christopher hitchens

above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man, and woman. This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifted and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person. The study of literature and poetry, both for its own sake and for the eternal ethical questions with which it deals, can now easily depose the scrutiny of sacred texts that have been found to be corrupt and confected. The pursuit of unfettered scientific inquiry, and the availability of new findings to masses of people by electronic means, will revolutionize our concepts of research and development. Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse. And all this and more is, for the first time in our history, within the reach if not the grasp of everyone.

so writes christopher hitchens, in his book, god is not great: how religion poisons everything.

i saw hitchens the other night, on the hour. he made some shocking, but very valid points. such as: how we think, not what we think that matters more ... religion will destroy the world through the marriage of messianic ideology and apocolyptic technology. hitchens sees religion as a toxic-to-the-core celestial dictatorship. try as we may, we can never make it go away. but theoretically speaking we could domesticate the beast known as religion.

while i find hitchen's angry, almost vitriolic persona somewhat unbecoming, i do think he makes some excellent points. and ... i must admit, i laughed @ his cynical quip about the catholic church: "no child's behind left." and i laughed even harder when he quoted an american politician as follows: "if english was good enough for jesus its good enough for me." i mean ... if one wants to worship, s/he could at least inform oneself on the true details of one's belief ... read: jesus did not speak english, you fucking lug-nut!

so ... on a good day the whole concept of religion ... the supernatural ... the spiritual confuses me. and then people like hitchens, his buddy dawkins weigh in on the 'con' side and that other dude alastair mcgrath weighs in on the 'pro' side. and then dubya starts telling us about evil and how he must champion humanity by 'smokin out' the evil. and then there's islam ~ no need to comment on all the conflict and confusion raging in that religion. and then there's christianity ~ accusing islam of wantin' to take over the world, when it [i.e. christianity] already has!

i mean, what else do you call it when the religious holidays of ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION become embedded into the cultural fabric of at least an entire hemisphere of the world? do i need to remind anyone that judaism, islam, nor hinduism honour either christmas and easter? that despite friday and saturday being the 'day of rest' for judaism and islam, christianity's 'day of rest' finds itself enshrined into our law as a definitive, nationwide weekly holiday?

don't get me wrong, here. i'm not really knocking the notion that anyone believes ... or the specific doctrine of any particular belief. that's pointless. i mean to express here my doubt that any human-formed - and therefore political - establishment could ever represent the supernal being. i see religion as serving different purposes for different types of believers. religion provides the guts of that intimate connection between one's philosophical view of truth and one's spiritual self. whatever religious perspective one chooses to weave into his/her cultural matrix speaks to his/her larger view of truth, the universe, humanity, and how life got here. essentially, religion must serve a purpose if we cling to it so fearfully. what purpose? you decide.

1. religion as a social construct

• a manifestation of some psychological or moral pathology?
• a pernicious and deliberate falsehood, spread and encouraged by rulers and clerics in their own interests, in an effort exercise control over others?
• seeing religions as marginally useful constructs which encode instructions or habits useful for survival in a society
• seeing religion as ‘the opium of the masses’

2. religion as progressing toward a higher truth

• reflections of an essential truth?
• seeing religious truth as relative, due to its varied cultural application and/or expression
• seeing prophets as messengers of god — individuals given to extraordinary spiritual insight during periods of social decay and acting as purveyors of balance and social survival.
• seeing religion as evolving over time in a thesis-antithesis-synthesis-great awakening paradigm

3. religion as absolute truth

• the exclusivist view
• one belief system … one holy book … one supreme being
• seeing all things and individuals incongruent with the one belief system as ignorant, devious, false, misguided
• a sort of arrogant view of truth (”our view is the RIGHT view, all others are wrong”)
• providing an unwavering perspective that requires individuals to conform to its truth

i do not have the answers ... i don't have the questions, either. but i think that whatever a person believes, its never so cut and dry and absolute and neat and tidy and the same everyday. i think the mistake devout people make lies in denying any opposition to their perspective. to deny opposition makes one sort of a totalitarian. it closes the mind. it closes the spirit. it closes off the entire grand possibility of intellectual expansion.

