After watching tons of live feeds and live coverage and live blogging and live almost anything you can think of about the Presidential Inauguration, I can only say a big "clap, clap, clap!" to the US for finally letting a non-cowboy inhabit the White House. It was way overdue.
Now, my atheist inner self is begging for me to ask what the hell was all that show with the reverends? The whole day felt like the anointment of a Feudal Lord with all those blessings and the Bible oath and all that jazz. Weird. (gave me the chills, really)
And last but not least, here is my list of Top 5 requests to Obama. They need to be addressed ASAP:
5. Kindly invite those Wall Street punks to Camp Guantanamo.
4. Trade in the 6 ton Cadillac limo for an electric car (I suppose you could get a magnetic bullet shield).
3. Promise not to say "God Bless America" ever again.
2. Tell Hillary to forever shut up with her "this one time, in the Oval Office" stories.
1. Give a TiVo subscription to Ted Kennedy so he can at least watch a replay of the Inauguration Parade.
Showing posts with label Atheist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheist. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
&#$%!! Calderón
Qué lindo. Nuestro Presidente (sí el que representa a TODOS los mexicanos, no sólo a los fantáticos religiosos) hincado ante la Iglesia Católica. Hincado antes las presiones de la iglesia, en actitud de sumisión hacia sus directrices. El Presidente, como figura pública y política, líder de un estado LAICO, no tiene por qué rendirle honores a ninguna autoridad eclesiástica, porque implica que su poder y sus decisiones están supeditadas a las de una autoridad "superior". (Nótese que Dios NO estaba en las boletas electorales.)
Gracias al PAN por mantenernos en el obscurantismo.
(La foto es del Sexto Encuentro Mundial de las Familias, evento organizado por el Vaticano, donde en la inauguración de ayer se leyó el mensaje de Benedicto XVI, quien pidió una educación más "integral". Supongo que con "integral" quiso decir que se enseñe religión, o por lo menos valores morales católicos en las escuelas públicas de México. Qué horror.)
Monday, October 20, 2008
Religulous, or the need to doubt
Beware. This post will offend you if you place faith above reason in your scale of values.
I watched the film Religulous this past weekend and found it phenomenal. Bill Maher's take on organized religion mixes elements of "laugh your face off" comedy with bits of intelligent skepticism a la Richard Dawkins. As I expected, the film was less about the impact of religious beliefs and more about the ignorant society that keeps them alive. It was hilarious, inspiring, and at times offensive in all the right ways.
Bill Maher is unforgiving in his documentary, where he puts Scientologists and Jews, Cantheists and Catholics on the same plane. And that's precisely what makes the mockumentary worthwile: the realization that all of these organized religions can be as absurd as the other. The fact that the Bible is the #1 all time bestseller doesn't make religions based on it less illogical! For Bill Maher, Scientologists are as crazy for believing in the alien spaceship as Catholics for believing in a virgin woman giving birth to the human version of a God.
Surprisingly, the most intelligent parts of the film were provided by the Vatican's chief astronomer and a retired Vatican priest. These men, although strictly religious, made it clear that it is not the educated religious elites that take religious scriptures as dogma ad absurdum, but rather opportunistic religious leaders that use the fear inciting power of religion to spread harmful lies. (i.e. the for profit religious corporations like the Evangelists)
But the message is by no means that of intolerance towards religious people. Maher is not against religion per se. Instead, he is against the negative effects that religious thought has on the human thought process...because the mechanism of "faith" goes against the process of questioning, of unrestrained curiosity. He criticizes these organizations because they discourage scientific doubt in favor of imposed dogma. And a mind that doesn't doubt, might as well be dead.
Needless to say, I left the theatre with a big smile on my face.
I watched the film Religulous this past weekend and found it phenomenal. Bill Maher's take on organized religion mixes elements of "laugh your face off" comedy with bits of intelligent skepticism a la Richard Dawkins. As I expected, the film was less about the impact of religious beliefs and more about the ignorant society that keeps them alive. It was hilarious, inspiring, and at times offensive in all the right ways.
