The Aftermath of Terror: Understanding ISIS and the Future of Our World

Last weekend France’s Prime Minister François Hollande declared a state of emergency and made the unprecedented decision to close off all of France’s borders after a large-scale terrorist attack was perpetrated in several spots in Paris leaving scores of dead and wounded.

As expected, soon after, a rush of condolences started pouring in from many heads of state and citizens from around the world who also expressed their rage at the situation and offered support for the victims.

In social media, many others whose countries had also been victimized by terrorism, sympathized with the French people by showing their support in different ways. And even hacktivist group Anonymous did its part by taking down Twitter accounts of people who sympathized with ISIS, including many of people who took to the social platform to hail Friday’s attacks as a great victory.

French Flag waving atop Caen Memorial- Nov 15th 2015 French Flag waving atop Caen Memorial- Nov 15th 2015 for the Nov-13th victims.  (Author: Benoit-Caen. Artist does not endorse this work. Creative Commons License. commons/wikimedia.org)

With the painful memory of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January still fresh in our memory, it seems France, and possibly other European countries, is now experiencing another wave of terrorism as leaders of those nations ramp up efforts to combat extremism in their own countries and abroad. Now it’s apparent that these tactics are having an adverse effect in European cities. ISIS for one isn’t having it.

But are we correct to say that these attacks are simply a balancing act of retaliation on the part of ISIS for France’s meddling in Middle Eastern affairs? Or is there something else that many, including progressive-leftists and moderates (including Muslim moderates) seem to be missing?

From the many reports circulating about the identities of the attackers and their motives, what happened in France this past Friday was neither an isolated incident nor amateur hour. It was a highly-coordinated, deliberate attack in response to, once again, not one or two things, but a myriad of events that coalesce to form a situation that can only be described here as a clusterfuck of global proportions.

It’s important to understand that some of these reasons carry more weight than others in determining the motives behind these vicious attacks which, as always, kill more civilians than they do elements of the infrastructure of the target group or country–and to be perfectly fair here, that goes for both sides.

But we also cannot ignore another important fact that most people often overlook, and that is that the repercussions from these attacks–meaning the rain of bombs that will continue to rain on ISIS strongholds–are as coldly calculated into the model of the act of terrorism as the act itself. Meaning that ISIS, who has already claimed responsibility, not only expects vengeance but they in fact welcome it.

Why, you may ask, would they want retaliation.

As far as I–in my limited knowledge–can see, there are a few valid reasons that perhaps you may not be aware of.

Off the Fringe

It’s quite easy to label ISIS as murderous lunatics. And it’s equally simple to say that ISIS is just a bi-product of geopolitics gone wrong. However, while you may be right about one, or both, the facts actually point us in the other direction.

Ever since ISIS (initially an offshoot of Al-Qaeda) stemmed away from the root organization in the early 2000s, it has worked hard to establish “legitimacy” among the local players in the region. At times, this has not been easy. But with the escalation of war activity by the US-led coalition in the Middle East, the civil war in Syria that left entire regions ungoverned, and the abundance of civilian sympathizers both events created, ISIS, under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has not wasted any time in recruiting a large force for the purpose of creating the Caliphate he said he would build. By taking full advantage of the governance vacuum in Syria, ISIS under the replenished leadership–including many who had served under Saddam Hussein, including generals and commanders who now oversee military operations–began successful offensives in Iraq and Syria and very quickly began to gain ground.

Of course this is a very simplified explanation of the ISIS-AL-Qaeda alliance, but for the purpose of this post, it’s more than enough.

Although this all sounds like clockwork we cannot ignore the sad reality that the main motivation behind what can only be described as openly-clandestine acts of war (a terribly ambiguous term) has turned out to be more religious than political at this point. So, once again, while you may be right that ISIS is the product of foreign affairs as the United States and our allies armed and disarmed insurgencies in the Middle East during and after the Cold War, and that they truly are murderous lunatics, at this point the religious radicalism in this organization has become so pronounced that the political reasons have effectively ceased to exist.

Unlike their Muslim counterparts in other areas of the Middle East such as Hamas and Hezbollah, who have clear goals in mind, such as the liberation of Palestine and the eradication of Israel, and even Al-Qaeda, who is more theologically-based, although still political–ISIS is unique in that more than anything it seeks to establish a Caliphate (essentially an absolute theocracy) that will follow the exact model of ancient Caliphates dictated by the literal interpretation of the Quran.

So for us to say that ISIS’s motives are purely political, it makes liars out of all of us.

ISIS has for some time now, worked very hard to establish themselves as even more extreme than all other groups cataloged as terrorist organizations by the U.S., the U.N., the E.U., and others. The strategy here, if there ever was one, is to play into people’s fears and emotions, and up until now it seems to be working wonderfully.

"Escenas de la Guerra contra ISIS"- Trans. "Scenes of war against ISIS." Leopoldo Christie. Creative Commons License. commons/wikipedia.org

“Escenas de la Guerra contra ISIS”- Trans. “Scenes of war against ISIS.” Leopoldo Christie. Creative Commons License. commons/wikipedia.org

Since before the Charlie Hebdo attacks, countries and individuals started censoring themselves and each other for fear of offending an invisible enemy that could strike anytime, anywhere. Many of us have made it our business to condemn those who point out the faults in Islam and Islamic extremists by labeling them Islamophobes or “racists” (a term that wouldn’t even be applied correctly), but what those so-called “progressives” don’t seem to realize is that this is perhaps the biggest disservice we could be doing for our communities and our way of life. There is, after all, a way to discuss bad ideas without alluding towards derogatory or hateful undertones regarding a whole population (Islam as opposed to Muslims).

At the same time we give the bad guys a free pass on our freedom of speech. Emphasis on the “our” because of the history of our own societies and our acceptance that speech should indeed be free. This is precisely what ISIS and other terrorist organizations are working towards: a collective psychology molded by fear.

But they also play into people’s emotions  by making use of something so elemental in people’s hearts and minds that it transcends politics, alliances, and even reason: religion.

Other groups with specific goals in mind operating in different parts of the region, groups like Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, et al., are the products of history and of very specific circumstances derived from foreign policy blunders. They are also good PR firms in their own right, and they have only gotten better and better at it. These yahoos are not only crazy, they are also highly organized and very adept at manipulating social media to recruit members, which has worked very well for them in recent years. But while these other groups use religion as a lightning rod to attract extremists, even if they believe what they profess, ISIS seems to take the religious rhetoric to heart, leaving all the political baggage that defines all other groups among the rubble of their conquests. This makes ISIS unique. They have taken the Al-Qaeda model and perfected it.

ISIS is peculiar in that they are not an organization so much as they are the embodiment of an ideology. Its leadership not only understands the endless power religion has, but knows how to tap into that well, and the reason is simple: they believe every word they say to their very core.

There’s a movie called “The Siege” (very apropos in this situation) where one of the characters, a C.I.A. officer investigating terrorist cells in the U.S. along with an F.B.I. agent, tells her partner, “In this game, the most committed wins.” That rings true every time you hear the news.

When al-Baghdadi announced that there would be a new Caliphate on Earth, most dismissed the claim as nothing more than extremist mumbo-jumbo. What people at that time did not realize was that their radicalism was so beyond what we had seen before, something so ingrained into their very psychology, that they truly believed–whether the leaders knew otherwise or not–that they were the messengers of god sent to Earth to bring about an apocalypse, and that only as the Earth was engulfed in fire, could every “innocent and moral” being ascend to heaven.

I’m not making shit up here. These guys have taken the most literal interpretation of the Quran and applied it to the real world. Scary isn’t?

If we have learned anything from history is that literal interpretations of holy books usually lead to disastrous consequences. Google “Holy Wars,” if you don’t believe me. But their plans go further than that and I’ll explain what I mean in the next section.

ISIS knows that it doesn’t have the capabilities, yet, to fight a large-scale war with any country, especially countries who have powerful allies on their side (think the EU), which initially was the reason why they limited their aims only to the local chapters they created as they opened way inside Iraq and Syria. Unlike Al-Qaeda, ISIS did not plan to engage their fighters in foreign soil. Note that this doesn’t mean they did not support stand-alone acts of terrorism by home-grown extremists who were loyal to their ideals. But instead it seemed less-than-clear that they would devote all of their energy towards expanding their hold in that region before operating abroad.

It is more than evident now that they have radically shifted course.

Now, as the world braces for what seems to be a new type of warfare, we are finally beginning to understand how ISIS operates and what they have in mind.

Three major outcomes will stem from deliberate acts of violence and terrorism, which in some countries will converge and feed off of each other in a symbiotic relationship that will centralize gubernatorial power and strip away citizen rights. Not to mention radicalizing the other side.

Retribution and Endless War

The first of these outcomes is that retribution will envelop the Middle East in conflicts for decades. These conflicts will spread, as they already have, into quasi-guerrilla wars that will be taken to the streets of the places we deemed “safe” at one time, which is exactly what groups like ISIS want.

As France vamps up military action, and its allies join in, the world will begin a second wave of wars that will go on for the rest of our lifetimes. Atrocities and injustices will happen on both sides as defenses and attacks are passed back and forth, with civilian populations bearing most of the casualties.

ISIS will undoubtedly continue its attacks on the world’s cities in order to provoke a self-fulling prophecy of apocalypse as dictated on their holy book. And as more attacks and threats unfold, future leaders will inevitably be forced to protect their own populations by any means necessary. This will follow the second outcome which has been happening for some time now.

Totalitarianism: The All-Seeing Eye

As the world becomes engulfed in obscure conflicts with irrational actors, governments will find in a scared and willing population the means to tighten their grip of control with the valid excuse of protecting their countries and their citizens. Valid to a very limited extent.

As 9/11 has proven, clandestine government programs designed with the aim of gathering intelligence at the global level will effortlessly expand to monstrous sizes, giving these governments the tools to police their own citizens faster and easier. These are not sensationalist claims, it is already happening as we have seen with the PRISM and MUSCULAR programs run by the American N.S.A. and the British G.C.H.Q. agencies, not to mention all other intelligence agencies around the world, and with help from major tech corporations like Google, Facebook, and others. With some luck, a portion of these programs will be monitored (although the chances are slim). In reality most of these clandestine surveillance programs will be so secretive that in the future–as it is today–they will not even be known by lawmakers and the general public.

Eventually, fear will work just as good for this side as it does for the other side, and most nations will enter a new era of governance where most central governments will hold immense power and sway over their own populations. But why convince your own people that what you’re doing is for their own good if the enemy can show them more effectively? This is the beginning of the third outcome.

Radicalizing the Other Side

It’s already happening. As I type this, scores of lawmakers around the world have vowed to end the radicalization of Islamism. A few others have vowed to do this the only way they know how, with “good old Christian values” and their own brand of crazy.

One of the (un)intended consequences of what ISIS is doing is radicalizing the other side in hopes that this will bring about the last holy war, where the soldiers of god (which one?) will fight the final battle against the infidels and defeat them. I’ll admit to you that I’m not sure which side I’m talking about here.

Not to make a direct comparison between these two parties, but more and more Greece’s Golden Dawn Party, an ultra-right fascist organization that openly calls for the rejection of immigrants, non-whites, and non-Christians–and the American Republican Party are starting to sound very much alike. And what’s more, people are listening.

These, and many other, organizations advocate for the eradication of Muslims. At the same time, they build up and spread the idea that only Christianity can end this evil. To these people it has never occurred that they are only the other side of that coin.

Even friends of mine have expressed their humble opinions that “their god is a false god, and ours is the only true god.” Please take a moment to understand that logical dilemma.

Racism, bigotry, and xenophobia will increase to exorbitant levels–unfortunately it’s not only the religious who will be turned, but even the fragile moderate base will begin to collapse as fear sets in. We can already see it in our own countries and communities as people often conflate the terms “Muslim” or “refugee” with “terrorist”, and reject these people fleeing war-torn areas where many of them have been victims themselves of atrocities by ISIS or even their own governments.

There have already been reports that terrorist sympathizers might have infiltrated the refugee wave that landed on Europe a few weeks ago and even ISIS has said as much. So it’s not a baseless fear that governments and people have that at some point in the future their cities will be attacked. Unfortunately, many people whose homes and lives have been ruined by war will once again be the victims of hatred and discrimination in a whole new land, all because it plays well into ISIS’s plans that the infidels fear and hate Muslims, whether they are their Muslims or not.

Damages

While it is true that Islamism is at the forefront of these recent troubles, it would be unfair to paint all Muslims with the same brush. However, to dismiss this as an entirely extremist problem is also not accurate either, after all, the tenets of Islam do support the literal interpretation given by ISIS, even if most Muslims don’t. The problem is not Muslims, the problem is extremists and our failure to speak out against them for fear of offending or being labelled as bigots or Islamophobes. As far as the refugees who flee war-torn nations in the M.E. and North Africa, they are hardly to blame for these terrible events.

