6 Movies to Scare the S#%t Out of You

It’s Halloween! The day of tricks and treats, kids in costumes, and strong-arming said kids for their plastic pumpkin-fuls of candy. It’s also the day to find our tolerance for terror. Zizzle-Zotians, I offer to you the six movies that have left me rocking in the fetal position, crying for my mommy, and/or waking up in a pool of my own fright induced sweat.

1) The Exorcist (1973): Demons are scary. So are little girls in horror movies. Combine the two, and you have The Exorcist. I hadn’t seen this one till just a few days ago, and now am forever scarred by images of Linda Blair spider-walking down the staircase (only available in the extended version – released 2000). Based on a true story (which makes it even scarier), the film tells the tale of Regan, a young girl exhibiting some strange (ie malicious, vile, downright nasty) habits and the priests who attempt to help her. You’ll think you’re going to make it through just fine…until her head spins. I mean all the way around.

2) The Thing (1982): Isolated, claustrophobic paranoia at its finest. The Thing follows a group of researchers to the Antarctic, where they find the remains of a spacecraft and are subsequently infected by an alien life form. The problem: there’s no way to tell who’s been infected. This movie is guaranteed to make you jump (or wet yourself if you have poor bladder control).

3) The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005): I realize I already have an exorcism movie on the list, but what can I say: Satan is scary. This movie is part horror film, part courtroom drama. The story centers around a priest accused of criminal wrongdoing after a young girl dies while in his care. The catch: the girl may or may not have been possessed. The exorcism scene will leave you crying yourself to sleep, only to find yourself awake at 3 AM (you’ll see why). Plus, the debate between religion and science is genuine, approached objectively, and very intriguing.

4) Frailty (2001): The story of two sons raised by a fanatically religious father who believes he is on a mission from God to destroy demons who inhabit the bodies of regular people. As the boys grow older, one believes, the other thinks his dad is psychotic. The ending will leave you speechless as you ponder which is scarier: the existence of such violent madmen, or the possibility that they may be perfectly sane…

5) Freaks (1932): Freaks is a story of betrayal and revenge, set inside a circus freak- show. Cleopatra is a beautiful trapeze artist. Her lover, Hercules, is the resident strong man. When the two of them learn that a midget named Hans has come into a large inheritance they plot to steal his money by having Cleopatra seduce and marry him. But the rest of the freaks get wind of the scheme and all hell breaks loose. This was made well before the days of special effects or CGI (or political correctness), so all the “freaks” are, as you can guess, legit. A movie like this will never (and can never) be made again.

6) Carrie (1976): Based on a Steven King novel of the same name, Carrie is the story of an unpopular and ridiculed teenage girl who discovers she has telekinetic powers. The scenes between Carrie and her abusive mother (who sees the power as a curse) are some of the most disturbing you’ll ever see. And we’ve seen enough movies about teenagers to know that when the popular boy asks the outcast girl to the prom, the poop’s about to hit the fan. I don’t know about you, but I find teenage girls horrifying to begin with. Imagine one hell-bent on bloody revenge.

Watch, enjoy, be terrified. Happy Halloween.

Thanks for reading.

Not More Genarlow!!!

It’s a shame to waste a second day on Genarlow Wilson. I don’t think he deserved nine grand. I certainly don’t think he warrants two posts. But as Anonymous stated, you all were busy little bees yesterday, and now I need to say my piece.

Mr. Antagonist, I’m gonna have to adamantly disagree with you on several issues.

First, I realize degenerate is a harsh term, and I don’t usually throw it around lightly. Shoplifters, pot smokers, etc. I wouldn’t necessarily label degenerates. They could be good kids that made a couple of bad choices.

But Genarlow Wilson was accused of raping one girl and molesting another in incidents stemming from the same party. He had sex with an unconscious 17-year-old. He used his influence as an athlete and older man to pressure a child into oral sex. And he and his buddies videotaped the whole thing. Classy.

Perhaps worst of all, he wasn’t willing to admit that what he did was wrong. The other guys on the tape took plea bargains and didn’t serve any prison time. Mr. Wilson refused to do so (thanks for the extra research, Zizzle-Zot Historian P Corcs). Was it pride, ego, lack of conscience? I don’t know the answer.

I’ve always assumed a good standard for decency was to never be accused of criminal sexual misconduct (whether that be rape, molestation, etc.). Most people go through their entire lives without a single accusation (shocking, I know). This guy was accused twice in one night. What’s your definition of degenerate?

I think we’ll all agree that the law was silly and the sentence harsh. This is where several readers were hung up, and therefore missed the point. No one thinks there should be a ten year sentence for oral sex.

The fact is that Mr. Wilson broke the law. Mr. Antagonist, you’re right to say that sentences aren’t handed out by computers. We need to use a little common sense. But in this case the judge’s hands were tied. The law that Mr. Wilson was found guilty of (because he refused to take a plea) had a mandatory sentence tied to it. This was a flaw in the law, no doubt (and one that has since been corrected), but it was law nonetheless.

Judges aren’t allowed to be relative when there are mandatory sentences. In some ways this is a good thing. At what point would it end? If a guy gets murdered, but the judge decides he really deserved it, should the murderer get a lesser sentence? Of course not (this was hyperbole – I don’t want any outrage that I’m comparing Genarlow to a murderer).

Truth be told, if I were writing this post and Mr. Wilson were still locked up, I would be arguing the other side of the issue completely. I would be screaming for his release. The law was absurd.

But that’s not the point. This whole legal issue is peripheral. One more time, so everyone’s on the same page: The law was wrong. It was ridiculous. Moving on.

As P Corcs was starting to get at (I like your style, P Corcs. Nice fact-finding, great sarcasm), Mr. Wilson did nothing to deserve the money that was given to him, and therein lies my problem.

Mr. Antagonist, you say that “they are giving him the money because he was wrongly imprisoned for two years.” There are people convicted of crimes and exonerated by DNA evidence years later. They were innocent all along. These people were wrongly imprisoned.

Mr. Wilson broke the law. There was a videotape of him breaking the law. There was a mandatory sentence. He wasn’t wrongly imprisoned. The law was wrong, but his imprisonment wasn’t wrongful. Un-just? Yes. Silly? Yes. A waste of everybody’s time and money? Yes. But not wrongful.

I realize there are some gaps in the sequence, but look at the cause/effect relationship of the events and it’s hard to deny that Mr. Wilson is receiving $9,000 for getting a beej. Instigating action: Mr. Wilson gets some lovin’. Final outcome: Mr. Wilson gets $9,000.

The fact that the money isn’t coming out of my taxes doesn’t rectify the situation in my eyes. The problem is that he’s getting scholarship money at all.

I’m arguing the principle.

There are millions of deserving kids worldwide that can’t afford to go to college. Kids that worked hard and stayed out of trouble, but for whatever reason the cards have been stacked against them. These kids will slip through the cracks. They will spend their lives in poverty and no one will ever know their names.

What do these kids need to do to get the same national exposure? How do they get the extra assistance that Mr. Wilson has been offered?

These kids will be forever forgotten because publicity seeking dumbasses (like Jesse Jackson) would rather reward convicted criminals.

That’s the point. As P Corcs points out, the money isn’t unlimited. I’m not outraged as a tax payer, or as a legal-eagle. I’m outraged as a human being. I’m outraged that some brilliant young man or woman will spend a lifetime working in a factory because Genarlow Wilson, the man who got together with his buddies to videotape a 15-year-old performing oral sex, was given the money that he/she had worked so hard to earn.

I know I’m coming off a little bullish on the issue, but sometimes I get tired of playing moderate.

Thanks for reading.

