Self Gratifying Giving

I was walking through a store the other day and heard an announcement over the PA system. Basically, if you bought a stuffed toy from them they would then give on dollar to a noble cause. This is defiantly a win win situation. I get a stuffed toy and get the satisfaction of helping a noble cause. The store sells a stuffed toy and gets the satisfaction of making money by promoting charity.

This sort of situation always leaves me scratching my head. Like the advertisement for a credit card I saw they other day. If you spend money on your credit card* the company will donate* to a noble cause. This means you can buy something other than a stuffed toy and get the same feeling of satisfaction. Win win.
(*On transactions over 10$.*They will donate up to 2 million.)

Of course it begs the question if it is a noble cause why doesn't the company just donate the money? Or why don't they lower their prices so that I can donate to charity? There really isn't much debate about why. They make money by promoting charity. That is why they sell everything in the color pink during a certain month of the year including a pink bible and fried chicken in a pink bucket.

When did charity become about buying things I don't need in order to help people?
 
It seems that everywhere I turn there is the possibility of getting something out of helping people.
"Buy a plate of food and proceeds with go to charity."
"Send us some money and we will send you a free gift!"
"Buy a bag of coffee and support our effort."
"Help the Orphans! Buy some earrings!"
"Get a tax deduction!"

On this last point I am probably getting in over my head. I have never made enough money in my life to even pay taxes so I am speaking out of ignorance. I certainly have no problem with  giving money to a non-profit instead of to the government. On the other hand it seems to me like another form of painless giving. You give money away which you would have to give up anyway. I have no problems with tax deductions, it just makes me wonder sometimes.

Why do I need to get something out of helping people?

"But the king replied to Araunah, "No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing." So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen and paid fifty shekels of silver for them." 2 Samuel 24:24

King David refused to make a sacrifice which cost him nothing. It seems we can't make a sacrifice which doesn't give us something.  It is more than just stuffed animals and pink bibles. People want recognition. Now you can post directly to Facebook every time you donate online.

"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing..." Matthew 6:3

When I give something away, I don't want to be thanked. If it is a blessing then thank God, not me. I don't deserve the praise. There is obviously a place for gratitude and acknowledgement. However it is interesting that when Paul is grateful for people he thanks God for them.

"I thank my God every time I remember you." Philippians 1:3

I have spent a lot of time thinking about Luke 17:10.

"So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'"

I have always felt funny being thanked for doing my job. I did what I was supposed to do, big deal.

I feel that is escapes most people's attention that helping others is a duty, an obligation and a responsibility. To expect something out of helping people is like expecting to get a bonus for showing up to work. It is like expecting a drill Sargent at boot camp to thank someone for making their bed. 

So when charity becomes a way for some people to make money and a way for me to get gratification what does that mean? It is gratifying to help people, but that isn't why you should do it.

Your supposed to love your neighbor, so just do it. 

Why politics doesn't exisit

            As it often happens when I am with a group of people we end up talking about religion. One time an atheist in the group spoke up and said that he wished we would talk about something else. He didn’t believe in god, and religion was all about money and manipulating people. Why couldn't we talk about something else like politics. I quickly pointed out that if he didn’t like subjects that were all about money and manipulating people we certainly couldn’t talk about politics either. He smiled and we changed the subject.

            I got to thinking about this conversation again when I read an article about a group of atheists, agnostics and free thinkers who felt like they were being excluded from participating in politics. It struck me, why should atheists, agnostics and free thinkers want anything to do with politics? I noticed that almost every reason people give for disbelieving in god and religion could also be said of politics too.

            If religion is true how come there are so many religions that contradict each other? If politics is true how come there are many different views on how a government should be run?  If you were born in a different country you might have a different religion. Of course if you were born in a different country you might have a different political persuasion as well. People believe in religion because that is how they were raised.  That is probably how most people get their political views too. If politics is good, why is there so much suffering in the world? Religion may be responsible for some suffering. But, Politics? No, never. Religion manipulates and extorts money from the poor and uneducated. Granted this does happen, but I have known far more poor pastors than poor politicians. Churches many be full of hypocrites but politicians don't have the reputation for doing what they say they will. There is no scientific evidence for a god or religion. Of course there really is no scientific evidence to back any given political party either.   

