Chari t T
H
E
Delivering Gunn’s Culture and Politics
MAY 2010
VOLUME 6 • ISSUE 8
RELIGION: GOOD OR EVIL? 9 Photo: Priya Ghose
3 Media and Politics • 8 Kick-Ass
THE CHARIOT
The World in a Blurb Qualified Pick for Gunn’s Next Principal When Gunn Principal Noreen Likins announced her retirement a couple of months ago, most of the Gunn community reacted with mixed feelings – hopes that Ms. Likins would enjoy the explorations of the rest of her life, but sorrow that Gunn was losing such a talented administrator and dedicated friend to students. Here at The Chariot, we wish her the best of luck for her future years after her twelve years of service at Gunn. The vacancy is to be filled by Gunn’s own social studies teacher Katya Villalobos, who began teaching at Paly in 1996 and has served as Assistant Principal of Paly and principal of Capuchino High School in San Mateo. She brings with her a range of experience from which Gunn will no doubt benefit and has a history of working closely with students. According to one Paly student, “She did a great job when she was at Paly before.” No doubt we can look forward to another great job here at Gunn. On a related note, Gunn’s Assistant Principal Phil Winston was selected to be the principal of Paly next year. Mr. Winston has served Gunn since 2006 and demonstrated care for students and the Gunn community. His good sense of humor and commitment to the school will be missed at Gunn. We wish Mr. Winston the best of luck at Paly next year.
First Line of Defense in Times Square On May 1, a crude car bomb in the middle of Times Square forced thousands of tourists and pedestrians to evacuate the area. According to New York Police Department Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, the bomb was in the process of detonating when police arrived and defused the bomb, thankfully in time. Only 53 hours later, chief suspect Faisal Shahzad was arrested. Despite the scare that this incident has caused, it is clear that the counterterrorism system in the United States is functioning well. After following the police and the FBI during the investigation, it becomes clear why the system works. Police found the registered owner of the car, who reported that he had sold it to a young man for cash. The FBI and police then identified Shahzad by analyzing calls made from a disposable phone and raced to his Connecticut home, to find that he had fled. They quickly put him on the no-fly list and apprehended him right before his flight for Dubai took off. This seems like the plot of an action thriller, but it really shows that the U.S. has made it incredibly difficult for terrorists like Shahzad to escape. They can run, but they can’t hide. 2
MAY 2010
Suspect Faisal Shahzad
Dangerously Dependent on Oil When the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, it began to unleash almost 1 million gallons of crude oil daily over an area of at least 2,500 square miles. President Obama called it “a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster” and committed National Guard troops to containing the spill. British Petroleum (BP), the company that leased the rig, has taken full responsibility for the explosion and possible environmental damage to Gulf Coast wetlands. The explosion killed 11 rig workers. The explosion is a sign of the difficulty of using dwindling oil reserves to meet soaring demand across the world. The imbalance has forced companies like BP to dig deeper and deeper; the Deepwater Horizon rig recently broke a record in drill depth, at 32,000 feet into earth’s crust. As President Obama lifts a moratorium on drilling in the eastern Gulf, and as oil companies pursue new reserves near countries like Brazil and Angola, these disasters will only happen more and more. It is time to realize that drilling farther and deeper is a blind way to put off our energy problems for another day. While oil may be necessary to bridge the gap temporarily between conventional and alternative energies, we have to make the change now, or else we will lose more than just 11 lives – we will lose our energy independence.
THE BIG SIX
BY EMPLOYEES (each person represents 10,000 employees)
12,000
CBS
(in billions of dollars)
150,000
Time-Warner
BY REVENUE
86,000
GE
BY TOTAL ASSETS (in billions of dollars)
64,000
Disney
By Celine Nguyen
323,000
News Corp.
BY THE NUMBERS
26,000
Viacom
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
MAY 2010
3
THE CHARIOT
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
WHO OWNS WHAT: THE BIG 6 VIACOM www.viacom.com
WALT company DISNEY . . . the
coporate disney go com
Television
Television ABC ESPN (80%) Lifetime Network (partial) The History Channel (partial) A&E (partial)
MTV VH1 Nickelodeon BET Comedy Central Spike TV
Film Walt Disney Pixar Films Miramax Films Touchstone Pictures
Film
Paramount Pictures Dreamworks Sudios
Music Walt Disney Records Hollywood Records Magazines Discover Magazine Disney Magazine ESPN US Weekly (50%)
Other
Neopets Rhapsody Shockwave
4
Film Baby Einstein Muppets
MAY 2010
TIME WARNER
www.newscorp.com
Television
Television
HBO Adult Swim Boomerang CNN Road Runner Warner Bros. TNT Cartoon Network TBS The CW Television Network
Fox Broadcasting Company National Geographic
Film
20th Century Fox
By Brittany Cheng and Celine Nguyen
CBS
GENERAL ELECTRIC . .
