Church and State

There has been a lot of buzz recently as to the influence that certain politicians bring along with them in regards to their personal religion. Specifically within the G.O.P. Primary, it can be seen that almost all of the candidates have a religious justification for their pursuit of candidacy. Yet until recently it has seemed that this type of appeal, an almost pious feel that some candidates give off, has been pretty disgusting; things such as Michelle Bachman's social views on same-sex marriage, or Rick Perry's "Pray Day" that was held in Texas.

What really pushed it over the edge for me, though, was this add of Rick Perry's that claimed a war was being waged against his religious freedom, the title of the commercial is Strong.

The video opens with hopeful music and in walks our supposed savior, Rick Perry, nonchalantly dressed in comfortable, but masculine clothing, and talking in as calm a way as possible. He makes the claim that there is a war on children being able to celebrate Christmas and pray in school, and that this is unbalanced with Gays right to serve openly in the military. He then makes the claim that faith makes America strong and that we need faith.

Here are three of the many problems that I have with this video, in as clean a way as possible:

1.  Kids are not inhibited from being Christians: I know this from personal experience, I sing Christmas songs for all of my choirs every day for a month and a half leading up till Christmas. I have to sit through religiously charged conversations every couple months as inculcated and uninformed children come back from a "religiously transformative" retreat that they go on in which they are convinced that "god has a plan for them". These discussions are allowed in school and we observe a moment of silence every day. For multiple reasons, kids are not inhibited from being Christian in school. WHAT THEY ARE INHIBITED FROM IS BEING ANYTHING ELSE. I am not afraid to admit I am an Atheist. When I try to bring up that point in front of a group of people that are Christian, I am looked down upon, there is always something I just do not understand. Yet I am not the only one who feels this, Mormons, Jews, Muslims and all other denominations do not have representation either. If anything, Christians should be restricted.
2. Faith will not solve long term economic mistakes: There is nothing about getting on your knees and praying to the "almighty" for forgiveness that is going to fix a totally trade dependent world. Horrible things go on in the world and a focus on pedantic little crises through prayer and personal observation does nothing at all to help. 
3. He assumes Gays cannot be Christians, and then plays Sentimental music to back up his non-logic: Gays can be Christians, Christianity is a community and it is a pool of ideas that are used to help people make judgements about things and to feel as though they are part of something greater. When it is used as a tool against totally natural things, such as same-sex dispositions, it becomes a carrier of hate, and is anti-rhetorical in that sense. Perry then tries to lull us into a submissive thinking position with the wretched music that he plays, it almost lulls me to sleep thinking about it. It is a beautiful piece for a wretched topic.

There is a separation of Church and State for a reason, religion is not rational, it is not logical, it supposes objective Capital T Truth, but that in turn does not exist. It cannot be allowed to be used as a tool against, but only as a support for. Perry's ad was disgusting and uncalled for and it has gotten the response to suggest that.

Global Suicide

In what ways is an animal different than a human being? Because of the ability to think freely? The inability to feel pain?

It is commonly assumed that humans are special, that we posses some ability that should delineates us from the "animal other". Yet as I get deeper into writing about this great psychological divide, mainly for the purpose of understanding it for debate, I am developing the belief that the divide that we all assume is detrimental to our very existence.

Tarik Kochi, a PhD Lecturer in Law and International Security at the University of Sussex, makes the argument that "concern with the preservation of life" allows us to make normative judgements about what "ways of living [are] worthy of living", and that this preservation is grounded upon "the human-animal distinction" as the idea of preservation assumes within it that we only value "the complete preservation of humanity". When we are allowed to make decisions based only concerns for preservation, we justify the worst atrocity in the name of humanity.

This idea may seem odd in the abstract, but when taken in the context of day-to-day interactions, it is as if we assume a slavery of the animal as part of our ever developing society. We process the insides of cows for consumption, we force dogs to maintain a state of constant obedience towards us, and if they should ever lash out we inflict cruel and unusual punishment on them that most of the time ends with the end of their lives.

We have been reading and talking about the enslavement of our fellow man during American Studies for the past couple days, and I have been wondering why the same logic that abolished slavery has not yet been applied to the "animal other".

Thus I propose an alternate way of viewing the domination that we so complacently accept. In an article by Mr. Kochi along with Noam Ordan, a fellow advocate of equality between humans and animals they make the claim that we would be able to have a better understanding for our effect on our world if we were not a participant in it at all.

This project is tag-lined the "global suicide of humanity" and is a thought experiment designed to reject the entailment of human agency and the oppression that is a result of it.

We were talking in class today about thought experiments that would allow us to understand more about the way in which we think and how the human mind works, and as a participant in the thought experiment mentioned above I believe that it is a valuable practice.

Do you have an idea for a thought experiment? Is there something that you think society blatantly accepts without any understanding for why they do it?

Articles Used:
1.“Species War: Law, Violence, and Animals,” Law, Culture and the Humanities 2009; 5: 353–369, Proquest
2. http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf