Hundie Jo [Dot] Com

Archive for September, 2006

On Savage Systems

Henry Imler September 20th, 2006

Savage Systems: Colonialism and Comparative Religion in Southern Africa (Studies in Religion and Culture (Charlottesville, Va.).)Savage Systems details a horrible loss at the hands of past comparative religionists. In the work, Chidester goes to great lengths to detail how the European comparative religionists’ results paralleled the cultural conflict that was going on in the region. The comparative religion studies denied religion to the South African natives when they were in conflict with the colonizers. After the people were subjugated they were suddenly found to actually have religion. At some point, the subjugated people would start to resist the colonizers again. Once that happened and the natives were once again seen as the enemy, they were found to have no religion. This cycle kept happening over and over again.

During the times that the comparative religionists declared to be without religion, this lack of religion was purported to show that there was a fundamental lack of humanity in the natives. This fundamental lacking was used to justify the idea that the natives had no claim to the land. Often they were compared to animals in the European system of rights. Even when the comparative religionists did think that the natives had religion, they kept dismissing it as a religion from ignorance or a degradation of a previous, more sophisticated religion, such as Judaism, or Islam. The degradation theories also served to justify the taking of the natives’ land. The idea was that since they had also come to the land from another place, they had equal claim to it as did the Europeans. The apparent fact that natives had failed to upkeep their religion and had allowed it to digress instead of progress was taken as evidence that they fundamentally lacked something that would have given them full human rights. Since they did not have full human rights, this meant that the European claim to the land was superior to the natives. Chidester also shows how the natives were active in comparative religions. They suddenly were invaded by these people that wielded a great power. They reinterpreted their myths to account for the existence of the whites. This is also evidenced by their reactions of laughter to the missionaries’ messages. Chidester uses this to show that the frontier border is really a place of cultural exchange where each culture goes through a sort of synthesis as a result of contact with another culture.

What is not clear from Savage Systems is if the European comparative religionists were conscious of what they were doing. This is a sort of chicken-and-the-egg question. Did the comparative religionists try to form the colonial mindset towards the natives, or did the colonial mindset influence the comparative religionists. This question is important because it is the key in the moral evaluation of the comparative religionists’ actions. Chidester seems to indicate that this was a natural by-product of the colonizing mindset and was not intentional, but a subconscious correlation. This is further evidenced by the Christian bias that seeped into everything. The only thing that could count as a true religion was Protestant Christianity. In this sense there could not ever be a real comparative religion study, for real comparative religion study does not presuppose a master religion that all others must be a degradation of, a perversion of, or an obstacle to conversion.

The real tragedy is that with all the back and forth of the comparative religionists on the natives’ religions the real religious nature of the natives before the coming of the colonialists is lost forever to history. One can argue for the war of ideas and along with that, the idea that it is morally permissible for one idea to supplant another. However, under that line of thinking the conflict of the ideas must be waged without compulsion if the war is to remain morally permissible. Also, it is hoped that the losing ideas be preserved in history in some form. The case of comparative religions in South Africa does not follow such a template. Subjugation happened on physically and ideally. Chidester says that one can salvage is the border contact between cultures and their interplay can be studied and learned from.

Quote of the day

Henry Imler September 20th, 2006

Augustine wrote volumes because he could not write succinctly.”

- Me, expressing frustration in my reading assignment

Podcast Test

Henry Imler September 19th, 2006


Podcast of the Day

Henry Imler September 19th, 2006

Today’s podcast of the day is “Hope is Emo.” It is a hilarious podcast lampooning the Emo scene. I found this through the “Ask a Ninja” podcast.

If you want to do a dry run before subscribing to the podcast, take
a look at the site, they have videos up of each podcast or v-cast or
whatever name you want to attach to it.

Subscribe to “Hope is Emo”

Subscribe to “Ask a Ninja”

Math Tricks

Henry Imler September 18th, 2006

In the latest issue of Discover they did a little proof that 0.99999… does equal 1. This is how they did it.

