November 23, 2005

NOT ALL IS LOST IN KANSAS

Yes, thankfully. It seems we shouldn´t give in to stereotypes just yet - the University of Kansas has decided to include intelligent design in a course that explores religious mythologies. After all, says department chair Paul Mirecki, both intelligent design and creationism are mythologies - not science.

Ah the relief. This is great news. And I sincerely believe that until these creationists can come up with a scientific basis for their claims (if that is at all possible), this is as legit as they should ever be able to get in terms of academia.

Coming from Kansas, this means a lot; one does not need to look too far back to see the bad choices that state´s school board has made in terms of science education and its approach to intelligent design. It is a wonderful thing to see that not all is lost in Kansas.

Not surprisingly, the director of the Intelligent Design Network (John Calvert) in the area has already proclaimed that Mirecki will, because of his decision, go down in history as a "laughingstock". In a completely incoherent statement, Calvert said that this is just one more example of how proponents of intelligent design are constantly being labeled as religious nuts.

Uh, excuse me - are they not? And someone should give Calvert and his acolytes a mirror, since they apparently lack the insight to realize that they have already become the laughingstock of much of the nation (the good part of the nation, that is).

I applaud the University of Kansas for tackling the subject as it is: an oddity, a ludicrous and religiously tainted attempt at defining the world - our world. This way, the absurdity of intelligent design - a consequence of the blandness and cultural void currenly plaguing America - will not go unnoticed. Hopefully change will come through awareness; hopefully these students, after being exposed to an intelligent discussion over the not-so-intelligent intelligent design and such, will realize that these religious mythologies embody all that is wrong and backwards in this country. Hopefully.

November 18, 2005

IRVING, TRUE TO FORM

So David Irving was arrested once again - this time in Austria, a country he is actually not even allowed to visit. This man is beyond help - doesn't he see that he is on the wrong track? Can't say I am surprised. I saw the news a couple of days ago but haven't really found the time to dive into it. No doubt this deserves at least a mention in the blog, no?

More on that and other things later.... After I finish packing for my trip to Brazil, that is!!!

November 11, 2005

JESUS, IRS, PAT ROBERTSON

Here in LA, the All Saints Church of Pasadena, known for its liberal views and effective community involvement, is under threat of losing its nonprofit status due to a sermon by its former rector of 28 years, Rev. Dr. George Regas.

In the sermon, titled “If Jesus Debated Sen. Kerry and President Bush”, the reverend portrayed an imaginary meeting between the then presidential candidates and Jesus. The latter was critical of the war on Iraq and tax cuts that in his opinion benefited only the wealthy. Based on that sermon, the IRS is claiming the church is political and therefore can not be considered tax exempt.

It begs the question – what about those religious institutions that do back the war on Iraq and the Bush administration? Someone should look into that. For instance, how about examining Pat Robertson’s call for dissolution of the separation between Church and State – and using his religious organization’s influence and funds to advance it?

IGNORANCE MUST BE BLISS

In my view, the mere existence of a debate on intelligent design and evolution is indicative that these are cultural and social dark times for the United States.

A few nights ago, a friend and I were having dinner in Koreatown here in Los Angeles and the conversation drifted to the intelligent design controversy. This friend is not as – how shall I put it – frustrated as I am about the Pennsylvania trial now unfolding in Dover. In other words, I am more passionate about it than nearly everyone else in my circle of friends. Invariably, they give me these sweetly amused looks as I launch into these discussions; I confess I get considerably agitated when I mull over the lunacy of the argument. The whole thing is idiotic.

But what came up that dinner is that another acquaintance of ours, a beautiful, bright, kind young woman, does not believe in evolution. Shocked by the realization that I actually know someone who plainly denies evolution, I immediately asked: “what do you mean she doesn’t believe in evolution?” She doesn’t, as simple as that. As if evolution were something to be believed in, as if we were talking here about the afterlife, ghosts or different forms of life in other planets. That is, conjectures, or even fantasies - even though some of us would love them to be real, to be factual. Evolution, on the other hand, is reaffirmed almost everyday through scientific proofs of all kinds, big and small.

In any case, this beautiful, bright and kind acquaintance got a major boost this week: the Kansas School Board approved a curriculum that includes concepts other than natural explanations on the origin of life. In science classes. Not philosophy, not religion, not politics – science. The board voted 6-4; and those who supported the decision are fairly open about their religious beliefs, saying that evolution is actually offensive to Christianity.

Sadly, Kansas is not alone – states like Ohio and West Virginia have also adopted the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

The Pennsylvania trial is of special interest because the Dover board was the first in the United States to order the teaching of intelligent design. Pennsylvania is also Michael Behe’s backyard. Behe, a biochemist and Lehigh University professor, was one of the trial’s main witnesses for intelligent design. It is interesting to note that he once supported evolution to the core; according to him, over time he came across evidence that there are biochemical systems that are “irreducibly complex” and therefore must have been created by an intelligent designer.

Let’s examine this last part – an irreducibly complex system? I see; whenever we don’t really understand something, we should just pin it down on the Lord. Must be nice. I mean, how comforting. And please note the verb choice - to create. Out of nothing.

Behe and other pro-intelligent design scientists are sponsored in big part by the Discovery Institute (he is a senior fellow with the institute, of course). No news here, I suppose. I have already made my distaste for the Discovery Institute known here in the blog. So now I am doing it again.

The good news for us "heretics" is that all the members currently on the Dover, PA board were defeated by opponents who are evolutionists. That is really wonderful news, and it gives me hope that the intelligent design movement will eventually lose its force. It also shows that even though only 11 parents are suing the Dover board for its inclusion of intelligent design in the science curriculum, there are many more supporting them outside the courtroom.

All this, however, means absolutely nothing to clowns such as Pat Robertson. The man, who back in the late nineties issued a similar warning to Florida residents when they allowed homosexual organizations to display the rainbow flag, redirected his wrath against Dover this time. Accusing them of voting god out by not reelecting the pro-intelligent design school board, he added: “if there’s a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God.”

See what I mean when I say dark times?

November 10, 2005

SARAMAGO UNDONE

The other day, Andrew showed me this article (I couldn't find a complete copy online, but I will) by Jose Saramago from a few years past (2002). Originally published in the reputable Spanish daily El Pais, it was reprinted in this book he has been reading and he shared it with me because I have always been a huge fan of Saramago’s work. He is, in my opinion, one of the best Portuguese writers ever. I love his books.

But this article… It has taken me a while to react because the words angered me so much. And even though I had heard about Saramago's polemic opinions on Israel and the Palestinian conflict, I went on revering him and his work because art is art. That is what I told myself.


But back to the article - basically, he draws a parallel between the biblical confrontation of David and Goliath and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Mocking the traditional depiction of David as a young but clever man and Goliath as an incompetent giant, he instead claims that David was able to beat Goliath only because he had the technology to do so, the weaponry – a sling.

He characterizes David as blonde and evil and Goliath as non-blonde and oppressed - and then promptly correlates blonde to Israelis and non-blonde to Palestinians. In other words, Saramago aryanizes and nazifies David (the Jews) and judaizes Goliath (the Palestinians) – isn’t it perverse? Not to mention that to my knowledge, David was red-haired at best. After all, David was the son of Ruth, a
Moabite convert, and Moabites were hardly blonde. Goliath, however, was a Philistine, and Philistines were of Greek descent – maybe he was the blonde one…

Another interesting point is the fact that David is one of the prophets of Islam - Dawud, to whom the Psalms were revealed by Allah. As in Judaism, he is said to have killed Goliath with a slingshot; Muslims reject the notion that David was fallible at all. Christianity also has a special place for David; in a way, his plight is compared with that of Jesus, and he symbolizes dependence upon God, the ability to praise and the need to repent. Come to think of it, Judaism is way more critical and much less forgiving of David than any other religion: he's seen as a tragic man who committed several mistakes throughout his life, even though he is one of the greatest heroes of the Old Testament.

It seems Saramago should have done better religious research in order to support his assertions.

On and on, he denounces Israel as a racist state and the whole notion of Jews as the "Chosen People" as absurd. He goes from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism and back, and he doesn’t seem to ponder much on neither.

I am disappointed; while I was never a supporter of the Israeli occupation, I’ve always been able to see the other side of the story – national security being a big part of it. Saramago bypasses Israeli need for security; quite on the contrary, he perceives Israelis (read Jews) as greedy invaders who are arrogant and cruel simply because they are the Chosen People. In short, he simplified Israeli and Jewish history (and Palestinian), twisted it a few notches and pronto: a whole new analysis for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a whole new interpretation of Jewish history.

It is obvious that not only Saramago has a problem with Israeli sovereignty, politics and what not, but he also has contempt for Judaism in general. This is a Nobel Prize winner here; a lyrical writer, one of the best. One of my favorites.

He refers to Judaism as a religion of monstrous and racist doctrines. Interestingly enough: in the name of Catholicism and Christianity, atrocious and horrendous crimes were committed throughout the history of the world. The Crusades, the Inquisition, who needs more? And yet, these two religions preach brotherly love and redemption for all mankind. On the concept of Chosen People – yes, this is of course questionable in every way. But given the fact that Jesus called himself the son of God and Catholics and Christians are all the children of God, then this is all relative; one could even say, this is all literature... In fact, it makes as little sense for Jews to perceive themselves as the Chosen People as it does for Catholics and Christians to perceive themselves as the children of God.

I feel personally betrayed by Saramago. I have “preached” about him and his work to virtually everyone I know; The Tale of the Unknown Island still stands by my bed, that precious little book.

