Saturday, April 26, 2014

Protected Lies

-
According to the story, "Banning Truthiness?" by On The Media the Supreme Court listened to oral arguments, this week, in Susan B. Anthony List vs. Driehaus, a case hinging on whether it can be made illegal to lie during a political campaign.

US Supreme Court building, front elevation, steps and portico
Title: US Supreme Court building, front elevation, steps and portico. | Date: 12/2004 | Photographer: Duncan Lock | This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Currently, an Ohio law imposes jail time, or a hefty fine, for lying in order to sway an election.  During the 2010 midterm elections, the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List wanted to put up a billboard ad targeting Representative Steven Driehaus of Ohio, for his vote on the Affordable Care Act.  The ad said, "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion."

However, in reality Driehaus, and other anti-abortion Democrats,  supported the health care bill only after President Obama agreed to include a passage that specified insurance plans in the health care exchanges would not use tax dollars for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the woman would be endangered.  The "List" was forced, by Ohio's law, to take down the ad.  Presently, the organization is challenging the constitutionality of the ban on political misinformation in front of The Supreme Court.

The case seems straight forward to me.  Driehaus' voting pattern is part of the official Congressional record, and The Susan B. Anthony List claimed something contrary to the documented facts in order to influence the masses.  In my mind, lying in order to influence others is fraud.  However, my mind doesn't hold much weight in Washington.

On June 28th, in a 6  to 3 vote, the court struck down the 2006 federal law, "The Stolen Valor Act," which made it a crime to lie about receiving a military medal.  The ruling overturned the conviction of Xavier Alvarez who was elected to a California water board in Pomona, after falsely advertising himself as a retired Marine and winner of the Medal of Honor, the country's highest military award.  

Essentially, the Justices said that The First Amendment gave Alvarez the right to lie about his background.  Now, The Susan B. Anthony List is also arguing that freedom of speech equates to a right to lie.

Personally, I have a different view of The First Amendment.  I've always belonged to the camp which maintains that freedom of speech allows people to say what they believe, without fear of official reprisal.  In other words, if I believe my cat is God, I can stand in Pioneer Square and tell passers by, "My cat is God," and no official action can be taken against me.  However, the moment I KNOW my cat is just feline my message is no longer protected, because I know it's a lie.

Again, Driehaus' voting pattern is part of the official Congressional record.  Thus, The Susan B. Anthony List had evidence their claim was a lie.  Therefore, according to my legal theory, their false statement isn't protected by the constitution.

One of the most famous images of the holocaust is of Rabbi Moshe Hagerman the Dayan - Jewish municipal chief judge, dressed in his Talit and Teffilin and being abused by German soldiersOne of the most famous images of the holocaust is of Rabbi Moshe Hagerman the Dayan - Jewish municipal chief judge, dressed in his Talit and Teffilin and being abused by German soldiers. This image was later identified by people who survived the war and the incident, as an image from the 'Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz', taken on July 31, 1940 | This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Unfortunately, there's a problem with my legal theory.  People can honestly believe something in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews including 1.5 million Jewish children in Europe by the Nazi regime and its collaborators that took place between 1933-1945. 

Multiple photos of abuse and mass graves, and volumes of eye witness testimony, exist to prove these atrocities occurred.  Yet, there are those among us who will look you in the eye and tell you the Holocaust never happened.  Are they delusional?  Yes.  Are they lying?  Not as long as they believe it.  Thus, their speech is protected.

There's the rub.  When people can believe the ridiculous, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the legal standard to distinguish between belief & lie becomes murky at best.  Given this fuzziness, the court must side with the List, acknowledging the possibility, however unlikely, that they honestly believed their message.

Such a ruling, while initially disappointing, may protect us in the long run.  If the court ruled that speaking contrary to the preponderance of the evidence constitutes a lie, evolutionists could conceivably label worshipers, such as me, as liars for ignoring, what they see as, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
-

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

My Guilty Pleasure - Game Of Thrones

-

Photo courtesy of Amazon's Affiliate Program.
I must begin by stating that I HATE the term "guilty pleasure."  Typically used to refer to high calorie/salt/fat foods, the terms "guilty pleasure," "sinfully delicious," and alike make me want to punch the speaker in the throat.  By my way of thinking, good food is good food.  Unless you're trying keep Kosher or something, there's no SIN involved  in eating a bacon cheeseburger, or any other tasty morsel.

That being said, I find myself assigning the term to, of all things, a TV show.  Weekly depictions of murder, torture, incest, orgies, and other reprehensible behavior put the show in a morally questionable category.  Yet, even as I squirm during certain scenes, I find myself unable to look away.   Why?

One strength of the show is the fact that all the characters are intelligent.  The show, unlike many shows today, does not feature idiot droolers doing off-the-wall things just to do something to  fill screen time.  As an audience, we don't always like what the characters do, but their actions make sense and add to a well told story.

Additionally, I love the fact that the story, for those of us who haven't read George R. R. Martin's books, is completely unpredictable.  Any character can die at any time.  Main characters, who would have been presumed safe on other shows, have been killed without warning.  This uncertainty keeps viewers on the edge of their proverbial seats by maintaining an air of constant danger.

Ultimately what keeps me tuning in is the chance to root for the underdog.  Surrounded by an array of powerful morally bankrupt characters, we're given a handful of, seemingly powerless, noble characters who struggle to do what's right.  Recently, we saw one such hero refuse to allow his servant to endanger himself in order to get the hero out of some pretty dire straights.

Like HBO's Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones is a smorgasbord of sex and violence for adult viewers.  Other than the use of swords and magic though, the audience's ability to pull for someone other than a criminal sets Game of Thrones apart from its network alumni.

