Naturally, when I saw this post by Grady Locklear pop up on the Whitworth Forum, I was intrigued. I restrained from contributing for a while, mostly because I could already (from this previous post and the accompanying discussion) tell that a real dialogue would be impossible given the cast of characters already involved.

I can only show so much restraint. Here is the original comment, reproduced here for your convenience:

(Text after the Jump)

I have been quite intentionally silent (though opinionated, to be sure) about this whole dialogue. Daniel’s initial post indicated clearly that trying to explain the reasons for my “apostasy” would be fruitless, so instead I will comment briefly on something Kelly wrote that piqued my interest:

“Moral of the story: Apostasy isn’t the only way to avoid the ills of religious life, though maybe it’s the easiest. It’s harder to try to work within a body which consists of imperfect, even embarrassing people—with the world looking on, pointing out our shortcomings, seeing our failures as the failures of our God. It’s harder to protest the finger-pointing and prejudices from within—not to quit the game, but to play it by different rules… Maybe that’s part of why some people jump ship. It’s easier to have a set of beliefs which makes no demands on you, so no one can call you a hypocrite.”

Now I cannot speak for anyone else, but does this argument not make some absurd points? First: that a primary reason for leaving religion is because atheism is easier. I am the first to affirm that yes, rejecting Christianity was liberating and I no longer have to give myself headaches trying to reconcile dogmatic certainty with reality. The flip side of this new, “easy” life is that suddenly ethics, morality, and ultimately all of life is yours to command; this is, frankly, terrifying. Make no mistake in assuming that my life is free of the moral and ethical quandaries of the self-proclaimed pious, or that apostasy has led to the kind of moral transgressiveness depicted by fear-mongering clerics. If anything, I feel infinitely more responsible for my own actions, because there is nobody there to take responsibility for me — nobody left to scapegoat. By contrast, the typical Christian life is much easier… and, if the “leap of faith” can be made, a theoretically more rewarding one in the end.

However, even presented with the promised treasures and bounty of the afterlife, I choose the easy, reasonable, real option, and I do so unapologetically. It is much easier to show, for example, that Christianity is indelibly a product of near-eastern mythology, and that comparisons between gods, “messiahs,” and miracles in the religions of other primitive societies are not difficult to identify. Those familiar with Ockham’s razor will find it difficult to refute his argument that when presented with two competing explanations, one must accept the one with the least contradictions or problems — essentially, that which is simplest.*

I realize now that I am treading in territory that the religious dare not go, a place where doubt and dismay cannot be avoided. I daresay that one could not possibly approach science with honest, unadulterated inquiry and conclude on that basis that faith is the most reasonable option. And here we must turn to the greatest of intangible arguments: faith.

Faith in the completely absurd and irrational is perhaps the hardest thing one may seek — of this I am well aware, as many Christians have somehow turned this lack of rationality into a merit of faith (a la Tertullian) — but is this really the kind of argument you want to use Kelly? Asking people to deny their natural inclinations and reason on the basis of faith is not exactly an ideal marketing pitch. Telling them that doing so means having “demands” set upon you (as you imply above) seems even more counterproductive.

Ultimately, there are abundant counterpoints and defenses on both sides of the argument. What it ought to come down to, in my opinion, is whether or not you ascribe to what The Bible (or, more abstractly, any religious text) explicitly states. Your comment — “It’s harder to protest the finger-pointing and prejudices from within—not to quit the game, but to play it by different rules…” illuminates the self-evident problem with modern Christianity (the kind commonly practiced by Whitworth students) in particular. This finger-waving “don’t lump me with them” kind of theological retreat only produces an incredibly weak argument, since reinterpretation of explicit verses compromises the claim of all Christians: that The Bible is, literally or “*”, the Holy Word of God. And, of course, this Bible is the basis of everything (or so Christians would have you believe).

