The ‘fatwa’ against Lowell Green

February 13, 2009 — xanthippa

Struggling through the ‘brainfog’ of the flu, I have not made my post about what had happened to Lowell Green as clear and understandable as it should have been.  Please, accept my apologies.

There is some clarification needed…

The Canadian ‘airwaves’ (radio and television) are regulated.  That means that in order to broadcast a signal, a person – or, more typically, an organization – has to purchase the ‘right’ to broadcast from the Canadian government (though, this is the standard in most countries).  The Canadian government has created an organization to deal with this:  the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), which bills itself as ‘an independent public authority in charge of regulating and supervising Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications’.

Aside:  the government ‘regulation’ of any news-media or any private industry is dangerous.  While it is important to assign ‘proper’ bandwidth to different broadcasters – so that their signals do not overlay each other, and so on, there is a serious danger, creating a body which is not ‘answerable’ to anyone but itself to govern this process is not just ludicrous, it actively endangers our society’s freedom of expression.  If a government body can, at will (and without needing to provide justification), approve or deny ‘bandwidth’ to a private company, there is a very large ‘opening’ for abuse.  Will this ‘body/commission’ approve licences to anyone who criticizes them?  How about anyone who criticizes ‘bureaucratic-abuse within licensing bodies’???  What if a special ‘interest group’/’political faction’ gains control of this body?  The list of potential abuses is endless…. think about it!!!  No ‘government’ and no ‘bureaucratic body’ should EVER have this kind of power over a society!

Back to the story…

So, if any person hears or sees anything on the radio or TV that they do not like, they are free to complain.  That, I have no problem with.  What happens next – …

The CRTC, upon receiving a complaint, has a number of options.  It can dismiss it – no more action done.  Or it can investigate it itself – as it has done on many occassions.  Or, as it most often the case, it ‘passes’ the complaint onto the ‘Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’ (CBSC).

The CBSC is a ‘self-regulating’ ‘professional association’ of all people/organizations who wish to ‘broadcast’ in Canada.  Canadian broadcasters MUST belong to it in order to even apply for a broadcasting license.

Now, ‘professional association’s are not necessarily a bad thing.  This is a deep tradition, rooted in the ‘craft guilds’ of the medieval times:  a ‘guild’ would test any ‘apprentice’, to make sure they had ‘mastered the craft’, before he could hang a shingle in front of his hut and practice his craft. It  was a ‘self-policing, quality control’ type thing – and, historically, there was a role for it. Of course, it was also used to limit competition…too many ‘guild-members’ meant not enough demand  – and therefore income – for any one of the members!  So, ‘strict’ – and ‘unquestionable’ – regulations were put into place…

However, modernization and the necessary ‘scaling up’ of these ‘guilds’ and ‘professional associations’ did not always go smoothly.  Just as unionized ‘closed shop’ workplaces became legally forbidden from employing people who were unwilling to join (or rejected by) a workplace union, ‘professional associations’ have become a similar ‘closed-shop’ thing among many professions, regardless of the employer.

Thus, if the Ontario Medical Association refuses to grant an accredited MD membership (the reasons could be simple as ‘having reported more than 3 factual adverse vaccine reaction in children/infant patients per calendar year’ – according to an ex-Ontario MD), such an MD is stripped of their OMA membership –  and thereafter legally forbidden from practicing medicine within Ontario.  Similarly, lawyers (and other professionals) have a ‘self-regulating body’:  if these ‘bodies’ refuse to let you into their ‘country club’, your law-school graduation diploma (etc.) is only worth its decorative value…  You may hang it on your wall, but you are not allowed to practice your profession.

While it is a good idea in principle, this ‘self-regulation’ of professionals, it is deeply flawed in practice…

It gives a group of people the extrajudicial power to decide who may – or may not – practice a ‘profession’.  While this is excellent for ‘quality control’, it is also – rather glaringly – a method of discrediting anyone who might ’embarrass the orthodoxy’ of the profession by holding independent points of view, or by exposing corruption within the organization, etc…. the possibilities are endless.  In short, this is the perfect body to filter out (without legal recourse) anyone who does not ‘play ball’, ‘adhere to orthodoxy’, is ‘not-one-of-the-good-old-boys-network’…. with no legal recourse for those who are ‘rejected’ or ‘censored’ or ‘censured’….