The world stands united with France in this terrible moment. But before the bombs rain and we unanimously decide that all Muslims are evil and we are the good guys, a few things to ask ourselves: Where is the compassion for the victims of other terrorist attacks throughout the world and why hasn’t there been an outcry for victims of similar atrocities like the ones in Beirut and Kenya? Where are the flags on Facebook and the hash-tags? What are we as individuals doing to combat extremism of all kinds?

One essential question to ask is whether strong nations only support strong nations; whether we only support our allies; or whether we are prepared to repudiate acts of terrorism wherever we find them.

As far as France goes–our oldest ally–we stand with them. We shed the same blood and the same tears. We have similar values and similar views. And at this terrible time, we are all French just as they were Americans on 9/11. But if there’s anything that I can leave you with today is that we are also all Kenyans. And Beirutians. Hell, we’re all humans! So when will we start acting like it?

Speak out, and encourage others to speak out, against extremism of all kinds, otherwise our future might be a lot shorter than we thought, and the apocalypse the other guys are striving for might come sooner than we would want.

It’s a good thing that you show support for the victims of these terrible tragedies. It’s good that you pray, but… Well, I will let the Dalai Lama end this with some words he said following this tragedy, words that are wiser than any I could conjure:

“We cannot solve this problem only through prayers. I am a Buddhist and I believe in praying. But humans have created this problem, and now we are asking God to solve it. It is illogical. God would say, solve it yourself because you created it in the first place.”

Politically Incorrect: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of Political Correctness

Oscar night, a few days ago, incendiary actor Sean Penn and good friend of the corpse of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, presented the Oscar for Best Director to Mexican-born Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu for his new film “Birdman.” While presenting the award he shouted into the mic: “Who gave this son of a bitch his greencard?” something which, predictably, caused an uproar all over social media. Of course when you read it dry, it sounds like he said something terrible, or at least inappropriate. For most people even in the audience, the (lighthearted) insult felt flat. But before you, yourself, gasp in horror at just how Penn reduced the Mexican director to just another illegal, perhaps the situation calls for some context.

Penn and Iñarritu are both good friends in real life ever since their collaboration in the film 21-Grams, and like all good friends they would rather show their camaraderie by hurling insults at each other rather than expressing mushy feelings of brotherly love. Iñarritu himself said that he found the joke hilarious and that him and Penn were cracking jokes backstage where the director himself was saying some pretty terrible stuff not camera-appropriate.

As I watched Penn say the words, from the tone of voice alone I knew that Penn was not only joking, but that he must know the man personally. Later on I confirmed it from several news reports who cashed in on the racial slight while ironically explaining that they are in fact good friends. I particularly didn’t find anything wrong with the comment, and it’s not because I am a Mexican that immigrated to the U.S. at 13 (a Latino endorsing that kind of insult doesn’t mean it’s okay to say it), but rather because I honestly didn’t find anything particularly offensive, or amusing. It was a lighthearted jab at a friend and I understood it as such. The situation is in fact so ridiculous that all anybody can talk about is what Sean Penn said instead of focusing on the politically charged speech that Iñarritu delivered about equality in our native Mexico.

.

If there’s a lesson to be learned here is that while it may not be appropriate to joke the same way you would with your friends at a gala party, even one full of liberals as Hollywood parties clearly are, it’s an even worse thing to take such trivial things out of context. What if Penn had been at an office party? There’s no doubt in hell he would’ve faced disciplinary action or been labelled a racist, a career-destroying allegation, all because the man cracked a joke.

It seems that nowadays it’s all about political correctness. But if we can find the distinction between respect and political correctness, soon we see that what we do is all for the wrong reasons. Most people know that we live in a diverse world that has had a historically tarnished reputation with minorities (and by minorities I mean EVERYONE, including white people), and that most of the time saying the wrong thing- or even the right thing to the wrong person- can land you in hot water. So in order to avoid the discomfort of dealing with other people or awkward situations, we often resort to not saying anything at all, or saying something that might be insincere but pleasant. In effect we’re being nice, not to not be assholes as it should be, but for fear of the repercussions. Some will undoubtedly say “Well, but you’re being nice and that’s what counts,” but that is not what counts. Not only are people avoiding talking about real things, their fears, their prejudices, etc, things that need to be discussed precisely to avoid repeating this shameful past, but they are actually avoiding conversations altogether! And that surely cannot be good.

There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that political correctness is a good thing. It is. It’s a safeguard from running our mouths amok at family dinner parties and from saying things that shouldn’t ever be said out loud. In a way, political correctness has helped with the bullying problem that we have in our schools and it has also done its part in the acceptance of immigrants and different racial groups into this melting pot that is America. So yes, political correctness is something that this country needs to keep. But how far is too far? The question then becomes (and there’s always a question): Where do we draw the line?

 

The Good

 

Ever since the first person on Earth articulated intelligible words that were understood by others, that person surely said something that somewhere down the road began the first war between humans. Of course language did not magically appear one day, it evolved through gradual changes in human psychology and physiology that spread over seas of time and land; and of course it would also be stupid to attribute all our problems to language, for even in the animal world there is wordless conflict. This doesn’t mean that mother nature hasn’t devised her own form of language, but the kind of language that we devised for ourselves has not only put us at a perhaps unfair advantage over most other creatures on Earth, but with the power to express anything we want, it has also created conflict, an unfortunate but inevitable byproduct of language itself.

Let’s consider for a moment if everyone actually expressed what was going through their heads and said exactly what they meant to say. If humanity had somehow made it this far, it would still be total chaos! At best, diplomatic relations between countries wouldn’t be as widespread as they are, you would have a lot less friends than you do, and everyone would be living like characters out of the movie “Liar Liar”. At worse, I can assure you there would be a lot more laws against violence. Congress would seriously consider changing the Second Amendment.

In a world where you’re not the only one around, political correctness exists mainly to keep our mouths in check. Whoever claims that they always speak the truth no matter how uncomfortable it is for people to hear it is either lying or they have made a lot of enemies over the years. It just simply isn’t viable to tell people exactly what one thinks. That’s what children are for. If it doesn’t work in close tight-knit families with people you’ve known your entire life, don’t expect that little experiment to fare any better with the other people you haven’t known all your life.

As I mentioned earlier, the United States has a rather embarrassing history of treatment to other human beings who are not white and Christian. But even whites have been discriminated in the United States since always. At one point or another, Germans were considered the inferior race, then the Irish, then the Italians, and so on. Xenophobia in the United States is a rather particular phenomenon. It’s not so much that we expressly hate one race or another, rather the hatred seems to be not only transferable but rather brief until the next group sets foot onto this land. And then there’s slavery. Embarrassingly still in place until a little over a hundred years ago, the separation of people for the color of their skin was still happening at a time when mankind was already peering into the depths of the universe, a time when incredible scientific advancements were already under way.

Why is any of this relevant you may ask. Because it forces a perspective on us. Racism, sexism, classism and other forms of discrimination form part of our history. But in truthful consideration, no one alive today (save for people who still hold such ignorant positions) can truly be blamed for the crimes of those who came before us. Political correctness has done its small part integrating different races and different ideologies into our communities, and in providing our children the rules of decorum. Integration is perhaps one of the best things a society can do to ensure its survival and prosperity.

While it’s a wonderful thing to teach our children to be tolerant of others as it forms the necessary base for clearheaded adults, it seems that we often forget to also teach them to think critically about its adverse effects, and there are adverse effects to being too tolerant, remember that everything in excess is bad. This is the part where being politically correct gets tricky.

 

The Bad

 

But does political correctness really protect against hate speech, or does it merely cover up the smell of shit with the smell of roses? As cynical as it might sound, does it really matter?

When we’re condemned to talk about the obvious and sometimes not-so-obvious problems facing our societies today and identify those problems when and where we see them, then political correctness is actually harming honest conversation in lieu of tact and politeness.

Let me offer a few examples where political correctness is doing more harm than good.

The military is one of those subjects in people’s minds that should be left out of the conversation for respect of those who fight to protect our freedoms, including that of allowing me to write this article without the fear of getting flogged 100 times, or getting executed for heresy or treason. In fact I could bash each and every member of the armed forces and I shouldn’t expect any real punishment from the government- I would from each and every member of the military but that’s another story.

Over the years the military has almost achieved a level of mysticism comparable to some religions, and to talk about the military in the wrong context can turn you in people’s eyes into anti-American, a traitor, or if you’re a politician it can even mean political suicide. There is a lot of interest in keeping the integrity of the military pristine, and yet it wouldn’t be wrong to say that there are a lot of visible problems in the ranks. These range from the trivial like lying about personal history, or minor drug offenses, to serious issues that have irreversibly harmed the reputation of some of those in charge, problems like sexual harassment, credible allegations of abuse not only against civilians but within the military itself, corruption, etc. I’m not talking about a soldier or a marine getting yelled at during basic training or boot camp, I’m talking alarming levels of abuse and severe incompetence on part of the leadership, not to mention of course cover-ups that make politicians and civilians lose trust.

We have avoided talking about such things because the fear of offending one of the most sacred institutions in our country overpowers the necessity to enforce a little oversight.

What about race-relations? Although we have come a long way since the Civil Rights Movements of the 60s, race-relations in America do not seem to be any better than they were in the 90s, and in fact if it’s possible they seem to be deteriorating in light of recent events (I would post a link but I don’t think it’s necessary). While its fair to say that our police forces share some of the blame, it wouldn’t be unfair to say that a lot of the blame also lies with a population who thrives on keeping this fire alive- opportunism at its worse. For what purpose though? It’s a never-ending cycle that is self-replenishing. Police forces militarize to keep protesters in check and as a consequence the number of protesters balloon and soon you have a time bomb waiting to go off. As a defense against this fear, the police become even more aggressive. There’s no end to it. This problem does not originate in either side, it’s an issue that goes deeper than that. But until we have an honest conversation, we are just dogs chasing our own tails.

And what about religion? I don’t really have to tell you that one of the most destructive things I see today, and one of the most threatening things to our future free societies, is the radicalization of religion- okay, I guess I just did. The case of religion is a peculiar one though because it is the only subject that even groups who are not associated with it, will defend. And it is not a defense based on the freedom to profess or to believe or even to speak out, but rather it is a defense to censor those who speak out against it. Somehow someone decided that it’s against the rules to inconvenience non-adherents of a specific religion- or of no religion at all- by talking badly about them. But defending censorship (including self-censorship) is nothing more than cowardice dressed up as valor. Again, it’s an action based on fear.

If we were having this conversation in the 17th century, I’d be talking about the perils of Christianity. But as it happens it seems that Islam has now taken its place suppressing knowledge and ideas and at its most radical, it has become the placeholder of barbarism and backwardness. We often fail to recognize that the radicalization of Muslims around the world is a serious problem that has to be dealt with, but for some illogical delusion, even the would-be victims of its intolerance defend it, quite literally to the death.

Islam in its most pure and unadulterated form is practiced in the Middle East right now, and especially in the territory controlled by those nice guys from ISIS. And just in case you haven’t been watching the news lately, the Middle East is still not the best place to live at the moment. Or to be a woman in, or a child, or to like music, or color, or to be gay, or to think differently. Basically if you’re not a man willing to follow the most barbaric edicts of the Quran, you have absolutely no business in the Middle East. Right now, ISIS is basically the Arab equivalent of the Khmer Rouge, and yet there are groups even here in America that defend its right to declare open war against any Westerner that dares oppose the divine rule of Islam. At this, the leaders of many free-world nations, including our own, have the tenacity to say that religion is not the motivator for these crimes and these people are not true Muslims. Try explaining that to them, provided you don’t get beheaded first.

Political correctness in this context is so extremely dangerous to contemplate that it seems like a given to get rid of it altogether. It wouldn’t be such a far off idea to have people in street corners challenging others to open discussions where nothing is off the table and where literally anything can be said about this or any other controversial subject. If you think that this will not bring about any benefit, it surely cannot be any worse than what we’re doing now. It appears that some of my fellow liberals would rather see the heads of children roll down the mosques of ISIS on television rather than ask about the religious convictions or those who did the beheading. This is not racism and it certainly isn’t the fault of moderate Muslims. I wouldn’t dare blame all the problems of the Middle East on religion,  that would be ridiculous, unfair and untrue. After all, we don’t have the right to pretend that industrialized nations’ interest in a fruitless desert that we wouldn’t otherwise occupy if it weren’t for its resources is just an accident. But the problem of radicalization has already eclipsed the issue of occupation and even imperialism, it has in fact become the bigger problem to deal with.

Religious radicalization is just another form of political ideology run amok, gone completely haywire and infecting everyone in its sight. And you may ask yourself, why do we protect religion the way we do? What special privilege does it have that whatever rules dictate that any religion is to be unspoken of?

People often make the case that we have a responsibility to be respectful of people’s beliefs. But the question stands, where is it written that beliefs- anyone’s beliefs- are unquestionable?