so ... i guess i just think, for those who believe in heaven and hell, ' stop telling me i'm going to hell for blaspheming. concentrate on how you plan to get into heaven. concentrate on the fact that, some days, keeping one's faith seems as easy as squeezing a fat man through the eye of a needle. and the more any of us berate another for a different belief, the more distant our own faith becomes, if we had one to begin with. even atheism requires belief and faith, in case anyone's wondering.

lately, i find i've spent much of my time squeezing that fat man into the eye of my own faith's embroidery needle. i know ... intrinisically i know ... of a supernal existence. i've felt it. and ... that's an intimate matter ~ each individual has their own concept and experience with the supernal force(s). still, i wonder, each day ~ will this path take me where i want to go? ah ~ but, my dear Self ... you must wait until you get there to find out. and so it goes.

in other news ~ note the change. i felt the need for minimalism for a while. so ... no sidebar, no links, no bling. just a blog. and a tiny bit of eye candy. so, call this the naked blog, if you want ... for a while anyway.

canada's 7 wonders?

ok. so they did it. three non-descript people ~ a musician from the 70s, a WASPy columnist from the globe and mail, and the token aboriginal~a woman (they killed 2 birds with one stone here, lol) who doesn't at all look like she's native. they decided on a fucking prairie sky as a wonder of canada at the expense of haida gwaii!

hey, JUDGES? F@CK YOU!

i have lived in the prairies, under those prairie skies for most of my life. there ain't nuthin' wondrous about open sky that stretches out as far as the eye can see ... that makes you feel like you're in the middle of fucking, ugly and insignificant nowhere! WTF's so canadian about a fucking sky, anyhow? there's expansive prairie/planes skies in the usa and africa that would dwarf ours.

so ...what gives? you're honestly telling me you think a fucking prairie sky has more canadian identity than haida gwaii? you're lying if ya say 'yes.' coz the impassioned plea for prairie sky as a choice, not the actual quality or meaning of said prairie sky, led you to make the choice you did. fuck that patronizing bullshit.

that's the thing - i believe - that makes canadians so wishy-washy in the eyes of our american friends ~ that whole patronizing-passive-compromise routine. its so fucking lame. we water down the guts of an issue just so we can get everyone to agree. agree on what? if all the contention's got removed ... then what's to agree on? grrrrrrrr. removing the heart and soul of and issue makes the issue a dead one. and it makes agreement meaningless. agreement on nuthin = no agreement.

that's what pisses me off about the whole 7 wonders of canada affair. the compromise ~ the great canadian compromise. they - the organizers @ CBC - call it another wonder of canada. they say compromise; i read, giving up what's in your guts to make things smell nicer. and who cares of the end result does not really accurately reflect reality? its peace we're after, not accuracy of truth. really? me dunno if me likes that. me does know that me won't apologize for my refusal to sanction here the choices made through that flawed process.

haida gwaii belongs on that list. for that matter, the gulf islands do too. canada's all about juxtaposing the untamed, untapped wild and natural resources with urban existence. forests, meadows, green spaces, waterways. there's a fucking expanse of rain forest in canada - even a patch of one that resides right inside one of canada's largest, and certainly canada's loveliest city - and none of it even make the final cut. and that speaks volumes. the list and how we settled upon said list ... they speak volumes about the culture of this country. about how we differ from our american friends. about how we, as canadians, feel so strongly about keeping the peace, that we would gladly dilute reality to get and keep said peace. does that mean we would gladly sacrifice our principles just to keep the peace? i suppose ... this seems to imply that many of us would.

i'm not sure how i feel about that.

ok. here's the thing. sometimes ... we need compromise ... sometimes ... compromise works. as in, perhaps, the recent G8 summit. managing climate change and the environment cannot occur without china and the usa at the world table. i grant that. those compromises - of which angela merkel cannot be too pleased - seemed necessary to get to two, messiest and most aggregiously spoiled children to even sit at the table to discuss the issue of carbon emissions, greenhouse gases and the like. to hear dubya finally even admit there's a environmental problem ... i suppose that's a sort of victory.

