#absence

As can be seen by the delay from the last post to this one, I do not regularly blog any longer. While I may get back into the swing of it eventually, blogging and writing articles simultaneously is simply to time-consuming. All my latest articles can be found here.

Thanks for reading!

#shift

I've decided to slightly alter the focus of this blog. As my readers can see, religious and philosophical topics are those for which I have the most passion, mainly because of their extreme scope of influence. So from this point forward, this blog will focus mainly on the religious aspects of society, especially the American society in which I live.

I hope to create a healthy dialog that will allow us to learn from each other. Please comment and visit often!

Sincerely,

Chris Sosa

.bishop.(john shelby)/spong

One of the most upfront and controversial religious minds of our time, retired Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong discusses his beliefs that Hell is a religious invention and that the Apostle Paul was in fact a repressed gay man. I strongly recommend checking out his book The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love.



Buy his book here.

Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)

Rated PG

0 out of ****

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a pretty good description on this film. There is hardly a scrap of intelligence to be found here. Whether Stein is (badly) feigning shock, enlightenment, or sincerity, one thing is for sure, this movie is headed to the bargain bin. The film begins with a series of interviews explaining why certain individuals were “expelled” from their positions as teachers, scientists, etc. Nevermind the facts, it doesn’t matter if the woman’s contract was up, they must have fired her because she referenced I.D. in a paper. Yes, I know what you’re thinking, intelligent design has an acronym now?

Ben Stein goes through great lengths to convince us that this has nothing at all to do with religion. Maybe he should’ve watched his own movie. After informing us that this is about science, we hear tale after tale of scary godless atheists who were converted to this horrifying Darwinian thought. In case the audience wasn’t bright enough to get the point, droning ominous music plays throughout the entire film, that is until Ben Stein’s rousing and liberating speech at the end. I think we may just have another Martin Luther King, Jr. on our hands.

Now onto what the movie has to say. Basically, it’s a grand conspiracy theory that attempts to show the way in which mounds and mounds of evidence regarding intelligent design (better termed “Creationism”) is discarded and hidden from the public in an effort to turn the world into Nazis. You may think I’m kidding, but I’m actually half-serious. Stein actually does draw the comparison of scientists to Nazis on multiple occasions. But back to the topic at hand. Stein ignores one extremely tremendous issue: creationism/intelligent design isn’t science! At best it could be described as philosophy but in reality only the conservative and fundamentalist religious branches tend to have any interest in the subject at all.

The fundamentalists are right when they quickly point out that evolution cannot explain the origin of life, but this is a limit of all science, not the theory of biological evolution. Science is a study of the observable, and there is nothing observable about life origin as it only occurred once. Unless a way is discovered to repeat it, this is simply outside the realm of science and evolution. Yes, religion may give an answer, but it is hardly evidenced or provable, meaning that it has no place in a science classroom.

To compound the film’s already illogical base, individuals were actually conned into making this film. Famed author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins stated that he was lied to regarding the film’s title and focus. He states that when making quipping remarks regarding intelligent design, the interviewer laughed right along with him. He also describes the way in which he attempted to discredit intelligent design, but was edited into the film as seemingly supporting it. For anyone even slightly familiar with Richard Dawkins, they would know this to be untrue.

Another such example of dishonesty is that which was shown toward the gentleman who discussed the “crystal theory,” and was edited to appear as if he believed this theory. He in fact does not at all, but was simply attempting to dignify Stein’s question regarding currently existent theories of origin within the scientific community.

Constantly repeated throughout this boring and artless film is the notion that the scientific community is unwilling to discuss intelligent design, which is beyond untrue. I have sitting beside me a book entitles Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. This is a detailed and complex work thoroughly addressing the arguments levied against biological evolution. I would find it difficult to believe that anyone would find the book evasive. I also am holding a book titled Evolution and Religious Creation Myths by none other than Oxford University Press. For those unfamiliar with Oxford University Press, they are also responsible for the printing of America’s most comprehensive Bible. So to say that academics or science doesn’t take the arguments for intelligent design seriously is a bit ridiculous.

Lastly is this ridiculous notion of evolution leading to Holocaust-like violence. For those unfamiliar with Hitler, he was not an atheist, rather a Catholic. His hatred for Jews was rooted in probably large part to his Catholic heritage. To quote Dr. Dawkins, “Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that ‘All Jews should be driven from Germany.’” Bill Maher is quoted in the film as saying that we should “regulate religion” rather than guns or drugs. I see more of a tie from religion to horrendous acts than from the theory of evolution to horrendous acts when discussing Hitler. To insinuate that modern scientists are stupid enough to commit acts of genocide in the name of science is insulting to the entire hard-working scientific community.

