Who is stupid enough to worship a grilled cheese sandwich?

Image via Wikipedia

Greetings.

Jewish date:  2 Marḥeshwan 5771 (Parashath Lekh-Lekha).

Today’s holidays:  Navratri (Hinduism), Twenty-Eighth Sunday of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Madeline Murray O’Hair (Church of the SubGenius).

Worthy cause of the day:  “Tell the DOJ: Investigate the Chamber of Commerce's campaign spending”.

Today’s topic:  The latest episode of Glee, “Grilled Cheezus”.



I have been busy getting ready to move to Israel, but this episode has been weighing on my mind.  (And it is a miracle I watched it as all.  The episode before it, “Britney/Brittany”, was unbelievably morally incompetently written.)  “Grilled Cheesus” is a train-wreck theologically.  There is a lot of talk about religion and spirituality, including the issue of freedom of religion in public schools, but most of it was on a petty level.

There are three main religion-related plots in this episode.  In the first plot, a football-playing teenager named Finn makes a grilled cheese sandwich and is surprised to see what he interprets as the image of Jesus on it.  He eats the half of the sandwich without the Jesus image on it, but he prays to the other half of the sandwich (“Grilled Cheesus”) to win a football game.  Now, being inspired by an unusual event is one thing, but Finn actually prays to the half-sandwich, as if it were Jesus himself.  This is a flagrant act of idolatry of a very shallow sort.  After all, it just a half-sandwich, not a god.  Nevertheless, his team still wins the game.

Finn prays to the half-sandwich a second time, this time asking that he be allowed to touch his girlfriend Rachel’s breasts.  (He does not seem to be a deep person by any means.)  Soon afterwards Rachel comes to talk with him, noting that she is aiming for a long-term relationship, including eventual marriage, and she wants their children to be raised Jewish.  She appears totally assimilated and disconnected from Judaism, and wanting to raise Jewish children even while committing the blatant transgression of intermarriage is severely inconsistent—and her reasons for this lapse of logic are not explained.  Finn agrees, even though this is grossly inconsistent with his own belief in Jesus, as shallow as it is.  After all, truth is not something one can compromise on.  Nevertheless, his agreement pleases Rachel, and she allows him to grope her breasts.

Finn prays yet again to the half-sandwich, this time asking to become quarterback, which he claims will better let him spread the message of Jesus.  (I cannot make this up.)  Soon afterwards, the current quarterback is injured, and Finn is chosen to take his place.  This disturbs Finn greatly, and he believes that he is responsible.  He is then counseled by a teacher that he is not really responsible.  However, any real discussion of the nature of prayer and how any god which exists responds to them is omitted.  Finn gets to sing the song “Losing My Religion”, and he reluctantly eats the half-sandwich.  Yes, he eventually reaches the truth that the half-sandwich is not a deity, but not particularly well, and this journey is one he should have had enough active brain cells to know not to take in the first place.

The second main religious plot centers on Kurt, stereotypical homosexual teenager.  Kurt dislikes church because much of Christianity is opposed to homosexuality.  In other words, “I do not like the message.  Therefore the message is wrong.”  This is a blatantly childish and illogical sentiment, as reality does not bend to accommodate how we want it to be.  Kurt’s father gets sick and is hospitalized.  Many of Kurt’s fellow glee club members want to pray for Kurt’s father, putting them at odds with Kurt, who is offended.  (Quick side note:  Kurt’s irrationality also extends to medicine, as he has someone perform acupuncture on his father.)  Eventually Kurt is mollified enough to let his fellow glee club member to take him to church.  He does not become a believer, but learns not to be offended by others seeking supernatural aid.  Tolerance is a good message, but Kurt still gets an F in theology.  (Not to mention song choice.  He twists “I Want to Hold Your Hand” out of its original context, and it comes out somewhat creepy.)

The third main religious plot centers on the song choices of the glee club, prompted by Finn’s declaration of having gotten religion.  They want to sing religious songs, which Will Schuester wants to moderate down to just “spiritual”.  Evil cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester is opposed, ostensibly because it would be a violation of separation of church and state.  Frankly, I am not clear it would be.  For teachers to demand that students subscribe to particular religious views or engage in particular religious activity in public school would definitely be a violation.  However, separation of church and state is not a ban on religion in public schools, and students are free to initiate and participate in their own religious activities. Thus if they chose to sing blatantly religious songs at glee club, they might well be able to get away with it.  Sue reveals to Will that she lost her faith long ago when her big sister became ill (apparently referring to her suffering from Down syndrome) and her prayers that she be healed went unanswered.  This is a naïve view of prayer.  Prayer is fundamentally talking to a deity.  Now, what sort of deity worth anything would be shallow enough to just pay attention to prayer, weighing it above and beyond all other behavior He/She demands?  And why should Sue’s prayer be weighed so heavily above and beyond any other factor?  And why should Sue’s sister be exempt from illness, which we all are subject to?  Why should not getting what one wants from a god mean that the god does not exist?  Later in the episode, Sue’s sister Janey tells Sue that she does believe in God and that He does not make mistakes—a position which she does not explain.  Nevertheless, it is enough for Sue to soften her position, and she does object to the glee club’s ultimate choice of a song, “(What If God Was) One of Us”.

In short, this episode handles religious belief with next to no depth.  This is disappointing since most humans have enough brain cells to do better than this.

Peace.

Aaron

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.)

Image 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

It was not just the Temple Mount which the Muslims stole

Greetings.

Jewish date:  26 Tishri 5771 (Parashath Noaḥ).

Today’s holidays:  Feast Day of Francis of Assisi (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Buster Keaton (Church of the SubGenius).

Worthy cause of the day:  “Stop 'Corn Sugar' Now!”.

The Tishri holidays are over, and I am trying to do something worthwhile waiting to hear back from someone in order to be able to move to Israel.

Topic 1:  “Atheists, Jews top religious knowledge survey” and “Survey: Americans don't know much about religion”.  That a lot of Americans know very little about religion is unsurprising; that is why this blog exists in the first place.  That some groups (Jews, Mormons) tend to know more than average is also unsurprising, since some groups do value knowledge.  That atheists and agnostics should tend to have better than average knowledge of religion is indeed paradoxical, but there is more to belief than just knowing basic facts.  The question I want answered is how knowledge and belief are interacting.

Image of the Babri Mosque via Wikipedia

Topic 2:  “India's top court gives green light for mosque verdict” and “India braces for ruling on contested holy site”.  If you thought that the Temple Mount was the only site Muslims were fighting over with members of a different religion, think again.  These articles report on a coming legal fight over Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, which Hindus claim as the birthplace of Rama, one of the avatars of the god Vishnu.  After the Muslim conquest of India, the Muslims demolished the Hindu temple there built the Babri Mosque in 1528.  Naturally, the Hindus were not pleased at the desecration.  In 1949 idols of Rama showed up at the mosque, Hindus demanded to pray at the site, the Muslims refused, and a legal fight began.  The lawsuit apparently did not resolve quickly enough, because a Hindu mob destroyed the Babri Mosque in 1992.  While the Hindus currently have control of the site, a new legal battle is in the works.  Yes, there is a lot of politics involved in the case.  But politics has to work on feelings that people actually have, and Hindus, having been persecuted under Muslim rule (no surprise there), have had every reason to want to tear down every mosque built on one of their holy sites.  If the courts rule in favor of the Muslims, I expect Hindu politicians in India to use it as reason to rally Hindus against Muslims.

Also:  Further incidents of stealing houses of worship from other religions and converting them into mosques are listed in the Wikipedia article “Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques”.    Such behavior is not the way of a religion of peace, and, yes, the Muslims have made a lot of enemies.

Topic 3:  For today’s religious humor, something relevant to this week’s parashah (Torah portion): “Bill Cosby Noah”:


Peace (the genuine kind).

