Saturday, January 22, 2005

How I would have written the Star Wars prequels...

a.k.a. If George Lukas wasn't such an unimaginative hack standing on the shoulders of giants


A basically good guy
with a distorted sense
of justice? A victim of
his own passions?


While you can detect some of what I'm about to write in the prequels that have been released (but only if you walk in looking for it - it's not sufficiently emphasized in the films as released), I've always liked the idea that Darth Vader is basically a good guy who has fallen prey to his over zealous/exagerated sense of justice, and his own wanton passions.

I remember reading an article by Gore Vidal (the famous/infamous liberal author/controversialist) in which he described Timothy McVeigh (the "Oklahoma City Bomber") as afflicted with an "overdeveloped sense of justice." The article was surprisingly mature and non-jingoistic in it's appraisal of McVeigh, taking for granted that you as a reader have the intelligence and development to understand that when all is said and done you understand that killing innocents is wrong (though an "irritating" S.O.B. like Vidal would have no qualms about keeping you honest, by reminding you frequently that western governments do precisely this on a regular basis). He corresponded with McVeigh while he was on death row, and has provided us with perhaps as accurate a portrait of this man as we will ever have.

Having read these thoughts of Gore Vidal a couple of years ago, I soon came to ponder this as the most perfect explanation for how the Star Wars archvillian Darth Vader ends up as he does...falling from the lofty status of Jedi prodigy, to a dark warrior responsible (in the end) for enabling the rise of an evil warlock dictator to power.

This notion of someone with an "overdeveloped" or "exagerated" sense of justice, combined with the immoderate nature of undisciplined human passions, and what we can discern from the dialogue of the original Star Wars Triology, really struck something deep in me. In some ways, it reminds me of my one time attraction toward Islam. It's very easy for someone like me (who feels like an "outsider" looking into this ridiculous madhouse we call "western civilization") to become disgusted by the goings on of our society, and just groan "f*ck it!", give up on it, look for the nearest machete, and want to start striking off heads. I strong suspect this is a big (and often overlooked) reason as to why Islam has spread so much amongst African Americans, prison inmates, and (now days, increasingly) amongst Latin Americans; these are all groups which on a large scale can be characterized as people who have been often "left out" on the "American Dream" for one reason or another. They're angry, they're frustrated, they're sick of playing by the rules. Islam, in it's purer, more "fundamental" forms, is an entire way of life. Not simply a religion, it's also a political system. Shariah is the legal framework flowing from Islamic "sources of revelation", and strictly speaking, to recognize as truly valid any form of law other than Shariah is a form of "shirk" (idolatry) as far as the Muslim religion is concerned.

Hence, Islam ultimatly proposes an overthrow of the existing political systems, and their replacement by something entirely different (both in it's methodology and basic premises.) Hence, why more heartfelt forms of Islam (unless they labour under heavy qualification) not only see bloody jihad with western powers as inevitable for the latter's injustices in the Middle East, but also as inevitable irregardless (since the whole of humanity is "supposed" to be submitted to Allah; the very meaning if "Islam" being "submission".)

I think such thoughts as a background would have made an incredibly interesting write up for Darth Vader. Perhaps some sort of crisis (both personal and social) could have made the young Jedi Anakin Skywalker "fed up" with "the system", and instead look to a more radical guru, with a more radical (if bloody) set of solutions. The path of the Sith could have been his "fundamentalist Islam", a way which seems good to his desire for order and justice, but in the end representing a far greater evil than what he was seeking to reform/overcome?

This would make for a far more convincing "fallen hero" than the existing prequels are portraying - so far all we have is a whiney brat, pissy that his "brilliance" isn't adequately appreciated by his teacher (Obi Wan Kenobi) who I at least feel zero sympathy for. This for me doens't make compelling drama. OTOH, I think the scenario I put forward would speak on a far more universal level - because I think all of us have had those anti-social moments, where we either wanted to go dissappear and live in a cave (or pick up a paddle and start bludgeoning people) in the face of the absurdity and inequity we have experienced at some point in our lives.

Or perhaps I'm just a nut...these anti-social feelings are not common, and I ought to be watched closely. Either way, I think my ideas would have made for better cinema than the steaming-turd scripts Lukas has been churning out recently.

I always figured as much...

(thanks Crowhill.net)


Ecce Homo


New Chemical Testing Points to Ancient Origin for Burial Shroud of Jesus; Los Alamos Scientist Proves 1988 Carbon-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Used Invalid Rewoven Sample

Aside from the (now apparently faulty) 1988 carbon dating data, there is an overwhelming abount of data in favour of the authenticity of the Shround of Turin. It's simply staggering.

Why can't Christians do it this way?

Today I went to the post-office to pick up a lovely little parcel of free booklets I ordered online from an Islamic dawah* ministry based out of Saudi Arabia.

