Supposedly a commentary on American (legal) drug culture, but it’s rather funny…
Supposedly a commentary on American (legal) drug culture, but it’s rather funny…
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. So, here goes…
I’m addicted to books. When I’m feeling good, I read. When I’m feeling bad, I go book shopping. My town doesn’t have many good bookstores (the really good ones are like an hour away), but one of them has a fair number of used books. Those are my crack cocaine–powerful but cheap and accessible.
I’ve had some really bad trips before. Sometimes I wake up the next morning and think “what the hell was I thinking? I’m never going to read that.” But mostly I keep going back because it feels so good. There’s a certain satisfaction in owning books of my own, sharing them with friends (don’t worry, we use bookmark-exchange programs for safety), and especially the ultimate rush–finishing a book one’s been meaning to snort for a long time.
I get a special kick from nonfiction. And today I got a little more money than I was expecting, and I bought four new books. Like any good addict, I justify my habit with excuses. I did get 4 books for $12.59 (including tax), all by authors I had heard of or on subjects I was interested in before I got the books. They are:
The Mating Mind, by Geoffrey Miller, subtitled “How sexual choice shapes the evolution of human nature.”
A Generous Orthodoxy, by Brian McLaren, some emergent-church theology, subtitled “Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN.” Yeah, so he’s not that concise, but I got to hear him speak last year and thought he’s rather more likable than the majority of ministers/ pastors/ preachers (though I count several of those as friends).
Through a Window, by Jane Goodall, subtitled “My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe.” I know she’s influential/ well-known, and now I’ll get to learn why.
And, Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong, author of the A History of God, which I much enjoyed.
So, I’m happy now, high as I am on my fix. I’m shaking a little, and don’t think I’ll be able to get much sleep until I’ve inhaled a little wordage, so I should go back to my alley and read. I promise I’ll stop. But not tonight.
There’s a neat software package that will convert text from one religious website to another. Here’s a sample of converting from Christianity to Falun Gong.
One of the “reviews” struck me as particularly funny:
“For all aspiring (or even candidating) UU ministers/seminarians who’ve complained about the tedious work of translating their non-UU textbooks into a workable theological language. Your prayers are answered. Now quit your whinging.”
Sorry, it’s only available for Macs.
Over at Friendly Atheist, Hemant posted this billboard from a Christian group:
Of course, it’s an “ex-gay ministry”‘s you-can-change-being-gay billboard that’s been Photoshopped to make a rather hilarious point. And the church wasn’t happy with the comparison. That sparked some discussion on Hemant’s blog. Here’s an example of one of the comments:
That’s just not right. What’s worse is, they try to perpetuate that idea that homosexuals can change.
Well, I agree that it’s not right. But I think the discussion of whether people who identify as homosexuals at one point of their lives do so out of pure genetic determinism or pure personal choice is tainted by social norms; the politically-correct views of the accepting left and the it’s-really-hard-to-find-a-hermeneutic-to-get-out-of-this-one views on the Christian right. So, I wrote a rather long comment, and I didn’t want it to just get buried, so I gave it a nice new home here on my friendly blog:
I think it’s important to consider the issue of choosing sexual orientation. It’s very politically incorrect to say these days that (any) people choose their sexual orientation, but let’s talk this through. Hear me out please (no pun intended). First, no one has found a single gene that causes homosexuality in a simple Mendelian way (although many, like Dean Hamer, have tried). Much research needs to be done, but the most you can say is that there is a genetic predisposition. Having a predisposition for something–let’s say liking cheetos–is not synonymous with being “born that way.” However, there can also be a tremendous influence on a developing fetus from its chemical environment during pregnancy, and this is one very likely way in which a predisposition for one sexual orientation develops.
That said, there are most certainly a number of people whose predominant sexual orientation from birth is homosexual, with no desire for the opposite gender. A much larger proportion of a population is predominantly heterosexual, with no desire for the same gender. There does exist a group in the middle though–many of whom choose to identify as bisexuals–whose orientation is more fluid. What exactly influences these people to identify as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual? You can bet that their personal developmental psychology plays a role, as well as social norms. Many of these ‘flexible’ people may choose to identify with a group that is not discriminated against (heterosexuals) due to outside pressure. I would bet this is where many of the “conversion” stories come from. A biologically informed opinion would include the factoid that many traits are determined by a complex interaction of genes, developmental environment (pre- and post-natal), social norms, and personal choices.
