March 2008 - Secular Humanity

Secular Humanity

follow this blog

29 followers

109 daily readers

rank of 575

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Secular Humanity - March 2008

What's with this damn blasphemy site?

March 31st 2008 02:59

first heard about this site on the radio and thought it might just be a joke, but then I looked and they take themselves very seriously. Apparently they are concerned with the amount of so-called "blasphemy" in the movies, and want to bring about censorship by publishing the contact info for studios and producers and encouraging blasphemy haters to contact them to express outrage. The irony is they don't see the difference between them and those in the Muslim community who are outraged by Dutch cartoons. They will surely argue that they don't want to kill the producers (yet) as some radical Muslims do, but that is only semantical.

The site hollywoodandgod.com opens with the definition of blasphemy - A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. They then go on to document their version of blasphemy found in recent Hollywood film releases. It is interesting how they document the blasphemy. For example, the film Shutter is listed as having "J-1; JC-1; C-2; OG/OMG-3; GD-1; G-2." I'm sure you can figure out what they are talking about without me going into any details, for Christ's sake! They then give all the contact info so like-minded zealots can raise "H." For the blasphemy list of Drillbit Taylor they just say "too many to count."

While my article is a tad tongue-in-cheek, my concern is serious. The call for censorship according to religious ideology is nothing to take lightly. It represents a battle that has been going on for centuries that society should have moved beyond by now. The use of superstition and dogma to dictate social mores to everyone else is patently wrong. Once you cross that line, it's hard to stop it. That's what I mean when I say the differences between one fundamentalist religion and another aren't that hard to cross either. It's all a matter of degree once we go there. The near holy war situation we have in Iraq now between different Islamic sects with our Christian soldiers thrown in the middle is an extension of what happens when religion interjects itself into politics. If you hold any illusions that religion isn't a big part of our presence in Iraq, think again.

If anyone has concerns about a movie, first and foremost they need to be reminded that there is no law requiring them to attend. And if they are so insecure in their faith that they need to make sure those who choose to attend don't hear any "blasphemy," they need to look themselves in the mirror and ask why they feel the need to force their religious views on everyone else. That applies equally to Muslims protesting a Danish film and Christians protesting Drillbit Taylor.

Vote

Comments (2)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Liberal morality vs. Conservative morality

March 30th 2008 23:39

Some see the world in absolutes - black and white, good vs. evil, absolutely sure of their moral superiority. Yet those same people are often led by some of the most immoral among us. The so-called "Moral Majority" proved to be neither moral nor in the majority. What groups like that did show, however, is how much power, money, and influence can be found when manipulating the masses using their views of morality to appeal to base level emotions. This article looks at the differences within the context of contemporary America.

Liberals have been accused of lacking in moral composure, steering away from moral absolutes. That's a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be "moral" to the liberal mind. Any sane person knows there have to be moral absolutes. No liberal thinks murder is a good idea, nor thievery or or assault, rape or abuse. But liberals also realize that absolutes don't always apply. It's in the less obvious moral areas that stark differences appear. The reasons behind the morality the individual adheres to also lends understanding.

Most (not all) conservatives claim to derive their morality primarily from their religious background. Of course there are exceptions. But the vast majority of conservatives will tell you the basis of morality and law is God. This doesn't just apply to Christian conservatives, but those whose faith drives their politics. Islamic fundamentalists, Hindu, Jew, Christian - all derive their base morals from their religious background. Of course, so do many liberals. The difference comes in that they don't ascribe the literal tenants of their faith to all of their politics.

Beyond that is the basic premise they hold for humanity. Conservative morality holds that humanity is basically evil and needs reigned in. They see the need for police and prisons, not drug treatment. The rift has been described as authority/purity vs. care/fairness. Most conservatives oppose homosexual rights because they believe the act itself to be a sin. Liberals don't care about personal choices like that, and want all persons treated the same. Alot of the conservatives who oppose the HPV vaccine think giving it to girls will encourage sex, while liberals want to see less cervical cancer. Conservatives think sex education should be abstinence (don't do evil) while liberals want a more realistic approach.

