Are You Wiser than a Five Year Old

by Staks Rosch

There are three questions that I get asked a lot that I would like to address today. These questions are some pretty simple philosophical questions that I am pretty sure that everyone has asked at some point before they turned 5 years old.

Question 1: What came before time? (i.e. before the Big Bang). This is a question that has been pondered by 5 years olds all over the world. Hopefully, when the 5 year old grows up he or she will realize one of two things. 1. We don't have all the answers and/or 2. The question may not even be a valid one. In a lector that I heard, Physicist Stephen Hawking addressed this very question. Instead of answering this question with scientific sounding words and dancing around the issue, he chose to answer this question with a seemingly unrelated question. "What is south of the South Pole?" Hawking then made the argument that asking the question about pre-time is like asking his South Pole question. It sounds like a valid question, but it really isn't. Just because a question can be asked grammatically doesn't mean that it can be asked logically.

Question 2: Where do we go when we die? Worried about the future, this is a very nature question to ask and it would be easy to just reassure children about their futures by telling them elaborate fairytales about an after-life in a magical kingdom where everyone is happy all the time. But that isn't the truth. The truth is that we don't know and that we can't really know until we actually die. On the other hand, we can speculate using what we know of the world during the time of our life. If you think about your life, you might be able to figure out the most likely explanation. Concentrate really hard and try to remember what it was like when you were younger. Do you remember what your life was like about two years before you were born? I'm just guessing, but I think that would probably be the very similar to what life will be like two years after you die. I could be wrong, but I think that would be a safe bet. Some people don't seem to like that answer. They tell me that the universe couldn't have been created like that. Why would a God blink people into existence and then blink them out of existence. Our lives would be short and meaningless, they would argue. This brings us to...

Question 3: What is the purpose of life? This is a rather confusing question in that most people take it to mean that there is only one purpose that all life must share. This purpose implies that the Universe was created and that like any well thought out creation, every part of it has a very particular purpose in mind. That of course would mean that life was needed to fulfill some function that the Universe couldn't do without. But there is no reason why we need to interpret this question in that manner. We can look at it from a different point of view. A point of view in which the Universe isn't some object created, but instead it is the canvas to which we paint. In this analogy, life is the paint and the painter wrapped up in one. Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once said that "the purpose of life is a life of purpose." In this view, people are free to decide our own place in the Universe. We are free to choose our purpose and how we want to be remembered (or not remembered if that is your choice). But with any choice, there also comes responsibility. This view of the Universe means that there is no ever-present father-figure watching over us all the time, and so we have to watch over ourselves and each other. Most people don't want the responsibilities that come with this kind of choice. It is the difference between being a kid and being an adult. Kids have mommy and daddy looking after them, telling them what to do, when to do it, and keeping them safe. But the kids don't have responsibilities to care for themselves nor do they have to freedoms which are the fruits of those responsibilities. On the other hand, adults are free to choose how we want to live, where we want to live, and what we want to do with our lives. But we also have the responsibilities that go with that freedom and so we have bills to pay and jobs we must go to so that we can pay those bills. And while sometimes we might sit at our jobs and wish that we were kids again with no responsibilities, we still hate it when our parents try to tell us what to do.

Ron Paul: Less Than Meets The Eye

by Staks Rosch

Recently, Republican/Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul has gained a lot more ground in his bid to become the Republican candidate for President of the United States. From the start, Paul was looked at as the wacko in the Republican field of candidates on par with Democrat Mike Gravel's reputation with the Democratic field of candidates for the 2008 presidency. Both were considered "not to have a chance in hell" of being elected but were also considered important to have in the debates more for their comic relief and strong outspokenness than for their potential of become President of the United States. Strangely enough, I started to see a lot of support for Congressman Paul on MySpace, YouTube and even in the streets where there are homemade signs urging people to vote for Ron Paul in 2008. And last quarter, Paul even managed to out raise Senator John McCain, who was considered to be the number three contender for the Republican nomination. It seems like this wacky Ron Paul guy may just be moving up in the Republican primary contest.

At first glance, Congressman Paul seems to be the most progressive of the Republican candidates despite his Libertarian credentials. He has been extremely outspoken against the War in Iraq and has called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from the region. He is also constantly attacking the Republicans for taking special interest money from large corporation and from the big oil companies. These issues would easily help him fit in with his Democratic competitors. In a time when the Republicans are at an all time popularity low, being more like the Democrats would certainly make him an attractive candidate. But it isn't just this that puts his political star on the rise. People find his outspokenness refreshing and like him or not, Ron Paul does have a certain charisma about him.