So, it’s important to recognize that sexuality, for a significant portion of the population, is much more fluid than many people would care to admit. So a Christian ministry can certainly hope to ‘convert’ some people (which is all the more reason to resist such “ministries” that cause people emotional harm). Quoting another comment:
I’m pretty sure he missed the real meaning, it’s not really that Asians don’t choose to be Asian, it’s that there’s nothing wrong with being Asian in the first place.
And that’s exactly what the response should be. It is much easier to respond “I was born this way,” but it’s simply not true for everyone. It’s harder to argue that “because the Bible says so doesn’t make it wrong,” but that seems to really be at the root of all this. Thoughts?
Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, which I generally enjoyed (though I have some rather strong reservations about many specific arguments), has finally arisen to defend witchcraft against its skeptics. Sort of.
In an article in the Huffington Post, Harris paints a hilarious picture.. First, imagine that you live in a country, around 500 years ago, where ~95% of the people believe in witchcraft.
Imagine being among the tiny percentage of people — the 5 percent, or 10 percent at most — who think that a belief in witchcraft is nothing more than a malignant fantasy…You argue further that a belief in magic offers false hope of benefits that are best sought elsewhere… If your name is Sam Harris, you may produce two fatuous volumes entitled The End of Magic and Letter to a Wiccan Nation. Daniel Dennett would then grapple helplessly with the origins of sorcery in his aptly named, Breaking the Spell. Richard Dawkins — whose bias against witches, warlocks, and even alchemists has long been known — will follow these books with an arrogant screed entitled, The Witch Delusion.
So, what would the reviews from the witches and sorcerers look like? Harris takes a few reviews of his and other prominent atheists’ books and replaces key words: “God” with “the Devil,” “religion” with “witchcraft,” etc. One of the results:
“The danger is that the aggression and hostility to [magic] in all its forms… deters engagement with the really interesting questions that have emerged recently in the science/[necromancy] debate. The durability and near universality of [witchcraft] is one of the most enduring conundrums of evolutionary thinking… Does [spell-casting] still have an important role in human wellbeing? … If [sorcery] declines, what gaps does it leave in the functioning of individuals and social groups?… I suspect the New [Skeptics] are in danger of a spectacular failure. With little understanding and even less sympathy of why people increasingly use [the evil eye] in political contexts, they’ve missed the proverbial elephant in the room. These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension… but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.” –Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian
(Via Friendly Atheist)
Here’s this week’s roundup of off-the wall searches that brought people to my blog:
Well, it is a good joke.
9) “is sam harris jewish”
8) ben stiller nose job
7) put God on trial
If that’s an imperative, it’s a little strong.
6) prophecies regarding croatia
Um.. scary.. I’ll have to look into this one.
5) kosovars idolize bush and america
4) trojan condom
Is someone shopping? Well you can buy condoms online. Enjoy.
3) trojan condom + pig
2) a cat and dog reproduce together
Now that’s just sick.
1) How to really be sure if you have aids
We can test for these things you know. Um… go to your doctor. Now.
My friend Jenna sent me a link to a great New York Times piece on a Trojan commercial that was rejected by Fox and CBS. In the commercial, anthropomorphized pigs fill a bar, talking on cell phones and hitting on women. One pig goes to the restroom, buys a condom, and promptly re-emerges as a handsome male, who then gets an inviting smile from a female bar patron.
“It’s so hypocritical for any network in this culture to go all puritanical on the subject of condom use when their programming is so salacious,” said Mark Crispin Miller, a media critic who teaches at New York University. “I mean, let’s get real here. Fox and CBS and all of them are in the business of nonstop soft porn, but God forbid we should use a condom in the pursuit of sexual pleasure.”
For the most part, condom manufacturers may be one of the best allies public health advocates have. The manufacturers goals of increasing usage falls right in line with the public health interest of decreasing sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
“We always find it funny that you can use sex to sell jewelry and cars, but you can’t use sex to sell condoms,” said Carol Carrozza, vice president of marketing for Ansell Healthcare, which makes LifeStyles condoms. “When you’re marketing condoms, something even remotely suggestive gets an overly analytical eye when it’s going before networks’ review boards.”
Sex sells, but you just can’t use it to sell safe sex. Sad.