Pinko!

We recently watched Pickup on South Street, a 1953 film noir/spy hybrid with heavy anti-Communist themes. The movie itself was interesting, but it got me to wonder about the apparently intense anti-Communist attitude of the time.

At first I didn't really understand this attitude. I mean, Communism isn't necessarily evil. It is an economic/political philosophy that is directly opposed to Capitalism but that doesn't make the conversation unnecessary. So what confused me was the blanket use of the term "Communist" as the ultimate pejorative. I understand that Stalin was evil. No doubt about that, but that doesn't make all Communists evil as well. I also understand that the USSR was framed as America's de-facto enemy during that time. So I suppose that "Communist" was a blanket term used to describe a political and military enemy. The fact that Communism can refer to something other than a Russian with nuclear weapons pointed at grandma's house must have been lost on many Americans.

So I would like to take this opportunity to point out how far our culture has come in just a few decades. Our enemy this time stems not from a political philosophy but from a religious one. Our enemy this time is Islamic Terrorism. Our enemy is not Islam, just as our Cold War adversaries were Soviet Communists and not simple Communism. The very idea of treating Muslims among us as we treated Communists a few short decades ago is appalling. It is true that they may have a tougher road than most Americans but we would never dream of calling them out and denying them jobs based on their religious leanings.

I'll admit that I have been less than generous to Muslims. I still think that their religion is immoral and dangerous, but only slightly more so than Christianity. The point is that I think we are better at separating the actual enemy from others who carry the same label.

But I'm not a political scientist and I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. I don't want to give that impression. Maybe all Communists are evil and maybe all Muslims are terrorists who hate America, freedom and women.

Is that where Jesus would spend your money?

Warning: Harsh and profane language to follow...

First of all, watch this video. It'll get your blood boiling.

Ahem.

God-motherfucking-damn it! The Christ-eating Catholic fucking church spends half a million dollars just to sway public opinion. Why do I hate religion? This is fucking why. Because there is no reason at all to restrict gay marriage without religion. None. The weak bullshit excuses that it isn't normal or historical or natural are worthless. So "traditional marriage" is exclusively between one man and one woman? First of all, that's complete bullshit - historically speaking marriage has been between one man and dozens of women or girls. And in many places today it still is. But even if marriage had always been truly one man and one woman - so fucking what? Change the definition! It isn't hard to do. If King David had hundreds of wives (it was a different time, defenders say) then who's to say that today King David shouldn't have a husband too?

But there's no reasoning with them. Or with you, if any gay marriage opponents are reading this (doubtful). But if any Christians do read this, please tell me what reason you have for opposing gay marriage. And if it involves homosexuality being "an abomination" then you lose! Unless you own slaves and beat your children, in which case you're a good Christian. Keep up the good work, you good and faithful servant.

But aaaaarrgh! You fuckers! You know that you're on the wrong side of history, right? In fifty years when gay marriage is accepted you'll be looked on with revulsion and all of your good deeds will be marred by your work in this matter.

Assholes. You completely ruined my week!

The Future of Possessions

After writing my last post about Christian book (Bible, even!) burners, I have been thinking about the futility of book burning as a means of destroying ideas. Much of the credit for that goes to the dual developments of computers and the Internet; the access and ubiquity that these two forces have provided have given us some pretty interesting social developments.

Odd as it may seem, the advent and progress of the Information Age has made me less materialistic. I may be alone in this, but I find that my desire to possess physical objects has been steadily declining. I say "physical objects" because my desire to engage in the world has not changed. In fact, it has increased.