Aaron

An open letter to Fox on Glee

Greetings.

Jewish date:  19 Tishri 5771 (Parashath Bere’shith).

Today’s holidays:  Ḥol hamMo‘edh Sukkoth (Judaism), Feast Day of Vincent de Paul (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St Hieronymous Bosch (Church of the SubGenius), Feast of Cosmus and Damianus (Thelema).

Worthy cause of the day:  “Stand Up for Veterans - They Stood Up for Us - The Petition Site”.

Today’s topic:  I have received an anonymous open letter from someone wishing to complain about anti-Semitism in the latest episode of Glee, “Audition”, which you can see here courtesy of Hulu:



The open letter is addressed to the heads of the Fox Broadcasting Company, who are responsible for Glee.  A copy is being sent to askfox@foxinc.com.  Others who are likewise offended may also wish to E-mail Fox and ask others to do so.  While the author of the letter apparently has issues with rudeness and may need a values overhaul, she does make points worth noting.  So without further adieu…

Image via Wikipedia

Hey, network pinheads!  Listen up!

I realize Fox is below the bottom of the barrel for television.  Not your fault.  Maybe if you had some decent shows.  The Simpsons?  That’s been going on for, what, fifty years and Bart’s still in the fourth grade?  Time to move on.  How about American Idol?  That’s an idea, throw a spotlight the tone-deaf losers of America.  Nice job ripping off The Gong Show.  Let’s not forget Fox News.  You know it’s bad when you get better information ripping open an cat and looking at its entrails, or even watching E!.   “News Corp.”  Don't make me laugh, as if your comedies could.

Plenty of shows on Fox make me so gut-wrenchingly nauseous that I’d rather sit through twelve of those “fill-in-the-blank movie” movies than an hour of that channel, but one is so odious that I would sooner turn on the Disney Channel.  That’s right, that program is Glee, that quirky little show about singing teens too lame to be in the chess club and their deluded advisor with more grease in his hair than the BP oil slick.  Sure, it’s all boys and girls, blacks and whites and none-of-the aboves, including the one openly gay kid to show how progressive they are.  Yay for you.  And I suppose if you hire a black janitor for your white-filled office that makes you Martin Luther King.  (That’s right, Glenn, I’m talking to you.)  Sad story is, Glee is just the same mess of prejudice and hate that the news department is.

Maybe none of the kids openly worship Hilter or spout like Mel Gibson, but when was the last time anyone claimed they were a hate-filled bigot?  Let’s take the treatment of Jews on this show.  Traditional kicking boys of history, Fox continues this noble tradition in how they treat the major Jewish characters:

• Rachel Berry:  Chief diva of the glee club, this trampy little tease changes boyfriends more often than her panties.  She arrives, drama follows, disaster ensues, any episode.  Watch out, Stephen Hawking, she’ll be calling you to register as center of the universe.

• Noah “Puck” Puckerman:  Here’s a prize, some meathead bully whose hair wasn’t even stylish when Mr. T had it.  First he’s too stupid to wrap it before he tapped it, and when his loser girlfriend got pregnant, he wasn’t even man enough to take the credit.  Did I mention this punk is a reverse-cougar who joined an a-capella group just to bed older women?  While he claims he knows “what it means to be a Jew,” I’d put down cash that even al-Qaeda knows that better than he does.

• Jacob Ben Israel:  Sleeze-in-charge of the school paper who engages in gutter journalism.  The second season opened with him doing an online smear piece on the glee club’s “gay summer,” carrying a microphone labeled in blue-on-white with his initials in Hebrew-styled letters and a Star of David.  And his name is “Jacob Ben Israel.”  That’s as subtle as a drunk Irishman named “Patrick O’Malley” who’s a rapist.