But there is more. Paul considers himself a principled and strict Constitutionalist who wants to rewrite the tax code and eliminate the IRS. He doesn't just want to cut taxes he wants to eliminate the federal income tax all together. If Paul got his way, people would have one third more money in their weekly pay check. Who could disagree with that?

What no hands? Okay, I will put my hand up. The fact is that while Congressman Ron Paul looks like the perfect candidate at first glance, a deeper look shows that his policies and ideas would not only destroy America, but would also severely hurt the quality of life of so many Americans. So let's take a deeper look at the Republican's new rising star.

To start with, let's look at his position on the War in Iraq. Like me and most other Americans, Paul wants to pull our troops out of the region. The difference is that Congressman Paul also wants to pull all (as in every single last one) of our military out of every country in the world. This would mean closing all of our military bases outside of America like our bases in South Korea, South Vietnam, and Kuwait and even the ones that we have in very friendly regions such as Germany, England, France, Japan, and Taiwan. Oh, and the good congressman wants to abandon our obligations and responsibilities to such international groups as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the UN (United Nations). Isolating the America military from our political allies would be a dangerous policy in today's world. As the only world superpower, America has certain responsibilities in the world. So while I agree that we ought not to use our military in a heavy handed way and without proper and just cause, I strongly disagree with the Congressman on his strategic withdrawal from the world.

I mentioned earlier that Congressman Ron Paul wants to stop the flow of money from big corporate industries and big oil, but he also wants to stop federal safety and environmental regulations on those very same big corporate industries and big oil corporations. In the last debate he talked about people being allowed to pollute their own backyard. The problem is that pollution doesn't stay the backyard; it directly or indirectly affects us all. These types of regulations are very important and necessary for the survival of humankind.

Then there are his position on taxes. I hate taxes too; however I do see it as necessary in that those tax dollars fund not only our national security, but also our social security, welfare, post offices, head start programs, and many other important aspects of our lives. So while I would be fine with ending the IRS and getting rid of the income tax, I am not okay with bankrupting the federal government. I think that if you want to eliminate one kind of tax, you ought to replace it with another one. And while I agree with cutting spending in Washington, I disagree with cutting all spending in Washington.

Then there are Congressman Paul's social positions. On women's rights to choose on the issue of abortion, Congressman Paul is opposed and instead offers his version of a compromise in which states would have the power to make those and other moral decisions. So in one state gay marriage, abortion, and condom use would be legal and in the next state they might not be. This may sound like it might work, but America had this position before when it came to slavery and equal rights for black Americans. The fact is that an attack on freedom anywhere is an attack on freedom everywhere. This is why many civil rights are protected on the federal level and this is why those civil liberties should also be decided on that level.

And finally, the candidate who has figuratively decorated his sleeves with the Constitution seems to have a strange lack of understanding of it. In December of 2003, Congressman Paul wrote an opinion piece called, "The War on Religion." In his opinion, the Constitution makes no reference to the idea of the Separations between Church and State and he asserts that America is a Christian nation based on the fact that the US Constitution is "replete with references to God." The funny thing is that the US Constitution makes no references to God at all. The actual fact, it the US Constitution only references religion twice. Once to protect America against religious tests for any office of public trust, and the second is the First Amendment, which as Thomas Jefferson paraphrased, "creates a wall of separation between church and state."

So while I am glad to see Congressman Paul rise in his standing with the Republican Party because of his honestly and outspokenness, I could never vote for him nor could I support him. His charisma aside, he seems to be so far wrong on so many important issues. Next to Ron Paul, Mike Gravel looks a lot less wacky. And if the election were between the two, it is clear that Gravel would get my vote.

In God We Trust

by Staks Rosch

Given your choice, who would you prefer to put your trust in: an imperfect, flawed human being or a perfect God who is the author of the Universe? On the surface, this seems like the answer should be obvious, especially if you are a True Christian who has let Jesus into your heart. But let's think about this a little bit. If you suddenly started to feel dizzy and light headed, threw up blood, or felt feverish, who would you trust, a human doctor whose level of competence is uncertain or God, who is perfect in every way? Would you prefer to go to a hospital or to the House of the Lord? Now, if you are a rational, sane person, I would wager that you would go to the flawed human over the perfect God, wouldn't you?

Given your choice, who would you prefer to put your trust in: a non-believing atheist or a holy man who is devoted to God? On the surface, it seems like the answer should be obvious, especially if you are a True Christian who has let Jesus into your heart. But let's think about this a little bit. If you went on an airplane and the Captain of the plane went on the speakers and briefly explained to you the science of aeronautics and why any fears of flight are irrational, would that put you more at ease or would you feel more at ease if the Captain of the airplane went on speakers and said that he wanted to pray before take off because, just in case the plane should crash, he wants to be sure that all his sins and yours have been forgiven. Who would you have more faith and confidence in to fly your airplane, the atheistic man of science or the holy man of God? Now, if you are a rational and sane person, I would wager that you would feel more at ease with the atheist pilot over the Christians or Muslim pilot. Wouldn't you agree?

Given your choice, who would you prefer to put your trust in: an imperfect, flawed system of government or a system of government based on a perfect book inspired by the author of the Universe? On the surface, it seems like the answer should be obvious, especially if you are a True Christian who has let Jesus into your heart. But let's think about this a little bit. The U.S. Constitution protects the natural rights of all citizens and provides opportunities for hard working people to succeed in life. The Bible goes into great detail in demanding that human beings do not do certain things (like pray to other gods, wear mixed clothing, etc.) for apparently no reason. Now, if you are a rational and sane person, you would surely prefer to live in a nation run by the U.S. Constitution over one ruled by the Bible, wouldn't you?

Given your choice, would you prefer to put your trust in: an imperfect, flawed justice system or a system of ultimate justice based on the will of the author of the Universe? On the surface, it seems like the answer should be obvious, especially if you are a True Christian who has let Jesus into your heart. But let's think about this a little bit. In the American justice system, people are innocent until proven guilty and must be convicted in a fair court of law with the benefit of due process. If found guilty, the criminal can be sentenced with a range of punishments appropriate to his or her crime and, after serving a predetermined amount of time, may be eligible for parole and can reenter society for a second chance at a productive life. Things are different in God's justice system. For one thing, we are all guilty right from the start, and there is only one sentence for everyone... eternal torment in Hell. There is no parole, no second chance, and no defense. You are guilty and you will go to Hell. Now, of course, you can throw yourself on the mercy of the Lord and, if it is his whim to save you, you can be saved...even if you are a mass murderer. If you are so fortunate, you can go to Heaven and lose all free will and be a slave to the Lord for all eternity instead. Oh, and because you are guilty from the start, you can be judged at any time without warning (even if you are less than a year old). Now, if you are a rational and sane person, it should be clear to you now that our American justice system with all of its flaws and mistakes is much more fair, compassionate, and moral than the divine justice system posited by Christianity.

If you consider yourself a sane and rational person and a Christian who has let Jesus into your heart, you should now be questioning either your rationality or your blind allegiance to a divine God. I have just listed four very important instances in which it would be irrational to put your trust in a God over human beings. These are not crazy hypothetical situations; rather, they are real life examples that most all human beings on Earth can, do, and continue to experience. Admit it, if you are a sane and rational person, you would not put your trust in a God at all. In fact, isn't it really your fellow human beings that you trust?

Arrogant Atheism

by Staks Rosch

As an outspoken atheist, I get a lot of e-mails from Christians looking to convert and/or debate me. Within the last few months, almost every Christian who has e-mailed me has said that atheists are arrogant. It seems odd to me that I rarely heard this claim from Christians in all the years I have dialoged with them about religion before, and yet now it is a daily occurrence. My thought on this is that some Christian Mega-Church leader or writer must have recently made this claim and, like good little sheep, most of these Christians are just repeating it like parrots without actually thinking about what they have just said. Aside from the fact that on the surface this claim makes no sense at all, I asked these Christians more about their claim. After I rebutted it, many are still persisting in repeating this view. The thing that I find most strange about this claim is that it isn't just coming from the Religious Right, but it is also coming from Christians on the Religious Left and the Religious Middle. It seems that everyone thinks that the atheist position is an arrogant position to take.

The atheist position is a very simple one: "a" meaning "not" and "theist" meaning "a belief in a god." So when we put that together, an atheist means someone who does not have a belief in a god. That wasn't so hard, now was it? In fact, that isn't just the literal definition of the word, but it is also how atheists themselves use the label. The atheist position makes no claims about "Truth," certainty, or knowledge. Many atheists within the greater atheistic community will agree that we don't know whether there are gods out there that exist. But we haven't seen any evidence supporting that conclusion, and so we have no valid reason to believe that to be the case. Now, some atheists, like myself, will take it a step further and say that not only is there no evidence for a god but there is a great deal of evidence against certain particular gods. For instance, there is a lot of evidence against the Roman god Jupiter. It seems reasonably clear from the sociological development of the Roman Empire that the Romans took the Greek pantheon of gods and renamed them and tweaked the stories a little. As a result, one can say with "reasonable certainty" that Jupiter was a made-up god. This isn't generally disputed, mainly because no one still believes that the god Jupiter is real. We view it as mythology. Is that an arrogant position to hold? I mean, we don't KNOW with certainty that Jupiter doesn't exist. But we are "reasonably certain."

