There have been a few movies in recent history that take pretty sharp jabs at organized religion, or even the idea of a God. Some have been more "fun-spirited," like The Da Vinci Code (which I personally thought could have been more fun than it was), while others are pretty straightforward in their message, like the recent Religulous, by Bill Maher.
The typical conservative religious response to films like Religulous, whose messages aren't interlaced with fiction, is to boycott and complain and organize protests. This doesn't exactly help our case, since religious types are typically accused of being close-minded and prejudiced, and boycotting a movie one hasn't seen falls into that category.
However, I look at Religulous and other films like it as a much needed wake-up call for the religious people of the world; not as proof that God doesn't exist, but as a reminder that no matter how weird someone else's religion may appear, yours looks just as weird. Online and offline, I've bumped into people who claim that the LDS church (which I'm sure isn't alone in this situation) CAN'T be true, because there isn't enough proof to support its claims. On many occassions, the individual belongs to the Catholic church, or some other religion with deep history and traditions.
I find that comparing one religion to another by way of facts and evidence is a fool's errand. I think sometimes people get so caught up in their own religions and traditions that they forget how absurd religion itself looks to the atheist. Think about it: We believe in an all-powerful being, embodied or not, who created and controls everything. He lives in "Heaven," an unspecified world that is generally regarded as cloudy. If we're good, we go there. If we're bad, we go to "Hell," a land of fire and brimstone. These are pretty typical Christian beliefs.
Where is Heaven? Where is Hell? Are they here on Earth, a planet we've pretty much explored inside and out? Why is God able to control everything?
The claims of religion are difficult to believe or even grasp in this world of advancing science and technology. As religious and convinced of God's existence as I am, I can't blame the atheist for being a bit skeptical. And yet somehow, the major conflict has almost always existed between different religions, not between religion and the absence thereof. We're so busy trying to convince each other through facts and evidence that one is better or more right than the other, we forget that we're trying to prove an factual argument about someone whose existence is still in question.
In my opinion, Religulous is an opportunity for religious people everywhere to understand that we are ALL under scrutiny; not just Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Scientologists, or Catholics, but everyone. To the atheist community, we are no more than kids, arguing over whose imaginary friend looks the coolest.
So many people rely on facts and history as a source of their faith. Bill Maher, Dan Brown, and others like them have called these things into question. This strips the religious community of the worldly evidences it so desperately clings to and REQUIRES that we turn to faith for our testimonies.
I'll probably never see it, but I'm glad Religulous got made. It's about time we were all brought down to the same level, where all that we have to hold onto are the things we can't see. That's what faith means.
Maybe you agree, maybe you don't, but either way, you should speak up about it.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Supporting a Cause, Without Supporting a Cause
There's something that's been getting under my skin lately on Facebook, and I'm somewhat uneasy to talk about it, because I'm pretty sure that around 50% of the people that read my blogs take part in it. If you do, just know that I always remain faithful to my "Love the sinner, hate the sin" policy, so although I see this ridiculous fad as retarded, I do not think that you yourself are a retard.
The fad I'm talking about is the Facebook invitation to "Causes." This thing used to be done through e-mail, but now that Facebook is the hotspot of the Information Superhighway (Internet), it seems like the traffic has all been shifted over.
I'm just going to come out and say it. I've ignored every cause invitation I've ever gotten. It's not that I disagre; to the contrary, I'm all for fighting the big abortion movement, or stopping cancer, or feeding the starving kids in Africa. But one thing you have to understand is, joining this cause does not help the cause.
It's a slightly more complex version of those e-mail petitions that get sent around. I remember getting one where two men apparently had killed a kid, and there was some controversy over whether they should get the death sentence. The petition requested that every recipient type in their name and what state they're from, and pass it along to all their acquaintances. If they could get 1,000 votes, the guys would be put to death.
Now, IF the story is true, then I'm sure the guys deserve death. But seriously. An e-mail vote? Who in their right mind could think that this affects anything anywhere in the world? It would be superfluous to point out how easy it is to simply type in hundreds of names and states, without the e-mail even going out. Also, many times those petitions are fakes designed to get your e-mail address, so you can be spammed for the rest of your life.
I'm not trying to generate any conspiracies about the Facebook method of supporting a cause, I just want to point out that in the cynical, "anything goes" world of the internet, a Facebook cause doesn't mean a whole lot to people who expect physical results. You want to support a cause? Go be active in your community. See how you can help real-life people in your immediate neighborhood. Anyone can sit at a desk and click "Accept" on the Cause invitation. It takes a truly passionate supporter to get off their fanny and go do something about it.
And as long as I have your attention, I'd also like to point out how silly and nonsensical it is to get a notification saying, "Food-fight invitation: Billy just threw a handful of grey poupon at you! Will you throw something back?" It takes more time to fill out all the forms and select the food I want to throw than it would for me to just grab some real food and throw it at someone. All these little games we play, to me, just seem like a more boring version of the real thing with more paperwork to fill out.
So there it is. Sorry if I'm a killjoy, but somebody needs to stop this madness. If it bugs you as much as it does me, please join my cause, "Let's put an end to the Cause Invitations." Hopefully it will make a difference.
The fad I'm talking about is the Facebook invitation to "Causes." This thing used to be done through e-mail, but now that Facebook is the hotspot of the Information Superhighway (Internet), it seems like the traffic has all been shifted over.