Bill Maher is unforgiving in his documentary, where he puts Scientologists and Jews, Cantheists and Catholics on the same plane. And that's precisely what makes the mockumentary worthwile: the realization that all of these organized religions can be as absurd as the other. The fact that the Bible is the #1 all time bestseller doesn't make religions based on it less illogical! For Bill Maher, Scientologists are as crazy for believing in the alien spaceship as Catholics for believing in a virgin woman giving birth to the human version of a God.
Surprisingly, the most intelligent parts of the film were provided by the Vatican's chief astronomer and a retired Vatican priest. These men, although strictly religious, made it clear that it is not the educated religious elites that take religious scriptures as dogma ad absurdum, but rather opportunistic religious leaders that use the fear inciting power of religion to spread harmful lies. (i.e. the for profit religious corporations like the Evangelists)
But the message is by no means that of intolerance towards religious people. Maher is not against religion per se. Instead, he is against the negative effects that religious thought has on the human thought process...because the mechanism of "faith" goes against the process of questioning, of unrestrained curiosity. He criticizes these organizations because they discourage scientific doubt in favor of imposed dogma. And a mind that doesn't doubt, might as well be dead.
Needless to say, I left the theatre with a big smile on my face.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama does it again
Yes, the Illinois Senator delivered again. He explained with surprising calm and detail every part of his economic policy. He gave convincing reasons why McCain's healthcare policy, tax cuts, and neoliberal politics would fail miserably...without using the word miserably. Yes, Obama was above McCain's anger and desperation because he was enjoying the calm that comes from knowing that your words are grounded on sound theory. He explained that McCain's policies were indeed a repetition of Bush's 8 years of flawed decisions. And yes, he defended his pro choice stance and treaded through that delicate ground by reaffirming that the term "pro abortion" is wrong. Obama showed that far from being confrontational, his mind invites dialogue and favors argument over dogma. Given that his country is haunted by a medieval religious lobby, seeing Obama today at the third presidential debate was a relief.
As for McCain... I'll leave it to the Gossip Girls and MoveOn.org:
As for McCain... I'll leave it to the Gossip Girls and MoveOn.org:
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Conservatives Again?!
Today is a sad, sad day for Canada. Stephen Harper won yesterday's election with 37.6% of the vote (Liberals 26.2%, NPD 18.2%, Green 6.8%), renewing the Tory minority. My first thoughts (apart from a loud "dammit!") are that the NPD succeeded in splitting the liberal vote, causing the Liberals' worst performance since 1984. In other words, the widespread calls to "vote strategically" didn't work. I'm not surprised...
Why would anyone vote strategically knowing that their single vote has no incidence in an election? Every person wants to have the personal satisfaction of voting for their true choice...and even if the ultimate objective of all opposition voters was to beat the Tories, the mere notion that your Green neighbor might not cooperate with the strategy because he feels his single vote is meaningless would give you an incentive to do the same. It was a predictable collective action problem, in the parlance of our times.
In my opinion, if the opposition was so worried about a Conservative win, the candidates that ranked third and fourth places in last week's polls should have defected in favor of the strongest opposition candidate in their respective constituency. But, alas, that doesn't make democratic sense given that each of the opposition parties represented a very distinct set of legitimate ideals and projects. The tragedy of the Canadian political system then, is the lack of proportional representation. (for a much better explanation, read this perspective)
Anyway, I'm sad about Harper because I disagree with his worldview. These are my major problems with him:
- Harper has aligned Canada's foreign policy with the Bush administration.
- Harper signed a deal to let US troops into Canada in case of an "emergency".
- Harper has provided millions of dollars in subsidies for companies investing in the Alberta tar sands...an impending ecological disaster.
- Harper supports tax cuts to big corporations.
- Harper has silenced intellectuals speaking against him and blocked scientific panels discussing the effects of climate change.
- And last but definitely not least, Harper is against reducing greenhouse gas emissions and described the Kyoto protocol as “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations”.
In other words, Stephen Harper ranks high in my list of top 20 enemies of the world.
As the Georgia Straight put it, "there are many reasons not to vote Conservative, beyond the cost of the Afghanistan war and the idiocy of integrating Canada more deeply into the U.S. economy. They include: the Conservative leader’s misleading use of crime statistics to make Canada appear less safe than it is; his big lie that he wouldn’t tax income trusts; his other big lie in refusing to acknowledge that a Liberal carbon tax is offset with big income-tax cuts; Harper presiding over declines in Canadian productivity; Harper’s abandonment of agreements with the provinces that would have created more daycare spaces; the Conservative government’s decision to appeal a B.C. Supreme Court ruling in favour of Vancouver’s supervised-injection site; Harper’s elimination of the Court Challenges Program and the killing of the Kelowna Accord; Harper’s stacking of a stem-cell advisory panel with opponents of embryonic stem-cell research; Harper’s $45-million cuts to the arts; and Harper’s refusal to support the United Nations goal of having developed countries donate 0.7 percent of their national incomes to international development."
Oh, and did I mention that Harper has close ties with Evangelist groups? (appointed a minister to a scientific advisory group!?)
Brrrrrr! (that's me, shivering)
Why would anyone vote strategically knowing that their single vote has no incidence in an election? Every person wants to have the personal satisfaction of voting for their true choice...and even if the ultimate objective of all opposition voters was to beat the Tories, the mere notion that your Green neighbor might not cooperate with the strategy because he feels his single vote is meaningless would give you an incentive to do the same. It was a predictable collective action problem, in the parlance of our times.
In my opinion, if the opposition was so worried about a Conservative win, the candidates that ranked third and fourth places in last week's polls should have defected in favor of the strongest opposition candidate in their respective constituency. But, alas, that doesn't make democratic sense given that each of the opposition parties represented a very distinct set of legitimate ideals and projects. The tragedy of the Canadian political system then, is the lack of proportional representation. (for a much better explanation, read this perspective)
Anyway, I'm sad about Harper because I disagree with his worldview. These are my major problems with him:
- Harper has aligned Canada's foreign policy with the Bush administration.
- Harper signed a deal to let US troops into Canada in case of an "emergency".
- Harper has provided millions of dollars in subsidies for companies investing in the Alberta tar sands...an impending ecological disaster.
- Harper supports tax cuts to big corporations.
- Harper has silenced intellectuals speaking against him and blocked scientific panels discussing the effects of climate change.
- And last but definitely not least, Harper is against reducing greenhouse gas emissions and described the Kyoto protocol as “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations”.
In other words, Stephen Harper ranks high in my list of top 20 enemies of the world.
As the Georgia Straight put it, "there are many reasons not to vote Conservative, beyond the cost of the Afghanistan war and the idiocy of integrating Canada more deeply into the U.S. economy. They include: the Conservative leader’s misleading use of crime statistics to make Canada appear less safe than it is; his big lie that he wouldn’t tax income trusts; his other big lie in refusing to acknowledge that a Liberal carbon tax is offset with big income-tax cuts; Harper presiding over declines in Canadian productivity; Harper’s abandonment of agreements with the provinces that would have created more daycare spaces; the Conservative government’s decision to appeal a B.C. Supreme Court ruling in favour of Vancouver’s supervised-injection site; Harper’s elimination of the Court Challenges Program and the killing of the Kelowna Accord; Harper’s stacking of a stem-cell advisory panel with opponents of embryonic stem-cell research; Harper’s $45-million cuts to the arts; and Harper’s refusal to support the United Nations goal of having developed countries donate 0.7 percent of their national incomes to international development."
Oh, and did I mention that Harper has close ties with Evangelist groups? (appointed a minister to a scientific advisory group!?)
Brrrrrr! (that's me, shivering)
Monday, October 13, 2008
Thanksgiving!
How to explain the beauty of my first Thanksgiving dinner without turning this into the corniest, cliché ridden post you've ever read? You see, I'm very excited by my new found love for this holiday. It's not only the fact that there was an obscene amount of delicious carbohydrates on the table, coupled with turkey and a vast selection of cheese. It's also not just the fact that it was a great excuse to sit around a table with friends to fool around and laugh until our faces hurt.
No...Thanksgiving really amazed me because it seemed more spontaneous than other holidays. You don't have to dress up like Dracula. You don't need to buy a ton of gifts. You don't have to belong to a particular religion or have some medieval spiritual beliefs. You don't need even need to decorate your house in any particular way. For this holiday, you only need to bring your appetite (and a modest donation in the form of a wine bottle to whoever volunteered to cook the turkey).
