So where do you get a few more dozen politicians like Senator Russ Feingold. How refreshing to listen to a politician who is not afraid to announce understandable positions on important issues. I listened critically. I wanted to be able to say that I found at least minor fault with…
Pope John Paul II, now deceased, was conflicted regarding the proper scope of science. He saw science as “a pathway in which many have traveled away from faith.” According to Monsignor Albacete, the pope urged us “to look beyond our intellectual ideas because reason, which limits man to the visible world, will kill faith.”
The extent of that ambivalence was revealed by an article released today by the Associated Press:
Famed physicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that Pope John Paul II tried to discourage him and other scientists attending a cosmology conference at the Vatican from trying to figure out how the universe began.
The British scientist joked he was lucky the pope didn’t realize he had already presented a paper at the gathering suggesting how the universe was created.“I didn’t fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo,” Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. John Paul died in 2005; Hawking did not say when the Vatican meeting was held.
Yes, our sense of curiosity might ultimately destroy us, but do we know enough to know that to any degree of certainty? What is the true “conservative” position, unlimited science or limited science? If the scope of science should be limited, how should it be limited and by whom? By non-scientists such as the pope? If limited completely, what could serve as an alternative to science? We are naturally curious animals, you see.…
This afternoon I started feeling a bit guilty. You see, since this blog was founded a few months ago, I've been posting that many people who claim that the Bible is the most important book in the world don't actually read it and they know very little about what's in the Bible. I made these claims based on repeated personal experience. Then this comes along. As demonstrated during an interview with Stephen Colbert, Republican Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, a man who twice in 2005 attempted to require the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, does not know the ten commandments. He doesn't even know four of them.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Better Know a District - Georgia's 8th - Lynn Westmoreland | ||||
| ||||
The Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) supplies high school LGBT rights groups around the United States with a wealth of useful information, tools, and event and activity guides. For the last few years, I’ve appreciated the planning guides GLSEN provides as a source of brainstorming and public-relations hints. But looking through a GLSEN binder of open forum topics and public speaking tips recently, I came across an unusual and off-putting suggestion:
“Do NOT compare the LGBT Rights movement to the Civil Rights movement.”
Wait, what? The battle for LGBT rights mirrors the Civil Rights movement in a variety of ways. The reactionary backlash and lack of logic behind opponents’ arguments read exactly the same, complete with desperate biblical references. Take for example this judge’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia, a pre-Civil-Rights case on interracial marriage:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Indeed, and Almighty God also created Adam and Eve, not, as the social conservatives say, Adam and Steve. The slow social acceptance and increase in violent hate crimes look much the same, too. So what differentiates Gay Rights from Civil Rights, again?
Well, nothing really. It just ruffles a lot of (black, evangelical) feathers to make the comparison. Apparently GLSEN doesn’t …
A few years ago, a play written by Tony Kushner (“Angels in America”, “Munich”), titled “Homebody/Kabul” was staged in America. It tells the tale of a frustrated British housewife, who tries to overcome the monotony that engulfs her everyday life by escaping into her perceptions of Afghanistan, a mystical land which she claims accounted for the ‘dawn of civilization’. Her perceptions of the country are based on travel book, which obviously presents a white-washed picture of the country.
Though the play was staged after the 9/11 attacks, it was written well before it. Hence, there are no references to the attack, but there are plenty of references to the Taliban. Nevertheless, once the housewife (named ‘Ms. Homebody’) travels to Afghanistan, she disappears. Her husband and daughter, who follow her to Afghanistan in search of her, are shocked to find an Afghanistan completely different from the one their wife had talked to them about. It is a country steeped in poverty and utter misogyny.
Though I have read reviews of the play, it has not been staged anywhere in the vicinity of my country (India), and hence, I haven’t seen it. But I urge anybody lucky enough to be living in America make use of any opportunity you have to see the play (note that I said “lucky enough to be living in America”; an interesting precursor to what I’m about to say), as this play deals with tendency of many people (particularly liberals) to become cynical of their culture, and …