I give Game Of Throes 8.7 out 10 stars, only marking it down for a few sadomasochistic scenes, over the years, which really made me squirm.
-

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

In God We Justify

-
Easter, the Christian observance of the death and resurrection of Jesus, takes place this week.  Given that my last entry was about hedonism, I wanted to address religion during this week of holy reflection.

Religious Symbols
Title: Religious Symbols | Date: 07/26/2006 | Artist: Szczepan1990 | The copyright holder of this work, releases this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
That being said, I had no desire to preach to anyone or dissuade anyone from believing in their personal view of God, or the universe.  That's not my place.

Personally, I believe God walked the Earth as Christ to make our redemption possible. That being said, if a person can find their way to compassion and tolerance, then they're my friend, and I don't give a rip if they read the Bible, the Tora, the Tao Te Ching, the Quran, the Vedas, the Book of Shadows, or the complete works of Stephen Hawking.

I wasn't sure what I wanted to say about religion until I heard two stories on the news.

First, a hate monger chose to go on a Jew killing spree, in Kansas City, right before Passover, a commemoration of their liberation by God from slavery, over 3,300 years ago.  Two Jewish male victims, identified as 14 year old Reat Griffin Underwood and his grandfather, were shot in the parking lot outside the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City in Overland Park, where auditions for a musical were taking place. The shooter shouted, "Heil Hitler," then drove a mile away to Village Shalom Hebrew Retirement Community, where he shot and killed an elderly woman.

In other news, St. Alban's Episcopal, in Davidson, N.C., is displaying a statue depicting Jesus as a vagrant sleeping on a park bench.  People are objecting to the statue, only identifiable as Christ by his stigmata wounds, saying the art piece insults Christ by associating him with the homeless.  (The pictures of the piece are copywritten, thus I can't display them.  However, you can view the statue on NPR's site.) 

While the two stories seem dissimilar, they both reflect narrow concepts of religion.

Violence in the name of God is nothing new.  From the Crusades to 9/11, and beyond, people have been killing in God's name.  I read my Bible on a regular basis though, and I can't find the passage which recommends the murder of Jews during a community audition.

Granted, anti-semites point to Titus 1:10-11 ~ "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”

However, the verse in question chronicles Paul chastising false prophets who are teaching bogus doctrine in Christ's name.  The quote is meant to be an indictment of heretics, not an entire race.

As for the statue protesters, it's true that many of us Calvinistically link holiness with prosperity in the back of our minds.  However, whether one believes Christ was God, or not, the undeniable fact is the Jesus of scripture associated HIMSELF with the homeless.

Luke 18:35-43 ~ "As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” And he cried out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” And those who were in front rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him. And when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me recover my sight.” And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God. 

Scripturally speaking, it's completely appropriate to depict Jesus as living among the poor.   He walked from city to city, mingled with vagrants and prostitutes, and taught the word of God.  Yet, many of us don't enjoy being reminded of the less fortunate, so we try to hide reminders of their plight.  Therefore, many people, especially the affluent, want depictions of God/Christ to be white robed and clean.

In the end, I don't think religion divides people, as much as people try to use religion to justify the divisions we create among ourselves.  By my way of thinking, religion, Christian or otherwise, serves humanity best as an apparatus to bring people together, rather than as a wedge to drive us apart.  Perhaps faith, genuine faith, lies within the ability to accept people for what they believe, and trust that God/the universe will sort it out in the end.
-

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Happy Hedonists

-
Spa Massage
Title: Spa Massage | Date: 07/2011 | Photographer: IQP | This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
HEDONISM
1:  the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life
2:  a way of life based on or suggesting the principles of hedonism
Hedonism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
-
I'm an avid Facebook user.  The site is practically my virtual version of Cheers, a "place" where everybody knows my name.

Recently, my friend L.A. started a Facebook page called Mostly Unrepentant Hedonists.  Upon being invited, I began using the page which mostly consists of cocktail recipes, risque humor, and sex tips.  Mostly interested in the cocktail recipes, I'd drop in for a few minutes a day to see what was new and to share my two bits.

A few days after working this habit into my daily routine, I caught an episode of Saturday Night Live featuring musical guest Pharrell Williams.  During the show, he sang his flagship song "Happy," the chorus of which is:

Because I’m happy
Clap along if you feel like a room without a roof
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you feel like happiness is the truth
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you know what happiness is to you
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you feel like that’s what you wanna do.


The song, and the frequent visits to L.A.'s page, got me thinking about the concepts of happiness, pleasure, and hedonism.

The philosophically astute will point out that, on the deepest level, happiness and pleasure are separate ideas, one being physical and the other being spiritual.  While such people are on solid academic ground, I prefer to think of the two terms as synonyms; what makes us happy gives us pleasure, and inversely, what gives us pleasure makes us happy.

Of course, the third term, hedonism, often gets a bad rap, typically is thought of as the quest for pleasure at the expense of others.  Conjuring images of Romans feasting and fornicating as slaves fight for their amusement, hedonism is considered, by many, to be a primary motivation for evil.  By my way of thinking, it doesn't have to carry an evil overtone though.

Certainly, if enslaving three girls for eleven years is what makes you happy and gives you pleasure, that's undeniably evil.  Sickness aside though, many things, apart from stiff drinks and unique positions, can give pleasure and make someone happy.

  • A good meal can give pleasure and make someone happy.
  • A walk on the beach can give pleasure and make someone happy.
  • A good book or movie can give pleasure and make someone happy.
  • Playing poker can give pleasure and make someone happy.
  • Taking the grand kids for pizza & smoothies can give pleasure and make someone happy.
  • Watching sports, listening to music, and a plethora of other positive things can all give pleasure and make someone happy. 
This being the case, then can't we say, "hedonism is merely the quest for happiness?"  If so, aren't we all hedonists?
-