1. Take .999999 (repeating) to equal x.
2. Take x times 10 equals 10x
3. So 10x = 9.9999999
4. 10x - x = 9x
5. 9x = 9 (9.999999…. - 0.99999…. = 9)
6. Therefore, x = 1 and .99999….

Crazy, no?

Emile Durkheim

Henry Imler September 18th, 2006

(Notes taken from Eight Theories of Religion on Emile Durkheim)
Eight Theories of Religion

“The idea of society is the soul of religion.”

Introduction

  • He was the Father of sociology, much like Freud was the father of psychology. It was a fundamental shifting of how to look at everything.
  • Before systems focused on the individual, now name just about anything and you can place social in front of it: Social Sciences, Social engineering, social psychology, ECT…
  • Society was seen as a collection of individuals. See Freud, Descartes, ECT… Now to viewing things from a social perspective is almost our default setting
  • He really created the rules of the science that enabled serious study of societies – gave it legs, not just speculation on how it could be done.

|inline

Gospel Lit Research Paper Proposal

Henry Imler September 18th, 2006

Introduction
The purpose of my research paper is to analyze the use of miracle stories in the gospels. The approach will be three-fold; first, the use of miracle stories will be analyzed within the narrative framework of each canonical gospel independently. Secondly, there will be a cross-evaluation of the miracle stories and of the miracle story approaches each gospel presents. Lastly, the theory of an M-source will be examined using the narrative results to mediate differing historical claims that are unable to be verified historically. Also included in the paper will be a similar treatment of some of the non-canonical gospels of the Gnostic tradition.

Method
First, a short introduction to the varying philosophic views on the occurrence of miracles will be given. This introduction will focus on Hume’s attack on the possibility of miracles with a rebuttal by Lewis. Lewis’ view will then be briefly critiqued.

Each of the four canonical gospels will be examined via the lens of narrative criticism. First, the pre-reading attitude towards miracle stories of the each implied reader will be examined. Then the effect that the real author intended to have on the reader about how one should view miracle stories will be examined. The purpose of this is to see how the implied reader’s attitude towards miracle stories develops. The same process will then be repeated with a few of the Gnostic gospels.

The second phase of the paper will be to examine the miracle stories in a cross-gospel frame work. The hope is to see how the different miracle accounts not only vary from gospel to gospel, but how they were changed to fit each of the gospel’s overall narrative. Such an instance of a cross-gospel miracle is the cursing of the fig tree by Jesus on the day that he cleansed the temple. The same process will then be repeated with a few of the Gnostic gospels.

The final phase of the paper will examine the results of the second phase as it pertains to the various theories of an M-Source in the formation of the gospels. It is hoped that the narrative results from phase one will help to navigate through the historical incompleteness that clouds the probability of each theory of the composition of the gospels in relation to the hypothetical M-source. The same process will then be repeated with a few of the Gnostic gospels with the purpose of seeing if there is a parallel m-source, oral or otherwise for the Gnostic tradition.

Finally, the results of the canonical and Gnostic gospels’ attitudes towards miracles will be compared and contrasted. It is hoped that a greater understanding of the implied reader and author will be illuminated.

Moral Disengagement Notes

Henry Imler September 18th, 2006

The following are my notes from a paper entitled: Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities (Link to PDF) by Albert Bandura.

Thesis:

“Moral disengagement may center on the cognitive restructuring of inhumane conduct into a benign or worthy one by:”

  • (false) moral justification
  • sanitizing language
  • advantageous comparision
  • disavowal of a sense of personal agency by 1diffusion of responcibility or 2displacement of responcibility
  • disreguarding or minimizing the injurous effects of one’s actions
  • attribution of blame to, and dehumanization of those who were victimized.

The structure of inhumanites is a “supportive network of legitimate enterprises run by otherwise considerate people.”

Given the many mechanisms for disengaging moral control, civilized life requires, in addition to human personal standards, safeguards build into social systems that uphold compassionate behavior and renouce cruelty.

Does 0.999999… equal 1.0?

Henry Imler September 17th, 2006

In the latest issue of Discover they did a little proof that 0.99999… does equal 1. This is how they did it.