I use the asterisk to denote another problem of modern Christian doctrines. I feel confident enough in the intelligence of my Whitworth peers to argue that few students truly think that the cosmos — including tiny little earth and tinier homo sapiens — was created in six days. I doubt you would find this taught in any theology classroom (though perhaps with a few exceptions) at Whitworth, and it is unlikely (except for perhaps at some Baptist or other more conservative/absurd denominations) that I could find a pulpit in this region where such a doctrine would actually be taught. Even so, this point is significant when it comes to the reading of biblical literature of all kinds. If Christians can freely compromise the Genesis 1 creation account of “Moses” — which is only one of two discrepant accounts of human creation in the Old Testament — as figurative, then why believe the later, equally outlandish claims of the New Testament? If the basis for this compromise is that science has shown that a six-day creation is an absolute absurdity, then why reject the accompanying implications of that scientific research? This demonstrates selectivity at its finest — accepting only science that may fit within Christianity’s admittedly narrow worldview, and simultaneously revising a “divinely-inspired” work to try and maintain its relevance.

So yes, Kelly, I accept your assertion that part of the reason (and in some ways, the whole reason) someone might reject the concept of “faith” in religion is because atheism is easier. However, this statement lacks nuance and I have tried to articulate those nuances here as clearly as possible.

______________________

*In hindsight I am compelled to note that a more accurate presentation of Ockham’s razor is offered by Christopher Hitchens in his book god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, pg. 148

One thing to be said about this venture is that it has allowed me to write outside of the structured form I typically adhere to for school. Within my major I have few opportunities for open-ended creativity, and this blog is full of commentary, criticism, anecdotes and even some poetry. That being said, I will likely post here on occasion in the future, but it will be sporadic. If the mood strikes me to write I might do so randomly, but consistency has never been my thing.

Anyway, I thought I should throw something up here because it has been a while. Hopefully you have enjoyed reading my blog thus far and will check back here occasionally for new content. No guarantees, though!

And It Begins like…

And it begins where we left a brother chased after by death until he catches his breath
We embarked upon a long march too weary to rest
Now tell me who would ever have guessed that at the top of the west
A party rocker and a poet might collectively have written another chapter in this fight against this self-described Right, but not righteous
Its highly unlikely we’ll take it lightly when 1000 of my compatriots are evacuating nightly,
From one ave to another, University to Beacon,
The body was never meant neither to last to be beaten,
But Buddhas in the streets teachin’ a lesson to kids in the cold,
And if i tell all of mine there’s other stories to be told, had a lot of good brothas either my age or younger,
Who copped the 1st album when it dropped now gone under,
And they say progress but the fact is, Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy lookin like the street we named after him Permanently under construction, the people hustlin’
Despite the pain and sufferin’ The energy we’ve mustered in
South Side Seattle there’s a whole lot happenin’,
Where so called soul mates are stabbin’ each other’s scapula’s,
Melancholy hopeful I capture the present moment we concimated the marriage of beats, rhymes, and atonement,
In each mind resides a potential so potent they make us think that we ain’t got it,
If we did then we control shit
Organize and prioritizin whats important
I’m just tryin’ to raise the scene while the homies have abortions
No distortion to the static,
I hold the mic and pass it to the future schools in session but there won’t be any classes,
Happy to see family back, from ten months in Iraq,
For fallen comrades rockin’ a black wrist band,
It’s just a glimpse of what you missed when you gone,
We held you down and kept chanting now;

Bring ‘em back home,
for my brotha’s and my sista’s who been gone too long we say;
Bring ‘Em Back home, and I don’t want to have to keep singin’ this song,
We say; Bring ‘em back home, for my brotha’s and my sista’s who been gone too long we say;
Bring ‘em back home, and I dont want to have to keep singin’ this song.