PS. Mr. Antagonist, apologies for not commenting on your blog yet. I assure you that I read it the day you posted, but have spent the time since digesting. I promise I’ll get there.

Zizzle-Zot’s What the Hell? Story of the Week

I recently read an article about a 21-year-old man named Genarlow Wilson who has spent the last two years in a Georgia prison after he was convicted of aggravated child molestation.

Before you spit in disgust, listen to the circumstances. He was convicted following a 2003 New Year’s Eve party where he was videotaped having oral relations with a 15-year-old girl. He was 17 at the time and the act was consensual. The law was changed in 2006 to make oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor with no mandatory prison sentence (Wilson was given 10 years).

On Friday, Georgia’s Supreme Court overturned the sentence, ruling 4-3 that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. They ordered that Wilson be released.

I’m not writing this post to proclaim that Wilson should stay in prison. I’m not outraged that he’s being released. It was a ridiculous sentence for an act that kids (unfortunately) engage in all the time.

Nor am I writing to champion Wilson’s cause. I’m quite certain that he’s a degenerate (he was also accused of raping a 17-year-old girl at the same part. He was acquitted, but it still makes me question his character). Not to mention, he’s already got Jesse Jackson at his side screaming of the injustice.

So you may be asking yourself: Why is Zizzle-Zot writing about Genarlow Wilson?

I’m glad you asked. Check this out, taken directly from the article I read:

“State lawmakers announced they had raised $4,000 toward a scholarship fund for Wilson, and Jackson promised another $5,000 from the Rainbow/PUSH organization.”

Are they kidding me? I feel bad for the guy’s plight and all…wait a minute, no I don’t. Not even a little bit. He videotaped himself engaging in a lewd act and got caught. Yes, the sentence was excessive. But are they really going to give Genarlow $9,000 because he got a bj from a 15-year-old?

I’ve always busted my ass when it comes to my education. I graduated high school at the top of my class, I did well on the ACT’s, I put together impressive applications, and (outside of school sponsored assistance) I couldn’t get a scholarship to save my life.

I guess instead of reading books and learning I should have been hanging out with minors at New Year’s Eve parties (video camera in hand).

That’s injustice.

Thanks for reading.

Runway Models Visit Famine Stricken Ethiopia: Don’t See a Problem

An international team of runway models, sent to Ethiopia as goodwill ambassadors by the United Nations World Fashion Committee, recently completed a two week tour of the North African country that has been ravaged by years of famine, drought, and conflict and report that “all is well.”

Upon returning, self-appointed model spokeswoman Kate Moss asserted that “the starving people of Ethiopia seem to be doing quite well. If anything, I’d call them a little chubby around the middle.”

While staying in rural villages, the models were reportedly offered feasts of lentil paste and injera (flat bread made from teff) by tribal leaders, afterwards claiming that they were “stuffed,” that they “had never eaten so much in their entire lives,” and that they “couldn’t possibly eat another bite” (which was convenient because there wasn’t another bite to be had).

Ukrainian model Daria Werbowy stated that she was a little concerned about all the carbs, but didn’t mention it because she didn’t want to insult the culture. “I recently attended an Eating Disorder Awareness Seminar, which brought to my attention the affect my skinniness and overall attractiveness can have on less skinny or attractive people. I’d hate for these people to stop eating so they can look like me.”

Model Sarah Walsh added: “Some of them eat one meal every day. Can you imagine? A whole meal every single day? I’d get so bloated.”

When asked if any of the models were concerned about the country’s food shortage, Moss looked confused: “the citizens of Ethiopia are getting the full 150 calories a day it takes to be fabulously beautiful. Most people would kill to have their skinny little legs.”

Some of the models even expressed envy over the Ethiopians’ living conditions. “Famine is a great diet. It’s easy to avoid food when there isn’t any.”

Thanks for reading.

People of Note: Edie Sedgwick

Every artist worth his weight has a muse. For both Andy Warhol and Bob Dylan, Edie Sedgwick was that muse.

Born in 1943 to a family of old East Coast money, Sedgwick was in many ways the predecessor to our very own Paris Hilton. By that, I mean she was famous simply for being famous. Living a life of privilege and splendor, Ms. Sedgwick has become an iconic, mythical figure in both artistic circles and the eyes of aspiring debutantes.

Heavily involved in the social scene of the ‘60s, Sedgwick met Bob Dylan and his close friend Bobby Neuwirth in 1964 while they were staying at the Chelsea Hotel with Dylan’s girlfriend Sara Lownds. Sedgwick reportedly made an immediate impression on Dylan as they spent late nights touring the “poppy nightlife world,” as Neuwirth called it, while Lownds stayed at home with her 3-year-old child.

She would meet Warhol in 1965 and become a regular at his studio, referred to as The Factory and famed for wild parties with guest lists ranging from Mick Jagger to Truman Capote. Upon first meeting, Sedgwick caught Warhol’s eye and he decided to feature the young beauty in a series of avant-garde films including Poor Little Rich Girl, Kitchen, and Beauty No. 2.

The films were rarely viewed outside of The Factory, but Sedgwick’s fame spread nonetheless. It seemed she never left Warhol’s side (he referred to her as his “superstar). She went so far as to cut her hair short and die it silver to match the wigs Warhol would often wear.

By 1966 Sedgwick’s relationship with Warhol had deteriorated. Many believe the cause was Sedgwick’s relationship with Dylan, which caused petty jealousies and insecurities inside The Factory.

The truth, however, was that Dylan had secretly married Ms. Lownds several months prior to Sedgwick’s falling out with Warhol (a fact that Sedgwick was unaware of). During an argument between Sedgwick and Warhol at a New York restaurant, started when she mentioned a film she was supposedly to star in with “Bobby Dylan,” Warhol revealed the clandestine marriage, which he had learned of from mutual friends. Sedgwick went to make a phone call and when she returned announced that she was leaving The Factory. She never went back.

The animosity grew from there, particularly between Dylan and Warhol. Dylan blamed Warhol for Sedgwick’s unchecked drug use, feeling that he ruined her. Warhol felt that Dylan had been lying to Sedgwick, leading her on while knowing full well that he would never be with her; lying to her about their relationship (the exact nature of Dylan’s relationship with Sedgwick has never been verified, but it’s believe that several of the songs on Blonde on Blonde, released in 1966, are about Sedgwick. Also, Edie’s older brother Jonathon has come forward and asserted that she was pregnant with Dylan’s child and had an abortion.)

Sedgwick, meanwhile, became entangled in an intense and tumultuous relationship with Neuwirth and became increasingly dependent on barbiturates. Neuwirth, unable to cope with the drug use, broke it off in ’67. Sedgwick never quite recovered.

By 1969 Edie was committed to the psychiatric ward of Cottage Hospital in California. Here she met fellow patient Michael Post, whom she would marry in 1971. She reportedly quit using alcohol and drugs, but in October was prescribed pain medication for a physical illness. She would often demand more medication, or claim she lost the pills in order to get more.

In November Edie attended a fashion show and then an after party. She died that night of a barbiturate overdose. Edie Sedgwick was 28-years-old

So what makes Edie Sedgwick special? Why is a spoiled, drug abusing media darling worthy of the esteemed honor of being named a Zizzle-Zot Person of Note (any more so than Paris, Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears)?

Because, in my eyes, her story embodies the tragedy that the lives of the rich and famous all too often are. We live in a society that idolizes and idealizes those who die young. Kurt Cobain, River Phoenix, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, the list goes on. We glorify the lifestyles of drugged out, delusional, desperate individuals. We like to think of these people as truly living; seize the day, Carpe Diem. Always exciting. Always on the move. If only I could have that life, I’d be happy.