Fiscally conservatives think that wealth is best in the hands of a few at the top, imagining that enough will "trickle down" to satiate the masses. Liberals see the benefit of having some wealth look after the less fortunate. Conservatives will tell you private health care that benefits the wealthy (who can afford all it can offer) is the best way to go. Liberals think (like the rest of the civilized world) that health care should be a basic right of an advanced society.

On the international scene, conservatives will always take the "might is right" stance, favoring nationalism and bravado over a more realistic world view. Today's conservatives will much rather bomb Iran than negotiate with Iran, no matter what the result of either course might be. It doesn't matter whether or not negotiation will work. It is seen as weak and therefore not an option. Liberals know the folly of thinking we can run roughshod over the interests of the rest of the world forever and there not be consequences.

Environmentally, conservatives think the best choice is to dominate the environment. The earth and all it holds is to be used for their benefit, not as something we are merely a part of. Most liberals realize we have the ability to handle our environment to either our benefit or detriment. That's what's behind the rift surrounding global warming. No legitimate science denies that we are changing our environment through pollution. Still, many conservatives don't consider it a possibility - regardless of the evidence.

Ultimately, today's conservative movement is doomed. The question is how much damage will it be allowed to do before enough Americans realize they are voting against their own self-interests when they respond to the politics of fear and division. Us liberals don't think we have all the answers. The difference between us and the conservatives is that we are willing to look for answers, not to fall back on the same old dogma.

Vote

Comments (2)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Hillary Clinton has gone too far

March 30th 2008 04:29

It's too bad, really. I would have loved to see America with a woman president. Hopefully, it will still happen while I am alive to see it. Such a presidency could represent a very important shift in American politics and society. But alas, the time is not now, and Hillary Clinton is not the woman. Funny thing is, I think that if she did become president she would ultimately have been a better one than her husband proved to be.

Hillary Clinton at one point seemed almost an inevitability, then along came the best presidential candidate in decades. Barack Obama is uniquely positioned to take the helm at a time when someone like him is very needed. Someone who hasn't taken a dime from corporations and doesn't owe them anything. Who can inspire people to seek change after years of unnecessary despair brought out by a dismal presidency in the person of George W. Bush.

The truth of the math is that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win enough delegates in the remaining primaries to win the nomination outright. The ultimate decision will come down to the super-delegates. But more than that, for Hillary Clinton to get the nomination at this point also requires the political destruction of Barack Obama. The Clinton campaign must damage him to the point of non-electability. That doesn't look very likely. But in the mean time the only one being helped is John McCain. He is able to solidify the neo-cons and to work on fooling enough independents that he can have a chance of winning. Of course it isn't likely he will win, but the danger is there, especially since it can be expected that there will be vote manipulation coming from the right.

By the way, I like the idea of super delegates. They serve as a firewall against idiocy, like Rush Limbaugh telling his brain-dead ditto heads to register Democratic so they can vote for Hillary. The super delegates are a counterweight to the ill-informed. And they will be voting in the majority for Obama. They aren't there to go against such a wave, they know better than to do that.

But back to the Clinton campaign. The under-handed tricks they have been pulling are far more suited to the expected-to-be despicable Republican machine. We as progressives need to demand better from the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be more interested in getting elected to president at any cost than with doing what is best for the country. It is a shame, indeed. She would do well to recognize that Barack Obama is the man for the time, and get behind him. Scorched earth politics will do nothing but help McCain, which is pretty much the same as electing Bush again. There are real concerns as to whether the country as we know it could stand under such continued assault. So it is imperative that sane America get behind Barack Obama as soon as possible.

Obama represents a candidacy not tainted by corporate money or undue influence. That is such a foreign concept in Washington right now that those who hold the reigns of power are very, very afraid of an Obama presidency. It has the potential to provide a paradigm shift. We in America are indeed at a crucial turning point. The economic ravages of decades of Reaganomics are deepening. The failed policies of corporate empire have made enemies of former friends and threaten the stability of the entire world. Hillary Clinton needs to realize the importance that an Obama win will represent. The time is now.

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Portland, Oregon...American example city

March 24th 2008 04:59

Portland Oregon. When you hear the name, what comes to mind? Rain? Tress? The highest concentration of microbreweries in America? If you're a conservative, it might be names meant to demean like Rush Limbaugh's "Lib Land" or Bush the First calling it "Little Beirut." It might represent all that you fear and detest - homosexuals treated as equals, a city more focused on sustainable and green living, a working and expanding mass transit system, a focus on public areas, and such.