And somewhere a soldier kissed his family goodbye,
And he was walking like a warrior the water in his eyes,
He left in late September said he’ll be back in july,
Now the child is asking mommy “Why did Daddy have to die?”
She says He fought for freedom, but she knows it’s just a lie,
Cause her father was a veteran with benefits denied,
Now the fire in her eyes burnt brighter with the passin’ of the minutes into hours and the hours into days and,
Days turned to Night, Nights turned to facce the other way, One sister strong holding down the whole family,
It’s just one in over three-thousand casualties and back home we battle with the apathy,
We chantin’ now;

Bring ‘em back home, for my brotha’s and my sista’s who been gone too long we say;
Bring ‘em back home, and I don’t wanna have to keep on singin’ this song,
We say Bring ‘em back home, for my brotha’s and my sista’s who been gone too long we say;
Bring ‘em back home, and I don’t wanna have to keep on singin’ this song,

So next time you see recruiters in your school or your crib,
Tell them thank you for the offer but you’d rather you lived,
We got more than just our bodies to offer,
So fuck a coffin wrapped in red white and blue, withdraw passed due
We disgusted with the fact we pay taxes to build tanks
Still dropping one twomp and a half to fill tanks
Got a china-mans chance to fill banks like Phil Banks
For soldiers in the future givin’ thanks in advance

We say; Bring ‘em back home, for my brotha’s and my sista’s who been gone too long we say;
Bring ‘Em Back home, and I don’t want to have to keep singin’ this song,
We say; Bring ‘em back home, for my brotha’s and my sista’s who been gone too long we say;
Bring ‘em back home, and I dont want to have to keep singin’ this song.

— Blue Scholars

I am sitting in my Monday night (three hours on the philosophy of aesthetics!) class at the moment, and my instructor is droning on about medieval aesthetics. Yet all I can think about throughout his entire lecture is how Euro-centric the study of aesthetics is in the first place, and how much I want to jump out the window.

To be fair, it’s really not the professor’s fault — like many academic disciplines, philosophy has been historically dominated (at least until recent centuries) by European thought. Art history ought to be renamed the history of European/Western art. What is missing bothers me much more than what is present.

Particularly taking into account my education from other fields, such as sociology, political science/peace studies, and gender/feminist studies, the lack of representation by different ethnic groups or even by women in period art, is discomfiting. It simply reiterates the systemic white dominance that many other modern academic disciplines seek to shy away from.

It is my opinion that both “art” and “philosophy” (and even theology, which I will address momentarily) suffer from the same affliction of Euro-centrism. It is easy, for example, to completely ignore the significance of Arab scholasticism in the preservation of classical Greek philosophy. This is manifested in the study of Christian theology as well; Augustine and Aquinas did not develop distinctly Platonic and Aristotelian categories through original thought! Failure to accurately attribute the syncretism of ideas from many cultures that formed European/Western art, philosophy and theology is to lie by omission. This theme of misconstrued syncretism is well articulated in Henry Loewen’s book Lies My Teacher Told Me, which essentially constitutes a critique and revision of several significant events in American history; I highly recommend it.

Ultimately, as a student of the “truth”, I simply expect more from the course. It is insufficient to describe the course as a survey of the philosophy of aesthetics, when it could be better described as “Western Aesthetics”. I expected it to be focused more on discussion of the nature of beauty and art, and had hoped for stimulating discussion about the terms themselves and how/whether we ought to categorize beauty. THAT was what I had in mind. Sadly, I have been disappointed.

And this is where I pose the question: does this frustration come from my own pretension, or are my critiques legitimate? Is there even any room for being critical of the content of a college course? I fear the world in which I cannot honestly evaluate the material which I am studying. Such an “education” ultimately constitutes little more than regurgitation at best, and brainwashing at worst.

Anyway, this post was highly cathartic, and I suppose I will reengage into the class dialogue at this point. Two posts on the same day? Absurd! Let me know what you think. And read the post below as well.

The above piece was written collectively by the former presidents of Brazil, Columbia and Mexico. It articulates that the drug suppression policies of the last 30 years have failed, and that it is time to take a good look at what we CAN do to limit the trafficking of narcotics, rather than relying on failed tactics of the past.

One thing I particularly appreciated was the call to differentiate between different kinds of drugs, and that “the available empirical evidence shows that the hazards caused by cannabis are similar to the harm caused by alcohol or tobacco.”

It will take a lot of rethinking and adjustment for this country to swallow that statement, but I think the consensus is moving more in that direction. Decriminalization and taxation of Marijuana is both logical and beneficial. It is another opportunity for revenue, and it will limit violence and criminality associated with “soft” drug sales.