But really, aren’t these people dying? Slowly killing themselves as we look on, fascinated by the wreckage.

They are lost and lonely souls with no one to turn to in a sea of people.

Edie Sedgwick, reduced to a simple plot line, was an innocent and naïve girl looking for love, caught in the crosshairs of a world she didn’t understand. She was used and abandoned by men of staggering genius. Men who could compose in her name timeless ballads and priceless pieces of art. Men who could turn her into a goddess, a muse. Men who could give her the world, but were so consumed by their own inner turmoil that they could never give her their love.

Men who, after leading her to drugs and leaving her to suffer alone, would finally kill her.

Thanks for reading.

This American Life: Tune In

Looking back over my posts, I’ve realized that I offer a lot of disclaimers. I’ll often qualify my writings as purely opinion or conjecture, worthy of little merit and even less wholehearted acceptance. Maybe I want to ensure that Zizzle-Zot, etc. is a welcoming, open forum by avoiding heavy-handed, opinion-as-fact diatribes (a la CNN, FOX News, etc.). Maybe I’m just an opinionated dude conscious of covering my ass.

I write that as a prelude to this disclaimer: Today, Zizzle-Zotians, I’m walking perilously close to the edge between self-deprecating pretentiousness and actual, nose-in-the-air pomposity.

I suppose being accused of snobbery is inevitable when one confesses to regularly listening to This American Life, which reeks of self-importance.

The weekly radio show, broadcast out of Chicago, could best be described as a purveyor of poignancy through the odd, the curious, or the seemingly mundane. Hosted by the always nasally, sometimes smug Ira Glass, each episode focuses on a different theme and offers a variety of stories on that theme. The stories are usually true, and for the most part chronicle average Americans placed in unique circumstances that illuminate an aspect of the episode’s theme, sometimes blatantly, sometimes esoterically.

I know what you’re thinking: it would seem that I hate This American Life. And when I tuned in online for the first time, I assumed I would.

But as I listened to my first episode, titled Twentieth Century Man, I became entranced. It’s the story of Keith Aldrich, a child of the depression that never quite found his identity, through the eyes of Gillian Aldrich (one of his nine children). It tells of Keith’s search for purpose as a preacher, an aspiring Hollywood actor, a Beat writer, a member of the New York literati, a hippie, and a suburbanite. Gillian catches up with Keith’s many other children by many other women (he would leave his old family behind every time he shifted identities). And ultimately, it paints the picture of a faceless, piteous failure fried by years of drug use and wandering.

It’s a truly depressing story, and the melancholy was palpable, real. The interviews with the siblings aim at getting beneath Keith’s many incarnations and finding the true man. In the process, some of them sympathize with their father. Some show pity, some irony, some only anger.

Therein lies the power of the show. By being pretentious and smug, Ira Glass and his This American Life cohorts can capture real emotion. They can transmit love, pain, happiness and sorrow over the radio without resorting to the sentimentality of a Hallmark commercial. They are relentless in interviews, they refuse to pull punches or let their subjects off the hook, and as a result they dig to the pith of their stories. By being so damned self-inflated, they invite their subjects to embrace the importance of their own stories and reach a level of honesty that would be impossible in other settings

This American life is ultimately about the duality of human nature, and in finding this duality they have arrived at something truly American.

Thanks for reading.

The Non-Theist's Quandary: The Finale

Greetings, Zizzle-Zotians. I’d like to thank you all once again for the conversation we’ve been having. For me, the posts and ensuing discussions have provided a tremendous opportunity to reconsider my belief in a higher power, to analyze my reasoning for said belief, and to organize my thoughts in support of this belief. My hope is that everyone reading also took advantage of the debate to delve deeper into their own belief systems.

The thing I love about the blog format in general, and specifically about the blogosphere we’ve established for ourselves on Zizzle-Zot, etc., is that it’s a completely open forum. We’ve created a community of trust and respect, inviting all to honestly share their ideas and worldviews with other deeply thoughtful, Truth-seeking philosophers, scholars, and intellectuals (and I don’t hesitate when giving us those titles – just look at the discussions we’ve fostered).

As a result, we’ve been able to come together from varying walks of life to challenge each other, to look closer at the big issues and in turn, continue to make ourselves better people.

Truth be told, I could write an infinite number of continuations to The Non-Theists Quandary (okay, that’s a lie – I don’t believe in infinity as it applies to the physical world), and never come close to proof. For every essay I would write a scholar much smarter and more learned than I could write a rebuttal. Poking holes in the non-theist’s faith will never succeed in definitively proving my own, nor will the non-theist poking holes in my faith cause me to apostatize.

My aim was to present some convincing challenges to the non-theist belief system as a way to spark dialogue. For some of us, this was helpful in reaffirming our ideas. Some of us took the opportunity to play devil’s advocate on a few issues. Some of us outright disagreed on certain theories. Any one of these reactions is beneficial in forcing us to confront what we claim to believe and digging in to find out why.

And maybe, though I realize that no non-theists read this blog (at least none that I know of) and I don’t imagine our conversation would be quite enough to shift any paradigms, maybe it would challenge a non-theist to take another look, as we have.

I say with some confidence (and simultaneously trepidation) that definitive proof for or against the existence of a higher power will never be found (at least not in our lifetime). To believe requires a leap.

Whenever I look up at the stars I feel in my gut an overwhelming sense of both awesome power and comfort. We live in an unimaginably vast universe full of galaxies, planets, stars, asteroids, and black holes. Yet we are here. For no reason at all, we’re here, and we have the power to reason, to love, to create. To feel hope, pain, joy, reverence. In my mind, it doesn’t make sense unless we were intentionally put here.

In the end, faith must be blind. We all must find our own reasons to have faith, or not to. I know what I believe. It isn’t scientific. I’ve never seen it, heard it, touched it. But I believe in it. And that’s Truth for me.

Thanks for reading.

The Non-Theist's Quandary Part 3: The Origins of Morality

Thanks again everyone for the great comments. Ideas are percolating, dialogue is brewing…Is it time for a coffee?

A quick response to the last couple of comments before moving on to today’s topic: Mr. Antagonist, there is no doubt in my mind that someone could very convincingly challenge everything I’m saying. I’m not an expert on these issues by any means (I barely pass as competent – sorry to burst anyone’s bubble).

I agree with you that science and religion are not inherent enemies. The problem, in my eyes, is that everyone is too damn reactionary to be reasonable. I agree with P Corcs that there are scientists pushing evolution because of an atheistic agenda, just as there are Christians pushing creationism because of a religious agenda. Often, when these two sides butt heads, logic and reason are lost.

Scientists desperate to disprove religion manifest new ideas, many of which are themselves illegitimized years later (we’re too young for this, but how about the “Big Chill” of the ‘70s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)

As P Corcs pointed out, blindly believing in unproven scientific precepts requires an enormous amount of faith and is still religion; just religion by a different name. This becomes a problem when the weight of “science” is thrown behind a theory and given the authority of “fact.”

Christian fundamentalists then react by declaring all science to be hogwash, and not conceding any science as fact (looking like buffoons in the process) In reality, whether you believe in evolution, a Grand Creator, or any combination of both, it’s impossible to deny science (and it would be preposterously ignorant to try).

Alright, moving on to today’s topic…

The third question the non-theist can’t answer deals with ethics. Seemingly, every person is born with a conscience, a sense of right and wrong.

