The Patrioc Act is not Patriotic!

When the United States, with our coalition partners, invaded Afghanistan, there was a direct link between who and where the enemy was. When the United States, without global support invaded Iraq, we were no longer fighting those who were responsible for 911 and in fact created more enemies than we had before. We are in far more danger of a terror attack on U.S. soil for having gone into Iraq.

The Patriot Act (who would want to vote against anything named that) was supposed to provide intelligence agencies greater investigative tools to protect U.S. citizens. But the actual content of this Act allows for the very violation of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. The means does not and cannot justify the ends.

I do not want, for example, a suspect tortured to gleam information that may or may not protect me from another attack. What ever happened to “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Didn’t we learn that in kindergarten?

For a brief time, I worked for Dr. James Dobson when his headquarters were in Pomona. The first floor housed the largest room in the facility. It was where all the minimum-wage worker bees received and opened up correspondence, orders for material and books, and worked the phone banks receiving orders and donations.

There was an entire wall (2 stories high) that showcased happy families playing in a park, eating a meal together, and spending quality time together. Time and time again, however, management would pressure these minimum wage employees to work six days a week, Saturdays, and overtime (10-12 hour days) to keep up with the demands of the Christian public who "needed" help from Dobson's "Focus on the Family."

Almost all the employees in this area were working moms. Our morning break had been turned into a bible study and we were “encouraged” to participate. One morning, during what was suppose to be our break, our supervisor passed around a sign up set for the week's overtime. A mom with 2 kids failed to sign up and was berated in front of everyone for failing to do her Christian duty. I grabbed the sheet and pointed to the “wall of happy families” and said “Don’t you think Jesus would want this woman home with her family?” I was later counseled that I had taken “The Lord’s name in vain” and would be receiving a letter in my file. I gave my two weeks notice and left.

Nature vs. Nurture

Dr. Watson is a noble prize winning scientist who, with the help of his colleagues, discovers the three dimensional DNA double helix. He believes that genetics holds the secret in understanding human behavior because of his research into specific genes. One of his favorite authors said “The essence of life in information.” That this “information” must have the ability to be reproduced (as in scientific experiments).
In the past, there had been a resistance to the synergy of psychology and biology. The “nature vs. nurture” argument. Dr. Watson emphasizes the reality that “nurture” cannot be studied and that “nature” (DNA) can. He developed what he called the “Roma” system to identify genes. He found the chromosomal defect that is responsible for autism.
People are resistant to believing that we are “just bundles of DNA” because that belief takes the element of control out of our lives. We want to believe that we, maybe with the help of psychology, can change elements of our lives. I believe we will, in the future, find a genetic link to criminal and other deviant behavior.

Philosophy n < 5 minutes

The films "Philosophy in Less than Five Minutes" addressed a variety of issues. The classic black and white cartoons in "Electric Surfing" were pure genius. "Flame On" addressed homosexuality. The video showcases a montage of important historical figures who were berated, punished, and even killed for having been born "different." History will prove that homosexuality has a genetic component and, just as the color of our skin, is determined before our birth.
The film featuring Guru Faqir Chand was the most compelling. During a battle in 1919 Iraq he was faced with his own mortality. He had a vision where another Guru came to him and told him to save his ammunition for a later time when it would be more advantageous to win the battle. This information was spread throughout his battalion and sure enough, assisted them in winning the battle.
Months later, he would have a conversation with the Guru who had appeared to him. Much to his surprise, the Guru said basically that it wasn't him who had come to him but that his own consciousness that created this vision - that there was nothing supernatural about it. Faqir must have realized he would lose the power and status he had gained over people if he admitted his revelation was nothing more than a creation of his own mind. He seems to be a real seeker of the truth - no matter what the truth actually is.

Good Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gI2Q8luLg8&feature=related

Mr. Polkinghorne was the best, by far, speaker who articulated the concept of God and why he is a “believer.” His background in science and math lends him the credibility of persuasion. Here is a mathematical physicist from Cambridge who then studies to become an Anglican priest who coins the phase “natural theology” to explain why God exists.

He believes that his background in science gives him the proof that there is a divine force at work and that we are his (or her) creations. If for no other reason than the fact that we (humans) are too complex to have “evolved.” “Quantum mechanics does not rely on ‘common sense’ for explanation.” To him, a scientist and a theologian are one in the same.

His most convincing argument for a god is his explanation for the presence of evil and illness in our lives. He believes god gave us “free will” to accept or reject his love. And that the cost of us having free will to do good or evil is a “necessary cost” of our choice.

The first conference speaker, in Beyond Belief session #6, asks “Can we be good without God?” And “Can we have ethics without religion?” If she fully answered either of these I didn’t hear it. I think you can be good without God. There are agnostics and atheists who live good lives and are good people. Everyone has an internal sense of right or wrong don’t they?

The one thing that really struck me was the questions from the audience. One of the audience members appeared irate that even the question was asked (“Can we be good without God?”). There was a PBS.org video inserted near the end of session #6 with Alan Alda (from “Mash” fame). But there was no audio.