[progressivelyaphotic]

Religious Freedom in America

The world is home to billions of people with a vast amount of differing religious beliefs, values, identities, communities, and cultures. America is no exception to this. In the States, Christianity reigns most popular, followed by atheism. In 2010, the USA was made up of roughly 78% Christian beliefs and 16% atheistic beliefs. [1] By 2012, the split shifted to about 73% Christian and 19.6% atheistic. [2] This could have a correlation with the increasing number of Americans identifying as liberals [3], but this is trend-based speculation.

I love the idea of a diverse country; race, gender, religion, age, cultures, personalities, political affiliations... One thing I love about this country is the freedom of coexistence. This is nothing America celebrates exclusively. Freedom is enjoyed around the world by many countries, and I'm damn lucky and proud to be in one of them. But while religious persecution is a rarity, there still looms a Christian hand over our governments and corporations that exhibits unfair powers and privileges unavailable to non-Christians, as well as many types of discrimination. Despite attempts to advertise religious discrimination as religious freedom or restoration, this is entirely unconstitutional. Let me combat a popular response to this statement.

As reiterated today by Renew America writer Bryan Fischer [4], defenders of religious discrimination will claim that this is how it was meant to be. As Fischer states, “...the purpose of the First Amendment...was only to protect the free exercise of the Christian faith and to prevent the selection and designation of one Christian denomination as the official church of the United States.” In other words, the claim suggests that the Amendment aimed to keep the Catholic and Protestant churches (as well as all Christian churches, technically) from reigning official and supreme over all denominations of the religion, ignoring non-Christian religions completely.

This is untrue. While I'm sure the claim rested in the backs of the minds of many founding fathers, the First Amendment did indeed aim to protect ALL religions from manning the helms of government, at least according to Thomas Jefferson. He wrote on the First Amendment in his autobiography in 1821 [5]:

“...an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

While I'd accept this as evidence enough for the true intent of the First Amendment, there are many social conservatives constantly fighting the fact. In the face of the historian rummaging through scraps of archaic literature to prove the original intents of the Bill of Rights, I have this to ask:

Who cares?

Even if the First Amendment was written in order to allow Christianity to dominate government, that is not what is states. The Religion Clauses only state “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. That's it. Jefferson clearly stated that these clauses are to be taken literally. Even if we learn in the future that this wasn't the original intent, tradition and archaic discrimination deserve no power in government. We don't continue to do things simply because we've done them in the past, lest we never learn from history and advance the future. True religious freedom is true separation of church and state.

Everyone deserves to believe whatever they wish to believe. Nobody deserves to force beliefs onto another person. The same people promoting the First Amendment as a Christian safety are the same people calling marriage “unconstitutional” unless it's between someone with a penis and another person with a vagina. They're the same people immediately dismissing activism the moment feminism is mentioned. Stubborn people who value tradition over equality. I understand that I just made a generalization of social conservatives, but I am not speculating. Republicans and other social conservatives retain Christian-based civil views and aim to rob people of privileges otherwise allowed.

You may oppose birth control and contraceptives because you believe they allow a feeling of freedom to exhibit immoral behavior. You may feel that teenagers will have sex if they feel there is no consequence. While this is correct, only part of the sentence is largely important: teenagers will have sex. It's going to happen, and the notion of universally altering the behavior of America's youth to fit the Christian morality is unrealistic and results in children with poor quality of life, contributing to overpopulation and accelerating poverty. Alternatively, women can reserve 3 seconds a day to take a pill and not worry about ruining their lives or the lives of their children.

You may oppose non-heterosexual marriage because it is clearly spoken against in the Bible. Or perhaps your anti-equality views have nothing to do with religion, but you feel hatred or discomfort toward the idea. The truth is that you are not personally affected by Americans getting married. Everyone deserves the freedom to marry. Does it seem unnatural? Immoral? Maybe even disgusting?

Then don't do it. However, you do not get to limit the freedoms of other Americans.

It is entirely possible to be religious without hurting other citizens outside of your religion. When voting on an issue or discussing it with other people, there's really only one question to ask: “Does this negatively impact my life personally?”

References:

[1] : http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/04/u-s-doesnt-rank-high-in-religious-diversity/

[2] : http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

[3] : http://www.liberalamerica.org/2014/01/13/sliding-left-liberalism-growing-america/

[4] : http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/141119

[5] : http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html

[progressivelyaphotic]

Now that I have this thing up and running, I guess it's time to address the blog. This is the "Hello world!" post.

