People Have Rights Ideas Do Not

“Why won’t you die?”

“Beneath this mask there is more than just flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea...and ideas are bulletproof.” – V in V for Vendetta

I’ve been coming across a recurring theme when perusing the social media of New Atheist who are desperately trying to seem compassionate while dismissing the foolhardy beliefs of theists; the theme that people deserve rights or respect but that their beliefs or ideas do not. I seem to keep hearing, “People have rights. Ideas do not.”

My first question is this: How do you divorce beliefs or ideas from the people that hold them particularly when beliefs or ideas make up the core of a person’s identity? Many people identify themselves along the lines of their beliefs, such as being Christian, Jew or Muslim but also along national, ethnic or social lines. If you give no rights to ideas or have no respect for the ideas a person holds, exactly who or what are you extending rights or respect to? Should we have extended rights or respect to Adolph Hitler the being as divorced from his genocidal tendencies? ‘Cause that’s where the argument winds up going.

The problem is this: Once you try to divorce people from their beliefs and ideas, the rights and respect left to bestow are upon the shell of a human being. As long as more than one person is around, there exists a social construct from which people set themselves apart from the other person (that is, identity). If that ability to form an identity is removed, all that is left is a biological human being who for all intents and purposes might as well be an empty shell. In trying to deny identity – or at least an identity New Atheists do not like – is to deny an aspect of humanity that people often use to position themselves in a special place within the animal kingdom. I find it peculiar that (liberal) New Atheists want to bestow rights and grant respect to the biological entities that people are while at the same time denying that a fetus is a person or that it is okay to terminate a brain-dead patient. What is a person? we are inclined to ask New Atheists. There appears to be an inconsistency in the New Atheist line of reasoning regarding rights and respect (at least when the reasoning is taken to its fullest extent).

I contend that beliefs and ideas are equally important if not more important than the people who hold them.* First, because as I’ve implied, people are their beliefs and ideas so long as there are social interactions. Moreover, when people put their beliefs and ideas into action, beliefs and ideas exit the realm of abstraction and into the realm of recorded history. We also tend to remember people for their beliefs and their ideas instead of the people as mere biological entities.

[*But not by necessity since people are not important by necessity. Refer to my blog Why I Am Not A Humanist for clarification.]

Second, I have to wonder, where would the world be without beliefs and ideas? The answer to that question is a double-edged sword, of course, as without beliefs or ideas, human beings would have never invented the wheel or religion. In the case of religion, look at what happens when some people, such as ISIS, with particular beliefs or ideas do not afford any rights or respect to the beliefs of others; personhood is withheld from a victim and a beheading or sexual slavery is the consequence. It is easy for New Atheists to say that they don’t have to grant rights to or respect theistic beliefs and ideas, but granting a person rights and respect is surely a difficult thing to do when the theist’s beliefs and ideas are dismissed. Kindly reference pretty much all of recorded history if you don’t believe me.

Granted, it seems obvious that some beliefs or ideas are more valid than others but how do we choose which are important and which are not? We can easily say that freedom is a good idea that should be granted some rights or respect, but most of us are saying that from the position of relatively free people with no one to club us for agreeing. Naturally, we also have to ask exactly how free we are supposed to be to retain any hope that freedom is indeed a good idea. But, you never see New Atheists – or anyone else for that matter – getting down to these kinds of nitty-gritty details. If there are any difficulties in the New Atheist assertion that beliefs and ideas should be formed only when there is suitable evidence for them, they are such that beliefs must always be open to revision (easier said than done) to say nothing of the difficulties in trying to determine exactly when an inference based upon evidence is deemed justifiable. I would also challenge any New Atheist to prove that all the beliefs they hold are warranted by evidence. To this New Atheists will likely reply that most of the beliefs or ideas people hold are harmless until certain – particularly theistic – beliefs or ideas are put into action. But as I’ve said many times before, there is no historical evidence that indicates a global community of atheists would be any better than the world such as it is now. So why is this belief being held onto to fiercely by New Atheists? But I digress.