This doesn’t include the lying little hussy Tina Cohen-Chang of unknown religion, the one with the suggestive name and horrible outfits.  No one’s saying Jews should all be perfect, but when you go this far to drag a group through the mud, you got to wonder.  Any time one of the little nitwits starts to look almost decent, along come the writers to knock them down a peg.  Maybe they’re a little unkind to all of these losers one way or another, but week after week, Jews seem to be singled out for this special kind of treatment.  Someone, of course, may point out that writer, creator, and executive producer Brad Falchuk is supposed to be Jewish.  Big deal.  Since when couldn’t Uncle Toms come in any color?

Do I really care about the Jews?  Of course not.  I’m against all wastes of skin, regardless of persuasion.  But in this day and age?  Old hat, cliché.  You think you’re being edgy or cool, but you’re as obviously bigoted as a Michael Bay film.  Should I choose to waste my time listening to heavily processed music and narrow-minded prejudice, I’ll do it at a old-folks’ home on karaoke night when I can skip the commercials.

And that’s how I see it.

Peace, and don’t let Fox bite.

Aaron

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Church of Body Modification

Greetings.

Jewish date:  18 Tishri 5771 (Parashath Bere’shith).

Today’s holidays:  Ḥol hamMo‘edh Sukkoth (Judaism), Twenty-Sixth Sunday of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Frank Liszt (Church of the SubGenius), Bureflux (Discordianism), Greater Eleusinian Mysteries (Thelema).

Image of Ahmadinejad being treated as if he were a decent human being via Wikipedia

Topic 1:  Muslim misbehavior and failure of the West to treat it as misbehavior.  In “Ahmedenijad, Media Rock Star” and “Ahmedenijad Says America Killed the Victims of 9/11” Rav Shmuley Boteach complains about how Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, loudmouth who spouts indecencies (to put in very mildly), defender of his country’s violation of a nuclear weapons control treaty which his country is a signatory, and all-around rotten person is treated with the deference of a decent human being by people in power, both in government and in the media, and is not treated like the dangerous lunatic he is.  And Rav Boteach has a point.  Because the West claims to be committed to noble virtues, such as freedom and justice, and a maniac like Ahmadinejad, who has proclaimed his intent to commit genocide, is in such contradictions to these values that he should be reviled as an archenemy.

In “Australian Muslim Cleric Calls for Beheading — Who Cares?” Larry Elder correctly notes a disparity in outrage concerning freedom of speech.  A Christian threatens to burn the Qur’an, and there is a huge outcry of condemnation.  But Muslim threats of violence and murder are ignored.  Burning books may be childish and offensive, but people normally claim that humans are morally more valuable to insentient books.  Why are Muslims being held to a different standard than everyone else?

“Violence in east Jerusalem clouds peace efforts” deals with “Palestinians” rioting in Israel, making a mockery of all claims that the time is ripe for peace.

In “"Rushdie Rules" Reach Florida” Daniel Pipes deals with Muslim attempts to squelch anyone speaking against Islam, coupled with Islamic denigration of other religions.

“Moroccan Convert Serving 15 Years for His Faith” deals with how those who leave Islam are treated in the Muslim world.

Topic 2:  On to something different than my usual complaints, with thanks to Erin for alerting me to this case:  “NC teen: Nose ring more than fashion, it's faith”.  The North Carolina teenager in question has been suspended from school for wearing a nose ring.  The reason she wears the nose ring in the first place is because she is a member of the Church of Body Modification.  And before you click on that link, do be aware that many may find the graphics on the site unsettling.  This is how the Church describes itself (under “About the Church”):

The Church of Body Modification represents a collection of members practicing ancient and modern body modification rites. We believe these rites are essential to our spirituality. Practicing body modification and engaging in body manipulation rituals strengthen the bond between mind, body, and soul. By doing so, we ensure that we live as spiritually complete and healthy individuals.

Two things should be noted about what are not stated.  First, no substantial reason is given to believe their chosen rites are useful in any way, shape, or form.  Second, there is no real theology in this description, e.g., which god told them to do this is not mentioned.