The non-theist would account for the conscience as being one of two things. The first option is individual relativism, which is the theory that each individual sets moral standards for him/herself. This idea, however, doesn’t account for the similarities in the moral standards from person to person. We may claim that our individual standards differ (convenient when justifying poor behavior), but we still have what is known as a “judicious sentiment.” This means that even if we claim to have lower individual moral standards, we still hold others up to a higher set. According to C.S. Lewis, this is unavoidable and undeniable. He says in his book Mere Christianity:

“Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining “It’s not fair” before you can say Jack Robinson…Have [cultural relativists] not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like everyone else?”

The other option for the non-theist is to claim that cultural relativism is the foundation of morality. This too is an inadequate explanation because every culture has a similar base set of moral standards. Again I’ll refer to C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity:

“Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of doublecrossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.”

Relativism is not a sufficient explanation for morality because it is simply not applicable to real life. Imagine the Nazi’s had won World War II. They went on to kill any opposition, so by the time they were finished everyone in the culture believed that killing Jews was a virtuous action. Could the non-theist then claim that murder is virtuous? Wouldn’t the killing of Jews still be abhorrent, in spite of the cultural assertion that it’s the greatest good?

Also, in a relativistic mindset moral progress is impossible because changing current moral standards is always wrong at the time of the overthrow. This means that a non-theist, in maintaining relativity, would oppose abolitionism, the Civil Rights Movement, child labor laws, the overthrow of oppressive or genocidal governments, even the American Revolution.

This leaves us with the question of where our moral standards come from. What prevents humanity, as a whole, from being completely self-absorbed; from becoming an anarchy of greedy, murderous wretches consumed by the individualistic pursuit of power?

For me, the only conceivable answer is that they were instilled in us by a Grand Organizer, a Creator. I believe that, more than any other of the arguments I have made, this inherent morality points to the existence of an involved, intervening higher-power: A force that has a personal interest in our actions, our well-being, our survival, and perhaps…dare I say…our souls.

Thanks for reading.

The Non-Theist's Quandary Part 2: The Origins of Life

It was great to read everyone’s comments on yesterday’s post. I love hearing the personal stories on this issue, and look forward to the ongoing discussion.

Cassel, thanks for the perspective on Biblical interpretation. It’s nice to have the thoughts of an aspiring theologian who is studying the Bible in a scholarly way.

Mr. Antagonist, you’re correct to point out that establishing the existence of a higher power doesn’t prove the existence of an intervening God. I find that this is the hardest leap to make, and don’t claim to have it figured out just yet. I probably never will…

Picking up where we left off yesterday:

The second question that the non-theist can’t answer regards the origins of human life. Human beings are extraordinarily complex entities, and the odds of such a complex organism just “appearing” are astronomical.

So where did we come from?

The naturalist will try to explain this problem away with the “Neo-Darwinian Synthesis.” This is the theory that during the formation of the earth there was a “primeval stew” which consisted of the numerous simple compounds that are essential to life. Through light flashes and other energy sources these compounds randomly blended to form the enzymes needed for life to form and evolve.

Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, two renowned astronomers, did an in-depth study into this theory and found that the odds of events happening the way Neo-Darwinists say they did is 1 in 10^40,000. This number, they claim, is “exceedingly minute, to a point where it is insensibly different from zero.” Perfect conditions, chance events, flawless timing. The numbers say this is nearly impossible. So who’s being illogical?

As a result of these experiments, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe concluded that there must be a super intelligence, something ordering the universe.

Next, take a look at the human body. Its mechanics are so incredibly perfect that I think it would be a logical leap to say it formed and evolved randomly. L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell expound upon this in an essay titled “The Anthropic Teleological Argument.” I won’t delve too far into the argument here (Google it if you’re interested), but their hypothesis asserted that human life is far too complex to have come into existence by chance, and our creation was ordered by a “Grand Universal Theory.” In the words of Voltaire: “If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool.” There must have been some super-intelligent, grand designer behind it all. What else explains human life?

Our bodies are extremely fickle, and cannot sustain in drastic conditions. If the earth was colder or warmer, if the atmosphere was made of different compounds, if there was less or more water, humans couldn’t survive. Earth was given the perfect parameters for life to develop. How?

Betty and Cordell note that it is interesting that the “God of the gaps” theory has been turned around. It seems, from the mathematical odds stacked against naturalistic theories on the formation of life, that it is actually “science of the gaps.” We have discussed this before, but to reiterate: Christians are often accused of starting at a predetermined conclusion and molding evidence to fit said conclusion (a crime we are admittedly often guilty of.) But it would appear that in this instance, in studies on the origins of human life (a highly scientific field), scientists have started with the conclusion that there is no Creator, have ignored mountains of mathematical probability and evidence, and have manipulated science to confirm their theories. They have turned their backs on the objectivism which they claim to so rigorously uphold.

Think about the mathematical and logical stretch it takes to believe that life formed and evolved through natural forces. To do so is to believe in a virtually impossible event, and then to believe that this virtually impossible event happened over and over again until the result was a perfectly formed creation capable of advanced thought and reasoning.

Wow.

Call me crazy (or illogical), but I’ll stick with a Creator. Part three on Monday…

Thanks for reading.

The Non-Theist’s Quandary Part 1: The Origins of the Universe

I believe in God. I’m mystified by the form and personhood this God may embody and suspect that nobody has it quite right, but in a world that seems to drift further and further away from faith as it embraces science and cultural relativism, I believe that we were created and placed on earth by a higher power. I admit that such a concept is un-provable, and some may call it improbable, but this will not sway me into disbelief. Does that make me unreasonable? I don’t think so.

For me, there are three questions that the non-theist simply cannot answer. These questions are so condemning, so impossible to ignore, that they provide enough evidence for me to believe in the existence of God and establish the necessity of a higher power as an absolute. The first is the cosmological question. Where did matter, and the universe, come from? The second is teleological. Where did human life come from? The third is ethical. If there is no God, why be morally good?

Over the course of the next three days, I’ll address these questions in order.

The first question, the question of where matter came from, has been answered in two different ways by the non-theist. One option that has been proposed is that matter came into existence from nothing. Paul Davies, in his essay “A Naturalistic Account of the Universe,” further expounds this theory. He claims that before the universe came into existence, a great quantum vacuum filled with an enormous amount of energy existed. This energy was created by the repulsive forces working against each other in the vacuum. Eventually, too much energy was created for the vacuum to contain, and thus the “big bang.”

The problem with this argument is that it flies in the face of science. So many rules that scientists hold as immutable must be ignored that I can’t believe that any respectable scientist would buy into the theory. First, we have to assume that at the time of the creation of the universe the law of conservation of energy didn’t apply. This law states that energy can’t be created or destroyed. Once we get past this we still have absolutely no evidence or basis to believe that a great quantum vacuum would just come into existence.

Davies answers this by pointing to the world of quantum physics, where particles behave unpredictably. I’ll grant him this, as I have no reason not to, but I can also say that the realm of science has never seen erratic particles form a great quantum vacuum. If they did it would seem they were actually quite uniform. To continue down this logical thread, erratic particles performing in a uniform fashion would actually seem quite miraculous, and in turn land outside the realm of rational science that Mr. Davies has based his theory upon. Also, if this does explain the origin of the universe, what explains the origin of the particles? Davies does not answer any questions; he just takes the argument one step further down the chain.

The second way that the non-theist has attempted to explain this problem away is by asserting that the universe has always existed. There are three reasons why this could not be the case.

The first is that big bang research (a scientific endeavor) has shown that there was an absolute beginning to the universe as we know it. J.P. Moreland, in his “Kalam Cosmological Argument,” offers us an important feature of the big bang theory: “The universe as we know it began from a large explosion some fifteen billion years ago and has continued to expand ever since.”