            I am not trying to say that politics is a religion. I am simply saying that if I take the reasons people give for disbelieving religion, I don’t see how I can believe in politics either. Of course atheists, agnostics and free thinkers would be quick to point out that religion is the thing that poisons politics.  That if we could purge all religion from politics then everything would be better. But, would that really solve the problem? Allow me a moment of sarcasm here. If people just stopped praying during election campaigns then, we could get rid of deficit spending, eliminate corruption, and ensure everyone has health care.

If the arguments used against religion are the arguments by which we determine truth, then politics isn’t true.  If some one is an atheist I don’t see any reason they shouldn't be apolitical. They say there is no god to hear our prayers and I am not sure there are any politicians to hear them either.

Thoughts on Islam and the Koran

“We created man to try him with afflictions.” The Koran

I have had the Koran on my list of books to read for quite some time. Being rather ignorant about Islam I have never really felt the liberty to talk about it. How can I criticize something I know nothing about? I underlined constantly as I went through the book (is that allowed?). What follows are the things that stood out most to me as a protestant Christian. There are many more topics, which I am leaving out such as: idolatry, women in Islam, hell, paradise, Islamic law, the prophets, prayer etc.  You will forgive me if I don’t say “peace be upon him” when I mention the prophet (I didn’t see a commandment in the Koran that said I should.) For now here are three topics. I have taken the quotes that most stood out to me and added some commentary.

Salvation

“Righteousness does not consist in whether you face towards the east of the west. The righteous man is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day.”

This first quote is something I can agree with. True religion is not found in observing a certain ritual but in having faith.

“Allah will reward those that have faith and do good works…”

“Good deeds makes amends for sins.”

 In Islam, salvation is achieved by having faith in Allah and doing good works. While Christianity does advocate in favor of works, they are not a way to earn salvation. Works are a result of our faith, but Jesus is the one who makes amends for sins. Islam could argue the former but must reject the later statement. I would sum up the two perspectives by saying that in Islam one must try to earn Allah’s compassion and mercy while in Christianity you simply accept God’s grace.

“You cannot help a man if Allah seeks to mislead him.”

“He pardons whom He wills and punishes whom He pleases.”

The idea of election is very prevalent in the Koran. Christianity is very much divided on this point where Islam is much clearer. I can’t help but saying that parts of the Koran would make John Calvin proud had they been in the New Testament.  For my part I will only say that I regard election and free-will as a paradox.

“There shall be no compulsion in religion”

There shall be no compulsion in religion, but the Prophet does say to kill those who do not convert. This could be mistaken for compulsion. I will try and not be too harsh on Islam in this case since historically Christianity doesn’t exactly have a very good reputation. Personally, I do not regard carrying a sword in the name of Christ to be very biblical.

“ Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah does not love the aggressors.”

I include this quote in an attempt to be balanced when it comes to how the Koran talks about war. It seems that the Muslim is not supposed to go to war unless provoked.

“Allah loves those that trust him.”

 “Allah does not love the unbelievers.”

(This appears twice in the Koran)

 “Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers.”

“He bears no love for the impious and the sinful.”

Love does not seem to be one of Allah’s principle traits. He is mercifully and compassionate among other things. The Gospel argues that love is one of God’s attributes. Romans 5:8 says: ^“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” It also says that while we were still enemies of God he sent Christ to the world. The Bible doesn’t in any way make light of sin or its consequences but God’s attitude toward men seems to be quite different in the Koran. Love is one of God’s principle motivators when it comes to his actions.

“But do not be a prodigal, Allah does not love the prodigal.”

A prodigal is someone who is careless with his or her money. The quote popped out to me thinking of the parable of the prodigal son. I wondered how the Prophet might have written that story.

Christianity

“The only true faith in Allah’s sight is Islam”

It is very unclear to me where Christians and Jews stand in terms of Islam. The Christians are accused of turning Jesus into a god and the Jews are accused of misinterpreting the Torah and keeping it for themselves.  Are Jews and Christians saved? There seem to be several contradictory lines of reasoning in the Koran. Before we get into that, lets first establish what the Koran says about Jesus.

“We gave Jesus the son of Mary veritable signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.”

“Jesus was no more than a mortal who We favored and made an example to the Israelites.”

“We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light…”

There is a positive view of Jesus as a prophet in the Koran. My first question is how he confirmed the Torah and what was Gospel (good news) he gave? Why did Allah allow the Christians to distort his teaching?