  1. Take .999999 (repeating) to equal x.
  2. Take x times 10 equals 10x
  3. So 10x = 9.9999999
  4. 10x - x = 9x
  5. 9x = 9 (9.999999…. - 0.99999…. = 9)
  6. Therefore, x = 1 and .99999….

Crazy, no?

Friday Random 10

Henry Imler September 15th, 2006

I am finally listening to enough music to join into the tradition
started by Luis and picked up by Brendoman, Dave, and Kyle. Here is my
friday random 10:

  1. Barely (If At All) - The Verve Pipe - Villains
  2. In Bloom - Nirvana - Legacy Of Noise
  3. That’s All Right - Tyler Hilton - Walk The Line Soundtrack
  4. On A Day Like Today - Keane - Hopes And Fears
  5. Change - Tracy Chapman - Where You Live
  6. Don’t Let The Man Get You Down - Fatboy Slim - The Greatest Hits: Why Try Harder
  7. Savoy Truffle - The Beatles - The Beatles (White Album)
  8. Hey Hey, My My (Into The Black) - Neil Young - Rust Never Sleep
  9. Mother Nature’s Son - The Beatles - The Beatles (White Album)
  10. Counting Blue Cars - Dishwalla - Pet Your Friends

Random Collection of Thoughts

Henry Imler September 14th, 2006

I
am loving grad school. Right now I am studying about the Gospels as
literature, post-colonial comparative religions, and the writings and
influence of Augustine. It is a nice variety of topics, each an area of
interest of mine. I have for a long time shied away from studying the
Gospels as literature. The main reason was that I needed to know things
for certain, and I was afraid at what I might find out. The gospels
might not be 100% historically accurate! What? Somebody take my faith
to hell in a hand-basket! Since then I have opened my views a bit and I
am trying to approach this subject as openly and honestly as I can.
There is no reason to hide from the truth. I think for my seminar paper
I am going to take a look at the various ways the Gospels approach
signs. Mark seems to detest them as a method of validating one’s
authority; John, on the other hand, loves to speak about how they
reveal God.

Since my main love is philosophy, I am eating up my Augustine class. So far we have only read the Confessions, but that is almost enough. The Confessions
is not a systematic fleshing out of philosophy, but it does show how
Augustine wrestled with different philosophic notions. The absolute
spiritualization of the Old Testament, especially Genesis, is very
intriguing. I really identify with Augustine’s quest to figure out God
and the Universe in relation to the scriptures. We are tackling On the Nature of Free Will
next, one of my favorite topics. What I have found to be the most
interesting things in his writings so far is his demand that everything
be logical, yet there are times when he pronounces things as mysteries
and at other times he even has mystical experiences.

Lastly, there is my Post-Colonial comparative religions class. This has been especially intriguing.
While I recognize the absolutely terrible things the West has done to
the rest of the world, I am having a hard time figuring out the way
ahead. Also, there are questions of legitimate conflict and judging the
other’s response to our actions. These are more questions on how to
deal with Post-Colonialism itself, disreguarding the comparative
religion aspect of the class. It is a great thing to take a class in
which you seek the answers and do not have them to begin with. I might
take a look at Wahabbism / Caliphate
/ and their appeal to the Muslim world. Try to talk about the different
layers to the issue. The appeal to the masses, the methods used, the
nature of the alternate to the West, stuff like that.

I am also a teaching assistant for an Intro to Religion class. It is
not a survey of religions, but a survey of the different methods of
thinking about religion. I am really enjoying leading the discussion
sections. It is weird, but even grading the papers has given me a
greater love and desire to teach.

As with most loves, it is not without its trials. It has been very
hard to keep up with the reading. I seriously have done more reading in
the last three weeks that I did my entire undergraduate career. I feel
like if I am not reading, I am doing something morally wrong. It is
also hard to manage my free time. I have a lot of it, but it is not
really free time because of all the duties I am needing to fulfill. It
has been a continuing struggle to adapt to a lack of imposed structure
ever since I left high school.

