Fanatical Atheism

He's angry, very angry. You can tell by his disgruntled disposition. Where and when Christopher Hitchen's deep-seated rancor began might be a question not even he can answer. But this is clearly evident to anyone who examines his character: his bitterness and ill-temperament have turned him into a dogmatic fundamentalist atheist, or vice-versa. As a matter of fact, Hitchens' misanthropy is so entrenched that he describes himself as an "anti-theist", which, coincidentally, is what I've always perceived him (and Dawkins) to be. An "anti-theist" - according to Hitchens - is someone who not only denies the existence of God, but who also views that non-existence as a good thing because of the evil nature of religion. Hitchens and many of his dogmatic cohorts like to lump all religions together and assign them unequivocal blame for the September 11th attacks, the spread of aids, and just about every calamity you can think of.

Hitchens may have some good points when he rebukes some of the pernicious religious behavior of some societies, and their anachronistic understanding of the universe we live in. But what he doesn't understand is that that same segment of religion is harshly criticized by more peaceful and loving religious communities. He also has a tendency of focusing on the mangled understanding of scripture by religious fundamentalists then painting all religions with that same blank-minded brush.

Chris, get some therapy.

Caution: Potty Mouth Ahead
Below is a video that I think displays Richard Dawkin's militant and irrational animosity towards religion. Physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is pointing out to Dawkins how incendiary his methodology is, to which Dawkins responds as offensively as he can under the guise of tongue-in-cheek. The video is just under three minutes.

On a lighter and more pleasant note, I would like to thank my Auntie A for this ward:0)

My 2¢

In a move that was nothing short of ingenious, John McCain chose Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to adding Palin to the Republican ticket, but the reaction to McCain's decision has mostly been met with enthusiastic approbation by supporters who were expecting the worst.


The Pros of Palin (politically speaking)

1) Gender. By adding diversity to his ticket, McCain can reach beyond the cliched white male, Protestant voters, and has equal footing in courting what are traditionally regarded as minority groups.

2) Conservative. Sarah Palin seems to exhibit the same views as John McCain on social issues like abortion. Those of us (like me) who cringed at the thought of having Tom Ridge or Rudy Giuliani as the vice-presidential running mate are relieved by Palin's selection.

3) Commonality. Sarah Palin's describes herself as a "hockey mom" and has a new-born child diagnosed with down syndrome.

4) As governor of Alaska she fought and implemented a tax hike on the oil industry that reflated the state's treasury. She also battled corruption, and favors drilling for oil and gas in off-limits Alaskan territory.


The Cons of Palin

1) Unlike Joe Biden, she has absolutely no significant experience in dealing with foreign policy matters.

2) Is the subject of an ethics investigation in her home state.

3) Skeptics look at her choice as a political gesture to court a specific voter demographic as apposed to the selection of someone with experience.


4) Her glasses.

In short, Sarah Palin offers pronounced positives to the Republican ticket this election year, but inspite of these contributions she can't afford to procrastinate or become distracted. She has to quickly become well versed in national and international affairs since she will undoubtedly face at least one debate with her opponent Joe Biden, who is convincingly more experienced than she is in dealing with governmental affairs, and who is also well knowledge in the foreign policy arena.

School has starter for big kids like yours truly, so I may not be able to post with the same frequency as I normally do. I will, however, check up on you guys regularly just to see who is misbehaving and how I can join in:0)

On a positive note, I have a three day weekend coming up. Just enough to forget everything I learned this past week!

Beauty Contest for Nuns

An Italian priest in Rome is organizing an Internet beauty contest for Catholic nuns. Dubbed the "Miss Sister 2008", Father Antonio Rungi believes that by holding this type of contest the sisters will gain more publicity and simultaneously shatter misconceptions of what life as a nun is like. The contest is slated for September of this year. (source)

I think the efficacy of this "contest" will depend entirely on the way the organisers handle the execution. If it becomes superficial, egotistical, or pits one nun against the other (unbelievable, isn't it?), it will undoubtedly do more harm than good.

Also, might some nuns consider this demeaning? After all, I have heard of no contests evaluating the exhibition of priests and brothers within a competitive context, no matter how beneficial the objective might be.

Rock-it-Man: I'm going to be Hiiiiii...

The following clip William Shatner must wish had never happened, and when you see it for yourselves you'll understand why. It has sporadically been spoofed by various comedians and comedy shows, and even by the cartoon character Stewie from the Family Guy. Notice how unbelievably corny this whole thing gets when Shatner's image is doubled and he performs this song like a duo. The part of the song when he responds to his double by saying "In fact, it's cold as hell" is hilarious! And even dumber still is the segment when a third Shatner appears, prancing from out of nowhere, looking like he's had a little too much to drink.

When I look at some of the film footage of the 1970's and see how credulous and corny we were, I can't help but wonder where our collective head was.

Where was your head in the 1970's? And, please, don't say your shoulder.

Other than "dumb" and "corny", what other word best describes the above video? I keep trying to think of it but I can't nail it down.

My blogger-pal Tracy has awarded me with Blogging Friends Forever Gold Card . Tracy's blog, called A Catholic Mom in Minnesota, is one I frequently peruse, so I follow all the adventures of her life from the time her husband became a Catholic (under Tracy's Simple Life) to the more resent event in which Alex, her son, broke his elbow. Always writing on a level we can all understand and relate to, if I had one word to characterize Tracy's blog it would be with the word "simplicity." Thank you, Tracy!

By the way, Alex is doing much better:0)

In turn, I pass on this award to the following blogs:

1) Auntie A at Adrienne's Catholic Corner
2) Paramedicgirl at Salve Regina
3) Shirley at Seeking Jesus
4) Kimberly at Our God is an Awesome God
5) Jessica at The Flying Dutch Girl

A New Age for Drinkers

Colleges and universities across the country are making a push to lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age. In a report published yesterday by the Associated Press, administrators from over 100 universities are petitioning lawmakers to lower the age limit because they feel current prohibitions encourage binge drinking on university campuses.

Dubbed the Amethyst Initiative, the chancellors and presidents of the institutions involved in the challenge unveiled their fundamentals in the following summation:

1) A culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”— often conducted off-campus —has developed.

2) Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.

3) Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.

4) By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law. (source)

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has begun its own campaign to contest the resolution of the Amethyst Initiative. They argue that lowering the drinking age to 18 simply passes the underage drinking conundrum to high school students, and that since 1984 - when the Uniform Drinking Age Act was signed into law by President Reagan - over 25,000 lives have been saved. According to their website, MADD is joined by former secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, now president of the University of Miami; NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker; the American Medical Association, and have solidified bipartisan support from numerous congressmen and senators.

Does the Amethyst Initiative employ a rationale not unlike those who want to legalize pot, meth, cocaine, crack, and other illegal drugs? Many people feel that by legalizing these types of substances the profitability and criminal activity surrounding their sale, traffic, and use would significantly diminish. The Amethyst assemblage believes that by legally permitting those who can't legally drink now - with 18 being the new limit - the factors encouraging destructive alcohol use by collegians would also abate.

Personally, I think the root cause of underage drinking is much more complex and elusive than what MADD and the Amethyst Initiative can address with their individual strategies. Again, as we have all heard before, I think that there are societal catalysts that directly and indirectly quicken the onset of alcoholism. Unfortunately, as visible and unequivocal as these factors are, they are largely ignored.

"To serve with love for others"

Sister Guillermina Gavilanes - who is also a doctor - has delivered approximately half the population of Santa Clara, Ecuador. Fifty years into her service, she shows no signs of slowing down. A comparison to Mother Teresa is inevitable.

Left click twice on video for full screen viewing.

What's Your Style?

When I walk into a church, I like to know I've walked into a church and not an auditorium or some quasi-amphitheater. Churches should noticeably alert anyone who walks into their space that this is not just an ordinary environment where business continues as usual. Unfortunately, some churches' interiors suffer from either banal iconic and architectural construction, or are at the opposite end of the spectrum with flowery, very colorful, intricate, and distracting arrangements. I'm going to give you a few examples of those churches who miss equilibrium (using me as the scale) by applying too much of any one thing and those churches who get it just right.

Misses

Take St. Nikolaus Catholic Church in Austria(right). Oh you know you're inside a church when you walk in alright. But can you really keep track of everything that is going on here? It's beautiful from an aesthetic perspective, but distracting if you want to focus on an icon or some other facet of the church. You try meditating with the sound of a gong going off inside your head every time you look at the intricate arrangement of this church. The gold shine from the statues alone may require that some wear sunglasses if not sunscreen. This is a good example of overkill.



At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Church of the Sac-red Heart in Munich, Germany. Please tell me where exactly is the church in this pic? This church is what you might call modern architecture (I LOVE modern buildings), but is this interior not lacking in Catholic identity? The exterior of the church is indeed impressive (not shown here), but it appears that the interior is comprised of a series of tightly swathed ban boo sticks. Now, I'm pretty sure that the church is structurally sound, but where is the iconography that is conducive to Christian story-telling? Where is the Catholic identity in this church? A prosaic and languorous internal arrangement never strikes the interest of the laity.


Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception

The beauty, color, and texture of the materials used in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. I think are self evident. The sheer elegance of this basilica is difficult for any church to match, let alone surpass. The majestic apse, multicolored icons, and light placement seem to diffuse a palpable sense of delicate accuracy, with a simultaneous reach for the Divine. Here I could focus my mind on the Christian Mystery. Here I find that elusive perfect equilibrium that other churches intentionally (but not maliciously) destroy on their way to constructing what they
feel is an appropriate liturgical setting.

Yes, I know the criticism: "Why build these beautiful but expensive churches, when you have the poor to feed." That brings me to my next example.


Minimalism Done Right

"Now this is the message that we have heard from him and proclaim to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all." ~ John 1:5


Nový Dvůr Monastery in the Czech Republic is a truly remarkable abbey. Lacking the iconic and color components of the basilica in Washington, D.C., and the bedazzled clutter of St. Nikolaus Church in Austria, simplicity characterises just about every facet of its construction. There are no icons or massive crucifixes floating above the altar, and no statues of saints embellishing its interior. As you can see from the picture, the altar is of simple construction, with a tabernacle to the rear that is flanked by two candles. Other than the blessed sacrament, what else does a worshipper have that invites contemplation and prayer? Well, how about LIGHT! One of the places we search for God is in the Book of Nature, and in that book many symbols have been appropriately used to give us an insight as to who and what God is. One of the most prevalent symbols from the Book of Nature is light, and the altar inside this abbey seems to be surrounded by it. I would then say light can rank as an icon - of a sort - reminding us of the sacred Mystery. There are strong historical antecedents that clearly demonstrate that Nature and monasticism go hand in hand. Do you think it's by accident that so many monasteries are located in rural and bucolic grounds?

By the way, in the book New Spiritual Architecture, guess which group is credited with having the most progressive Church buildings in the world? You guessed it, the Roman Catholics.

Churches of the Caucasus

Lets hope the Russians had the decency of leaving these churches undamaged during their invasion of Georgia.