The truth is, I’ll have to rethink his work from now on. Sadly, it will most likely never be the same for me. I don't really see how I can rationalize his hatred and, therefore, forgive him - let alone respect him.

November 7, 2005

READING THE PAPERS LATELY...

...I got this strange feeling that the world we live in is surreal. It's all a collection of completely unlikely, disconnected episodes; a patchwork of sorts.

Examples? Antiwar sermons prompting IRS warnings; the riots in France; the thousands of immigrants living in California who are now nationless, as in former USSR citizens (and therefore can't go/be deported back to wherever they came from); the JDL activist Earl Krugel, slain in prison by a white supremacist; President Chavez and his demonization of the United States; Michael Behe, his 7 kids (who are home-schooled by his wife) and intelligent design; anti-Bush sentiments across South America; and the list goes on and on.

A PRESIDENT'S JUSTICE

I’ve been wanting to write about Judge Alito. I’ve been waiting for the dust to settle, for the articles to start trickling in. And they have slowed down a little. It seems the press has dug out all the relevant points about this nominee.

For me, things are pretty clear. Judge Alito is undeniably experienced; he’s got the right academic credentials; he is a man, and he doesn’t come across as a Bush loyalist. He is intelligent, hard-working, well-educated, impersonal, formal and unsympathetic. His is a conservative nature, and to the reports that he appears to be no ideologue, I ask: what does it matter? Ideology, nature? The end result is the same. I say Alito would very likely let his conservative nature/ideology be his guide while in the Supreme Court.

He has opposed abortion in several occasions. There’s a remarkably extensive paper trail indicating that this nominee is not pro-choice - quite the contrary. Even his mother has said that of course he is against abortion.

If confirmed, Alito will be one more Catholic in the Supreme Court - a potentially tremendous boost to Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy (the latter though was part of the 5-4 majority that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992). It is interesting to note that although Catholics only make about 24% of the United States population, the confirmation of Alito would bring the percentage of Catholic justices in this Supreme Court to 56%.

Since El Presidente’s second term is more and more fragile with each passing day, Alito’s nomination saved some face for him. Instead of tacking the real issues behind his copious failures, El Presidente hid once again behind the conservatives who put him in the White House. El Presidente’s legacy? Intelligent design, Iraq, the ascension of Christian conservatives, the handling of Katrina’s aftermath, the Plame Affair…

With a president like this, who needs enemies? With justices like these... ?

November 4, 2005

YAHRZEIT FOR RABIN

Itzhak Rabin was murdered exactly 10 years ago today in Tel Aviv. I still remember waking up to the news back in the San Fernando Valley, where I used to live. The shock, the tears, the sense of loss. Hard to describe.

Israel is a country of cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces... Everyone is related somehow, and even if not, there is a sense of real connection. Or better yet, there was. The Israel of my early 20s is no more. It vanished, it evolved, it recoiled; it's changed, and a lot. Something happened to it. Rabin's peace politics - albeit hesitant and elusive at times - and his brutal murder during that fateful peace rally are no doubt big factors in the change.

Under Rabin, Israelis dared to hope. Hope for peace, for closure, for life. The fact that Rabin was killed by one of their own is all the more upsetting, and it revealed a rift in Israeli society that many outsiders thought impossible.

The years since then have been very difficult for Israel and for the Middle East in general. But still, Rabin's killer didn't succeed in turning back time. Israelis want peace; they need it, they understand peace is the only long-term solution. They also understand, for the most part, that peace will not be achieved without a series of concessions. All the same, Palestinians have themselves began a new chapter after Arafat died.

It is unfortunate Rabin is not among us today. However, a portion of his legacy still lives on - in the most unlikely of heirs, Ariel Sharon. Given the fact that before that Sharon spent the most part of his political career virulently opposing land concessions of any kind, his current commitment - and here in the tradition of his mentor, also elusive - to the peace process signals that Israelis are, in truth, exhausted.

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

Californians are getting ready to cast their vote in the upcoming special elections next week. Even though I am not a born-and-raised Californian, I too was hoping to be able to participate. That is, until I read the fine print which separates me from first-class residents - those Californians holding U.S. citizenships.

See, I have a green card. When I got it, I was directed to this website that explains, among other things, rights and responsibilities of permanent residents. One of my rights is the right to vote. According to the text, I can vote in state and local elections. Except that the elections have to be open to non-U.S. citizens.

Well, the elections next week are for U.S. citizens alone. And pretty much any relevant election here in California is for U.S. citizens alone. Never mind that California could still be dubbed the Promised Land by some and is still brimming with immigrants from every corner of the world. Never mind that a person who has a green card is in most cases seeking naturalization as well - and therefore paying taxes dutifully - taxes which in turn fund these propositions and more. Never mind.

I was really looking forward to showing my distaste for Proposition 73 on November 8. I guess that will have to wait. I just hope that the nice people of California - the American ones, that is - will have the good sense of voting against this proposition. And others as well.