sorry, but~i love this picture~

~even tho its got nuthin to do with this post~

but ... how much compromise = too much compromise. how much can we dilute the crux of any issue before we've just hashed it into some twisted notion? when does getting everyone to agree on an issue render that issue meaningless? i really wonder. perhaps i shouldn't, though. or should i?

for the record, here's the official, wishy-washy canada's 7 wonders list: (1) niagara falls, (2) the rocky mts, (3) the igloo, (4) the canoe, (5) prairie skies, (6) old quebec city, (7) pier 21. personally, i would lose the prairie skies from the list in exchange for haida gwaii. and while i appreciate the symbolism of placing canoe on the list ... once again, its not exclusively canadian. a brief [online] historical reseaching of canoe tells me that indigenous people in other parts of the globe used this mode of transport - i.e. the amazon. i would lose the canoe from this list, since the contents of the list must reflect the title 7 wonders of CANADA. and so, pacific rim national park seems more quintessentially canadian than does a fucking boat. IMHO. not that anyone's askin' ... lol.

so. in the final analysis, i guess this all boils down to the fact that sometimes, some issues we need to 'fight' for ... and other times, we can dilute other issues to achieve a compromised resolution. no one can have everything all of the time ~ life's all about give and take. exchange ... equilibrium ... balance ... life's multidimensional and dynamic. just like the human entity. however, i REFUSE to put reality and truth up for grabs in exchange for some contrived and poorly carved out mythical peace. it's false. simply false.

the problem with republicans?

"i just figured out what the problem is with the american republican party ... the country they wanna run is fictional."

- jon stewart - 16.05.07

one burning questions i have:

why the FUCK does sex hafta sell and/or promote every single fucking thing out there?

assimilation and resistance

[this post is directed to the incredibly xenaphobic interviewee i saw on a CNN feature report. it is not - i repeat NOT - directed at americans in general. just to the man i heard on the screen. no offense intended - ok? just so you know.]

a man from georgia, on CNN, just told the reporter he thinks its awful that he has to choose a language in which to receive service. that man from georgia says the growing hispanic culture threatens the USA. oh pulleeeese! gimme a break. fuck - i'm disgusted when i hear about cultural encroachment in the USA. and some REDNECK spewing off some verbal diarrhea about the dangers of a bilingual society! fuck d'ya got stones in your heads?! perhaps ... perhaps ... you could get you're head outta your ass long enough to realize that losing that whole borg approach to culture could be good for america?

"you will be assimilated. resistance is futile"

d'yall really think that's a recipe for a healthy society? ok. so ... apparently you haven't heard about switzerland ... ? the folks there have no problems at all with polyglotism. in fact ... it makes them better humans! don't get me wrong - i agree wholeheartedly that illegal immigrants arriving in droves - in some places as many as 100 per day - puts huge financial, social, moral, emotional burdens upon those affected local economies. that said ... the aliens live among you DEAL WITH IT ... WORK WITH IT! embrace it!

so... you have a big problem with mexican aliens - actually you should think of them as refugees of poverty. and then ... hmmm. doesn't it ever make you think -- what can we do to alleviate poverty? to make it better for those people, where they originate, so they don't need to escape? i gotta tell ya ... its fucking repulsive to hear and see a white redneck on my tele screensaying to another human 'these aren't your schools, go home.'

it sorts reminds me of the nazi-like nationalism that rears its head from time to time in germany. they have xenophobes there, too. xenophobes. i know i know. it seems a tad judgemental. but ... i gotta say it. i gotta. i'm the daughter of an immigrant that lives in a country whose infrastructure and prosperity, immigrants built. i haven't forgotten that my dad arrived in this country 40 years ago with $35 dollars in his pocket and the clothes on his back ... that he never collected any sort of social security or unemployment insurance in his life ... that he always worked and paid taxes and still does, even in retirement.

i have not forgotten that new blood keeps old blood vibrant ... living ... honest.
how sad that others don't have such a perspective of humanity. american resistance?
resisting what? resisting humanity?