Well, it would appear that the CRTC does – often – pass complaints it receives about TV or radio coverage/broadcast on to this extrajudicial, non-transparent body called the CBSC…

Even the broadcasters themselves – according to what I hear on the airwaves – are now aware of how the ‘decisionmakers’ within the CBSC are selected.  Yet, their decisions are binding on anyone who wishes to continue to remain  a member – and thus have a licence to broadcast.  Transparency of process?  Please….

In this particular case, Mr. Green was not allowed to know who (or, if there were several ‘whos’) complained about the broadcast he made.  He was not allowed to know what the specifics of the complaint were.  And, he was not allowed to present any defense on his behalf – personal, professional or legal.

So, do you think this ‘professional organization’ stands up for its members? Will it be the ‘buffer’ to protect them from petty government censorship or bureaucratic interference?  Will it protect the professional ideals of its membership:  freedom of speech, the right to deliver news and opinions, no matter how diverse?   Will it shield its members from government or bureaucratic censorship?

Or, has this ‘professional association’ become an instrument of censorship itself – not answerable to anyone, with no legal recourse for appealing unjust decisions?  Just an organization with the unquestionable ability to silence those whose opinions it does not find politically useful?  An organization that has the ability to silence anyone who broadcasts any ‘news or opinion’ that it does not approve of – without any responsibility to the populace whose news/opinion sources it limits?

Please, you be the judge:  here is the decision in the Lowell Green case… sounds to me like the CBSC has issued a fatwa against Mr. Green!

One more question I have:  the document itself states that the ‘decision’ was reached in October of 2008.  So, why was it not announced until February, 2009?  Everything else aside – what is the reason for this delay?

I’m sorry – I just don’t get it.

Freedom of Speech – good bye!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Bad ‘medical science’…

February 12, 2009 — xanthippa

I hate bad science.

I REALLY hate bad science.

‘Modern medicine’ is riddled with bad science.  As a matter of fact, I think that the term ‘medical science’ is a oxymoron.

Yes, I think the whole ‘medical industry’ is riddled with deep problems.  And, I promise to rant on this later…at great length!  (It is one of my ‘buttons’ – once you ‘push’ it, it is difficult to get me to shut up again…)

Yet, here, I would like to concentrate not on the ‘systemic faults’, but on ‘downright fraud’ in medical science!

Autism is a problem.

Yes, I know that many high-functioning Auties – as well as Aspies – do not consider themselves to be ‘disabled’, or their so-called ‘condition’ to be ‘a problem’.  To the contrary – many think it is an integral part of what makes us ‘us’, and would not wish it changed.  Even regarding it as a problem is offensive to some of us….and some even consider Aspies to be the next step on the evolutionary ladder of humanity.

However, comparing Aspies – and high-functioning Auties – to people who are seriously affected by Autism is like comparing a person who has a little-bit looser ligaments/tendons, and therefore excell in gymnastics and similar things, to a person whose ligaments/tendons are so loose, they cannot stand up, hold a pen or a spoon….  Obviously, a little bit may be an advantage:  a lot may be crippling!

And, perhaps because I am an Aspie – as is all of my immediate family and most of my extended family – I am very interested in any medical study about Autism and/or Aspergers.  (For the uninitiated:  both Aspergers and Autism seem to have a ‘similar cause’… a large number of ‘undifferentiated’ (not ‘properly specialized) cells in the brain.  However, where Auties have most of these ‘undifferentiated’ cells in their frontal lobes, Aspies have them in the amygdala.  This localization difference accounts for the difference in manifestation/’symptoms/characteristics’ – though, in many instances, there is some overlap which makes exact ‘differentiated’ diagnosis difficult.)

OK, re-focusing…

Parents of ‘significantly affected’ kids are often very desperate to help their kids be ‘more normal’.  Of course, this is more pronounced in the more severe cases, which are ‘obvious’ earlier on in life (many ‘high-functioning’ Auties and Aspies can ‘hide’ their symptoms for many years – or they may simply live in an area where the ‘mild’ symptoms are interpreted as ‘being mean’ or ‘antisocial’ and ‘merely’ scar the person for life, without recognizing what is happening).  What I am trying to say is that the more ‘outwardly obvious’ the symptoms are, the more eager loving parents are to find answers.