“If they observe the Torah and the Gospel… they shall be given abundance from above and from beneath.”

“Believers, Jews, Sabaeans, or Christians- whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does what is right- shall have nothing to fear or regret-”

It seems at times that the Jews and Christians are ok even if they are mislead. As long as they have faith and do good works they should be alright. However this view is not consistent.

“Yet men have divided themselves into different sects, each rejoicing in its own doctrines. Leave them in their error till death overtakes them.”

“Have nothing to do with those who have split up their religion into sects.”

These two quotes are leveled at the Christians. I have to say that it is spot on Christianity. There are quite a few sects of Christianity that is very true. The New Testament doesn’t in anyway condone division of the church but it doesn’t say it won’t happen. My counter argument is: is Islam has been much better? The Sunni/Shiite split being an obvious example. If the true faith is characterized by not being divided then can Islam be it?

“Avoid those who treat their faith as a pastime and are seduced by the life of this world.”

I feel that this is the best critique of empty religion found in the Koran. It applies to the Christians, the Jews and the idolaters alike in the context. It is one point on which I totally agree with the Prophet.

Now for the direct assault of Christianity.

“Allah forbid that He Himself should beget a son!”

“Unbelievers are those that say: ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary.”

“Unbelievers are those that say: ‘Allah is one of three.’’

First of all it is clear that the Koran rejects that Jesus is God or the Son of God. It also rejects the trinity. While,’ Allah is one of three’ is not exactly what Christianity teaches it is easy to see how one could draw such a conclusion. The Koran does talk about the Holy Spirit but my research says that they believe it refers to the Angel Gabriel and not some how God’s Spirit.

However, the main point I wish to make based on these quotes is that it clearly puts Christians down as unbelievers. The Koran is nothing if not clear in saying that unbelievers go to hell. So I am still confused on the fate of the Christians in terms of the Koran.

How to treat others

“Believers, do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful for your friends.”

“Therefore give no help to the unbelievers.”

“Believers, do not make friends with any men other than your own people.”

“Those who follow Him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.”

If these verses are to be taken literally I am not sure if there are any grounds to suppose that you can have friendly relations with a Muslim if you are not of the same faith. I know that there are plenty of friendly and hospitable Muslims in the world so I am not sure what to make of these quotes.

Peace (Conclusion)

“It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer except by accident.”

The Koran criticizes Christianity for its sectarianism here I simply wish to turn that argument around again. It seems to me that Muslims kill Muslims with a fair amount of regularity. Do the doctrinal differences make the sects of Islam consider each other unbelievers, thus allowing them to kill each other? But my guess is that most Muslims would say that those who commit violence against their own people are not true Muslims. Still the harshest criticism I can make of Islam is a quote from the Koran its self:

“Believers why do you profess what you never do?”

Of course couldn’t that be the harshest criticism of Christianity as well?

Up Rooted

My dad saw this tree by the side of the road. He told me I should take a picture of it. So yesterday I waited for the sun to be just right and garbed my camera. I think I can sympathize with this tree a lot of the time. I feel like I am being up rooted and put someplace new all the time. New soil and new surroundings. Sometimes I just want to tip over and give up. It is tempting to be superficial when you know you will be moving on soon. Deep roots hurt when they are pulled up. I don't know if I will ever have really deep roots any place. But I can't let that be an excuse to stop growing. Good thing for me and I am not actually a tree and this is only a metaphor.

I live in Candy Land

Life is pretty sweet right now.

Heaven and Apathy: Any Relation?

Heaven and Apathy: Any Relation?

“It seems to me, rather, that belief in the afterlife and an existence in the hereafter encourages apathy toward our life in the present, the only life we know we are assured of enjoying.” 

Nathan Dickey

I recently engaged in a Facebook theological argument with the person quoted above.  I have found arguing with atheists on Facebook to be a fruitless and unsatisfying endeavor. It usually just makes me uptight and anxious so I try to resist the temptation of commenting. However the topic of heaven and the afterlife is one of my buttons. My primary concern is not with what heaven is going to be like but with how the idea of heaven plays out in my life today.