The second flaw in claiming that the universe has always existed is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy in a closed system dissipates over time. This law, accepted by all scientists, maintains that we are continuously moving towards a time when the energy will simply run out. If the universe has always existed, realistically we A) would have run out of energy by now (which we have not), or B) will never run out of energy (which is a scientifically illogical).

It boils down to the problem of infinity, which leads to my third point.

The third proof that the universe has not always existed (which would mean the universe is infinite) is that an actual infinite in the real world is an impossibility, and if there were an infinite, it could not be traversed (I’ll get to this).

The first point, the existence of an actual infinite, presents us with a logical paradox. Philosopher Bertrand Russell offered a good example with his use of Tristam Shandy, the infinite author. Tristam sets out to write his autobiography, but it takes him a year to finish writing about one day of his life. If he lived to infinity, he would have no trouble finishing his book, because he would have infinite years to write. At the same time, he could never finish because each day he would get further behind. He could never finish, but he would never not finish.

The second point to this argument, that it is impossible to traverse an infinite, is basically saying that if the universe exists on an infinite timeline it would be impossible to place anything on that timeline. Let’s say that the universe has existed for infinite years, then how long have humans existed? For half that time? This would still be infinity on an infinite timeline, meaning that humans have also existed for infinite years, which we know we have not (and if we have, one would think we’d be much more advanced). When were you born on an infinite timeline? No matter where you place yourself, you would be infinite years old. Are you infinity? Speaking for myself, I would hope that if I were infinite years old I would be a hell of a lot smarter. Then maybe I would just know the answers, making this essay completely unnecessary.

Tomorrow, we’ll talk about the origins of human life. Till then…

Thanks for reading.

The Non-Theist's Quandary: An Introduction

As a number of you are already aware, a new voice known as Mr. Antagonist has popped up in our little blogosphere (check it out at: http://thomashelgen.blogspot.com/). The issues we have been dialoguing back and forth on have already proven juicy topics for debate, and have me thinking a little bit about why I believe in a higher power at all.

Over the next several days I will be posting excerpts from an essay I call “The Non-Theists Quandary.” Parts are compiled from essays I have written in the past, parts are newly added material.

What I hope to establish is that there is substantial evidence for the existence of a higher power (though I will not at this time attempt to definitively argue that this power is the Christian God), and that there are very important questions that a non-theist simply cannot provide viable answers to.

I realize no one has thus far explicitly denied the existence of a higher power. Nevertheless, I want to take this opportunity to lay a foundation. In any debate on faith or beliefs (such as the one at hand in which one side is arguing Agnosticism, the other Christianity) I feel it is vital to establish why one bothers to believe in anything at all.

From that groundwork, one can rationally establish why one has chosen the faith that one has, out of all the possibilities.

Of course this is just one small, initial step in the discussion. But I honestly believe that since the existence of a higher power is abundantly evident (as I hope to demonstrate), the responsibility falls on us to search for Truth. At times, this Truth will slap us over the head in an unmistakable, undeniable way. More often, it will be distant and vague, difficult to ascertain, and will require a lifetime of devotion with the potential risk of never reaching it.

Agnosticism troubles me. Many Agnostics seem to be waiting for something; waiting to be handed the answers. (This is a gross generalization. There are also many Agnostics ravenously searching for the truth) I don’t think this will ever happen. In the end, if one spends a lifetime waiting for ultimate Truth to land on the doorstep rather than actively pursuing it, one would have nobody to blame for never finding it.

Faith requires a risk, a leap. But since a higher power exists (as I believe), this is a risk worth taking.

To be continued…

Thanks for reading.

People of Note: Manfred von Richthofen

Manfred von Richthofen, also known as “The Red Baron,” is arguably the most well-known fighter pilot in the short history of aviation. With 80 confirmed air-combat victories while flying for Germany during WWI, he was a figure demanding both fear and respect.

Von Richthofen was born to a family of old Prussian nobility in the town of Kleinburg (in what is now southwestern Poland). After completing cadet training in 1911 he joined a Prussian cavalry unit, serving as a scout on both the eastern and western fronts during the outset of WWI.

With the modernization of warfare (machine guns, barbed wire), cavalry scouts quickly became obsolete and Von Richthofen’s duties as a cavalry-man were limited to reinforcing other troops. Disappointed by this lack of combat, he transferred to the Flying Service in 1915.

In 1916 Von Richthofen met Oswald Boelcke, a fighter pilot recruiting candidates for his newly formed unit. He selected Von Richthofen, and it was with Boelcke’s team that Von Richthofen recorded his first official air-combat victory while flying over Cambrai, France.

From Boelcke, young Von Richthofen learned to fly by a strict set of flight rules to assure the greatest success for the individual and the squadron. Using a combination of tremendous skill and calculated caution, he quickly rose in the military ranks and assumed command of his own unit, Jasta 11, in 1917.

It was during this time that he was appointed the moniker “The Red Baron.” As a practical means of easy identification, the pilots of Jasta 11 began decorating their aircraft with red colorations and individual markings, with Von Richthofen’s own planes painted entirely red.

The Red Baron lead his new unit to world renowned success, peaking in the “Bloody April” of 1917, during which The Baron himself had 22 kills (raising his total to 52).

In June he took command of the new, larger Jagdgeschwader formations, which consisted of Jastas 4, 6, 10, and his old 11. The Jagdgeschwader soon became a feared force, highly mobile and able to strike quickly with great precision, and earned the nickname “The Flying Circus” for its brightly colored planes and large, colorful tents housing men and aircraft.

In July of 1917 The Red Baron sustained a serious head wound which grounded him for several weeks. He returned to flight in October, but the injury is believed to have caused lasting damage as he would continually suffer from post-flight nausea and headaches (and some claimed a change in temperament).

In 1918, the German government attempted to force Von Richthofen to take a desk job, fearing that the death of a wartime hero with a large cult following would be a serious blow to German morale. The Red Baron refused, and rumors circulated that the British had assembled squadrons specifically to hunt him down, and were offering large rewards and an automatic Victoria Cross to any allied pilot able to kill him.

On April 21, 1918, The Red Baron met his demise while pursuing Canadian Pilot Wilfrid May over the Somme River. During his pursuit he was met with counter-fire from May’s flight commander, Arthur Brown. The Baron turned to avoid the attack and continued his pursuit. It’s believed that during this final stage of the chase Von Richthofen was struck by a single .303 bullet, causing severe damage to his heart and lungs. He managed a hasty landing, keeping the plane largely intact, but died shortly after.

And now, posthumously, The Red Baron makes delicious frozen pizza.

Thanks for reading.

Don’t They Have Better Things to Do?

Late last week the US House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee voted to condemn the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during WWI as genocide. The vote was met with criticism by Turkish president Abdullah Gul, who ominously warned that the decision would cause tension between Turkey and the US.

This would be an inopportune time for the relationship to deteriorate. The US relies on Turkey to help transport equipment and personnel to Iraq. In addition, the Turkish military has been mobilizing along its Iraqi border in an effort to quell the insurgency by Kurdish separatists. Our government has been urging them to show restraint, as the outbreak of another war in Iraq is the last thing anybody needs.

I don’t know how many of you are familiar with this story. It’s not exactly headline news and it’s so minor that it could be very easily bypassed without a second thought.

But the fact that it is so insignificant is the reason I write about it.

Doesn’t the Foreign Relations Committee have anything better to do? They are currently facing a disastrous war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan that is on the verge of failing, the threat of Iran becoming nuclear, North Korea, which is already nuclear, providing technology to Syria, which aspires to be nuclear (and is being bombed by Israel for it), chaos on the Gaza strip, the list goes on. In addition, global support for America is at an all time low. Basically, the entire world thinks we’re a bunch of dimwitted barbarians.

