The Church of Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche was one of the most influential thinkers of the modern world, but was also one of the most controversial. His writings in Morality as Anti-Nature explain his beliefs on how religion (notably Christianity in this writing) restricts human emotion and natural desires. He says that Christianity destroys passions and condemns sensuality and hostility. The four great errors of Christianity recorded by Nietzsche are the error of confusing cause and effect, the error of a false causality, the error of imaginary causes, and the error of free will. He uses these four points to prove that Christianity is oppressive to the human race.
It can be argued that religion condemning hostility and sensuality is a good thing, and that these things are dangerous to condone in society, but in the case of Christianity in modern America these things have proven to be detrimental. One example of this is the gay marriage issue. A literal interpretation of the bible by right-winged conservatives in America has lead to the condemning of gays because of their sensuality. This has been taken to a political level by turning the issue into one of gay marriage and not of homosexuality alone. Many of the people leading the fight against gay marriage are conservative ministers and housewives that meet together for brunch and discuss the abominations that their children are being exposed to. The fight has nothing to do with politics or even with marriage, but rather with the bible suppressing the passions of humans trying to live their lives peacefully and personally.
Another issue is that of stem cell research. Stem cells can be used by scientists to help in finding cures to serious diseases, but almost solely because of religion stem cell research is illegal in the United States. Politicians and citizens alike can argue the general morality of the issue, but most of them openly say that they do not approve of stem cell research because it goes against their Christianity. Not only is religion restricting humans in their personal lives but also indirectly through laws passed like the one’s dealing with stem cell research.
It cannot be denied that Christianity has a huge impact on our society and on our lawmaking process, and one must examine this and realize the impact that it is having on the country. Despite what one believes about religion, infringing upon the freedoms of others who are causing no harm to anyone, or stopping scientific research that can save thousands of lives is the real immoral act.

Speaking of Faith....

God, Sex and the Meaning of LIfe!

This is pretty big stuff! :D

I just wanted to invite you all students, TA's and professors, to an important
talk that is coming this Thursday (the 29th) to BGSU's Student Union Ballroom.
I'm sure a lot of you have seen flyers up around campus and have probably received
invitations in the mail to this. However, I would like to personally invite all
of you to go to Christopher West's "God, Sex, and the Meaning of Life".

This is not just a message for Catholics or even just Christians, but it is a message
that all men and women should hear. Basically, it's about Life and how we live
it. It is not just a sex talk where someone just tells you not to have it and why
it is evil. If anything, it is the exact opposite. Sex is good. Our bodies are good.
They're not just good, THEY'RE HOLY!

At this talk, Christopher West will be speaking about John Paul II's Theology
of the body. I really hope you all can make it. I know that we've been bombarding
you with signs and such, but it is only because we really believe in what this message
contains and how it has changed our lives and (not to sound cheesy) it can really
change yours too.

Thank you for giving my your valuable time and I hope to see as many of you as possible
there. If you have any questions for me, please feel free to e-mail me. I'd
be more than happy to answer any of your questions. If I don't know the answer
(which I may not) I will certainly look for it. Thank you again!

check it out at....

www.creedoncampus.com/sex

-Jessica Haupricht

"God, Sex, and the Meaning of Life"
Student Union Ballroom
March 29 from 8:00-10:00pm

Nietzsche's arguments

After the discussion of Nietzsche today, I believe that he came to some pretty odd conclusions. What I mean to say by this is that he comes to the exact conclusions as Christianity, or borrows a conclusion from Christianity, and portrays them negatively when religion portrays them positively. I actually had a hard time reading this piece and understanding him correctly because I didn’t know where he acquired his adverse opinion.
The biggest example I found of Nietzsche’s coming to the same conclusion of Christianity was at the end of paragraph 2 where he said, “But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.” I will say that as far as I see it, that yes, the Christian religion is designed to be hostile to this life and it is perfectly fine with being that way. Now is a life full of sin and sinful desires and what is most important is preparing for eternal life after death.
Another similar point is one mentioned in class, that anti-morality seeks understanding and not judgment but that Christianity also, in its interpretation as following the life of Jesus, teaches not to judge others but to accept them.
I just found this to be a strange observation that both Nietzsche and the Christian religion argue from the exact same position most of the time but argue in very different directions.

Global Warming

After viewing of the film “An Inconvenient Truth,” featuring Al Gore, the concept of global warming in my life has really been enlightened. However, because people conduct themselves on a day-to-day basis, the problem will continue increasing in magnitude.
After seeing this movie, people walk away saying, “Wow, someone should really do something about this,” only to proceed with their daily schedule. In today’s day and age, with so many people in the world, it is not difficult to assume someone else will solve the world’s problems. After all, most people have their own issues to worry about; problems that do not even compare to issues of global warming in which can hardly be solved anyway. So it is this concept, in addition to the procrastination of the human race that prevents us from dealing with such a problem. The common mindset of most people is “We will worry about it when the time comes.” This may sound great for the time being because it gives society an excuse not to make any progressive moves in stopping such a scenario. But in reality, once the time has come where the human race needs to worry about global warming, it will be too late, and potentially millions of lives will have been destroyed, not to mention plants and other creatures. So it is a sad realization: global warming is indefinitely a topic of huge concern among future generations; a topic that will most likely bring dismay to people who’s lives have been compromised by their elders’ carelessness.

Only through exploration can truth be found. One must have an enduring and steadfast drive if any real answers are to be sustained. In Rachel Carson’s article “The Sunless Sea,” this exact idea is explained through the example of the vast oceans on earth. Carson states that the earth is mostly covered by miles of lightless water that humankind has yet to explore. We, as the human race, are unsure about all the details within this vast, unexplored area. This gives a good argument for the exploration of scientific truth within the marine world, along with urging an overall exploratory attitude in regards to every aspect in life. Again, if we never have the drive to search, we will never find.
Many facts, whether it be about the marine kingdom or not, have been revised due to exploration. For example, it was once thought that the bottom of the ocean was uninhabitable. We, as humans, could never survive down there; we still cannot reach the very bottom of the deepest part of the ocean (cameras will before we will). Therefore, the thought process was, how could anything else possibly survive in such conditions. Through exploration, this has been disproved. We know that many creatures, from bacteria to fish, live in such conditions. This has taught us a lot about evolution, development, etc. How does this tie in with Charles Darwin? Without his drive to know more about this very topic of evolution, we would essentially be “in the dark” about ideas we believe to be facts at present time.
A better understanding of the unknown will spark new drives, and therefore, new truths. We need people like Darwin, Carson, etc to keep the drive alive. Carson inquires, why aren’t we continuing to explore everyday for new discoveries? We should concentrate more on understanding our surroundings than destroying them through our current lifestyles. This is a very interesting article that convinced me to start seeing my surroundings as beautiful and uncharted.

The Idols

Bacon writes about the four idols in which people view things, the tribe, the cave, the marketplace, and the theater. The idols of the tribe deals with human understanding of the world in general. For example, what people want to believe is true they will. The idols of the cave refer to people forming opinions off certain scientists and beliefs. Sometimes they can compare one thing one another and oversimplify it or think to into it according to Bacon. The idols of the marketplace refers to kinds of words used. Words can be easily confused and mean different things to different people. Lastly, Bacon talks about the idols of the theater. There are three forms of these called false philosophy which includes, the sophistical, empirical, and superstitious view.

I found Bacon’s piece very interesting. I do believe there are different idols in which people could be classified in. I look at the tribe as one seeing and believing what they want; its like an individual. I think the cave is like a group of people. Kind of like the saying, "you are what you hang around". Because one hears and learns from others, they tend to take up the same belief that person does. The marketplace makes me think of advertisement. One is trying to plant their thoughts and idea onto another. However, a person is free to make what they want of certain words, phrases, or ideas. As for theater, I see this false philosophy referring to schooling, work, and then the unknown. For sophistical, its what one learns. However, it is very possible that one may learn a different version of the subject then another leading people to believe one or the other is wrong. The empirical refers to having experiments and getting results but once again this can lead people to come up with different conclusions. As for the superstitious, that is the unknown knowledge people have within themselves but choose not to explore or the infprmation they reject without even giving it a chance. This is how I viewed the piece. I may have looked to much into it but that was what I made out of Bacon’s essay and how I view the four idols. Sometimes, I think people are to narrowminded and won’t accept anything different from what they want it to be.

The idea of expanding one’s horizon would be a good idea. Taking in all possible knowledge, not being judgmental of anything, and then forming your own opinion of that certain case. I personally think that the tribe causes the most trouble because it refers to the individual who usually doesn’t want to accept any view but his or her own. As for the marketplace, Bacon says words can be misinterpreted or defined differently, I look at it like words are just words. One is free to define a word anyway they want they just need to make it clear to another that is their view and that person doesn’t have to agree. The contemporary connection that was given for this piece was freedom of speech. A question asked was does the government take over the parenting roles by banning certain shows, music, and etc. I have a hard time taking a side on this. I think sometimes the government steps in to much but at the same time why do people think they can sing or broadcast certain things and think its ok? The problem doesn’t lie within the government or parents, it lies within the individual themselves. Something went wrong for that person to want to be so explicit in my opinion.

