Kyle Brady: Blog » Religion

The Rules of Argumentation [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:29:22 +0000

The so-called art of argumentation, let alone discussion, seems to have been lost in the last two decades in the realm of politics, religion, and various other intensely personal subject areas, which has been made extremely clear over the last 15 months in America. So, in the interest of public safety, this is a review of the basics of discussions that involve disagreement.

Rule 1 – Facts

Individuals are entitled to their own opinions, but not facts. The basis of any discussion is reliant upon core information, and if a party is lacking in the comprehension of such data, they must be open to the realization that their data may not necessarily be correct.

Rule 2 – Equality

Not all opinions are created equal. There are experts in fields, self-proclaimed experts, and various levels of amateurs/average citizens, where the pyramid of knowledge and expertise begins with the legitimate experts and widens on the way down. This, quite obviously, means that some individuals are simply better suited to understand, interpret, and hold opinions on topics, especially within the realms of science and mathematics.

Rule 3 – Sacred

Opinions should not be considered sacred or immutable. Given new data, reliable argumentation, or simply a change of heart, an individual’s beliefs on any given topic should be open to change – the more valued the belief, the less immutable it must become.

Rule 4 – Respect

Just as not all opinions are created equal, not all opinions need be respected. In the event that some belief is so demonstrably ludicrous as to be laughable, and the individual refuses to be open to change, this opinion is not worthy of respect. Only when beliefs are defensible, reasoned, and researched can they demand respect.

Rule 5 – Emotion

A reasoned argument is not an epic battle between good and evil, but an exchange of ideas between reasonable people. There is no need to become overly emotional or feel personally affronted, since such a discussion is not a judgment of personal character.

Rule 6 – Winning

There isn’t necessarily a “winner” in an argument. Even if there is a so-called winner, where one party convinces the other of their position, this is not a true loss to the “losing” party – losing an argument is not rescinding personal ideals, but instead reforming false, faulty, or otherwise incorrect beliefs.

Rule 7 – Death

The last, and most important rule, is that no-one dies in an argument. If the argument goes so far as to become weaponized, it’s no longer a rational exchange of ideas, and should be discontinued.

Islam Is Not The Problem [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:05:18 +0000

The world’s three major religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – all share the same common, fundamental roots, to the point where the differences of lineage are a matter of disagreement that resulted in a forking of beliefs and the co-development of ideologies. This is important when analyzing the current contentions between different parts of the world, and for discovering who, or what, is truly the core of the problem.

Essentially, the intertwining of these three religions breaks down fairly simply: Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, where the future-Christians believed their Savior to have come and the Jews disagreed, and Islam is a semi-branching of Christianity, where Jesus is considered a Prophet, but not the last or most important Prophet. It is because of this family tree that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all share the common written text known as the Old Testament (Christianity) or the Tanakh (Judaism), both of which are reverentially referenced in the Qur'an (Islam). Many people, clergy included, often forget that these religions are all related to each other in very strong, definable ways, but simply have a difference of opinion in terms of specific ideological points, worship, and the implementation of faith into everyday life.

Just as Islam has declarations of violence and sexism from a far-distant age, so too does the first half of the Christian Bible - “an eye for an eye” sounds eerily similar to many of the lines in the Qur’an that are selectively chosen to support violence and, ultimately, the act of jihad. When these religions share so many ties with each other, why do they continue to battle desperately over what amounts to minutiae? In this, the 21st century, wars are still being fought over so-called holy lands, artifacts of worship, and for conversion to a chosen faith – thousands of years from the root node of these beliefs.

This is not an issue that should have become problematic in the modern world, and yet the last decade has seen a rise in religious extremism and terrorism across the world that's not restricted to Islam. Every religious sect has fundamentalist factions, seen throughout both modernity and history, that can mutate into a very dangerous form of fanatical extremism. While Islam is seemingly destined to flourish in dictatorial arenas that allow the implementation of harsh and inhumane law based on a strict, yet selective, interpretation of their holy texts, they are neither alone nor in any way the single culprit of extremist violence.

In the United States, there is a worrisome trend of growth for evangelical and fundamentalist Christian groups that wish not only to live as they feel their beliefs entitle them, but wish to force these views on others at all costs. These fundamentalist, non-Islamic groups support, inside American borders, the banning of gay marriage, the restriction of rights for non-white individuals that is thinly veiled as an attempt at immigration policy, the embedding of church within state, and significantly more, all while decrying other religions, including those of their own faith that are not “strong” enough for their tastes. They often go even further, which can be seen in events such as the murder of so-called abortion doctors.