What exactly does the Foreign Relations Committee do?

Oh yeah...they hold meaningless votes (they readily admit it’s “nonbinding and largely symbolic”) to condemn events that happened 90 years ago.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be sympathetic to the plight of the Armenians during WWI. What they went through was horrible and it should be remembered. But realistically, the atrocities were committed by the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed at the end of the war. Any complicit parties died long ago. Who exactly is being condemned? It would be like condemning German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the actions of Adolf Hitler. It simply doesn’t make sense.

Maybe on a rainy afternoon during a time of international peace, while the Foreign Relations Committee is sitting around twiddling their thumbs, maybe then this vote would be an effective time-waster.

But not while American troops are stretched across the Middle East and our international image is crumbling before our eyes.

I think the vote is a result of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends realizing just how inept and impotent they really are. When they became the majority following the 2006 elections they assured voters of sweeping reform, but their campaign promises were writing checks their legislation couldn’t cash. So now they’re resorting to “symbolic” measures to make it look like they’re not just playing Facebook Roshambull all day.

As a taxpayer, I wish they would stop wasting my money. And as a consumer of news, I wish they would stop wasting my damn time.

Thanks for reading.

UFC Fighters Caught in Tender Embrace

Thousands of spectators were shocked into silence at the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s Thursday night main event as the two combatants became entwined in a passionate, lustful embrace midway through the fight, bringing the normally frenetic action to a screeching halt as the powerless referee did his best to pry the fighters apart and put an end to the homoerotic display.

Onlookers report that the two whispered sweet nothings as they held each other ever so gently, the looks on their faces exhibiting the painful joy of young lovers caught in the throes of ecstasy. As the majority of fight fans averted their eyes and parents bravely leapt in front of their young children in a futile attempt to spare them from the sickening demonstration of male love, flashbulbs crackled ringside, forever immortalizing the monumental moment in UFC history.

“We’ve always suspected that a number of fighters are closeted homosexuals hiding behind facades of violence and testosterone,” stated UFC VP of Public Relations Al Greenburg, “but we never imagined this suspicion would be confirmed by two sweaty athletes making a bedroom of the fighting cage.”

The initial response from fans was mostly outrage.

“We come to these fights to see trained killing machines beat each other into bloody, mangled unconsciousness. If I wanted to watch a bunch of fairies prance around I’d turn on a rerun of Frasier. My daughter had to witness that for crying out loud. Now she’s gonna ask me why I never caress barely clothed men. What am I supposed to tell her?” wondered Dale Fitz, who had indeed brought his 7-year-old daughter Megan to the fight.

25-year-old fan and fighter-in-training Brian Skeparski commented “what a bunch of gay bags. Of course I still want to be a fighter, but the kick ass kind. Not the homo kind.”

Thanks for reading.

October’s Zizzle-Zot Reader of the month

October is one of my favorite months of the year, if not my absolute favorite. The celebration of Oktoberfest with steins of German beer. The cascade of candy and costumes that is Halloween. The flaming horizon, exploding with reds, yellows and oranges as the leaves, refusing to die without a final blaze of glory, emanate an artists palette on their death beds.

When I awarded the first Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month, it was easy. Only a handful of people were reading Zizzle-Zot, etc., and P Corcs was the only one commenting. The choice was clear, and as the first recipient of the award P Corcs served the position well. His ongoing, consistent and insightful contributions to the blog are never overlooked.

As the months have progressed, the selection process has become more difficult, the competition increasingly fierce. Joey, Late Night and Werd (the 2nd, 3rd and 4th winners, respectively) have not relented in their pursuit of the prize, and the reality is that any one of these first four recipients would be deserving ROTM’s a second time.

In addition, we have some newcomers. Mr. Antagonist has been weighing in regularly and his thoughtful contributions have provided us with interesting new perspectives as well as some convincing counterpoints. Rumor is, he’s thinking about starting up a blog focusing on faith/agnosticism issues as a forum for discussion. I know there are several Zizzle-Zotians, myself included, that would be interested in such discussions and I look forward to his blog.

We’ve also had comments from Anonymous Brother in Law, Noah, K Han, Guess Who, and even the infamous Ryan Gallagher. We always like to hear from these readers, so I urge them to keep it up.

But there can be only one October Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month.

This month I’m giving the title of Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month to someone who, since breaking onto the Zizzle-Zot scene in mid-September, has been a devoted reader and commentator. Whether it be his rhyming couplet in response to Oscar the Ostrich, or his reference to P Corcs as Pazzle-toots (which made me laugh), he has exhibited a great deal of creativity in his responses, which is always appreciated. In addition, he’s won bonus for his harsh criticism of Nicholas Cage (who sucks big time), his advocacy of Halo 1 (even though he’ll never be as good as Maverick) and his fondness for Epic Duels.

Congratulations, Swajac, on being named October’s Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month!

Swajac is a substitute teacher, a bartender at the Green Mill, and all around a kick ass guy. In his free time he enjoys frolf, hockey, ice fishing, softball, midnight swimming and singing country songs with Glen in Nashville.

Thanks for reading.

Oscar the Ostrich

Deep in a place called the land down under
where beasts run free, is it any wonder
that Oscar the Ostrich was always afraid
of the terrible noises the dark forest made?

It was a good thing he’d come up with a plan.
When he became scared he’d stick his head in the sand:
“The beasts can’t see me because I see them not.”
He became invisible, or that’s what he thought.

But Oscar’s plan had one major flaw.
As you see, as I see, as all the beasts saw,
with his head in the sand and his heinie so tall,
Oscar wasn’t invisible, not even a little bit, not really at all.

This didn’t bother Oscar, nor did the breeze on his rump.
With his head buried deep he so bravely thunk
“No beast will find me right here where I am,
not the bears or the lions or the snakes or the rams

not the roos or the dingos or the sharks or the bats
not the gators or jackals or even the dirty buck-toothed rats.”
But as you know, as I know, as the beasts knew was true,
Oscar wasn’t hidden. Not to me, not to them, not even to you.

And on one unusually dark scary night
a grumpy rhinoceros was looking to fight.
The rhinoceros stomped, the rhinoceros stamped,
the rhinoceros threw a rhinoceros rant.

Oscar let out a shriek as he buried his head.
“It sure is a good thing,” poor Oscar said
“it sure is a good thing I’ve come up with this plan,
this wonderful plan to bury my head in the sand.”

The rhinoceros glared at the rump in the air
and despite Oscars plan, he knew something was there,
so he dug in his hooves and he lowered his horn
and he charged poor old oscar, who couldn’t be warned.

For Oscar the Ostrich had his head in the ground
and with his eyes buried deep he could not look around.
He had no idea what was charging his rump,
no idea at all, until he heard a great THUMP!

Poor old Oscar let out a great cry
and he thought to himself as he soared through the sky:
“Maybe I was wrong to have buried my head.
Maybe I should have stood up and faced my fears instead.”

Oscar was lucky to land far away.
The rhino wouldn’t find him, at least on that day.
And Oscar learned a good lesson, right then and right there:
When there’s danger around, keep your head in the air.

So Oscar went through the rest of his days
holding his head high in a courageous way
and as far as ostriches go, he was the bravest of the lot.
Hey, where’d he go?











Well…Maybe not.

Things to Come...Maybe

I realize you all have been eagerly awaiting the announcement of the next Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month. I apologize for the delay, but I assure you it is on its way (you can tell I'm a writer 'cause I rhyme all the time). The competition keeps growing in intensity, so I've needed a little time. Look for the post in the next couple of days.