Many parents are so desperate to help their kids, they will grasp at straws.

There has, for a long time, persisted a perceived ‘connection’ between the MMR vaccine and Autism.  As a parent of a child who had suffered significant motor-nerve damage within days of receiving the MMR vaccine – and being told by his physician that the ‘damage is typical of what he has seen with this vaccine, but he cannot report it because he had been warned that if he reports yet another adverse vaccine reaction, he will be stripped of his ‘Canadian Medical Association’ membership, and thus no longer allowed to practice medicine….and that though this damage is ‘well known’ among doctors, I will never find one brave/reckless enough to testify about this reality in court…’, I have been very keen on ‘any news’ about vaccination in general and the MMR vaccine in particular…

Which is why the following story is so disturbing…

…

The reporter also discovered that Dr. Wakefield’s interest in a MMR vaccine-autism connection began when he was retained as an expert witness two years earlier by a lawyer representing the parent of an autistic child. The parents were planning to sue the MMR vaccine makers because they believed the vaccine caused their child’s illness.  According to Mr. Deer, Dr. Wakefield then launched the Jabs program, the name for clinic that led to the study.  The program was advertised by the lawyer’s firm, and the clinic was not a routine screening, accuses Mr. Deer.

…

England’s General Medical Council has brought charges of medical misconduct against Wakefield and two other co-authors, Dr. John Walker-Smith and Dr. Simon Murch (the authors who continued to support the paper).  The charges revolve around the ethics of the researchers testing on children, not the new accusations.  The paper, though, has forwarded its results to the board and expects new charges to be forthcoming. {Note:  the new accusations are of having falsified the data…}

So, which is it?

Is this a case of a doctor who truly is telling the truth, but whose team has been ‘bought’ by the people who fund most medical research?  And the ones who would not budge are being subjected to a ‘witch hunt’?

Or, is this a case of a crooked doctor, who had ‘fixed’ the tests to show that the MMR vaccine was ‘at fault’, so he could get money for his testimony?  Have we (parents) wasted time and effort here, when we should have been trying to find other ways to help our kids?

What about ‘my doctor’ (who has since entered dentistry school, because ‘he could not stand the politics subverting medicine today)? Were his claims true?

He also said Ontario MD’s got a substantial monetary ‘bonus’ if they could prove they convinced more than 98% (or was it 95% – it has been a while…high nineghties, anyway) of the parents of their child-patients to allow their children to be vaccinated with the full spectrum of ‘childhood vaccines’?  He said this money did not come from the government, but the vaccine manufacturers.  Was he lying to me? If so, why?  I was not paying him to…  If not, what is the significance of this kickback?

What is a parent left to think?

Perhaps it is not surprising that so many people today mistrust ‘scientists’!  Actually, I would call them all ‘pseudo-scientists’ – but they give a really, really bad name to us all!!!

And, perhaps this explains why I consider the term ‘medical science’ to be an oxymoron….  Medicine may use some scientific tools – but ‘modern medicine’ itself does not, under any definition of the term, qualify as ‘scientific’.  Just like because you ‘live in a house’ does not mean you are ‘an architect’, so ‘using scientific instruments/tests’ does not make medicine ‘science’.

And, something pretending to be science when it is not only undermines the credibility of ‘real, proper science’!!!

Did I mention I hate bad science?!?!?

Posted in Aspergers, education, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Lowell Green: another martyr of the ‘pc’ fascists?

February 10, 2009 — xanthippa

If you follow my blog, you are aware that I am ‘Pro-Free-Speech’… and you might have also picked up on the fact I am a huge fan of Mr. Lowell Green.

Mr. Green is an open-line radio show host – funny, intelligent and outspoken.  Brash – perhaps.  Well-informed – always!  If you live outside the Ottawa area, you can listen to his show online, at CFRA.com, 10am-12noon, EST.

