Independence Day

US Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima.
It’s time for another rant that is completely unrelated to the theme of this blog because I just felt like it. Fourth of July just ended a few hours ago for the folks in the Land of the Free. While dropping in and out of consciousness during a particularly boring Maths lecture on integration and volume of a disk of revolution, my mind wandered and — by a random firing of neurons — I ended up thinking about the birthday of what is, or was, arguably the greatest nation in the world.
Warning: Long Rant Ahead.
Indeed, it wasn’t that long ago when the name America symbolized the triumph of human ideals and the collective might of free-will beings in the heart of a young and impressionable boy living on the other side of this spherical hunk of rock. You know, like in the movie Independence Day when President Whitmore said, “today, we (the people of the world) celebrate our Independence Day”?
That used to be America.
The inspiring speech made by Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest Republicans ever lived, at the Berlin Wall had its 20th anniversary marked just a month ago. As he spoke to the people of West Germany and the rest of Western Europe, he spoke to a generation of people who rose out of the postwar ruins and rebuilt their countries with the aid of the Marshall Plan, the greatest postwar rebuilding master plan ever formulated and a distant reminder of America’s diplomatic success. When Ronald Reagan, addressing the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”, it resonated in the hearts of millions of Westerners living in freedom and millions more who longed for it.
Where did that America go? The more I hear of Mr. Bush Junior, the more firmly I believe that it must be somewhere really, really far away.

The fall of the Berlin Wall.
Perhaps America has always been the political shithole that it is today and perhaps I was misled into believing tales of the nation’s past greatness by Hollywood’s many WWII offerings. Perhaps it was due to the fact that at a young and naive age of ten, I was reading all the Tom Clancy novels I could get my hands on. But even if the truth does often turn out to be less inspiring than the sanitized accounts of history, I still believe that America was once closer to its founding ideals than it is today.
The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights owes a lot of its birth to the American ideals of freedom and equality, ideals that are enshrined in the nation’s consitution. This constitution is the basis of the Union and represents the hopes and aspirations of a nation of people who had just tasted the sweet nectar of freedom. This is also the very same constitution that was dismissed by Mr. Bush as “just a piece of paper” not too long ago. How did it come this far?

A portion of the Bill of Rights.
The cynical side of us can argue that ultimately America’s past acts of benevolence were inspired by its own selfish interests. I believe that is not true. There are always people who lie with a straight face and who manipulate and deceive to further their own interests. But similarly, there too will always be people who truly believe in the greater goods of humanity. America’s decision to finally enter WWII was not one of pure altruistic intentions, but it is simply absurd to compare it to today’s Operation Iraqi Freedom. There might have been individual acts of selfishness, cruelty and moral ambiguity, just as there continues to be in today’s armed conflicts, but WWII, for the Americans, was undeniable a “good war”.
America was never flawless, but its people fought hard to stay true to the ideals of its founding fathers. The civil rights movements of the 20th century came to be only because America’s ideology environment enabled its birth. There continues to be racism and injustice even today, and indeed they may never disappear completely, but a huge part of the American way of life is the struggle itself. Today, in a nation described as secular by its constitution, the President publicly called the war on terrorism a “crusade” and his father, the ex-President, said that “atheists are not citizens or patriots“. To hell (literally?) with the founding fathers and their silly ideas about separation of church and state, eh?

Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave now.
But there’s a catch that Mr. Bush and religious fundamentalists should keep in mind: America’s greatness for the past fifty years was largely thanks to the huge advancements it spearheaded in the various fields of science and technology. And here’s some food for thought: according to a recent study in American Scientist, an overwhelming 80% of the leading scientists in American are strict atheist and only 5% holds a traditional view of God in the religious sense. In a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian, this is almost concrete proof that high level enlightenment in science is incompatible, or at least less achievable, with a religious world-view.
Now I profess to be an atheist but I do not take it upon myself to actively persuade people into “converting”. I think people, even Pastafarians and Scientologists, should have the right to believe in what they want to. But it is not unreasonable for me to demand that such beliefs remain personal to those who hold them and be kept out of my life. In today’s America, making such a demand in public is tantamount to career suicide.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Like the African Americans and the homosexuals of the 20th century, American atheists today are discriminated against on a scale unimaginable in most developed European nation. Hell, even the Church of FSM probably gets treated better because apparently in America, belief in any divine supreme being is better than believing in nothing. According to a recent poll, all other factors held equal, more Americans will rather vote for a homosexual or black candidate than an atheist one.
Keep in mind that 80% of American scientists, who are a good representation of the intelligentsia, are atheists and then compare that to the fact that not a single elected politician in America has publicly declared himself/herself to be atheist, we are left with a very unpleasant conclusion: successful American politicians are either liars or idiots. This is clearly not a healthy political environment for the world’s superpower to be in. When will the civil rights movement for the oppressed American atheists come? Will it ever? That is one of the most important questions upon which the future of America’s progress as a nation built on democracy will depend on.
In a recent issue, Captain America died. The superhero who best represented the American spirit is dead. Again the cynical side of us know that Marvel is just trying to make some quick bucks off a character death and he may not even stay dead for long. But still, I find it symbolic and at the very least it manages to stir up some emotions that have been within every one of us who once looked up to America and saw greatness.