Clearly, harder drugs such as cocaine, heroine and especially methamphetamine (the last of which has risen in use by huge amounts in recent years, and is arguably the most devastating) ought to be regulated as stringently as possible. It is simply illogical, however, to lump marijuana in with the rest.

Reclassification would be a start. Legislators in Olympia recently introduced two bills to decriminalize small quantities of marijuana, something Oregon did four decades ago (along with Mississippi, Maine, California, and Alaska in more recent years). Such a move would save the state millions per year, as the bills would make marijuana possession under 40 grams a civil infraction, and slap offenders with a $100 fine, rather than the mandatory one-day jail time (and a possibility of 90 days behind bars!) under the current laws. Jail time for every small marijuana infraction is clearly unnecessary, and costs taxpayers. Passing the bills would increase revenue for the state and clear up the justice system for more serious drug and violent offenders.

Consider this: according to this article from the Seattle Times, marijuana arrests, convictions, and incarceration cost Washington state taxpayers $7.6 million in 2007. Is it really worth it to jail these minor offenders at such great a cost, even as our economy tumbles ever downward? What is truly in the best interest of taxpayers — taxpayers in need of healthcare, shelter, food… not to mention a decent education?

How do you get
from crazy-town
to the future?

Allow me to draw a map through
time and space, the primordial ooze of
Fate

My legend paints a symphony of rhythm
and chaos,
directed by the repetition of dreams

And upon these fraternal canvasses we
sketch god
in our own image

Mile-markers measure
the movement
of our minds

As we proceed through the rains of history
Weeping
teardrops upon withered leaves

Patiently eroding the blood
stains of our
Forebears

Hush,
Listen closely for the crash
of order into streams of consciousness

Release the caged imagery
of this voyage to progress

manifest destiny.
must be proud.

Were I some outsider, someone who had simply grown up in the debauchery and frivolousness of the contemporary pagan, perhaps my rage towards Christianity would be much more tempered. In such a situation any anger would be misguided and spectral at best, and the more likely position would be of apathy.

I am not that outsider. Christianity is my abusive lover — I clung to it so desperately, fearful of what I would find in the world beyond “God”. I submitted myself to the mindless repetition of chapter and verse, and daily feeling greater inadequacy, uselessness and self-loathing. Such is the world in which the divine observes his creation with disgust. The impossibility of the situation is overwhelming.

Yet through some kind of miraculous epiphany a seed of doubt became ingrained in my consciousness. It began to pervade the theology and the bible studies. It permeated church pews and silenced sermons. With the cacophony finally quieted, I felt as though I were observing the evidence of a crime. Did I really believe that? How did I find such a thing remotely plausible?

And I sighed, for I found it all to be shit. I had left Christianity far behind me; it simply took time for me to realize it. I now face the world without the convenience of the Eternal Guidebook, but the prospect of a life lived truly stands above anything else. Life beyond “god” is one without agenda or manipulation. That is not to say these things become absent, but that at least for me I feel no necessity to act one way with one person and a different way with another. We all simply ARE.

Do not misunderstand me: I get it. I get why people turn to religion (or maintain it). There is comfort — of being part of something greater, some overarching plan, and a promise of salvation. But I do not buy it. This comes after substantial study of the Bible, and Christian history and theology, and many years of questions. My rejection of religion is probably the most thought-out thing I have ever done. I say “religion” because it is not only Christianity but the whole concept of religion which I find absurd.

Please resist the temptation to argue with me or elicit some kind of defense from me. I wish to do neither. I do not need to defend my decision, and in this I feel self-assured. I suppose this post is more an explanation of “how” than “what”. I just wanted to clear things up a bit about what exactly has been going on with me the past couple months.

- Pedro

But if the self is unknown, directionless and void, what is there left? I feel so empty; my senses have been singed till the very flavor of life is neither sweet nor bitter, but tasteless. Both praise and judgment roll off my back with disregard. My soul, if such a thing exists, needs healing.