Over the more than 50 years in broadcasting, Mr. Green has been a thorn in the side of those who value appearances over substance, ideology over reality, political correctness over the truth.  He has also penned 3 books:  ‘The Pork Chop– and Other Stories : a Memoir’, ‘How the Granola-Crunching, Tree-Hugging Thug Huggers Are Wrecking Our Country’ and  ‘It’s Hard to Say Goodbye’.  (I have each one – autographed by Mr. Green!)  The middle one is my personal favourite.

Now, Mr. Green has come under attack for – you guessed it – something he said.  Not only is it an attack, it is a ‘judgment’, pronounced against him, by CRTC, the body which regulates the Radio and Television station licensing in Canada.

The judgment:  his opinion-based talked show contained uninformed discussion and – he was rude.

It’s not about Lowell Green.

It’s not about what he did or did not say on that show – or if his opinion was or was not informed.  There are (I hope) no laws against being stupid…

Yet, he was censored.  Huge apology announcements run by his station – wording clearly designed to besmirch his good name.

During the whole process of the CRTC hearing, he had exactly zero opportunity to defend himself.

He was not even allowed to know the name of the person (or organization) which launched a complaint against him.  He was not even allowed to know if it was one or more complaints.  Nothing.

This reminds me of the time my son was – during school lunch-hour – attacked from behind (so he had not seen them) by a group of school-mates.  It was officially classified by the police as a ‘racially-motivated hate-crime’.  Yet, neither he, nor we – his parents, were ever allowed to know the identity of the school-mates who attacked him, or what had happened to them as a result.

Some society we are becoming!

Sorry…my brain is somewhat mushy while I am fighting this nasty flu that is ‘making the rounds’, but this is outrageous!  Until I get somewhere ‘reasonable’, please, listen to Michael Coren’s show with Ezra Levant, where this incident is being discussed:

I LOVE that line:  “SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!”

P.S.:  Since when does ‘offensive’ or ‘aggressive’ = ‘vilification’??? Do people no longer learn English (and, I say this an an immigrant – who LOVES the English language!)

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Aspergers – ‘reluctance’/’freezing up’ explained

February 7, 2009 — xanthippa

Unless someone has worked (or been) an Aspie, it is extremely difficult to appreciate the ‘reluctance’ factor.

To an outside observer, it often looks like ‘failure to parent’ or ‘spoiled brat syndrome’.  I assure you, it is nothing of that sort.

To the parent/teacher, it often looks like obstinance,  pig-headedness, intentionally not paying attention, rudeness, antagonism …well, you name it.

So, how does this ‘reluctance’ actually look?

Typically, when an Aspie is displaying ‘reluctance’ in a given situation, they will just sit or stand there, perhaps nod their head in acceptance when a task is assigned to them, and look kind of ‘not there’ (or, if this is a reminder/nagging to get something done, they may look extremely ‘guilty’ or ‘remorseful’).

Their face may display anything from ‘blank’, ‘looking bored’ or ‘spaced out’, looking ‘straight through you’ or ‘around you’, from ‘uncomfortable’ to ‘guilty’, from ‘doubtful’ to ‘compliant’ to ‘not really there’. Or, especially the younger ones, may throw a fit.  Or, the more resourceful Aspies may try to talk their way out of it.  But, most will have a submissive or passive demeanor.

Then, once the task is assigned, they will not perform it.

It may look like they are willfully avoiding actually doing it.  Fidgeting,  Staring into space – even if it means sitting at their task for hours, without getting any of it done.  Wandering off.  Changing the subject.  Or, just turning into a lump…

It is important to understand where this ‘reluctance’ comes from.  In this post, I will only address one of the many possible reasons for this ‘reluctance’ – but one I think that affects us more often than we’d like to admit.  (A lot of ‘soul-searching went into this one…)

Most Aspies like things to be exact.  According to rules (their rules).  Just so.

Personally, I would rather not start something if I know I cannot do it right – up to my standard, according to the rules.  Not succeeding fills me with very, very bad emotions of failure and inadequacy (something many of us, Aspies, experience more often than other people).  These emotions flood me uncontrollably and, in a weird way, interfere with my ability to think – and ‘do stuff’.

While we feel the same emotions as other people, I suspect that most Aspies process them very differently. We are not good at it.  We process emotions badly, and we know it.  Having an emotion, and processing it badly, and knowing we are failing at yet another thing – well, that makes us feel bad….so we try to hold the emotions back for as long as possible. (That could be why so many people think we don’t have them.)