"you will be assimilated. resistance is futile"

my mosaic lense (she = me)

she sees the world thru her markedly mosaic lense. she realized how it colours her vision of humanity. it raises her expectations of humanity. for the beauty of a mosaic lies in its contrast of differences. she believes in the principle of equality. and so, she cannot accept that differences must all be melted into some sort of sluggish paste. that view, she sees as intolerant. equality for all means respect of each and every individual. she believes that this view makes her quintessentially canadian. the poetic beauty of the mosaic embodies, symbolically, the canadian identity.

her mosaic lense makes murky her visualization of cultural identity versus assimilation into society. while some others around her appear to have the answers ... or seem content acting upon an initial emotional reaction to a cultural controversy ... she feels bewildered. puzzled, by the issues. she understands the desire to express oneself religiously - nun's habits, turbans, hijabs/ niqabs, and yarmulkes. she also understands the importance of maintaining a secular society to honor egalitarianism.

her mosaic lense muddies clarity. she understands where jack straw is coming from regarding the issue of the niqab - veil that muslim women wear which covers their face, save for their eyes. she understands people, and sees how speaking to someone - whose face one cannot see - could evoke some discomfort. she personally thinks that a requirement to cover one's face seems tantamount to an attempt to marginalize ... render invisible. to silence women. however, she respects a woman's desire to express herself religiously. and so ... she doesn't know. how does a society juxtapose or balance freedom of religious expression with the requirements of a secular society?

her mosaic lense causes her to stumble, when it comes to consideration of fundamental issues, such as health care. politically, administratively, and quite possibly financially as well, universal health care seems questionable. but ... equality means all citizens receive equal treatment. democracy fundamentally goes hand in hand with equality for all. so ... how to reconcile dis-equal access to a basic requirement for human existence? this seems at odds with egalitarianism. and so ... these opposing views wrestle within her.

culture and religion provide shape, form, identity, context. they can even promote growth and enlightenment, as long as they're not excessively repressive, exclusivist and/or reductionist. to diminish the cultural identity of an individual or a group seems to her like ripping the lovely, thriving flowers from the ground. that said, she resents attempts by a particular religion to manipulate society for its own promotion. she thinks that christianity has really come to embody idolatry. so much opulent and massive machinery ... g-d does not exist there anymore. it makes her soooo angry. she seeks truth. she feels like that droplet ... searching for its source. she knows g-d provides her context. she feels it. g-d cannot live where intolerance does. that she knows also.

image originally uploaded by silkdiver and firelily

a veil of fear?

i watched this show ... and, honestly? not sure what to think. on the surface, sure, the issue of this veil controversy seems simple. but ... dig deeper. if you're a cannabian - er, canadian - then, it ain't so simple. a canadian will think mosaic, not melting pot. do we have a right to dictate the dress of civilians in our society? why do we? what about freedom of religion? freedom of expression? does dress constitute expression? does a veil - really known as a niqab - pose any threat? or intimation of violence? ie - as in the black trenchcoat and t-shirts with violent messages.

so ... let's talk about this niqab. jack straw wants us to believe that a niqab presents a barrier to communication. really? so ... i'm guessing jack doesn't do the telecon thing? HA HA. how does he reconcile all the communicating he doubtless does in the course of his day via telephone, email, memo? i can't imagine that he refuses to engage in these means of communication on the grounds that they preclude him from observing facial gestures. so ... what gives? perhaps an inability, or unwillingness, to assimilate a foreign custom? a sort of hiding behind one's own veil of fear, in rejecting the validity of niqab? one wonders.

i think of france - where legal restrictions curb religious expression wrt dress. and i wonder. i understand the sentiment. but - does it go too far? i think of the usa. known as a melting pot. meaning, from a cultural perspective, dilution of cultures of origin by the american culture. i think of canada. what makes canada, canada? does the term mosaic have anything to do with it? i think so.

and so ... we as canadians must decide - mosaic? or melting pot?