In most other aspects of our lives we often question things to find out cost versus reward, and we rely on the power of observation, rationalization, and careful thought to arrive at the beneficial element. Yet we omit this process when we start on to specific paths that predate our formal educations, those that were- through no choice of our own- taught since birth. As a means of their survival, along with those unsubstantiated rules, we are also taught to refrain from questioning those rules- politics, religion, and even prejudices enter into this category. And of course, they are protected with a Kevlar-strong argument that persists to this day: political correctness.

Perhaps you have seen the following argument somewhere, but would you say that you respect Hitler’s beliefs just because he’s entitled to them, even after knowing that Nazi Germany sparked a war that took more than 60 million lives? Can we be as callous and irresponsible as to not ask why the Catholic Church incinerated thousands of women alive simply because doing so would be infringing on the beliefs of the few? What about slavery? Substantial evidence exists to prove that slavery in the United States was justified and rationalized by religious reasons more than any others. Of course we’ve all heard the religious adopt the very boring position that “those people were not real Christians,” but the fact is that they were real Christians in accordance to their times, and the fact that Christianity has evolved- yes evolved- to survive in our present environment doesn’t take away from the fact that some of most religious people back then were bigots.

How about the recent waves of extremism in the world? People’s religions and political ideologies should be put into question, they need to be put into question, and we need to stop pretending that beliefs, as sacred and ancient as they are, don’t cause real-world harm because they do. A side asterisk. Doesn’t the fact that those were ancient beliefs and thus not fit for our current model of the world ring any bells?

We have made it politically incorrect to question people’s beliefs, and as a consequence public discourse seems to be diminishing in some forums and increasing in others. Make no mistake, I do not advocate for people’s right to believe anything they want, just what they actually believe.

And this is the ugly part of political correctness, a grey area that no one seems to understand.

 

The Ugly

 

After the murders at Charlie Hebdo in January, many people who had no connection to Islam or to radicalism sided with the terrorists saying that the people at the magazine had it coming (the bad of political correctness) because they had insulted something so dear and personal for Muslims, one of those being the pope. A lot of them were fellow liberals who had an erroneous idea about what the questioning and criticizing of a person’s religion meant. While many others simply refused to talk about it (something possibly even worse).

If you keep up with this blog, you might actually be tired of me quoting author Sam Harris, but in his podcast shining light on the hypocrisy and fear of Western liberals Harris said: “…here’s one sign a person, whether he’s on the left or the right politically, has completely lost the plot here. The moment he begins to ask ‘what was in those cartoons? Were those cartoons racist? Was that a negative portrayal of Muhammad?’ To ask such questions is obscene. People have been murdered over cartoons! End of moral analysis.” The man is absolutely right. Political correctness has led us astray in the road to enlightenment. We have gotten to a junction where we can no longer recognize what our priorities are for fear of offending one party or another. A lot of people have allowed fear to take over the rational parts of their brain and make irrational decisions.

But this isn’t the only area where people call for a drawback to freedom of speech.

Some say that freedom of speech does not- and should not- protect hateful speech. The problem as I see it is that with a couple of lawyers and a few pages full of legal jargon, any speech can be turned into hate speech, not just the words every foreigner learns first- curse words.

The ugly truth about political correctness is that it has such a broad definition that it can, and does, include ideas and thoughts to censor speech. Laws have been drafted in order to limit just what and how much a person can say and about what. In fact that’s what classified documents are about, state secrets that no one is allowed to divulge, and to do so can mean severe penalties.

No speech should ever be sanctioned, including hate speech. People should know that they have the right to say whatever it is they want to say, with the full knowledge that consequences will arise from exercising that right. However, no human in any society (especially in a free society) should ever fear for his/her life for speaking out.

To quote Harris again, later in the conversation in that same podcast he speaks of Germany’s law against denying the holocaust. Every rational person would agree that anyone who denies the holocaust is at best ignorant of the facts and at worse a bigot, but Harris notices the flaw in that logic quickly. At this he says that “A person should be absolutely free to deny the holocaust, which is to say he should be free to destroy his reputation. And others should be free to ridicule him and to boycott his business. There shouldn’t be a law against this kind of idiocy…” Again, he is right in that speech should never be hindered in any way, but people should also be aware that there are always real-life consequences to what their mouths spew out.

To conclude, the ugly truth about political correctness is that there is no discernible line between politeness and ignorance, it is a matter of common sense in a realm that belongs to the analytic mind to determine if what we’re talking about is more dangerous than not talking about it, or vice versa.

 

To be or not to be… politically correct?

 

To be politically correct you first have to acknowledge that there is essentially a culture of previous political incorrectness. When a society has gotten used to throwing around words that denigrate and offend individuals or groups of people, then it’s important to see that something has to change. In our everyday vernacular words like “nigger” (and its variants), “gay”, “fag”, “retard”, “geek”, “whore”, etc.- these are all hateful words that are used to put down others not based on ideology but on things none of us have any control over. But who gets to decide where and when to draw that line? Why is it okay for actors in a funny movie to say these words but not okay for someone in a social situation to do the same? Who decides what’s permissible and what’s not between a Comedy Central Roast and the White House Correspondents Dinner? When do we acknowledge when the situation calls for a joke and when it is a serious issue we need to pay attention to? Are religion, politics, or people protected from verbal critique? How can we remain objective and recognize when something is merely humor and when it isn’t. What about using humor (as in the case of Charlie Hebdo) to talk about real-world issues? And what do we do when the definitions become muddled?

It seems that the questions outnumber the answers but as I mentioned in the beginning, political correctness has a lot to do with how you say things and not merely what things are being said. People need to acknowledge that certain situations call for political correctness to be suspended, while others call for it to be recognized, but above all we should remember that even horrible things said in a nice way are still horrible things.

 

More than anything else we should make use of a little device more important than political correctness, common sense. We should exercise common sense in all situations in life, I cannot stress this point hard enough. If logic and common sense formed part of our everyday lives, perhaps there would be absolutely no need to be politically correct in the first place.

True story.

.

.

Interesting articles to check out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-gallagher/the-problem-political-correctness_b_2746663.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/science/new-light-on-the-roots-of-english.html?_r=0

Old Hot Tensions or New Cold War: How World War 3 With Russia Will (Probably) Never Happen

Every now and then my dad and I engage in lively, and sometimes fierce, debate regarding the state of affairs in the world. We discuss our ideas and points of view as if by talking about it we could somehow dissolve the animosity that seems to be so commonplace nowadays. My father not only very knowledgeable but also one of the most interesting people I know, makes those little conversations quite fun and challenging. Most often than not we agree on many things, but every now and then there are inevitable crossroads where neither will make it easy for the other to get his point across. Just as he does, I too try to inform myself about what’s happening in the world when it comes to politics and things of that nature and just like him I am happy to learn new things that I didn’t know before. Some of these talks will stretch on for hours and even continue on in other phone conversations and unfortunately sometimes we will not concede to each other’s points no matter what the other person says. But when we do, we both agree that the other had the better argument.

One of those highly polarizing subjects that we often touch on is U.S.-Russia relations where I will usually side with the U.S. in mostly every aspect and where he always sides with Russia. It comes as no surprise to either one when during the natural course of a phone call the subject will “casually” come up with one or the other asking, “Hey, did you hear about what’s going on in ____?” And that’s when we both know it’s game on.

While the conversations might seem redundant at times, the news (and the growing divide between countries) will always provide new material for us to toss back and forth. My father’s view is usually that America’s “imperialism” and meddling is growing out of control and will eventually start a war that we will not be able to contain- among other things. In calm contrast, mine is that while the U.S. has committed barbaric acts of violence and does meddle in world affairs to a degree, that in many cases Russia is no better, at in most cases is worse. I typically refrain from using the phrase “the better of two evils” because I have such a loathing for it, but I wouldn’t be completely wrong in saying it.

During our exchanges we will both accuse each other of blind allegiance and of only considering information from biased sources; as if a third party was completely impartial and objective- something which is becoming increasingly difficult to find. Among the other charges, he will usually accuse me of either blowing up the subject out of proportion and I of him undermining it, or vice-versa. He will usually say that China and Korea are still Russia’s allies and that in the inevitable war that is to come they will side with the Russians. I, on the other hand, will usually concede the point that while China is still Russia’s biggest ally, before a war breaks out they will do everything earthly possible to avoid one. But our biggest disagreement lies in the assumption that a war between the U.S. and Russia (which is starting to look more and more like the old Soviet state it once was) is not only near but inevitable.

While these debates are lighthearted and many “facts” will be tossed around in the heat of the moment, at times I am left thinking of the very real possibility that it might actually happen. I analyze as many factual things as my limited knowledge permits me and I come to conclusions. Of course I am not 100% sure of my prognosis, and should a war ever break out between the U.S. and Russia, I’ll be the first to apologize provided I’m not ash by that time- not that it would matter any.

But while a war with Russia seems unlikely, it’s worth going into detail about why that is. And more importantly, why the peculiar behavior from Russia’s side if they don’t intend to start a war with the West. China, which would also be a serious contender in a war and a country that has been racking up its military over these past several decades, is even less likely to enter into a war with the U.S., although tensions still run high in that front too. This is not to say that a third world war still couldn’t happen. But I believe our priorities need to match our reality. Before the conflict in Ukraine, there was a considerably higher possibility to enter into a direct armed conflict with North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia than there was with Russia. Things change quickly, I know, and although none of these countries possess anywhere near the military power that China and Russia have, some of them do enjoy their support which complicates things a bit. However, I have come up with five reasons of why I believe that a direct war with Russia is nothing more than a dangerous dick-measuring contest between two countries with a historical tendency to fuck with each other.

 

1. The Semblance of Democracy

 

I heard somewhere that even the semblance of democracy is important because that means that a country is ready to embrace it, even if it’s in its most basic form. I really wish I could remember where I heard or read that particular quote because I’m sure the person who said it probably had something else interesting to say, so again I apologize. But it is true that the semblance of democracy is the first step towards a stable community run by the desires of those governed and not who govern.

In the most recent survey by Transparency.org, an organization which measures the index of transparency in countries around the world reported that Russia currently occupies number 136 out of 175 countries in the index of corruption. That’s really bad considering that only 175 countries were surveyed. The United States comes in at 17, Germany at number 12, France at 26, with Ukraine being the most corrupt country in Europe with a rating of 142.  At this, there is still a fundamental disparity between the styles of government between the West and the East, something that no doubt causes waves in geopolitics. It almost seems as if shifting from the reigns of a Communist vanguard, Putin has found in a democratic Russia the room he needed to implement his desired policies with little or no opposition. Whether his aim is to defy the west and reposition Russia to a top place in world politics or to completely turn back to Soviet-style politics is speculation, but there is no doubt that his defiance put us at a very uncomfortable position, that of knowing what we’ve always known, that we’re not the only players around.

I could go into detail about Putin’s puppet government, but in this section we’re just trying to see why even the semblance of democracy in an obviously not-so-democratic nation can help thwart a war between the East and the West.

It makes you wonder what would happen if Putin blatantly announced that Russia would be going back to Communism. Surely a lot of partnerships would collapse, economically, militarily, politically, and even its closest-trading partners in that side of the world would start to get nervous at the prospect, China for one. Having that kind regressive sentiment still carries a lot of stigma. The question then is not how many partners is Russia willing to lose to go head-to-head with the West in a war, but rather who of the partners it’s loosing. There’s no doubt that Putin would be applauded by leftist nations all over the world. The man is already popular with Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, but now he’s also warming up to other South American nations that have historically or currently politically have gripes with the United States. Could these nations, plus some Asian and African nations, garner enough support for another Cold War siding with Russia? There is no coincidence here, most of these nations, including some factions in Mexico that were quickly disbanded due to Mexico’s proximity to the U.S., were openly Marxist Socialist or otherwise Communist and sided with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But could we go as far as saying that a new Cold War would begin? This is an interesting but fearful answer to contemplate.

My honest answer is I don’t know, but I also believe that it would be highly unlikely seeing how the prosperity of this country, and this one and this other one, not to mention Russia’s economy– countries where the Soviet Union had a strong grip- has dramatically improved since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is highly unlikely that any of those now-sovereign independent states, many of which now enjoy the protection of NATO, would ever support a regression. Let’s go so far as to say that only Russia becomes openly Communist again without invading countries or meddling in the affairs of other nations, it’s possible even its closest allies like China- which whom Russia enjoys a privileged position- would be wary of doing business with them due to the complexity of Communism in politics in today’s world.

This is good for the rest of the world, because even if Russia doesn’t truly belong in the circles that the West has created for itself, it belongs to that trading partnership and is welcome to receive its benefits. A war with Russia will never start as long as it enjoys the strong concessions provided by democracy, or by Brittish-American-style Capitalism. Does that mean that trying to improve its influential position, especially in the case of Ukraine, will not lead it to start a war? No, it doesn’t mean that, but again, Soviet-style imperialism is hard to hide nowadays.