NEWS CORP.
www.timewarner.com
(a partial list)
www.cbs.com
www ge com
Television
CNBC MSNBC Telemundo Sci-Fi Bravo USA Sleuth Oxygen
Film
Television
CBS Showtime Networks The CW (50%)
Film
CBS Films
Books
Simon & Schuster
Universal Pictures
Film
Warner Bros. Castle Rock Entertainment
Magazines
Time Magazine Fortune People Entertainment Weekly Sunset Real Simple
Internet
AOL MapQuest Amazon.com (partial)
Newspapers
New York Post Wall Street Journal Dow Jones
Books
HarperMorrow Publishers HarperCollins International
Internet
MySpace.com RottenTomatoes.com
Other
GE Aircraft Engines GE Commercial Finance GE Consumer Products GE Industrial Systems GE Insurance GE Medical Systems GE Plastics GE Power Systems GE Specialty Materials GE Transportation Systems
Internet
CNET Networks GameSpot Last.fm Metacritic
MAY 2010
5
THE CHARIOT
MEDIA’S INFLUENCE The Polarized Press Arjun Bharadwaj Graduating Senior
S
the printing press, the media have always been a way for politicians to express their views and help manipulate public opinion. In the early days of the American Republic, it was not uncommon for politicians to literally buy newspapers in order to slander their opponents. Yet, as time wore on, newspapers have managed to develop a certain level of independence from politicians: during the 1960s, photos of the Vietnam War revealed the atrocities committed by the American military. Then, after finally achieving a level of independence from the government, they went back to being rented by political parties to spew slogans. The two main instigators of this sort of politicization of fact are obvious: FOX News and MSNBC. Both of them seize opposite ends of the political spectrum and utilize them to gain ratings. FOX uses rabid nutcases like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly to claim that the Democrats are anything from socialists to the bizarre “Liberal neo-monarchists.” MSNBC is no better, often championing any cause the Democratic party supports, no matter how wrong it is. This even carries over onto the Internet, where people like David Horowitz rage about how communism is slowly poisoning American education. And to make matters worse, nonpartisan groups like CNN are actually losing coverage as people move towards more interesting, less factual “news” sources. The problem with this is that it slowly shapes the way politicians think the public
6
ince the invention of
MAY 2010
MSNBC’s Olbermann
thinks. When they hear these radical ideas, they simply attempt to parrot them, not realizing that while politicians have become more polarized, people haven’t--they simply want change. When the Democrats made concessions towards Republicans on healthcare, popularity ratings for them started to decline. It wasn’t because the populace felt that healthcare reform was too liberal; they were just upset about nothing being done by the Democrats. Similarly, if the Republicans were to take office now, nothing would happen, as the Democrats would be unwilling to make deals with them, causing their approval ratings to fall as well. The media have countless times utilized partisan rhetoric and controversial statements to boost ratings. This in turn has distorted politicians opinions about the populace, in turn turning politics into a bitter, partisan game, making sure that no change or any kind of legislation gets through Congress. The only way to end this trend is to encourage a more bipartisan movement in the media and allow debates that are really “fair and balanced”.
FOX’s O’Reilly
The Mendacious Media Kevin Zhang Contributing Writer
T
communication through new technology raises our living standards. It enables us to be informed on important issues that affect us. In the past, the media enabled citizens to make wise choices in selecting their leaders. But in recent years, the media have negatively affected politics. Mainstream media outlets are corporations. Their primary objective is to make money. Thus, they need to deliver news that people are attracted to. This often makes the news inaccurate and sometimes extreme. Outlets have become more and here is no doubt that
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
ON POLITICS more filtered in recent years. With the rise of the Internet, news outlets and newspapers have often become more desperate to deliver news that people want to hear and often times need to exaggerate or even distort the truth. Thus, when the country has a popular figure like President Barack Obama, few media stations report that he does not allow five days of public comment before signing bills as he said he would during his campaign. When an unpopular figure like former President George W. Bush makes a small mistake in a press conference, media outlets quickly broadcast it. In addition, when a corporation like Fox News needs to attract its conservative viewers, it houses a broadcaster like Sean Hannity, who published a book that seemed to compare liberalism with terrorism. With companies so geared towards making money, the viewers are often misled and only receive information from one, sometimes extreme, side. In addition, the media is used by candidates for advertisement. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on these campaigns with the goal of a one-sided argument. These arguments just lead to personal attacks and eventually turn politics, democracy and healthy debates into a contest of appearance and personality. American citizens donate millions for political campaigns. Instead of money going
to advertising, campaigning and bashing, it should go to humanitarian efforts or something that would actually have an immediate and beneficial impact on society. However, the media have great potential for politics. With the information revolution in full throttle, the power should be with the general public. In order to ensure the people have the power, transparency needs to be widespread. A fantastic example is the Surrey Accountability Portal, a Web site that tracks government spending and contracts, and enables people and businesses to make wiser decisions. With outlets like these, the general public can gain power and make more intelligent decisions. All in all, the media has dramatically changed the lives of citizens. Although there have been issues with maintaining the morals of the media and properly educating citizens, there is potential for more transparency and more power to the general public who can then make wiser decisions that will change the world for the better.