Truth be told, we are not just some "liberals only" club. In fact, the suburbs are split (some are even staunchly conservative) and the remote country areas aren't much different from Idaho or Kentucky politically. The state had a Republican majority in the legislature for several years up to 2006, when it flipped. And after a successful two years the margin for progressive democrats should grow. The conservative movement is becoming more discredited here by the day, with the state Republican party here even going bankrupt. The nation would do well to follow our lead. Why, you ask? Let's look at some impressive accolades

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Barack Obama responds

March 19th 2008 04:11

The next president of these United States of America responded today to those who have made a huge deal out of the remarks of his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Even though Barack Obama distanced himself from the comments already, the controversy has raged on, fueled by the talking heads of the right who would love to see Obama damaged. They know their meager chances in the are much better if they are facing Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama. Rightly so. Of course Hillary Clinton would be a formidable candidate, but they have nothing in their hate, fear, and smear arsenals that will stick to Barack Obama. There is fear in their voices and words. They know he represents a wave that is going to sweep the neo-conservative movement to the bottom of the slime pit it created. They know he will build a coalition, but that it won't include them.

Soon -to -be President Obama showed that courage and really speaking to issues instead of giving the response less likely to offend focus groups and corporate donors is something America is hungry for. Thinking Americans are hungry for a candidate that goes beyond the sound bite or the trite attack or the repeats of failed policies and fear tactics. And Barack Obama delivered

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

"Taxi to the Dark Side" movie review

March 14th 2008 00:48

Dick Cheney told Tim Russert in a now infamous interview that America would have to work "the dark side, if you will" shortly after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, he was alluding to a deliberate fog constructed around intelligence and information gathering and the holding of detainees that grew into the abuses at Bagram and Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay. The film doesn't' pull any punches, and isn't the easiest to watch. It's no popcorn flick.

It comes from filmmaker Alex Gibney, who was also behind the outstanding Enron expose, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. This time around Gibney and company take on the treatment and torture and killing of detainees being held by American military and intelligence groups. It gives an account of soldiers operating with tacit approval while doing heinous things in the fog circling around them. It is worthy to note that although some on the right will dismiss the film (many probably won't even see it) as a partisan attack piece, that the majority of those who speak to the outrages are military or officials that were disgusted. the film does an excellent job pointing out that the policies were part of an overall strategy sanctioned from the very top, even if with a "wink and a nod

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Eloit Spitzer, the FBI, and prostitution

March 11th 2008 02:47

I'm sure most people have heard the news by now. Eliot Spitzer, the governor of New York, was caught in a sting busting an expensive call girl ring. Not the type of behavior a married man should be doing, for sure. He should be ashamed of himself and what he has done to his family. But one has to ask, just what are the priorities at the FBI?

If you listen to the White House there are terrorists lurking around every corner waiting to pounce on poor Americans not protected by the Bush Administration and their civil liberty violations. We are in a "war" for our very survival, if you believe the hype. So why is the FBI wasting valuable time and resources investigating call girls

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Why we need Obama

March 9th 2008 19:16

There is only one candidate that can deliver anything close to the kind of change we need. There are endemic problems that are going to take a new approach to leadership that goes beyond the politics of money and influence. And the candidate that can begin to bring about that kind of change is Barack Obama. Don't believe me? Look at what the right wing is doing. They are virtually forgetting Hillary Clinton and starting to go after Obama with their dirty tricks and falsehoods. And unfortunately, so is the Clinton campaign. The race seems to be nearing Obama vs. everybody else. Why?

The powers that be are very afraid of a candidate who doesn't owe them anything and who can run without kissing up to them. There hasn't been a presidential candidate with a chance of winning like that since Jimmy Carter. They have no idea how to approach the thought of a president who they don't have a handle on, to one degree or another. That includes the far right. They weren't that happy with John McCain for awhile. But as he has morphed into McBushCain, they have rallied behind him. The evangelical base is even coming around now that McBushCain has kissed up to Bush and the likes of John Hagee. He has backed away from Hagee's comments slightly, but still knows he needs the end-timer's and dominionists to be with him

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Comments (2)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Clinton, McCain, and voting machines.