Ultimately, if the longview of humanity is taken, it is easily found that Islam is actually not the cause of the world’s problems, because it has been shown, albeit on few recent occasions, to peaceably coexist with other religions or secularists and with modern sensibilities. It is the fundamentalist interpretation of beliefs, however, that is of greatest concern, regardless of the specific religion. All three religions have had fundamentalist uprisings that resulted in massive death, destruction, and chaos at one point in time, and it appears that Islam may be having its reformation moment in the present, despite internal attempts to quell those who would prefer weapon-based Islam to any alternatives. Christianity had the Crusades and Judaism has the Zionists, so the world needs to be understanding, at least partially, of the situation for many Muslims worldwide.

If current trends of fundamentalist growth continue, there is a distinct possibility that an all-out religious war may occur – not simply between extremist Muslims and the non-Muslim world in a battle for a worldwide Caliphate, but rather a clash of fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, incited by internal, religious coups to replace moderate leadership for those of more radical belief. The days of religious coexistence in Istanbul are long gone but are still revered by many scholars as the source of some of the world’s earliest and revolutionary advances in mathematics, science, and philosophy. Religious groups, factions, and individuals throughout the world would do well to remember this, and strive to once again achieve relevance for moderate and applicable beliefs that are neither hypocritical nor exclusionary.

On Not Tolerating Intolerance [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:05:58 +0000

The last few months in America have illuminated a large and worrisome bias like never before: citizens must respect the beliefs, lifestyles, opinions, and behaviors of others, so long as they’re legal – except when those same citizens have exclusionary beliefs that apparently allow them to criticize, condemn, vilify, smear, and generally ruin the lives or happiness of others.

This is not a law passed by Congress nor is it an Executive Order – it can’t even be found in the Constitution. The perplexing mix of “don’t criticize me, but I’ll criticize you” is based on a severe misinterpretation of a small part of the Constitution that has mutated over time into a weapon for these groups of people, most of whom have biases that can be traced to religious fundamentalism, racism, and other extremist perspectives that subjugate others for some benefit.

There is a line that divides tolerating another’s religion, political opinion, or personal beliefs, and tolerating intolerant behaviors – nowhere in modern, mainstream Christianity is there a provision that all other religions must be attacked and their people converted to a specific flavor of Christ followers, and yet this is what more and more fundamentalist Christians are coming to believe. Nowhere in any of the laws of the federal government does it state that a political party must follow the ideological whims of party leaders to the point of violence and chaos, and yet this is the behavior of the fringe-becoming-mainstream participants of the Republican Party.

These intolerant behaviors are either on a quick rise to prominence, or they are simply coming out of the dark depths, but the end result is the same: intolerance is becoming a core virtue for many Americans, and it is destroying society. In the case of the recent Fort Hood shooting, pundits were quick to jump to Islamic terrorism long before there was any public evidence to support this, simply on the premise of his name, and this is supposed to be acceptable? There is considerable media focus on the murders and destruction that those of Islamic belief create, and an extreme ignorance of the same behaviors from a more widespread religion inside America – where are the cries of religious fundamentalism when all-too-human doctors are murdered by Christians?

The tolerance of intolerance is reaching a critical breaking point, and the country, as a whole, must come to realize this. The situation is so advanced that the blatant lies and fear mongering that are spread by the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh are often treated as truth by legitimate networks, such as CNN, and this needlessly spreads their message to others. Congressional Republicans have acted on a campaign of negation and delay, using lies and misinformation to their own benefit, ever since President Obama’s arrival in the White House, and this is accepted as normal politics by many, trickling down to the polarized citizens who mimic such behaviors in their own daily lives.

All of this has resulted in banning gay marriage by referendum in state after state, a highly vicious and partisan political atmosphere, the rise of Creationism as a supposedly legitimate counter-theory to Evolution, the justification of a newfound and spreading racism, continued rash and negligent behaviors by the very banks that almost destroyed the interconnected globe, and considerably more. If America continues on its current path of tolerating intolerance, the next decade will see both civilian and military disaster on a scale unprecedented – Civil Rights laws were enacted for a reason, and yet some fundamental rights, or even common courtesies, are continually denied to some citizens.

The solution is clear: news networks must immediately cease reporting falsehoods of any kind, all forms of religion must be once again distinctly separated from the state in every fashion, and the political leaders of the country must rise to the occasion and enact legitimate consequences for those who do not follow the basic principles of sanity and legitimate tolerance. To fail to do so, soon, will result in an ever-deteriorating climate that will inevitably, truly tear the country apart.

LGBT Rights Are About More Than The Military [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:05:07 +0000

The concept of religious marriage should be explicitly divided from what the government recognizes as a legal union between two people, and yet the intertwining of church and state continues. Furthermore, the military has a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, curiously similar to many religious organizations' views on LGBT individuals, that expressly states their lack of interest in their personnel’s personal habits, so long as they do not interfere with the military lifestyle – but discovery of less-than-straight behavior often results in dismissal. President Obama has recently promised to end the policy, even as the so-called “marriage debate” rages on across the country.

