Bursting the "Reason for the season" bubble - 12/12/08

During this time of year, advocates for Christmas as a religious holiday begin their drives to insert this ideology into places that are constitutionally barred to them: Government and public lands.

Don't get me wrong. Anyone can practice their religion of choice anywhere that is privately owned with the owners permission. If everyone in the country wanted to put up a nativity scene on their yards, all the power to them.

It's when they push their ideology on elected officials or others who have a tax-payer based investment in the lands or buildings on which these displays appear that crosses the line. It doesn't matter if these officials share the same religion. The point is you keep anything promoting one religion off of publicly owned property.

Now, onto that part about Jesus being the 'reason for the season'. In a word - Not!

The season is winter, which by all accounts has been around for much longer than Jesus. In the second place, the mid-winter (or Winter Solstice) celebration has gone on for millennia. Again, this is far longer than Jesus was ever around. The fact is, according to history, the Romans carried out their census in the spring - March or April. Given that Joseph and Mary were traveling to be counted in the census, it's far more likely that they did so after the Winter, which places Jesus' birth (if it actually happened, which has never been proven, historically speaking) in the Spring.

Most biblical scholars agree with this.

What happened to change it to the 25th of December?

The short answer: The Catholics.

The long answer: During the rise of Christianity, many compromises were made with the pagan regarding their celebrations and holidays, incorporating them into the emerging Christian mythology. The mid-winter celebrations in Rome were called the Saturnalia - which consisted of a fortnight of feasting, orgies and general debauchery. Since this didn't mesh too well with Christian dogma, the Christians started calling the start of the celebrations (on the Winter Solstice) the day of Christ's birth - "Christmas" - and started co-opting other pagan holidays like Easter (Ostera).

Now, in a quirk of fate, the actual winter solstice varies. Several hundred years ago, it was on or near December 25th. Due to a phenomenon known as precession caused by the Earth's spin, today, it's around the 21st or 22nd. Because a BIRTHDAY can't change (unlike the time of the celebrations, which depended on when the actual seasonal event happened rather than sticking to the same date every year), it has remained December 25th since it was first established.

The upshot of all of this is simple: The season's the reason for the season. Both factually and historically, Jesus had nothing to do with it. So if you want to say "Merry Christmas", by all means, do so. But if you cater to a non-christian public, 'Happy Holidays' is more than sufficient and historically accurate. So don't make people who don't know what religion a customer may have say Merry Christmas to everyone just because you say it to everyone.

This Faith is rated R - 11/21/2008

I've never had any love for religions that say 'you must believe this way', or that 'ours is the only way to believe' or some other such nonsense. In an infinite universe, having one religion and only one religion being the 'one true faith' seems rather limited for an omnipotent being. I'm reminded of the South Park episode where St. Peter tells the character "The correct answer [to which faith was the 'right' one] is 'the Mormons' ". With 7 billion names of God, and almost as many religions in which people believe and have faith as strong as any reader here may have, it seems rather chaotic and unlikely that God would leave it up to us to figure out which is right unless the simple and expedient method is that all are 'right'.

But religions themselves - especially those that are more cult-like such as the snake worshipers, Quakers, any radical Islamic sect, etc. - should be a matter of choice and not indoctrination.

Imagine a government indoctrinating your children in the secular world, keeping them from practicing any particular religion or faith, until they're legally allowed to vote. Now, imagine a government indoctrinating your children in one faith, even if it's not the one you practice.

Which is worse?

The fact is, a religion is an ADULT choice. Children are indoctrinated in whatever faith you happen to practice at the time because you practice it. In most cases, religions demand the indoctrination of your children in the faith whether you want to or not. This, of course, ensures a plentiful and endless supply of the faithful to fill the pews and coffers of the faith.

But what if we restricted religion to adults only?

There's legislation being considered to ensure that those religions which rely on faith for their medical treatment (and consequently experience a staggeringly higher than average death rate) must take children to see a doctor.

Good idea, you say. Why should children suffer because mom and dad are too whacked out on a cult to do the right thing and get them conventional medical treatment for life-threatening conditions?

So how is this different than the government keeping your kids from learning all about your religion until they're legally old enough to make adult decisions?

The fact is, it doesn't. And the point is, it SHOULD HAPPEN.

Religion shouldn't be about what mom and dad believe. It's SUPPOSED to be about a person's individual relationship with (insert your choice of deity here). How can a child make that kind of decision? More to the point, how would a child know that Mom and Dad are a bit too whacked to know what's right for any of them?