Take photographs as an example: ten years ago I took all of my photos on film. A roll of film contained 24 to 36 frames and all of it needed to be developed. This forced me to think of each shot as something special and important. When I had the pictures developed, I had them. They were unique and personal and physical. I usually got duplicates (because why not?) and might give one away. I still have all of these photos, weighing down a few boxes in my closet. I'll probably have them until I die. Digital photography has changed that for me and I sincerely miss the care I had to take with my pictures. I still take care to frame and shoot each photo, of course, but my camera's memory card will hold over 300 photos, so there's really no need to worry if a picture is 'good enough' to take. I'll also miss the excitement I got when picking up the photos from the developer. I'll miss opening the envelope up in the car and looking through them all before leaving the parking lot. And, of course, I'll miss having the photos in physical form. Sure, I can print them out - I don't have a photo printer, but I can certainly get a fine one at a reasonable price - but there's not really any need. Why load up more boxes with photos when I can just burn them to a data DVD and keep them that way?

And see, that's exactly where the divergence begins. I have so many digital photos from the past five years saved to multiple CDs and DVDs, not to mention hard drives and scattered across the Internet. There's no concept of a unique or original photo anymore so each one becomes less important. And although these digital photos are relatively secure, it is unlikely that I will look through them very often. In fact, there are plenty - hundreds if not thousands - that I will never see again. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a thousand pictures simply becomes tl;dr.

Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. I am no longer obsessed with these photos, no longer concerned with their safety. I don't have to watch them any more - I have given them over to the Internet for safekeeping. The same could be said for music, although I have stubbornly resisted (and will continue to resist for the foreseeable future) digital music. But the principle is there. Music bought on iTunes is more easily forgotten than music bought at a record store, even if it sounds exactly the same. Movies and television are similarly fated. We still buy the occasional DVD, but those purchases are very rare anymore. With Hulu and Netflix, we have essentially got an unlimited and very convenient video library at our disposal. Even our personal computers are becoming disposable. I am in the market for a new one and I realize that, aside from the above-mentioned need for photo storage, I have very little need for any kind of physical memory. Practically everything I do is online.

I still buy DVDs, I still buy CDs, I still buy games and books and magazines. But the day is coming when those things aren't going to matter to us anymore. Think of children growing up today and their attitudes toward hard-copies of various media. When they are 20 years old they won't buy books or CDs - they'll simply download them. And nothing will really change except that the information is shared instead of owned.

Maybe this is the creeping communism that everyone was worried about. It isn't difficult to imagine a world where no one needs more than a bed, some clothes and an Internet login. We could be headed to a worse future, for sure.

Bonfire!

There was a recent local color/news event in which a small (tiny, actually) 14-member church announced that they would be burning books on Halloween. Included on their list of perverse and demonic texts: Bibles - pretty much any version that is not the King James Version. So that has obviously sent the atheist community into giggle fits. But I have also noticed an undercurrent of disapproval, as the burning of books is as close to a sacred cow as atheists seem to have.

Book burning is not what it used to be. That is, it used to be an effective way of ridding the world of a specific piece of information. There is much information that has been lost to bonfires throughout history and it is not something to take lightly. And yet I have a hard time feeling the same way about book burning today. In many ways, burning a book (or a flag) is like burning a figure in effigy. It is a statement and an insult and nothing more. Information is so inexpensive and ideas are so widespread that stamping them out is impossible. Suppose a very determined entity decided to rid the world of On the Origin of Species or even The God Delusion, never mind NIV Bibles or Korans. It would be nothing but a losing battle, obvious to everyone from the start.

It may be an entirely different situation in a place like North Korea, where the citizens do not have ready access to the internet or bookstores or libraries. In that case, burning a valuable book truly becomes an unforgivable crime. Here in America, however, there is no such information hurdle. I can obtain just about any text in a matter of hours or days, depending on how much money I want to spend on shipping. Many books (Origin of Species, every conceivable translation of the Bible) are available to read online, and for free. So burn away, people of Canton, NC. Burn everything you can get your stupid hands on. I hope you go to your local Barnes & Noble to buy books specifically to be burned. Because the only person you are keeping that information from is you.