What needs to be understood by so many is a simple fact: LGBT individuals are the only group in America that are still legally second class citizens. Both women and African Americans have long since been given the legal rights to which they are entitled, along with various other groups, and live without prohibitions on marriage, religion, military interests, or lifestyle. Yet it is still acceptable to tell said persons that they cannot be married, or even recognized as a legal union, in the eyes of the government, that they cannot participate in the military, and are explicitly barred from certain religions – in addition to the numerous illegal discrimination and hatred that are so often engendered.

In an era where a loudmouth public figure is scandalized over unintelligent comments about another race, and face the onus of federal-level fines and their employer, how is it legal for similar individuals to make comments about the “abhorrent” nature of gay marriage, LGBT’s are “unnatural”, or other offensive vitriol? This last front of civil rights is fundamentally no different than any of the past battles, and yet the actual rights in question are staunchly ignored by critics and commentators alike.

This is not a an issue that has opinions on one side or another – it is, very simply, ethical vs. unethical behaviors. Congressmen, Governors, or even the average citizen do not need to understand, condone, or even “agree with” the lifestyle of those in the LGBT community to legalize same-sex marriage and grant the same basic, American rights that run to the very core of the country’s foundation principles. The prohibition of same-sex marriage, along with current military policy, is akin to a public official claiming “blacks can’t be married” decades ago – this would not, and does not, stand in modern America.

The tone of this struggle will slowly change over time as younger, less judgmental generations grow into positions of power and mold the world into something closer to what it should be – the election of President Obama depended heavily on young, first-time voters that saw in him an embodiment of their own ideals, and is therefore proof-positive that LGBT rights and equality is, at this point, simply a waiting game. The aging, bigoted segments of the population can continue to rant and rave, write policy, and influence legislation, but their power will eventually wane. President Obama and California’s Governor Schwarzenegger have seen that the political power over the coming years truly rests with the vocal, politically-invested electorate, and fundamental rights will be restored for those who remain the final subjects of civil rights discrimination.

Ethics vs. Morals – An Exercise in Proper Word Choice [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:05:35 +0000

Any modern debate inevitably includes the quality of “rightness”, in both arguments for and against the topic in question, and is often presented using “morality” as a base descriptor. While the word “moral” can be a synonym of “ethical”, it is often not used or intended to be defined in this fashion, with the speaker instead implying an inherently subjective view that intersperses strictly secular activities with unnecessarily religious aspects. This affront to secular life, especially in the Western World, must end.

In the religious definition of “morality”, the speaker is subjecting their views upon another person, action, or object, describing this object of their criticism from an internalized and personal viewpoint, rather than objectively analyzing the situation based on common, widely accepted ethical criteria. Where the criticisms have strict ties to religion, such as a religious leader giving advice on spiritual action, this is completely appropriate; however, when this specific word choice is applied to common, secular situations, such as politics, healthcare, or interpersonal behaviors, this is entirely unacceptable.

The assault on secular life by religious institutions and their followers is not new, nor will it cease in the foreseeable future. But with the recent, and inexplicable, rise of Christian fundamentalism in America as an extremely vocal and volatile minority, this battle is taking on heights not seen in half a century. This is not to say that religion itself is inherently negative, but that its ideas and principles have their own place within society, either kept separate from the public or completely internalized within a practitioner. What is difficult to swallow, however, is the evangelical nature of many modern day Christians, who do not approve of religions other than their own and wish to either convert or condemn those who are not their spiritual brethren.

Besides the obvious issues that arise with the condemnation of one religion for another, an extremely vocal minority drowning out the voices of others, or the judgment that is subsequently cast upon outsiders, word choice and usage is a major problem. The English language grows, changes, and morphs by virtue of its viral nature, and humans are naturally inclined to reuse words that are common in their own interactions of others, which illuminates the growing problem: when an individual with a certain religious affiliation uses morals, rather than ethics, in discussions of common activities, the word choice becomes instantly associated with the topic in the mind of the other party, and the chances of its repetition increase significantly.

It is by this very method that phrases such as “Obamacare is immoral” become commonplace among certain population segments, where a slight rephrasing as “Obamacare is unethical” would be more appropriate – completely disregarding the illogical nature of the claim in the first place, of course. To many, this is not an issue of concern since they are themselves religious and see no issue with such a word choice. But among those who are strictly secular - including atheists, agnostics, and others - or those who are sympathetic to their interests, it is of great concern.

These nonreligious individuals already receive a large amount of criticism and prejudice because they choose to base their existence in rational thought rather than speculative fantasy, and do not appreciate the inequalities dealt to them in everyday life: advertisements for churches are approved, while secularist advertisements are not; religious symbolism is present in almost every facet of American government, despite the claim of being a secular nation; deferential respect is demanded of those with theist beliefs, but is not a reciprocal.