Of course, when the emotions get strong, we usually fail at controlling them.  The emotion wins and floods through our system.  It won over us!  More failure, more bad feeling…

Many of us agree that we cannot stand being flooded by strong emotions – whatever that emotion may be.  And this is not just on an emotional level – it is a physical reaction.  Once it ‘overcomes us’, we have a sudden release of hormones into our system….and this is bad. It makes us physically feel sick.  Sometimes just a little ‘shaky’, or ‘antsy’, at other times it is stronger…and worse.  I don;t have the proper words to describe it….but it is, in its way, a physical pain.

Perhaps what is worst of all is that it interferes with our ability to think!

We can still see just how badly we are reacting, but can’t seem to stop it because our brain does not work right with all these chemicals streaming through it.  It is a horrible feeling, because by interfering with your ability to analyze, it is – in a very real way – temporarily cutting off a part of the essence that is you!  It is a partial loss of the self!

So, now that we have ‘frozen’, we are to ‘produce’!  Or ‘perform’!

How are we  now supposed to go and finish that very task we found beyond our abilities when our mind was clear and we were able to reason?

It’s just not going to happen…

Of course, what makes this even worse is that once we have felt that way about a certain task, the very memory of it will ‘push the replay button’ – so to speak.  We dread tackling any task that reminds us of our failures, because we will actually do this ‘guilt-flood of emotions-freeze up’ thing to ourselves!!!

The upshot of this is:  once something made us feel bad like this, we will do anything to block it, not ‘replay it’, pretend it does not exist…  And even if we honestly try to tackle the task, we will certainly not be able to concentrate on doing it, because we will be beaten down by the ‘refrain’ in our head:  “you have failed at this”, “you are behind even the ‘stupid’ people by not being able to do this”, “you will just fail again and humiliate yourself”….

I suspect the obsessive-compulsive bit of our brain (most Aspies have an industrial dose of OCD) just keeps us focused on the fact we are ‘bad’ at this, effectively preventing us from actually focusing on the task itself…

The weird thing is…  Sometimes, a perfectly ‘normal’ thing will – somehow – get ‘linked’ in our sub-consciousness with this ‘bad feeling’.  It could be something completely ‘not complex’ – something we easily perform in other situations.  But, here, in this particular instance of it, it has somehow started to ‘trigger’ this ‘negative reaction’.  And, no punishment, no real-life consequence, could make us go through with it and experience this feeling.

For example:  I love to cook, but I will NEVER follow a recipe EXACTLY.  NEVER.  There is no way anyone can make me be bossed around by a anything – especially a piece of paper!  I’ve been bossed around by… and so it goes.  And, once I get off onto this track, I will not cook anything.  The pain is just not worth it – even though I LOVE to cook.

Perhaps I used a bit of a hyperbole to describe this ‘freezing up’… but, in some instances, this is not that much of an exaggeration.  I hope it was helpful in getting across a little bit of the ‘flavour’ of the ‘reluctance’, or ‘freezing up’ we, Aspies, display in performing (or, rather, flatly refusing to perform) some specific tasks.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in Aspergers, education. Tags: , , , . 6 Comments »

Shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater

February 4, 2009 — xanthippa

Just about everybody agrees that there ‘ought to’ be some limits on ‘Free Speech’.

One of the ‘classic’ examples is ‘Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater‘: it is reasonable to limit Freedom of Speech to prevent someone from shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, thus causing a panic during which people could be hurt or even killed.  Most people agree that this is a reasonable limit.

So, what if the theater IS on fire?

Should people be forbidden to raise a warning in a theater that is actually burning?

When first formulated, this ‘reasonable limit’ on Freedom of Speech was phrased ‘it is reasonable to limit Freedom of Speech to prevent someone from falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater’.

In our eagerness to apply this limit on Freedom of Speech, we have forgotten the ‘reality check’ bit!  Truth has now become irrelevant.