First off, thanks for reading. Tumblr seems to be a great place to lay down rants and ideas for strangers' interpretations, and also to find cool people posting cool things. After following four blogs, my Tumblr feed was already more attractive than my Facebook news feed.  I'm going to attempt to do a real post once a week (something I can file under the "Science / Philosophy" archive), but the whole full schedule / daddy thing usually provides [adorable] obstacles. Entertainment-related stuff isn't going to be on any schedule, but will still be regular.  I have all kinds of crap in-progress, so stay tuned and thank you for following!

[progressivelyaphotic]

Machine Head – Bloodstone & Diamonds, 2014

  Rating:  Excellent

Genre:  Metal

Favorite Track:  "Now We Die"

    This is one of Machine Head's strongest releases, possibly the best they've put out. 

It retains the ornate, subtle orchestral elements present throughout “Unto the Locust”, continuing the dark and gothic overtones started by “The Blackening”. While the brooding emotions are plentiful, the orchestral elements do not over-saturate the album; they're used sparingly and tactically, most prominently on “Now We Die”, “Sail Into the Black”, and “In Comes the Flood”. Worry not, any pretty fragments are easily outweighed by the brutality we've come to expect from Machine Head. “Night of Long Knives” kicks you in the face with metal, employing blast beats during verse segments and a very Locust-esque wall of sound during the chorus. “Beneath the Silt” sounds like it could fit on Alice in Chain's “Dirt” with very little modification (removing the screams), executing Cantrell-inspired pitch whines and sludgy guitars. “Damage Done” is comprised of one single vocal track and very minimal accompaniment; it's warm and serene, much unlike the rest of the album. “Game Over” feels like a Venom song during the verse and transforms into a post-punk compound for the chorus. If nothing else, this album offers just about as much variety as a thrash metal album can. Do we still call these guys a thrash band? The vocals feel a bit more dynamic than previous efforts. That gritty melodic singing voice that sounds like it's been to Hell certainly returns, but Flynn seems to have also introduced a melody-free complimentary sound that he employs strategically- a sort of raspy dragontongue that you'd expect to man the reigns of a black metal band. And damn, it works. I think it shines brightest (or darkest?) on “Killers & Kings”. The infrequent whispers and mutters during clean and broken-down sections return, as does Flynn's pure clean voice. Since this is a Machine Head album, it's loaded with sick guitar riffs and face-melting leads. Bloodstone & Diamonds feels to me like the third installment of a dark trilogy including “The Blackening” and “Unto the Locust”. Machine Head retains their heaviness and edges, but continues to venture deeper into the realm of the gothic (with a dash of prog), resulting in an awesome cacophony of beautiful, shredding wickedness. In the center of this black spiral are memorable and catchy choruses and vocal melodies to give you hugs before throwing you back to the jagged metal machine. In short, this album kicks ass if you want music to kick your ass.

[progressivelyaphotic]

Wake Up, Sheeple!

The only conspiracy theory is the theory that conspiracy theories are conspiracies! Mass-attractive conspiracy theories usually point to one umbrella idea: the government is an evil corporation trying to kill you. While the government may be subjectively evil, the primary goal of government is not to kill citizens (at least not directly!), and while there are parallels to the constructs of business, the government is not a corporation. These aren't things that I need to cite. Unfortunately common sense needs published to be truly common nowadays. Just for the pure antagonizing fun of it, let's play with some modern conspiracy theories. Popular methods by which the government is trying to kill and/or enslave us include infection by vaccinations, GMOs used as biological warfare, commercial airliners dropping chemicals on us, and the use of imaginary Deadly Orgone Radiation.