About Us The Chariot is intended to create and promote political discussion at Gunn and make people aware of issues that matter. We ask that you respect all opinions which are reflected in our publication, and write letters to the editors if you wish to voice your opinion. The views expressed do not reflect that of The Chariot, but rather those of the individual writers. The Chariot was originally founded in 2004 as the Partisan Review by Gunn alumni Ilan Wurman (‘06), Channing Hancock (‘06), and Sarah McDermott (‘05). Visit our website, www.gunnchariot.com if you wish to view any issues from previous years or for more information about us. Any questions, comments, suggestions, or requests to join can be sent to gunnchariot@gmail.com If you’d like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to: Marc Igler Re: The Gunn Chariot 780 Arastradero Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 Checks can be made out to Gunn High School with “The Chariot” on the memo.
Editors-in-Chief Andrew Liu Sarah Zubair Senior Editors To be determined Copy Editors To be determined Graphics/Layout Celine Nguyen Susan Nitta Circulation To be determined Publicity To be determined Contributing Writers Naor Deleanu Tara Golshan Anish Johri Ryan Lee Max Lipscomb Jeff Ma Roxanne Rahnama Hina Sakazaki Yoyo Tsai Ian Wilkes Kevin Zhang Graduating Seniors Ron Ackner Yoni Alon Ben Bendor Arjun Bharadwaj Neil Bhateja Corey Breier Robert Chen Brittany Cheng Will Cromarty Andre Garrett Henry Gens Priya Ghose Aaron Guggenheim Jacob Guggenheim James Gupta Tommy Huang Alice Li Sam Neff Saurabh Radhakrishnan Daljeet Virdi Scott Wey Kevin Yang Alexandra Yesian Stanley Yu Ethan Yung Omer Zach Foundation/Group Sponsors Adobe Systems Daughters of the American Revolution Palo Alto Lions Club Patrons ($100+) Lauren Michals and Vinod Bharadwaj Patricia Bruegger Steven Guggenheim Christina Jang, GlobalEduCamp Shirley Zeng and Yajun Liu Sponsors ($50-99) Mark and Rhonda Breier Contributors ($21-50)
Special thanks to Advisor, Marc Igler MAY 2010
7
THE CHARIOT
Kick-Ass Ryan Lee Contributing Writer
A
t a time when all superhero movies seem to lean towards the gritty and dark, following in the successful mold of The Dark Knight, Kick Ass, based on Mark Millar’s cult comic by the same name, comes off as an off-beat alternative to such dark and depressing superhero fare.
8
MAY 2010
The main character, Dave Lizewski, lives in a world not far from real life, although in Dave’s world, anybody can suit up as a real-life superhero and roam the streets, becoming an instant hero among the regular people. Fighting crime gets Dave into some big trouble, and he’s only saved by a couple of real-life superheroes, the scene-stealing Chloe Moretz as Hit-Girl and the sur-
prisingly funny Nicholas Cage as Big Daddy. This wins him no fans with the tough mob boss, played with Al Pacinolike anger by Mark Strong, best known as the villain in Sherlock Holmes. Soon a mob war against these superheroes erupts, and the boss’ son, calling himself Red Mist, throws himself into the ring as an ally for Kick-Ass. All this leads to bursts of uber-kinetic violent action. Kick-Ass has garnered controversy, mainly for 12 year old star Chloe Moretz’s profanity throughout the film. Her character Hit-Girl also shoots, stabs and kills a bunch of redshirt baddies, but for the most part that’s flown under the radar when it comes to the film. The violence portrayed in the movie, ironically enough, carries a message against desensitization towards violence, while many claim that it leads to just that. The main character, Dave, under the illusion that fighting crime and beating baddies is easy, reflects society’s fear that more violent video games and movies will only serve to create more criminals who believe “action heroes” can exist. But as soon as Dave enters the real world, he is grievously injured. In fact, he spends the whole movie in awe of the actual heroes, Big Daddy and Hit Girl, and the real-world violence and death they encounter. For such an unrealistic film, the way it portrays common violence is considerably more realistic than other films of its genre. It tears the misguided notions of today’s violencedriven youth culture to shreds--almost as if the story were formulated to dissuade young kids who play shoot-emups on Xbox from taking those fantasies into the real world. But how does it work as a movie? The script is smart and funny, and the action is well directed and impressive. The movie tries to work on two levels: a crazy Wanted-esque actioner and a teen comedy. It does both well. But this movie is not for the sqeamish. If geysers of blood don’t work for you, don’t watch it. But for those who like “Sickening violence--just the way you like it!”, as advertised on the comic’s cover, this is the movie for you.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
A LOOK AT RELIGION
By Robert Chen
WEALTH VERSUS RELIGIOSITY
CHURCH AND SYNAGOGUE ATTENDANCE
MAY 2010
9
THE CHARIOT
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
RELIGION: AT HOME AND ABROAD SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
THE UNITED STATES
THE WORLD
By Celine Nguyen
DOMINANT RELIGION BY REGION
ATHEISM WORLDWIDE The graph below shows the percentage of the population by country identifying as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or irreligious.