I'm just going to come out and say it. I've ignored every cause invitation I've ever gotten. It's not that I disagre; to the contrary, I'm all for fighting the big abortion movement, or stopping cancer, or feeding the starving kids in Africa. But one thing you have to understand is, joining this cause does not help the cause.
It's a slightly more complex version of those e-mail petitions that get sent around. I remember getting one where two men apparently had killed a kid, and there was some controversy over whether they should get the death sentence. The petition requested that every recipient type in their name and what state they're from, and pass it along to all their acquaintances. If they could get 1,000 votes, the guys would be put to death.
Now, IF the story is true, then I'm sure the guys deserve death. But seriously. An e-mail vote? Who in their right mind could think that this affects anything anywhere in the world? It would be superfluous to point out how easy it is to simply type in hundreds of names and states, without the e-mail even going out. Also, many times those petitions are fakes designed to get your e-mail address, so you can be spammed for the rest of your life.
I'm not trying to generate any conspiracies about the Facebook method of supporting a cause, I just want to point out that in the cynical, "anything goes" world of the internet, a Facebook cause doesn't mean a whole lot to people who expect physical results. You want to support a cause? Go be active in your community. See how you can help real-life people in your immediate neighborhood. Anyone can sit at a desk and click "Accept" on the Cause invitation. It takes a truly passionate supporter to get off their fanny and go do something about it.
And as long as I have your attention, I'd also like to point out how silly and nonsensical it is to get a notification saying, "Food-fight invitation: Billy just threw a handful of grey poupon at you! Will you throw something back?" It takes more time to fill out all the forms and select the food I want to throw than it would for me to just grab some real food and throw it at someone. All these little games we play, to me, just seem like a more boring version of the real thing with more paperwork to fill out.
So there it is. Sorry if I'm a killjoy, but somebody needs to stop this madness. If it bugs you as much as it does me, please join my cause, "Let's put an end to the Cause Invitations." Hopefully it will make a difference.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Movie Pirating
You know those ads you see before movies, where it shows a teenager downloading movies with quick cuts and jolted editing? And in grungy, ghetto-type it says, "You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a television. Downloading pirated films is stealing. Piracy. It's a crime."
I always knew the MPAA was out of touch with the public. I mean, look at how bogus the rating system has become. But this commercial really took the cake for me. I agree with the message that downloading movies is against the law; there's no arguing against that. What I don't get is the extreme comparison they make to prove a point.
No, we wouldn't steal a car. But if it was possible to download a Ferrari off the internet, it'd be a different story. Same with TV's and money. The MPAA has too much faith in the public's willingness to spend money. If something is available for free, and you can get it without leaving your house, whether it's a movie, a car, or an X-Box 360, people will probably just go for the download.
When we choose not to steal a car, it's not because we'd rather buy one. It's because stealing a car is hard. Plus it belongs to somebody already, which means you're costing him thousands of dollars, not to mention the fact that cops will be out looking for the car as soon as he knows it's gone. Who wants that kind of stress? I sure don't.
This logic reminds me of the comment that people make whenever you're following the crowd: "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it?" Well, of course not. That's insane. Why is everyone jumping off the cliff in the first place? If I saw that going on, I would freak out. What area of human psychology leads people to believe that if someone witnesses a mass-suicide, he'll just throw himself into the mayhem? Granted, I might see a movie or play a video game if everyone tells me it's good. But if everyone told me that jumping off a cliff was good, I would seriously doubt their judgment.
Who was it who first came up with that phrase anyway? It's so specific, somebody had to have said it first. I wonder if that person is still alive, and if he or she is amazed at how greatly it's caught on with the American public. Funny how random stuff spreads like that.
So there you have it. If you're trying to prove a point, don't compare moderate, relatively normal things to extremes like car theft and throwing oneself from a cliff. After all, you wouldn't just stab a person in the face with a fondue fork.
I always knew the MPAA was out of touch with the public. I mean, look at how bogus the rating system has become. But this commercial really took the cake for me. I agree with the message that downloading movies is against the law; there's no arguing against that. What I don't get is the extreme comparison they make to prove a point.
No, we wouldn't steal a car. But if it was possible to download a Ferrari off the internet, it'd be a different story. Same with TV's and money. The MPAA has too much faith in the public's willingness to spend money. If something is available for free, and you can get it without leaving your house, whether it's a movie, a car, or an X-Box 360, people will probably just go for the download.
When we choose not to steal a car, it's not because we'd rather buy one. It's because stealing a car is hard. Plus it belongs to somebody already, which means you're costing him thousands of dollars, not to mention the fact that cops will be out looking for the car as soon as he knows it's gone. Who wants that kind of stress? I sure don't.
This logic reminds me of the comment that people make whenever you're following the crowd: "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it?" Well, of course not. That's insane. Why is everyone jumping off the cliff in the first place? If I saw that going on, I would freak out. What area of human psychology leads people to believe that if someone witnesses a mass-suicide, he'll just throw himself into the mayhem? Granted, I might see a movie or play a video game if everyone tells me it's good. But if everyone told me that jumping off a cliff was good, I would seriously doubt their judgment.
Who was it who first came up with that phrase anyway? It's so specific, somebody had to have said it first. I wonder if that person is still alive, and if he or she is amazed at how greatly it's caught on with the American public. Funny how random stuff spreads like that.
So there you have it. If you're trying to prove a point, don't compare moderate, relatively normal things to extremes like car theft and throwing oneself from a cliff. After all, you wouldn't just stab a person in the face with a fondue fork.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)