I : Vaccines contain dangerous mercury, are bad for your immune system, can cause autism, and injure tons of kids annually. Why do we get them? Because the evil government wants us sick and autistic, and doctors are just in it for the money; mothers know better than licensed doctors! The facts: I know that a post on vaccinations will happen sometime, so I won't go too in-depth with this one. First off, there is no link between vaccines and autism [1]. There never was. Kids are rarely injured, and when they are, we're talking about mild symptoms for a small duration (versus dying of a disease). Folks can claim vaccine injury to get money [2]. Vaccines strengthen one's immune system, not weaken it [3][4]. Some vaccines contain a preservative that prevents bacterial contamination called thimerosal, which contains a tiny amount of a type of mercury called ethylmercury (not to be confused with methylmercury, the dangerous stuff). This poses no health risk, but since enough people expressed irrational concern, doctors offer thimerosal-free vaccines (which you hopefully won't get a bacterial infection from) [5]. The anti-vaccination movement is entirely against scientific evidence. II : GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are unhealthy or less healthy than non-GMO products, and the scientists responsible are cashing in on the government's desire to make us unhealthy. The facts: Genetic modification of foods by farmers has been happening through selective breeding for thousands of years. You pick crops with desirable traits and plant them with other desirable traits. That's all that GMOs are, we're just doing it on a microscopic level. Scientists aren't adding toxins or harmful modifications [6]. Personally, I think the opposition to GMOs is just a combination of lack of knowledge and discomfort toward the idea of altering something “natural”. III : The government has been using ChemTrails, which are mind-controlling and/or harmful chemicals released by commercial airplanes, in order to manipulate or kill us. This is evidenced by the white trails left by planes. The facts: Those white contrails left by airplanes are trails of condensation. Condensation + trail = contrail. The origin lies sometime in the late 90's due to a reaction to a weather-altering Air Force proposal. Like many conspiracy theories, one nutjob planted insanity for crazies to gobble up in the years to come. The speculations cover a vast number of topics, from weaponizing weather to covering our skins in pesticides. Some people feel aliens are involved. People will even construct large devices involving copper pipes, coils, and crystals to shield themselves from weather-altering ChemTrails, often to instead change the weather in their own favor. [7]

IV : The government is using harmful radiation known as DOR against us in tons of electrical and electronic devices. The primary purpose of cell phones and landlines is to emit this radiation [9]. The facts: Like ChemTrails (and homeopathy for that matter), this is the work of one person's gibberish surviving years of being proven untrue- in this case, Wilhelm Reich. The number of believers is frighteningly high for something so absurd. There's a such thing as the Orgone Biophysical Research Lab [8] (keep in mind, Orgone Radiation does not exist). If you look far enough, you can find OBRL's page on building your own “cloudbusters”. Why do these theories exist? “The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12-foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.” - Alan Moore, “The Mindscape of Alan Moore” (2003) The world is complex. A country is complex. The idea of a massive, hulking force as a puppeteer for all humanity is simple. It's convenient, and it allows for one single target to accrue blame for all horror. That's why we often see one primary antagonist or an organization of antagonists in fiction. It simplifies the complex and allows the story to continue. More importantly, the idea separates the big evil government from the citizens, turning everyday Jane and John Does into righteous heroes, giving a fictional sense of worldly purpose to everyone. Government bad, people good. To make matters worse, a knee-deep theorist will often scrape the barrel for any and all support for his or her claims, ignoring the more plentiful contrasting evidence entirely. Many of these folks will never vote because they believe everyone in office is inherently evil. Trust is a very difficult thing to offer, especially considering groups of people or fields of study. I think it's extremely important in times of uncertainty to be skeptical, but not cynical. Ask for the evidence and weigh it against the competition. Don't assume that a politician is lying because she's a politician. Don't assume a field of science is bought off because one scientist somewhere sold out. Be skeptical, not cynical.

References: [1] : http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/ [2] : http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html [3] : http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vs-sv/vs-faq09-eng.php [4] : http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/vaccine-decision/prevent-diseases.html [5] : http://www.parenting.com/article/10-vaccine-myths---busted [6] : http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked [7] : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cloudbusting [8] : http://www.orgonelab.org/sobuildaclb.htm [9] : http://www.whale.to/b/dor_h.html

[progressivelyaphotic]