I have a Christian friend who is fond of saying that some Christians are “so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good”. I object to this notion.  I will admit that it appears to be true but in reality it is false. Apathy as I believe Mr. Dickey means it, is when you stop caring about the problems of the world and set yourself apart in a religious isolation. Why bother with the world’s problems if it is all going to end soon anyway? That is what I believe people mean by the apathy of the heavenly minded person. I argue the complete opposite. In a sense it would be nice to wash one’s hands of the suffering, pain and evil of the present world. But to shut your self off from the bad things of the world is in a sense a desire to try and find comfort on earth. By this point one has become earthly minded and no heavenly good.  Apathy is a thing of this world and not the next.

What then does it look like to be heavenly minded?  I reproduce two scriptures, which I believe illustrate the point.

^“ Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. ²⁵ Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. ²⁶ Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air.”  1 Corinthians 9: 24-26

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, ² fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.” Hebrews 12: 1-3

In these two passages the Christian’s life is compared to a race. Those whose belief in heaven has lead them to apathy have simply stopped running. But the one who is really concentrated on the prize will run the race. The Christian who desires heaven can’t simply walk idly toward the finish line, they will give it all they have.

On the other hand you might say that Christ has already won the race. Why run if you have already won? Christ is the example of how to run, not the excuse for not doing it. Even when you are assured victory you still have to cross the finish line. I think that rabbit that got beat by the turtle is a good example. The first step toward the finish is as important as the last. It does matter how the race is run. Heaven is in each step of the way. Heaven is a goal and a reality.

I will throw in a quote by C. S. Lewis for good measure.

“If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next… It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at Heaven and you will get earth ‘thrown in’: aim at earth and you will get neither (p. 134).” Mere Christianity

To finish I would like to quote the great Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer to whom I give most of the credit for my view on this matter.

 “So long as Christ and the world are conceived as two opposing and mutually repellent spheres, man will be left in the following dilemma: he abandons reality as a whole, and places himself in one or the other of the two spheres. He seeks Christ without the world, or he seeks the world without Christ. In either case he is deceiving himself…There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is the reality of God, which has become manifest in Christ in the reality of the world.” (p. 195) Ethics

Democracy: diccionary series #2

It is interesting to live in a country where it seems most people don't believe in democracy. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that I live in a country where people believe in democracy just as long as their side wins. Democracy is a system that by its very nature can disappoint approximately half its participants. The majority wins no matter how small the margin. I remember hearing a story about a tribal chief somewhere in the world who was puzzled by the idea of democracy. He wondered how you could have a system where 51% could tell the other 49% what to do. In his tribe they sat around the camp fire and talked until 100% where in agreement. I do not know if this story is true and strongly doubt if the system would work with a nation of millions but it does make an interesting point about democracy.
Outside of politics I hear people say things like "You can believe anything you want but don't try and force it on other people." This idea, while popular, is undemocratic. When faced with a choice a democracy will impose the will of the majority on the minority. It is just that simple. Which is why I am very puzzled when people say that the system is collapsing just because their values aren't represented. The beauty of democracy is that  the individual's vote matters. The cruel reality is that there may be more individuals on the other side.

I would like to return to my earlier point about forcing values on others. There are those who speak as if a person should leave their personal values (religion and other world views) out of politics. I simply wonder what values one is supposed to bring to the table? Is there some sort of objective worldview that one should bring to the table? If you don't bring your values to the table I would suggest you have nothing at all to bring to the table. Democracy depends entirely on you having a view and voting accordingly. Another important thing is if you don't like imposing your view on others than democracy is not the political system for you. Likewise if you don't like having other people's view forced on you then democracy isn't for you either.  That is why I say I live in a country that doesn't believe in democracy because most people fall into one of the two categories I just mentioned. Of course you don't have to agree with the majority, the beauty of democracy is that there should be the freedom to disagree. It can always change next time.

But this country is also a republic, I might address that another time.