 

2. Economics: China’s Growing Influence

 

Today, Russia and China enjoy a cozy relationship that was almost non-existent in the last years of Communism in Russia during the Sino-Soviet split. However, it seems that through calculated partnerships and strategic alliances, China’s sphere of influence has spread to cover now much of Asia and even the Latin American world as well. Here in the United States the insatiable craze for  Chinese trade that we have- which is also starting to wear thin- has allowed our country as well as theirs to prosper through mutual agreements and indeed also disagreements.

At the beginning of last century and during the start of the Cold War, Russian-style Communism was the perfect blend of social, political and economic elements to create the perfect alternative to the capitalistic democracy of the United States and similar sociopolitical systems of Europe. But as the years and leaders came and went and that romantic spirit of revolution waned, an almost antagonistic sentiment began to settle not just within the Politburo but also in the population of the Soviet Union itself. It was then that China took the torch and became the new model to follow. Chairman Mao Zedong and his “Cultural Revolution“, which was a brutal revival of the Chinese revolutionary sentiment that rebranded Communism and begun a new era of industrialism in the Eastern world. China quickly changed from being just a satellite state for the Soviet Union to becoming a top player in its own right.

Of course we know now that China is not the Communist nation that a young- or even an old- Mao aspired to build, but that in essence it is sort of like a hermit crab, a Capitalist hermit crab wearing a Communist shell. During the massive economic expansion that China went through in the 70s and 80s by opening up more to the West (something that Russia missed out on for obvious reasons), the Chinese grew their economy exponentially by more than 20% in some cases, quickly turning the country into a military and economic power.

USA and China.

Obvious disparities between the U.S. and China still exist, many based on culture differences, historical events, current alliances, economic models and, indeed, show of force; but overall, the business partnership that has allowed China to quickly become the second largest economy in the world after the U.S. while keeping the stability of the region fairly calm, has allowed both countries (China and us) to assert a major influence in that side of the world. This complex business partnership that begun some decades ago allowed a somewhat disenfranchised Asia to gravitate more towards China’s sphere of influence rather than Russia’s. And while the Western world seemed, for the most part, united against Eastern Communism, the East began to appear fractured as many Communist factions started to implement their own versions of the socio-economic and political system. In a word, China became somewhat of a good friend to the U.S., which was of course what the United States wanted and needed.

By the 1980s it was becoming more and more apparent that the partnership between China and the West would give the U.S. an important foothold in the East. Today, although tensions grow and diminish in Asia, China is still a good mediator between Western powers and hostile states such as North Korea and at times even between Russia and the United States. Even though the American dollar still dominates world markets, something that China’s powerful economy is working hard to change, with trillions of dollars at stake, it seems both countries would rather trade money than bullets. It’s also important to note that the massive purchase of American debt by China binds them in a strange way to us- if we can only hope they don’t ask for all their money all at once. There are problems that arise from this sort of mildly dangerous trade, one of those being that China might see the rift between U.S.-Russia relations as an opportunity for economic supremacy in a vie of military conquest towards eradicating the West. This is a real possibility, but until now it hasn’t had significant gravity to warrant hostile action on our part.

But to be honest, it is hard to imagine which side China would take if a war between the U.S. and Russia were to break out, after all China has been Russia’s trading partner for much longer than it has been America’s and what’s more, they share a border. We should also consider the recent developments in geopolitical events mainly the island disputes between China and Japan, of which the U.S. is a staunch ally. But I believe that if tensions start becoming unmanageable, China will use every resource available to resolve whatever differences diplomatically rather than militarily.

 

3. Isolationism

 

Think of the world as it is today. With the invention, or rather commercialization, of the internet, the world is now more connected than it has ever been before. I wouldn’t be surprised if a study produced results pointing out that the world is a little bit more peaceful, in part, to this collective thing that humanity has invented for itself. Today the power to speak to any human being on the planet (or even outside of it) in real time can be handled by any six year old with a mobile device and connection to the internet. The planet is quickly and willingly becoming more connected in mostly every aspect and the old policies of self-isolationism can no longer protect countries from the influence of the outside world. Take for example self-isolated countries such as Cuba and North Korea. These countries probably have the natural resources to survive independently of any other nation, unfortunately for them they only posses these resources and none other. In times of distress they can only depend on their own ingenuity to resolve their own problems and when those natural resources they depend on diminish, they have no outside help.

This wouldn’t be so bad of course if the leadership guiding these nations was disinterested in power and wealth. Unfortunately that’s not the case and as a result, their populations suffer immensely, in most cases lacking even basic human resources. It’s evident then that in this modern age we live in, isolationism for any country, whether self-imposed or as punishment by the conglomerate of nations that surround it (speaking in a political context), is in effect the kiss of death. In fact, no country in the world can now survive without the help of another. At this moment, Cuba is aided by many nations around the world and with the policy change under President Obama, the old embargo is expected to be fully lifted and a new partnership will begin between Cuba and the United States. But even North Korea, also known as the “Hermit Kingdom” for its aggressive self-imposed isolation, enjoys a military and economic alliance from one of its biggest sponsors- China.

Berlin Wall Credit: "Berlinermauer" by Noir at the German language Wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlinermauer.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Berlinermauer.jpg

Berlin Wall
Credit: “Berlinermauer” by Noir at the German language Wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlinermauer.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Berlinermauer.jpg

During the years of the Cold War when no trade agreements were allowed between Western countries (mostly Capitalist) and Eastern countries (mostly Communist), even isolated Russia traded with its satellite states and other neutral countries. There are many here in the United States that call for the self-isolation of our country and to stop meddling in other nations’ affairs. While I partially agree with the second part, I don’t think the first is a realistic goal at all.

According to our Republican politicians, and Conservatives throughout, Putin has made all the right moves in this political chess game being played at the global level. But as near-history has proven, Obama’s bloodless policy has not only worked better than military action, but it has repaired the somewhat damaged relationship between the U.S. and Germany over allegations that the N.S.A. had tapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone. This is a very good thing since Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande are some of our closer allies in that side of the world, and the people who are willing to stick our their necks so close to the Middle East and to Russia for us.

This strengthening relationship with the Europeans means that we are united against Putin’s shenanigans where it pertains to Ukraine and Georgia. It almost seems like deja vu what’s happening in Ukraine after the events of 2008 when Russia invaded another sovereign country in its backyard, Georgia. But the NATO alliance of which the U.S. and several European countries are members of, will not allow another invasion to go unresolved. But rather than fighting the Russians with conventional wars in their own turf (of which even a united Europe is incapable of doing), instead they turn to economics as way of fighting the Russians.

Last year, the meeting of the G7, formerly the G8, rejected to be held in Russia as a protest for the blatant act of invasion on Ukraine. And just a month ago Angela Merkel said with confidence that if Russia continues on this path with Ukraine, it will not be invited to the next G7 summit hosted by the German chancellor.  Take into account that the G8, now the G7, is not your typical college club. The G7 is a group of the seven most powerful nations in the world in terms of economy, military, and influence, and being shunned by the group can not only cost a country a lot of money, but also influence. When all G7 countries forcibly removed Russia from membership, that act sent a message that they will not tolerate one of their industrialized partners to behave like bullies.

With an already shrinking economy, the combination of sanctions imposed on Russia by Europe and the U.S. and the low price of oil will further drive down their economy, and with no way for foreign investors to take a stake in Russian goods, the Russians are quickly being isolated from the world stage. There’s only so much a country can do by itself. Even the very charitable IMF (International Monetary Fund) could not rescue Russian banks from the economic crisis of last year. These effects are being felt by the Russian people who, while at first supported the campaign in Crimea, now support instead a balance in Russian economics, and more importantly a drop in food prices.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia has retreated into a capitalism-style economy that is self supporting. But this strategy is not free. There is already an ongoing effort that’s gaining momentum to curb Russia’s energy supplies on Eastern Europe. The natural gas demands are to be supplanted by American natural gas reserves as a counter-measure to Russia’s Gazprom, the company that supplies Ukraine at steep prices that the current government is unable to pay up front.

By reading this you might think that it is a dangerous thing to bully Russia into isolation, but an isolated Russia, although still powerful and influential, is less likely to start a war with the United States- and NATO for that matter- without first having the support of more powerful allies. Agreed, economics alone perhaps will not stop Russia from starting a war, but it certainly does help. Hopefully, Russia will choose to go the diplomatic route instead of going to blows with the world.

 

4. Global Terrorism

 

After the Cold War ended, conventional wars quickly become obsolete in light that there were very few worthy contenders to fight with. Even the American military campaigns of Iraq and Afghanistan were little more than invasions. While one could make the case that these military campaigns were nothing more than an oil-grab or legitimate defensible invasions to depose a dictator, is up for individual debate. What we can be sure of is that global terrorism has changed the way the world conducts military operations, and the renewed involvement of intelligence services is reminiscent to the age of espionage during the Cold War.

Aided by one side or another (the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight the Russians, or the North Vietnamese to fight the Americans), these groups, some of which are now players in today’s conflicts, mainly in the Middle East, now wage a different type of war against the West; this is not a war of allegiances or for territory, it is a war of ideas- holy war. Jihad, or holy war, against the “West”- a term not indicative of a region of the globe but an umbrella word to cover all of the oppressors of the Middle East and basically anyone who is an infidel, or an enemy of Islam- is indiscriminate of anyone. Even Muslims fall prey to the brutal tactics now in full effect by terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. And unlike the conventional enemies of before, up until a couple of years ago the enemy was invisible.

If we remember Russian imperialism during the Cold War, there is no way we can dismiss the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s. Could it be that the freedom fighters of yesterday (or the terrorists of today) realized that Soviet Russia was just America’s counterpart in the East? Perhaps. What we know for sure is that in this fight no one is safe, least of all civilians.

A few weeks ago, Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto, a pair of Japanese journalists were captured by the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL) and were executed after the group failed to collect a hefty ransom that in all probability they knew they wouldn’t get. Now, Japan is considering amending their constitution, which expressly forbids Japan from building an offensive military, to aid in the “war against terror.” In similar situations other civilians of different nationalities have also been captured by the terrorist group and executed violently.

It is, to a certain degree, understandable why IS would have a deep hatred for the U.S., but to vow the destruction of Japan is something that falls a bit off the realm of reason. Not only is Japan a peaceful nation, but it doesn’t even have an offensive military. This just comes to show that the irrationality of these terrorist factions, not just Islamic but all terrorist factions around the world, is causing the world to unite against them. The effectiveness of these groups is rooted in three things: one is that they are totally and completely devoted to their beliefs and they are incredibly organized to carry them out; the second reason of why they are effective at what they do is that they take advantage of the goodwill of democratic nations and their tolerance; and the third thing is that they take advantage of the disagreements between these nations.

Russia must be united in this goal to eradicate global terrorism so that conventional wars with serious adversaries can resume. I obviously joke in that last part. But what is true is that it is easier to divide and conquer than to conquer. Of this I am obviously speaking of the visible divide that exists between industrialized nations such as the U.S. and Russia which makes it easier for these other players to take advantage of the situation and benefit from it for their own purposes. A divided world is exactly what they want.

The political games played for the supremacy of the region could be an indication as to what sort of plans one country or another has for that region of the world. I speak of the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, the arming of Syria and the support to Iraq by Russia, the thousand alliances that are made and broken in the region and the million of details that go with them. Let’s not forget that although the Middle East is a patch of desert in the middle of nowhere, it’s also a gold mine with  seemingly inexhaustible oil reserves that the world wants a part of. Again, nothing in this life is free. With that oil comes something even more polluting, a slew of complications that are born out of the interests of all these different groups vying for what little natural resources this tiny part of the world has.

These tensions arising from warnings between the two powers exacerbate the dire situation that we find ourselves in. Where Russia doesn’t belong, perhaps the U.S. doesn’t belong either. But in protecting the interests of the United States (I will not say “protecting democracy or the free peoples or the Middle East” or any other such nonsense), it is unlikely that the U.S. will leave the region alone anytime soon. Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that just because U.S. boots are on the ground close to Russia that the Russians will just walk away. It’s not gonna happen. But is that enough to spark a war between the two countries? I am very skeptical that it will. Russia, like the United States, will protect its interests wherever it sees fit, interests that everyday are threatened more and more with the looming shadow of the Islamic State. If Russia vows to drive away these terrorists, you can be sure that its actions will also turn it into a target for ISIS, just like anyone else.

Although the situation that we find ourselves in is infinitely more complex than it was during the Cold War, I believe that through cooperation the enemy can be defeated. I do not forget that Russian authorities warned the F.B.I. about Tamerlan Tsarnaev (one of the Boston Marathon bombers) before he entered the U.S.- and the United States and its allies shouldn’t forget either. Admittedly, we dropped the ball on that one and civilians were murdered. But the cooperation was there.

If there’s anything that we should be thankful for now is that ISIS has grown to be big enough to spot. However, as big and mighty as the U.S. military is, if we want to deal effectively with global terrorism we will need all the help we can get. That’s a little hard to do when you are fighting wars all over with the people having the same problem as you. Not only must we appear united against terrorism but we must actually be united.