They don't. They just do what Mom and Dad do because that's how humans are hard-wired. And if Mom and Dad are idiots, the child will follow idiotic practices. Such is the way of the world.

I guess the bottom line is, if you want to save the children, you have to start by saving your own first and NOT indoctrinate them in your faith. Encourage them to find their own paths. Be objective and dispassionate about all faiths and answer questions honestly and without the 'do this or spend the rest of eternity - which is a REALLY LONG TIME - suffering endless torment' BS that keeps the sheep in line.

For those who say you can't teach morality without teaching religion, I say bullshit. You can teach a person to obey the law, treat others with at least a minimum amount of respect, to like one's self and to play nice with others without ANY religion at all. All you have to do is live the example you want to set. Your kids will turn out fine.

My parents had hypocritical tendencies when it came to religion, and the more I saw the contradictions between what they did and what the religion said, the less I liked the idea of the religion. My parents were equipped for the real world. The religion (like most today) was not. I ended up living their example and it took me a long time to find a faith with which I am comfortable. I really HATE hypocrisy. Were I to have kids (and if that ever happens, it will prove God exists and has a sadistic sense of humor to boot), they would not be taught my religion. I would answer any questions they have about any religion honestly and without bias and encourage them to make up their own minds as to what path to take.

This, by the way, is MANDATED in my religion, which is obviously NOT Christian, Islamic or Jewish. You can only walk one path - yours. It is a personal choice and if I deliberately interfered with another's life path, that's bad for both of us. Hence my distaste for evangelical religions of any kind.

So don't indoctrinate your kids. Don't expect them, let alone demand them, to follow in your faith's footsteps. I'd rather see a law passed restricting the practicing of a religion and/or imposing a religious dogma on another to adults only. An adult has a choice. Children, often times, do not. And when it comes to indoctrination, children will think they're doing the right thing only because everyone they know is doing the same thing, when, in fact, it's a very, very bad thing. Let adults figure out what religion (if any) they want to follow and leave the kids alone. In the end, making an informed choice in religion is better than paying tens of thousands of dollars in therapy to get over a childhood ruined by overly zealous parents and their fascination with a cult, or dying because the parents thought God could cure childhood diabetes or any other treatable, but eventually deadly ailment with prayer alone.

Blogs and news - 10/31/08

It may not be news to others, but I'm rather amazed by the number of blogs passing themselves off as 'news' these days.

These aren't op-ed pieces, or letters to the editor pieces or even plainly marked as 'blogs', the content of which may or may not have something to do with some objective reality or facts. No, these are passed off as news items as if they were properly researched, vetted, edited, reviewed and then disseminated to the public for their intellectual enlightenment. Unbiased reporting, they're not. Opinion, they are.

Everyone does it, from ABCNews.com (the distinction apparently being a tiny, almost imperceptible change in an icon that determines which are blogs and which are 'news stories' despite the fact these icons don't turn up in news feeds and blogs receive the same headline billing as regular news articles) to USNews and World Report (where, apparently, they pay individuals with biases deep enough to float aircraft carriers to pontificate about whatever strikes their fancy at the moment - a good living for them, but awful reporting for the organization and a huge disservice to the readers).

Now, I'm NOT against blogging. I'd be some gigantic, free-wheeling hypocrite if I said blogs are bad, considering this is a blog. What I'm arguing against is passing off blogs as news. Yes, they often contain some relevant information, but they don't necessarily qualify as 'news'.

What is 'news'?

Good question. To me, 'news' is unbiased reporting of the facts. It presents who, what, where when and how. It presents why if known. It does not present speculation, opinion, conjecture, innuendo, half-truths or other qualifiers to shade the story one way or another unless they have been expressed by an individual who is part of the story and they are RELEVANT to the story. There is a responsibility in reporting the news that too many people are abdicating in the face of a readily available blog audience. That responsibility is to present the facts so that the people can make up their minds about a story if they so choose. It is a responsibility to not shade a story with words or descriptions that may interfere with the creation of an opinion. If you think you are above being influenced by mere words, you are probably lying dead on a slab somewhere.

The following is the leading paragraph from an AP story appearing on MSNBC.com from the AP dated 10/31/08 by Mark Stahl:

"In a bold move brimming with confidence, Democrat Barack Obama broadened his advertising campaign on Friday into two once reliably Republican states and further bedeviled rival John McCain by placing a commercial in the Republican presidential nominee's home state of Arizona."

This is not a terribly accurate or unbiased piece, though it does contain information. Remember who, what, when, where, how and maybe, why.