Another aspect that I have to watch is my relationship with Meredith
and with God. I must constantly keep in mind that I am doing this
ultimately for them. Meredith and I have both been so very busy with
our separate lives that we have to find and make time to be together.
This has been one of the greatest and most worthwhile challenges that
we have faced since late August. You know what? i think the effort we
have been making has been paying off. We are not just sitting together
watching TV each night after work. When we do spend time together we
talk about our struggles, our successes, thoughts, feelings; we are
getting so much more out of the time we do spend together.

P.S. Ever notice that each time I go to do a random collection
of thoughts I have been having, they end up being centered around one
topic?

Oh Yeah?

Henry Imler September 12th, 2006

Fears of revenge attacks on stingrays over Irwin death - World - Times Online

Is that not the dumbest thing you have ever heard? Reprisal killings
on stingrays to avenge the crocodile hunter? Honestly people, use the
head when you are ‘a thinkin’!

What is the definition?

Henry Imler September 12th, 2006

Activism Is in the Eye of the Ideologist

The conservative justices were far more willing than the liberals to strike down federal laws — clearly an activist stance, since they were substituting their own judgment for that of the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

Really?

What about this: Anal Philosopher: Judicial Activism

Suppose Congress and the president enacted a law that
made Roman Catholicism the official religion of the United States. The
United States Supreme Court would strike it down in a heartbeat as a
violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits, inter alia, the
establishment of religion. This Supreme Court ruling, according to the
study cited, would constitute judicial activism, despite the fact that
it enforces a clear constitutional norm…

For the record, judicial activism is not the striking down
of legislation. It is the striking down of constitutional legislation,
i.e., legislation that comports with the Constitution.
The
judge’s job is twofold: first, to uphold constitutional legislation;
and second, to strike down unconstitutional legislation. If the judge
either upholds unconstitutional legislation or strikes down
constitutional legislation, then the judge is engaged in activism.
Activism means substituting one’s own norms for those of the
Constitution.

That is not to say that conservative judges are more activist than
liberal judges. The study just used a bad definition of judicial
activism.

9-11

Henry Imler September 11th, 2006


New report and the holes.

Henry Imler September 10th, 2006

ThreatsWatch.Org: InBrief: Iraq and al-Qaeda Untied

By the report’s own acknowledgement, there has yet to be
produced a “‘fully researched, coordinated and approved position’ on
the postwar reporting on the former regime’s links to al-Qa’ida” by the
Intelligence Community with which to compare to prewar assessments.
Furthermore, especially with regard to WMD capabilities and ‘Regime
Intent,’ the incredibly thorough Iraqi Perspectives Project postwar
study produced by United States Joint Forces Command, Joint Center for
Operational Analysis, was not even considered with other postwar
assessments.

“[S]aying that you have a strong grasp on what was and
wasn’t going on in Iraq based on an “initial review” is akin to saying
that you don’t need to read the bible because you’ve memorized the ten
commandments.”


Weekly Standard: Rules of Evidence

Senator Carl Levin says that the report is “a
devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting,
misleading, and deceptive attempts” to connect Saddam’s regime to bin
Laden’s al Qaeda. Senator Jay Rockefeller agrees with Senator Levin’s
assessment, saying the report will confirm that “the Bush
administration’s case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading.”

CONSIDER TWO BRIEF examples, chosen from many:

The committee’s staff made little effort to determine whether or not
the testimony of former Iraqi regime officials was truthful. In fact,
Saddam Hussein and several of his top operatives–all of whom have an
obvious incentive to lie–are cited or quoted without caveats of any
sort. In Saddam’s debriefing it was suggested that he may cooperate
with al Qaeda because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” According
to the report, “Saddam answered that the United States was not Iraq’s
enemy. He claimed that Iraq only opposed U.S. policies. He specified
that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would
have allied with North Korea or China.”

Anyone with even a partial recollection of the controversy
surrounding Iraq in the 1990s will recall that Saddam made it a habit
of cursing and threatening the United States. His annual January “Army
Day” speeches were laced with threats and promises of retaliation
against American assets. That is, when Saddam claimed that the United
States was “not Iraq’s enemy,” he was quite obviously lying. But
nowhere in the staff’s report is it noted that Saddam’s debriefing was
substantially at odds with more than a decade of his rhetoric.