In defense of super evilness

I believe I have chosen my title poorly. What I mean to do here is to attempt a defense of super villains. I do not here condone or defend the actions of super villains real or imaginary. I simply believe that villains have been portrayed unfairly. I am unconvinced by the idea of a bad guy sitting in his evil lair laughing his evil laugh and rejoicing in how evil he is. I am going to put forth the idea that super villains don't actually consider themselves super villains (they can correct me if I am wrong). While people may adopt terms like "bad" or "evil" I do not think that they really mean this. Just like when people say that they are being bad or naughty when eat a chocolate bar. They simply embrace a word and change its meaning.
Now of course people come up with a million excuses to justify their actions and make themselves out to be not so bad. That is just the point. People can't bear the idea of actually being bad so they find excuses. Thus a super villain might joke about being evil but he can never actually believe it. If you cast all the excuses aside being bad or evil is an unbearable state to be in. Being bad implies being wrong and nobody can stand being wrong they must always give it another name.
 Often in literature and motion pictures we are presented with the psychopath as the most ultimately scary idea. For a psychopath is a person who has no regard for other people and will kill and hurt with no feeling. This is the type of person who is supposed to enjoy evil for evils sake. While I do find this idea frightening I do not think it the most scary idea.
I think that the Bible speaks rightly when it says that the devil disguises himself as an angel of light (I might go so far as to surmise that the devil actually fancies himself an angel of light.) But even just using this example metaphorically I think that evil more often than not comes to us in the guise of good. If you actually think a thing is wrong you won't do it. The thing must be twisted and turned before you will begin to consider. All that is needed is doubt of its badness and the rest is easy.  
The most frightening picture to me is the super villain who does not consider himself evil. This person might even call himself good. A individual capable of committing the unspeakable without remorse and it would not because he likes being evil but because he believes he is doing the right thing. Unlike the psychopath this person might even say they are pursuing the best for humanity.
If someone suspected they were bad you might be able to reason with them until they were convinced of their badness. But how do you talk to someone who thinks they are good and try to convince them otherwise? From my observations of when dictators and war criminals go on trial you do not see them standing before the court laughing and talking about how bad they are. I think that many criminal are willing to admit they were wrong simply because they got caught. That is why I write in defense of super evilness because a truly evil person would never think they were bad. The most frightening villain I can imagine thinks he is doing the right thing. I can easily condemn (or help for that matter) a person who thinks they are bad. It is hard to condemn (or help) a person who believes they are good.

Murder and why we like it

When I was younger I wanted to write stories about detectives and privet investigators like Sherlock Holmes solving crimes. My most elaborate effort in this direction was a story about some Siamese twins where one brother was a genius detective and the other a bumbling idiot. This shows the great lengths that one must go to these days to be creative in this genre. Over time I have become increasingly discouraged when it comes to the dream of writing detective stories. There seems to be an overwhelming glut of these stories in literature and TV that I feel I have nothing to offer to this tide of crime solving. The other difficulty is that I really hate killing people, especially in fiction. (Hmmm)


I have a feeling that I should change the name of my blog to "I wonder why?" for that is how I seem to be starting my sentences these days. But, I wonder why we are so fascinated by crimes, murders and the solving thereof. Over and over TV shows, movies and books try to delve into the killers mind to figure out what sick idea has driven him to kill.

 On TV I think there are three main murdering types. There is the person who murders out of rage but later regrets the action. There is the person who kills because they believe they are dealing out justice. And then there is the person who commonly refereed to as a psychopath who in my assessment kills for sport. These three plots have been done over and over to the extent that I am sick and tired.
However, in the end detective stories are usually character driven rather than plot driven, which is why I guess I keep watching and reading. Of course the truly interesting crime stories are a combination of both.

Still the question remains of why so many people like to read about or watch murders happen and get solved. For me reading Sherlock Holmes it was always about the powers of observation. How the smallest detail could unravel the biggest mystery. Maybe there is the answer, I think that we as humans like mystery and a murder seems to us a monstrous mystery indeed.

I started with the intention of writing one thing and ended up with another.  I guess I will have to write again another day to see if I end up with what I intended to write this time. Tune in next time for "In defense of super evilness"

Indoctrination: Dicitonary series #1

I have been for some time be puzzled by the term "indoctrinate". There seems to be sinister meanings surrounding this word which I am still trying to grasp. To me this term simply means "to teach" and I can point to the dictionary for backup when I say this. I could say "The children were indoctrinated with how to behave when there was a fire". This seems to me a quite good and decent thing to do. Children should be taught how to be safe if there is a fire. However this is not how this term is typically used. You are more likely to hear something like, "The young men were indoctrinated by the terror organization." Here we begin to feel an ominous feeling. The young men were not just taught by the terror organization they were indoctrinated! The negative connotation is that indoctrination implies that one is forced to learn something or to be taught to accept something without question.
I do not believe that people should be forced to believe something or be taught to accept things unquestioningly. At least for the most part. It would probably be a good thing if children did accept fire safety tips with out question (Unless they needed clarification of course).