 

5. Common Sense: The Worst Is Over

 

Back in the 60s, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the U.S. and Russia to the brink of destruction. The world watched nail-bitingly as President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khrushchev faced off in the highest tensions the world had seen since the Iron Curtain came down over Europe.

Before the United States unveiled humanity’s deadliest weapon by dropping it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and thus evaporating more than 200,000 people, the world was a bit more ballsy, going in and out of conflicts without much care for the people that fought them. But when the mushroom cloud rose high in the sky, it was obvious that this new weapon was a game changer in many ways. The Russians feared that the delicate balance of power had shifted dramatically and they worked arduously to produce an atom bomb of their own to counter the threat that they faced from the West.

By the time the Cuban Missile Crisis came around nearly 20 years after the invention of the atom bomb, both the United States and the U.S.S.R. were siting on a pile of about 20,000 nuclear and hydrogen bombs (an even more powerful weapon) and ICBMs*. [1] Although more than 18,000 of those were owned by the U.S., the other 2,000 that Soviet Russia owned was still a large enough stockpile to pulverize everything on the planet.

Fortunately for mankind none of those nukes were ever launched. It was then that humanity realized that the huge boulder hanging over their heads was held by nothing more than a thin thread with two men holding the scissors. During these early years of the Cold War, there was a very serious probability that by the end of the decade the world would be in ashes. Even after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the proliferation of nuclear weapons continued to massive levels peaking at 62,000 nuclear weapons, enough to destroy the entire planet many times over.

The scary thing is that while the C.M.C. was probably the closest we ever came to annihilation, it was not the only close call. There are at least five others, not one but two of them involving serious computer malfunctions that nearly caused us to bomb the shit out of each other, situations only averted by the good reasoning of soldiers from both sides that no doubt did not wish their two countries go to war. This mutual sentiment of coexistence surely contributed to the dismantling of nuclear weapons and the beginning of cooperation between the two countries with programs like SALT, after a tired and scared world counted the days until one leader or the other decided to end countless lives and kill every living thing at the push of a button.

To many it might seem like an ironic and dark twist of fate that during the Cold War the world was probably due to the very delicate balance of power protected by nuclear deterrence from both sides. However, this illusion of balance was maintained solely through fear. The M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) protocol dictated as much, and both countries were well aware of the kind of mayhem that they would be causing should a real war between them would ever happen. Although proxy wars of more conventional fare were fought and many people did die, at the very least we can say that the world did not disappear in the blink of an eye.

Even before the end of the Cold War, both the Americans and the Soviets began making progress to reduce the amount of W.M.D.s each possessed and continued working together well after it. One of the strongest indications that peace between the two countries will remain, at least at the non-nuclear level, is that we’ve been through it before and both nations know of each other’s capabilities to wage a war with the capacity to destroy everything and everyone on the planet.

Today many protocols and organizations exist solely to avoid the doomsday clock from ever reaching midnight. For fear that the 20,000 nuclear weapons that the U.S. and Russia still have might spark a nuclear war that most likely will drag most other countries in, these organizations and even the leaderships of our countries, I believe will work to eliminate every option before going to blows with each other.

 

The Importance of ‘Probably’

 

Although the Ruso-Ukrainian situation is severely hindering any effort for Russia to regain its seat as part of the G8, and exacerbating a terrible situation that is starting to turn our worst nightmares into realities, I believe there is still hope that a war can be averted.

This past Sunday a ceasefire devised by Germany’s Merkel and France’s Hollande and agreed upon by Russia’s Putin and Ukraine’s Poroshenko began between the Russian separatists and the Ukrainian military. Until now the truce has held sporadically, and some fighting still continues, some say at the behest of Putin who doesn’t seem to be all that serious about keeping the truce. Where the West is concerned, most of Ukraine would rather belong to the European union rather than form part of the Russian bloc that seems to be resurging. The Russians are well aware of this, but fearing that Ukraine will join NATO, Putin seems to be utterly prepared to hold the country at ransom to prevent that from ever happening. Crimea and now other parts of Ukraine under the control of the separatists are that leverage.

ukraine russia and europe

 

This all sounds very grave, but it seems that neither side is 100% ready to officially christen the follow-up to the first Cold War by starting a proxy war. If my dad were to tell me that he believes that another Cold War already broke out, to a certain degree I would feel inclined to agree with him, all the symptoms are there after all. But just as the United States feels that arming Kiev, secretly or openly, is the first step to a war, Russia also knows the consequences of arming the rebels. And each knows that what both are doing is just pushing that clock closer and closer to midnight.

While I base my opinion on what I observe, my entire argument also rests on something that is completely beyond my control, on the hope that both countries maintain some sort of civility and clear headedness through every step that as nations of power have to forcibly and inevitably engage in to resolve this.

To bet against this is stupid to the point of irrationality. People need to remember just how incredibly frail is this relative peace we have today, and how much we have to work to improve it. You must make the effort to see the reasons I’ve listed as the only barriers against global war and be alarmed at the fact that these things are what’s keeping the world “safe”, as if we had nothing else to base peace on but threats. It’s shameful that it is a sad reality to consider the new normal. Again.

Reality proves that there are those who are more right than others, but the United States as well as Russia need to engage in honest, purposeful diplomatic conversation to avert another major political and military disaster a mere 15 years into this new century.

Hopefully, the next time I talk with my dad, this reality I speak of will not be so grim.  Hopefully the talk will remain hypothetical and nothing else. Hopefully neither one will ever have to find out which side would win because make no mistake, no one will win, least of all the people who have little or no say in their country’s policy. Hopefully “probably” is enough to stop the world from tearing itself apart. Hopefully.

 

Bibliography

 

[1] “Historical Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles and Nuclear Tests By Country.” Wikipedia.com. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Last modified 8 January 2015, at 11:26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country. Accessed 18 February, 2015.

 

Definitions

 

*Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles allows for a cross-continent payload delivery, which is a missile with several warheads that has the capacity to reach targets across the world.

**G7- The group of seven allied economic powers which include the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the United States, Canada, and Japan.

*** North Korea’s official name is DPRK or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

 

Interesting Articles to Read

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/16/falling-rouble-all-you-need-to-know

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/world/europe/imf-approves-17-5-billion-bailout-for-ukraine.html?_r=0

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/71413/s-walter-washington/mexican-resistance-to-communism

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peace-agreement-proves-putin-lying-221700335.html

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/03/21/will-china-choose-russia-or-america-in-the-coming-war/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race

http://www.historytoday.com/vladimir-batyuk/end-cold-war-russian-view

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/timeline-ukraine-political-crisis-201431143722854652.html

http://news.yahoo.com/cold-war-us-russia-fight-191709484.html

http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-ukrainian-forces-agree-humanitarian-corridor-082121426.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/05/7-reasons-why-america-will-never-go-to-war-over-ukraine/

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/16/ukraines-military-is-stronger-than-believed-heres-what-it-needs-to-win/?utm_source=Facebook

Religio Ad Verbum: How Literal Interpretations of Holy Books are Destroying Our World, Pt. 2

Churches and religions pride themselves in having compiled in volumes all the rules by which humanity is supposed to live by and what our roles in society should be. However, what little morality can be found in the Quran can also be found in the cheapest crime novel you can find at your local gas station. The rest of it can be derived simply from common sense and from the connection people form with their fellow human beings. Unless a serious mental illness is preventing someone from acting rationally, there is no way to miss simple moral acts that enrich human experience, i.e. being kind to others, helping those in need, minding others’ fears and feelings, etc. Why? Because we can relate to all these things solely by our own experience of being alive.

Unfortunately, there are those who don’t see it this way and for them, their own interpretation of things is the only interpretation. Belief, based on these interpretations, becomes a dangerous tool to wield. Ideas can be molded into anything, and detrimentally to everyone, in the minds of those whom religion already provides a preemptive answer to everything, interpretation is not born out of logic of differentiating patterns, but rather it is the mental equivalent of muscle memory, a learned behavior with only one intended consequence- hegemony.

In religion, mainly the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, when a bad idea is sanctioned by the text from which it comes from, it is standard procedure not to question it or its origin, but rather accept it and love it as having providence in the mysteriousness of a deity almost as obscure and unknown as the people who claim to have been the messengers of it. When does it become inconvenient for us to question it or outright reject it? How far must things go before we realize that the things we are made to believe really cause pain to people? Certainly not far enough if people truly believe in this day and age that the actions of Abraham were appropriate and warranted simply because it was god’s word. How far can we go if people will be made to believe that subservience is the way to heaven? After all, not more than half a century ago people still believed that the separation between races was divinely mandated. This is an example of how diluted our common sense can become when we are made to believe things that many generations before us could not concretely explain. Must we destroy the entire world before we start to question things?

Christianity has “evolved” over thousands of years from a small insignificant rebellion to the leading form of organized “consciousness” (for lack of a better word in this context) that humanity has ever participated in. It is essentially the most deadly self-imposed psychological experiment that in one way or another has changed the world, sometimes for the worse. In its infancy Christianity was harmless, just another cult, but as its numbers inflated violently for the very first centuries, Christians were known as terrorists, rebels, and racially inferior beings (sound familiar?). They were despised, persecuted, tortured and executed. It should be funny to note that during those first centuries, the desperation of pagans seeing their gods being replaced by a foreign one must have been quite a culture shock.

Following the Constantine decree that Christianity was to become the official religion of the Roman Empire, the cult then sought to infect nations and radicalize them either by “the word” or by the sword. Early Christians experienced a sort of either-you’re-with-us-or-against-us attitude and committed atrocities in the name of unreason. Of course I can’t say this is exclusive to Christians, for earlier religions much did the same, imposing their own mythologies onto other groups of people. This new mythical thing of incredible proportions became faith. Faith then turned out to be the invisible lighthouse in the shores of reason, a place where all sailors wanted to be drawn to but that clad in obscurity it took an enormous amount of effort to find. Not surprisingly, over the centuries many ships have capsized in this place.

Star and crescent icon

Much in the same way that Christianity spread its message by blood, and occasionally by peace, Islam and radicalized Muslims do the same today. Historically speaking, the spread of Islamism was much quicker and much more brutal than Christianity ever was, at least in the first centuries of its creation. Compared within the same time period, no doubt Islam would have been far more effective at indoctrinating the masses. But that is only possible admitting that Islam was born out of the sword of an illiterate warlord who sought to conquer over his oppressors come what may.

The thought that Islam under the caliphates was at one point the better of all evils, and that it advanced mathematical and scientific advancement, is one of the most recycled untruths (not lies) that we tell ourselves during our time. It is no more true than saying that we now have a deep knowledge of the universe because of Christianity. People of science and logic can be found anywhere and everywhere, it only takes the right incentive to provoke them to share their curiosity with the world. However, I cannot overlook the fact that indeed thinkers under ancient Islam were not as restricted under the banner as Christians were under Christianity. Sadly, I can’t say that about “modern” Islam. The brutality with which purely Muslim governments enforce Shari’a Law is the same with which Inquisitors enforced the canon of the Catholic church, and as a result what we have is a new inquisition period, the new Dark Ages. What’s so surprising is that heads are still rolling for imaginary crimes in an age when we can peer into the darkest spots of the known universe. Seeing the events unfold, we have the responsibility to ask ourselves and each other, “How can this possibly still be going on?”

Under the current modus operandi of Islamic nations it seems that the Quran is not taken out of context, as some might believe, but something much worse, it is understood by the most literal interpretation it can be given. If at some point we thought it was a hypocritical thing to cherry-pick the Bible to find passages that conveniently suited our moral needs, then I suggest we go back to that and try to convince our Muslim brethren to do the same. At our demise, the phrase “Beware what you wish for” comes to mind. Then again wishing that it wasn’t so is basically the secular equivalent to praying it wasn’t so.

Islam it seems has inherited the proverbial scepter of unreason. But let me clarify before I start receiving hate-mail. It is not Islam that I have a problem with, but rather literal Islam that I hate. Before we begin to convince ourselves of the fairy-tale illusion that there are many moral passages in the Quran to constitute a moral rule-book to follow, let me tell you that often in the same passages of the hadith where a moral passage can be found, an equally immoral one can also be found. The greatest problem we come across it seems is recognizing what is moral?

As if it wasn’t enough to see women clad in black and knowing that they have been genitally mutilated as children (prominent practice in some Muslim countries and also in some Christian ones), it has become the job of some cynics to declare that the people doing this sort of thing are just radicals and misunderstand and twist the word of the Quran and the Bible. What they continually fail to realize is that these “radicals” are not a band of illiterate sheepherders as they sued to be, or warriors as Mohammad himself was, but rather people of broad-reaching influence such as heads of state and religious leaders. It is not the ignorant who dictate policy, it is the learned. The radicals that we mention command armies and lead nations, these are not gangs, these are people who truly believe every word they read down to the last punctuation mark and they use it to maintain a strict control upon their populations. Whether or not this oppression exists solely for the purpose of near-total hegemonic social control, such as in the case of societies like Saudi Arabia, is something that changes from country to country, from tribe to tribe, and even within the same religion (i.e. Shia Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims, Catholics vs. Protestants, etc.) The fear that we have is not with moderate Muslims, although we should be cautious of their beliefs much in the same way that we are cautious of the beliefs of others such as Christians, Jews, and indeed my fellow atheists- our fear should be grounded in the radicalizing of these moderates as ISIL and other warring factions have effectively managed to do by spreading propaganda with the message that to wage holy war against infidels (everyone who is not a Muslim) is glorious. And what’s more, that to die is immensely better than to live. This is a highly dangerous position to take and defend. As philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris has said, “These people love death more than we love life.”