Heaven is a Return to Eden

As many of my readers (presumably) know, my move to vegetarianism has been propelled largely by a concern for animal welfare. It is my attempt to reduce global suffering. Maybe I am a coward, but I have never liked to know where meat comes from. As a vegetarian, I would like to forget it entirely, but I cannot.

We went to the State Fair last night - it was really quite a lot of fun and, as advertised, "A Whole Lotta Happy." There were also a whole lotta animals in various stages of food preparation, from adorable, wet-eyed calves to deep fried cheeseburgers. But although I see the calves and lambs and chicks as future meals, all they can see is the immediate present. All they can see is their food and bedding. Hopefully this is adequate and comfortable and free from fear, pain or torment. It is very fortunate for the animals, therefore, that they cannot see very far into the future. They aren't like the barnyard animals from Babe, who not only recognize their fate, but also accept it with a sort of grim acquiescence.

Every single one of us dies. Every single human, chimpanzee, pig, bumblebee, ear of corn or lily pad, whether we are hunted or deep fried or harvested. All living things die and while our self-awareness may have been a singular advantage in our drive to the top of the food chain, it is a definite downer. We can no longer simply live in the moment, because we see death looming over us, lurking around every turn and we know that every lapsed second brings our inevitable end closer. This is decidedly unsettling and maybe this is why we have developed an idea of the afterlife. We do not like to look our mortality in the face; we do not like to see a void at the end; we do not want to picture ourselves in front of the butcher and imagine the lights in our eyes going out forever. So believing in an afterlife is like putting the blindfold back over our eyes. We cannot forget what we have seen, but we can believe in something else, something unseeable and unprovable, we can return to the bliss of ignorance.

Why is this a problem? Why does it matter if someone chooses to believe that their death isn't actually the end, that all dogs really do go to heaven? For one thing, it is probably wrong, so if people have any kind of intellectual honesty, I think that they would actually prefer to know the truth. But in a practical sense, I suppose that it doesn't really matter if people believe that they will continue to live in some way after they die. But if the problem with an afterlife isn't the destination, then it's the ticket and the baggage. The question of How We Get To Heaven is enormous. It causes wars and enslaves whole demographics, it cuts the foreskins off of infant boys, it forces women to feel ashamed to be themselves, it causes guilt and grief on a global scale every minute of every day.

On one hand, I miss the thought that I will continue to live in bliss after the darkness comes. But on the other hand, I enjoy knowing that this life is fleeting. It really is a strange mix of relief and exhilaration, because I want to get all the good I can from life because it is the only chance I'll ever have, but I also don't have to worry about how the insignificant details of daily life may effect my afterlife. It is fantastic to live like this, to dance right up until the very end.

And that thought is fine for me, fine for people who think like Dead Poets Society, who go to a coffee shop and order a birthday cake, but what about those chickens packed together, what about those children starving to death or dying of diarrhea because they don't have clean drinking water? Their lives are dark and miserable and painful from start to finish.

So carpe diem! Seize the day and eat your cake, but try to make it a good place for every living thing. Remember that you don't have to believe in heaven to experience pain and fear.

___

A few points that I wanted to make but couldn't find a way to include them gracefully.

First. I know that the subject of an afterlife is a basically unknowable proposition. It should be apparent which side of the debate I am on. I think that there is ample reason to believe that there is no afterlife, but I want to be clear that whatever opinions we may hold on the merits of heaven, hell or anything else have nothing at all to do with the truth. So whether you like the thought of heaven or hate it, it makes no difference to the actual truth of heaven's existence, whatever that may turn out to be.

Second. I know that pain and suffering are not uniquely caused by humanity. Although I believe that a large portion of the quantity of pain and suffering experienced globally every second is caused by humanity, the basic circle of life has plenty of capacity to create pain all on its own. Every antelope that gets away from a cheetah means a hungry cheetah. And when a polar bear fails to catch a seal, he may starve to death. That is life and although it truly breaks my heart, I know that this is the vicious chisel that has been used to shape our world for millions of years.