Late Night, always looking to turn up the heat, has proposed a discussion on predestination. Merciless. Maybe next week. For now, I'm tired (unless someone else wants to write a post to get the ball rolling - this isn't a dictatorship. Email your post to me: grueri@bethel.edu).

Thanks again for all the support during the marathon. You people rock my socks off.

Thoughts of a First Time Marathoner

Two years ago I would’ve told you that the desire to run a marathon exemplifies the deepest level of psychosis. Months and months of brutal training leading up to a day of severe, self-inflicted physical and mental pain and torture, with the only goal being to finish. To do no irreparable damage, to never submit, to resist the urge to curl up into the fetal position, lying in a pool of one’s own vomit, to not pass out and die before the finish line at 26.2 miles.

You must be out of your mind.

It started innocently enough. I was living in California, the land of superficiality, and I wanted to drop some lbs, tone the physique. So I started jogging, mostly as a way to warm up for weight training (a real “man’s” workout). It was just a mile. One mile. Then it turned into two. Two miles, it’s okay, I’m still not a runner. Three miles? Four? Five?

And finally I realized: “Damn it…Maybe I am a runner.”

I’m the type of person that seeks out challenges. In my eyes, if I’m not proving my inner strength, my worth, my will to myself, then I’m not making myself better. I want to stretch, to grow, to be focused and motivated as I push myself to the limit mentally, physically, spiritually.

This is exactly the psychosis that makes one say “I’m going to run a marathon.”

So there I was, 7:30 on an unusually warm October morning, eagerly waiting with 10,000 other foolish souls for the trial of a lifetime to commence. The raw energy was palpable as we collectively envisioned ourselves crossing the finish line. For some, this vision would unfold as one of life’s great achievements. For many, it would never come to fruition.

At 8 AM, the temperature was already 74° and the relative humidity was 87%, making this year’s the warmest Twin Cities Marathon on record. The sweat was dripping from my forehead before the race even started, and with the air nearly saturated there was no place for it to go.

But as I finally reached the starting line (it took about 10 minutes) I couldn’t contain my smile as I basked in the encouragement of spectators. I was really doing it. My first marathon. This momentum carried me through the first 13.1 miles. On to 14, 15, 16, 17…And then it hit me. The oppressive heat, the dehydration, the realization that I was exhausted and I still had a long way to go.

Around mile 18 I began seeing stars. I couldn’t decide whether I wanted to pass out where I was or find a secluded spot in the woods to throw up the PowerAde and cliff bar I had consumed. The only thing keeping me conscious were the kind folks lined up on Summit Avenue, generously spraying water from hoses at the desperate runners passing by.

Mile 20 the cramping set in; a combination of severe dehydration and the fact that the human body was not built to endure this degree of strain. It would start in my calves, my pleading muscles seizing with each step. Then it would spread to my thighs, making each step a triumph of will over pain. Finally my legs would refuse to lift, and I would have to slow to a walk to avoid collapsing.

I have experienced pain, and I consider myself to have a high threshold for it (when I was 11 I broke my wrist and didn’t tell anyone for a day because I was afraid it would ruin my basketball season). But this was a pain like I had never felt. Never letting up, never numbing, growing progressively worse and exacerbated by the cruel knowledge that the end was a long way off. I had never experienced a physical meltdown like I did on those last 6.2 miles. My body had never refused to cooperate so stubbornly that each step required the greatest of mental effort.

Miles 21 through 26 are blurred by this throbbing pain, determination and an intense focus on one step at a time. Physically, every part of me wanted to give up. I had passed many collapsed runners. There was no shame. But mentally this would go against everything I stood for, and I had no doubts that in the end my mind would win out.

The final dash (more of a cringe inducing hobble) to the finish line was less than I had envisioned. I was expecting to be basking in the glory of my achievement, waving to the legions of fans. Instead I was looking at my feet, focusing on lifting them just high enough to avoid tripping over any cracks (if I had gone down I wouldn’t have gotten up). And then I was done. I had crossed.

My first marathon.

If there were any lessons learned, I haven’t found them yet. Maybe I’m not far enough removed. I’m still feeling the pain, I can still taste the misery. Will I ever run another one? Ask me in a month. Right now, I’d say you’re crazy.

Thanks for reading.

Vocal Pacifist Actually a Damn Sissy

A special report released earlier this morning revealed that prominent antiwar activist and conscientious objector Dwayne Radcliffe isn’t in any way morally opposed to the use of force to accomplish political ends, but is in reality an irredeemable pussy paralyzed by the fear of dying a painful, grizzly death. Or so says Daniel Timons, Radcliffe’s longtime “best” friend and fellow activist.

Timmons’ suspicions were first aroused when he noticed Radcliffe’s penchant for violent video games, particularly the original Mortal Combat for Sega Genesis. “All we hear out of him is ‘nonviolent resistance’ this, ‘war is murder’ that. It’s hypocritical. In the privacy of his home, Dwayne doesn’t even flinch when the game commands that he ‘finish him.’ And he ‘finishes him’ by ripping Johnny Cage’s head off and punting it into the spiked ceiling. It’s horrifying.”

Inquiries into the reasoning for Timmons’ betrayal of a fellow pacifist revealed tensions dating back 18 months, started by an incident in which Radcliffe publicly chastised Timmons for using bold, aggressive lettering on one of his protest signs. Radcliffe felt the signs seemed angry and forceful in their message, and perpetuated violence against Magic Markers.

Reached for comment, Radcliffe was indignant (and quite cowardly). “I’m doing my part to bring about peaceful resolutions to world conflicts. By avoiding death at all costs, by refusing to become horribly disfigured by roadside bombs or maimed by automatic gunfire, I’m saving innocent lives. Some people think the best way to fight cruel regimes is to fly into combat zones and physically protect the suffering children. I say let’s all stand on clean, safe American soil, find a soapbox on a friendly street corner, and hold up signs. Most importantly, let’s all avoid being beheaded at the hands of merciless guerilla fighters, left to die in a pool of our own blood and tears. That’s the pacifist way.”

Thanks for reading.

Free Burma

More Thoughts on Pacifism

I’ve had a little more time to contemplate and all it has brought me is more confusion…What I have left to offer is my personal ethic as clearly as I can formulate and articulate it.

Very rarely could I be convinced that violence is the solution to any problem. Violence begets violence, and more often than not change brought about through violent means only serves to establish new pathways for violent acts. Just look at the current situation in Iraq, the countless violent coups throughout the histories of Asia, South America and Africa, or The Troubles of Northern Ireland.

These nation’s identities are rooted in a history of bloodshed and the minds of the people have become engrained with the paradigm that violence is the only means available to accomplish ends (this is also true of gang culture in the US).

That said, I don’t believe pacifism as an inflexible moral policy is feasible either. As Mr. Antagonist poignantly and aptly stated, it’s “a borderline criminal stance when confronted with genocide.” In response to a terrifying and destructive regime such as Nazi Germany, pacifism amounts to nothing more than apathy, which at its core is no better than condoning the atrocity.

Herein lies the trouble: my ethic walks a precarious line on which we entrust ourselves to determine right moral action. The problem is that A) we most often are only given bits and pieces of the larger story (whatever the media wants us to see), and therefore lack the complete information necessary to make educated decisions, B) as a species, we have proven ourselves time and again to be irredeemable fools, and C) my moral determinations have absolutely zero impact on the decisions of the country and its leadership.

The current situation in Iraq is a prime example. At the time of the invasion, the majority of America supported President Bush and his decision to go to war. At the time, we were told Saddam Hussein had vast supplies of WMD’s and was aiding Al Qaeda. Both of these points were later revealed to be false, but we had incomplete information. Very few people foresaw the chaotic civil war that became the result of the invasion. We should have, the signs were all there. Bitter sectarian divides, years of oppression, economic hardship. But we were foolish. And to complete the trifecta of point C, it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference had I been vocally opposed to the war at the outset.