Nonmoral Nature

Gould writes about how nature is nonmoral therefore it cannot teach any type of ethical theory at all. Some of the main points he stresses is that animals cannot feel as humans because they do not have the same mental capacity as men. We as humans try to inflict our feelings and emotions or beliefs onto animals. For example, some acts which animals commit we see as evil but Gould says there is no evil in nature we just perceive such acts as evil. Nature is nature we should not view our morals and beliefs in nature. Gould does a good job at explaining how the theologian view of God creating everything in nature is fine but the idea that nature is moral is wrong.

I found Gould’s piece very interesting. I don’t believe that animals can feel as we do or realize certain actions they make are wrong or evil. Evil, goodness, badness, and feelings like that cannot be found in nature. Of course as humans we see certain actions as immoral because in our eyes it is wrong. Animals may feel as we do but it is not the same at all. They may suffer in pain from a broken leg other problems but we do not know what they feel for sure. Another idea, is that animals killing one another is evil and how could God let such a thing happen. I see it as survival of the fittest. Certain things must happen in nature for nature to continue to grow and for us humans to continue to grow as well. If nature did not take its course who knows what the world would be like. We could be very over populated. However, if we see nature as immoral and animals have no feelings we run into the problem of how unjust or cruel animal testing can be or killing animals for food and fur. I think that, killing animals for food is just life’s course. It has to happen in order for us to grow as a whole. As for killing an animal strictly for its fur and such I see that as a luxury and rather cruel but once again that is my own opinion or belief. And I view animal testing as, if it is going to save human life so be it, just don’t be extremely cruel to the animal in the process. It kind of can relate to Darwin’s natural selection. Just let life takes it course and don’t prevent what is meant to happen in nature. As humans we see nature having a certain role so be it.

Kaku and "The Mystery of Dark Matter"

Michio Kaku discusses many complex ideas dealing with science and physics in “The Mystery of Dark Matter.” He focuses on dark matter and the scientists that discovered it, and what research is going on today to further our knowledge about particle physics and dark matter. He explains that dark matter has weight but cannot be seen, and it makes up at least 90 percent of the matter in the universe. Basically, without dark matter, research shows that galaxies in the universe would fly apart because the gravitational pulls would not be great enough to hold them together without it. This was discovered by a few scientists, starting with Zwicky who found that using two different methods of weighing galaxies, the results came out very differently, and this lead him to suspect the existence of dark matter. After Zwicky came Ostriker and Peebles, who showed that the standard idea of a galaxy should fly apart unless there was other matter (dark matter) we could not see. Kaku spends a great deal of time discussing Dr. Vera Rubin and her research and difficulty in the scientific community because she was a woman. Rubin found that the velocity of outer stars in a galaxy really did not vary much from the velocity of inner stars, as previously thought. This lead to the assertion that they should fly apart unless held together by the gravitational pull of dark matter. It took Rubin decades to receive recognition for her research and findings and while this is shocking to me coming from the science community.
I thought this was especially interesting about Rubin’s struggles in science. I have known for a while that women are often underrepresented in science for whatever reasons, but it is interesting that the few women in science can be so largely ignored as Rubin was. She struggled her whole life to succeed in science (as Kaku explains) probably working harder than many men in the field just to get to the same level in her education and knowledge. I find it especially interesting that Rubin faced such discrimination because of the discussions we have been having in class lately about science. Science seems to be a field that tries to remain individual from any cultural, religious, or governmental influences at that time. For example, science tries to do its research regardless of a group’s religious values. In this way, I find it interesting that science would allow the cultural stigma against women to invade its advancements. It also makes me wonder why there are not more women in science today, considering the great strides our country has made in women’s rights. Why don’t more women seem to be interested in a career as a physicist? I am a Middle Childhood Education major concentrating in Reading/Language Arts and Science, and in my own observations I have noticed that it seems like there are many more women in my English courses while my science courses seem to have more men.
Overall, Kaku presents us with some very interesting findings on dark matter and particle physics, but perhaps more interesting is his focus on Dr. Vera Rubin and her struggles as a woman in science.

Into the Dark

I found Rachel Carson’s article “The Sunless Sea” to be incredibly interesting.In the beginning of this article, Carson first explains that about half of our world is covered by miles deep of lightless water that has not been explored fully. She then adds that “this region has withheld its secrets more obstinately than any other” mainly because our technology is not developed enough to withstand the thousands of pounds of pressure in the deeper depths. Then throughout the rest of the article, Carson gives us several interesting examples of newly found discoveries and how they go against what we used to believe about the dark waters. For example, it was once believed that there was no life at the bottom of the ocean until the ships Bulldog and Challenger found life miles deep by using nets and ropes. The examples Carson uses shows us that by studying the ocean more closely we can find the real truth about it. Carson also provides the audience with interesting facts about the ocean throughout her article, like the living cloud in the water, to show that there is a lot in the ocean to still learn about. All these ways Carson uses helps develop a stronger understanding of why we should explore the dark waters of the ocean.
The idea that I found the most interesting was the way Carson shows that the world is still unknown by providing facts about the deep ocean. The pressure and darkness that the creatures survive in, the living cloud of an unknown creature, and the many fish that match the colors of the water they live in are a few examples of these interesting tid-bits. Carson provides interesting facts that have been discovered already and then provides that these facts are only the tip of the iceberg. Half the world contains these deep waters and if we discovered so much already, what else could we uncover with more exploration? The assumption people make in society today is that we have already explored the entire ocean and know all of its secrets, but Carson shows that is not the truth and we need to explore it more.
Another interesting idea Carson has is that some of the facts we though were once true can change by more exploration. By observing more we can get to know the real truth better. The way Carson explains this is by providing examples of what we once thought about the deep ocean and then what facts change by more exploration and observing. Some examples Carson used was the belief that there was no living creatures at the bottom of the ocean and that the ocean was silent. Then over time and development of new technology we discovered that these previous facts were false, there is life at the bottom of the ocean and the ocean is definitely not silent. Furthermore, the idea that Carson gets acrossed is that more exploration can ultimately lead to the real truth, not only in the ocean, but in other aspects society today.
Overall, I found this article very interesting and informative. Carson explains many interesting facts about the vastly unknown ocean and how more exploration can bring about a more clear understanding of the deep ocean or any other region in the world. She also provides that the truth about a region can never be certain until more observations are provided and examined. I found that the dark part of the ocean was a great example that Carson used in expressing the ways that nature can be misunderstood and forgotten about by people.

PS- if anyone has any questions or comments about sciencey stuff of religion or any combinations about the two, I love talking about this kind of thing so feel free to email me: aherald@bgnet.bgsu.edu

Gould and Darwin

I have definitely enjoyed reading this section of our book as well as the discussions that follow. Most of the pieces in this section incorporate two of my biggest passions in life—religion and science. I thought the most interesting essay was Stephen Jay Gould’s “Nonmoral Nature.” Gould’s essay was based off of the question (and history of the question) if God is so benevolent, why does the animal world exhibit such cruelty and pain? The main subject of examination was the ichneumon fly. This insect has a somewhat eccentric way of feeding. The mother will insert her ovipositor into a living creature so that when the larvae need to feed they are already surrounded by food. The main part of concern with this method is that the larvae will eat the creature’s nonvital organs first, leaving the heart, lungs, brain, etc for last and therefore prolonging the caterpillar’s life as long as possible. The people studying this saw it as cruel, but is it really? Do we even have a right to classify the “cruelty” of nature? There are so many of Darwin’s theories that can be incorporated into this piece. First of all, we must remember survival of the fittest. If the wasps are more equipped for survival than the caterpillar, then they will survive. At this time it appears that the wasps have the upper hand in this situation. But let’s think for a moment what the next step is. Basically, one of two things may happen next. First, the caterpillar could develop some means of protecting itself against the wasp. If this happens, then the wasp must either find some new form of food or die off. Second, if the caterpillar does not develop a way of defense, then the wasp may eat all of the caterpillars and, consequently, need to find some other form of food. If the wasp cannot find food, then its population will decrease in number. If this happens, then the caterpillar population may rise.
I think what some people do not realize is that nature is always shifting to adjust from changes. Ok, time for the off the wall analogy. I see it as trying to walk on a water bed. If you take one step, the entire surface shifts in response. Each movement is altered depending on the movement next to it. If you stop walking (no changes are made) the bed will calm down (not as drastic of changes), but it isn’t really ever perfectly still (stable). Everything in nature is cause and effect. This species of wasp has survived because of its superior method of protecting its young.
Gould also brings up a good point when he turns the table and presents and argument that focuses on the good aspects of the wasp (efficiency, protecting and providing for young) rather than on the suffering of the caterpillar. This just goes to show you that determining what is good or bad, fair or unfair, often depends on which angle you are looking from.

