The Religion of Transformers: Age of Extinction

Transformers IV finally came out on Redbox and I immediately rented it to watch at home. Well worth the wait. I enjoy action movies, for several distinct reasons.

1. They're creatively stimulating. Intricate CGI gives an active mind much to fantasize about.
2. You'll therefore get something out of it even if the plot or dialogue is terrible.
3. Because of the emphasis on aliens, robots, war etc, there's less unnecessary sexual content.
4. Because of dealing with very big themes and archetypes, the sparse dialogue is more significant. It can therefore be amazing (Jurassic Park, Dark Knight), or far off the mark.

In this case, with my senses highly attuned to detecting religious themes, I found several seemingly innocuous scenes which could, depending on a particular person's political/religious passions, be enormously significant, either as a slight or as an affirmation.

These go all across the board. Allow me, briefly, to show you where and what they are, to hopefully dazzle you with content you might not have noticed when you watched it.

Possible Theme: Diversity and Multiculturalism v. Conformity and Tradition

This is not an evenly matched equation, I grant you. But yet this is what gets bandied about in higher academia. Diversity is the golden calf and golden goose egg both, for universities these days. There is an unquestioned assumption that geographic diversity among students means better things for society. This has replaced the archaic notion that diversity of thought improves education by increasing students' exposure to a variety of ideas through lively discourse, that the most persuasive arguments may carry the day.

And why is this set in opposition to "tradition?" Because it's held in these circles that people who are "opposed to diversity" are religious hardliners who are all about following outmoded rules and such.

This is a portion of the cultural message from the left that I've been exposed to via student organizations in my college experience. That's why it stood out to me, when this line of dialogue occurred:

"All this species mixing with species, it upsets the cosmic balance. The Creators, they don't like it. They built you to do what you were told."

This is put in the mouth of the archvillain of the movie, and in one fell swoop, it ties the ideas of racism in with obedience to one's Creator. Subliminal promotion of the belief that the Bible and Christianity are/promote racist ideologies? Or do you disagree?

Next up,

The Atheist Fallacy of Imputing Motives on Actors Motivated by Religious Ideology

Sounds like a pretty good dissertation title, dunnit? Yeah. Well, this article is going to be short by comparison.

I'm a biology major, but because I need to round out my degree with 45 "upper-level" (that is, in the 300 and 400 range) courses in order to graduate, I've chosen to take Dynamics of the Arab-Israeli Conflict because I'd rather have something interesting than something guaranteed to be easy. As it is, it is one of my more enjoyable classes, when it comes to the workload.

In class today, I briefly spoke with another student on the topic of the final paper. The professor wants each of us to choose a situation in recent history where there has been an ongoing rivalry between a sovereign state and a terrorist state or pseudo-state entity -- examples include Al Qaeda, the IRA, Pakistan-India, North Korea-USA, Hezbollah, Hamas, the PLO, etc, but not terrorist groups that are too amorphous to easily finger, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or the Weather Underground.

We have to write a paper on our selected rivalry and address, among other questions, whether the defensive state has successfully employed a deterrence method against terrorism by the other group, by making the latter "learn from their mistakes" and decide not to challenge the sovereign state again in the same way.

The other student I spoke to made a comment, in passing, that Hamas "isn't learning," that is, learning to stop challenging Israel lest it get 'punished' again and again. I challenged his assertion by saying that the assumption that every terrorist organization actually cares about self-preservation or other selfish things like power, money, influence, etc, is fundamentally flawed. In my view, Hamas is ideologically motivated by the political-religious system of Islam, and that this ideology supersedes what Western, humanist mindsets would consider "rational self interest."

The other student disagreed, responding that we can't assume that the other group is irrational. But he misunderstood me. I didn't mean that Hamas was irrational. Hamas is very rational, if its goals are indeed the destruction of the State of Israel at all costs, as its charter declares. If Hamas is just using religion as a means to an end, and doesn't actually care about ideology, then none of what it's doing makes any sense. If it wanted to exact concessions out of Israel, it wouldn't sabotage the latter's attempts to bargain with it by initiating new hostilities whenever possible. But if it is truly driven by not much more than an insane bloodlust for Jews, then its relentless animosity is perfectly well explained.