I do not question the possible dangers of indoctrination or in other words of teaching. I simply question if indoctrination is only an instrument of religion or totalitarian regimes. I think that people simply choose to call something indoctrination because they don't agree with what is being taught. I believe there are bad ways to teach good things and for that matter clean, efficient ways to teach bad things.  However, I don't think that is what people are really mean when they call something indoctrination. More often than not it is the ideas that we disagree with. Many societies teach their youth that it is an honor to die for their country.  Yet we will call one indoctrination and another a civic or moral duty.

I have often heard the argument that religious families indoctrinate their children. I simply wonder what all the other families are supposedly doing?

Why is language funny?

In recent years I have become more and more amazed by language. Just the simple idea that sounds and symbols can be used to convey meaning is something which I believe boarders on magic. On the one hand language is very simple; you can point at an object and say a sound and now people know that when you use that sound you are referencing that particular object. Similarly if I type the word "tree" you will likely get some sort of picture in your head. Of course you will probably imagine a different looking tree than I do but non the less we will have similar pictures.
Some people are quick to point out that language is arbitrary. The sounds them selves don't usually have anything to do with their meaning.  Once people arrive at arbitrary language it seems they soon start wondering about arbitrary meanings. If everybody doesn't imagine the exact same tree how do we know what a tree even is? Reading this sort of thing in text books or listening to lectures I always want to point out one important fact. Why has the author been writing funny lines on the paper and what makes the professor babel so many nonsensical sounds? I believe that there is only one option; language must talk about really things or we couldn't be arguing about it.
The real answer to all this is that language is magic. For we can not only talk about wonderful things like trees and spiders and hats which we can see but also so many invisible things too. Talk about love and hate, good and evil and you have stepped into the wonderful world of ideas. As with the tree we do not all think of the same thing when we talk about love, hate, good and evil but I would argue we are talking about real things.
What got me started on all this was I was wondering why we find language funny. Of course not everybody likes puns but many people find it very funny that two similar sounds have two distinct meanings. Like the guy who was learning Spanish and said that he was pregnant when he meant that he was embarrassed. Why are double meanings so funny? Many be the people who don't like puns can explain to me why it isn't. Personally I think it is the funny pictures we get in our heads.
It maybe that we find it funny because it is nonsense. But this explanation might not suit the relativists out there because it would imply that there is such a thing as sense. That we can't laugh at language unless language talks about real things. Language can distort things and make them confused but things must be "torted" before you can "dis" them.

Anthropocentrism

University has educated me on some interesting things about the human species. Collage taught me that I should not be racist, ethnocentric or sexist among other equally evil things (I use the term "evil" here in the most culturally relative sense). The final and most important thing I learned was that I should avoid being anthropocentric. This long word means more or less; to think ones self superior to other animals. I learned in biology class that I am nothing but a highly evolved animal. I must of course strike the word "highly" from the previous statement for obvious reasons. I friend once remonstrated me for being anthropocentric when I declared a certain resentment toward the idea that I was evolved from an ape. He accused me of thinking myself better than other animals. I in turn accused him of eating chicken.
Things really came to a head during a speech I attended on the topic of climate change. I was in total agreement with the speaker when it came to the fact that human behavior can have negative effects on the environment. I was, however, shocked at the concluding remarks. The speaker wondered how humans could think them selves better than other animals while destroying the planet. It was the next statement that really got me because the lecturer explained that humans were nothing less than parasites.  I was puzzled and outraged how the speaker could insult parasites that way. Saying that humans were like parasites was somehow implying that parasites were "bad". Parasites can't be bad. Its anthropocentric to think that parasitic behavior is somehow sub-par, that's demeaning to parasites. I tried to express my outrage to some of the people around me at the lecture but they didn't seem to care.

In doing some research for this piece I tried to find if there was a term for when you think you are better than a plant. I didn't find one. However, I did find other people on the internet calling humans parasites. Come on human-animal-people why do you think humans should aspire to be better than parasites? What is wrong with parasites?

Applause: A mysterious Art.