Captain America.
But just like how dead superheroes never stay dead, America still has some life left in it. It is not hard to return America back to where it belongs. It took one President to destroy America’s legacy. It will just take another one to restore it. And there is only one candidate who is up for the job.
So if you are American…
PLEASE VOTE FOR
Thank you. You will be much appreciated by the rest of the world.
Disclaimer: I am just a Singaporean teenager. Ideologically speaking, I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I have nothing to gain (except possibly as a member of humankind) from Ron Paul becoming President.



July 8th, 2007 at 3:08 am
First people claim that the Bible is the source of their morals.
Then they claim that in the modern context, no one takes the Bible literally any more, particularly the entire book of Deuteronomy. In doing so, they pre-emptively deny others the right to criticize the book for its content by disowning all the inconvenient bits and claiming that they are figurative rather than literal descriptions.
So what changed? If the religion is humanity’s source of morality (and since the Bible hasn’t changed much in the past thousand years), then how is it that our morals changed so much that we now no longer condone stoning and other less pleasant practices described in the Bible and see them only as “figurative metaphors”?
Something changed within us. And whatever it is, it didn’t come from a static book.
The writers of the Bible clearly wanted to incorporate moral virtues into their writings. Although our modern idea of morality has moved on, there are still some fundamental truths that will always remain (no killing etc). It’s not surprising to find similarities between holy texts and reality, but correlation doesn’t equal to causation.
As for the Iwo Jima flag, it doesn’t matter if it’s faked or not. It’s not the first flag that was planted on the island and there were some confusions and mix-ups, but it doesn’t matter. If the same picture was taken today in Iraq, it would not carry the same weight and emotions as it does today. And THAT is the difference between the two wars.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
@Beowulf Lee :
じ~~~~~~
(ji-=stare)
Ok you should feel something…hehe (forgot haruhi’s exact line XD)
@thunderance: haha It seems you are really a dumb arse. I said “Please think of the bible as a single entity, and accept the discourse of the bible as a whole. Nitpicking doesn’t help anyone.”
dumb ARSE!!! haha Take that!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
@darkmirage: I know, I know. It’s just ironic, IF it were a fake, for it has such a significant cultural value now. If you think in today’s context, fakes/departures-from-ultimate-reality are often blamed for creating pseudo-culture. But instead of being an artefact of pseudo-culture, the picture became a conduit for the construction of an American identity.
I absolutely agree that the bible’s ethics and modern day ethics are not the same. I blame the rise of “economic”(I use this term very broadly) thinking and utilitarianism.
@beowolf: here it is(found it!):
そう?want me to inject a bit into you?
ji~~~~
どう?that helped, right?
@ thunderance:
Your response wasn’t even one tenth of what i expected. BLEAH~
“Eh, the second part of my argument has been cut out >.> Rewriting it is getting really tiring. I’m gonna write the cut out part in point form, can’t be bothered to type it again.
‘Is the world”
Shocking, pregnant pause……thunderance, I suggest you not put so much bullshit into your posts. I think the comment system was overwhelmed by the amount of bullshit and had to reject the comment. LOL. :D
July 8th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Religion or America, one of them has to go!
July 9th, 2007 at 11:18 am
exalt dragon July 7th, 2007 at 12:58 am:
>>>Now that I have utterly smashed you rhetoric, I expect a fiery flaming response!
exalt dragon July 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pm:
>>>Your response wasn’t even one tenth of what i expected. BLEAH~ … I think the comment system was overwhelmed by the amount of bullshit and had to reject the comment. LOL. :D
July 9th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
>.> I can’t be blamed for bulldozing him
July 9th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Dude, where’s my Civil War? Just kidding.
If you want the rest, I have the rest at home.
Now let us resume this carnival of humanity’s righteousness
May Haruhi save you all
July 9th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Time to stop regurgitating the digg articles and comments people.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Well, science IS a religion in itself. It’s just that the basis of faith has shifted, that’s all.
Take that you bastards! Heh.
@Darkmirage I dare not comment on Christianity as whole, on how literally they interpret the Bible; however, I’d just like to say that the Bible should be read like a history book written from the religious perspective (which of course would lead to some sort of bias somewhere), and many of the so-called incidences of hardcore stuff that has been quoted so many times were considered normal then (when it was being recorded).
Take for example the oft-used phrase in the New Testament “If a man shall strike your right cheek, offer him your left cheek” (or something to that effect). People love to interpret it as a sign of humility, of love and forgiveness. However, if anyone has bothered asking a priest (I heard this from a Catholic priest), there IS actually another meaning to it. Apparently during those times, it was very insulting and demeaning for one person to be slapped on the right cheek. Therefore, contrary to the tales of forgiveness and love, what the phrase was trying to put forward was that we (insert group who are oppressed/discriminated against) should stand up for ourselves when need be; i.e. when the person slaps your right cheek, you stand up, look him in the eye, and tell him “Hey you, not my right cheek, but my left.”
Therefore, while I agree (I think anyone rational would agree) that the quoted statements from the Bible are waaaay overboard, I would just like to remind everyone that when reading/quoting the Bible, one should really endeavour to find out the cultures/customs of the people/country at that point of time before making hoo-hoo-ga-ga sounds.
