Showing posts with label evil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evil. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Freedom of religion is not freedom from offense

Greetings.

Jewish date:  27 Tishri 5771 (Parashath Noaḥ).

Today’s holidays:  Tuesday of the Twenty-Seventh Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Pope Benedict IX (Church of the SubGenius).

Topic 1:  “Are war crimes caused by bad apples or bad barrels?”.  This article deals with the causes of war crimes, specifically whether there is specifically something wrong with the people who commit them (such as psychopathy) or whether the situation of being in a war leads to war crimes.  People often like to trace problems to a single cause (e.g., “Money is the root of all evil”), but guess what:  there is evidence that war crimes are caused by “bad apples” and “bad barrels”.  Humans are frightfully complex beings; there is no reason to assume our behavior is necessarily simple.  This should be kept in mind with dealing with the causes of evil in general:  people do things we consider wrong for all sorts of reasons, ranging from immediate gratification to greed to indifference to curiosity to zeal to jealousy to the noblest intentions.  (That last one is due to not everyone agreeing on what is evil.  What one person considers wickedness, another person may consider completely righteous.)
Jim DeMint headshotImage of Jim DeMint via Wikipedia

Topic 2:  “DeMint: Sexually Active Unmarried Women And Gay Teachers Should Be Barred From 
Classrooms”.  I heard about this one indirectly due to Josh.  Let me quote the start of the article:
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says that even though "no one" came to his defense in 2004 after he said that gay people and unwed mothers should be banned from teaching, "everyone" quietly told him that he shouldn't back down from his position.
He also implied that not banning gay people and women who have sex before marriage from teaching would be an attack on Christians, and defended his position on banning gay teachers because he holds the same position on women who have sex outside of marriage.
"[When I said those things,] no one came to my defense," he said, the Spartanberg Herald-Journal reported. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."
Exactly what legal right or aspect of freedom of religion would be violated by being taught by a homosexual or a woman who has non-marital sex?  I freely acknowledge that Christianity (at least certain branches) is fond of neither.  And I can easily understand that a Christian (at least of the DeMintian variety) might consider such a teacher a poor role model for his/her students and thus be offended.  But permitting such people to teach is not an attack on Christianity per se; not all Christians are so opposed to homosexuals or fornicators as DeMint.  Furthermore, while there is a constitutional right in the United States to practice one’s religion, there is no right to impose one’s religion on others.  In fact, since belief in one religion frequently requires belief that something certain other people believe or do is offensive, freedom of religion effectively requires that people be allowed to do things which offend other people.  And freedom of speech, also a constitutional right, includes being able to say and do things which other people do not approve of.  So DeMint does not approve of homosexuals and fornicators teaching others?  That is his prerogative.  But freedom of religion is not a case for a ban on homosexuals and fornicators from teaching.

Topic 3:  Update on yesterday’s post “It was not just the Temple Mount which the Muslims stole”:  “India less tense after court verdict on holy site”.  The court divided the land between the Hindus and the Muslims.  The Muslims get ⅓ of the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Mosque site, while the Hindus get ⅔ of the site, including the place where the mosque—and previously a Hindu temple—once stood.  I call this a triumph against Islamic supremacism.  Now we get to wait to see what happens next.

Peace.

Aaron
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Darwin, Ali, and Satan

Greetings.

Jewish date:  4 Tishri 5770.

Today’s holidays:  Ten Days of Repentance (Judaism), Tuesday of the Twenty-Fifth Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Mabon (Wicca).

Worthy cause of the day:  Urge your Senators to Protect the EPA’s Ability to Curb Global Warming Pollution.

Topic 1:  “Who Cares About Darwin?”:  This article deals with a creationist tactic of claiming that Charles Darwin is a horrible person who is responsible for Hitler, the Nazis, the Holocaust, and anything else awful one can imagine.  I have already dealt with why this is completely unfounded this to some degree in my review of Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed, largely that anti-Semitism, including violent anti-Semitism, existed long before Hitler and that Hitler fails completely to reference Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf.  This article goes into other aspects of why this guilt by association fails:  that we do not believe in evolution because of the authority of Darwin, Darwin’s life is irrelevant to whether evolution in true, and how evolution works (really or allegedly) is a matter of physical fact and not moral prescription.

Topic 2:  “Store Honors Islamic Martyr”:  This article is a warning to make sure one is interpreting something correctly.  This article deals with a sign saying a store would be closed on September 11 to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Ali.  Someone mistook this for a celebration of one of the 9/11 terrorists.  However, Imam Ali was really Muḥammad’s son-in-law and cousin.

Topic 3:  “Why do I”:
funny pictures of cats with captions
This is yet another LOLcat picture featuring Basement Cat, and like all good religious humor, it is founded on something actually part of religion.  Basement Cat is the LOLcat equivalent of Christianity’s Satan, who in Matthew 4:1-11 attempts to tempt Jesus.  This picture reflects an interpretation of evil as something external to and separate from us.  While not the only explanation given for the origin of evil, it is one with an inherent danger when taken literally:  since ultimately Satan is the author of evil, not us, arguably it is Satan who is responsible.  “Satan made me do it” is thus an easy way of shirking moral responsibility.  Such a conclusion is a position neither the Hebrew Bible nor the New Testament take; “Satan made me do it” is never used as a defense by anyone therein, and similar defenses (e.g., ’Adham blaming Ḥawwah and Ḥawwah blaming the Serpent) do not past muster either.

Somebody bug me to blog about what I believe to be the real origin of evil at some point when I have more time...

Aaron