I’m not saying rights or respect should be granted to ideas out of hand; certainly ideas – all ideas – should be open to examination and criticism. But New Atheists need to concede that when they criticize ideas, they are criticizing a person. That person may become offended, which is fine since there is no legislation or unwritten societal rule that prohibits all offensive criticism. People don’t have a right to not be offended.* Oh, so I guess sometimes people don’t have rights. Hmph!

[*At least not in the U.S.; the EU is working on it, though.]

“People have rights. Ideas do not,” is in itself an idea which in no way need be granted any rights or respect. It’s one of quips that looks cute at first glance but loses meaning if you think about it for more than a second. There certainly isn’t any evidence for what New Atheists are trying to assert here. Better luck next time, gang.

More Like 'Fool Circle'

If you don’t regularly scan the headlines on CNN’s home page, you may have missed the following tidbit of ‘news’: Andrew Keegan, an actor whose most famous role was in the not so famous 90’s movie 10 Things I Hate About You, has become the leader of a cult religion in Venice Beach, California. I can’t imagine why this ‘news’ made headlines or why CNN ran the headline for over a week, but since it was run over a week, I figured this ‘news’ must be terribly important and therefore I should read the article. That, and I am always curious as to what kind of bullshit people will fall for. I clicked on various links until I came upon what seemed to be the original article (here) posted by Vice.com, a completely unbiased and professional news source if ever there was one.

The reporter begins by saying they were greeted at Full Circle HQ (‘Full Circle’ being the name of the cult) by a gentleman who called himself ‘Third Eye.’ Now, I’ve never met anyone named ‘Third Eye’ myself, but I’m pretty sure that if I did, my bullshit meter would break itself going off the charts before I had a chance to have a conversation with that person. The reporter then describes meeting a member of the cult named ‘Stav’ who name drops celebrity associations like a baby with a cup full of Cheerios. If I were the reporter, I’d be wondering if this is what qualifies as spiritual ascension in the Full Circle cult; worshipping celebrities. If it is, I’d probably go home and rip up my degree in journalism if these are the dues I have to pay in order to land a job at a more respectable news organization like Fox News.

The article writer goes on to tell us that they asked Third Eye and Stav what Full Circle’s ‘advanced spiritualism of universal knowledge’ meant, but received an answer that was either cryptic (another red flag) or that the reporter didn’t understand (even more alarming). After partying a little bit with the Z-lister Keegan and his cult, our intrepid reporter gets the lowdown from Keegan himself: "Synchronicity. Time. That's what it's all about. Whatever, the past, some other time. It's a circle; in the center is now. That's what it's about," Keegan explained, regarding the church's name, Full Circle. Frankly, I think this is the first time I’ve ever come across an explanation so vague that it didn’t possess enough charm to qualify as enigmatic.  

From there, the reporter writes, A few weeks later, I sat down with Keegan after one of his Sunday services. The meditation at the service had involved water crystals, which participants used to focus their energy to bring an ending to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Yes, it takes a powerful cult indeed to get the kind of zero results we’re seeing in the Middle East. I should add here that by this point in the article I am dumbfounded that the reporter went back to investigate more, as if there weren’t an unarmed minority being shot by a white police officer somewhere or that Taylor Swift hadn’t found another soon-to-be ex-boyfriend.

Of course, like any good cult leader, Keegan had a moment of realization that led him to become aware of ‘synchronicity’ and its role in the cosmic scheme of things: He was attacked by Venice Beach gang members (lol, really?) just as the March 2011 tsunami was occurring in Japan. Basically, this is Keegan’s personal narrative amounts to: I, Andrew Keegan, a Z-list celebrity, was attacked and beaten by thugs just as a tidal wave was devastating Japan. Ergo, I should be the spiritual leader to bring about peace in the world. Andrew Keegan, North Korea called and they want their crazy back. What I think is more likely is that because of the attack, Keegan came to realize he is the Z-lister he actually is (the assault never made the news…anywhere). Keegan realized how unlikely it is a gang would have attacked someone more notable, like Brad Pitt. Naturally, a parallel career move was in order. Surprisingly, the reporter – in a rare moment of lucidity – calls Keegan out on this; The shift in Keegan's ambitions—from stardom to spirituality—shows how the culture of celebrity is not all that far off from religion.