When an unbiased word without hidden theist meaning can be applied rather than one laden with such meanings, the one without a religious tinge must be chosen - this is an issue of political correctness, religious sensitivity, and intellectual propriety. The continued reference to morality by journalists, reporters, and other public figures is merely exacerbating the issue, quickly becoming just another dagger stuck in the hearts of those who do not share the devotion of the theist population of America.

Separating Government Taxes From Marriage [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:05:33 +0000

Marriage, specifically so-called “gay marriage”, is a hot-button issue in America at the moment, with some states passing legislation to prohibit the unification of same-sex couples in the eyes of the government, while others embrace the idea. No where more vehement and virulent has the argument been than in the supposedly liberal state of California: once legal, gay marriage is now prohibited by an Amendment to the state’s Constitution – which was recently upheld in the State Supreme Court. There are many arguments to both sides - some rational, some not – but they all miss the central and most crucial piece of this legislative puzzle: the Separation of Church and State.

The United States of America was founded on many principles, not the least of which was the Separation of Church and State – one of the key reasons for many American immigrants to leave England (or nearby countries of origin such as Scotland or Wales) was religious persecution by their government, and was therefore embedded into the creation of this new country. But over the last two centuries, this idealism has been lost, or confused at best, in most sectors of government: a non-Christian President has never been elected let alone had a legitimate chance, phrases and actions based on the Christian belief system have been worked into everything from Federal currency to legal oaths, and religious ideas are worming their way slowly into both education and national legislation that is, once again, Christian.

Marriage has two sides in America: unions based in government and religion. The purpose of marriage from a government perspective is to provide legal benefits such as power of attorney, recognition of family, and tax simplifications – very different from the religious idea of religion, which is typically formed around the union of two opposite-sex people being unified for long-term commitment and some sort of spiritual benefit. It is unclear as to when the lines between these two separate entities were blurred, but the fact remains that they have been. It is required for a couple married under a religion to file for the government recognition of their union, which should have helped clarify the differences between the two very different definitions of the word “marriage”. Obviously, this has failed.

A very essential question when considering the legality of gay marriage is: why is it prohibited in the first place? Is there any legal definition stating the secular union of two people has to be of opposite sex? If so, why is that recognized as legal, given the Separation of Church and State? However, these issues are being addressed elsewhere, and a more worthwhile approach is to look at the arguments of gay marriage’s detractors: the unfailingly central argument around which all opposition is based includes words like “immoral”, “unethical”, “perverted”, and other such religiously tainted words of emotion.

These claims of immorality and perversion seem to stem from the misunderstanding that a government recognized union of two same sex individuals does not affect, in any way, the principles and beliefs of their chosen religion. Vicious opposition campaigns are funded by groups like the Mormon Church, spending millions of dollars to disseminate propaganda claiming a recognition of gay marriage would result in absurd situations such as elementary school children learning the definition of “gay”. Besides being patently untrue, such attacks ensure that religious individuals perceive any pro-gay legislation as an encroachment of their beliefs.

No matter an individual’s opinion on gay or lesbian couples, any intelligent citizen should be able to perceive how embarrassingly appalling it is for our secular nation to allow itself to become even more entwined with religious ideals – gay marriage should be allowed, in terms of secular recognition, on the simple principle that the government should not be concerned with any issues of religion. Perhaps marriage as a government entity should be abolished entirely, with civil unions established as the only choice for all citizens – such an action would very clearly define the differences between the two types of marriage, while still allowing a certain level of tolerance and recognition for the religious institution of marriage.

For a country founded on rather idealistic principles, ethical decline has indeed achieved great reach within both the state and federal levels of government – and it has nothing to do with gay marriage. The allowance of religion to influence, dictate, or otherwise encourage legislation and court rulings that discriminates against citizens for indeterminate and abstract reasons should sicken every single citizen within America’s borders. And yet it is not so – the vast majority are either too reliant on propaganda for information or allow their religious beliefs, of whatever kind and strength, to influence their personal political agenda.

It’s worth noting, however, that all such “religious legislation” has a Christian foundation: where are the angry Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu citizens? Stand up and be heard, minority religions, for you are the last hope of returning America to a secular and religiously unbiased nation.

The Decimation of a Generation’s Future [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:00:12 +0000

My generation, which I think of as children of the 80's and early 90's, is supposed to be the future. We're supposed to be the generation that guides computing and technology to the edge of physics; the generation that is widely thought to be the first to see civilian space travel and the beginning of the colonization of space; the generation that many are depending on to solve the many global problems like hunger, poverty, and inhuman regimes. Not to mention being heralded as the future conquerors of sickness and disease, along with a host of other issues we're told will be eradicated in our lifetimes.