Jupiter however is not the only god who has evidence against him. The Christian god also has a similar sociological development. The Christian god wasn't derived from Greek gods directly, but it is an amalgamation of many Pagan gods, Egyptian gods, Zoroastrianism, and of course of the tribal gods of Israel. While this doesn't "disprove" with one hundred percent certainty that the Christian god is a false god, it does qualify as strong evidence-so strong, in fact, that I can say that I am "reasonably certain" that the Christian god, like Jupiter, is a myth. Is that an arrogant position to take? If it is, then we are all taking a pretty arrogant position in rejecting the Roman gods.

Now let's look at the Christian position. Almost all Christians believe with "unquestioning certainty" that a god exists. Not only that, but those same Christians also believe with "unquestioning certainty" that only one god exists. This means that they believe with "unquestioning certainty" that all other gods don't exist. In fact, it would probably be considered silly to believe in a god like Jupiter or Thor or any other god. This to me seems like a pretty arrogant position to take. It seems much more arrogant than the atheist position, and this just scratches the surface of Christian arrogance.

Not only do almost all Christians believe with "unquestioning certainty" that a god exists and that only one god exists, but almost all Christians also believe with "unquestioning certainty" that god either wrote or inspired the writing of a book. This book just so happens to be filled with some metaphorical stories, a few historical accounts, and a lot of cryptic references to earlier cryptic sayings and tales. Now this is where things get interesting. Almost all Christians believe with "unquestioning certainty" that they and other groups of Christians who believe exactly as they do have the monopoly on understanding this book. Almost every Christian believes with "unquestioning certainty" that he or she knows which parts of this book are metaphoric and which parts are literal, unquestionable "Truth" with a capital "T." The funny thing is that different groups of Christians can't seem to agree on which parts are divinely inspired Truth and which parts are metaphorical. And so almost all Christians label other Christians as "not real" Christians. How arrogant is that?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised when Christians call atheists arrogant. This type of role reversal isn't new for Christian apologists. Some Christians have even told me that it takes more faith to not believe in their "Truth" of the invisible superbeing in the sky than it does to be skeptical about it. And then there are the Christian apologists who claimed that it was more tolerant to force your religion on everyone through laws, than it was to fight for the separation of church and state and protect everyone's freedoms. I bet next they will be saying that atheists are restricting science and stopping promising research on life saving drugs.

Will the Real Christian Please Stand Up

by Staks Rosch

I have been known to start up debates and discussions with Christians on more than a few occasions. Some might even call it picking a fight or even a form of intellectual or spiritual bullying of those less knowledgeable about religion than I am. In any case, one drawback to doing this is that I hear the same claims and arguments a million times over from Christians who just don't know the facts and history of their own religion. Today, I would like to focus on one of the more bizarre things that I hear over and over again from so many Christians. Many times when I have these discussions with Christians, they will tell me at one point in the conversation that Christianity is the majority religion in the world and that all those people can't be wrong. This claim of truth by popularity isn't new, nor is it bizarre in and of itself. However, later in the conversation, these same Christians talk about how Christians are always being persecuted for their beliefs because they are in such a minority not only here in America but also in the world in general.

Now, for an atheist like me who relies on logic and reason, these two statements seem on the surface to be completely and totally contradictory. How is it logically possible for Christianity to be both the majority religion and, at the same time, for Christians to be the persecuted minority? Such statements are enough to short-circuit the logic chips of the HAL 9000. While it is to no surprise to me that many Christians often have a logic of their own, which by most standards would be considered illogical, this is surprisingly not one of those times.

After exploring these statements further with many Christians, I have solved this paradox, which unfortunately for Christians, leads to a Pandora's Box of problems for them. But first, let's decipher this paradox. When Christians say that they are the majority religion, they are factually correct. More than half the world identify themselves as Christians. And here in the United States, that number reaches roughly 80 percent. However, every Christian I have met, without fail, has made a claim resembling the idea that they are a "real" Christian, while some other person claiming to be Christian is not a real Christian. For instance, if you were to ask a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian who they would consider to be fake Christians, they would quickly point a finger at people claiming to be Christians who just go to church on Sundays and then live their lives. They might also point to people who claim to be Christians but don't hate gays or protest abortion clinics and claim that those Christians aren't living the full or true "word of God."