We have become extremely adept at prosecuting people who are figuratively ‘shouting fire’ by criticizing the failures of our current social policies which ghettoize citizens based on cultural or religious grounds and create multiple classes of citizenship.  Any time a person speaks up to criticize social policies which contain principles of ‘culture’ or ‘religion’, or the faulty implementation of these social policies, or their negative impacts – we prosecute them for ‘Shouting “Fire!”‘

Everyone gets all righteously indignant, points fingers at them and condemns them.  These people get dragged through the mud (the courts) and, too often, they get convicted of ‘shouting fire’.  After all, they did!

Our courts – both legal, kangaroo and the ‘court of public opinion’ – have forgotten that  ‘shouting “Fire!”‘ in a burning theater is not only acceptable, it saves lives!  In fact, shutting up the very people who give a true warning – that is what puts us all in serious danger.

Geert Wilders …

… Ezra Levant …

… Mark Steyn …

… Sussane Winter …

… Ayaan Hirsi Ali …

… Kathy Shaidle …

… and many, many more.  The list is getting dangerously long.

FIRE!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, perceptions, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Happy Birthday – to my blog!

January 31, 2009 — xanthippa

Yes!

It is hard to believe.

I have now been ‘around’ for a year!

Sincere thanks to all of you, who have made this effort worthwhile – and fun!

Posted in about. Tags: . 2 Comments »

The concept of ‘murder’ is not ‘universal’

January 30, 2009 — xanthippa

In the dawn of civilization, we lived in smaller groups – sometimes little more than extended families of 20-30 people.  The actual number depended on many factors, such as the environment, population density, how developed our societies were and what they depended on for sustenance, and so on.

For thousands of years, these earliest societies hardly ever grew to more 150 people – the Dunbar’s number – and formed our monkeysphere.  In these small communities, we could care about each person as an individual:  we knew them, their family, and we could relate to them on  an individual, personal level.  This group was what we related to as ‘we’ or ‘us’.  Everyone else was ‘them’, an outsider.

This is very important, because these concepts of ‘us’ and ‘them’ were key in the evolution of our concept of morality.

For example, the Yanomamo of the Amazon basin live in relatively isolated ‘traditional villages’.  They have a very specific understanding of the concept of  ‘murder’.  ‘Murder’, in their view, is killing someone or something ‘of the village’.  Killing a person who is ‘not of the village’ is ‘killing, not ‘murder’.  For the Yanomamo, killing a dog or a chicken that lives in the village is just as much ‘murder’ as killing a person who is ‘of the village’.

After all, everyone living ‘in the village’ forms a community which shares social bonds and therefore has an expectation of trust from the other members of the community.  It is killing a being with whom one shares social bonds that defines ‘murder’ for the Yanomamo.  The act of transgressing against the social bonds, the breaking of  trust which was built up through living together in one community, that constitutes ‘murder’.

This little example shows how a concept we consider universal can be thought just as universal, yet interpreted completely differently in other societies.

As we ‘scaled up’ our communities and instituded rules/laws – rather than direct resolution of specific actions – to govern our behaviour, we have moved from the early, Yanomamo-style concept of ‘murder’=’breaking social bonds of trust’ to the more general concept of ‘murder’=’killing a human’.

It is we, ‘The Westerners’, who have a shifted our moral concepts somewhere along our society’s development.  Instead ‘drawing the line’ based on ‘trust’ and ‘social bonds’, we have made them more abstract (emotionally) choice:  we base in to genetic similarity, belonging to the same species.

Yes, it is much more complex than just ‘genetic similarity’…  The strong and undeniable influence of Christian doctrines of ‘soul’ and their separation between ‘human’=’soul’ and ‘non-human’=’no soul’ probably has a lot to do with why our ancestors shifted their definition of ‘murder’ from ‘breaking the expectation of trust’ to ‘killing a member of our species’.  The root cause is not the point here – the fact that it happened is.

We can still see the ‘old morality’ hold true in some of our attitudes:  many of us struggle with the cultural understanding that killing an enemy soldier during war does not constitute ‘murder’, while killing a stranger on the street during peacetime does.  These ‘conflicting attitudes’ have been much remarked upon.  Still, most people who comment on it miss the true significance of this apparent contradiction:  this is a vestige of our original, ‘human’ concept of ‘murder’ – from before we drew an abstract line around ‘human’ and began to consider it to be ‘absolute’.

This is a clear and undeniable demonstration that it is our own cultural morals which have deviated from their original meanings.