 

And if none of this convinces you of the severity of the problem then perhaps you will be more sympathetic when you realize that ISIS tortures and kills children, and all we can do is impotently watch in our computer and television screens as it happens. Does any reasonable person dare say that this is not the work of Muslims but rather the work of psychopaths misled to think this is the path to heaven?

This oppression that exists, not only of the body but mainly of the mind then becomes like a poison that kills the fertile ground of thought, and lets nothing grow. The most passive verses of the Quran are continually ignored while those which spell out in detail how to punish and control people are followed to the letter, and they work very effectively. If you thought Communism was bad, theocracy is much worse. Children are brought up thinking that this sort of behavior should be tolerated, celebrated, and repeated. In consequence we have generations upon generations and waves upon waves of faith-fighters willing to die as martyrs in defense of their twisted ideals. Teaching kids that infidels are only good for killing, or that the opinion of a woman is only half of that of a man, does not make children moral, it makes them immoral, or if anything it makes them amoral. To push the envelope a little bit further (perhaps not exaggerating), whole generations are being indoctrinated and groomed as reserves for some future holy war that some are praying, and praying hard, that will one day come. How can we hope to win a war against those who willingly walk to their deaths to defend nothing more than the right to die gloriously as we fight to defend life? It seems almost impossible. Within those circles, the interpretation that is given for men to follow has perpetuated an endless war with the perfect breed of warriors willing to die happily.

Much like the Roman Catholic Church in the Dark Ages, these Muslim theocracies appear to be highly organized even in the face of auto-radicalism. Is there a shred of doubt that they would all wish to see Israel, or the U.S., or the E.U. in ashes rather than form a peaceful world? Of course not. And it seems that money is basically the only thing keeping some of these societies at bay from erupting into war. But how long will this strategy of showering these countries with gold last? When the oil dries up and there is nothing more to sell, what will happen then? If greed fails, what other cards do we have to play?

Even within our nations it seems that the squalling within misinformed liberal groups is giving the enemy the advantage of ideological warfare. While we question what constitutes criticism of religion and indeed freedom of speech, radical Muslims have no problem using social platforms created by Western countries such as Facebook and Twitter to shamelessly (and cowardly) recruit among our own populations. For now it seems their strength lies solely in pushing propaganda, not in their numbers or even in the hope to fight established nation. But for how long? Can we allow this to change? These are questions that must be asked now.

Morality is a tricky thing sometimes. Occasionally it’s difficult to assert correctly what is moral, after all not all moral decisions are good and not all good decisions are moral. But in order to enjoy the benefits of living in a society where its citizens are happy, the freedom to speak one’s mind is paramount to the contribution of that happiness and the cornerstone in building that type of nation. Although I believe that morality is rooted in what we find pleasurable and good without the need to affect others, I also believe that it is corruptible. Some moral things that were considered good and moral before are not any longer and so we have to be able to make that distinction correctly. In that sense, morality has to derive at least in part to the freedom to let your mind be known, for only then can people be aware of other people’s true intentions. And when that right is infringed upon, it creates a domino effect that is very hard to get away from unscathed.

Before the European Enlightenment brought reason back into the minds of people, awakening them from a long slumber, nations had to fight each other for ideological supremacy but also for freedom from oppression which they themselves created. History became a vicious cycle hard to break away from, and men perpetuated this cycle by fueling it with ideas that did not benefit the group en masse, but that only satisfied their own desires. It would be unfair to say that collective reason was completely absent during these times, for even during the Dark Ages there were people who dared to think. If that sounds surprising to read it’s because it is. Yet, from the heap of garbage that myth and unreason originate, sometimes we can find something of great value there.

But while we waste our time looking for these scattered moral passages, ISIL (or ISIS or IS) will have already executed several thousand people, most of them innocent, most of them Muslim, and some of them foreign nationals. ISIS will have also brutally  killed thousands of children and tortured many more people for crimes that should only be judged in an Inquisition court. All of it done in the name of Islam and to defend the honor of a “prophet” long gone. We can go on and on how Islam is a religion of peace, but until we get our hands dirty and dig into these passages ourselves will we know just what exactly is being taken out, or read into, context. And if you are religious, I urge that you do not make comparisons between your religion and Islam, for if taken literally, the Bible is just as violent and damaging as the Quran, and perhaps even more.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaking at a conference.  photo credit: RA_Sun_286 via photopin (license)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaking at a conference.
photo credit: RA_Sun_286 via photopin (license)

It is true enough that we must not blame the wrong people for these atrocities, and it is equally true that only those who commit these crimes must be held accountable. I believe we can all understand that no person wants to be blamed for the crimes of another- even if they subscribe to remotely the same beliefs. But what is imperative for us to realize is that these crimes are not perpetuated in defense of reasons that are beyond their control (race, nationality), instead they are the deliberate result of manufactured beliefs that unfortunately are also shared by those whom are affected most by them, innocent people who also read the Quran or the Bible whose innate morality leads them to reject the obvious immoral passages of these books. The most effective way for moderate Muslims to distance themselves from those who use their religion as a scaffold to greater crimes is simply to weed them out. I admit, it is only simple in theory. The responsibility falls on the moderates to reform Islam, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has declared, or to edit the Koran itself to reflect 21st century views. Muslims should not fear for that portion of history to be lost, like the Magna Carta- another very important ancient text, and one of the many documents from which the Constitution is based on- the original Quran will never be lost, but it can be updated.

And it is the job of reasonable people to collectively denounce injustice wherever we see it. We should speak out the truth in defense of reason and common sense and be fearless in our resolute goal of condemning censorship of any kind. Admittedly, there will be times when there is little we can do in the adversity, but when we prove to them and ourselves that we are united in this goal, we can surely make some kind of change, even if it’s in our own communities.

Like Christianity, Islam will eventually be reformed. One should hope that it happens by “the word” and not by “the sword,” as religions have done to spread their message. But that, it seems, for now at least, that is our of our control.

Personal interpretation based on our own understanding of the contents of whatever it is we’re reading sometimes is not much more dangerous than blindly following someone else’s interpretation of it. But it is a good place to start. It’s possible we will never rid the world of unreason, of violence and fear, of injustice. But if we shake the foundations of everything we know- or rather everything we think we know- perhaps we can make this one world we have a better place. To question everything should be a mantra to follow.

.

.

In Memory of the victims of Charlie Hebdo and the victims of radicalism.

.

.

For more information please check out the following interesting links:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/02/islam-will-not-have-its-own-reformation/

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/fgm_reinfibulation_central_Sudan/en/

http://nation.com.pk/blogs/28-Dec-2014/jack-in-a-box

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Religio Ad Verbum: How Literal Interpretations of Holy Books are Destroying Our World, Pt. 1

It’s very possible I might be murdered over this post, after all, freedom of expression- as we have seen in the case of Charlie Hebdo- is not a bullet-proof blanket that can protect everyone from the injustice and evilness of others. It’s a fragile intangible thing that under severe pressure can have the potential to become as dispersed as ash or as hard as diamond. It is the intangible nature of ideas, and to some degree also of afforded freedoms, that they are at the mercy of the wielder to shape them at his pleasure.

Interpretation, or rather misinterpretation, is perhaps one of the most effective killers in human history. From an evolutionary and behavioral point of view, the way we interpret things can have huge advantages, but interpreted wrong it can also have dire consequences for ourselves, for the people close to us and indeed for the world as a whole, and consequence is not something the universe seems to be lacking, in fact just quite the opposite, it thrives on consequence and it moves forward because of it. How we interpret things can either save our lives or drive us to our own dooms. From a psychological standpoint, interpretation is the recognition of patterns to suit a certain framework in our minds; it is the meaning we give things. And of course, emotional need is one of the driving forces behind how we come to interpret something and what context best to use for it.

But due to the fact that interpretation is a personal thing, not bound by anything other than our own understanding of the input we are receiving, it mostly always lacks a solid base and it is for its lack of rigidity and concreteness that ideas prone to a myriad of meanings are certainly doom to fail one way or another.

To better illustrate how interpretation can have a great impact in our world I will use two different historical documents in comparison to one another and then use different comparisons for the same document.

United States Documents

The Constitution of the United States was written nearly 240 years ago. It is one of the best composed communal documents in the history of mankind put together by philosophers, scientists, politicians, businessmen, religious men, rebels. It is nearly flawless in its dictation of the law that covers not just the rights and freedoms of Americans but comprehensible laws that should be extended to every human. It is the first of its kind to make a clear separation between the church and the government, and in its account of the law is fairly straightforward with little room for interpretation. Yet, being a lawyer in the United States and elsewhere, and perhaps especially a Constitutional lawyer, is one of the most lucrative and competitive careers to graduate from today. It is simply so because even though the laws were written in a manner that is concise and easy to understand, they still depend on the best judgment of those who read them. And sometimes even that is not enough.

In the United States there is still pending litigation over what most people would consider trivial matters simply because there wasn’t a broad enough definition of some specific law. Thousands of lawsuits will arise because different interpretations of the law- at times even by lawmakers- were used in different contexts. Perhaps the most famous example would be the interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which dictates that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The law seems to be straightforward in this regard, and yet an interpretation of the language used has caused more than a fair amount of controversy regarding what exactly the framers had in mind. As explicit and direct as the law is, there is simply no way to know for sure what exactly the different parts of the amendment mean as it applies to today’s society (i.e. “being necessary,” “Security of a free state,” “shall not be infringed”).

Laws such as this last one are substantial throughout the Constitution and the way these laws are interpreted can sometimes lead to what it may seem as different versions of one single document.

Now imagine documents that precede the Constitution that contain language that is no longer used today or historical details that we may find impossible to corroborate. Imagine trying to make sense of documents written by obscure characters from which we know absolutely nothing about and thus have no basis on how to judge them based on their prejudices, unreliable documents such as the Quran or the Bible before it. These books- or rather a collection of books- that have amassed great power and influence over the centuries have, for so long, been given carte blanche over a great many human elements such as how to live, how to behave, what to eat, what to think, how to act towards others, and certainly over the morality that we are supposed to uphold and pass on to future generations, a morality that has been instilled in us and forced upon us from birth. These documents owe their mysticism to fantastical stories retold over several generations from original versions that were doubtless not as fantastical or as mystical- or indeed as interesting- as the versions we know today. It has been the job of of the ghostwriters of history (some of them illiterate as in the case of Mohammad) to add colorful elements to chapters of known history and compile them into volumes, again, long after the culmination of the actual events- if they happened at all. But the documents that we so venerate nowadays seem to have been inscribed metaphorically, or have been given a varied interpretation that is difficult to discern today; or at least one hopes they are, otherwise only a psychopath could believe half of the things that have been written on them.

A good example of this is in the case of the Biblical story of the virgin Mary. As the writer and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins mentions in his book “The God Delusion”, and from discussions with historical scholars before Dawkins’ time, the word used in the Greek translation of the Bible “almah” literally means “young woman,” not “virgin” as it is usually believed. Provided that this was indeed a clerical mistake, then it seems the “young woman” that gave birth to Jesus was indeed not a virgin but simply a young woman. I don’t need to point out that over thousands of years, people have been mistaken to believe that Jesus was born out of a virgin when in fact it is not so for obvious reasons, not to mention that first-century Christians probably did not even believe that themselves.

Now, that is not such a grave mistake. It is indeed stupid of anyone to think that parthenogenesis could actually happen with human beings, stupid but not of grave consequence. From believing such a thing, it appears the only thing people have sacrificed here is their common sense- or at least one would hope. However, there are passages of much graver importance in the Bible and in the Quran that through a mistranslation, misunderstanding or misinterpretation (from the many they have received) have incited conflict among individuals, groups and countries that at one point of another have had severe consequences for the human race sometimes thrusting whole nations into endless wars.

There is an arrogance here to recognize. This arrogance from blind believers to think they perfectly understand the supposed creator of the universe when most of the time they have a difficult time understanding half of the things their politicians tell them, is not only part of the problem, it is the problem. Blind belief it seems is anything but innocuous, in fact it is more like a grenade without a pin, burning in our hands while we happily go about our lives believing its a water balloon, harmless and even beneficial. At no other point in our lives would we trust blind belief to carry us through any process, why then would we trust it to hold the reigns of the most important part of our lives, morality. One wonders why it was that this obviously bipolar, and apparently misanthropic, creator chose such confusing language to dictate his/her laws to humanity? Why do we hold on this arrogance that we know better than the god we have created?

