldn't have voted for the bill had he been there because of that provision. Mr Paul, with all due respect, businesses even still try to discriminate against people. Whether you think it's bad business practice or not, look at how job candidates are treated. It must not be very bad business if they think they can get away with it.

The kinds of "intellectuals" America has currently (or, has always had) are nothing more than demagogues and charlatans (only difference between the two is that the former seeks political power). Only in America could there be a Creationist Museum, to which thousands upon thousands visit because they believe in it, but a select, brave few who visit to see how bad it is2.

Perhaps the only actual intellectual still respected in the United States is Roger Ebert, who just conducted a study of his own, asking just one question: Would you rather play a great video game or read Huckleberry Finn? Before I go into it, Roger Ebert is so respected by nearly the entire population that when he said "Videogames are not art," everyone--especially the gaming community--went berserk, in mostly a good way. In fact, I'm upset that he recently retracted this statement because of the enormous debate he had sparked, whether one agrees with him or not.

On to this survey: 63% of those polled would pick a great video game over Huck Finn3. What does this have to do with our dysfunctional democracy? We aren't willing to do the work. Playing a game is easy, and we don't have to think much. Sure, I like to play video games, but I know that even the great ones have absolutely nothing to offer that would surpass a thousand years of literary history. Video games will not make us better people, and they will probably not teach us anything*. Not only do Americans not want to do the work, they vilify those who do. In the words of Insane Clown Posse, "Fuckin' magnets! How do they work? And I don't wanna talk to no scientist, cuz those fuckers are lyin' and gettin' me pissed." First of all, that is a real lyric to a real song called Miracles. Second of all, you might be wondering how a horrible indie hip-hop duo can be representative of 300 million people.

Here is a list of polls done on belief in evolution in the United States over the past two decades from Religioustolerance.org, from a variety of sources4. In 2007, 49% believe in evolution, either naturalistic or theistic, whereas 48% believe in creationism/ID. That is about half of the population of the most powerful nation on Earth.

And then there are statistics on biblical literacy. Now this is where it gets really interesting. I just did a Google search for "biblical literacy among evangelicals", and the first page is rife with worrying statistics. Dr Nienhuis, a New Testament scholar and professor, for example, states that "the vast majority of [his] students--around 95 percent of them--are Christians, and half of them typically report that they currently attend nondenominational evangelical churches. Yet the class as a whole consistently averages a score of just over 50 percent, a failing grade"5.

In my own experience, my cursory knowledge of the Bible is more than enough to upend the fundamentalists I encounter, and I am an atheist. It is less essential for me to understand the Bible because I have not accepted it as my worldview. If you believe in something, you better damned well know just what it is you're believing in, no matter what philosophy or religious system you subscribe to. Last year, some fundamentalists got it into their heads to use Psalm 109:8-9 to incite political violence.

Psalm 109:8-9 reads as follows in my New Revised Standard Version:

8 May his days be few,
May another seize his position
9 May his children be orphans,
And his wife a widow

The rest of it gets a little worse, but the point is clear. The interesting part is that these people failed entirely to read verses 1-7, which, I will reproduce for you here, because you will see just how screwed up these people are.

1 Do not be silent, O God of my
praise
2 For wicked and deceitful mouths
are opened against me,
speaking against me with lying
tongues
[Here's the kicker]
3 They beset me with words of
hate,
and attack me without cause.
4 In return for my love they
accuse me,
even while I make prayer for
them.
5 So they reward me evil for good
and hatred for my love.
6 They say, "Appoint a wicked
man against him;
let an accuser stand on his
right
7 When he is tried, let him be
found guilty;
let his prayers be counted as
sin[..."]

Do you see it? In an ironic turn, Psalm 109 may well be the prayers of their very target, if we're going to play that game. No, I'm not a fan of The Bible, but don't mess with an English major.

All of this leads back to the importance of education, if not for itself, then for the integrity of our democracy. Americans can't even understand their own worldviews, much less figure out how to fix a tanking economy.