To be perfectly honest, I no longer have any desire to convert to Islam, and am pretty much "doggedly Christian" (nay, "catholic" with a small "c") in my basic convictions, but I ordered these booklets anyway, since I believe the best way to learn about other religions is to read their own literature.

However I have to give Muslims alot of credit when it comes to the distribution of religious literature (with the goal of converting people to their religion.) This is not the first time I've taken up such offers for free Islamic booklets, Qurans, etc. In each case, I've noted the following...

- the publications are of reasonably good quality
- they are absolutely free

and most importantly

- they come to you with absolutely no strings attached.

I've noticed this last qualification usually not the case with those Christian organizations which offer religious literature of any significant quality or quantity. Whether they're on the fringes of what people will call "Christianity" (like the Jehovah's Witnesses), or a little more mainstream (like some variety of non-denominational, evangelical Protestantism), they almost always will come at you with a "hard sell"...whether it be at the time you request the offered materials, or afterward.

While such "hard selling" (translation: PESTERING!) might win a few converts, I suspect it turns off alot more. You can certainly include me in that number.

For example, I've taken quite a strong affinity toward normative (if very traditional/conservative) Orthodox Christianity. I would be thrilled, if it were possible to receive substantial, quality reading material on said faith, let alone with no strings attached. Perhaps if anyone from the ROCOR, OCA, GOAA, etc.** is reading this, they might take this as a constructive suggestion.

* dawah is the Islamic equivelent to Christian evangelization.

** these are all "juristictions" in North America, representing various self governing Orthodox Churches...typically divided along ethnic lines.

"Hate Laws", etc.

Personally I think modern secular states lack the moral authority to tell anyone that a certain amount of pre-judgement (the root of "prejudice") toward this or that racial/ethnic group is "immoral" and deserving of special prosecution/punishment. It seems to me that the only "basis" for the rule of law in such secular societies at this time is a pragmatic one - a sort of "agreement amongst thieves", unfortunately. But then again, I've never believed that a professed lack of any "official" national religion equaled a lack of commitment (even if only implicit) to a particular world view...not for a moment.

Aside from my misgivings about the "civil rights movement" in the United States (they were right about some things, gravely wrong about others, leading to very mixed consequences - not to mention I believe that the motives involved in this movement were very mixed), here in Canada I've seen what "hate crimes" legislation has wrought: a covert back door to shut down non-politically-correct opinions, particularly those held by that "old time religion."

Given that we (for the time being) are forced to abide with a secular state (and I mean this both in terms of "secularism" and "statism"), I think the fairest, most objective and reasonable arrangement would be for it to prosecute actual crimes. Obviously if I pre-meditatedly kill someone, I deeply disliked something about them; whether it be for some personal offence I perceived they've committed against me, their standing between me and my ambitions, or some quality about them I found odious (including their "sexual orientation" or "the colour of their skin.")

Prime Minister being dogged by "gay marriage" issue

PM's Asia trip overshadowed by same-sex debate

For those not up on Canadian politics, there is a huge momentum here in the federal government (though it's hardly clear that this has any support amongst the average Canadian) to give legal standing* to so called "gay marriage". Interestingly enough, this issue is dogging him even while he's been overseas on a trade mission. Most interestingly, is when it came up during his stop in India, after a Sikh spiritual leader issued an edict to Canadian Sikhs (including those who are MP's in the Prime Minister's own party) to oppose any legislation toward giving legal status to same-sex marriages.

PM steps into same-sex marriage debate in India

An interesting issue brought up in the first article, is the possibility that this gay marriage issue could end up opening the door to the legalization of polygamy. I have a hard time seeing how rationally speaking it cannot but end up doing this. I don't see how anyone could argue that having three or four wives is any less "moral" or "natural" than having a spouse of the same gender.

Personally I think the whole notion of a "gay marriage" is stupid, and I think you can hold that position whatever you happen to believe about the morality of sexual relations amongst those of the same gender. Unfortunately, the whole reason we're having this controversy is precisely because so called "normal", "straight" folks have made the institution of marriage a mockery all by themselves. Long before "Adam and Steve" declared their desire to have their love recognized by society (and that is what this is all about on the gay end - the juvenile need to have others give you the "thumbs up" regarding what you believe or how you choose to live your life...not a uniquely gay problem of course), "straight" people were confusing infantile romanticism with love, and transforming marriage into the mere recognition of that "love." Hence, marriage ceased to be a primarily procreative affair, the genesis of society's most basic unit, the family.

Well, if marriage ceases to be an arrangement primarily aimed at the begetting and rearing of children, but simply a fancy rubber stamp upon "our love" (so purile!), then there really is no practical reason not to give the same "nod" to homosexuals.

In other words, "straight society" brought this upon themselves - that's where the blame lies, and not with "those damned fags."