No...Thanksgiving really amazed me because it seemed more spontaneous than other holidays. You don't have to dress up like Dracula. You don't need to buy a ton of gifts. You don't have to belong to a particular religion or have some medieval spiritual beliefs. You don't need even need to decorate your house in any particular way. For this holiday, you only need to bring your appetite (and a modest donation in the form of a wine bottle to whoever volunteered to cook the turkey).
Thursday, October 2, 2008
A little homework
For those of you who've spent the past month in a cave and still don't know who Sarah Palin is, here is a little homework from your blogger, to be seen before you watch tonight's debate.
"A lie repeated often enough becomes truth." Vladimir Lenin (and then Goebbels).
(Please cross your fingers for the first televised case of human spontaneous combustion!)
"A lie repeated often enough becomes truth." Vladimir Lenin (and then Goebbels).
(Please cross your fingers for the first televised case of human spontaneous combustion!)
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Requiem to Art
I saw this deeply disturbing note on the Vancouver Sun a few weeks ago. The Device to Root out Evil, one of the most though-provoking and visually enticing sculptures in the city of Vancouver, was rooted out of its location, a park in the beautiful Coal Harbour. The sculpture by Dennis Oppenheim depicted an upside down church, an eye-catching image that invariably led to a myriad of interpretations.I remember smiling when I first discovered the sculpture last year. It was my first week in Vancouver and I gladly sat to admire the sculpture's evoking power (I then took the second picture you see here). To me, the Device to Root out Evil represented the need for religious institutions to reform themselves, an urgency to "turn the house upside down" and reinvent their practices. I also thought that the sculpture could be a call to bury religion altogether, to root out the irrational evils of religious fundamentalism in an age where scientific thought is once again under siege.
Art exists to inspire thought, to generate discussion. The function of art is definitely not constrained to its aesthetic qualities. Art expresses the struggles and controversies of its era...it is never neutral.
Unfortunately, Vancouver Park officials didn't see the the true value of a sculpture that, at the very least, generated food for thought. To me, apart from its inherent physical beauty, the fact that this sculpture generated social controversy was its greatest value. Controversy can lead to thought and constructive criticism. It can lead to introspection and to a rethinking of one's core beliefs. To dismiss a sculpture's value on the grounds that "it blocked the view of some neighbors" is an insult to all citizens of Vancouver. Unfortunately, as Miro Cernetig points out, the rooting out of this sculpture shows that Vancouver has not yet shed its "small town" skin. It's simply striking for a city with such a cosmopolitan mix of people. (where is my dear Mexico City when I need it?)The Vancouver Park Board's excuse was cowardly, to say the least.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Reader reviews the Gospel
And now, a little pearl of opinion. This was a review posted for the Bible (King Jame's edition) sold on Amazon.
The Gospel? (spoilers)
by Mark Plant
I picked this up because I heard it advertised as the Gospel, which translates to "good news." It opens up by telling the reader how the human race is doomed because two poorly developed characters ate an apple that a snake told them to eat.
That's not good news.
I can't say I found much good news at all in this. It actually closes by telling us that the world is going to end, and how we should all be prepared.
I would not recommend this book to others. It does not deliver on many of its advertised promises, and features weak characters and archaic diction.
(Thank you Rodrigo)
(Thank you QualityNonsense)
The Gospel? (spoilers)
by Mark Plant
I picked this up because I heard it advertised as the Gospel, which translates to "good news." It opens up by telling the reader how the human race is doomed because two poorly developed characters ate an apple that a snake told them to eat.
That's not good news.
I can't say I found much good news at all in this. It actually closes by telling us that the world is going to end, and how we should all be prepared.
I would not recommend this book to others. It does not deliver on many of its advertised promises, and features weak characters and archaic diction.
(Thank you Rodrigo)
(Thank you QualityNonsense)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Aliens are free from original sin
Ahhh... the beauty of surfing the internet on an otherwise uneventful rainy evening in Vancouver. I found this delicious piece of news that has given me hope: I can now sleep without fear, knowing that I will not encounter hordes of aliens in heaven when I die. (I'm thinking that the title to the previous post could be better applied to this one...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