Here you can get a close up of what the ichneumon fly looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCLYCpSo6sI
Here you can see one drilling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA25evZKBLk

Gore's testimony yestersday

here's some clips if interested

Stephen Jay Gould discusses something that most people have wondered about at least once in their life. The question was if God is good and benevolent, then why does he allow creatures to suffer. This question proved to be quite a problem for nineteenth century theologians to answer. Gould uses the example of the ichneumon wasp using a caterpillar to lay its eggs and then the larva eats the caterpillar from the inside out, keeping it alive until the very last minute, to prove a point. People would think that this is an evil act God is allowing to happen, but according to Gould, nature is non-moral, so there is no good or evil. Humans commonly think that other creatures feel pain, and Gould disagrees with this. He feels that they do not have the mental capacity to do so and many times humans try to apply their morals to situations that happen in nature.

First, I wanted to try to offer an answer to the question that nineteenth century theologians could not answer. Last semester, I took a philosophy class and we examined this very question. One answer is that God allows evil acts to happen because he gave creatures free will, when they were created. This means that the creatures are choosing to do bad things that God has no control over. Believing this answer also depends on a persons view on whether creatures have free will or not. Another answer that was commonly given was the God allows certain evils to occur, only to prevent a greater evil from happening. Going back to the wasp and caterpillar example, the wasp species would not be able to survive if it did not use the caterpillar. In nature, most creatures are dependent on other for survival, so if none of the animals were eating other ones, then they would all starve to death, this being the greater evil.

The second point I wanted to make is in relation to the point Chad made about religious leaders blaming our society for natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina. This relates to Gould’s point about how human consistently view nature as having good and evil qualities. The religious leaders say that God is punishing people with natural events because he is unhappy with the way they are living their lives. Hearing this in class made me think of the Westboro Baptist Church. This church is famous for protesting soldier’s funerals and for their hatred of the gay community. This same church was going to protest the Amish funerals of the children that were killed during the school shooting. The church claims that god was responsible for the crashing of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Their web address is actually http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ . These people disgust me. I have no problem with people not supporting the war, but protesting soldier’s funerals, with signs about how god hates them, is absolutely horrible. I guess freedom of speech is not always used for good causes. They also blame Hurricane Katrina on our society and throughout their website, they refer to America as the “fag nation,” and they feel this is the primary reason Katrina happened. The last time I checked, hurricanes were not the result of Americas somewhat acceptance people being choosing an alternative lifestyle. Today, people should realize that trying to explain nature with religious reasoning just does not work.

Gould explains how we should look at nature. He feels that humans should look at nature and natural events as being non-moral. He means that they are not a reflection of a higher powers feeling towards people on earth. Events in nature are difficult to explain and trying to use religion to do so creates further problems. Gould brought up the point of nature being non-moral, and I had never heard this argument before. After reading his piece is agree with what he has to say. Humans have tendency to believe that everything has the same moral and ethical code that they do and this distorts their view of nature and how it functions. Religion plays an important role in many lives, but it needs to be left out of scientific explanations.

Nonmoral Nature

Stephen Jay Gould presents Creationism as purely religious and not scientific in any way. As humans we try to inflict our moral and ethical beliefs on nature but this is unwise because nature is "nonmoral." Religious readings of nature are inaccurate. Gould does not believe that animals feel pain because they do not have the necessary mental capacity. As I hope to show, this is a questionable claim.

Gould's piece got me thinking about a proposed culling of thousands of elephants in South Africa. The country has about 20,000 elephants; the population is growing at a rate of 5% each year and is expected to double by 2020. The cull may be necessary because the elephants pose a serious threat to the environment with their breeding and large appetites. A single grown elephant can eat several hundred pounds of grass and leaves each day.

Last year South Africa postponed resuming a cull at Kruger after opposition by
conservationists who said the practice, which involves rounding up and shooting
entire family groups, was cruel.

Something interesting to note is that elephants possess abilities that even some primates do not. For example, in 2001, scientists discovered that elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror, something only humans, great apes, and dolphins are able to do. It has also been shown that elephants grieve the death of a family member. They go to the bones of their dead and gently touch the skulls and tusks with their trunks and feet. In fact, some scientists believe that elephants are more advanced than chimpanzees when it comes to mourning death. Elephants are highly likely to visit the bones of relatives who die within their own home range and they are able to recognize the ivory and skulls of their own species. Taking all of this into consideration makes the decision in South Africa even more difficult.

The piece also got me thinking about mixing science with religion. Gould seems to advocate keeping the two separate and distinct, but as I wrote in another post, there are many scientists balancing religion and science. Here is one good example. The paleontologist in the article is a young earth creationist. He believes in the Bible and that the earth is somewhere around 10,000 years old. He caused quite an uproar within the scientific community after he submitted his thesis because some scientists want him to practice what he preaches. Or the other way around. But to Dr. Marcus Ross, it doesn't seem like much of a problem.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one
''paradigm'' for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the
paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely
appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view
just means, he said, ''that I am separating the different paradigms.''

Is this a big deal? Should the contradiction not bother us if it does not bother the individual? It seems like a touchy subject to me but I enjoy hearing stories like this one mainly because scientists like Dr. Marcus Ross are breaking new ground and pursuing scientific research while still maintaining their spiritual belief systems.

Bacon, Nature, and American Colonization

Today in class, Chad mentioned how theologians used to view nature as something that needed to be conquered by religion. They believed that people should be entirely separate from nature. This reminded me of my cultural pluralism class, when we spent a great deal of time discussing the early colonization of America and the European perception of Native Americans. One of the issues surrounding the approach to colonization was whether they viewed the Indian culture as a result of nature or nurture. The colonies in the south, who usually settled for commerce, tended to view Native Americans (and other races) as people needed to be taught to be “be white” so that they could be more like Europeans. In the north, Europeans were typically more religious (like the Puritans) and tended to view the Native Americans as savage by nature and unable to be civilized. When we were discussing this, my professor said that in around the time of early American colonization, European writers and philosophers had introduced concepts that greatly influence this type of thinking. She mentioned Sir Francis Bacon as being one of the major influences.

When we were discussing the four idols, I could see how a more scientific approach to reasoning and thinking could influence Europeans’ perception of Native Americans. It’s not necessarily that most Europeans even knew anything about Bacon—I doubt most of them were sitting around and discussing the four idols and how the Native Americans exemplified each of them. I think that they saw the Native Americans, in general, as being people who were incapable of scientific understanding. Their culture was based on nature, but they did not attempt to “conquer” nature, as the Europeans wanted to do with religion. This perception of Native Americans would have made it easier for Europeans to justify taking their land. I think that Bacon’s work (at least what we read) was intended to be used mostly as a way to improve science. I just think it’s interesting how people can use an influential idea to justify what might seem unrelated.

Nature & Humans

Stephen Jay Gould explores the thoughts of 19th century theologians, by exploring their question regarding why God would allow suffering/pain/torture in nature. Gould concludes that nature has no morals and that nature should be kept distant and separate from religious thought. In class, the following question was discussed, “Why does God make nature unmoral?” However, wouldn’t the appropriate question read, “Why do humans act unmorally in nature?” While there are various food chains and feeding patterns in nature, it is when humans start interfering with these patterns that “unmoral” events start to occur.

Personally, one of the most vivid examples I have seen of man interfering with nature was at a carnival one summer, where a huge female lion was kept in a cage, comparable to a shoebox. People could either take a picture by the lion or feed its cubs milk with a baby bottle. As Gould pointed out, when humans “humanize” animals, then our concept of nature becomes problematic. However, humans cannot be totally ignorant of nature and one must be respectful of it. For example, when using animals for food, they should not be “engineered” to meet the high demands of restaurants and grocery stores. Animals do suffer and as humans, we pride ourselves in holding values, hence when dealing with nature one should not let those values be disregarded because we are dealing with a raw environment.

Idols of the Marketplace and Frank Collin: American Nazi Party leader

I know we talked about Bacon and the four Idols last Wednesday, but I’ve still been thinking about those Idols and which one I believe presents the most dissention within a society. In class I offered my opinion that the Idols of the Cave would present the most problems, but I would like to retract this and instead offer that the Idols of the Marketplace present the most conflict between people in societies and between different societies themselves.

I believe that the Idols of the Marketplace would initiate the most problems because almost everything that our country is founded on, for example, is just a bunch of statements and ideas in the form of a Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Words themselves do not have meaning—it is the people that interpret those statements and apply them to every day life that give them meaning. The Bill of Rights, for example, can be considered very ambiguous, but because of the judicial system we have in place and a sound police force to enforce those judicial rulings, we have an idea of what exactly those rights entail. We know, for example, that our government cannot come into our lives and force us to adopt a certain religion. We know that the government cannot come in and censor our ideas and our “freedom of speech.” We know that we have the right to stand out on the sidewalk with signs saying “Bush sucks” or even “This country sucks” because we all have a common definition in our minds as to what our rights entitle us to do.