10
MAY 2010
MAY 2010
11
THE CHARIOT
RELIGION: A FORCE
The first Danish translated-Bible from Copenhagen, 1550
Bulwark of Good Andre Garrett Graduating Senior
R
social institution makes it a dominant force historically and in the present day. That it is everywhere is indisputable; the question is whether the overall impact has been beneficial or harmful. It is impossible to divorce the historical impact of such an institution from its role today; the material objects of value and the frameworks of culture and law that have resulted from religion’s impact are a function of the past as well as the present, and the use of historical precedent in analyzing the present and future is applicable for religion, whose roots extend deeply into the past. The purpose of this pro-con debate is not religious conversion. While the debate over the existence of God is popular and undoubtedly well-rehearsed for some who
12
eligion’s pervasiveness as a
MAY 2010
are religious and some who see faith as folly, the time and place for that debate is not here. Thus any attempts to deconstruct the matter down to a formal logical proof of His existence or lack thereof, while entertaining, are irrelevant, as the question at present is not whether or not religion is rational, but whether or not religion is beneficial. Prominent among religion’s various contributions are the incredible literary and artistic works inspired by faith. While the sacred texts of religions do function as scriptures, the Bible, the Qur’an, and the analects of Confucius are of literary merit in their own right. Obviously, the list of religion-inspired literature does not end with canonic work; to draw on two examples, Christianity was the basis of Dante’s Inferno and John Milton’s Paradise Lost. As for art, the Vatican is a veritable fount of artistic and architectural wonders, while the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids are just two
of many works, outstanding for their era, motivated by deities and the prospect of an afterlife. Religion figured prominently in the development of Baroque and Classical music following the Renaissance period, as the two giants of those respective eras, Johann Sebastian Bach and Ludwig van Beethoven, along with the majority of their fellow composers, were both sponsored by and adherents of the Church. Religion does not necessarily inspire acts of virtue in all cases. One focus of the argument against of religion is the role that religious differences play in global conflict. And, indeed, it is possible to generate a horde of historical wars to demonstrate the point. But let us reconsider; the purpose of the debate is to identify the net effects of religion, and to do so one must eliminate religion from the equation entirely and consider the result. Religious war is a consequence of the unifying nature of the institution of religion, as well as the fact that adherents to a particular religion, who have faith in the beneficial impact of it, see its adoption by non-believers as a critical objective, making each religion tend strongly toward proliferation. In this respect a religion is analogous to a nation, a mechanism for introducing a structure and a hierarchy into what would otherwise resemble the chaotic competition of the bestial world. The benefit of heightened order and structure is inevitably tied to some clash between structural mechanisms with different religions, but as the choice is between the nation with its imposed order and the anarchy of a civil war, there really isn’t much of a choice at all. There will be differences, and there will be war; religion gives a name to the ideological differences from which it stems, and heightens its scope, but does not make conflict any more prevalent than in a world without religion. The next logical step for the opponent of religion would be to posit that it may
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
OF GOOD OR EVIL? be possible to eliminate the unifying force of religion and adhere completely to the unifying force of nationality as a substitute, leaving religion behind as a relic of the past. To consider the externalities of such a path, we once again turn to the past. A notable nation of the 20th century who tried to eliminate established religion were Communist Russia and China. Self-proclaimed religion-free states, Russia and China crippled the dominant churches in their respective nations. Whether the elimination of the church was a conscious effort by Lenin, Stalin and Mao to attain power, or whether the adoption of atheism as a way of life increases the individual’s proclivity toward sinful and immoral acts, these historical examples strongly emphasize the importance of religion as a bulwark of individual life and liberty and a bastion of morality against tyrannies of the state. It is when these supports are eliminated, and the consequences revealed, that religion’s importance becomes all the more clear. Which brings us to our conclusion, with a statement of religion’s most important purpose. The distinction between good and evil, the conceptions of morality, and the understanding of the flawed nature of man, all critical components of religious theology, keep the believer conscious of the ramifications of his own actions. For example, in Christianity, the recognition of the value of other human beings, endowed with the divine spark and blessed with the love of God, was the basis of religious moral codes, intricately tied to religious faith. It is this concern for others and the rejection of materialism in favor of spirituality that is the best component of religious teachings, in the past and present, all across the globe.
Shades of Gray Robert Chen Graduating Senior
P
eople often misjudge religion. It’s always heaven and hell, right and wrong, and good and evil. But the truth is that religion is not so black and white, especially when it comes to religion’s worth to society.
It is impossible to label all of religion as solely good or bad. Not only is there a wide range of different religions, each with different ethical standards and moral codes, but within each religion, there also exists a spectrum from conservative to liberal. Furthermore, there are different ways to interpret religious scripture and act based on these precepts. For these reasons, we can’t say that all religion is bad or that all religion is good, MAY 2010
13
THE CHARIOT
RELIGION: A FORCE
Outside the Creation Museum
but have to break down religion into separate parts and assess them separately. The Good Religion is good if it remains a personal endeavor. Its good aspects, spirituality and faith, are both highly individual and become problematic only when people try to impose their beliefs on others or introduce religion where it has no place. Spirituality involves these facets: • Discovery and development of oneself • Connectedness to others • Belief in some higher power beyond our world This often involves meditation and introspection to understand oneself, one’s direction, and one’s place in the world. Because of this, spirituality can help give people a purpose in life and guide them toward good. Faith gives people a purpose, something to look forward to in life. It unifies 14
MAY 2010
groups with a common mindset, helping to promote cohesiveness and solidarity. For example, the Puritans’ similar beliefs kept them united when they founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Often, religion emphasizes personal discipline and restraint. For example, the five prayers a day required in Islam and Sunday church services give people something consistent to hold on to in their lives. It’s their stability in a constantly-changing modern world. The Bad The bad aspects of religion for the most part involve its overreach into the areas of life that should remain secular. Once religion creeps into places like politics, law and justice, war, science, and government, it clouds reason and logical thinking. One case is the attempt to insert creationism into schools. Here, Christianity intrudes in the secular realm of education, where it does not belong.