But there's a problem: if current trends continue, all of this will be impossible. The even scarier fact is that we may be the first generation in decades (centuries?) to see a reversal of intellectual progress.

Take a look at the state of the Western world. Over the last two decades, at least, wheels have been set in motion that are all but impossible to stop, and the situation is only worsening. For the sake of familiarity and semi-simplicity, I'm going to focus on America - but the following applies just as easily to the state of the Western world as a whole.

Politics

One of the central, and continuing, problems is politics. Not the idea of politics, nor the institution, but the people that have come to infest the system over the long arms of Time: rich, old, white men are elected to Congress and abuse their powers; lobbyists for shady corporate interests largely control the discussions and decisions of said Congressionals; the only issues discussed or addressed properly, at every level of government, are those that will win a re-election or bring in campaign financing... the list goes on, and it's not news to those who pay attention. For the last twenty years, this has worked for most issues simply because there were no major crises or crucial decision points - besides the "war on terrorism", the country has only had to address trivial issues.

Within the last year we've seen crisis after crisis, a systemic failure of Old World industries and ideas that have caused cascading problems. But when the time comes for Congress to help the American people they claim to represent, they banter over party politics, point fingers, and go crusading over the most useless of points - every time. Even appointing a rather uninteresting and uncontroversial individual for a Supreme Court position takes months, thanks to the arbitrary opposition and accusation.

Furthermore, these same politicians spend government money on pet projects for their financial backers, the largest and most pervasive of which are so-called energy ("oil") companies, the healthcare industry, Big Tobacco, and copyright terrorists like the RIAA or MPAA. But the real issues get pushed around (as seen by the bailout process), or ignored completely. Education funding continues to be cut while salaries and benefits for many government employees rise, and specific educational programs are discontinued to make room for activities like hunting down marijuana growers or prosecuting 10 yr. old children for allegedly downloading a song or two off the internet.

Those that are elected to represent us do not resemble, at all, the demographics of our country or interests. In fact, they are more akin to the million-dollar executives of corporations than they are the average citizen, and their actions show this. Issue after issue proves to be another failure for the interests of the people, for which the only option seems to be waiting for the current set of politicians to be eventually replaced by the next generation - gay marriage is a perfect example of this. My generation is largely indifferent, at worst, about the issue, but it has yet to be legalized: the older generation, and a religious fanatic subset (more on them later) are preventing this.

But politics are just the beginning.

Intelligence

There was a time when it may not have been "cool" to be a nerd (unlike today), but intelligence as a whole was valued. Parents watched over their children to make sure homework was completed, school teachers pushed their students (instead of catering to the lowest common denominator), and graduating from college was actually an achievement (aka "difficult"). Books were read, theatre was intelligent, and issues were discussed among ordinary people.

No longer is this true.

The public school system caters to the dumbest of the class, aiming only to get more funding than the year previous - essentially teaching for the tests. A common topic of discussion among ordinary people is the previous night's episode of a reality TV show or brain-numbing "drama", rather than world news or even politics. Entertainment itself has degraded, with the majority of TV showcasing idiots and their adventures, and plays are no longer witty satire, instead choosing to produce stage versions of movies or books.

Even more frightening is that books are not considered a valid form of entertainment any longer - which shouldn't be a surprise, given the average reading level of today's people. Instead of reading news from the source via the Internet, newspapers, or slightly-biased publications like TIME or Newsweek, people choose to watch CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC, where the goal is not to inform you, but to make advertising money.

Semi-legitimate outlets like CNN or MSNBC focus largely on American politics, with a sidedish of celebrity news and the occasional sensationalized humanity piece - not exactly the real issues of our society. Considerably worse is the insult on intelligence known as Fox News, parading crazy and irrational opinion pieces as news and fact - with many people not able to differentiate. The BBC does a better job than American news outlets by an order of magnitude, but the real gem is NPR, where they provide both views/sides to a story and feature issues the American public typically don't even know exist.

Perhaps worse is the perception of intelligence - nerds may have been finally accepted by the general population, but any show of intelligence outside of a mob-ruled norm is seen as elitism. We don't need to crucify the intelligent members of our society, let alone force them to make excuses for their knowledge and insight. But this social perception has trickled-down for long enough that high school children no longer are interested in math and science (a problem seen during the beginning of the Cold War and the Apollo-era), and are instead interested in banking, business, lawyers, and sports. Need proof? Just look at college graduates - there has been a recent rise in sciences and engineering, but the net result is still negative. The majority of graduates from universities and four-year colleges are focused in areas of business, finance/economics, or pre-law. Not engineering, pre-med, or the sciences.

President Obama would like to fix this, and has made a few small babysteps towards funding such an educational retooling, but government spending is just the beginning. As Intel has so appropriately stated in their recent commercials, "rockstars" of the programming/engineering world are not like John Mayer or Axl Rose, but they're nonetheless important... something our society needs to quickly relearn. Instead of idolizing a mediocrely-talented female popstar that gained success via a series of TV-based exploitation, we should be idolizing, or at least recognizing the brilliance of, our scientists and engineers that continue to push us into the technological future.

But just being interested in science or engineering isn't enough... our economy needs to be organized to once again support such endeavours.

Economy

Countless American business icons have created small business ownership as part of the American Dream for many modern citizens, including the part where "small business" becomes "large conglomerate". This is not a bad thing, especially given that America is essentially a long string of innovators, inventors, and entrepreneurs over our short history. Where it takes a turn, however, is the recent focus on banking, retail, and food services as the industries of interest.

Most of our modern society is based on complex electronics, and yet many people seem to disregard this fact. Why should we care about being able to implement, maintain, and innovate the very basis of our lives? I hope you caught the sarcasm.

Silicon Valley used to be a bastion of computer and electronics excellence, as little as ten years ago. Nowadays, it's a mess of imported immigrants, manufacturing/production outsourcing, and short-sighted idealism, where profits, IPOs, and trendy acronyms are more important than true innovation. And it's not alone.

Billions of dollars have been spent in "saving" industries, only to have them fail at a slower pace - this is investing in the past, not the future. The stock market only facilitates the problem, punishing companies that dare to take risks and don't manage to post continual profit gains.

And, as companies continue to fall like dominoes, no-one thinks to question the system itself.

Capitalism

Capitalism is a brilliant idea in theory, but true laissez-faire capitalism is likely to never work - this is something we're discovering only now, after a century of work and a decade of deregulation. It is a mix of appropriate government regulation and capitalism that would be most likely to work (look to the era of FDR for a precedent), but the country is loathe to move in this direction.

Deregulation of industries has resulted in unadulterated chaos: telcos have free reign to largely operate as they wish; broadband providers of all types filter traffic, while claiming they don't, and operate de facto local monopolies; a privatized for-profit health care system refuses to provide the most basic of services to those that pay for them; a banking system built on trust and basic intelligence has collapsed on itself thanks to greed and tunnel-vision.

These are facts, and no-one will dispute that they have occurred. However, in all the discussion of our current state, people are reluctant to discuss the regulation of industries. President Obama has mentioned it in terms of healthcare, and the FCC has expressed interest in regulating broadband+telcos, but the conservatives are immediately lashing against it on principle - despite that it is an attempt to reverse our recent declines.

Regulation across all industries is neither appropriate nor feasible - our current stance on the precipice is a combination of deregulation and corporate greed, but uneven regulation is just as much to blame. The heavy regulation of certain industries, and the complete disregard of others by the federal government, causes a dangerous climate of government (non)intervention.

As an example, heavier regulation of manufacturing could bring untold jobs back to the United States in countless industries, where they currently reside in China, Japan, India, and South Korea. This would, almost overnight, solve the production outsourcing problem.

But the debt being accrued at an alarming rate to "fix" what is solidly broken is going to prevent this.

Debt

Count up the money spent within the last 10 years, look at the income of the country as a whole, and then take a look at American debt - both federal and personal. How are we supposed to repay this?

Personal debt is usually assumed to be paid off sometime before the debtor's death, despite the credit revolution being relatively new and having no precedent. But the reality is that children (my generation) are going to likely be stuck with their parents debt after they die, adding to our own personal debt accrued by going to school, living out of our means, or any number of other sources.

The federal debt isn't that different - it's not going to be paid back quickly, and it's going to require taxes staying as-is, if not increasing (rather than being cut) for a number of years. The money is being dispensed like candy to small children, and it's being done so by a group that may not even be alive 15 years from now - let alone be concerned about dealing with the debt.

By being in such massive debt, there are going to be consequences. We've already seen the beginnings of this at the state-level, as California goes broke and will not be able to operate independently for much longer. What happens when the federal government, the glue that holds the states together, falls into a faulty relationship and has to question its very existence?

Programs are going to be cut, funding to states lessened, and our dreams shattered, since all of history shows us the lawmakers will protect themselves and their interests first, and be concerned about the general welfare of the population at a later point. NASA, the ultimate embodiment of American frontierism, is already on the chopping block, with massive budget cuts and restrictions likely coming down the pipe - despite being a crucial part of our future, both in terms of space exploration and technological innovation.

And it will likely be a vicious cycle. Funding cuts results in less interest and progress, creating less gains in a given area, which, in turn, will result in more funding cuts.

However, money and intellectualism are not the only worries.

Religion

Religion is not an inherently bad concept, since it helps group people together (an evolutionary survival tactic) and gives hope/relief in some situations. But it can be a devastating force, as the Dark Ages have shown us.

For a time, it appeared that religion had peaked and was on the way out - as the previous century progressed, people became more concerned with themselves, rationality, and society than with the metaphysical. TIME Magazine even ran a feature on "the death of religion". Sadly, that period has passed, giving way to a recent resurgence in religion.

Christian, Muslim, Hindu... the classification and specifics are irrelevant, the important point is that religion can get in the way of intellectual pursuits, and, when encouraged, can eclipse it. As the need for political correctness grew through the last few decades, religious tolerance took on an extreme definition, where the mere criticism of religion was not allowed - even when the religious were allowed to criticize non-believers or those of competing faiths.

This has led us to our current situation where whole states, not just individuals, are attempting to pass off their beliefs as science, contradicting fact and solid theory with creation stories and a "we have a right to believe what we want" mentality. We've seen where this road leads before, and it needs to be stopped.

The Dark Ages was a period of extreme Christianity, and it discounted all but the most basic of scientific tenets. Islam has gone through such a period a few times in their own history, and has resulted in such extremes in portions of the modern Middle East - one needs only to examine the ideals of any Muslim-oriented extremist organization to discover this.

Islam and Christianity both laud values of selflessness and a number of other likable human qualities, but can quickly eschew their own value sets for extremist actions. Religion has a place, and that place is outside of politics, outside of science, and outside of a learning environment - especially for highly impressionable children.

Unless something changes, the Evangelical Christians, and other such high intensity believers, will win their war thanks to political correctness and an aversion to criticize another's beliefs. Their winning this war is not going to result in a good situation for any other than the ignorant, as science will quickly become pseudo-science where the "theory" ("we made it up") of Creationism sits alongside the theory ("we just don't want to call it fact yet") of Evolution. It will eventually bleed into politics and government, turning our mostly-agnostic government into a full blown theocracy.

Does this sound beneficial to our future? A future that is going to be science dependent? No. And any concessions to the hardcore religious, of any type, in a scientific, political, or government arena will ultimately be just one more step towards our imminent doom.

Division

The final major issue contributing to the decimation of our future is the gross divisions appearing in our country on a geographical basis. The reasons behind the divisions run the gamut from politics to religion to race, but the results are clear.

America has long had internal strife and division visible in specific locations, and as one crisis follows another, they are quickly reappearing. Even though the Civil War ended, much of the South has harbored feelings otherwise, and the concerns, interests, and divisions are strikingly similar to the ones Abraham Lincoln had to address.

We have successfully elected America's first black President, Barack Obama, much to the horror of the Southern states. The predominant Republican stronghold exists in the South, which was stringently anti-Obama... and has refused to let it go, continuing to attack with nonsense items, and encourage extremist behaviors, even violence.

And yet other portions of the country, like the West and the Northeast, are strongly Democrat and polar opposite to the Republicans on most issues. Only the Midwest isn't strongly in favor of one side or another, and merely from political party associations, lines can be drawn to divide the country into four distinct sections.

Now consider where the majority of the vocal Christians reside, along with the battle against Creationism, and a host of other issues. A unified country after 9/11 has quickly become an association of entities that are strikingly different, only a few years later, where many residents of one location do not like those from another, let alone want to exchange and discuss ideas in a civil and rational manner.

America is supposed to be a country grounded in freedoms and intelligence, but these divisions are working against us. Just as important as the other major issues, America needs to stay unified in order to not devolve into lesser, poorer states ... the former U.S.S.R. was an abject lesson in deunification.

Conclusion

The conclusion is this: America is facing a host of crushing issues, all of which have to be navigated carefully, appropriately, and properly in order for us to not only continue to exist as a free-thinking, independent, and powerful society, but to have a future at all for the younger generations that is not bleak and depressing.

President Obama, I believe, is intelligent enough to recognize this, and has already mentioned a few of these issues in terms of our future. But it will take more than the polices and appointments of our current President to do what needs to be done: corporations need to act appropriately; government needs to work for and with the people, instead of for the highest bidder; science needs to be once again emphasized and encouraged as the predominant, rational method of thinking.

I've made my case, America. Now step up.

Obama Proves His Intelligence [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:04:05 +0000

Word comes down that Obama has intentions of committing 3% of our GDP to science, something along the lines of $15b into research and development. This follows one of the most anti-science Presidents America has ever had, which has helped to usher in the resurgence of idiocy and religion-knows-better-than-science "intelligent design" - albeit mostly in the Bible Belt.

I've spoken before on the horrible failure of the current incarnation GOP, as well as the main reasons I voted for Obama in the first place - his dedication to science, and intellectual pursuits in general. However, following his rise to the Presidency, "the auto bailout" had a bunch of money cut from science spending... this is a more direct attempt to return our country to a state of general intelligence, or at least competence.

As President Obama noted, our future lies in our continuing prowess in the realm of computers/computing and innovation... not in outsourcing these jobs to other countries. But this cannot be accomplished when the majority of people graduating high school, or even college to a lesser extent, don't understand the basic tenets of science, and have only a cursory grip on things like Algebra. And most of the country doesn't truly understand what "theory" means in the scientific world.

Obviously this is going to affect operations and organizations like NASA, the National Science Foundation, school systems, and public policies with a scientific tinge (abortion, stem cell research, global warming, deforestation, etc.). But there's something that isn't likely to be obvious to the already-ignorant: in the process of giving more money to school systems, they're going to set standards.

Numerous southern states have been battling evolution in recent history, to varying degrees of "success", and the evangelicals/Christian fanatics are feeling pretty good about themselves at the moment. We've finally defeated the "theory" of evolution! "Intelligent design" can be taught in schools! The Universe is only a few thousand years old! You can almost taste their elation. But it's not going to last.

Scientists all over are pushing back, and hard, against this, but the real power is about to step up... the Federal Government never hands out money to states without restrictions, qualifications, or kickbacks - they have a long history of "we'll give you money, as long as you do one thing for us...". This is how our highway system developed.

I, along with all of intelligent America, will applaud and support any movement by the Feds to lay down a more strict definition of what can and cannot be taught in the public school system as science. I'm not talking about Creationist pseudo-science, but the real kind that has evidence and no mentions of a superhero. I mean God.

President Obama, please keep this up. You're going to continue to outrage the GOP and their fanatical constituents, but America will be better off for all of this. Don't give in, don't cave to their whining or Rush Limbaugh's red-faced outrage.

They don't deserve even your consideration. And, thanks to both you and the GOP, I'm now a registered Democrat.

The God (Dis)Proof [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:52:05 +0000

I'm in the process of packing things so I can move, and I found an old "proof" I did a few years ago, "proving" that God doesn't exist.

I thought, and still think, it was funny, so I graphicized it and posted it here.

Click for mind-blowingness!

My Voting Experience… Of Satan [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:58:15 +0000

For my "Argumentative Writing" class, I could get extra credit by reflecting on my voting experience... what I did to prepare as well as the actual voting itself.

So, naturally, I wrote it as if I were a Satanist (which I'm not). Why? Because...

It's funny.

It's a reflection... I can't be wrong.

If it's rejected on the basis of Satanism, that's religious discrimination.

See? It's a win-win situation for everyone.

Here it is, in full.

p.s. Wikipedia was very helpful.

--- --- ---

My Voting Experience As A Satanist

In preparing to vote on November 4^th, I carefully considered each candidate and proposition in relation to the principles and needs of my Dark Lord and Master, Satan. As a student of His Dark Teachings, I have become intimate with many of the philosophies that help to guide individuals such as me through the joyous and celebration-filled event that is life. Consequently, making decisions on items such as Proposition 8 were very easy, while others, such as Proposition 1A, were considerably less “black and white.”

I consulted my local Grand Master, talked with fellow Satanists, and communed with the Dark Lord, all in attempts to supplement my avid research in the Satanic Bible. And, thankfully, in the end I was able to discern the answers to all of my prayers and questions without much difficulty, and prepared notes on what I would be voting for. The only truly difficult moment in the decision making process occurred at the monthly Black Mass the week prior to the election, where I participated in the ritual of Vierendelen in order to speak directly with Our Master.

The night before voting, I prayed to the Dark Lord, asking Him to forgive me and my future sins, as I was going to break one of the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth- “do not give your opinions or advice unless you are asked.” I had interpreted this to include an election, since they want your opinion, but as they do not ask directly, it poses a philosophical issue.

On the day of the Election, I went to my local polling place and found there to be no lines, but instead found many of the volunteers to be Sinners. Specifically, those who defied the laws of Stupidity, Self-Deceit, Herd Conformity, Forgetfulness, and Lack of Aesthetics, as most of them were slow, in both mind and body, aging clay-like individuals. However, even though they were bothering me, I defied the 11^th Rule, and did not destroy them, as I have been told to. I will truly pay for my ignorance in the Everlasting Eternity.

To actually vote involved an inane and old-fashioned paper ballot system, of which I was appalled to actually have to complete. Instead of lowering myself to the common level of the human cows, I used my Lesser Magic to complete the ballot for me, and turned it in to the cowering, quivering blob that I can only assume was lesser individual.

While the preparation took days, the actual voting required only a quick few minutes of my time, and I was more than glad to do my duty to Satan, allowing others to access my undefiled wisdom.