The Great Balancing Act of the First Amendment

 

I find that the media is misrepresenting the Town of Greece v. Galloway Supreme Court Case in subtle ways, ignoring the pragmatism of the principles upheld. The subject of this article is to evaluate the Supreme Court’s decision, along with the dissents from the actual opinions published by the court, not from what the media purports.

You can find the Supreme Court’s official and constitutionally authoritative summary and ruling of the case here. I will refer to it continually, and do recommend reading – it’s easy to understand.

Before continuing, let’s have a lesson on the First Amendment. When I refer to what is constitutional, I do not claim higher authority on constitutional law than the very best: the Supreme Court justices. I am merely stating what I find better in line with the ethical spirit of the First Amendment and the separation of Church and State. There are two components of the First Amendment to be discussed:

• Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no lawrespectingan establishment of religion…
  • No government body can prefer one religion over the other.
• Free Exercise Clause:        …or prohibiting the free exercisethereof”
  • Likewise, no government body can prevent the exercise of religion.

The two components of the First Amendment above form the Religion Clause, which is a balancing act of its two aspects. On the one hand, government cannot impose a particular religious belief on citizens. But government also cannot prevent the exercise of religion by citizens. The two come in conflict in a number of unexpected ways which will be covered throughout.  For example, when dealing with citizens in government: the government member cannot impose his/her religious beliefs but is also free to to exercise their religion in government.

In the delicate relationship between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, we must be clear what this entails in Jefferson’s separation of Church and State. As a society, we emphasize that religion cannot influence government on an institutional scale. We forget this also means government cannot influence religion on that scale. Stephen L. Carter, a Yale Law Professor and once intern to Justice Thurgood Marshall, in his book A Culture of Disbelief, warns that  “the American idea is threatened when religious power mixes too intimately with political power…[but] the greater threat comes when the Church is no longer kept merely separate but is forced into a position of utter marginality.” To summarize, government members have every right to bring their religion into government via the Free Exercise Clause, but are not allowed to impose their religion institutionally via the Establishment Clause.

 

On to Greece v. Galloway. In brief, the Town of Greece, New York, had monthly town hall meetings that began with a religious invocation. “From the time Greece established its prayer practice in 1999 until litigation loomed nine years later, all of its monthly chaplains were Christian clergy” (Kagan 69). After a brief spell to avoid litigation with a Jewish, Wiccan, and Bahai invocation, the Town of Greece returned to using solely Catholic and Protestant prayer service. The Supreme Court has ruled  “that no violation of the Constitution has been shown” (The Court 5), and I will critique their reasoning below.

For the purpose of clarity, here are the opinions published by the Court:

• Majority opinion (The Court, Justice Alito, and Justice Kennedy): these opinions believe that sectarian prayers in a government assembly are constitutional in principle, “so long as the practice over time is not exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief” (The Court 19). These opinions do not believe that the Town of Greece’s invocations were doing any of those things,  and is thus constitutional. These opinions have no problem with the town “acknowledging the central place that
  religion plays” in their lives (Kennedy 27).
• Dissent opinion (Justice Breyer, Justice Kagan): these opinions believe that sectarian prayers in a government assembly are unconstitutional in principle. These opinions do believe that the Town of Greece’s invocations were sectarian, and are thus unconstitutional. These opinions do agree with the majority that Americans “are a religious people” and “prayer draws some warrant from tradition in a town hall” (Kagan 73)

What we see clear in both opinions is the idea that opening prayer is an acceptable part of any government body, and does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Members of government and the public, both of which are citizens of the United States, have the right to Free Exercise which includes public prayer. The question at hand is whether or not public prayer, following the Free Exercise Clause, can be sectarian and still not “prefer one religion over the other” via the Establishment Clause.

Following the majority opinion, in principle I do not think that sectarian prayer necessarily exploits, proselytizes, or disparages faiths or beliefs and thus is constitutional. Rather, it reaffirms that Americans “are a religious people”. The reasoning is as so: “mature adults… [are] presumably not readily susceptible to religious indoctrination or peer pressure” (Kennedy 22-23). A prayer that calls on the name of Jesus is simply accommodating for those who recognize the divinity of Jesus, who have the right to Free Exercise of their religion in public forum, and who may be more readily prepared to govern when in a spiritual state of consciousness that is satisfactory to them. Likewise, for a public audience such as one in the town hall with Christians will likely feel more comfortable and assured of the government’s responsibility to religious accommodation should their religion be specifically invoked. It will likely not, when used selectively, influence the religious practices of others in a room such as to violate the First Amendment.

When a governing body promotes the same sectarian language or prayers repeatedly however – from the same sects or religion – it is without a doubt in violation of the Establishment Clause. This was the case of the Town of Greece, which for nine years straight, on a monthly basis, used only prayer invocations from Catholics and Protestants. The majority opinion seems to beat around the bush and simply ignore the fact that this cannot possibly be anything but the promotion of one religion over all others. It is unconstitutional, and as one can read for oneself, the arguments the majority opinion fall flat on their feet when reading the dissents. It is excluding those that do not adhere to the values of those prayers and equates those values to the values of civic participation in Greece, New York.

For that reason, sectarian prayers should not always be of the same sect or religion over and over again. Justice Kagan, who dissents, writes: “when one month a clergy member refers to Jesus, and the next to Allah or Jehovah…the government does not identify itself with one religion or align itself with that faith’s citizens, and the effect of even sectarian prayer is transformed” (Kagan 19). Here, I agree with the dissent that sectarian prayer is alright so long as the prayer is not exclusively of one sect or religion.

Some may argue that sectarian language should be banned altogether in exchange for inclusive prayer. There is indeed a significant difference in inclusivity from a prayer that calls for shared ethical values or a commitment to the divine than the Lord’s prayer, a Jewish chanting of Sh’ma and V’ahavta, or a Muslim Adhan (Kagan 59-60). That is certainly true and all opinions published agree on the preferableness of inclusive language. However, it comes with an incredible danger for the court to specify exactly what is inclusive and what is not, as well as difficult to justify constitutionally. By banning certain religious invocations and allowing others government would “prevent the excerise of religion’ in the way adherents (who are citizens) would have it, undoubtedly violating the Free Exercise Clause. It would also “prefer one religion over the other” in terms of prayer, clearly against the Establishment Clause. Ironically, totally mandated inclusivity that is specified by the Court would violate the Religious Clause of the First Amendment more then anything else.

That is where I disagree with the dissent, which seems to call for strict impositions of inclusivity on chaplains in public prayer services. Justice Alito’s majority opinion, section II from page 32 to 35, masterfully explains that point. Justice Brewer is right in that Courts should require that government bodies recommend inclusive prayer services, but they should not be mandated for a number of complications Alito addresses:

Not only is there no historical support for the proposition that only generic prayer is allowed, but as our country has become more diverse, composing a prayer that is acceptable to all members of the community who hold religious beliefs has become harder and harder. It was one thing to compose a prayer that is acceptable to both Christians and Jews; it is much harder to compose a prayer that is also acceptable to followers of Eastern religions that are now well represented in this country. Many local clergy may find the project daunting, if not impossible, and some may feel that they cannot in good faith deliver such a vague prayer. In addition, if a town attempts to go beyond simply recommending that a guest chaplain deliver a prayer that is broadly acceptable to all members of a particular community (and the groups represented in different communities will vary), the town will inevitably encounter sensitive problems. Must a town screen and, if necessary, edit prayers before they are given? If prescreening is not required, must the town review prayers after they are delivered in order to determine if they were sufficiently generic? And if a guest chaplain crosses the line, what must the town do? Must the chaplain be corrected on the spot? Must the town strike this chaplain (and perhaps his or her house of worship) from the approved list?

Justice Breyer does correctly note the House of Representative’s recommendation for inclusivity, and I do think Justice Alito would agree that these would be suitable for the Town of Greece as requirements for a prayer service. Unfortunately, for political reasons, the sake of simplicity, or my assessment being wrong, these recommendations were foolishly not recommended:

“The guest chaplain should keep in mind that the House of Representatives is comprised of Members of many different faith traditions.

“The length of the prayer should not exceed 150 words.
“The prayer must be free from personal political views or partisan politics, from sectarian controversies, and from any intimations pertaining to foreign or domestic policy” (Breyer 55).

 

To conclude, I find that sectarian prayer in government bodies to be perfectly Constitutional and in no way violating the separation of Church and State, as a result of the delicate balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. However, these sectarian prayers cannot all be from the same religion at all times, and inclusive prayers should be recommended by the Courts and by government bodies, while not mandated or specified by government bodies. The majority is right to argue against mandated and specified inclusion, and the dissent is right to declare the Town of Greece’s religious prayer services unconstitutional for praying in the same religion. In the plural society America is, religion for better or for worse has its role in public discourse, and we must be willing to accept that.

———

 

Note: I did not discuss the Court’s use of Marsh v. Chambers, the tradition of prayer service as a historic reality, the municipal technicalities of Greece’s selection of clergymen, or the the role of religion in a plural society because I think that has been thoroughly discussed on the internet. For that end, I commend Justice Kagan’s use of Marsh v. Chambers, the entire court’s use of the tradition of prayer service, the dissent’s criticism of Greece’s selection process, and I’m a bit more muddled on the role of religion in plural society. I definitely disagree with Justice Kagan on that point, and somewhat agree with the majority – however, I think American civil religion is rightly withering into a myth.

I also did not discuss the implications of the Town of Greece v. Galloway, but to be flat honest the Court for the most part reaffirmed Marsh and very little has changed. It is useful to analyze what it should have been, rather than the status quo that been preserved, however, and that is what I have done.

The dreary depths of arrogance

We live in dreary depths of arrogance with the fear of asking questions and the fright of answering likewise. It is in our deplorable state of cyclical nihilism and secular outer shells that everything and anything that challenges what we want and everything and anything that is contrary to ourselves and everything and anything that threatens misconceptions is avoided, refrained from, ignored. We understand religiosity from what we watch on the television or investigate on  internet comments with no regard, no interest, no curiosity for our fellow men. We ascribe fanaticism or ungratefulness or arrogance or ignorance to who we want and what we want when we want without ever wondering why.

To almost everyone I have ever spoken to, I see a miserable state in our conversations on philosophy and the surreal. There is an impenetrable nihilism in their eyes and voices to know others, to understand things, to learn. There is no motivation nor curiosity to ask others questions. Why are you religious? Why do you believe what you do? Why did you reject God? Fools and idiots, we are, for having not the slightest dare to ask the most important questions, the most essential things to our existence. I have asked many a time why people live in mundane existence, or why people have chosen their respective paths. And the answers are often stupid, commonplace, so inelaborate and so hardly thought out that I don’t know why I bother asking in the first place. And to those who give good answers, never do they ask in return. We live secular lives with secular goals and secular bars and in secular discourse. Religion is in the closet, left so meager as to rot on the floor with our souls as we turn our backs in exchange for self wallowing decadence. Decadence in money, fame, family or even simple existence. Decadence in the commonplace rather then the exotic, arcane, and esoteric. Decadence to comes in meaningless absorption of knowledge, with no purpose other then to satisfy a casual and attention deficient momentary curiosity. True curiosity, true searches for knowledge, true yearns for purpose requires that we look for conscious genuine reasons.

During one harangue on the subject, a close friend asked, “OK, why are you religious?”. The nature of such a question is wholly scaffolding (a word I made up and will explain another day) and unsettling, so I simply refused to answer. The question is no better then asking one “What is your view on the world?” or “what is your opinion on politics?” If you are capable of answering within ten minutes, you haven’t thought enough.

If we want to earnestly understand each other, we have to ask these questions in increments as a living. It should be an essential part of any friendship to learn from the other, to see the way they interpret the world consistently and never ending. We are so afraid of the subject of worldviews, of faith, of religion, and it is a scary reality that is going to destroy us. Our souls are at stake, our humanity, our ways of life. We must communicate with each other, we must ask these questions, we must learn.

We understand those who disagree through digital media of distant people and never with those around to us. Those dirty liberals, the fanatic religious right, militant atheists and the living dead are never our own friends, never our own peers. Those foreign views are in a far distant place only known on CNN and Reddit. Our own friends and peers, whatever their views, somehow cease to have them in a real human dialogue. We fear questions, we fear discussion, we fear learning from each other. We must not fear this. We must understand each other. We must humanize other views, all of them, in order to be real educated people.

I have friends who believe I will rot in a burning hell for eternity with almost no regard to prevent it. If I were infected with some disease and a friend had the anecdote, they would give it. But when it comes to endless hell fire, they could hardly give a damn. That is the danger of our secularization. We fear discussion. We fear religion. We fear talking to one another. We fear imposition of values on each other. And it is nonsense. I have other friends who believe I am wasting my entire life when I could be having fun in the mundane with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. And yet there is so little regard on their part to help me enjoy. There is so little regard for my entire life. Can they really be friends? Why can’t they encourage me to live that life? If they cared, they ought to.

Our fear of questions and discussion is a worrisome reality. I have the same problems, and it is despairing to know it. Our secularization has led us to a “live and let live” mentality that has consumed any real quest for understanding and knowledge. We have to think, critically, with wisdom and courage, about one another.  We cannot be afraid of challenging each other and unsettling one another. I tell you, God is more important than friends. And life is important than friendship. And death (with what comes after), daresay, is more important than life.

We live in our own moronic tendencies where we are right, where we make the considerations, where we give our own thoughts and keep it to ourselves. We live in a secularization so far and deep that religion is nothing to be taken seriously, that worldviews are by default regular, that we have no existence outside of ourselves worth sharing. Our state of ignorance is saddening and infuriating, that we know more on Egyptian mythology than Hinduism and more on the Greeks than on real living Muslims. Where are our minds? Where are our consciouses? Where are our souls? We need to inquire about those who disagree in all fields of life, and we need to live that which we learn and share it. I

To those who are atheists, live it. Live it proudly and outspokenly and make it your existence. Share it with others always. We call the louder atheists pompous and inconsiderate, but we must understanding each other, and we cannot unless we share. But should they do this, should they share and be proud to the world, they too must listen to others, and they must try to understand others. A good majority of the arguments most militants of today make are utterly idiotic, and its frightening to know that people I know buy into it and have no interest in hearing why I don’t. I have a responsibility in my life to change that, and they have a responsibility to listen. Likewise, they have a responsibility to make the arguments they make and be open about it. Of course, for the relativists among them they have no such thing, but that’s a whole other story. 

For the same reason, those with firm with religious conviction must share why they have it. For me, I am often more baffled by these people more than with the “skeptical” “rational” “freethinkers”, and it can be so difficult for many to explain. I once had a very lengthy conversation with someone on the origins of Islam, and I referred to a Christian scholar who converted to Islam. He interrupted me then and explained how many people leave their faith after studying it. He seemed to have no curiosity or interest as to why, him the freethinking Christian. He is a die hard Christian yet, with no curiosity to why others aren’t.

We must think critically about our situation. We must try to understand each other and ask one another what we believe and why. We must not refrain from dangerous territory – lest we dehumanize dissent. It is a scary reality where we lose our ability to think of others besides ourselves, where our egos are the only things that think with no space for anyone else. For those reading, next time you meet anyone else who disagrees with you on the most fundamental questions, just ask. Just ask about their views and opinions, and see what you hear. You might learn something. You might change your views. You might understand better. And ask incrementally, consistently, constantly, in the very tradition of skepticism. And do it always: make it your lifestyle. We have to understand each other, if we want to live fully. Just ask.

God is on a shelf

God is on a shelf,

That one reads every Sunday.