Another instance of the intrusion of religion is when it is used against science. One of the worst examples of this is the Pope’s anti-condom stance that, as a result, increases HIV infections and AIDS deaths. Another case is the use of religion as justification for war or discrimination, such as in the Crusades, when the church granted indulgences for those who died in battle in the name of God. Currently, this is the case with religious-fueled terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And what about following religious scripture as law? If we were to follow the Bible (“He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” –Exodus 21:17) in executing the law and determining punishments, the results would be far from just and humane. In Summary The good parts of religion include what is done in one’s personal life—the spirituality and faith. Together, these unify groups and keep people disciplined and purposeful. The bad includes the overextension of religion into secular life, which should stay faith-free. In these instances, the religion clouds judgment and reason, potentially harming lives and obstructing justice. There is no doubt that religion is a driving force in every aspect of society. That’s why we need to cast away our old misconceptions and realize that religion is not black and white.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
OF GOOD OR EVIL? A Poison to Society James Gupta Graduating Senior
T
a god is a hypothesis. As such, no conclusion can be formed until this hypothesis is justified. In other words, the asserter holds the burden of proof. If I were to claim there is finely-crafted and unscathed Stradivarius violin located at the center of the volcano Olympus Mons on Mars, the onus would be on me to provide evidence and until then, my claim should not be taken seriously. Likewise, the burden of proof in the debate about religion is also highly asymmetrical; those who posit that there is an omniscient and omnipotent deity have a far greater obligation to back up their declaration than those who disagree. But even though the onus is not on nonbelievers to prove the nonexistence of God, the arguments in favor of atheism are overwhelming. The chief line of reasoning involves the principle of “Occam’s razor,” which states that the simplest explanation is probably the best. For example, if you can’t find your keys, it’s more logical to assume that you simply misplaced them rather than that extraterrestrial aliens stole them from your pocket. For all you Family Guy fans out there, Stewie represents a complete disregard for Occam’s razor. He invariably comes up with the most complex explanations for simple occurrences. Like Stewie, the religious do not recognize that they habitually contradict Occam’s razor. They offer absurd explanations (which they call “miracles”) for commonplace events. A simple and logical explanation for Jesus’s absence from he assertion that there exists
Need there be a “watchmaker”?
his grave would be that gravediggers stole his body, but Christians claim he was resurrected by God. Buddhists contend that The Buddha created a golden bridge using only his mind and walked along it for a week, but isn’t it more likely that somebody invented this story and slipped it into Buddhist texts years after the founder’s death? By employing the common-sense logic of Occam’s razor, we can explain away all of the so-called “miracles” which are prevalent in every religion. Of course, you say. Some religious stories may be a little far-fetched, but how can we answer the fundamental questions about the world we live in without faith? Can science alone tell us where the universe comes from? Or when time began? How could life have begun without divine
design? Early nineteenth century English philosopher William Paley used the ever-so-common teleological argument to provide a religious response to questions like these. The teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, says that because nature is so perfectly ordered at an extraordinarily complex level, it could not have arisen by chance, and thus behind its grandeur there must be a divine hand. Paley provides an analogy: if you were to find a watch lying in a field, you would logically assume that the watch had a designer, for it is far too complex to have come about randomly. To him, the universe is like that watch, and God is the watchmaker. At the time, this argument seemed so foolproof that even Charles Darwin himMAY 2010
15
THE CHARIOT
RELIGION: A FORCE
A lithograph of the Salem Witch Trials from 1892
self considered it sound. But several decades later, his discovery of evolution by natural selection allowed for an explanation of life that left God entirely out of the picture, for unsacred Evolution was found to be the true watchmaker. Darwin renounced his former belief, writing, “The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.” In this history is a lesson: when confronted with a philosophically challenging question, it is better to reserve judgment than to jump to unwarranted conclusions. Humble admittance of ignorance and a commitment to scientific investigation trumps superstition any day of the week. We should approach other such deep questions as the origin of life with patience and skepticism, and not substitute religious superstition where a question mark ought to be. But that religion is irrational is only half of my argument; the other half is that it 16
MAY 2010
is also deleterious to society – a poison, if you will. First off, faith has a strong tendency to dull the mind. Believers often shrug off profound scientific discoveries as inconsequential in comparison to God and the miracles he performs, and a satisfaction with myths that are reminiscent of a cheap magic show results in a lack of interest in and appreciation for science and discovery. This manifests itself as a shunning of academic disciplines, an ignorance of scientific beauty, praise for denialism, and what could justifiably be called nasty opposition to progressive thinking. Believers and religious apologetics often wave their hands when they think scientists are encroaching upon religious territory, for they see religion as deserving of special respect. But at the same time, religious leaders constantly attack scientific truths that contradict their beliefs. It is a scientific truth that the earth is more than six thousand years old, children are never virgin-born, complex life is a result of evolution, and that homosexuality is
not a choice, yet the religious community arrogantly thinks it has a right to deride objective and well-substantiated facts such as these. Religion should not be allowed to hide behind a wall of self-granted respect and take fire at science – it’s simply not a fair game. Science ought to be able to defend itself and shoot back without whines that this is offensive. Unfortunately, most religious folks allow themselves to become political tools of their faith’s leaders in an attempt to fit in with the crowd – not surprising given that they’re threatened with eternal damnation. One example of the danger of this control is the proclamation by the pope that condom use is unethical. In reference to HIV/AIDS, he said, “You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem.” The pope is flat-out wrong, for the distribution of condoms in Africa has the potential to save millions of lives, but because he is seen as an infallible religious leader, this common-sense idea encounters serious opposition.