There is nothing wrong with that – societies evolve and so do their ideas of morality.  Evolving our morals to keep pace with social evolution is usually a good thing – in my never-humble-opinion.  I am not criticizing that in the least. Yet, I am calling attention to the fact that most of us still have trouble even conceiving of the very idea that OUR understanding of what constitutes morality is not universal!

Hinduism, for example, has a much broader concept of what constitutes ‘murder’ than we, in ‘the West’ do.  While the very idea of ‘soul’ originated in the area of today’s India (and influenced certain mystic Jewish sects, like the Essenes – via whom Christianity acquired the concept of the divine soul), the Hindus do not limit the concept of ‘soul’ to just humans.  Therefore, their idea of ‘murder’ is also different from our ‘Western understanding’.  To pious Hindus, killing any living being constitutes ‘murder’.

And Islam teaches that all Muslims are members of the same greater family (Umma), or tribe: to be a Muslim is to be one of ‘us’ – non-Muslims are ‘they’.  Therefore,  killing a member of the Umma is ‘murder’….but killing someone who is not a Muslims (and therefore not a member of the Umma, not one of ‘us’) is not ‘murder’, it is just ‘killing’.  The ‘Umma’ may have grown beyond a single village, but the concept of ‘being of the Umma’ has not!

Understanding this is essential in order for people form different cultures to communicate effectively.  This is especially important as we are reaching the next stage of ‘scaling up of our communities‘ – this time on the global scale.

When negotiating how we integrate our cultures (because that is what is happening, like it or not), none of us (all sides) must fall into the error of considering our interpretation of deep concepts, of what constitutes ‘morality’, to be somehow ‘universal’.

Doing so would only lead to deep misunderstandings which lead to conflict and suffering.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in human nature, perceptions, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

Defend Geert Wilders

January 24, 2009 — xanthippa

If you have not heard, there is a new blog each and every person who holds the principle of Free Speech dear to their hearts should visit:

Defend Geert Wilders

What is it?  What is its purpose?

When Mark Steyn was being persecuted in Canada, all the Canadian ‘Free Speechers’ went to get the latest information about what was happening at one central place, ‘Free Mark Steyn’.

By having the latest, most accurate information at our fingertips, we could then work to raise public awareness and de-normalize the attitudes which allowed this abuse of the judicial system (in our case, the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals).  As more and more people became aware of what was truly happening, public attitudes changed.  Mark Steyn – and Ezra Levant, who was also persecuted in the same manner – were vindicated.   Many thanks to Binks for having had the courage and dedication to run this site.

Now, another Canadian Free Speecher – Walker Morrow – has stepped up and started up ‘Defend Geert Wilders’ in the same spirit – and with the same hopes.  So, if you would like to keep up to date with what is happening in the war for Freedom of Speech, Geert Wilders battle, bookmark this site.

And, if you get some information that should be included there, but is missing – comment, write, contribute.

Free Speechers of the world – unite!

Don’t let them silence us.

Please!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Religion (definition): part 1

January 8, 2009 — xanthippa

Another term which is important to define when talking about The Big Picture is ‘Religion’.

This is another one of those words that everybody thinks has a universal definition – but not all these ‘universal definitions’ are congruent…. and some of the differences between the various descriptions are, well, rather substantial.  (Yes, this does make our constitution, which forbids discrimination on religious grounds, rather laughable, as in the absence defining what is meant by ‘religious grounds’, this phrase is worse than meaningles…. it is open to abuse!  Please, don’t get me started on that topic!!!)

Just look at the how (not the what) of the way different people practice religion. 

To some, religion is little more than some surreal principles.  They believe in some undefinible, intangable divine principles that form the universal subconsciousness or, if you prefer, which give the Universe a consciousness of her own.  Or, they call it Mother Nature, or some ‘laws of nature’ which have no perceivable form (personification-able, that is).  To these people, spirituality is important, but religiosity – the rituals associated with these beliefs – may be largely irrelevant.

At the other extreme, there are people for whom adherence to the religious customs and rituals is a much more integral part of their religion than any form of actual belief or even abstract concept of the divine.  We see this in many highly ritualistic religions which dictate daily routines and behaviours onto its practitioners.  I have known Anglicans, Catholics, Jews and Hindus who all practice the rituals of their religion because it supports their perception of their self-identity – or serves and supports others in their community – yet who do not subscribe to the doctorines of their religious dogma. 