On the flip side of the spiritual spectrum, if you were to ask more politically liberal Christian the same question, they would very quickly point fingers at those Christians previously mentioned and claim that these false Christians don't love thy neighbor as thyself, nor do they follow the "turn the other cheek" philosophy, which they claim Jesus was all about. These Christians think that the other Christians give Christianity a bad name and that they don't represent the true beliefs of Jesus or God.

And then there are the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Almost no one outside of their ranks believes they are "True" Christians, and not surprisingly, almost no one in their ranks believes that anyone outside of their denominations are "real" or "True" Christians. In fact, for every Christian claiming to be a "real" or "True" Christian, there are a ton of other Christians claiming that that Christian isn't a Christian at all or is a "Christian In Name Only." In other words, they are fake Christians.

It is in this way that most Christians see themselves as being in the minority. One Christian explained it this way. Even though over 80 percent of people call themselves Christians, only half go to church. And of that half, only a third can "rightly" be called evangelical. So, in actuality, instead of 80 percent, this Christian wanted to claim 13.2 percent of Americans to be Christian. Of course, this number only came up when it was advantageous to be a minority.

This reasoning, however, creates some problems for Christians. If, for example, we were to ask all of these different Christians who the "real" Christians were, they would all have different answers. Many would actually have diametrically opposed answers. But surely there must be some sort of independent analysis we could do to figure out who the "real" Christians actually are, right? Wrong. You see, the Bible is the common source document for all Christians, so in order for us to prove someone's "Christianhood," we would have to square their beliefs and actions with the Bible. The problem is that there are passages in the Bible that do indeed justify the claims of all of these different Christians. And while there are also passages that contradict the claims and actions of any one of these Christian claimers, it would be hard to make the argument that because a particular Christian doesn't follow a particular passage that they could not be a Christian. The reason? There is no shortage of passages in the Bible that no Christian follows. All you have to do is go to any atheist website to find them. Plus, many passages in the Bible contradict other passages in the Bible. In fact, whole sections contradict other whole sections. I don't want to go into too much detail about this here, you can do your own homework. Needless to say, that the message of Jesus is sometimes a message of peace and other times a message of "the sword."

This being the case, the Bible can actually be all things for all people. That is the real "Truth" about Christianity and as a result, anyone claiming to be a Christian has equal validity to the title. Of course, one could easily argue the other way, too, that in fact, no one is a real Christian at all and that Christianhood is actually impossible. I mean who could really smite thy enemies and turn the other cheek. In the end, I prefer to accept everyone's claim of Christianhood... it gives me people to debate with.

On Faith

by Staks Rosch

Many people in the rational world seem to have serious issues with faith. They dislike the idea that people can believe in things without any evidence or reason for doing so. And while I agree with their position to some extent, I am skeptical of how the idea of faith is so casually thrown away without serious thought or consideration.

I disagree with the secular world's definition of faith. Is faith really belief without reason? Is such a thing even possible? According to modern psychology, all our actions and beliefs are caused by a combination of our genetics (nature) and our learned experiences (nurture). Sometimes this process is so complicated that the average person might not even realize it is taking place. Nevertheless, every decision we make and every belief we hold are reasoned ones. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they are reasoned well.

I recall the story of the little boy who kept trying to touch the hot stove. His father kept telling him not to touch the stove because it was hot. But the boy didn't really understand what that meant and continued to try to touch the hot stove. The father repeated his warning to his young son. Later that day, the little boy was able to sneak past his father and touch the hot stove. After burning his hand, he had learned his lesson. As a result, the little boy never touched a hot stove again... however, he never touched a cold stove again either. The moral of the story is that the little boy reasoned that touching a hot stove would burn his hand again. He also reasoned (incorrectly) that touching a cold stove would burn his hand again. In other words, the little boy had faith that if he touched the stove, his hand would burn. It's not that his faith isn't based on reason; it's just not based on good reason.

Many Atheists claim they have no faith, but this is just as problematic as the little boy's belief in the always-hot stove. One well-reasoned Atheist friend told me that he doesn't have faith, but rather he has "reasonable expectations." But isn't that just semantics? I contend that there are two kinds of faith, blind faith and reasonable faith, or reasonable expectations. The distinction between the two is the level of certainty in the object of faith by the faithful. Someone may have a reasonable faith in something and still be willing to lose that faith given enough evidence against their faithful belief. But the blind faithful have such certainty that, regardless of all reason, evidence, or common sense, they still hold blindly to the object of faith.