The asserter holds the burden of proof Another example of the way religion politically brainwashes is California Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. The proposition was spearheaded by religious organizations, and it clearly wouldn’t have had any chance of passing if it were not for the intolerance of homosexuals that was promoted by countless religious leaders. The prevalence of religion in politics has even made its way into the classroom. Proponents of intelligent design have at-
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
OF GOOD OR EVIL? tempted, often successfully, to include religious bias in scientific textbooks, something which is particularly alarming given that it is an effort to use public schools as recruiting stations for religion, a direct threat to the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state. This mentality, that religious principles are supreme and to be defended tooth and nail, breeds hatred. It leads otherwise good men and women to become intolerant of people of other faiths – people who in reality are essentially just like them. Religious divisions such as those between Jews and Christians, Hindus and Muslims, and Sunnis and Shias are widespread and go back ages. They have divided and continue to divide families, communities, and even entire nations, and are the primary source of many historical and modern-day conflicts, ranging from the Crusades to the Salem Witch Trials to the Global War on Terror. One outcome of the hatred which faith inspires is religious extremism – most notably in Islam. Declarations of global jihad, or “holy war,” from militant Islamic organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas and death threats against those who offend Islam create fear and jeopardize the right to freedom of speech and of press. In 1989, a fatwa was issued by Iran’s supreme leader calling all Muslims to kill or help others kill author Salman Rushdie, who wrote a book called The Satanic Verses, which criticized Islam. In 2004, filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered for directing a short film that deplored the treatment of women in Islam. A year and a half later, the global Muslim community erupted once again in a violent rage that resulted in more than a hundred deaths over a Danish cartoon that satirized the Prophet Muhammad. In April 2010, an organization based in New York City threatened the creators of South Park, saying they “will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh” simply for airing an episode that depicted Muhammad in a bear
suit. Granted, the great majority of believers are not so extreme, but the dogmatic holy books that they subscribe to are the same books that make radicalism possible. But doesn’t religion make the average citizen a better person? In fact, it does not. Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation describes how the worst rates of crime in America are usually in the most pious states, as measured by political lean-
ists comprise less than 1% of prisoners, while about 8% of the non-prison population is atheist. International observations also refute the misconception that religion promotes morality. Theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are the most backward and intolerant nations in the world, while the most atheistic countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, have been shown by studies to be among the happiest.
IQ vs Religiosity, as measured by Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg
ing. “While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the ‘red states’ are primarily red due to the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians... Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states... The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red... Twenty-four of the twentynine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red.” In the United States and Canada, athe-
Furthermore, as intelligence increases, faith diminishes. According to a 2006 Gallup poll, “An inverse relationship exists between levels of education and income and belief in God.” The higher the educational degree held by an American, the greater the chance of him being secular. In addition, a 1998 study published in Nature found that a whopping 93% of scientists elected by their peers to the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in God. Clearly it is no coincidence that our nation’s best and brightest are heavily atheistic, for they are our most rational citizens. MAY 2010
17
THE CHARIOT
RELIGION: A FORCE While it can be comforting to take refuge in traditional myths, surely the truth will set us free. I hope that religious people will question the beliefs they have always assumed to be true, and that agnostics will come off the fence in favor of atheism. The time has come for the world to move beyond religion and to stop making a virtue out of not thinking. We can do better.
A mural by the Ulster Volunteer Force
Not a Force for Good Aaron Guggenheim Graduating Senior
I
t would be wrong to conclude that religion is the sole driving factor behind hundreds of years of violent warfare that has consumed many lives and sometimes even entire cultures. But it is a fact that religion has motivated and continues to motivate many conflicts. It provides the divisions and excuses that lead to unnecessary bloodshed. One only has to look at the Crusades, the paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to see the widespread death and destruction that religion helps justify and sometimes even condone. The Crusades, which began in 1095 and 18
MAY 2010
lasted until 1272, are the most blatant example of violent religious influence. The Crusades, all nine of them, were launched to recapture the Holy Land, the birthplace of Christianity. To support the Crusades, Pope Gregory the Seventh (reigning from 1073 to 1085) concluded, with all his religious authority, that violence to regain Holy Land was justified. His actions were further supported by the precedent of Pope Alexander the Second, who, in 1063, gave his blessings to Christians who fought and died killing Muslims. Pope Alexander granted these holy warriors an indulgence or forgiveness for sin and thus, a path to Heaven in the afterlife. The actions of these two Popes gave the Crusades its religious stamp of approval. The remission of sin and the support of the church proved to bedriving motives for the Crusades: anyone who wanted absolution and Heaven joined the fight. The resulting wars were bloody beyond description. Flucther of Chartres described the violence during the First Crusade in gory detail, writing “in this [Muslim] temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.� What did these wars achieve? Nothing, except hundreds of years of hatred and mistrust between the Christian and Muslim peoples. Thousands were murdered or raped in the name of God. This is certainly not an example of a productive religious influence but rather an example of the horrible destruction that occurs when religions clash. Another example of a religiously influenced violence is The Troubles in Northern Ireland. The Troubles began in the early 1960s when a Protestant paramilitary group called the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) formed to protect its members from the supposed resurgence of a Cath-
olic paramilitary force, the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The resulting clashes between the two groups, both of which chose members based on religious identity, were violent. The UVF has claimed more than 462 lives, mostly Catholic. The provisional IRA (a more radical splinter cell of the IRA) set off twenty-two car bombs, killing nine people on Bloody Friday, July 21, 1972. The terrorist activities of both groups, who seek to protect those of their faith, still taint these religions with violence today. While it would be wrong to conclude that all of the factors that led up to The Troubles were a direct result of differing religious identity, it would be fair to say that religion helped make for this violent clash. It is this identity that divides these two groups and helps them justify their violence in the name of their faith.
It is this identity that divides these two groups and helps them justify their violence in the name of their faith A final and more modern example of negative religious influence is the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian crisis. One of the main sources of conflict is Jerusalem, one of the holiest places in both the Jewish and Muslim religions. The Al-Aqsa Mosque, the first mosque ever built, and The Dome of The Rock, where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven with the angel Gabriel, are both in Jerusalem. The Palestinians want access to these holy places and the Israelis refuse to grant it, except for a couple thousand visitors a year. The violence to secure these places dates back to the formation of Zionist paramilitary
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
OF GOOD OR EVIL? groups who sought to secure Israel for the Jews from the late 1930s until Israel gained independence by UN mandate in 1948. The UN estimates that over 711,000 Arabs were expelled or forced to leave the country. Violence still continues to this day with too many deaths (far more Palestinian than Israeli) to keep track of. The bottom line is that religion fostered this conflict, as both religious groups wanted the land that Israel rests on today. While the conflict continues for many more complex reasons, religion was the underlying grandfather of this fierce war. It is yet another example of violence that inherits its ferocity from differing religious identity. Simply put, religion has had a clearly negative influence on many wars and conflicts. Religion drives conflict because it creates opposing identities. Sometimes, religion provides just the fuel for a conflict, butsometimes it fully drives disagreement to violent heights. The Crusades, The Troubles and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are just a few examples of this. This is not to say that we should throw out religion, but that we should be aware of what exactly religion is responsible for.
A Secular Witch Hunt Henry Gens Graduating Senior
I
n this day and age, secularism is synonymous with the most scholarly of pursuits. The overwhelming majority of national universities and colleges in America—as well as all of the state universities—are devoid of devout faith on campus. The conventional view is that religion is a bigoted institution that should have no place in higher establishments of education; learning should be free of all dog-
matic constraints, and thus religion is often scorned by these schools. This idea is taken to the point where it seems as though the coexistence of religion and scholarly study is an oxymoron. Despite all of the negative connotations that faith has culled in the academic community, there still remains a strong case for reconciling the two.