Now, of course, a few sentences are a small amount of material to put a lot of details in.  But the other statements on the site are also wanting.  Under “Mission Statement” they have:

We, the congregation of the Church of Body Modification, will always respect our bodies. We promise to always grow as individuals through body modification and what it can teach us about who we are and what we can do. We vow to share our experiences openly and honestly in order to promote growth in mind, body, and soul. We honor all forms of body modification and those who choose to practice body modification for any reason. We also promise to respect those who do not choose body modification. We support all that join us in our mission and help those seeking us in need of spiritual guidance. We strive to share a positive message with everyone we encounter, in order to act as positive role models for future generations in the body modification community. We always uphold basic codes of ethics and encourage others to do the same. We are a dynamic community, always growing and changing, continually promoting safety, education, and experience in body modification.

This is likewise lacking in real justification or theology.  And under “Statement of Faith” they have:

As followers of this faith, it is our purpose to educate and inspire, to share ideas, and to help each other achieve our dreams. We strive to unify and strengthen our mind, body, and soul so we can overcome any challenges we may encounter. We assert and protect our rights to modify our bodies and to practice our rituals.

We believe our bodies belong only to ourselves and are a whole and integrated entity: mind, body, and soul. We maintain we have the right to alter them for spiritual and other reasons.

Affirmation of our living, breathing, physical beings is paramount to our self-identities and helps us define who we are. The Church of Body Modification promotes affirmation and growth of a more expansive perspective of our physical and spiritual being.

No mention whatsoever is made of a deity who promotes body modification or anything else theological.  Though unusual, this is not an absolute barrier to religionhood; Unitarian Universalism is creedless, but it is normally considered a religion.  But while the Unitarian Universalists seem to be focused on the quest for truth, body modification and manipulation rituals seem to form the core of the Church of Body Modification.  The rituals themselves are supposed to have positive effects, as if the rituals are some sort of psychotherapy or magical rites.  This is the reverse of the way religions normally work, in which theology drives or at least is used to justify rituals.  (Though the Unitarian Universalists do have rituals of their own, too.)  If the rituals themselves are supposed to have power (as opposed to rituals being a form of worship and not necessarily more than symbolic), how they know these rituals have power is left unstated.  (Try to imagine a proper double-blinded study measuring the spiritual effects of tattooing.)  I have written to the Church, asking them to confirm that they have no theology, but they have not written back yet.  Hopefully more information on this new religious movement will eventually become available.

Topic 3:  For today’s religious humor: “seven sharpies”:


Peace.

Aaron

Some Thoughts on the Religious Significance of Naked Lunch

Greetings.

Jewish date:  13 Tishri 5771.

Today’s holidays:  Feast Day of Matthew and Evangelist (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Jerry Garcia (Church of the SubGenius), Fall Equinox (Ritual of the Elements)/Feast Day of Virgilius (Thelema).

Cover of Naked Lunch: The Restored Text

Topic 1:  Someone has decided to save me a lot of work by sending me a review of Naked Lunch.  I am hesitant to read this book for reasons this review should make clear; I do not even own a copy yet.  Those with weak stomachs may wish to skip directly to the religious humor section.

Some Thoughts on the Religious Significance of Naked Lunch

Burroughs, William (1959).  The Naked Lunch.  Interzone:  Olympia Press.  ISBN:  9783548028439.  See also:  Burroughs, William S. (1959/2004).  Naked Lunch (restored text ed., Grauerholtz, James and Miles, Barry, eds.).  Interzone:  Grove Press.  ISBN:  0802140181.