* Strictly speaking, such unions already have legal standing in most of Canada, as most provinces have of their own accord passed "same sex marriage" legislation. However, there are a few hold outs like Alberta (a "notoriously" socially conservative province, at least relatively speaking), so the feds want to impose this from on high... another reason why I'm basically a Libertarian/Anarchist ("no government" is good government, "less government" is better government).

Huh...interesting this is...

Catholic Church in Spain drops opposition to use of condoms to prevent AIDS

If this report's accuracy can be trusted, I have to wonder if this is another example of just how out of control the Roman Catholic Church in fact is. I have a hard time believing the above position (allegedly now taken by the Spanish Conference of Bishops) would be endorsed (at least officially) by the Vatican. It's been my observation that as decades have gone by since the Second Vatican Council, Rome has been continously losing it's grip upon what "local churches" in it's communion do and say.

Monday, January 17, 2005

Non-P.C. Biblical messages to become illegal in USA?

(thanks again, Crowhill.net)

Anti-gay protestors potentially face some serious prison time

excerpt:
According to the Philadelphia District Attorney, a biblical message that homosexuality is sin and that change is possible constitutes a hate crime. A simple message delivered in a calm and non-threatening manner, by 11 people, is so pernicious that it constitutes “ethnic intimidation.”


Comment:
Here in Canada, homosexuals have already been able to pull this stunt, insinuating themselves with identifiable racial/ethnic/religious groups as subjects to be protected by various "hate laws." It seems America is going to go the same way. I don't see how having a penchant for buggery makes one an "ethnic" group of any sort.

Wannabe "Jihadis" murder Copts in America?

(thanks Crowhill.net for the link)

'ISLAMIC HATE' EYED IN SLAYS

While the case is still developing, it already seems fairly clear to me what the motive for these murders was. :-(

Gooooooooooooooood morning Iraq!

Vatican reports archbishop kidnapped in Iraq
(...and to think this used to be one of the only countries in the Middle East where Christians could practice their religion freely!)

Report criticizes use of ancient Babylon as coalition base
(I can already see the fundygelical Left Behind types jumping all over this one... though it must be kind of a burn for these American-centric types to see it's a force led by Uncle Sam which is seated upon Babylon...)

Sunday, January 16, 2005

The Knowledge Glut and the Masters of (Dis?)Information

It just occured to me this evening as I sit here with a nasty cold (as I sit here in my bathrobe, rather than dressed and on my way to work), that we are terribly condioned beings. We're dictated to in some very subtle ways, and it affects how we interpret the events of our own personal lives. Our direct experiences, are being shaped by the influence of others.

I thought to myself, about how differently I'd probably see the world if I was never exposed to television as a child. Or if perhaps I was either home-schooled, or sent to a private school of some kind. So many of the things that I have come to believe to be inevitable, so many inclinations on my part, would simply be absent from me.

It's startling even to see those persons who you think would be the last to succumb to this deluge of mass-media, "pop-culture" influence (religious folks) be in thrall to it to some degree, even if it's subtle. There is nothing in the history of more conservative Christian creeds that mandates rabid egalitarianism, or denies the possibility that there are great inequalities both between peoples, and within peoples, in all sorts of worldly spheres (intelligence, physical attributes, affluence, etc.) Yet, I see this undifferentiated liberalism more or less spouted by them, no differently than it would be from a secular humanist equally formed by the "powers that be". So while the secularist and the conservative Christian might answer "positive" or "negative" on a whole bunch of test questions (ex. "is there a God?" or "is there an after-life?"), on many other issues they're quite homogenous - and both are liable to turn on anyone (or at least be made to feel uneasy toward anyone) who differed with them on this genuine "cultural consensus".

Hence, while not everyone believes there is a literal spiritual entity called "satan", all de facto believe there was an Austrian dude back in the 30's-40's who de-facto fills that position for us in the popular pantheon (Adolf Hitler). This creates the abormality in so called "Christian North American Society" of say, a Nazi-fetishist being considered more of a social pariah than a self professed satan worshipper.

I've even come to suspect that some of my own spiritual confusion is the bastard offspring of this subtle conditioning. Were I to approach the world on it's own terms, with that "common sense" that G.K. Chesterton spoke a great deal of, I probably would not be so baffeled. It's very hard however, to be a child of the T.V. age, and to be able to readily seperate whose thoughts are whose.

It sometimes happens that I become a little melancholy, and think back fondly (if sadly) at my life, B.M.V. (Before Marital Vows).

I can tell you one thing, it was a simpler time. I think there is a lot of truth to the Catholic maxim that (for those who can accept it) the celibate life is a happier state than the married one. This is not to say that I do not love my wife. Hardly. But the truth of the matter is, were it not for that love, every other aspect of my life would be unbearable to a prat so self indulgent as myself. There is nothing "superior" about the married state; you are no longer your own man, everything is an obligation, you live to serve. The only consolation is love; both ways.

So are you single? Lonely? Well, don't feel so down. Call a buddy, go out, and have a drink - at least you're still allowed to! :-)