The Al Aqsa Mosque
One of the most important reasons that religion should not be exorcized from education is that it provides a unique approach to many areas of the arts. Religious influences foster a different kind of thought, and thus students with varying degrees of faith will inevitably come to separate conclusions on the same social questions. To thoroughly disqualify religion in the analysis of these issues would be a narrow-minded mistake, scholarly sacrilege; it would be committing the error of ignorance that these selfsame intellectuals attribute so freely to faith. In terms of the sciences, faith can easily exist in the same capacity. It is entirely possible for the research conducted at universities to remain objective, as religion should have no role in the formulation of hypotheses and collection of data. Nevertheless, too many people still cling to the classic view of religion as an impediment to intellectual progress in the sciences—perhaps most notoriously for its opposition of evolutionary theories concerning organisms. Individuals fail to real-
ize, though, that the relationship between religion and science has come a long way since the Scopes trial in 1925. Although it is true that there are still communities in the United States that persist in their belief of intelligent design, the vast majority of religiously-affiliated schools have long since discarded these ludicrous theories and myopic views. It must also be mentioned that a strong presence of faith on campus can foster several other qualities in individuals that are just as crucial to an education as academics. Religion should be viewed as a motivating force in pursuing education rather than a vehicle of complacency. People of faith are instilled with a strong feel for morality in their conduct as well as the desire to help others—and thus the knowledge they accumulate at the university will likely be used in that capacity. Religion also begets a sense of community and cooperation among individuals; it is a shared common ground—and isn’t every university seeking to commend that aspect? In the end, religion remains a crucial component of many people, and it can easily exist alongside traditional academics without obstructing a liberal education. In a nation where only 16.1% of individuals (according to a 2007 estimate) were reported to have no religious affiliation, the importance of faith to society is further underscored. Taking the extreme prevalence of religion in America into account, an essential facet of education is preparing an individual for life outside of the ivory tower; why would it make sense to alienate such a prominent aspect of life from schooling? All things aside, the strength of religion lies in the aspects that encourage the kind of qualities that drive individuals to meaningful education. As long as the realms of religion and scholarship are carefully integrated, it’s possible to reap the benefits of both worlds. MAY 2010
19
THE CHARIOT
Scientology: An Abomination Scott Wey Graduating Senior
T
he Church of Scientology was founded by one Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, a failed science fiction writer with a severe mental disorder- paranoid schizophrenia. When he was made aware of his mental disorder, he begged the Veteran’s Administration for treatment. His request was denied and he began a crusade against psychiatry as a whole, incorporating his hatred into the ideals of Scientology. It is largely unclear what Scientology’s beliefs are because information about the organization’s (notice the word religion isn’t used; more on that later) practices and convictions are closely guarded secrets. However, through the magic of the internet, Scientology’s doctrines can be found, dissected, and subjected to ridicule. Much like most modern day religions, Scientology has a rich, colorful, and completely insane creation myth that will be summarized here to the best of my ability. Billions and possibly trillions of years ago, there was an evil space emperor named Xenu. Because he was an evil space emperor, he utilized the power of psychiatry to imprison and freeze hundreds of billions of aliens. One he had them frozen, he transported them to Earth in spaceships. He dumped the frozen aliens into volcanoes on our planet and dropped hydrogen bombs on them. The souls of the aliens floated up and were recaptured and brainwashed by Xenu. They forgot their past lives and roamed the Earth settling into whatever evolved into humans. Scientology calls these souls Thetans. Supposedly, they’re the source of everything that makes us unhappy. Is it now apparent now why L. Ron Hubbard failed as a science fiction author? Awful stuff, just awful. If one were to open the Scientology website and browse through it, one would definitely not see any mention of the Xenu creation myth. It scares away potential members. Having just read this paragraph, you’ve saved roughly $6,500. 20
MAY 2010
That’s how much it costs for a Scientology member to buy the information from them. Let’s get one thing out in the open. The Church of Scientology is all about money. L. Ron Hubbard is quoted as saying, “Y’know, we’re all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!” (Another gem is: “The only way you can control people is to lie to them.”) Never has Scientology been about helping people. It has always been about the money.
An E-meter
Scientology preaches that one can get rid of one’s Thetans by joining Scientology and undergoing “auditing”. Without going into tedious detail, auditing is basically hooking oneself up to an E-meter (a glorified resistometer) and answering a series of questions regarding alien genocide. E-meters cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars and need to be “recalibrated” at licensed Scientology centers for hundreds more. “Religious” texts and scriptures cost hundreds of dollars and increase exponentially in price. Rankings have to be purchased for extravagant amounts to have the privilege to buy the texts. Nothing in Scientology is free. Except for the slave labor. What slave labor, you ask? The child labor. Instead of spending hundreds of pages detailing the grievous crimes against children committed by L. Ron Hubbard’s child enslavement/brainwashing brigade (the entire Church of Scientology), I’ll let the following excerpt from official church documents speak for itself: “If you want to control your child, simply break him into complete apathy and he’ll be as obedient as any hypnotized half-wit. If you want
to know how to control him, get a book on dog training, name the child Rex and teach him first to “fetch” and then to “sit up” and then to bark for his food. You can train a child that way. Sure you can. But it’s your hard luck if he turns out to be a bloodletter. Only don’t be half-hearted about it. Simply TRAIN him. “Speak, Roger!” “Lie down!” “Roll over!” Of course, you’ll have a hard time of it. This - a slight oversight is a human being. You’d better charge right in and do what you can to break him into apathy quickly. A club is best. Tying him in a closet without food for a few days is fairly successful. The best recommended tactic, however, is simply to use a straight jacket and muffs on him until he is docile and imbecilic.” Rough stuff. Scientology is by no means a religion. Not in the modern sense of the word, at any rate. Many anti-Scientology activists claim that it is a cult. No, Scientology is more than a cult. The word cult conjures up a image of a small isolated group, limited in power and capacity to do harm. Scientology has the resources (money and legal muscle) to do harm. Backed and fronted by celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, it is a malevolent corporation which successfully rallied to get certain psychiatric pharmaceuticals banned in the UK. To summarize, Scientology is a ridiculous, self serving, money grubbing, child abusing corporation masquerading as a religion. The horrifying thing is: Scientology is officially considered by the United States government as a tax-exempt religion. Make of it what you will.
Advertisement