There is one thing I have thus far neglected to address: Why? Why are Americans so hopelessly ignorant not only about themselves but about everyone else? For that, I turn to PZ Myers, author of the blog Pharyngula. Myers, in his presentation in Oslo on Creationism in America, proceeded to place the blame, specifically for the pervasiveness of Creationism/ID on the volume and amount of charlatanry, and scientists' poor PR coupled against the rise of theocratic organizations6. Religious belief had existed far before Charles Darwin wrote about his famous voyage, but by now I'd expect everyone (such as the rest of the developing world), to forgo creationism. In fact, the announcer at Myers' lecture was even surprised that creationism could be a serious threat.

I would argue that it may be that we think we can afford to. We've always been City on the Hill, or to take one of my friend's favorite analogies, Fiddler's Green, from Land of the Dead. Consider how we consider ourselves, and consider the life cycle of city states that we have survived. We think we're invincible, that we can afford to wage two large-scale military campaigns simultaneously and survive (Sun Tzu disagrees, and Hitler demonstrated this fact to us in his hubris), that our fortune will always be there. We saw this attitude right before the economic meltdown. Sure, people now realize what's really going on, but their solutions will only serve to make things worse. In Giroux's essay, the people who have realized this the most cannot figure out which programs to cut: They want to balance the budget, but cut taxes. Giroux cites JM Bernstein who said, in an article in the NYTimes,

"When it comes to the Tea Party's concrete policy proposals, things get fuzzier and more contradictory: keep the government out of health care, but leave Medicare alone; balance the budget, but don't raise taxes; let individuals take care of themselves, but leave Social Security alone; and, of course, the paradoxical demand not to support Wall Street, to let the hard-working producers of wealth get on with it without regulation and government stimulus, but also to make sure the banks can lend to small businesses and responsible homeowners in a stable but growing economy."

Even worse, which Giroux himself also mentioned, and I have also read about a few weeks ago, is that some Americans have entertained the notion that libraries are a waste of money. I kid you not7. I think Roger Ebert may have just had a heart attack.

How do we fix this problem? Pffft! I'm not even sure we can. The American population has been effectively insulated against any and all encroaches upon their worldview by "intellectuals" or "experts." I spoke to one man in a doctor's office(!) who tried to disparage higher education as "Leftist" after I heard him comparing Obama to Hitler. This sentiment was repeated by another man I encountered at a revolutionary war exhibition in my dad's church for it's 300th anniversary. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to come to the defense of what I hold so dear.

And then there's something unexplainable by anything but avarice. There are smart people--scientists--who will throw their credentials into a bonfire and join the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute (not associated with the Discovery Channel). Jeffry P Tomkins is listed, for example, on the ICR website, and has headed a project that "involve the development of integrated genomic frameworks and the discovery and characterization of genes and genomic regions associated with environmental adaptation"8. Umm...what? "Associated environmental adaptation" is evolution. Hello? Unfortunately, I cannot find anywhere, a full history of his career, nor any justification for his joining the ICR.

This brings up an important point, however, that, like I said before, we think we can afford it, that truth, in a larger social context, can take a backseat to whatever makes us feel good. "I believe it because I want to believe it." But immediately we see what's wrong with this notion, because much like whether injustice pays better than justice in The Republic, things like science and critical thought that we neglect or disregard because they are difficult or don't produce short-term gain or happiness, will eventually destroy us. If we are unjust, eventually people will turn on us and we will be punished. If we are stupid and uncaring, we will fall behind on the international stage and our economy will falter. Without science, we will fall to disease, our computers will cease to work, and our military will weaken. The disgusting thing--the greatest injustice--is that laypeople will lambaste science and scientists, yet depend on them to improve and even save their lives. While you're off in church being taught that God created the Earth in 6 days 6,000-10,000 years ago and that dinosaur bones are the work of Satan, there are people who are trying to save your kid who has been bitten by a rabid dog. And then when they do, you don't thank them. You thank your God, who did it by magic.

1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805129.html

2) http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/excellent_analysis_of_the_crea.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28Pharyngula%29

3) http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/video_games_13823_huck_finn_80.html

4) http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

5) http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1110&var3=main

6) http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/31859717

7) http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Fox-News-Reporter-vs-Libraries-1537

8) http://www.musc.edu/mbes/faculty/tomkins.html


*One exception: Gabriel Knight - Sins of the Fathers taught me about Voodoo. It turned out (because I looked it up) that everything GK said about Voodoo is actually true.