Humans act strangely. If you think about it long enough so many of our behaviors begin to seem odd. Take clapping for example. Why is it that we think that beating our hands together is a manifestation of pleasure, recognition and  praise. Recently during a theatrical performance I attended I was thinking about the strange art of clapping. The theater was full of people slapping their hands expressing their approval of the actors on the stage. I guess it is just me thinking about it too much but I was imagining someone seeing a crowed clapping for the first time. Who would guess that this sound being produced by these strange people banging their hands together was a manifestation of pleasure? A most puzzling manifestation of this odd behavior is in the movie theater. Why do people clap when none of the creators are there to hear it?
What is more amazing (and I think that this is one thing that truly distinguishes humanity from other animals) is that humans can use clapping to express displeasure. The ability to clap ironically is a singular feat. Some one stumbles or fumbles and clapping could now to be used to express mockery and disapproval. To an outside observer unfamiliar with clapping this must be singularly confusing.
I don't know why I think about these things. I was just wondering how it happened that people started clapping. I wonder if ironic clapping came first. I imagine someone making an idiot of themselves and their friend finding no better way to express his jubilation than to beat his hands together from pure excitement. Of course I just wonder who was really making a fool of himself.

116

116 is a place where I have spent much of the last four years of my life. A dark windowless room in the heart of the communication building at Boise State University. In the middle of a semester it was almost my home, all I lacked was a cot in the corner. It is a video editing lab but the truth is that it is much more. The unnumbered hours of transferring video, of rendering, of re-rendering of exporting, trans-coding and DVD burning have fostered so much more than just video production.
During the busy days around deadlines you could have all kinds of interesting conversations. Religion, philosophy, theology, pop culture, film styles and many other random, politically incorrect and taboo subjects. There are few other spaces where I learned so much or talked about such interesting things.
One of the last conversations I had in 116 before graduation was about the meaning of life. One of the 116 regulars was explaining about how the night before he had been talking with some of his friends about the meaning of life. They had decided that there wasn't one.  As I usually do I tried to take this idea to an  extreme conclusion. If life has no meaning how do we know that anything has meaning? How would you be able to even articulate the idea? If there is no over arching meaning how can there be meaning at all, even at the micro scale? He looked at me as if I had misunderstood him and went back to editing. Of course I knew what he actually meant. He was expressing a very old idea which has been around since ancient times. That all is vanity. That our toil under the sun is a pointless effort.
I sat there thinking after he had left. I wondered why he even bothered being at school. What was the use of a collage degree or anything else if in the end life is meaningless. I reflected on this idea for some time afterward, wondering why he had brought it up and if I should have said something different. Of course if life is meaningless there really isn't any point to talking about the subject. I think that the point I wanted to make was that if life is meaningless, it is a rather amazing feat that we could have ever realized it. Humanity is distinct in its search for meaning. Other life forms communicate with each other but none of them, so far as we know have ever been concerned with the meaning for their existence. It seems entirely odd to me that we have so many words and languages only to discover that there isn't anything to talk about. It seems to me that living life without meaning is like trying to have a conversation with nothing to talk about.

Graduation

I have always been a skeptic of tradition and ceremony. I feel they are exaggerated, often meaningless and silly. For what ever reason people decide that we need to organize big events which are long, dull and terribly inconvenient. All this fuss about something that might not even matter in a few years.
In contrast to the above stated feelings I must confess that I have always been a big fan of tradition and ceremony. Something inside me has always revolted against those who attack traditions as empty and pointless. This has often been a revolt within myself. Mostly likely it is my religious upbringing. I find deep meaning and significance in symbols and rituals. Indeed I have often regretted that my particular church dose not have more traditions. It seems that the Lord's Supper and Baptism are the only real traditions of my church. Of course if tradition and ritual was all I was after I would only have to look about me to the many religions and cultural organization that are rich in tradition and symbolism.
Traditions can and do become empty, there is no doubt about it. But that is no excuse for not having them. Traditions are to remind us of things, not be become the thing they represent, but we tend to forget that fact. It is but a shadow. I wonder, perhaps, if idolatry is when a symbol becomes more important than the thing it is a shadow of. False gods who are empty because they can never be the thing they were only meant to point to.
I can't reject tradition though at times it is tempting. For traditions can help us remember and understand things which we might forget. They are like sign posts marking the path. But though we may look to the sign posts for guidance we can not stay there. Because a sign can never get you where you are going, it can only point the way.

So here is a toast to tradition.
Long life and may you ever be full of meaning.