Where the problems begin to arise, however, is when an individual is not on the same page as everyone else as to what our laws and ideas mean. I recently watched the History Channel and found a perfect example of this misunderstanding of definitions that I really wanted to be able to tie in to one of our readings. The History Channel did a story on Frank Collin, the leader of the National Socialist Party of America (US Nazi Party) and his various rallies and organizations that he held in Chicago. He became well known when he tried to organize a Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois, a Jewish suburb outside of Chicago after he was banned from speaking publicly in the city. With Skokie being home to a high number of Holocaust survivors, it was no surprise that the village refused to let Collin march. This launched a huge legal battle, with Collin declaring that he was exercising his right to free speech guaranteed him by the first amendment. Eventually, the courts ruled that Collin would be allowed to march, yet he and his group would not be permitted to show or wear swastikas. Yet before the actual march took place, the city of Chicago withdrew the ban they had laid on the organization and Collin moved the rally back into the city.

I think this is a perfect example of the Idols of the Marketplace—all the different meanings and definitions a single sentence can have, and its impacts on so many different people. Here, Collin argued that the first amendment protected his right to march where he wanted and say what he wanted even though he and everyone else knew that it would cause and uproar. And, as a result of this uproar, the judicial system (and those watching on TV) had to step back and analyze what they thought that first amendment really meant. Through dramatic examples such as these, it becomes apparent just how significant a common understanding (or single differing understanding) of a few words can be. Who knows what could have happened if Collin’s Nazi party did march through Skokie? More than likely it could have resulted in violence—things could have even turned fatal. When it comes to the Idols of the Marketplace, words and individual understandings can mean life or death.

Here Collin defends his march in a press speech. He says some very interesting things, check it out!

James Randi

With his years of experience, James Randi certainly knows how to persuade an audience. Mixing humor, earnestness, and righteous anger, Randi made some very convincing arguments. His talk was interesting, and I believe that he definitely fulfills a necessary role in society. Skeptics are needed to look at things logically, and debunk myths and frauds. However, by advocating skepticism, Randi is closing himself off to the possibility of something else. I am not saying I believe in the paranormal or in psychics, but sometimes one has to be open minded. Through the years many have considered new inventions or science to be supernatural, thus what is myth to some is real to others. I agree with Randi that there are many “psychics” that take advantage of other people in order to make money. On the other hand, there are people who sincerely believe that they have certain abilities, and while no one has proved the existence of paranormal abilities, no one has been able to completely prove the existence of white holes or other universes. Just because it has not been proved does not mean it cannot exist. So while we should be skeptical and safeguard against cons, we should also keep an open mind about what is out there.

Hotel Rwanda

The events in Darfur are undeniably tragic, but in a way the real tragedy of this story is the lack of response. When the Holocaust occurred, many countries claimed that they did not know what was happening, and this is partially true as much of the information was regarded as rumors. For the situation in Darfur, however there was no such excuse. Countries around the world new what was going on and yet they sat back, waiting for the United States to act, which it didn’t. Darfur had no great resources or high public demand for action, and so nothing was done. In a way the countries that knew what was going on and did not get involved are partially accountable for what occurred. When the huge famine in Sudan occurred, how many acted to help? The United States has many concerns, and I am not advocating that it be involved with everything occurring around the world. However, when an event like genocide occurs, we have an obligation to the people concerned to take action somehow.

For Wednesday...

An Endless Debate

Thinking about the Evolution/Creationism debate, I first think to myself that there is no reason for this uproar and no reason to be so angry at the opposing side. I say this because both Evolution and Intelligent Design are theories about the beginning of life on our planet without much scientific basis for either.

Darwinism began through the method of observation and hypothesis and then became something much more when others took his work and proclaimed it as fact. An important point to note is that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species does not use the word evolution to describe what he observed in the modification of species. Any uses of the word evolution and talk of monkeys come from his and other’s hypotheses. Man has so far only “observed” natural selection and the modification of species, not the change of one species to another. An observation of this kind could provide the needed scientific proof to this theory.

The science of Creationism began as a response to the spread of Evolution. The church found a new obstacle in sharing the gospel and story of creation: scientific “fact” held by the opposing theory of Earth’s beginning. Intelligent Design scientists take, for the most part, the beliefs of Evolutionary theory and redirect them and hypothesize about what else “could have” happened. Most theories rely heavily on Noah’s flood to explain such phenomena as the fossil record, but there is no absolute certainty that the flood ever happened.

In short, both theories are so heavily reliant on faith (of a sort) and have such little chance of being proven that one side will never be able to persuade the other and a pointless debate will continue. What I do think is important, however, is the rest of the debate: not what happened in the past, but what will happen now and in the future. The purpose of a theory of life is to tell us what we are to do with our lives and what comes after death or the end of the world. I would like to leave an open ended question: which theory of life gives you hope for your future?

Controlled Technology?

Rachel Carson’s, “The Sunless Sea,” explores what lies beneath in the depths of world’s oceans, which make up about 75% of the entire planet. One of Carson’s main points is that scientists/explorers are constantly learning new things about how animals survive, live, and adapt in the world’s oceans. Carson uses various stories about whales and other flagship species by offering details about how they survive in the ocean, in order to provide evidence as to just how amazing these bodies of water truly are. While “The Sunless Sea,” is not a call to action like her book, “Silent Spring,” it does offer a few warnings and interesting points that are notable in 2007.

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about Global Warming and the threat it poses to the planet. A study detailing the potential problems of Global Warming, explains that the warming of the planet is causing too much ice in the Arctic to melt. Polar Bears, who live off of the ice, are now potentially in danger of becoming extinct-- because their habit is rapidly being destroyed. Since there are some public figures, including the former chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who believe that Global Warming is a myth, there will continue to be reports like the one above, until something is done to curtail the negative effects of human generated Global Warming. Drawing back to Carson’s work, she makes an interesting point about the discovery that whales can live in 3240 feet of water-- the discovery, however, was made on a cable repair vessel, when crew members found a whale tangled in a broken submarine cable that was located on the ocean floor.

Looking at both the Global Warming debate and how whales were discovered at 3240 feet of water, it appears that in both of these cases, humans have had some sort of involvement. Humans’ dependency on fossil fuels and little regard for mass transit or alternative energy sources has helped propel the Global Warming crisis further. While Carson uses the discovery of whales at deep depths as an exciting example, the reason behind the discovery is a depressing nod towards negative human interaction with nature. Clearly, the multiple new technologies implemented by humans have not been controlled and have caused havoc on the natural environment.

Government Spending and NASA

As I said today in class, our annual defense spending is $522 billion. This accounts for 47% of all military spending in the world (no other country spends more than $100 billion on defense). The next 29 countries combined spend a total of $521 billion on defense.

As for the idea of government agencies such as NASA using tax dollars to fund space travel, I think there are better and more efficient ways to pursue our goals in outerspace. Instead of just having NASA, I think it would be better if we had several competing private firms. If nothing else, this would free up almost $20 billion dollars for education and social programs. And most people will agree that private firms are more efficient than government agencies, with their waste and bureacracy. If the idea of a private NASA sounds weird, its not: billionaire Richard Branson is pioneering the idea as we speak. Within the next couple of years, Branson's company plans to be launching "spaceliners" into space. Anyone can by a ticket aboard one of these aircraft, provided that they have about $200,000. Now, Branson has turned down an offer from the U.S. government to conduct scientific experiments in outer space and insists that he only plans to send people into space but I think there is room for other firms to fill NASA's role.

Darwin

In Origin of Species, Charles Darwin presents what has become the prevailing world view on how the world became what it is today. He argues that from very simple original organisms, natural and sexual selection and adaptation have created various species that became increasingly acclimated to their environment through survival of the fittest.

First, I should say that I disagree with Darwin's findings. As a creationist and Christian, I disagree not so much because of what I believe false about his theory, but what I believe to be true from other sources. I believe that evolution is simply the most accessible answer that requires us to have no accountability beyond our own existence. Scientifically, the odds that present-day species evolved from single-celled organisms are infinitesimal.

From an admittedly biased source, though supported by the same science that endorses evolution: "One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (10⁶⁷:1) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). [129] Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:10⁵⁰) have a zero probability of ever happening (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html)."

Frankly, I don't see how such astronomical odds are so readily accepted. The main problem I see with evolution is that it has no answer for the origin of mass or energy. Without both of these, I don't believe evolution has legs to stand on. Evolutionists have yet to find a viable answer. Many may say that they believe in God, but I would question what type of god would create such a system. When they try to fill in all possible gaps with secular science, they reduce this essential God to one who created the absolute minimum necessities for the eventual development of life. It is an extreme form of deism that doesn't make much sense or seem to agree with many individual philosophies.

The only other evolutionary inconsistency that I have given serious thought to relates to topsoil. According to one of the science teachers at my high school (herself an evolutionist), it takes about 500 years for one inch of soil to become topsoil. A quick calculation using the estimated age of the earth (6000000000/500) yields that, under present conditions, there should be 189 miles of topsoil under your average footstep. Obviously, this would extend far below any existing soil, and, even if the process had just recently begun (say, a million years ago) we would still have 167 feet of topsoil at 1 inch per 500 years. Incidentally, if we make the same calculation over 6000 years (the accepted age of the earth among creationists), the figure comes out to 12 inches of topsoil. I would invite anyone that wants to to conduct an experiment with a shovel to see which figure is closer to reality, taking erosion into account, which will have washed away some evidence. I don't believe you'll break a sweat. If this approach is valid, it would contradict the perceived age of the earth, which would disallow the time needed for Darwin's theory to run its course.

Aside from the scientific side of the issue, an admitted weakness of mine, the debate of evolution in schools is huge. As you may guess, I am very much against the current teaching of evolution as fact. Not only is macro-evolution highly controversial, but the age of the earth is derived from it. Both macro-evolution and the age of the earth are merely theories, hopefully seen to be weak ones at that. Off the top of my head, the only unsolved mystery given so much time in public education is that of the JFK assassination. Of course as new evidence has emerged, teachers have ceased from teaching that Lee Harvey Oswald was the factual sole assassin of JFK. And yet with such disagreement about things of science, we are still fed supposedly factual information. Is it so hard to require that teachers explain the imperfection of the evolutionary theory? I think not.

Again, I am not a scientific person. You may be able to find problems with my points. My views are not formed by my disbelief in evolutionary theory, and they do not hinge on the validity of any objections I've mentioned. I appreciate the respect that is given for views that are not seen as mainstream.

Letting Natural Selection Take It's Course

Darwin’s Origin of Species was a controversial piece when it was published, and it continues to fuel debates today. Origin of Species presents ideas about natural selection and sexual selection in nature based off his observations largely made during his voyage on the HMS Beagle. Darwin suggests that because the Earth is overpopulated, different variations will make some individuals better adapted to survive and therefore reproduce more, which results in the emphasis of certain characteristics. He also suggests that these small variations accumulate over time to create better-adapted species.

More recently, through the advances of science, we are playing with natural selection and trying to make ourselves invincible from it. Today’s focus is more on improving the survival of individuals rather than concerning ourselves with the survival of the species. Medical breakthroughs in prolonging the lives of those with genetic diseases are allowing such characteristics to be further entered into our species. The idea of natural selection is to strengthen the species by weeding out the weaker. In other words, those susceptible to a fatal disease will die, leaving only those with resistance to breed and therefore the resistance would become a part of the fabric of our genome. I don’t disagree with the idea of correcting the genetic mutation in utero or only selecting those zygotes that do not have mutations because that is merely forwarding natural selection. However vaccines such as the polio vaccine allows the further breeding of individuals that are not naturally resistant. Then, in order to correct the weakness we have created, every child needs to be vaccinated. We have spun ourselves into a cycle. In class someone made an example of bad eyesight. Because we have made it so that those with lesser eyesight can still function, those people can then have more babies, which also have poor eyesight. Because of our advances, we have weakened the general eyesight of the species. I’m not suggesting that we just take away corrective lenses in order to try to correct the weakness. I’m just pointing out that we have caused the further need for corrective lenses due to our solution in the first place.

However, Chad made the point that our species has moved beyond the day-to-day survival that many other species still deal with. So perhaps we can allow for the weakening of the general sturdiness of our species as long as we can continue to dominate the world and provide our remedies like vaccinations and corrective lenses.

I’m not trying to say that medical or science advances are bad. If someone gets an illness, we should not necessarily leave it to their immune system to fight it because “if they’re not strong enough then they deserve to die.” That is not what I am trying to suggest at all. If you get a kidney infection, it could kill you if you did not get medical attention. But also, if you survive from a kidney infection, that does not mean your children are more likely to also get kidney infections. That’s where its there is a difference between treating disease and treating inheritable diseases. When it comes to inheritable diseases, should we prolong the life of someone so that they can develop and reproduce when they would otherwise not have been able to? Sure that may be beneficial for that individual, but not so much for our species.

Also, I am not suggesting that we should do some of our own “natural selection” to correct the weaknesses we have created in our species, such as through eugenetics. The things we have already woven into our genome cannot be corrected. I am merely suggesting that we should let natural selection take its course a little bit more in the future.

Science and Religion

In class we have been discussing religion versus science, and today (3/16) we briefly touched on people who "mix" both science and religion. Next week, according to the syllabus, we are watching, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's Academy Award Winning Documentary. To avoid saying too much, I want to bring up one point Gore makes in the movie. Gore argues that dealing with global warming/climate change is a "moral value," because we only have one planet and it needs to be taken care of. Some Christians don't touch issues like global warming just because it deals with science. However, some Christians have....take a look at these two competing quotes:

They are defending the society. But I tell you stay in doors ladies and gentleman. Stay cool. Get fans or whatever. And the poor, they need emergency fans and ice to cool down — the number of people dead. I have not been one who believed in the global warming. But I tell you, they are making a convert out of me as these blistering summers. They have broken heat records in a number of cities already this year and broken all-time records and it is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. If we are contributing to the destruction of the planet we need to do manage about it.

[Global Warming Is]Satan’s attempt to redirect the church’s primary focus from evangelism to environmentalism.

The first quote comes from Pat Robertson and the second from Jerry Falwell. Any comments? Is global warming to be considered a "moral value?" Also, as a Christian, should one totally ignore science...as Falwell seems to imply.

Hotel Rwanda

After watching the movie Hotel Rwanda, I have two primary reactions. The first is the exposure of a completely new point of view for this type of conflict. This movie allowed us to see the other side of the conflict, one that we (the country) do not consider in making political views. The second of my reactions are the relation to Maus and the Holocaust; how both can be sickly regarded as extermination.
When the United Nations came to aid people in danger of the war, emotions such as relief were circulating throughout the stranded people in the hotel. However, the United Nations had given false hope to these people, having not been assigned to rescue Africans. The United Nations was simply there to rescue people of their own who were American tourists. By showing the great disappointment in all of the eyes of those left behind, a new perspective was given to global conflicts similar to this. As an American, it is easy to say that we should not involve ourselves in other countries affairs, and only rescue those who posses United States citizenship. However, after seeing this part of the movie, it seems like we (the United States) should make our best attempts not to stop conflict, but to save innocent victims who are caught in the middle of such awful surroundings. This is because in certain situations, there simply is no escape for people who are hated without reason.
My second thought after viewing Hotel Rwanda is how closely it relates to Maus and the Holocaust. One scene in particular defines this thought; the clearing of the mist in which thousands of dead bodies are seen covering the streets. In Maus, Vladek discusses how thousands of people would not only be gassed to death, considered the lucky ones, but how when the gas chambers were full how the Jews would be forced into huge trenches only to be burned alive. This sort of act does not register in my mind as mass murder. This is extermination, similar to how humans would kill a hive of wasps. This term extermination is consistent in both texts, Hotel Rwanda and Maus, where hundreds of thousands of people, in both cases, were dehumanized and killed for possessing differences. It is a fact that is so unfathomable and shameful that it is part of humanity’s history.

Hotel Rwanda

In a movie like Hotel Rwanda, I think realism is paramount to the effect of the movie. I would say that this movie did rather well in that regard, though the situation it followed lended itself to be a little more tame. In making a movie like this, the purpose is to affect people and change their outlook on a situation and/or ideology. Watering down the true events will impede the storytellers' ability to affect the audience. The movie consisted of a lot of political struggle and less exposure to the horrors of the genocide. That's fine if the goal is to tell an engaging story, but it seemed that some of the reality of the situation was lost. In most situations like that in Rwanda, the vast majority of the population doesn't stay in a five-star hotel. I thought more attention should have been paid to the mass killings instead just showing a lot of soldiers that rarely did more than threaten.

While I think Hotel Rwanda did a fine job of telling the story of the Hutus and Tutsies, we must realize that the situation happened over ten years ago. This is an unfortunate resounding theme in these movies; they affect people greatly, but only after the situation is resolved. No movie has been made about Darfur or North Korea, and to my knowledge, none were made about Nazi Germany, Iraq during Saddam's regime, or Afghanistan during the Taliban's reign while they were still current. Mass media has extraordinary power over popular opinion, but it rarely utilizes it while it can still do some good. One could say that Fahrenheit 9/11 accomplished this, but I would contend that this may be a favorite movie of the Muslim extremists, which is counter-productive to our goal.

Foundations of a world view

I found it interesting to hear about Catholics who were shocked and distressed upon hearing that the Genesis story is myth in high school. I attended Catholic school from preschool on to my senior year of high school. My eighth grade science class contained a large “life science” component which was largely based on evolution. We learned about different organisms in the order they are believed to have evolved, from “lowest” to “highest.”

According the Catechism of the Catholic Church “110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.’” In other words, in order to properly examine religious texts we must take into account the historical framework under which they were written. Throughout my Catholic education I was always taught that an important part of looking at the conditions of the culture is examining the scientific beliefs that were then held. I was taught that the Creation story used the scientific framework of the day to teach the important religious lesson that God created the Earth.

I do not belief that science and religion must be or should be in direct competition. In my view, scientists hold the very important position of explaining, through observation and experimentation, the way that God designed the world to work. Many of them, of course, view their position differently, and that is perfectly alright. I believe that the relationship between religion and science becomes problematic when either tries to exploit the other for its own ends, for example, when religious groups try to force scientists to avoid studying things that they disagree with. Scientists also often overstep their bounds, trying to disprove God through empirical study. I believe that science needs to be primarily concerned with what can be observed and studied, while religion should concern itself with the question “but is that all?”

In my view, neither religion nor science is totally correct in all things nor can ever stop adapting to the changing world. Science is always evolving, replacing old theories with new. The theory of the flat earth has been replaced with a round (or rather oblong) one. The science of eugenics has been reconsidered and replaced. Religions too are constantly evolving. The Bible, for example, is no longer used as justification for slavery. The Catholic Church has backed down on its view that it is the ultimate bearer of scientific truth. I do not think that this means religions (or sciences) are becoming watered down or necessarily corrupted from their original purpose, but instead they are open to truths revealed by the changing world.

I believe that for a complete world view, neither religion nor science should be discounted. There seems to be a commonly held view that religion has become outdated and invalid as scientific reasoning and understanding grows. I think this is untrue because the things which concern religion are different than those which concern science and are equally valid in today’s world as they were thousands of years ago. The search for a greater purpose and an exploration of the spiritual side of human beings is not, and should not be, addressed by science. Instead of being in competition, I think that the diverse religious and scientific beliefs should be allowed to coexist so that each individual can search for truth and form their own world view using the evidence available to them.

Bacon

I thought Francis Bacon’s way of presenting the idols to show how to find truth was in interesting way of going about it. After talking about Bacon’s view points in class I thought that he made very good points about truth. I think that if we interpret what he’s saying as looking at things as a whole and finding the truth, then I agree. I think that it is important to be aware of biases in our thinking. Bacon’s way of presenting the idols helps to find the truth. Although it is not about what is true and what is false, we still need to look at what we’re doing and how we’re doing these things to know our biases and find truth.
It would be ideal to eliminate biases, but at the same time I think it makes our world different in a good way. Without biases, differences and different opinions, the other idols would not have a place and there would be no controversy. Most of us know by now that uncomfortable situations and tension help us to learn and understand new concepts. As far as science goes, I think Bacon’s ideas are okay to make sure we are discovering science in an unbiased and well thought-out way. It helps us to see our biases and false truths in our reasoning, but at the same time, everything cannot be based solely on science. There are moral, ethical and religious view points as well as science that need to come into play when trying to find the truth.

Art Spiegelman’s story of a family during the Holocaust is, in essence, very historically complete. Just about every aspect of this horrible event was addressed in a very understandable fashion. There are many aspects to these two graphic novels which can be addressed: Spiegelman’s story of prejudice can be tied into the ongoing prejudices in our present-day society, the use of graphics instead of just words, the personal aspect of the story, the psychological aspect which cannot be ignored, etc. The most influential portion for me, however, was Spiegelman’s use of animals as the different ethnicities within the graphic novels. For many reasons, which I will further explain, this unique form of storytelling and event portrayal deeply affected me.
The use of animals in these pieces has been argued to depict nationalities as stereotypical as well as oversimplifying political issues of the time. I disagree with this view, but what do you think? I can understand this side, being that it slightly portrays his work in a “fable-like” fashion, but I believe that we need to look deeper into why different animals were used. First of all, this portrayed the Jewish-Nazi relationship very well. The fact that mice are stereotypically weak and always running from the “larger” and “stronger” cats, gives a defined look at this particular relationship. Also, mice are considered vermin which need to be exterminated in our society, just as the Jews were sought after to be annihilated by the Nazis. I also believe that this animal, almost cartoon, portrayal of the Holocaust gave Spiegelman the sufficient emotional distance to write such a psychologically based piece. No matter what the reason for his use of animals, it cannot be denied that it aids in the comprehension of a complicated and horrible time in history. His story made me realize how Nazis separated themselves mentally from the Jews by thinking they were a different species, disgusting and non-human. How else could he have portrayed such huge ideas? Words would never be sufficient in showing how completely separated (i.e. different species of animals) the Nazis were in order to commit the crimes against the Jews, gypsies, etc.

Hotel Rwanda

Hotel Rwanda made a significant impact on me. I had not seen this movie before we saw it for class, but I am so happy that I did. The real life character of Paul made me think about true ethics and morality in life. Every aspect of this man’s life (or at least as it was portrayed in the film) was unselfish and giving. He was willing to risk his life for not only his family, but his people as well. He was unaffected by the prejudices in a society torn apart by war and stereotypes. This film portrayed a beautiful preservation of human life as well as a tragic demise of innocent people.
What intrigues me is that I was unaware of how tragic this situation in Rwanda was before I saw this movie. Being an American citizen, I like to feel that my country portrays the economic and political affairs of other countries accurately. However, I now see that there are many horrible things that we, in a wealthy society, close our eyes to and chose not to hear about. We surround our lives with media and information about “famous Hollywood celebrities” when we should be concentrating on the real heroes/celebrities (i.e. Paul). Do you think that it is better to remain ignorant if it shields us from such pain? Or, do we need to show a more empathetic side and start to feel the pain of our fellow humans? It is nice to just think about glamour and beauty, but world affairs should not be ignored just because they are ugly. In order to change anything, we need to face it first.

Hotel Rwanda

I know this is a little late but here are my thoughts after seeing Hotel Rwanda. I was surprised by the amount of people that were killed during the genocide. In the United States, most people knew that something bad was happening but they probably did not know to what degree. The movie shows a person how bad the situation really was. The scene where there were hundreds of bodies laying in the road put the size of the genocide into a real perspective. Another thing that shocked me was that the industrialized countries did not interfere more. The UN was trying to help but they proved to be worthless. If genocide where to happen in an industrialized country today, many other countries would commit some type of help but since it was happening in an African country, the countries barely even cared. The movie made me think of the current genocide in Sudan. The UN and other countries need to commit to stopping the genocide, but again since the countries are third world it is not a top priority. The industrialized nations saw what Hitler did with his genocide and they only got involved after most of the damage had been done. Hopefully, the west will send help before it is too late.

Rwanda vs. Iraq

I noticed that every time I watch Hotel Rwanda that I have a different reaction to its content. Since last semester I have become more politically aware of the occurrences in the Middle East. My critical thinking class was basically a crash course on the War on Terror. We learned about the reasons for the United States “interference” of this civil war in Iraq, and 9/11 gave us a “good excuse” to go in there. Since I have learned more information about this ongoing war, and as I continue to learn my ideas become more liberal (or against president Bush's decisions), but I saw an odd parallel between Hotel Rwanda and Iraq. Though the amount of deaths in Iraq isn’t near as many as in Rwanda, the fighting within Iraq is as brutally extreme as it was in Rwanda. The United States presence may be the only hope for those who want peace. In Rwanda countries came in, then left because of how horrible the situation was, much like Iraq. If the United States leaves, what will happen to these people? Will they continue to fight like they have been for years to come and many more deaths will occur? Is the presence of the United States pointless, while we lose our own men? Or is our presence a light of hope to the people of Iraq while they struggle for freedom from this civil war?

Hotel Rwanda

After watching the movie Hotel Rwanda, I was very surprised by how much damage was done in such a short period of time. The massacre only took place over the course of three and a half months. That’s a million deaths in a quarter of a year. I was so shocked that I had never heard of this happening before I saw the movie. If you think about it, the holocaust of WWII was six million people, but that was over many years. What happened in Rwanda also seemed much more conspicuous than what happened in the holocaust. They did not even try to disguise what they were doing. Something that both disasters had in common was they both had some kind of ring leader that made the people want to wipe out an entire race—Hitler for the nazis and the man on the radio for the Hutus. Another connection between the graphic novel Maus and the movie Hotel Rwanda was demonstrated in Maus II. There is a scene where Art is being questioned by some reporters about the publication of Maus I. One reporter asks why Art would even tell the story and asks why he is still trying to make the Germans feel bad about what happened so many years before. If I were Art, I would have responded to that question by saying that the book was not meant to make Germans feel bad for what their relatives did, but rather to inform all people of the events that took place. Like the quote that Matt put up (“Those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”) I think that everyone should know what happened in the Holocaust and how horrible it was so that future generations may be spared from making the same mistake. The same idea goes for the movie Hotel Rwanda.