My peer wasn't having it. He was insistent that political organizations like these are not truly ideological, but only pretend to be religious. They, like atheist totalitarians of years past, merely use religious rhetoric as a means to an end, to justify its acts or drum up support among the masses. But I believe this is a severe mistake on his part. He, as an atheist, is unaware of his own biases. Not recognizing the insidious arrogance of his own view, he is projecting his own philosophy on others. Because all religion is man-made for the purpose of controlling people, surely then that must be the only use that Islamic terrorists have for religion as well. His inability to recognize that other people are not like him is unfortunate. It must also be recognized that the prevailing philosophies taught in American public education is one of the root causes of this lack of critical thinking ability.

Contrary to the misconception of my fellow student, religion plays a much larger role than just a means to an end, in many cases. For many people, it is not a means, but the end in itself. So failing to see that as even a possibility is a tremendous weakness in the atheist's analysis, and it hinders him from correctly interpreting world events. Even if the atheist is right and all religion is false, his hubris numbs him to being able to understand that others who take religion very seriously simply can't compromise on their ideological positions, even if it might seem more rational in that it would offer them more power, money, influence, or even personal safety.

The atheist fallacy is the subtle assumption that all other people in the world are really atheists at heart. It isn't explicitly spoken, but it shows itself when the atheist can't fathom how religious convictions can trump selfishness--because he foolishly sees the former as an outgrowth of the latter.

That is why foreign policies built on an atheist framework -- the West's, in general -- will never adequately understand the Middle East, and will never correctly predict the consequences of present and future meddling. In more than one way, then, for a proper foreign policy to develop, religion is the answer.


~ Rak Chazak

Journal Entry: Dr. Phil, Open Marriages and Homosexuality

There's a connection? 

Yup.

As you may have noticed if you've been reading from the bottom of the blog to the top, I'm gathering some initial material for the blog by going through my Journal and pasting certain entries I've made over the past year or so. Here is my reaction to a Dr. Phil episode I watched (I rarely watch t.v. at all, and this is why):

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

                        I turned on Dr. Phil for the first time in a long time (just after coming out of the bathroom, having read the first 30-some pages of Hadji, which is the Swedish title of The Hajj, by Leon Uris. I’d started reading it last year but only made it through the first 2 chapters), and he had on two african-american couples who were involved in an “open marriage.” The arrogant ignorance coming out of their mouths was disturbing. The wife is apparently a blogger, and she loves to run her mouth—she interrupted Dr. Phil multiple times and she even got shouted down by the audience. 

The husband said he thought the #1 thing that causes STDs is fear. Because fear causes stress which compromises your immune system. I kid you not. The wife was boastful, touting her ‘list of accomplishments,’ (i.e. they had a tough life, and if the kids turn out messed up it could be from any one of the other things—their house burning, moving, etc, rather than their very open ‘marriage’ that their kids know about) and talked about how she watched porn with her daughter (the point was to be ‘educational,’ but that doesn’t excuse it. She didn’t see a problem with showing her that). She ended her soliloquy by trying to make the point that their household was ‘good,’ or ‘inclusive,’ accepting, etc. by proudly stating that they’ll be totally okay with their children bringing home girlfriends or boyfriends that they’re having sex with. She’s so blind to her own lusts that she doesn’t realize this is not something that earns you points for being a good parent. Quite the opposite. 

The thing that stood out about her and her husband was that they reminded me of the other African-american couple that I had encountered in Borders (the bookstore) that were so sold on astrology and tried to justify to me how remarkable and personally enlightening it was, and then, how blind and ignorant I was for not believing it. This woman did the same to the audience. She was defensive and puffed herself up with accolades to justify her desire to be allowed to do what she’s doing without consequence, without anyone telling her she’s doing something wrong. 

Which reminds me, one point she made was “there are 33,000 religions in this country—which one should I teach my kids?” to her mother-in-law, who repeatedly said on the show that she was concerned for the children. Naturally, that makes all the sense in the world—it is the rejection of the Biblical God and His perfect law that leads people to justify these perversions. Noteworthy is the fact that she tried to refer to society’s acceptance of homosexual relationships in order to justify her ‘open marriage’ arrangement. Ultimately, those who accept and promote homosexuality have no ground to stand on to oppose having multiple partners, because the only ground to stand on is the Bible, and it must be rejected in order to embrace homosexuality.

~ Rak Chazak