I have heard the phrase "people of faith" used to describe these most fundamental of Christians and to subtly place them on the pedestal of moral greatness. When I hear someone use that phrase, it almost always means that he or she is a person of blind faith. And as it turns out, those same people tend to only have faith in one thing... Radical Christianity. When it comes to trusting people and having faith in the ability of other people to determine their choices in life freely, these radical Christians have no faith at all. These people of blind faith are of the opinion that all humans are evil sinners who need the strict control of God and Government to force them to be moral and good. This view is one of the core dogmas of the Christian religion. In fact, it is because of this view that these radical Christians don't even have faith in themselves, and it is the lack of this particular faith that is the driving wedge between our two political parties.

Socrates said one ought to know thyself. Radical Christians not only don't know themselves, but they also have little faith in their own self-discipline and their ability to resist temptation and random impulses. They see this failing not only as a personal problem but also as a problem with everyone. Temptation is something no one can control—it is the natural state of being human or perhaps even the Devil's work. In order to gain the necessary discipline, self-control, and moral strength, these radical Christians need their God or Big Brother Government (the closest thing to God here on Earth) to enforce morality. "No God, No Justice," they say. Without this ultimate enforcer, how could anyone resist temptation at all? How can there be morality without a God?

"How can there be morality with a God?" I ask. Morality is built on trust and reasonable faith in people. It is only when society has been shown good reason and compelling evidence not to trust people that we put them through our penal system and correctly label them as criminals. Our secular society holds that people are innocent until proven guilty. The assumption (based purely on faith) is that people are moral and have the right to make their own choices unless proven otherwise. Humans don't need the fear of God to keep them honest. In fact, if we did have such a fear, we would be unable to cultivate the discipline and character necessary to be moral agents in and of ourselves.

Reasonable faith in people is the cornerstone of our democratic, free, and moral society. Without reasonable faith in people, we could never hold the view that people are innocent until proven guilty, which is the core of our judicial system and the heart of our way of life. Sometimes faith is a cold stove—while blind faith can burn us, reasonable faith can set us free.

Does the World Need a Superman?

by Staks Rosch

Recently I saw Superman Returns. Read this column at your own risk if you haven't seen it yet.

In Superman Returns, the title of Lois Lane's winning story was, "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." While Ms. Lane was writing about the Man of Steel, some would say that the real "super man" of the movie is Jesus. Brian Singer, the movie's director, was clearly playing to Hollywood's increasing interest in spirituality—namely Christianity.

In the movie, Superman (the only begotten son) is sent by his father (who art in Heaven) to Earth to be our savior. When Superman confronts Lois about her winning story, he says that he hears millions of people crying out for a "savior." When Lex Luthor's thugs beat up Superman, it was very much in the style of the "Passion of the Christ." Our "savior" is then stabbed through the side with a piece of Kryptonite, symbolic of the fabled Spear of Destiny, used on Jesus in the Bible. Finally, when Superman pushes Lex's "island" into space and falls back toward the Earth, he does so in the exact pose of Jesus on the crucifix.

Even though the movie had a lot of Christian symbolism, that does not necessarily mean that this was a Christian movie. In fact, I find it very interesting that when Lois begins work on her new story titled, "Why the World Needs Superman," she can't think of a thing to write and ends up leaving the screen blank. Much of the story deals with Superman's absence and abandonment of Lois, their son, and the world. This is clearly symbolic of God's direct absence from the world. God seemed to speak directly with so many people 2,000 years ago, yet he only speaks to schizophrenics and our President today.

Ms. Kitty asks Lex if he wants to be a God. Lex's answer is that Gods are selfish beings that fly around in red capes and don't share their power with mankind. Lex sees this as the problem with Superman, but he doesn't have a satisfactory solution. All he has to say on the matter is that he would share that power... being sure to take his "cut." It is that second part of his statement that makes him the villain of the story; but does that necessarily make Superman the hero?

Does the world need a Superman? Yes and no. In the very beginning of the movie, we hear the voice of Superman's father, Jor-El: "They can be a great people, Kal-El; they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son." With this statement, Jor-El seems to be opposing the traditional Christian dogma that humans are sinful in nature and at the same time places Superman into the "What Would Jesus Do" philosophy of many Christians. However, the movie isn't actually about Jesus as all. It is about heroes in general. Superman appears to be the ultimate hero who stands for "Truth, Justice, and all that other stuff." And in that sense, the world does indeed need a Superman... a hero.