Any biological scientist dealing with evolution will explain that this theory exists to describe natural behavior, not to encourage human interaction based on such behavior. One can actually see the opposite in fields such as psychology and sociology, which work to help people overcome oftentimes animalistic instincts by use of evolutionary theory.

So in the end, this film only serves to throw fire on the already sensationalized conspiracy theory regarding scientists and evolution. There are many explanations for why this debate rages on, but I have a theory. It seems to me that humankind wants to feel as if they are above all other forms of life, sort of an innate self-superiority. When admitting that all life relies on, and comes from, other life, a piece of that superiority is lost. They often mask this by saying that without this innate superiority, without being “in the image of God” as Creationists put it, we are unimportant.

However, this argument falls flat when one realizes one can approach this from an opposing perspective. When we become a part of all earthly life, and all earthly life becomes a part of us, one could argue that it raises the value of all life. The interdependency allows us to appreciate the beauty and complexity of life, something that people like Stein may never be able to experience.

{theft}

this week, janet’s new album “Discipline” debuted at number one on the billboard hot 200 selling… 181,000 copies. now, this may sound like a rather large figure, but let’s take a look at her last album’s sales and charting… in 2006, janet Jackson released “2.0. Y.O.” this album peaked, and debuted, at number two. it sold 296,000 copies. the album before it, “Damita Jo,” also debuting and peaking at number two, 381,000 copies. see a trend here?

“to what can we attribute this stunning lack of album sales?” you ask. well, excellent question! this stunning lack of CD sales can be largely attributed to… piracy. music sales have been declining rapidly due to the dramatic increase of pirated music. but you may ask, “isn’t that stealing?” another excellent question, and the answer is a resounding “yes!”

people won’t just walk into a store and steal a CD. and in my ignorance, I always assumed it was because upstanding citizens were relatively decent and respectful when it came to others’ property. well, apparently I’m quite misguided. it turns out the real reason is that they know they’d get caught. this is nothing short of infuriating. i really am not concerned if one thinks that an artist makes too much money or whether or not a person believes he or she should have to pay $10-$15 dollars for a CD, stealing other people’s property is a crime. unfortunately, it isn’t often treated as such.

I am under the impression that most people know piracy is a crime, but maybe some people just don’t understand the concept of copyrighting. so, I’m curious… for anyone reading, a.) did you know that online piracy is a crime, b.) do you feel that the majority of downloaders are also informed about anti-piracy laws, and c.) are people upstanding enough to give a crap?

(album sales info from www.billboard.com)

-sex-

in the course of my university's ":sex: week," i've found that :sex: is a somewhat bizarrely controversial topic. with so many important issues facing our lives in this day and time, i've spent much time wondering why a biological function could cause such a stir. but i've come to realize that :sex:, in and of itself, really isn't the issue. the issue at hand is :sex:uality...

if there is one culturally defining feature of a person, it is their :sex:uality. we are taught from a young age to behave in a manner consistent with a gender identity and :sex:uality. but why? in a word, security. if one is really forced to consider the meaning and construct of :sex:uality, a basic assumption is shaken, that being the assumption of the "naturalness" of gender and :sex:uality.

when one examines :sex:uality, that person finds not nature, but a social construct. people are taught to dress like "guys" or "girls." this is not an instinct, it's an institution. people are not born "straight" or "gay," they are born as people. people are :sex:ual beings, but putting them into one of two, maybe three, social constructs is trivial and non-thorough.

being "straight" or "gay," in reality, has little to do with actual attraction. when two girls kiss to attract a guy, are they lesbians? if a guy has characteristics culturally defined as feminine, is he gay? often women comment on the attractiveness of other women, but to no questioning of their hetero:sex:uality. what if a male were to do likewise, would this be "hetero:sex:ual" behavior? when one considers such actions, lines start to blur.

so are gender and :sex:ual social constructs a bad thing? not necessarily. but forcing a person to fit a category, or judging them based on a social construct, is certainly a problem. many people use religion, tradition, or out-dated "research" to continue in prejudice, but we can't accept this misuse of the sacred and scientific to continue in blind prejudice. as a progressive generation, it is not only our right, but our duty to stand up for those who have been, and continue to be, oppressed by such prejudice.

.intro.

hey, everyone. as you probably guessed by the title, this blog will be based on [life]. from serious topics to entertainment, we'll talk about all of it. this is an interactive blog, so please comment often.

first, let me tell you a bit about myself. i'm a college student currently studying communication and film. i love media and the arts, and also have a passion for religion and social justice issues. so expect much along those lines.

well, let's get started.