In summary, the reporter writes, While Third Eye and his fellow members see Keegan as a visionary and a leader, the actor said his community is not cultish. Sorry, but take a gander at the pictures of Keegan and his cult; I’m sure the guy’s reason for starting a religion has nothing to do with wanting to get laid on a whim. Fortunately … His spiritual ambitions are currently in jeopardy, as the building his church is housed in went on auction on August 10, which could potentially affect his lease agreement. He is unsure if he can win the bidding war in the rapidly gentrified neighborhood of Venice Beach. So, what, the cult is trying to create peace in the Middle East through pure thought but they can’t pay their bills with mantras? You know your ‘religion’ is out there when it starts to make Scientology seem reasonable.

Nice try, Keegan, but people are still going to find things to hate about you.

Things That Don't Make Sense in Comic Books

As I am in the process of writing a superhero novel, I am trying to steer clear of some of the more ridiculous plot point that seem to haunt superhero comic books in general. Here’s my list of things that don’t make sense in comic books…

If Bruce Banner, a brilliant physicist, is at all disturbed by the fact that he turns into the Hulk every time he gets angry, don’t you think he’d find a way to keep himself from getting angry? There are plenty of legal or even illegal drugs that would help.

Why doesn’t Batman kill the Joker? While Batman may think the act of killing is inherently wrong, his belief that it would make him just like the Joker is incorrect. He is nothing like a homicidal criminal who kills untold numbers of people for fun; he would be killing to stop hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people from dying at the Joker’s hands. One, or even a few criminals, stopped with lethal force does not make the executioner the same as the people they kill. And why bother putting the Joker in prison? He’s just going to escape. Why not give Joker the death penalty?

What’s the point of a character dying if they’re going to come back to life later? The ‘death of’ trope is abused so often these days that it might as well be pointless. What’s the point of a whole bunch of heroes mourning Captain America or Superman when they know that – chances are – they’ll be back in just a few months?

Why don’t superheroes ever use their powers properly? For example, Thor can easily send any difficult enemy into another dimension with his hammer, so why has he only done it once (to Juggernaut)? Why doesn’t Superman ever use his super speed to prevent an enemy from landing a punch? Argh! And why don’t superheroes ever get tired during a fight? Even world class boxers need a rest between rounds.

Why would a non-super powered criminal take on a superhero? If you’re a ninja assassin for The Hand, are you really going to fight Wolverine? If you’re a bank robber, are you really going to shoot at Superman when he arrives? Better yet, if you’re going to be a criminal, why not move somewhere where there are no superheroes?

Regarding Superman, why would a yellow sun give him powers? Our Sun only appears yellow due to the way light scatters in our atmosphere; if you’re in space, the Sun appears white. A better explanation would be that our Sun gives Superman his powers due to what our Sun is made of. I guess comic book writers don’t do much research.

Speaking of gaining super powers, why do incidents that would kill anyone else (like radiation exposure) give some people incredible abilities? (At least this didn’t make sense until Marvel Comic’s Earth X series.) Moreover, why do people always decide to become a hero or villain after gaining super powers? If I suddenly found I could turn invisible, I probably wouldn’t announce it to everyone.

Why do so many superheroes and super villains know each other “off the record,” in their private lives? For example, Spider-Man knew several of his foes before they were villains, like Norman Osborn, Curt Connors, and Eddie Brock. And believe me, that’s just the (really) short list!

Speaking of Spider-Man’s, his spider-sense warns him of impending danger. So why didn’t it warn him not to get married?

Why do allegedly brilliant scientists always use themselves as test subjects? And given how often an experiment goes wrong, why do they always experiment in a heavily populated area?

With a few notable exceptions like Batman and Iron Man, most anyone with a load of money or access to resources is a super villain. Why?

How come civilians never die when there is a huge city battle? There’s got to be some collateral damage they’re not telling us about.

Why do almost all non-Earth beings look exactly like humans? Even Marvel’s Inhumans look really, really human!

…Feel free to come up with your own list and share, share, share. Maybe our collective ire will make comic book writers a little less lazy.