The question begs, if people still have difficulty avoiding the pitfalls of a near-perfect document such as the Constitution of the United States, then what hope could we have of interpreting books that were conceived centuries ago by men whom we know very little about, and what little we know of them cannot be confirmed by anything other than each other’s account of the “events”?

The comparison between these two documents reflects the gap between understanding and interpretation. It is there that we arrive at the logical conclusion that we cannot, and should not, trust with certainty any interpretation. Does it mean that we should disregard them? No, we shouldn’t. But we should look at them with a skeptical eye, indeed a much much more skeptical eye. We should reject illogical arguments, illogical statements, and illogical ideals and embrace what we know in our science to be true, simply because we haven’t seen any different.

Let’s do a small thought-experiment. Imagine you are playing the telephone game with just one rule to follow, and that is that whatever the person before you says, you have to act out. For example if the game begins with “I like to eat a grilled cheese sandwich with pickles” then that’s what you should do. That’s it, you and the people playing the game simply have to act out what they hear. Now, let the experiment run over thousands of years, over several generations, with dozens of languages, and all across the world. You don’t necessarily have to have psychopaths in the game- or be one yourself- for it to go horribly wrong, the law of probability dictates that it just will.

I admit, it’s a bit hard to believe that an instruction as simple as “Eat grilled cheese sandwich with a pickle” can go wrong, even over thousands of years, but if you factor in people’s prejudices, people’s histories, people’s educations, interpretations, fears, and understandings of what a grilled cheese sandwich is, while they add their own personal twist to the story, it wouldn’t be surprising to see people eating other people, if they are in fact still eating.

This is the same game that we have been playing for centuries only the instructions are a bit more sinister and have perpetuated some of the most heinous crimes humanity has unleashed upon itself (slavery, infanticide, genital mutilation, torture, war, racial extermination, etc.); and what’s more, the texts from which these instructions come from have allowed us to look at ourselves in the mirror remorseless.

Members of the Nazi Party and Vatican Officials doing the traditional Nazi salute. photo credit: tortuga767 via photopin cc

Members of the Nazi Party and Vatican Officials doing the traditional Nazi salute.
photo credit: tortuga767 via photopin cc

From the text alone we can infer as to the frame of mind of these ancient peoples or to their way of life. Written instructions on how to maintain, train, and trade your slave- or your daughter for that matter; how to subjugate your wife while claiming that she’s your equal and getting her to believe it; how to become submissive yourself to another human or to a invisible deity- all these instructions were written to guide these ancient societies and to offer some sort of explanation to the way the world was at the time and to offer a theory (although not written as such) of how the world worked. We could very well say that these people were simply speaking in a metaphorical context reflecting on the views of their times, and perhaps that actually is the way it is. But two problems swiftly arise. First, the alternative is much scarier to contemplate. What if- as history strongly suggests- these were actual instructions on how to live a first-century life, much in the way that modern magazines (loosely) portray the our way of living today. I’m sure that one or two centuries from now our magazines will become absolutely irrelevant to the way future Earthlings live their lives. The second problem we come across is that people in religious nations (principally the United States and those in the Middle East) are happily running to the mouth of the mouth of the lion, trying to follow first century rules, 22 centuries later. I cannot much call that progress. The question is simple, why are people so eager to accommodate their modern lives to the way people lived 2000 years ago?

I could see the case that some people might make by saying that these ancient texts provide some very good moral advice, and they’re right, they do. But the moral advice they provide is no more assertive than what humanity has come up with over time. We should strive to create the best moral framework there is, in part by getting rid of old moral rules that are no longer necessary. It is like writing computer code, in order to have an optimal program that always works as it should the code needs to be updated and bad lines of code have to be deleted.  Unfortunately, books like the Bible or the Quran also offer some terrible advise that is still being taken into account today. It is a good thing then that common sense is not entirely lost and that the majority of people can see the obvious distinction between “Thou shalt not kill” and “Five easy steps on how to train your slave”, but there are always those that don’t, or wish not to. Even worse, there are some who not just blur that distinction but that make dangerous conjectures of their own based on these somewhat-direct-somewhat-abstract rules. Of course killing is bad. I’m sure that early homo-sapiens and even Neanderthals (just a couple among many species of bipedals) realized that going around killing one another was a bad thing to do. Let’s remember that these ancient tribes were nomads and started no bigger than your average small family. Imagine if all they did was kill and rape one another because it was simply a fun activity to engage in. There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that they would’ve perished very quickly under their own irresponsibility. We should find it insulting to believe that humanity knew nothing of morality before first century sheep-herders decided to concoct fantastical tales from divine providence to say that killing is wrong and stealing is bad. Has it never occurred to us to think that perhaps early humans understood that killing each other was bad for the tribe, as the number of hunter/gatherers or providers would decrease leaving the tribe to fend for itself? Has it never crossed our minds to think that they too understood emotional and physical pain, or that perhaps they were capable of abstract thought and that they understood morality at least at a basic level? Like Christopher Hitchens once remarked, “…I don’t think humanity would’ve made it that far if they hadn’t known that.” We give ourselves much more undeserved credit by unabashedly believing that because we invented written language that nothing existed before us. This type of Orwellian thinking insults our species and spreads misinformation about our origins, indeed there is more to us than that.

.

Credit: Tumblr (origin unknown)

Credit: Tumblr (origin unknown)

.

In part two I will delve briefly and broadly into the “evolution” of Christianity and the threat that radical Islamism poses our world today, as well as our fears of what the future might hold for humanity and for reason.

.

.

For more information please check out the following interesting links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/19/an-incredible-interactive-chart-of-biblical-contradictions/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/16/in-graphic-videos-and-on-twitter-isis-members-record-and-tout-executions-of-gay-men.html?via=desktop&source=facebook

 

The Gays, the Atheists, and the Government

Gay Marriage Concept with Rainbow Rings.

 

As the fight for marriage equality among same-sex couples rages on in the battle-ground of America, and more states join the 35 that already made marriage for the LGBT community legal, there are still those that hold on to old stigmas and refuse to join the progressive consensus that yes, after much deliberation, gay people are still humans and as such they also have the right to marry whomever they please.

As of now, six Southern states are waiting for a “pro” ruling on continuing litigation, while another four await the decision from appellate courts for an “against” ruling. While this is going on, five other states have a strict marriage ban that is expected to be challenged in court soon as more lawsuits pour in. [1] But while these numbers seem optimistic for the LGBT community as the long fight for marriage-equality begins to wind down, the real fight that few talk about is being waged against our own family and our own friends in schoolrooms and in the living rooms of America, and one can’t help but wonder, why is there so much hatred towards homosexuals?

 

LGBT

 

Have you ever heard of the Russian punk band Pussy Riot? No? Well the Russians have, and Putin never did like punk music.

The band, a group of seven raging feminists, came under severe government scrutiny after they staged a series of unauthorized concerts with strong anti-government, anti-religion, anti-anti-sexism, and anti-establishment messages that, no doubt, infuriated Putin and his government. Two of the members were arrested and following several protests and other arrests, high profile human rights organizations became involved claiming that the government had crossed a line by imposing anti-gay laws.

On  December 29, 2014, Dmitry Medvedev, the Prime Minister of Russia (Pretty much Putin’s puppet), signed into law a proposal that bans homosexuals in the country from driving on the grounds that they are “sexual deviants” with “mental problems”. Now, that of course sounds absolutely ridiculous and, if it could even be possible, makes our bigots sound like liberals, but it’s true. [2]

photo credit: Rasande Tyskar via photopin cc Feminist protestors demanding the release of incarcerated Pussy Riot members

photo credit: Rasande Tyskar via photopin cc
Feminist protestors demanding the release of incarcerated Pussy Riot members

That kind of stuff is not so rare in Russia as it is in Europe. But Russia is also not the worst place to be if you’re a homosexual. For example in most countries in Africa and the Middle-East, being gay is not only illegal, it is life-threatening. Most (or should I say all?) theocratic Muslim countries make it punishable by death to be a homosexual, and most people netted under these laws are not only killed, but many are tortured and imprisoned for several years beforehand. This Wikipedia page has a very good graphic on the legality of homosexuality around the world- don’t get your hopes up, humanity is still pretty fucked up.

Here in the United States though, with marches and demonstrations and letters to policy-makers and celebrities coming out of the closet, there’s plenty of attention being focused on this issue of sex-equality and same-sex marriage. The movement is beginning to see light at the end of a very long tunnel that for many will remain dark and stretch on indefinitely simply because it is a fight they do not want to be a part of and would rather remain silent.

Right now, there is still a large number of people that do not and will never identify themselves as LGBT, whether it is to conserve “family values”, because of societal pressure, fear from recrimination from their parents and friends, due to the current state of the law, religious affiliation, etc- for any of these reasons and many more there are people who are not willing to speak up for their own rights, or those of others and wish to remain anonymous; and truly who could blame them? The horrible torture that is having to live with that type of discrimination is something that should be considered psychological abuse, and something which not a lot of us can relate to.

Last month transgender teen Leelah Alcorn killed herself after feeling like there was absolutely no way out of her struggle. I will not elaborate further on that story which you can find here. But I will say that if brave people like Leelah are still discriminated to the point of suicide in such a “progressive” society as many claim the United States to be, then there is something inherently wrong with us as a country that we have to mend immediately.

The struggle for marriage equality and gay rights goes beyond politics, it is at its core a debilitating struggle in the search of human dignity and compassion between those who are right and those who are wrong. When the question begins to explore human suffering/well-being in this particular subject, there is hardly ever an in-between gray area where conformists and opportunists go to hide, there is just a plain black-or-white field between those who wish to subjugate humans and those who fight for equality.

Copyright © (insert year of original publication) Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is used with permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

Copyright © (2014) Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is used with permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

Copyright © (insert year of original publication) Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is used with permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

Copyright © (2014) Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is used with permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

 

But when the last gavel eventually allows same-sex marriage in all fifty states, not only will it be a huge victory for the LGBT community, but it will be a victory for everyone.

It is hardly a secret that the fight for and against gay marriage is built on two platforms that basically wind down to secularism versus religious ideology. After all, there is not a significant portion of the secular majority who are against marriage-equality; all fingers seem to point then to a Christian-based bunch who see gay marriage, and gay rights in general, as an abomination dead-set on defying god’s law and the word of the Bible. And while a large portion of the gay community is also religious, the type of religion that they interpret and the kind that the other half practices is very different. But this religious defiance goes beyond the shortened-reach of organized religion in an increasingly secular America, it affects politics to the core.

 

The Atheists

 

As more and more regions of America wage a war of ideologies to put the final dot in the last chapter of the separation of church and state, it seems that that religious defiance will boost yet another platform that is gaining ground all over the world and especially here in the United States. That is the new-atheist movement.

The differences between homosexuals and atheists are wide, but there are also many similarities that tie both groups together. For example, gays are born gay and the only thing they can choose to do is to either come out or stay closeted. Atheists have a similar problem, however their ideas are based entirely on logical conclusions and they can choose to either voice their disconetent or not. Although as an atheist I could make the case that we, too, are born atheist and are only indoctrinated by force.

Just like homosexuals, atheists are also fighting a battle for their rights, and it is hard to know which group is more hated in the U.S. right now, homosexuals or atheists. Although I think it’s safe to say that both are undesirable here and abroad. To this day, atheists in some states are not allowed to hold public office. And in many countries atheists run an equal risk of being detained, tortured, and murdered for their beliefs, or rather lack thereof as homosexuals.

All of this does not mean that the atheist movement is hijacking the noble purpose that the LGBT community is fighting for- the recognition of human rights for all humans- but it also doesn’t mean that the atheist movement is devoid of content, it just means that without adding too much emphasis on one or the other, both issues are civil rights issues and in many ways also human rights issues.

In the political world however, the way these things unfold will determine just how much power the government has at its disposal to interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens, and where it sees itself in the future as more people seem to juggle between the need for the government to protect their individual rights and liberties, and the claim to want a smaller government.

Republican elephant over bright background

In the United States, the bloc that wants to keep marriage “pure and traditional (one man one woman)”, is represented by none other than the Republican party, which is religiously composed of mainstream Protestant Christians who see no shame in denouncing homosexuality as “an abomination” to defend the views of their constituents in public forum. These are also the same people who claim to be the defenders of small government and who ideologically despise government intrusion while at the same time they seek better ways to expand government watch over citizens and expand influence quite callously. This hypocrisy is exacerbated by the PR arm of the Republican Party which is of course- and you guessed it right- Fox “news”. We all know this. What we don’t communally realize is that every time there is an attack on this establishment, we move forward towards a state of prosperity that has nothing to do with religious rule (which is to say religious bigotry) that shouldn’t be there in the first place. This opens the door to discuss other issues of great importance and impact: the right for women to control their bodies, drug legalization, the environment, etc.

 

The Government 

 

But the question remains burning in our minds: how is it that in this day and age, we are still fighting for civil rights when not fighting for them only benefits a minority- to the detriment of the rest of us? What does the government gain in all this?

At first, the question seems a bit offensive. Indeed it’s a disappointing question to ask for two reasons. First, what we are implying is that not everyone’s wishes or opinions count in a democratic society, merely the majority’s. And second, we are admitting that that there is something fundamentally flawed in our society that the national conversation has to remain fixated on a fight that should have been settled long ago, and that is only still alive by means of societal discrimination. As for the government gaining anything, well anyone that poses the question of “What does the government want?” is sure to lose that fight, even with himself.

photo credit: theslowlane via photopin cc LGBT Rights around the world in protest

photo credit: theslowlane via photopin cc
LGBT Rights around the world in protest

In most non-Muslim countries, the institution of marriage goes beyond that of a religious ritual. Legally speaking, it’s a way for a two people to be represented equally as an entity. It gives people the legal right to represent each other or to conduct each other’s affairs should one of the parties ever becomes incapacitated. It’s a way to recognize your legal right to choose your life partner based on your own decision as an adult. And it is a way to designate a legal guardian of all your assets and possessions. And of course, one of the most important reasons, to have the ability to adopt and raise children with the full backing and knowledge of the government. Whether you choose to get married by the church or not, in the eyes of the law those who marry by civil court only, are afforded these privileges. However, in America and many other Western countries, where the separation of church and state is not a complete process, or doesn’t appear to be fully implemented, it seems that religious bigotry affects the legal status of millions and the right for those law-abiding citizens to exercise the same rights everyone else is not afforded to them.

It is an insult that there is an uproar when two consenting and conscious adults of any sex want to marry because they violated the rules of “traditional marriage” when Utah’s libidinous Mormon pastors can fool congregations of men and women into thinking that they are entitled by divine ordainment to have more than one wife or to sleep with the wives of their congregations. It is a disgrace that soldiers coming back from whatever duty their country required them to perform are met with hostility and have to fight for their rights when they already fought for ours. It is a applauded that the military (a very conservative organization) has openly welcomed homosexuals into their ranks and we still can’t stand to see two men or two women get married.

And for the government to have any role whatsoever in how these consenting adults conduct their private business is the epitome of big government.

My question is, what seems to motivate politicians to take the uncomfortable position of “defenders of morality” and stand in front of the proverbial entrance of equality to block the way for homosexuals to claim their full rights under the law? If we think about it, holding this type of bold position would seem to be political suicide, so why aren’t they all rushing to join the ranks of the other type of politicians who support marriage equality even if they don’t agree with it themselves? Could they hope to sway public opinion of their own constituents, even if the majority of constituents calls for change, merely to satisfy their religious leanings; or are the church’s political contributions just way too juicy to pass up?

According to this Pew Research (which I will invoke again in other blog posts), 151 members of the House of Representatives in Congress (87 Democrats and 164 Republicans) identify as Protestants, 138(68 Democrats and 70 Republicans) denominate themselves as Catholic, while the remaining 41 memebers of the House claim other denominations of Christianity and other religions. In the Senate 55 are Protestant (17 Democrats and 38 Republicans) and 26 members are Catholic (15 Democrats and 11 Republicans), while the rest identify themselves as Mormon (7), Jewish (9), and Buddhist (1). By showing you these facts, I am not in any way indicating that religious affiliation has anything to do bigotry, but I’m merely pointing out that those who are heavily influenced by their religions tend to make irrational decisions that otherwise would be logical conclussions to very simple issues: homosexuals are human beings and they deserve to have the same rights as everyone else. Period.

 

Reformation

 

I am not oblivious to the fact that all over America there are still pockets of discrimination towards certain groups of people (i.e. homophobia, xenophobia, classism, anti-semitism, all-out racism, etc.), and I understand that bad habits die hard, but I would imagine that as a fairly young nation- both in terms of the age of people and historically- we would be fairly more progressive and open-minded. But it seems that we are falling behind Europe in this issue. I would imagine it’s because the religions that migrated from Europe took a strong foothold here in America, while the Europeans started to see what a sham they all were and progressed faster towards equality, but that’s just my opinion.

But let’s also not take away the successes of homosexuals in bringing about change in policy all by themselves. They have fought hard battles in and outside of the political arena to get people to identify themselves (not that they should) so that we can truly know their numbers and where they stand as a slice of the population. Harvey Milk himself was hailed as a hero in this fight, and to be completely honest, had it not been for the movie, a lot of people including myself wouldn’t have known about him and his work.

But the fact is that now a younger and increasingly left-leaning population is taking account of the situation and wanting to do something about it. These are the progressive youth that spearhead a movement of equality and change in all arenas of national conversation. More and more we are seeing change happen all over the United States and in many other parts of the world as the fights for equality rage on. Even the Catholic Church under Pope Francis (a rather amiable Pope if I may) has brought about a sudden reformation in its ranks that it hasn’t seen for many years; whether it is to appear amiable and reformed in light of all the recent church scandals (child-abusing priests, money laundering, etc), or to counteract dwindling church attendance, it is clear that they are being forced to adapt to a world less and less dependent on organized religion. Will we see the same type of reformation in other denominations of Christianity here in the U.S.?

But even though I am against marriage as a whole, let’s look at the arguments posed forth against same-sex marriage:

1. The traditional family is threatened with same-sex parents

First of all, that’s a stupid positon to take since there is no evidence that a “traditional family” model even exists. The traditional American family is an illusion created by the media in the 1950s and 60s. But if the people taking this position mean a traditional family where you find a mother, a father and kids, then it is still a vacuous place to start.

There is extensive evidence to show that homosexual marriages are just as effective at raising competent, law-abiding citizens as heterosexual marriages (which half of them end in divorce), perhaps even more so due to the fact that they voluntarily decided to be parents. Although there are studies out there that contradict these findings, most of the science is correct in this issue.

Oh and then there’s this…

If it’s good enough for god to weigh in on, then it’s good enough for me!

2. Gay marriage will hurt children and turn them homosexual

This is perhaps the most backwards argument that people have against gay marriage. Even if homosexuality was something you could choose, what business is it of people to decide what they do with their own bodies provided they are not hurting anyone else?

But besides this stupidly-held position, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the children of gay couples will grow up to be gay (provided that it isn’t in their genes to begin with). Besides, children are already extensively bullied by other children, why would they voluntarily give bullies just one more reason to get picked on, and no it’s not a learned behavior.

According to Dr. Michael Bailey, professor of the Psychology Department in Northwestern University in Chicago, and his study on the genetics associated with homosexuals, have confirmed, or at least re-confirmed, that “Genetic factors account for between 30% and 40% of what decides whether a man is gay or straight…” while other factors such as chemicals in the womb and prenatal care can affect the sexual orientation of a person. Choice, it seems, is not a part of any process of a man or a woman’s sexual orientation.

3. The Bible clearly….

I stopped right there simply because anything that points to anything religious is bound to fail. I can, and will, provide several rules also observed in the bible and in the Koran that point to crimes much more severe perpetuated in the name of religion that null the entire argument altogether.

I find it interesting how people usually rush to quote the bible but many don’t even know the ten commandments, let alone any other rules.

Just for fun, let’s go over some of these. Oh and if you truly observe the Bible as the unerring word of god then the women reading this can never teach or have authority over a man (Timothy 2:11), and you as a man cannot go into church if you have a wounded penis, no testicles, or erectile dysfunction for that matter (Deuteronomy 23:1)). Just saying. Okay here we go:

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (Luke 16:18)

Better not get divorced or you’re sure to land in hell after death.

“A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)

A bitched in this context refers to someone born outside of wedlock, what they used to call bastards in the good ol’ days. So if you or anyone within ten generations was born out of wedlock, you’re fucked. Oh and if your kids were born outside of marriage, your family will be doomed until your great great great great great great great great-grandson or grand-daughter are born. Unless they get divorced or have malfunctioning genitals or have a vagina.

“If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.”(Leviticus 26:27-30)

This one I actually agree with and plan to exercise as soon as I have kids. Basically if your kids are unruly… eat them.

And with that I rest my case.

4. It is unnatural

What exactly is unnatural? Because if we are talking about homosexuality, then simply by being something that we do as humans and creatures that are part of the natural world, then it is natural. Same sex unions are found in every species throughout the animal kingdom. And I know what a defender is going to say next, “But we should know better!” Why exactly? Aside from the religious bullshit that they are going to diarrhea out of their mouths then I have no intention on listening. I am more interested in the scientific reasons of why it happens. This is a completely normal behavior to engage in and in no way does it affect or degrade the human body.

This is a very common position to take when the minority does not act the way the majority does. Yes it has happened throughout the ages with people that are not part of the majority, with people of dark complexion, homosexuals, women, even left-handed people- they all suffer from the discrimination of the masses around them. Left handed people are even fewer in numbers than homosexuals, would you say that’s unnatural? “No because they can’t help it.” Good thing you admit that. Neither can homosexuals.

5. They will turn everyone gay

How exactly? Again there’s no evidence to show that people who aren’t born already gay will magically turn gay. Obviously gays aren’t allowed to multiply so that’s ruled out. However, if you start feeling a little gay, go on and act on it, just to make sure. But please, for the sake of being a human, leave people alone.

Next time you encounter a homosexual please be decent to them, just like they have no idea about the struggles you have been through, you also don’t know about theirs. If you disagree with the ugly parts of your religion, then please adhere to the good messages of the Bible or the Koran or whatever holy book you choose to follow. We all have opinions of people, but unless you are asked or harmed, keep those opinions to yourself, after all we are all human and we all want the same things for ourselves and for ours: respect, love, opportunity. It doesn’t mean that you have to be friends with them, or even like them, just stay out of their way.

Decency to others is nothing less than our highest most admirable trait, the very thing that makes us human, it is the essence of it expressed through peace.

And now I leave you with one of my favorite bits by the great philosopher-comic Louis C.K. Enjoy!

.

.

.

Bibliography

[1] http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/

[2] http://auto.ndtv.com/news/transgenders-and-homosexuals-can-t-drive-in-russia-725614

.

For more info check out these links:

https://gaycenter.org/

http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/

http://news.yahoo.com/idaho-governor-appeals-gay-marriage-case-us-supreme-202150225.html;_ylt=A0SO80r8m6lUnKgAmDJXNyoA?_sm_au_=iVV65bRF4QrkknHH

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/06/legal-argument-over-gay-marriage-is-all-but-over/

1 (800) 273-8255- NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION LIFELINE

Immortel (Je Suis Charlie)

France flag on Crumpled paper texture

Quiet you sleep now,
But the night is boisterous with stars and fire,
As the lights bright and grand keep you company,
In the echo of your voice,
Never gone, never forgotten.

To the quiet you have gone,
While the voices foreign and many shout out,
Angry and together,
As your pen once did, as your paint once shined,
Never gone, never forgotten.

For he who says it once, says it all,
For whose mind is heavier than her blood.
For the brave who risk it small, risk it all,
For whose words are stronger than his flesh.

And should they ever think we are alone,
May they forever be deceived.
For it is not by crowds but by words,
That we reveal ourselves with the feroucous roars we speak.

Things that once spoken can never be unsaid,
Thoughts that once freed can never be enslaved,
From the solitude of one to the eternity of many,
Never gone, never forgotten.

In the paper blotted with our hearts,
Shredded apart with the force of their hands,
Stands an ill reminder of the liberties we gave up,
And the ones we should defend.

What if anything could be said,
about the coward shadows that follow us,
In the enlightenment of our future lived,
To be afraid of what we say?

Could they ever bring about the end with them,
Or will we take your name with us and block their way?
For you and I are just the same.
For you would take up arms and fight,
With your brush, your ink, your pen.

Intolerance they wish to plague the land,
But the beauty of our words sacred will become,
Something they will come to see,
Our noble purpose is that which we defend.

That our lives may be extinguished with a forceful wind,
But the heat it leaves behind will forever spread,
Stretch out to all the corners of the world,
Rekindling the silent candles to bring about the light again.

And the nameless ones who wish to silence what has no form will fail,
They who spill blood have spilled passion in its stead,
For if they wish to fight with swords,
The nations will rise up and take the sword to them,
For if they wish to fight with swords,
With words we will bright the fight to them.

But it is not with swords that we fight this day,
It is not with canyons that we reprise,
But with the slashing power of the mighty pen,
That we bring about their dark demise.

Quiet your voice may never be,
For they silenced your body while your words remain.
Yes, the world is now a little darker with you gone,
But to those who fear you alive should also fear you dead,
As the ink of your pen, down upon them it will rain.

In your light we are seen, Charlie,
In your dark we are heard,
With your courage and bold passion here we stand,
The world with you, not afraid.

Quiet you sleep now,
But the night is boisterous with stars and fire,
As the lights bright and grand keep you company,
In the echo of your voice,
Never gone, never forgotten.

.

.

.

Dedicated to Charlie. To France. To freedom.
Vive La France!