Perhaps I should explain what I mean by this:  they are able to abstract moral lessons from their religious teachings and see value (either to their personal growth or things helpful or important to others within their community) in adhering to the religious practices, even though they reject the dogmatic or supernatural aspects of their religions.  (I regard this with great respect – it is the opposite of some peoples’ self-righteous pretense at being religious while missing the ‘greater message’!  That is a subject of its own…)

Yet others both have faith in the dogma of a religion, and adhere to its daily rituals.  The spectrum is about as varied as humanity itself…

Many people in The West think that religion is something which deals with questions regarding the meaning/purpose of life, death, afterlife, God, etc.  And, some religions do that.  However, most religions are not this narrowly limited.  So, what exactly defines religion?  What is common to all the religions ‘out there’?

Well, it depends on whom you ask… and what background they are approaching the subject of ‘religion’ from.

The psychoanalyst (NOT to me mistaken with ‘psycho analyst’) Carl G.Jung defines religion as:

Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.

(Emphasis added by me…  I do have to admit that I copied this definition out in calligraphy and stuck it to the inside of my locker door when I was in high-school – yeah, I know, pathetic!)

So, accortding to Jung, religion is a peculiar attitude of the mind. 

The reason I like this definition is because in a society which allows fredom of thought, freedom of religion is automatic:  you are free to believe – fully, partially or not at all – anything you wish.  Here, freedom of religion becomes a sub-set of freedom of thought and does not require special treatment, privileges or accommodations under the law.

That, in my never-humble-opinion, is very important.  After all, no idea or belief should be accorded greater or lesser protection from persecution, regardless of its nature!  Plus, most oppressors (or would-be oppressors….knowingly or condescendingly) are notorious for defining ‘religious grounds’ in a way that allows them to oppress those whose ideas (religious or otherwise) they do not like! 

Example:  when my older son neared the end of grade 8 and different high-schools were lobbying us to register him to attend them, I visited one of the most highly regarded and very coveted high-schools in Ottawa.  That is when I got a chance to look around the school’s library – and it did indeed contain an impressive selection of books!  When I came to the ‘Religion’ section, there were many, many books on Christianity and Christian philosophy.  Truly, it contained an exhaustive collection of books on all the sects of non-Arian forms of Christianity.  Yet, when I looked for the Torah, the Koran, the Vedas, Tao Te Ching and other texts widely considered ‘religious’, they could not be found….until one came to the ‘Mythology’ section of the library….  Needless to say, we chose to send our son elsewhere.

Obviously, to this particular school’s librarian, only non-Arian forms of Christianity qualified as ‘religion’.  Everything else was ‘Mythology’, and would not deserve protection under Canadian constitution which bans ‘discrimination on the basis of religion’ – but does not protect against ‘discrimination of the basis of mythology’….  I’m sorry about the circuitous description, but, I do hope I explained by point clearly:

According to this librarian, only non-Arian forms of Christianity qualified as ‘religion’ and therefore, freedom of religion would only extend to people who subscribed to this narrow group of religious sects.

I’m afraid I prefer Jung’s definition or ‘religion’ to this librarian’s!
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, freedoms, ignosticism, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Big Brother in the EU

January 6, 2009 — xanthippa

And just when you were about to breethe a sigh of relief that you are not in India, that your privacy cannot be invaded without a legal warrant, think again.  Our political bodies are legislating away citizens’ rights faster than we can notice!

Here is an interesting post from Dvorak Uncensored, titled Police Set to Step up Hacking of Home PCs, quoting Timesonline:

“THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.”

In other words, the European Union has made a decision giving all EU member governments the ‘right’ to hack into any computer – without a warrant.

“Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. …”

‘Warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property’ – what a phrase!  Just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to know how well ‘protected’ you will be under this policy – does it not?

I wonder if the police forces of the EU nations are hiring more IT staff….

 

P.S. – This may need more ‘digging’ but… is the Brussels edictlimited to electronic ‘warrantless inrtusive surveillance of private property’, or does it cover all ‘private property’?
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »