Just released: the Pandora’s box of stupidity

Racists Urge Boycott of ‘Star Wars: Episode VII’ Over Black Lead

Apparently, some bigots are all up in arms about a black man having a lead role in Star Wars and the fact that “Episode VII” has black storm troopers.

One would think that racists would approve of the fact that some storm troopers are now black since storm troopers are part of the Galactic Empire, but even in their faulty logic they can’t seem to manage a single rational thought.

These people do realize that Samuel L. Jackson was a Jedi master serving on the High Council, and Billy Dee Williams played the unforgettable Lando Calrissian in “The Empire Strikes Back,” right?

Their heads might explode when they consider the rather obvious point that James Earl Jones did the voiceover for Darth Vader, arguably the most famous villain in all of cinema.

In any case, these folks are apparently arguing, in futility, that the new movie puts forth a “very sinister multicultural agenda.” In what galaxy, in this one or one that’s far, far away, is multiculturalism a bad thing? Indeed, in the Star Wars universe, multiculturalism is the rule, not the exception.

One only need to look at the makeup of the High Council in the more recent films:

jedihighcouncil

Since I’ve already said more than this ridiculousness warrants, here’s Trevor Noah:

Islam and the failure of western liberalism, redux, and the regressive left

Several developments have taken place in the four weeks or so since I echoed the arguments of Sam Harris and others that western liberalism, infected by a hyper-political correctness and intellectual dishonesty run amok, has essentially failed the very people that we should be the most concerned about at this point in our history — namely, skeptics, homosexuals and women who are under the heel of oppression in places like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq, unable to speak, much less, live freely because of the influence of literalist strains of Islam in their culture.

Dave Rubin with Maajid Nawaz

Dave Rubin with Maajid Nawaz

Leaders of western, secular thought in America and Europe, from the ivory tower and so-called intellectuals, to the media, apparently afraid of who they might offend, seem to have no problem criticizing Christians for their views on social conservativism, many of which are inspired directly from passages in the Bible, but are quick to dismiss people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as bigots when the conversation turns to Islam and its blot on modern society. For my money, Dawkins and Harris have remained true to the spirit and nature of New Atheism in refusing to don kid gloves in criticizing the faulty ideologies of Islam.

Oftentimes, this inability or unwillingness to admit what the problem actual is is more pronounced, in the case of Muslim apologists like Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald and Cenk Uygur, or it can take a more passive tone, as in this recent 1,000-plus word article from The New York Times. Here is what I said on Twitter about it a few days ago:

Apologists for the faith, and their passive let’s-skirt-around-the-problem-and-hope-terrorism-and-religiously-fueled-violence-just-goes-away-on-its-own liberal friends have been actively preventing us as a society from having the kind of open conversation we so desperately need on the true roots of jihadism and what causes otherwise intelligent people to become radicalized and willing to hurl themselves into buildings and lop off the heads of journalists in the first place.

Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris’ co-author on the new book, “Islam and the Future of Tolerance,” coined the term “regressive left” to refer to these liberals who are on the wrong side of the dialogue on Islam and on the wrong side of history.

Fortunately, in part because of the important work of Harris and Nawaz, that conversation seems to be taking place, at least in some capacity here in America, although my hunch is that the large majority of mainstream liberals, for example, folks who think Ben Affleck actually won the debate in his now-infamous confrontation with Harris and Bill Maher, continue to live with politically correct blinders firmly in place.

For the rest of you who actually care about things like intellectual honesty and having a reasonable conversation on the necessity for reform inside Islam, in addition to Harris and Nawaz, I would suggest seeking out related content from the following: Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, Gad Saad, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider and Ali Rizvi.

Obviously, all of these people are not going to agree on every point, but that is the point: to allow an open discussion on the problematic ideologies of Islam without demeaning Muslims as people or castigating those who dare criticize the religion as bigots and Islamophobes, which is just a counterproductive shut-down tactic.

Next to climate change, this is, in my view, the most important conversation we should be having globally.

Following is a collection of recent interviews and vblogs on regressive leftism and Islam that demonstrate the kind of dialogue that needs to take place on a larger scale among liberals and reform-minded Muslims.

Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz on MSNBC’s “The Last Word:”

Richard Dawkins on “Real Time with Bill Maher:”

Gad Saad’s on Nawaz’s efforts to reform Islam:

Dave Rubin with Sam Harris:

Joe Rogan with Ali Rizvi (not as recent, but still an interesting interview with Rizvi, an ex-Muslim atheist):

Sam Harris loses his patience with the regressive left:

On guns and faith

Having apparently never read or fully comprehended the book on which Christianity is based, Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, the second highest ranking official in the state, has called for fellow believers “who are serious about their faith” to consider getting a gun.

In response to the tragedy in Oregon, he wrote in a post on Facebook that Christians have been the target of recent mass shootings:

The recent spike in mass shootings across the nation is truly troubling. Whether the perpetrators are motivated by aggressive secularism, jihadist extremism or racial supremacy, their targets remain the same: Christians and defenders of the West.

While this is not the time for widespread panic, it is a time to prepare. I would encourage my fellow Christians who are serious about their faith to think about getting a handgun carry permit. I have always believed that it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Our enemies are armed. We must do likewise.