Oh, and this wasn’t copied/regurgitated from digg.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:27 am
>>>Well, science IS a religion in itself. It’s just that the basis of faith has shifted, that’s all.
Religion is defined by its basis of faith. If the basis of faith is shifted, then it’s not religion. To argue the point less semantically, there are glaring differences between the basics science and the basics religion. To equate the two, one then does not understand what science is or does not understand what religion is (most probably science).
>>>I’d just like to say that the Bible should be read like a history book written from the religious perspective
You proved yourself wrong in your own comment. It should not be read like a history book at all. History books don’t provide stories with morals and all the information derived are from factual historical evidence. More likely, it should be read like all other mythological texts. With a little more seriousness perhaps since a lot of literature tend to allude to it.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I didn’t prove myself wrong, I just qualified my comment. Perhaps you might want to take a step back and really try to understand the statement before commenting.
And with regard to the science issue I raised, it’s a difference in opinion that will never be bridged, no matter how much you try to explain. As I grow older, I realise that nothing ever is definite. Who’s to say that your opinion is correct, or mine? I’d rather we just make our stands known, so that we can live alongside each other fine, rather than try to prove that each other’s viewpoints and opinions are flawed and wrong.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Uh. Some things will never be science because science must be falsifiable.
I can claim that there is an invisible person staying in room who is also able to pass through matter. You can never prove me wrong. That’s not science.
Science is faith only as far as we have not disproved it yet. Geocentricism used to be an accepted theory in science until it was disproved. After that it becomes just a belief (for those who still held on to it), not science.
When people try to make statements about science being a matter of faith just like religion (”It’s just a different kind of faith!”), they are plain wrong. Science is nothing like religion. You can disprove bad science but you can never disprove bad beliefs. When contradicting evidence arises, religion ignores those evidences and become more irrelevant while science adapts itself and becomes closer to reality. That is a heck lot bigger difference than what fence-sitter arguments imply.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:28 am
“When contradicting evidence arises, religion ignores those evidences and become more irrelevant while science adapts itself and becomes closer to reality.”
July 11th, 2007 at 11:29 am
zzz the comment got cut off. The statement I quoted smacks of bias, and really, I think you need to read up more about religion and the like before commenting like this.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Your so-called definition of bias just means that I have an opinion. Modern relativism is bullshit.
And your statement smacks of prejudice. You assume that everyone who read up more about religion will think like you. What if I already did and what I said was my conclusion? Instead, why don’t you point out exactly which part of religion contradicts my “bias” statement?
I am not saying anything about whether organized religion is good or bad. I am just saying that it most definitely is not science, nor is it anywhere close to being anything like science. And the so-called “neutral” viewpoints are just trying to screw up that clear and sacred divide.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Science is built on the foundation of theories and equations whereby you believe it works. It all works out one way another. Basically the clear and sacred divide is decided by mass conventional public beliefs.
When the theories and equations work out and are able to explain phenomenons, your faith in it increases. Isn’t this the case in ancient times when religion was the society’s science? Rather than say that “neutral” views are there to screw up the divide, why not just say that the public belief nowadays is engraved so deep in society that people are unwilling to shift their mindsets off what supposedly proven and moves their world? 5000 years ago, people didn’t dare to offend their gods as those were the “proven” entities that move their world. And it must have been somehow proven in some way or another, be it fake or coincidental or just possibly true, to cause society to be widely influenced by “spirits” and “gods”. How different is that from the situation you describe now?
Heck, we are still using conventional current equations even after it has been proven to be incorrect just because it’s convenient for us.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
@Darkmirage:
RE:That is a heck lot bigger difference than what fence-sitter arguments imply.
2 words: Nonoverlapping Magisteria.
@Mitsuki:
“And with regard to the science issue I raised, it’s a difference in opinion that will never be bridged, no matter how much you try to explain. As I grow older, I realise that nothing ever is definite. Who’s to say that your opinion is correct, or mine? I’d rather we just make our stands known, so that we can live alongside each other fine, rather than try to prove that each other’s viewpoints and opinions are flawed and wrong.”
What about fundamental truths? I don’t know whether this which you pose is meant in it’s own strict context but are you going to tell me that the gravitational constant or particle-mass ratios are “opinions”?
July 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am
@exaltdragon I’ll refer you to Lian’s comment.
August 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Wow. I’m surprised to see a person living in Singapore to talk this much bout the crappy US of A.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 am
Hi, my sites:cfc7a3d0e73b0309295264563c48988f