The testimony of another former senior Iraqi official is
more starkly disturbing. One of Saddam’s senior intelligence
operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was questioned about his contacts with bin
Laden and al Qaeda. There is a substantial body of reporting on
Hijazi’s ties to al Qaeda throughout the 1990s.

Hijazi admitted to meeting bin Laden once in 1995, but claimed that
“this was his sole meeting with bin Ladin or a member of al Qaeda and
he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial
contact.”

This is not true. Hijazi’s best known contact with bin Laden came in
December 1998, days after the Clinton administration’s Operation Desert
Fox concluded. We know the meeting happened because the worldwide media
reported it.

Here is a blog dedicated to looking at Saddam and Terror: Regime of Terror.

Note: Having ties to terror groups does not in anyway mean that Iraq
had anything to do with 911. But part of the war rationale was that if Saddam had WMDs,
wished to attack the United States, or get back at them for spoiling
his pan-Arabia plans, employing terror groups as delivery methods is a
possibility.

Five Years and Full of Skepticism

Henry Imler September 10th, 2006

I thought this was kind of interesting: Fighting Terror Five Years Later

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Mueller writes, “Although it
remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of
the omnipotent terrorist . . . may have been overblown, the threat
presented within the United States by Al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The
massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11
may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and
taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely
exists.”

Mueller goes farther than I would, but his point general point makes
sense. Certainly, our government should continue to seek out and thwart
those who would do us harm. But short of a stray nuclear weapon — a
real but unlikely threat, and a threat the objectionable parts of the
government’s war on terror do nothing to diminish — there’s little Al
Qaeda or other Islamic fundamentalist groups can do to us that any
other individual or group with violent ambitions could. Making them
anything larger than that is exactly what they want.

As the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 approaches, Schneier offers
sound advice as to where we should go from here. He writes, “It’s time
we calm down and fight terror with antiterror . . . The surest defense
against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to
recognize that terrorism is just one of the risks we face, and not a
particularly common one at that.”

Don’t Cry

Henry Imler September 8th, 2006

Forty-four hours ago I posted a 305 word blurb about my qualms with the idea of original sin. Since then a lot of words have been spilt on the topic.

  • 25 comments, or one every hour and 45 minutes.
  • Seven thousand seven hundred and sixty eight words
  • If you take that and double space it with 1-inch margins at a twelve point font, it comes to a full 29 pages.
  • That averages out to about 300 words per comment, about a page each.

Check it out and add your thoughts. Don’t let the feisty baptists scare you off, they mean well and are pretty well reasoned.

On the impossibility of origional sin.

Henry Imler September 6th, 2006

Using Jesus and Adam as examples, the concept of original sin is not consistent with the rest of scripture: Mass Theology:The heritage of sin

This was my basic argument:

  1. Either all humans have original sin or all humans do not have original sin.
  2. If at least one human does not have original sin, all humans do not have original sin
  3. Jesus was fully human
  4. A necessary condition of a perfect sacrifice is a lack of sin.
  5. Jesus was a perfect sacrifice.
  6. Therefore Jesus was without sin.
  7. Jesus did not have original sin
  8. Therefore Jesus was fully human and did not have origional sin
  9. Therefore, all humans do not have original sin.

Let’s look more closely at the central part of the argument:

  1. If at least one human does not have original sin, all humans do not have original sin.
  2. Jesus was fully human and did not have origional sin.
  3. Therefore all humans do not have original sin.

Restated it is as follows:

  1. If O, then A
  2. O
  3. Therefore A

Uh… they bragged about it?

Henry Imler September 6th, 2006

I seriously just saw a commercial where Hummer bragged about getting 20 miles to the gallon.

Since when is that a good thing?

Sin and Scripture

Henry Imler September 6th, 2006

Why the concept of original sin is bogus: MassTheology: The heritage of sin.

Thoughts on Augustine and his ideas of being a scriptural literalist.

« Prev - Next »