God is on the desk,

That one studies after work.

God is on the internet,

That one browses on Facebook.

God is on a notebook,

That one stumbles on in class.

God is on a phone,

That beeps every while.

 

Knowledge and ignorance

and sorrow and happiness

and family and money

and food and work

and life and death

and fun and play

is in our minds –

but not God,

oh no…

God is on a shelf

That one reads every Sunday.

 

Oh, for God’s Sake! In the Pub

Shout out to Arkenaten and the blogs he writes for for always being entertaining and enjoyable…if nothing else! Write on.

Lux

Enquiries on Atheism

Coach and Horses…Chester,England

In light of the few recent  ‘heavy’ posts I shall post something lighthearted, but still with a religious theme.

Take a breather for a few minutes. 

The two soot-blackened, temporary, volunteer firemen, sat at the bar, supping their beer.

“Terrible,” Alf said, shaking his head.

“Dreadful,” agreed his erstwhile companion, Bert.

“Y’know, I never realised ‘til now that building was a place of worship, Bert.”

“Well, y’wouldn’t, would you? I mean, there’s only Fazel, his family and his cousin, Ishmael. So they’re not likely to build a big one, round here, are they?”

“I always thought it was a Laundromat, them going in all dressed in their bed sheets, like,” said Alf, theological man-of-the –world.

“I thought it was a doctor’s rooms,” opined Bert.

“How d’yer reckon on that?” asked Alf.

“Well, all that moaning an’ groaning that comes from inside. Thought…

View original post 615 more words

Secular Humanism: A Eurocentric Ideology (Response to a Critic)

This man is a genius. Almost as smart as me. Almost.

Why Bertrand Russell was not a Christian

Why Bertrand Russell is not a Christian is a 25 page rage against Bertrand Russell’s religious views written by Reverend Ralph Allen Smith. It is in response to a brilliant lecture by Bertrand Russell titled Why I am not a Christian; I have written a review on that already. This essay serves to criticize Russell’s reasoning against Jesus and his reasoning for a secular worldview. It spends little time arguing for the Existence of God, although the author seems to imply he could argue that too if he wanted.

Reverend Smith begins by explaining that the existence of God is an unnecessary component of the Christian faith. This is in Catholic doctrine as well as in many Protestant faiths directly: that God does not need to be rationally deductible, only provable by means of Christianity alone. Smith, after explaining this, quickly and rashly states that Russell didn’t spend enough time thoroughly explaining why the rationale for God isn’t all too rationale. For some reason he doesn’t say how.

The first section, the smaller one, is absolute bogus and completely avoids answering any questions, but I love the second larger section. This one deals with why Russell’s worldview is insufficient (and thus Christianity, at the very least, is better), and why Russell’s tirade against Christianity is flat out stupid. He’s right about that.

Russell insists that Jesus was immoral on the grounds that anyone who believes in Hell is immoral. In other words, whether or not Hell is immoral by itself, if you tell people it exists you are immoral, even if you earnestly beleive it. For rational people like you and I, that’s crazy talk. I was astonished he would say something like that – and I read and re read his essay a number of times to make sure that was what he was earnestly saying. It was. Perhaps he isn’t so logical of a philosopher.

It gets worse though, and more controversial. Russell’s worldview, in the mind of the author and I, is by far the most irrational. It is a worldview completely absent of meaning and coherency, devoid of purpose and order. It is a worldview of nothing but chaos and randomness, but yet, there is a savior: morality! The cherished secular worldview of Bertrand Russell involves denying any purpose of life while simultaneously demanding altruism in life. It requires you to stand for open mindedness and rationality while simultaneously succumb to your altruistic evolutioned brain. There is no purpose of your existence, but you have to be a good person anyway. This is coming from Russell, a man who has cheated on several wives and dozens of women. This is coming from Russell, an icon of logic and pure thinking. This is coming from the idol of many atheists and secularists: and yet he was no more than an illogical fool when it comes to the subject of ethics and religion. This is hypocrisy and doublethink!

To conclude, this essay is A MUST READ for anyone who reads Russell’s lecture. I recommend for anyone. Now as I am not Christian, I find his argument that all Atheists know Christianity is true in their hearts but deny it anyways quite dubious, and as a Muslim I refuse to accept that God does not have to be rationally deductible for religion to be true, but his disparage against Russell still holds. His disparage against the secular worldview is short, blunt, and brilliant. I can only hope that truth and free thought can one day emerge within all of us.

Crisis of Islam

Bernard Lewis is an interesting Middle Eastern scholar who I will surely talk about more when I get into Orientalism. This book, Crisis of Islam, is about the utter chaos the Islamic World has experienced in the last century. The book explores the history of the Islamic World and the modern context it is now. The book discusses the various edge groups and their opponents in the modern world – from the Salafis to the hidden secularist liberals. This is an extraordinary read that is well worth, insightful, easy to understand, and scholarly.

Professor Lewis is quick to explain that Islam is not inherently linked to terrorism. He goes through the historical roots of terrorism and the history of violence in the Islamic World, and thoroughly demonstrates the lack of relationship between the two. Terrorism has “no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition.” Nevertheless, the terrorist of the Muslim World justify themselves through their religion in an incredulous way. Dealing with the Middle East has thus become so difficult – that the fanatics believe wholeheartedly that they are correct, and that killing them is only good for them.

The crisis of the Islamic World and the rise of extremism can be attributed much to the decline in Islamic thinking, which occurred a little before colonialism  and after the fall of the Mongols as a reaction to the Renaissance (the public perception suddenly became that the roots of Islamic decline are because of too much thinking and too little dogma, and this led to only more decline). This was not helped by colonialism centuries later, which destroyed the academic institutions (theological, philosophical, and scientific) forever. In modern times, oil has both been crucial and destructive to the Arab world in particular. Lewis has a famous quote where he flips the common American quote: “No representation without taxation”. The oil rich gulf states have traditionally had almost no taxes on its citizens- the wealth of the nation was generated entirely by oil resources. Their was no need for a parliamentary system to develop a taxation system, and thus the monarchies established themselves permanently, and are only replaced if ever by ruthless tyrants.

His book after explaining what I have said so far in much more details concludes with a solution. The purpose of the text was not really to provide a solution, so it doesn’t focus too much on it, but his conclusion is that the only solution to the Middle East is non-secular democracy (secular preferably, but that is asking for too much too quick). America is a necessary component for reviving the Middle East (Lewis was a big advocate of the Iraq war…before it happened). I won’t comment on what I think about his conclusions, but I am content to say that his identifying of Middle Eastern and Islamic problems was excellent, and his analysis of their roots essential.

I Know why the Terrorists Terrorize (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1

In the wake of 9/11, we found ourselves asking what could inspire people to commit such a tragedy. We were asking ourselves, why do they hate us? I have begun so far explaining the roots of our religious challenges in the modern west that have lead to the contempt of the west. This is in no way justifying their behavior, don’t get me wrong, this is merely explaining it. Only with understanding the ideology can we combat it. Only ideology can defeat ideology.

But let us continue identifying problems before solutions. The crisis of modern religion in the west so plagued by secularist dogma is a primary factor in the surge of terrorism. The series of questions I asked myself two paragraphs earlier are precisely at the core of the terrorist issue. You may ask how terrorism can be so intertwined with those questions, but it is less the questions themselves but the lack of answers to those questions. There is a specific discipline of study designed to answer those questions. A discipline so utterly rejected and denied of legitimacy: theology.

