A few thoughts on religious faith

I had a conversation with a coworker today about religious faith. Besides being a bad idea, it made me think of an expression I've heard many times; "If you don't have anything, you don't have anything to lose." It's what makes a criminal dangerous and a religious fundamentalist terrifying. Throughout history, religion has been used for both good and bad. Here in the Northeast however, religion is fading. Traditional faith based values are waning. I certainly cannot advocate any single religion, but I find it to be a scary world where people believe that nothing they do in life will affect what happens to them in death.

Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in an afterlife and punishment for wrongdoings in life. The Egyptians believed that their very soul would be literally devoured by a dog god if they did not convince the gods that they had led a good life. Those who believe in reincarnation have always known that their social status or even their existence as a human beings hang in the balance if they do not live by certain principles.

No religious or secular system of morality is without faults. For those in society who don't live by society's rules could hypothetically still live as good moral people due to a higher belief system. When people decide that nothing they do in life has consequences, it frees them to do as they please. Inhibitions exist for a reason. When they are removed, chaos can ensue. Imagine if every member of a given society decided that rules don't matter, that consequences for their actions don't exist. What incentive would anyone have to do the right thing, to behave civilly, to not simply kill each other and take everything they want?

The political philosopher John Locke of the 17th century wrote about these very issues. Locke is known well for his social contract, the idea that humans have agreed to not kill eachother in order to survive. However, this is NOT what he should be known for. Locke described the origins of society from units as small as a family up to a kingdom. The system he described made a lot of sense, but only worked assuming the society feared consequences for living in chaos rather than order.

To me, a country of atheists is far more terrifying than a fundamentalist. The people who believe that this is it, that their life has no greater meaning, who fail to see that their actions affect people still living or don't care, are the ones who scare me the most. Faith is not without its risks, but it is a lot less scary to me than to believe in nothing at all.

News Media

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." -Thomas Jefferson

The news is pervasive in today's media in a way it never has been before. 24 hour news networks and streaming mobile feeds have made news a constant part of life whether we like it or not. However, it was not always like this. There was a time when celebrities and athletes were not the most important public figures in our lives. There was a time where news was more than a laundry list of murders and instigators of racial stereotypes and hatreds.

For this discussion, I will begin with the Pony Express in America as it was the first major step towards national news in US history. The Express was a system of mail delivery carriers who carried both personal letters and newspapers. Keep in mind that many newspapers at this time were single paged and single sided, so there could be a lot of copies carried by an individual postal rider. The papers typically had the most important news of the time such as prominent political opinions, national news and regional interests.

Much later, newspapers turned into a huge mass of paper with specialized sections and became extremely focused on being local. Then, came television. At first, TV news was the most important pert of American television. It was viewed as a public service for TV owners in order to relate important information such as weather and natural disaster alerts.

By its very nature, the news has scarcely been used for positive ideas. Today's news is filled with crime, fires and depressing national events. They seek to criticize everyone not meeting their parent company's political ideals as their talking heads promote these same politics in a way this is obvious to the educated few. Now the news is nothing more than a way spread the political values of rich studio heads, not to mention the advertising involved.

The nightly news, in terms of content, follows the script of most reality TV shows. 1) Show a preview of what will be on tonight's episode. 2) Show a tiny snippet of actual content followed by a preview of the next snippet. 3) Review what just happened, show another tiny snippet of content, and preview the next. Rinse and repeat. By the time you are done with all the previews and commercials, the amount of actual content in the news for an average hour long news program is likely maybe 20 minutes of news. Don't forget the sports reporting at the tail end of the program. Roughly a third of a nightly news program is dedicated to sports reporting. I italicize because what is sports reporting other than more advertising!? Sports do just fine without extra advertising to promote them. Besides, when did sports become such an important part of our lives that they became news? I personally do not care enough about them to answer that question.

Also, when did Americans become so obsessed with celebrities? Some might say that Elvis and Marilyn Monroe, celebrities that were practically created out of thin air, may have been the start of it all. It saddens me to see how the news is now filled with celebrity gossip and loads of other irrelevant information. Seriously, a celebrity gaining weight or having a kid or getting a divorce is not only none of my business, but does not affect my life the slightest bit.

What was at one time one of the only sources of important information in this country has become a mockery. News today is nothing more than carefully disguised political direction and advertising rather than sources of relevant information. It is a shame that today's Americans have virtually no source outside of the classroom to gain meaningful knowledge with which they can better themselves and become better citizens.

Why Avatar is Nothing like Pocahontas (the Disney version or the true story)

I recently had a conversation with a friend who claimed that the plot of the movie Avatar was over simplistic and unimaginative because it was just a retelling of the Disney version of Pocahontas. My intention with this post is to tell the true history of Pocahontas and to prove false the notion that Avatar is not a unique story in its own right. I must warn you, if you haven't seen either movie, there will be spoilers. A quick synopsis is enough to show the clear differences between the two stories, but afterward, I will make a point by point comparison to disprove the claim, followed by some real history.

In Avatar, humanity has spread out across the universe in search of resources to replace those that have run out on Earth. A private military forces accompanies a geological survey company to mine for a rare ore that exists only on the planet Pandora. A paraplegic marine gets the chance to walk again by inhabiting the artificially grown body of a Navi, the native intelligent race of the planet. He meets the daughter of the chief, they fall in love after she teaches him about her people and way of life. After a lot of conflict and battle, the marine finds a way to permanently inhabit the body and drive the humans away from the planet, then stays behind to be with the natives and his new girlfriend.

In Disney's Pocahontas, John Smith is a colonist in North America who is in search of gold and other riches to bring back to England. He meets the daughter of the chief of a local native tribe who shows him the beauty of nature. They fall in love, but after conflicts involving there being no gold and other colonists thinking the natives are hiding it, John Smith is shot and must leave for medical treatment in England.

I can see where the stories seem similar, but there are significant and major differences that prove that not only was Avatar only possibly inspired by Disney's film, but that it was no clear copy. Please, save the giant smurf comments for another forum. This is an academic discussion, not a troll.

1) The Navi are a race of people from a alien planet, not just another ethnic group of mankind.
2) The Navi's deities are real and breathing. They can be seen touched, felt and even psychically linked with. In Fact, the planet of Pandora was evolved in a way where all the lifeforms are connected, more so than a simple ecosystem. Even the plants are connected in a great link of psychic energy. The respect the Navi have for the animals they kill is different than that of Native Americans during the colonial period in America. Though the natives knew intuitively that nature works in tandem with humanity, the relationship between humans and nature is very different than that of Pandora.
3) The main character of the story falls in love with the chief's daughter. Is this really so unique a story device that it can be directly compared to Pocahontas? American cinema demands romantic interest in its plots and characters that are important in the world they inhabit. I'd argue that this is more an issue with American storytelling, not two specific stories being linked.
4) Civilized men try to subjugate "savage" natives. It is true that the Navi existed in a comparable stone-age society like that of Native Americans during the colonial period. However, the Navi exist in a state of nature that can never be produced on Earth, as discussed above. They have no need to advance to a more civilized state and likely will never do so.
5) The natives on Avatar drive away the humans, but the natives in America are overcome by the white man.
6) Pocahontas travels to England to marry John Smith, but does not change her species, nor does she take part in warfare against the white man.

These reasons should be enough for the comparisons to end. Avatar is not a retelling of the Disney version of Pocahontas. To think so is to look far too briefly at both stories and to not think deeply of either.

The real Pocahontas was, in practice, a diplomatic disaster between the English and the natives after she was captured by the English, then ransomed off to her people for the return of English hostages and weapons. After the natives were accused of reneging on the deal, Pocahontas was brought to England where she was married to John Rolfe. Notice, that there was no John Smith in the true story. Rolfe had a carnal attraction to the exotic native and marriage was the only legal way for him to claim her, despite the fact that she was married to a native warrior prior to her capture. Her thoughts on the subject are not known. How this story of lust and trade became perverted into the falsehood of Disney's Pocahontas, I do not know. However, I will say that despite the entertainment value of the animated film for children, Disney should never be looked at as even a vaguely correct source of historical information. They are movies for entertainment, nothing more.

When did socialism become a bad word?

With health insurance reform afoot and town hall meeting crying out their ignorance, the word socialism received a lot of press in the past few months. The first thought that comes to mind is an education video I watched in high school explaining the dangers of isms to cure what ails our society. Being that this is post World War 2 America and that we supposedly won against against communism and socialism during the cold war, it seems understandable that these failed governmental systems would be criticized.