Here's how another agency can report it, biased in the other direction:

In a sneaky and underhanded move, Obama invaded traditionally Republican grounds on Friday when he deliberately began running ads promoting the liberal agenda in two states. He further added insult to injury when he began running ads in war hero, POW and candidate for President of the United States, Senator John McCain's home state of Arizona.

Here it is again, without any bias:

On Friday Senator Barack Obama began running ads in North Dakota and Georgia, two traditionally Republican states, in an apparent attempt to secure more Democratic votes. With Senator McCain's ads already running in Senator Obama's home state of Illinois, on Friday Senator Obama also began running an ad in Senator McCain's home state of Arizona.

Note the differences: Always referring to both individuals by title and similar name. No buzz phrases like "brimming with confidence" or "bedevil". It balances out references to democrats and republicans. It also states the facts without coloring them, doesn't prescribe any specific motivations, and is neutral in tone and information.

So where's the problem? The above article was a NEWS PIECE, not a blog. It was presented as a straight AP-generated story on MSNBC.com. But it's obviously biased toward Senator Obama, painting a very defensive and moderately negative picture of Senator McCain. I've read other stories which do the opposite. Fox news came out foaming at the mouth with the story of a 'McCain volunteer' brutally attacked by an Obama supporter during a robbery who then had a "B" carved into her cheek when the robber discovered she was a McCain supporter. Fox News never bothered checking the facts of the story, nor did they report that the police suspected the story was phony from the start (a day later the police's suspicions were confirmed and the young woman is being treated for mental instability). For twenty four hours, conservative pundits howled and bayed like bloodhounds on a trail, only to find they'd treed a non-existent coon. Few bothered to check the facts and almost none of them reported those facts dispassionately.

So, again, what's the problem with blogs?

The problem lies with their impact on the reporter's objectivity. Reporters have a ready audience with their blogs, and another with their news readers, but they are blurring the line between objective reporting and subjective bias, allowing the latter to invade the former. These news organizations encourage this form of mental masturbation, allowing the reporter free reign to flaunt their opinions without fear of retribution and with no journalistic responsibility, then fail to live up to their responsibilities by properly editing the reporter's words before they're posted or printed. Worse, they add these op-ed pieces to the straight news lines, with almost no regard for the fact they're not news but opinions, and fail to label them appropriately.

The upshot is that news today seems to consists of 20% fact and 80% opinion.

The solution is relatively simple: Make reporters REPORT the news. If they want to blog, let them do it on their own time, on their own dime and to whatever audience they attract. Do NOT let them blog within the news organization itself, never as a 'major story', never as a headline except inside the op-ed section where the opinions of everyone, reporter, editor, reader, et al. can be considered equally. The editors must regain a sense of journalistic integrity, reporting facts as opposed to conjecture, innuendo, supposition or even a 'best guess'. None of those are news and none of those belong in a news story if it's not a quote from a relevant source.

Another factor in this race for blogging as news is advertiser dollars. People like sensationalism. People like gossip. Shows like the Professional Stalkers Anonymous (TMZ) and other such offerings prove people don't generally care about whether the story is factual as long as it SOUNDS juicy. And to a certain extent, I understand the desire to read more than dry facts. But the very use of adjectives that 'juice up' a story colors it one way or another. This causes bias, even controversy. And by doing so, more readers are attracted, thus drawing the attention of advertiser dollars who then pay a lot to make sure everyone who reads or hears or sees that article is exposed to their product of the moment. There's too much rush for dollars and not enough objectivity in the manner in which the rushing is encouraged. The fact the story may or may not be accurate and is most certainly not objective are seemingly minor issues.

We live in a time of emerging technologies, when communication has never been easier or reached such a wide audience. And we communicate as we have done in the past: with little or no regard for the impact our words may have on others. A reporter's responsibility is to inform, not persuade. But with the advent of the Internet, and the lack of etiquette associated with it, we have become a world of opinions wherein any idiotic point of view is held with the same reverence and regard as the most brilliant of our age. We, as individuals, certainly have the right to express ourselves freely. But reporters do not when they are reporting the news. Their responsibility is to inform, not persuade. (Yes, I'm repeating myself - deliberately).

It's time we begin to impose some rules on our new-toy method of talking to the world. Blogs should be clearly and obviously labeled as blogs. They should NEVER appear in a news headline without the word "OPINION:" prefacing the title. People must be allowed to express themselves, but reporters must be required to dispassionately tell the whole story as it becomes available or mark their words as the opinions they delineate. When in the pursuit of the Almighty Advertising Dollar, reporters forget that their responsibility is to give us the information we need to create our own opinions, and instead try to shape our opinions, nations and generations suffer.