It is ridiculous to assume the theological field of study is not a legitimate one. And yet this is how the public perceptions are steadily moving towards. It does not take a genius to realize this. In our day and age, the public attitude only thinks about philosophy in general. The books we read, the classes in school, the people we hear about are in the field of philosophy. The Church ministers of our day misinterpret scripture on an almost weekly basis, someway or the other. In the Muslim World, extremists (this does not imply terrorists) refuse to even consider the theological approach to Islamic study, leading to much of the confusion and disaster when it comes to institutions in power such as the Muslim Brotherhood.Many simple questions I have about the Bible are not even addressed on Google today, as if the theologians of our day don’t even have access to the internet (think about John 17:4 – carefully). Most of our intellectual public can explain to you what existentialism is, but don’t have a clue about biblical predestination. This is a sad truth, and this truth is why terrorists terrorize.

To be a doctor is to have one of the most widely respected professions of our day. Doctors have a responsibility for taking our bodies. By analogy, theologians are responsible for taking care of our souls. Ironically, people of western religions would see the soul as infinitely more important than the body, as it is everlasting, and yet we refuse to give even a moment’s thought to the importance of the field. The here and now are equally important to theologians. How we deal with the societies we live in based upon our religious values is decided by them: the very moral structure of society lies in the hands of the theologians, and to lose them is to lose the insight they can provide. A teacher of the Islamic university Al-Azhar states that a theologian requires two disciplines: theology and sociology. The understanding of religion is intertwined with the understanding of society, so that one can apply their faith within the context of their living. Without theologians both are lost.

Because of this loss of insight, we live in a sort of religious anarchy today. Religion is practically free for all, and we interpret things whatever and whichever way we want to. We do foolish things like quoting “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” without even understanding the meaning of the phrase (no, it has nothing to do with secularism). To most secular minds, the theologian has no relevance, but I don’t think even an atheist should see it that way. When the learned of a faith suddenly lose relevance to that faith, the people with the loudest voice and the most testosterone take the faith into their own control: thus the terrorists. When the voices of the scholars that repeatedly and constantly preach against extremism are suddenly silenced, the bloodshed continues on. This is the phenomenon in the Muslim World, where the theological tradition was nearly destroyed after colonialism. Just as I can feel philosophy to be pointless, the destroying of such an institution would only cause more problems then I’d seek to solve.

The lack of religious understanding in our modern world can be attributed to the loss of theology. The numerous questions we ask, or don’t ask for that matter, are what terrorists answer themselves without the tools to look into other methods. This is in broad terms of course, as the majority of terrorists would be gangsters if they lived in America, or cartel members if they lived in Brazil. But the foundations and roots of radical ideology come from this lack of resources, this lack of understanding. The chaos that erupts from no learned opinion is disastrous. Imagine if half of all US bills on civil law in America suddenly disappeared. Our court system would go haywire, and our justice would become unjust. The loopholes would tenfold, and the system would be abused to the point of no return. This is what has happened, to an extent, to the religious traditions of the world. The secularist dogma has destroyed it seemingly irrevocably, and the gaps were filled by maniacs. Put simply, the maniacs then do whatever they want. That is why the terrorists terrorize.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Like Crazy

This movie was one of the first independent films I have ever seen – and it is much better than Hollywood. It’s basically a love story between an American and a British student in some university in LA. The British chick, after school, violated her visa and after returning to England she couldn’t come back. The romance in this film was surprisingly realistic, and had none of the stupid Hollywood banter (you hang up….no you hang up!). Their relationship was ever changing, and sometimes even boring, because since when were people interesting 24/7? They are in Hollywood apparently. Somehow Jennifer Lawrence found herself playing a minor role in a low budget film like this, but the film for whatever reason hardly ever had the camera on her in the light (she was always filmed in a dark room or outside at night or in a club with little light), something I couldn’t help but notice. The reasoning behind that baffles me. Another thing that I couldn’t help but notice was the lack of religion in the movie. We find utter secularism in about 99% of films these days, but this one seemed appropriate to bring religion into it. The British chick’s parents were quite “sophisticated” (except, for once, in a good portrayal), and I would think a bit of religion would come hand in hand with that. The amount of pin and suffering by the lovers, I would think, would also demand some sort of anger or seeking out of faith, but there was none of that.  Anyway, the film was incredible for being an atypical love story by the movie industry’s standards, and I wish we had more of that.