March 9th 2008 18:45

Lobbyists and influence and money, oh my! You know, I think a woman as president could be a watershed event for America. If she's a good progressive candidate, that is. While I would most assuredly vote for Hillary Clinton over McBushCain, I am distressed by her strong ties to lobbyists and the corporate powers that be. A Hillary Clinton presidency could be expected to be miles ahead of either a McCain presidency or the last eight years of Bush, but she is not a progressive. And I would expect her to be a better president than her husband was. Still, we couldn't expect much to be done to counter the corporate stranglehold currently on the executive branch.

One of the most distressing things involves the link between Clinton, McBushCain, and voting machines. This is an eye-opener, regardless of how you come down on voting manipulation. I for one think that for a Democrat to win they would have to do better than a majority to counter the tricks and manipulations employed in places like Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico. If you follow the links, voter manipulation is directly related to the U.S. Attorney shenanignas that brought down former A.G. Gonzales. "50 percent plus one" just isn't enough. That aside, is Hillary hedging her bets by falling in with the manipulations

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Southwest Airlines gets big fine

March 8th 2008 03:13

The airline industry in America was fairly regulated until 1978, when sweeping reforms were passed to streamline airline routes and service and to allow for more flexibility. By itself, it wasn't a bad move. With some tweaking the original goals could have been met without all of the chaos that has since plagued the airlines. Spikes in fuel prices and the inability for some carriers to adapt led to names that had become synonymous with air travel falling away. They were joined by dozens of upstarts and also-rans. Some of the new starters made it, and are still around today. One of the best known of the up and comers has been Southwest Airlines.

Touted as the low price airline that provided good service, Southwest grew into a big player. Kind of the "Wal-Mart of the air," Southwest served markets under-served and in doing so did quite well. Of course, the reality isn't quite as rosy. Just like Wal-Mart, Southwest has a dirty underbelly. Low pay and for employees and "peanut" flights. And the tendency to sometimes cut corners. I worked in the airline business back in the 90's and remember Southwest having a bit of a cheater's reputation. Tricks like pulling a gate a few inches away from a plane and then pushing the aircraft a few inches back to get an "on time departure." Still, they did emerge as the model for low price carriers

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Barack Obama and race

March 2nd 2008 19:35

Barack Obama is drawing the vast majority of the black vote in America. Some seem to have a problem with that. I don't. Those who have played the "race card" seem to assert that African Americans are voting for Obama simply for that reason. They fail to take into account the fact that he is just a great candidate. He is drawing support from all corners, and the more people hear about him the more support he draws. The more people find out about John McCain, the more they become wary of the "Straight talk express." Obama is a candidate that reaches across all boundaries.

But the question remains, is it OK to vote for him just because he is black? Of course voters should educate themselves and vote for the candidate who most appeals to them regardless of race or gender. But this is America, after all, and we have some work to do in regard to race and gender. Some ask if America is ready for a black president. I think America is ready for a good president that happens to be African American. Sadly, I don't think many in America are ready for a woman president, no matter how qualified

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Barack Obama, another reason to vote for him

March 2nd 2008 19:09

More than a few kids know what it's like to grow up with just a mom or just a dad, or to live with grandparents. Many kids know what it's like to grow up in a country other than America. Still more know the injustices that come with race. Barack Obama knows these challenges, and more. And it has helped to shape him into the next American president. Far different from the privilege and wealth provided to a Bush or a Romney or the like. It's not my purpose to broad-brush by saying someone born of wealth and privilege is bad or someone who wasn't is automatically better. Far from it.

But it is important to note this year, as so much is riding on how our next president feels about the division and accumulation of wealth. There are some who see wealth and privilege as a family right. Be they named Bush or Hilton or something else, some relish the idea of an American aristocracy being catered to by the "service serfs" who tend to the world for them. Those who fall into that grouping care not for America as anything more than an ATM machine. Of course, not all of those with enormous wealth can be grouped this way. To do so would be a disservice to those who have wealth and choose to do good in the world with it. That's not the policy of those on the right. Take as much as you can as quickly as you can - that's the neo-conservative economic mindset in a nutshell

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Jeff Musall - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

May 2010

1 Posts

March 2010

7 Posts

November 2009

1 Posts