Evidence VS Eyewitness

You're part of a hypothetical jury in a murder trial. The victim has been killed by stabbing and a suspect has been found. Here we go. Scenario: The victim was found in an alley with multiple stab wounds in his stomach. The knife was found next to his body. The suspect in question states that, in addition to not attacking the victim, he wasn't even there when it happened. The many surveillance cameras nearby recorded adjacent blocks and sidewalks, but no camera could view the crime scene. Evidence Against the Suspect: - A video camera recorded the suspect walking toward the crime scene one block away, four minutes before the 911 call went through. - The knife blade and handle were covered in the victim's blood and the suspect's prints, but not the victim's prints. - A t-shirt was extracted from the suspect's home that contained splashes of the victim's blood. - The victim's wallet and driver's license were found at the suspect's home, containing prints from both the victim and the suspect. Eyewitness Reports Defending the Suspect: - Three people claim to have seen the event take place. One of these people placed the 911 call. - These eyewitnesses state no relation to each other, the victim, nor the suspect. - All three eyewitnesses state that the victim stabbed himself with the knife and that the suspect was not there at all. What's the verdict? A) The suspect is a murderer. Only his prints were on the murder weapon, he was in possession of the victim's wallet, he had the victim's blood on his shirt, and he was spotted near the crime scene just before the event happened. OR B) The suspect is innocent. The evidence is insignificant when compared to three similar eyewitness accounts. Since they were there, their testimonies outweigh the physical evidence. The point of this hypothetical scenario is to illustrate a popular argument between theists and scientists. To me, the evidence is reliable and the eyewitnesses are not. Physical evidence is the most reliable element for the explanation of past events. It is not subject to emotion, confusion, shock, memory, misinterpretation, or deceit. Similar to following a map rather than a friend's recollection of directions. But, as I've personally discovered, this isn't the same for everyone. Many people have enough faith in certain records and accounts that they'd deny existing and new evidence despite its accuracy and scientific reliability. A behavior I'd call close-mindedness may be interpreted elsewhere as devotion, commitment, or tradition. More importantly, a person's word holds greater value than anything else. This is absurd to me. Back to the example: Who are these eyewitnesses? Did they talk about what they saw before the police arrived? If so, their stories could have aligned in that time. Perhaps one of them thought they saw a suspect flee, but denounced this thought after talking to the other witnesses. Did the witnesses actually see the victim stab himself? Or was this assumed by the blood, knife, and lack of lingering murderer? The questions are infinite, because a person's word is subject to a person's mind. Stories and recollections can change. However, physical evidence is absolute. When enough physical evidence is present, there's no need for eyewitness accounts. The same goes for scientific evidence. Extreme folks believe that geological history is unreliable because geologists weren't around 100,000 years ago, so they couldn't have recorded that history. We know better, because the amount of physical evidence is overwhelming. We don't need a billion-year-old science historian to verify the planet's history, because the puzzle pieces are there (an extremely appropriate analogy when discussing Pangaea!). So why does this reversed skepticism happen? I have three ideas. First, the one I've already mentioned: It's possible to inherently assume the truth of a person's word despite the existence of physical contradictory evidence. This might be out of social or moral obligation, projection bias, or some type of emotional connection. Allow me to contradict myself for a moment and state that, if someone I love were convicted of a crime and he/she swears to me that he/she is innocent, I would inherently and emotionally attempt to believe it despite the evidence. I feel this is some level of human nature, but it's clearly an emotional reaction to a situation demanding emotionless focus and logic. Basically, I would very much want to believe the word over the evidence, until emotions would have a chance to fade. Another possibility is lack of a basic or intermediate scientific understanding of the situation. We aren't all geologists or oceanographers, but we're capable of reading studies and papers that they've written. Similarly, we aren't all meteorologists capable of using weather-predicting instruments, but we can definitely understand the temperature highs and images of suns and lightning that they show us on television. These are basic understandings. I feel that a basic understanding of science is required in order to attempt to dismiss it. To say that you know what a geologist is, but you don't believe them when they've matched rock compositions between Asia and Australia, is only an acceptable dismissal if you've personally read the thousands of field and lab studies explaining continental drift. To do anything less is lazy. Finally, the easiest assumption is straight stubbornness. When you've built your entire life on a set of beliefs, especially beliefs constantly challenged by science, it must be difficult to retain them after learning the strength of evidence against them. It's much easier to ignore contradictions and theological challenges than it is to entertain them, research, and then explain their inaccuracy. We also cannot forget that faith-based historical interpretations are rarely destroyed by scientific proof, because faith exists in spite of science.

[progressivelyaphotic]

Utopianisti – II, 2013

Rating:  Excellent

Genre:  Prog / Rock

Favorite Track:  “The Forest of the Bald Witch”

  The compositions are fantastic. It's an awesome blend of tone colors and genres that blew my mind at least once per track. The transitions and overall moods are sporadic and jolting, but this is justified by consistent inconsistency; you have no idea what's in store on the next track. Structures are jazzy and progressive, but the only element less predictable than the songwriting is the instrument and subgenre. All sorts of guitars and strings, woodwinds, percussion, brass, synthesizers, multiple vocal styles- the variety is all there. The album opens with a bright brass sound on “Mekonium Fist” that initially had me anticipating a Ska record, only to be followed by a crazy marriage of heavy metal and opera on “The Vultures Were Hungry”. Later on we hear digital chaos and what sounds like samples from old Nintendo systems in “Bisphenol A”, still decorated with explosive brass horns and acoustic drums. Despite exploring so many instruments, the overarching progressive composition is consistent throughout. Not to mention, the charming cover art is just as great. Go buy it!