I believe it’s nearly impossible to determine the “justness” of a war from the beginning. Only in retrospect will the full truth be revealed and will the consequences (good or bad) be realized

The “justness” of war is determined by posterity, not by its actors.

To go back to Mr. Antagonist’s statements, there are notable exceptions in cases of clear cut genocide (Nazi Germany), but in this regard we as Americans are enormously hypocritical. For all of our big talk about fighting “just wars,” we fail to act in most cases where mass murder has predetermined justness. Think of the countless examples of American indifference as hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered across the globe. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Darfur, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda (do you want me to keep going with the African nations?) Murderous regimes in Latin and South America have been funded and trained by the CIA, for God’s sake.

We stood by and did nothing. Why? Because we had no invested interest. Because none of these nations had oil. Don’t tell me America is concerned about “just war.”

P Corcs, following Monday’s post you stated that “we need to take each situation as it is and react how we believe we should,” yet you also disagreed with my position that pacifism is more applicable to individuals than it is to a country. I’m having trouble understanding your stance. The problem is that “we” (as in you and I) have little control over the actions of our country (unfortunately…but maybe soon…).

Since I have no control over the decisions or actions of our leaders, it is possible (actually probable) that my ideas of morally right action in any given situation will not be in line with the governmental stance. Do you see the disconnect? We determine morality individually, and therefore it can’t be applied nationally (unless you want to get into groupthink – 1984 anyone?). To react in the manner that we believe we should, it’s absolutely necessary for tenets such as pacifism to be individualistic, and nearly impossible for them to be applied to a country.

Thoughts?

Tomorrow, I’ll be exercising pacifism by participating in an online protest with a group of bloggers around the world. The aim of the protest is to show support for the people of Burma. For those of you not familiar with the situation, a brutal military junta has been controlling the country and oppressing the people for years. Recently, protests lead by Buddhist monks took to the streets following an unexplained 500% increase in the price of gas, and the military has met their nonviolent resistant with unrestrained force; arresting, beating, and killing monks and citizens nationwide. To learn more, check out these links:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/10/reports-4000-mo.html

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22515138-661,00.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-02-voaburmaun.cfm

http://www2.free-burma.org/index.php

As part of this nonviolent protest, there will be no formal post tomorrow. In its place, I will be displaying one of the images created for the campaign. Visit Zizzle-Zot, etc to show your support.

Thanks for reading.

Canada on the Warpath

After yesterday’s post and the ensuing conversation on pacifism it became clear to me that we all face internal conflict on the issue and it may take more time to gestate before any of us can develop a complete, cohesive personal ethic.

To allow for this time, I’ll follow in the strain of armed conflict by talking a little about a potential struggle that I found extremely interesting.

In recent years, the warmer climate has resulted in the recession of ice formations in the Arctic Circle. As more land and ocean has been cleared of ice, vast stores of oil, diamonds and other minerals in the region have become accessible.

Technically, the Arctic Circle is international territory, meaning that any nation bordering the region (Russia, Canada, the US, Norway, and Denmark (which owns Greenland)) can drill or mine within 200 miles of their territory.

But now Russian President Vladimir Putin and his scientists are claiming that an underwater ridge near the North Pole is actually a part of Russia’s continental shelf. They assert that the 1,220-mile long Lomonosov Ridge is geologically linked to the Siberian Continental Platform, is similar in structure, and is therefore under Russian sovereignty. In recent weeks they sent a submarine to the ridge to plant a Russian flag encased in titanium on the ocean floor.

If their claim is determined valid, Russia will have exclusive access to an area five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

The UN maintains that no nation can claim sovereignty over the Arctic Circle and has rejected efforts to do so in the past. But unlike the typically impotent UN, Canada has actually taking action. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently took a trip to the north to reassert Canadian Sovereignty, the Canadian military performed the largest exercise in the history of the Arctic, and the country has announced plans to build its first deep sea port and military base in the region. In addition, Canada is revamping its navy with a fleet of ice-breaking patrol ships to prevent encroachment on its northern frontier.

Canada has also pointed out that they planted a flag at the North Pole in 1999 as part of a mission led by explorer Jack MacKenzie to set up a postal outlet for Santa Claus (seriously).

What will come of all this hullabaloo? A lot of posturing and harsh rhetoric, but ultimately probably nothing more. Still, it’s fascinating to see Canada stepping up to the military plate. I wonder what they will do if Russia uses force to solidify their claims on the Arctic. I wonder if the US will step in even though our military is already spread dangerously thin in Middle Eastern conflicts.

To me, it’s an apt real world example for the pacifism debate. So many of the world’s conflicts boil down to ownership, property. This is often meshed with ideological differences, but wars start over disagreements about which group has the “right” to be there. Israel vs. Palestine, Sunni vs. Shiite, the Union vs. the Confederacy.

My stance is that if we truly believe in God’s dominion, then we can’t call property wars “just.” I realize this contradicts some stories of the Old Testament, but I don’t have a problem with that. This is a whole new post (maybe for the future), but I have major issues with the OT. Namely, there are some 800 rules and for inexplicable reasons we have taken it upon ourselves to pick and choose which to follow. We’re willing to die for some, yet more than willing to completely ignore others. To me, it’s a major source of hypocrisy.

Back to the point, Jesus called on us to love our enemies, to feed them and give them shelter. This is explicit and undeniable. I don’t think loving an enemy includes killing him over a plot of land.

Thanks for reading.

Christian Pacifism

The idea of Christian pacifism is a concept that has always troubled, confused, and therefore beguiled me. Late Night, we have briefly discussed the topic before, but more as a tangent than as the exclusive focal point of conversation. So I’ll follow your lead and do my best to spark some debate on the issue.

The argument for Christian pacifism in the face of violence and oppression is deeply rooted in Biblical teachings. In the passage LNC offered up (Romans 12: 17-21) the command is explicit: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil,” “Never avenge yourselves,” etc.

The instruction to avoid violence at all costs seems to me to be one of the most clearly stated, inarguable orders in the Bible. Yet, when I think about it logically, placing pragmatism and realism above blind faith, it also seems to be one of the most impractical.

As individuals it may be realistic to live a life of pacifism. But we live in the most powerful, influential nation in the world, and as such we (as a country) constantly face the threat of attack from groups that disagree with America’s ideology, democracy, culture, etc. America, as a nation, simply can’t afford to be pacifistic. This would be seen as a weakness and exploited.

The problem is that America loves to think of itself as a “Christian Nation,” and here we face the sticky issue of trying to merge faith and politics (a problem that extends far beyond the idea of pacifism and has resulted in some utterly mind boggling legislations).

My honest opinion is that faith, and biblical concepts such as pacifism, are personal and only work when applied on an individual basis. While it may be realistic for you and me to be pacifists, it would be absurd for a nation to disband its army and adopt pacifism (one of many reasons that the idea of a “Christian Nation” is rubbish).

Here we face another problem: the majority of this country claims itself to be Christian. If everyone claiming to be Christian became a pacifist, America would find it difficult to assemble an army. I’m not really sure what to do about this. (Maybe an army of robots?)

I foresee this conversation at some point landing on the concept of the “just war.” I apologize for this preemptive strike, but I maintain that the idea of a “just war” simply doesn’t work. More often than not, the “justness” of a conflict is determined by whichever group holds the power in that time and place. Posterity determines which wars were just, but due to emotions and immediate interests we lack the objective reasoning necessary to determine whether the use of violence is justified.

I look forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts.

Thanks for reading.