Came across an interesting piece in the New York Times last night.
(more…)
Category: Commentary
-
1 Week later, religion of Norway shooter still debated
Since Norway’s tragic terrorist attack last Saturday, I have seen a perpetual back and forth pertaining to the shooter and his religion. (more…)
-
Atheists sue governor over prayer meeting
The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is suing Texas governor Rick Perry, and asking courts to keep Perry from attending a prayer event in Houston next month.
Perry has publicly advocated for this event and encouraged people to participate in the event dedicated to prayer and fasting. FFRF argues that the head of a state participating in this event violates the First Amendment clause forbidding an established religion.
In regards to the lawsuit, the FFRF states:
“Perry’s actions as governor give “official recognition” to a devotional event, endorse religion, have no secular rationale, and seek to encourage citizens to pray and non Christians to convert to Christianity.
These actions violate the Establishment Clause by “giving the appearance that the government prefers evangelical Christian religious beliefs over other religious beliefs and non-beliefs, including by aligning and partnering with the American Family Association, a virulent, discriminatory and evangelical Christian organization known for its intolerance.”
I think that FFRF is proverbially grabbing at straws. Yes, Perry is in the government, but he is also a person who has a right to have his own beliefs. The First Amendment does say congress cannot establish a religion, but it also says congress cannot limit an individual’s free speech or right to peaceably assemble.
While the constitution does not allow an establishes religion, the following clause says that they also may not prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Saying a person who happens to be in politics doesn’t have a right to participate in religious activities because of the First Amendment is a contradiction to other rights granted in the same sentence within the First Amendment.
I doubt the FFRF seriously plans on winning the suit. I would assume that this is more about principle and gaining attention, however I believe these tactics could backfire.
It’s interesting to me that this organization considers its members free thinkers but they are trying to have someone forced into not participating in something in accordance with his own values. That is simply tyrannical.
I have several friends who are irreligious, and for the ones value liberty, I think they would agree that Perry should have the right to participate and personally endorse this event.
jrb
-
Controversial billboard raise questions about morality in atheism
I saw a link to this article on Facebook this afternoon.A nationwide atheist organization called the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has been posting billboards that focus on individual atheist’s own personal statements pertaining to how they can be moral without the belief in a higher power. The signs have been posted in a handful of cities throughout the country, including my hometown of Columbus, Ohio.
Over the past couple of weeks, there has been controversy about a billboard that has been removed from two locations.
The billboard (pictured at the top of this post) was originally removed last week, after a local church complained and insisted that it be taken down. The billboard was posted on property owned by the church.
The sign was reposted in another Columbus location, and was removed on July 5, after a local business complained, according to FRFF.
Supporters of the billboards are pointing to societal intolerance of the atheistic viewpoint. Dan Barker is the co-chairman of FRFF and stated through the organization’s website:
“Probably the number-one myth we need to dispel about atheism is that people can’t be good without supernatural beliefs, rewards and punishments, that people who don’t believe in a god are incapable of morality. Nonbelievers know that it isn’t what you believe, but how you act, that makes you an ethical or unethical person.”
Certainly an atheist can decide what he or she thinks is moral and virtuous and act in accordance with those beliefs. And, an atheist can act in ways that would be viewed as ethical by the much of our society; I think that very few Christians would disagree on that level.
But the problem is that the atheists are doing this out of a Judeo-Christian ethic, and simply removing God. For people to try to say they don’t believe in God and that they are moral is appealing to a standard that exists with mankind because there is religion.
Without a God, I think it is nearly impossible to establish an actually working ethical theory.
Here are some questions to think about pertaining to morality in a world without God:
• What makes something good? Maybe you could argue that things are good because they cause happiness, and are enjoyed, but why are those things good? What about the things that cause happiness and which are enjoyed but which society deems to be bad? Why are those things bad if they produce happiness and are enjoyed?
• Why do we have rights? I think most of us like to believe we have certain rights, but why do we have them? According to whom? In America, are the rights that we have established as rights rights just because we’ve established them? What if the founders had judged differently? Then would we not have those rights?
• For instance, why is murder wrong? Because it deprives someone of life? But then why is that wrong?
• In some parts of the world, people don’t enjoy the same rights that we do, is that right or wrong? When people are mistreated in other countries what is it that makes the mistreatment wrong? Is there an intrinsic belief that they have some type of value because they are humans? But that’s just an opinion, some would disagree. Perhaps someone like Kim Jong Il would disagree with you. Who would be right, you or him? Who wins? How do you decide? What is ultimately moral?
• Why are people like Hitler considered evil? Without a divine giver or objective morality and purpose, how were his actions bad? Was it because he was depriving people of basic human rights? In the grand scheme of things, how do those actions or those people even matter?
I think Ravi Zacharias puts it very interestingly:
“When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law.”
jrb
-
Myspace sold, Justin Timberlake part of buying group
I wonder how many people were unaware that this is the current logo for Myspace
The former king of social networking, Myspace is going to be sold to advertising firm – Specific Media.The cost? $35 million.
To appreciate that cost, there are a few things that must be known:
-News Corp. boutht the site in 2005 for $580 million (News Corp owns the likes of Fox, Fox News, Fox Sports, Hulu, 49% of the Big Ten Network, and a lot of other stations, websites, etc).
-In 2006, MySpace was projected at being worth 10-20 billion by the year 2009.
-In 2006, MySpace reached 100 million accounts. At the time, Facebook had just 10 million users.
-Over the last several months, News Corp. had been trying to sell the site for a $100 million price tag, and yesterday, they parted with it at the bargain price of $35 million. But there’s a problem.While $35 million is a far cry from its previous evaluations and while it may appear to be a steal relative to the asking price, I tihnk News Corp is getting the better end of the deal.
Why? Because Myspace is irrelevant. The site has about as much action as the Chernobyl power grid. For News Corp, it is no longer their headache. $35 million may seem relativly cheap in the tech world, but it’s $35 million for a website that has not been viable in three years.
One of the key players in the deal is actor and pop star, Justin Timberlake. He is going to be one of the major creative forces behind the rebranding of MySpace.
I’m sure Timberlake is an inteligent guy, but if he were serious about getting into social networking, I think a better route into the business would have been creating something new. Not getting involved with something that has already has the stygma for being a site that no one uses, save for indie bands that no one has ever heard of.
Timberlake will be a creative influence on the site’s efforts to rebrand. Again, that may sound well and good, but Myspace has tried to rebrand multiple times over the past couple of years, and they have kept failing. I also think a website admitting that they are rebranding is not a good strategy. I feel like it’s basically saying, “We’re not relevant, but we’re working to fix that.”
What’s this rebrand going to be anyway? A platform where you can control your online social network, share music, photos, and video with your friends while connecting with new people?
That’s basically the jist of their last couple of rebranding efforts, and I feel that the site is going to inevitably try to recreate itself as what it already is.
I’ve written about Myspace before. I think the reason why it is such an interesting topic for me is the fact that it is an amazing example of how nothing on the internet is invincible. It’s not just that Myspace isn’t as popular as it used to be. It’s the fact that this site is no longer even relevant.
Also, I could not help but note the irony in the fact that Timberlake played the founder of Napster, sean Parker in “The Social Network,” which was about Facebook. Parker was heavily critizied by the music industry, but was played by a musician, and now that same musician is one of the top men in a company which used to be even bigger than Facebook.
jrb