Naked Lunch is a classic of drug-related literature.  According to the introduction, it was strongly influenced by the author’s experiences with opiate drugs.  Unlike a typical novel, it consists of a series of chapters that have little in the way of plot to connect them.  There are recurring places and characters, but the connections between them are more in terms of themes rather than an overriding story.  While the chapters may have a sort of internal logic, the style is disjointed if not outright schizophrenic, the world of the story disconnected from usual notions of space, biology, and rational behavior.  Much of the material is disturbing or disgusting, especially to more conservative readers.  Sexual references are frequent, mostly anal intercourse between men, and the author is fixated on anuses and penises.  Violence is equally common and nearly as graphic.  Drugs are often mentioned in bizarre metaphors, including monsters and grotesque transformations of the body.  For anyone who has difficulty getting past the superficial level of description, there is plenty to offend and repulse.  This may in fact have been the intention.  The subject matter, especially drug addiction, itself is offensive and repulsive, capable of reducing functional people into shadows with little thought of anything other than the next fix.  If his intention was to portray how disturbing and revolting the experience of drug addiction is, he succeeded brilliantly.

There are several religious references in Naked Lunch, most of them about Islam.  An organization called “Islam, Inc.” is explicitly mentioned, as are a few of its agents, who are involved in nefarious affairs.  References to Arabic people are frequent and typically negative and often as violent people.  This is as deep as the exploration of Islam goes, a negative portrayal without details of what is believed or  what the motivations are.  A few other references pop up, included characters making anti-Semetic claims that Jews only want to have sex with Christian women.  At a surface level, the lack of depth of these references make the book seem religiously insignificant.  In all fairness, men of any demographic get at best a neutral or negative portrayal, so the negativity may have to do more with a general negative portrayal of humanity, or a simple, shallow prejudice rather than any specific religious issue.  (Women are less certain, being infrequently portrayed, and there is only one explicit scene of heterosexual behavior, but that is a side issue.)

The book, however, does touch on some issues of relevance.  The most explicit one is the relationship of drugs to religion.  In the introduction, Burroughs notes that several cultures have religious behavior built up around hallucinogens (think of the ritual use of peyote), whereas opiate drugs are not treated as such.  Throughout the book there is not a trace of the holy, reverence, or serious thought that is the usual material of religion.  This world of an opiate addict is crude, base, and cruel, untouched by any of the finer attributes religion may inspire or the better qualities of humanity, “unclean” in every sense.  Perhaps this may be what Burroughs intended, not an exclusion of religion per se, but only an inclusion of the ugliest parts, those specifically lacking the holy and concern for others.  While people often think of religion in spiritual, otherworldly terms, it is as much something people do in this world as cooking eggs or making the bed.  Although often neglected, the use of drugs as part of religion may be an important aspect and critical to understanding some.  Factors in life which disconnect people from religion, including drugs, are also worth exploring.

The other relevant issue is worldview.  The world (or worlds) of Naked Lunch is (are) bleak, with little in the way of joy, care, or concern for others.  There is nothing positive to be said about establishments and authority, especially government and the medical profession.  It is a place where lay people may be arbitrarily bullied, abused, maimed, and murdered on a whim.  Everything and anything can be unexpectedly lost, including privacy and the integrity of body and mind.  Violence is normal and common.  It is a dystopia by way of the Alice books, with little concern for creating a better place or even securing another generation.  This is the world of a junkie, someone whose usual concerns are so overridden by their need for drugs that interest in others is lost in its entirety.  In a world where all that matters is getting the next hit, there is no room for anything else.

While written specifically about opiate addiction, this world bears a resemblance to those of others whose lives are overly dedicated  to a single purpose.  A video-game addict may resent others who try to pry them away from the console and towards other responsibilities, see the authorities as repressive and cruel, living only for being in front of the screen when they disconnect from space and time itself and immerse in another reality.  A sexual compulsive may see metaphors for sex everywhere, find the restrictions of society oppressive and find potential partners manipulative and mean when they merely work towards their own self-interests.  And with most relevance to this project, the religious fanatic might come to act in a similar way.  Someone who only thinks of what they have to gain in the next world has no interest in this one, no interest in improving it.  With no regard for others, people who fail to measure up are mere irritations of no value.  Such wholesale dedication with no regard for others produces something as undesirably removed from common humanity as a far-gone opiate addict.

As a literary depiction of drug addiction, Naked Lunch is a must-read, and anyone considering opiates should consider it a warning.  But the kind of world and the kind of person in it that the book portrays extends beyond drugs.  For anyone interested in the thoughts of any kind of addict or fanatic, the book remains a worthwhile source.

—“Fingers” Schaffer, M.D.

Topic 2:  For today’s religious humor: “Basement Kitteh”:


Peace.

Aaron

Absurdity in the name of publicity

Image of a real sukkah via Wikipedia

Greetings.

Jewish date:  11 Tishri 5771.

Today’s holidays:  Sukkah-Building Day (Judaism), Paryushana (Hinduism), Twenty-Fifth Sunday of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), March of Reanimated Corpses/Talk Like A Pirate Day (Secular) (Church of the SubGenius).

Note:  Sukkah-Building Day is not an official Jewish holiday.  11 Tishri, however, is traditionally the day one should start building one’s sukkah (a sort of temporary building with vegetation for a roof) so as to be ready in time for Sukkoth, which starts 15 Tishri.

Worthy causes of the day:  “Don't Build the Belo Monte Dam! - The Petition Site” and “Protect the Paradise Forests and the Orangutan - The Petition Site”.

I have a huge backlog of religious news to comment on, and there is no way I can deal with all of it.  This would be true even if I did not have to put up my sukkah today.  What to choose… What to choose…

Topic 1:  Since Sukkoth is the holiday just around the corner, let us start with “A Look at the Finalists in the Sukkah City Design Competition”, described as “Twelve architects compete to redesign the ritual holiday hut—and you get to pick the winner.”  I would hesitate to call any of the top contenders a winner.  The top 12 are depicted on the voting page, and it is not clear that any of them is ritually acceptable.  Many one would never guess were intended to be sukkoth at all.  When making something ritually acceptable is not a basic requirement, one has to wonder what the people behind this competition are thinking.

Topic 2:  “Pregnant nun ice cream advert banned for 'mockery'”, with the offending graphic visible with respectable detail in “'Pregnant nun' ice cream ad banned after Catholic outcry (on eve of Pope's visit)”.  This is getting in due to being the most recent controversy, not the most worthy one.  Let me just quote this article:

An ice cream company banned from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun has vowed to position similar posters in London in time for the Pope's visit.

Antonio Federici's advert showed a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line "immaculately conceived".

The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered it to be discontinued, saying it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs.

I am disturbed that the Advertising Standards Authority banned the ads; freedom of speech does include freedom to say things other people do not like.  However, the ad itself strikes me as at best poorly thought out.  The term “immaculate conception” refers to the Catholic doctrine that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without the taint of original sin.  The term is often misunderstood as referring to the conception of Jesus, purportedly accomplished by the Holy Spirit and not by the usual human method.  The pregnant nun would seem fit better with the incorrect understanding of “immaculate conception” than the correct one.  A nun conceiving in the usual manner would be getting pregnant through sin (as she is required to be abstinent), and the child would have the taint of original sin.  But a nun conceiving through the Holy Spirit would not commit any sin, and the child might be free of the taint of original sin.  But how does immaculate conception fit in with ice cream?  Ice cream is not conceived at all, nor is the concept of original sin really applicable to it (or anything else inanimate, for that matter).  And if one really wants to force “immaculately conceived” to apply to ice cream, what the meaning of that?  Is this ice cream somehow like Mary or Jesus?  Or is eating this ice cream somehow connected with miraculous pregnancies, perhaps even causing them?  Yes, this is overthinking an ice cream advertisement, but it only qualifies as overthinking since the only thinking which seems to have gone into it is how to cause enough controversy to get a lot of publicity, not thinking about making the content make any sense.

Topic 3:  For today’s religious humor:  Since Sukkoth is coming up very soon, “The Laws of the Sukkah according to Dr. Suess”.  For something so silly, it contains a lot of accurate information, not to mention footnotes and references.

Peace.

Aaron