Rwanda After thoughts

Each day events like what happened in South Africa occur. It is frustrating to know that humans could even think to be so cruel to other humans just because someone tells them that there is a separation, in reality, does not truly exist. What took place in Hotel Rwanda is just a grain of sand compared to all of the horrible things that have taken place and are still taking place today around the world. So why are we not doing anything to prevent further destruction. Maybe we are all shrouded in a veil of ignorance or maybe we have unconsciously chosen to ignore what we are told. In the movie "Hotel Rwanda" the protagonist is speaking to one of the reporters after the reporter has filmed a brutal massacre outside of the village. The protagonist says that he knows help will come after the people of the world see what is actually happening there. The reporter replies that he does not agree, people will simply see what is happening and say "oh how terrible" before going back to eating their dinner or playing their games. Those who are surrounded by their everyday security and do not know the pain of having to fear for their lives everyday could not even begin to imagine the horrors that those living in this situation must go through. So in a way, they can not fathom this life and therefore dismiss it as less than what it is. I wish I could better express how I feel about this subject. The scene that impacted me the most was when they were riding down the foggy road on their way back to the hotel and the protagonist thought they had driven off of the road. After they pulled over, and he got out of the car, he realized that they were actually driving over the hundreds of bodies that had been placed there on the road. This scene was both horrifying and comprehensive for me. This scene gave me a visual of only a fraction of those who had been killed.

Reaction to Rwanda

As you all know, Hotel Rwanda is a very intense movie. After watching it, I was engulfed in thought. Mainly, I thought about how much I am unable to really relate to the people of Rwanda and of other places that have gone through such mass genocide. I feel like most people here in America lead pretty “cushy” lives and find it very hard to picture anything such as Rwanda happening to them. This is how I feel. I cannot even try to imagine how it would be to be afraid in my own house, to see my neighbors being kidnapped or killed, or dealing with death and destruction all around me all the time. The movie just left me in awe of how horrible things in the world can be. I usually go through my daily life without thinking about the rest of the world and taking most things for granted. This is probably how most people are as well. I guess it just boggles my mind to think that something like Rwanda can happen.

Frightful Forties (forgot 2 put it up last friday)

Maus II is a continuation of the frightful life Art’s dad Vladek experienced as a young adult. Throughout this novel, Art shows the cruel and unjust things the Nazi’s did to the Jews and their ways of trickery and deceit. One of the main points I can gather from this novel is to never trust anyone fully. By this I mean, the Jew’s along with others heard rumors about the Germans sending people to gas chambers but they thought if they cooperated, nothing bad would happen to them. However, as we know they got sent to the very same place eventually. Another main point I believe Art tries to get across is how one group of people can completely take over the lives of another group just because they have different beliefs. Even though the Jews were people just like everyone else, they were murdered and basically made slaves just because they didn’t have the same beliefs. Throughout the novel we see how one race can use their power in an unfair way.

I found Maus II a very well written novel. I think the fact he wrote it in a comic series really helped readers understand the concept of what happened better. I believed the Holocaust happened before I ever read this but when I did read Maus, I did not want to put the book down. With all the pictures and so forth, people are able to see the cruel treatment done by the German soldiers and how you had to be someone or be lucky to survive. Throughout the novel Vladek survived because he knew or could somewhat perform a bunch of different job traits. His idea to show a survivors tale in this form was a great one. Although some may have been offended, I don’t think anyone ever took lightly the story Art tells throughout his novel.

I also think the idea one race decides to completely wipe out another is horrible. No matter what people are people. Everyone is the same except they may have different beliefs and opinions, besides that though they all perform pretty much the same daily functions. To be able to kill so many and not feel bad but actually enjoy what they were doing is beyond me. The German soldiers had no problem inflicting harm onto others. They found their job humorous at times, and others just watched as they did it. Why would others just let them get away with such a cruel act? That question was asked a lot and everyone had different reasons. One mainly being fear of it happening to them. However, if you let one race wipe out another I don’t see why people wouldn’t think they could be next.

People may really believe that people aren’t that unjust and cruel. One point was never to trust another fully. I find this true in many cases. When hearing about the gas chambers noone thought the German’s would really go that far. It happens in everyday life. We hear one thing and don’t think it could really be that bad. A story I heard that isn’t exactly about the Holocaust but is about war really shocked me. We were talking about the war in Iraq and one thing I found out was that the government doesn’t pay for the soldiers to have bullet proof vests. If they want one they have to pay for their own. Why is our government able to spend money to try and rebuild Iraq, a nation that is our enemy but they can’t make sure their own soldiers are fully equipped and safe. That is pathetic in my opinion. Another story that disturbs me is about a friend of my aunt’s son. Her son signed up for two years and during that time an explosion that went off messed up his teeth. When his time came to go home, they would not let him. They made him stay another two months if he wanted them to pay for the cost of fixing up his teeth. How unfair is that? Were suppose to trust our government system but we really have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

I Was Just Thinking

I have had a lot of free time to think over the course of this very short spring break. The have been a lot of issues concerning the rights of humans. Well one of those issues is genetic engineering. Well genetic engineering is a very expansive category. A couple of the subjects are genetically engineered food and, maybe the most controversial, cloning. Now I have done very little research on both of these issues and can kind of see the views and concerns of the main two sides of these issues.

Genetically engineered food can be useful to increase the amounts of vitamins and minerals in different types of food. In addition if one also combines cloning with genetic engineering it could be very easy to end world hunger by increasing the food supply. But....... would this be playing God? Maybe there is a reason that there is an abundant need for food and a short supply. I am not saying that this is deserving of anyone, but rather let us examine one of the reasons there are forest fires and what the effects are for them. Well in a forest there becomes a build up of organic waste like leaves, dead organisms, and so on the forest bottom. Well the process of decomposition can take quite a long time. Also in the process there becomes a build up of gasses. Well when a forest fire starts "naturally" the gross build up is eliminated along with, sadly, some of the organisms that are perhaps to slow to get out of the way (fact of life: the weaker of a species generally does not survive). These natural forest fires are nature's way of replenishing itself and starting over. It is kind of like pressing the reset button on your computer when it starts to bog down or is frozen. Once the extra organic waste is no more, this allows for the forest floor to sprout seedlings and new micro ecosystems have room to develop. And remember how some of the different species were also eliminated? Well now there is a lower demand of food (also a lower supply of food in a way), and new food for the new population density. Getting back to genetically engineered food and the world's food supply, well..... everyday people die of natural and not so natural deaths. There are many factors that go into balancing out the human population. One such factor is food supply verses demand. In nature there are examples of where there is a plentiful amount of food and therefore the population in that area tends to boom (one must also take into account the predator to prey factor). There will continue to be a large increase of the population until there is a higher demand for food and a lower supply. Then a fraction of the population will disappear and perhaps the process will start over again. The same goes for the human population, mess with the amount of food available and risk throwing of the carefully balanced population.

Now I know there are many dieing each day in some countries due to food shortage while in other countries there are those who each day waste a large percentage of food. We need to create a different method of distribution to fix this problem. Just a thought…..

Now cloning and genetically engineered humans; things that fill the pages of science fiction novels. This is a subject of both how far can humans go before going too far and morals. I will leave this issue open for discussion. I want to know how the general public of the class would approach this issue. Keep in mind that cloning and genetic engineering of humans can be very closely related to the cloning and genetic engineering of food.

Mighty Maus

In Maus II, Art continues interviewing his father, Vladek, about his experiences during the Holocaust. As in the first Maus, they constantly bicker, but Vladek finishes his story just before he passes away. Most of the story takes place in the concentration camp Auschwitz. A common battle in the story is Vladek's determination to be with his wife Anja again. In our discussion yesterday, Chad mentioned some characteristics of a “great idea.” As much as I hate to admit it, by this definition (the idea impacts a large group of people), the holocaust was, indeed, a great idea. I do think that a lot of the reason this was able to take place was because of how gradual the changes were. I know that this is not the entire reason, but I don’t think you can deny that gradual changes rather than extreme changes are more likely to be overlooked by the people being impacted. I also think it is understandable how it was easy for the Germans to jump on the bandwagon the want to kill the Jews because there was a lot of bitterness towards them from World War I. WWI devastated the country of Germany and many people were looking for a scapegoat. It was not just something random like America all of a sudden wanting to kill everyone from Paraguay. I’m sure Hitler wasn’t just sitting around his room thinking, “Hmmm, I really feel like committing mass genocide today… but which race should I pick…. How bout the Jews…” I don’t really see that happening. The events that took place were no doubt wicked, but I think it is important to try to get inside the Nazis heads to try to understand what was going on.
I have to say that this reading has been by far my favorite assignment this semester. I love the way it was written as much as I love the information it contains. My favorite and simultaneously least favorite part of Maus II was the scene on with Art and François on the porch with the bug spray (page 74). The parallelism was intense. I liked how Art used this to give the reader a glimpse of what was happening in the minds of the Nazis and the mentality they had toward the Jews. They simply saw them as vermin to be eliminated. The part I don’t like is that that mentality disgusts me. I almost don’t want to believe that any person could possibly think that about another person. I have to wonder what Art did when he was writing Maus and looked back on that conversation. Did he realize the parallelism right away? Or was it afterwards while recalling what to include in the book?
It is a bit unnerving to know that things not unlike the Holocaust of WWII are still occurring today. I think the class got a taste of this from watching Hotel Rwanda. Genocide is still happening in Africa, especially in Darfur. I think there are some videos on youtube about it if you are interested in learning more.
And speaking of youtube, here are the links to the song and

The Illusion of Race and the Person Behind the Mask

Throughout human history people have been divided across arbitrary lines and persecuted on the basis of these divisions. Race is one of these arbitrary divides. According to the PBS website, race itself is a man-made concept; it is not real or scientific “Unlike many animals, modern humans have not been around long enough, nor have populations been isolated enough, to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface differences, we are among the most similar of all species.” (http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm) Another interesting quote from the site is “Of the small amount of human genetic variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans, or Cherokees. Two Koreans are likely to be as genetically different as a Kurd and an Italian.” In both Hotel Rwanda and Maus it is the artificial boundary of race that gave people a sense of entitlement and drove them to dehumanize and destroy each other.

In Hotel Rwanda the Belgians arbitrarily divided the people of Rwanda into Tutsis and Hutus. The Belgians favored the Tutsis because they “looked more like Europeans.” Genetically these boundaries do not exist. Even in the movie, as a Hutu and a Tutsi are compared side by side, it was impossible to tell them apart. It was simply the race listed on their identification card that made them be treated like a different species, like “cockroaches.” These two arbitrary groups went back and forth in their power struggle, dehumanizing the other group despite their lack of differences.

During the Holocaust it is these artificial boundaries of race that divide the Jews from the Germans and the Poles. Vladek himself could pass himself off as many different races because of his appearance and his knowledge of different languages. Those killed in concentration camps did not even need to identify with the group they were being killed for being a member of. All that mattered was the label on their identification papers and the symbol on their chest. In Maus a man claims that he should not be in the concentration camps because he is German, not Jewish. It is not actually important what his race truly his, the papers say that he is a Jew and that, according to the Germans, makes him inferior. In reality, as the PBS articles point out, humans are not genetically differentiated to be different races, let alone different species which are superior or inferior to one another. In Maus the different races are illustrated as being different types of animals. It is important to note that during many scenes that take place in the present, the animals are represented only as people wearing masks. Underneath they are all the same, they are all people. During World War Two Germany (and Rwanda when the action of the movie took place) the superficial differences in appearance between people was made into such an integral part of people that they were killed because of it. In periods like these people are not at all able to see the people behind the masks.

Hotel Rwanda and link to conflict in Somalia, 1993

I believe everyone that has posted on Hotel Rwanda has given ample background information and summary. Therefore, I will not rehash what has already been posted. What I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention is a possible reason for the lack of intervention on behalf of the US. Now, of course stopping a genocide such as the one in Rwanda is a huge undertaking and cannot be resolved in a few steps, and I do believe that our country could have done something to at least help. Yet after doing some outside research I believe I have found one good explanation for our country’s hesitancy to get involved, and it may not be something most have though about.

First off, I have seen Hotel Rwanda many times, and every time I watch it I take something different away from it. Of course one of the biggest issues I began to think about was the civil warfare between people in their own neighborhoods. When walking back to class, some of the images of the urban warfare in the movie sparked thoughts about the conflict in Somalia in 1993 and some of the many parallels between the two situations. Now granted, there was not a mass genocide in Somalia, but there are many similarities in the type of warfare and strife that went on among the citizens. I’m sure many people have heard of the movie Black Hawk Down, but here is some general information about that incident anyway:

When many people think of the Somalia conflict in 1993, they think of the Battle of Mogadishu, where a group of Task Force Rangers were sent into the city to capture certain leaders of the Aidid militia. Mohammed Aidid was a powerful warlord that ran the city at that time and did so through terror. Previous to the time when Aidid became a powerful warlord, there were four main groups fighting for control: the United Somali Congress, the Somali Salvation Democratic Front, the Somali Patriotic Movement, and the Somali Democratic Movement. These groups went back and forth for control of the country, resulting in hard times for the people living there. Notice the similarities to Rwanda, where the Hutus and the Tutsies consistently battled back and forth for power. When the warlord Aidid came about, he had such power and such a loyal following by the Somali militia fighters that the US felt it was the time to interject. During the Battle of Mogadishu, two Black Hawk Helicopters were shot down and the crews were stranded where they fell. Urban fighting continued all night and the stranded crews were left to fend for themselves against the riotous Somalis. When all was said and done and the US troops had made it out, 18 Americans had died and an estimated 1000 were wounded.

My point (Well, Wikipedia’s): “The Battle of Mogadishu led to a profound shift in American foreign policy, as the Clinton administration became increasingly reluctant to use military intervention in Third World Conflicts” (Wikipedia)

My point: This battle happened one year before the conflict in Rwanda that we saw in the video. I think the battle had a direct influence on the response (or lack of) on the US’s part. I think events like this are absolutely devastating, and I do believe that there is some way that we can help (or could have). Yet after doing this outside research, it gave me a better understanding of some of the reasons why we didn’t get involved in Rwanda and don’t always jump right in as the world police. These issues are so complicated and deal with more than right vs. wrong (for example, economy, political repercussions around the world, foreign relations, etc), and I think that people need to think about these different aspects.

Here is that link to the Wikipedia article I got a lot of my Somalia information from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu

Maus and South Africa

The graphic novel Maus is an artist’s interpretation of his father remembering his experience with the Nazis and Auschwitz in World War II. In addition to the war stories Spiegelman, focuses some of the story on how his father met his mother and their relationship before, during, and after the war. To represent the different characters in the story he chose animals. The Jewish people were represented by mice and the Nazis as cats. He did this to show the relationship between the two groups. The Nazis hunted the Jewish people, like cats hunt mice. He used his ability to draw comics as a new means for telling the story of the Holocaust and other Nazi related activities.

After reading about how the Nazis treated the Jewish people as less than human, the South African Apartheid government came to my mind. South Africa was a colony of the Netherlands. The country attracted the Europeans because of its locations. It is located on the southern tip of Africa, so when sailing past the Cape of Good Hope, having control of the land allowed boats to stop. Control of the colony eventually came under control of the British Empire. The British gave the colony internal self-government. The apartheid government was created by the Nationalist Party in 1948. Once in power the party passed laws that promote very strict segregation. Homelands were created, and every black was assigned a homeland. The homelands were separate countries from South Africa and the blacks were given citizenship to their homeland, creating an all white South Africa. Blacks could live in zones of South Africa as guest workers. Unemployment among blacks was high because they could not own property to have a business or farm and they had no educational opportunities. In addition, restrictions were placed on blacks on where they could and could not travel. They had to carry identification cards that said what homeland they belonged to. The police were used to keep resistance down. The Nationalist Party outlawed their political opposition, the African National Congress (ANC). Its leader was Nelson Mandela. The ANC would use violence to oppose the apartheid government. Eventually, the Nationalist Party realized that if they did not change their ways, there would be a massacre. To avoid their deaths, they released Mandela from prison after 20 years. Mandela began negotiations for a transition. The transition was complete in 1994, when he was elected as the first president of South Africa.

This reminded me of how the Nazis treated the Jewish people. The Nazis forced them to move from their home, like how the blacks were forced to move to the homelands. The Jewish people also had to carry papers to show that they were working, like the blacks having to show their identification cards. Both the Nazis and the apartheid government decided that other races were inferior to their own race and they must be taken care of. The apartheid government did not commit mass genocide like the Nazis, but they did create an all white country. They took away the country from the majority population, who had been living there long before the imperialists came. One positive difference between the Nazis and the apartheid government was that the Nationalists did not want a bloody massacre, so they negotiated a peaceful transition. One thing that surprised me about South Africa was that there was still segregation in the early 90’s. Many people forget that not all countries have the political equality that we have here.

I think that Maus was a unique way to tell a story and I think that it is more effective than some people give it credit for. I have read other book on the Holocaust, like Night by Elie Wiesel, and he went into some graphic detail. What I liked about Maus was that there were pictures that went with the story. These pictures gave the reader more of an impression of a situation, without them the reader having to imagine the situation in their head. I also liked how Art wrote about how the Nazi experience affected his father in the rest of his life. I think that the affects, after the Nazis, on others lives are also important and can sometimes be over looked.