Let us begin with a discussion of what socialism is before explaining why it failed when applied to real societies. Socialism is a economic and social organizational philosophy that proposes that resources in a society should be shared among all of its people. Resources are valued for their usefulness in society rather than a perceived worth to individuals. Socialism, by its nature, is anti-capitalist due to the view that capitalism allows for private monopolies and concentrated economic power.

There is no doubt that the old criticisms of capitalism are true. Before you start getting upset and crying that I'm a traitor, read on. Those who so whole heartedly and publicly scream that capitalism is the best and freest way of government are blind to the economic crisis this country has been in for a long time. The gap between the rich and the poor has grown so exponentially that it is possibly bigger than it was during the world depression of the 20th century. The middle class is disappearing, looking more and more like the lower economic class. This is in part due to rising health are costs, taxes and, lets face it, manipulation of economic power by the rich. All this is taking place before you account for racism, political corruption and the housing crisis of this past year.

What socialism aimed to fix was this poor distribution of power to the populace and to eradicate the rich-poor gap. Sounds like a good goal doesn't it? However, there are some problems with the redistribution of wealth. When socialism was first introduced, it was not in a vacuum. Societies adopting socialist principles had wealthy citizens as well as poor. While the poor were likely to be happy gaining a boost of status and a better standard of living, the rich were likely angry and resentful of their losses. In capitalist societies such as the US, we behave with an air of entitlement based on our labor. We work and make an income and feel entitled to the standard of living that income provides.

Socialist parties in the United States existed during the early 20th century. Blue collar unions and workers even nominated a Presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, who received quite a few presidential votes in 1912. The workers wanted better working conditions and better pay. They were the lower class, the people who would benefit most from socialist ideas. This was during a time when socialism was still considered a viable alternative to capitalism by a minority of Americans. So, what happened?

During the period of the World Wars, socialism caught on in Europe. In Russia, it mutated into Communism and a conglomeration of socialist states formed the Soviet Union with Russia at its heart. Socialism and fascism also took hold in Italy under Benito Mussolini. Here is where things went downhill. The fascists in Italy, especially those close with Mussolini, committed terrible acts of domestic spying and public executions of anyone considered a danger to the party. Most people today associate fascism and socialism together during this period, even though they were two separate entities. When people today think socialism, they think enemy. The mutation of socialism into communism during the world war period and the subsequent backlash against domestic communists in America is another cause of people's trepidation with socialist ideas.

In short, when people of this era think of socialism, it brings back memories of a time of fear and uncertainty in our history. It makes young voters think of the lessons they learned in school about the success of capitalism in America and the failure of both socialism and communism in Europe. How many of you remember the old animated short "Make Mine Freedom?" I think almost every student who went through an American public school has seen this short about the dangers of isms. It is extremely biased and does not tell the whole story of the vision for a Utopian society that was held by socialist philosophers. Anything that sounds like socialism, that can be accurately labeled as socialistic, does not stand a chance in today's America.

Insurgency

I begin this, my opening post with a question. What is an insurgent and what is the difference between American insurgents compared to modern ones? Webster defines an insurgent as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government." In the 1700's, Great Britain was such a government. It taxed its citizens overseas, the American colonists, without representing their interests in Parliament. It created foreign monopolies, forcing colonists to import all but a few goods from British manufacturers. This was the catalyst for revolt against Britain in the colonies, for men to take up arms against a foreign government treating them unfairly to protect the lives of their families.

It is too easy to forget that so called insurgents in the middle east are fighting for something as well. I certainly do not agree with either side's position. The middle east, absent of a religious reformation and modernization of moral values, has failed to integrate into the western world for better or worse. The states, with interests in oil and spreading modern, unwanted value systems, is oppressing a society that does not want to change. The parallels of the situation can sometimes be staggering. The cliche, "history is doomed to repeat itself," comes to mind, but the study of history is not intended for this purpose.

We study history to learn many things, not just to improve upon past mistakes. History is so much more than a long list of names, dates and battles. It helps us as citizens to understand our duty to our country by learning the origins of things we live with every day. History is also a subject that does not exist in a vacuum. Math, language and science are essential parts as well. America's failures and successes in the last two centuries has been in large part due to its understanding or misunderstanding of itself, its allies and its enemies. This understanding is not the result of a study of modern peoples and societies, but those that came before, leading up to the current. I end this post again with a question that will be discussed again in another post. Can anyone learn any subject without starting from a beginning point and building upon the basics?