On the other hand, the world does not need a "savior"; sometimes we just need a hero to inspire us and be the light to show the way. This is most represented in the movie by Lois's fight to quit smoking. When we first see her attempting to light up, Superman blows out her lighter multiple times. By the end of the movie, Lois puts the cigarette in her mouth and stops short of lighting it on her own.

However, the real hero in this movie wasn't Superman at all. Who was it that came to save Lois and Jason when they were sinking on the ship? Who was it that didn't let his jealousy cloud his judgment when he turned his plane around to save Mr. All-Powerful? The true message of Superman Returns isn't that Jesus has returned, but that we don't need him to be our savior. Richard White can be just as much a hero as the Man of Steel. In fact, we are all capable of being heroes. Gods and messiahs are no longer needed in the world, for the children of the Earth have grown up and can now save each other and themselves. The world still cries out for heroes, but we no longer expect them to be selfish beings that fly around in red capes.

A Nation Divided

by Staks Rosch

When President George W. Bush was running for his current position, he ran on the doctrine of "Compassionate Conservatism" and being "a uniter, and not a divider." As it turns out, only once in American history has America been as divided as it is today under the Presidency of George W. Bush. Not since the days in which brother fought against brother and the North fought against the South has America been fractioned off into color-coded columns separated by a chasm of bitter hate and mistrust.

In 2004, Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards talked about the two Americas. His view was that America was divided by income and class struggles. While this is true to a certain extent, that it is not what is dividing America to such extremes. Money, while very important, is a mere symptom of the core problem. If Edwards were correct, then red states like Kansas would be filled with millionaires, and only the minority of people in that state and other red states would be making below the million dollar a year income mark. Sadly that is not the case. Most Americans from all over this great nation make far less than triple digits and far too many live below the poverty line.

So, let's do what most of my fellow Democrats do and look to the polls. In 2004, exit polls asked voters to identify what issue was most important to them. The answer was, without question, "values." This being the case, I think that there is a disconnect between the values of "Red State" Americans and the values of "Blue State" Americans. Half of Americans think that America is a great nation because it is America. The other half of Americans think that America is a great nation because of the diversity, freedom, and opportunity that America offers. Half of Americans hold the American Flag as a sacred object because it is America's flag. The other half of Americans hold the American Flag as a sacred object for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Half of Americans place the institution of marriage on a pedestal. The other half of Americans place the love and commitment of a marriage on a pedestal. Half of American want to close our borders. The other half of Americans want to broaden our horizons. Half of Americans are afraid Mexicans will steal their jobs. The other half of Americans are afraid that their jobs will be stolen by businesses moving to foreign countries to elude taxes so that their CEOs can make 400 times more than their average employees. Half of Americans think that the military is great when they kill the enemy. The other half of Americans think that the military is great when they save lives, protect freedom, and defend the nation from attack. Half of Americans see 9-11 as an insult that needs to be repaid. The other half of Americans see 9-11 as an attack by religious extremists that could have been avoided by a President who wasn't so greedy for an oil pipeline that he compromised our nations security for the hope of negotiating the business deal which would have profit him personally.

I could go on and on about these disconnects between the two halves of our great union. But I think the point is clear. It seems to me that half of Americans seem to be focused on signs and symbols, superficial concerns, and playing the blame game, while the other half of Americans look at the meaning behind the signs and symbols and the introspective concerns of thoughtful people who wish to fix the problems plaguing the nation and the world.

The people who often talk about freedom and patriotism tend to have little understanding of what those words actually mean and, as a result, they are easily tricked into voting out of fear and hate rather than the values they slap all over their trucks and SUVs. Perhaps it is the compassionate conservative in me that thinks that fault lies not with them, but with ourselves, for not educating our brothers and sisters in the Red States on the deeper meaning of America and the signs and symbols that we hold so dear.

I truly believe that America can once again be one nation in which good people in both political parties care so deeply for the well being of a nation that politics takes a back seat to securing the rights of all people to liberty, justice, freedom, and fairness, and to the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Can the Democrats Grow a Pair?

by Staks Rosch

I went to the Democratic Endorsement Convention in the county that I recently moved to in Pennsylvania and, being fairly new to the county and also a new committee person, I started to talk to different people to get a sense of who they were and what their core issues and views were. I asked an elderly lady nearby whom she was supporting for the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania. She looked me in the eye and said, "Anyone but Santorum!" I gave her a questioning look and asked, "anyone?"

To this she replied that she would proudly support Osama bin Laden if she thought he could beat Rick Santorum (our current Senator). It was at that moment that I realized what was wrong with the Democratic Party and why Democrats keep losing more and more even though the Republicans have gone completely nuts and most Americans think they are way "out of touch" (to use their phrase).