CHRISTIANS-GUNS

Credit: liberalbias.com

I’m not exactly sure what being serious about the faith has to do with self-protection, but is it really better for believers, who may or may not be trained well enough to effectively use them, to have concealed weapons and then, if the situation arises and while others are doing the same, pull out their guns and proceed to take matters into their own hands?

Also, doesn’t Jesus say a thing or two about nonviolence and loving your enemies? I’m pretty sure retaliation and in-kind violence didn’t make it into the Beatitudes. Does “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” ring a bell? Guess not.

I wonder how Ramsey and people who support the unholy union of guns and faith might rectify themselves with passages like Matthew 6:25-27:

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

and Luke 6:27-36:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

In any case, doesn’t it show a supreme lack of faith that believers don’t trust their god enough, or at all, to protect them from would-be shooters in the unlikely event of a crisis? If their faith was really strong, a) why would they be worried about the possibility of their god allowing them into a situation where their lives could be in danger and b) why would they be fearful of losing their lives in the first place if the ultimate prize was heaven? The answer to both of these is that the lion’s share of believers don’t actually have true faith that compelled people like the Sept. 11 attackers and other terrorists to hurl themselves into buildings and strap bombs to their chests on the promise of reward in the ever-after. In fact, Christians know, somewhere deep down, that they actually aren’t protected, just like the nine people in Oregon weren’t protected, just like the devout believers’ children in Newtown, Conn., weren’t protected, just like students killed at Columbine weren’t protected, just like Christians who lost their lives in 9/11 — to fanatical supporters of a competing religion, no less — weren’t protected by the god of the Bible, just like …

They know, at bottom, that there is no spiritual savior from tragedy in this carnal life, that wonderworking soul-force is impotent and that physical force for protection is the only force that matters. So, they advocate for more guns and dishonestly wrap it up in a banner of faith. Whatever that might say about them, it says very little about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Bush shrug o’ doom — ‘Stuff happens’

When asked about the recent shooting tragedy in Oregon today, in which nine people were killed and seven others wounded, former Florida governor and GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush seemed dismissive of tighter gun regulations, approaching a level of philosophical erudition superseded only by Nietszche himself when he mused, “stuff happens.”

We’re in a difficult time in our country and I don’t think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everyone else. It’s very sad to see.

But I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor—because we had—look, stuff happens, there’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.

A fatalistic view indeed. So, to summarize: “stuff happens” and in response to stuff happening we should resist the urge to “do something” and instead, do nothing. What a great president this guy would make. Fortunately for us, he seems to be barely hanging on and is a distant third or worse in most polls.

Here is what the current president had to say:

As I said last night, this will not change until the politics changes and the behavior of elected officials changes. The main thing I’m going to do is I’m going to talk about this. I’m going to politicize it. Inaction is a political decision we are making. Normally politicians are responsive to the views of the electorate. The majority of the American people think it’s the right thing to do.

[Photo credit: © Brian Snyder / Reuters]

In the immortal words of Dave Matthews: ‘Don’t drink the water’

These are the kind of people we have running our country: A U.S. representative who believes that the glass of water Pope Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio, drank from during his recent speech before Congress was actually consecrated holy water.

With beliefs such as that, rational behavior rarely follows, and subsequent action of Rep. Bob Brady, D-Pa., was no exception. After the speech, Brady took the used glass of water, which Stephen Colbert called “old man’s backwash,” and proceeded to drink from the glass himself:

According to The Washington Post:

He carefully carried the glass, still half full, back to his office where he sipped the water and then passed it around to his wife and two staffers. Later, he invited Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) to his office, who, along with his wife and mother, dipped his fingers in the water. Casey’s office confirmed this was true.

Brady later emptied the remaining water in a bottle with plans to bless his grandchildren with it. The Post picks up again:

Now, as we understand it, and please correct us if we’re wrong, unless the pope actually blessed the liquid it’s not technically holy water.

“Please correct us if we’re wrong …” Happily. Even after the Pope or any other priests “blesses” water, it’s still nothing more than two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules and has no extraordinary abilities other than, of course, the power of quenching thirsts.

Brady told the press that he could “care less” what anyone thought about the water. He still believes it’s holy water:

“Anything the pope touches becomes blessed,” he said. “I think so and no one is going to change my mind.”

So, Francis is like a Catholic version of Midas with the golden touch? In any case, Brady was undeterred in his belief about the holy water and commits the same mistake as many fellow believers who think the world contains a supernatural component despite a lack of evidence in all of recorded human history, except for some deeply flawed ancient texts.

In any case, a company called Wayne Enterprises is attempting to cash into this belief. The company was or still is selling drinking water it is marketing as holy water. The company claims the water has been blessed “by hands of God.” According to the company’s website:

By hands of God, we mean a priest, churchman, clergyman, cleric, curate, divine, ecclesiastic, elder, father, friar, holy man, lama, monk, padre, pontiff, preacher, rabbi, rector, sky pilot, or vicar.

Our future goal is to have a clergy from every faith bless each bottle of Holy Drinking Water.

“Every faith?” So, representatives from all 4,200 religions in the world are going to bless each individual bottle of water before the product is shipped out? Sounds like a logistical nightmare.