Not long after that convention, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (I always like to keep track of what the wackos are saying). Rush was telling his right-wing audience that the Democrats have no new ideas and that all they do is "poo poo" their (Republican) ideas. He then went on to say that Democrats have to hide their views because they are afraid that Americans wouldn't support them if they came out and stated them plainly.

The one problem that I have with Rush Limbaugh is that sometimes (very rarely) he is actually right. What are his listeners going to think when they hear Democrats chanting "anyone but..." and then hear Rush saying what he said about them? When I tell my fellow Democrats that I support full-on gay marriage and not just civil unions, they tell me not to say that so loud. They tell me that they agree but that they won't get elected if they say that because the polls indicate that 60 percent of Americans hate gays.

Now, if they actually supported gay marriage and laid out argument after argument about why everyone should have the right to marry regardless of their sexual orientation, those poll numbers would start to change. But instead, people hear, "gays are destroying your family," day in and day out, and very few people bother to ask how. When one side of an issue is the only side people hear, after a while they will start to believe it-especially when they hear it a lot and no one speaks out in opposition. This is why America supposedly hates gays. But that isn't the only issue. On just about every issue, Democrats have given up. Few Democrats have the balls to actually say something that might lose them a vote from someone who isn't going to vote for them anyway.

So the Democratic Party is in full retreat despite the fact that more people actually agree with them on most of the issues and the fact that the Bush administration has the lowest approval ratings ever. It doesn't matter that Bush and friends have screwed up everything from the war in Iraq to their borrow-and-spend tax plan. The only thing people care about is that the Republicans are pushing forward and the Democrats are running away. I heard an ad on the radio the other day from some Republican think-tank group called American Compass offering five free "conservative" books to all new members. The advertisement said that "if you think liberals are destroying America," you should join their group.

Can you imagine what would happen if a group like MoveOn made a radio commercial like that? The very next day, Rush and friends would be calling MoveOn a hate group. Two hours later, every Democrat in the House and Senate would be on the phone asking MoveOn to pull the ad. Meanwhile, American Compass keeps running their dopey ad calling liberals stupid and blaming them for destroying America.

Don't get me wrong; I think they have every right to run their commercial. I just think that Democrats need to grow a pair and start pushing back. I want to run a commercial saying that the Religious Right are "destroying America" and that the Democratic Party is letting them do it.

Mainly, I want to let the Democratic Party know that they don't need to steal Republican positions; they just need to steal their balls. America wants their leaders to-I don't know-lead! I know that sounds pretty self-evident, but it really does seem like the Democratic Party doesn't actually know that, and until they figure it out, they will continue to lose elections and the Religious Right will continue to "Destroy America!"

Let Freedom Ring!

by Staks Rosch

"Freedom has been hunted round the globe; reason is considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear has made men afraid to think." Thomas Paine wrote these words over two hundred years ago in his book The Rights of Man. I begin my column with this quote from the author of Common Sense because I think his statement holds as much truth today as it did in his day, and it is the obvious inspiration for my editorial columns and the radio show.

Congress, the Senate, and other politicians continue to call for "self regulation" of the entertainment industry. Some politicians even threaten that if the industry doesn't "self-regulate" they will pass laws to force it to self-regulate. At that point, is it really even self-regulating? This threat of federal restrictions has forced the industry to take on the unreasonable responsibility of raising children. Television shows and video games now have ratings. Many stores refuse to carry video games, music, and DVDs with certain ratings.

While stores have the right to carry whatever merchandise they wish, these ratings have forced entertainment companies to restrict their artists in an attempt to make money. Another side effect of these ratings is that they create formulaic, cookie cutter entertainment. This type of entertainment is bland and uninspiring. It doesn't challenge the mind or charge the emotions the way good art and entertainment should. It is "safe."

In the mid-'80s, there were a series of Congressional hearings that dealt with sexual and violent content in music. In the mid-'90s, similar hearings took place dealing with video games. The outcome of those events was the addition of warning labels on music and video games. While these events took place in the twentieth century, censorship and regulation of music, movies, video games, and television are very much alive and well in America.

These restrictions, regulations, and censors have been put in place under the guise of protecting children for the love of "decency." The fear of children's heads exploding from rock music or nudity has made people in this country afraid to think. Parents have the right to raise their children in their own way, but they cannot lock their kids in a closet for fear of the outside world and expect the rest of us to hold the keys. It is the job of parents to explain the world to their children and to teach them about its joys and its horrors. Parents have the right to restrict some information from their children to some degree, but this is a parent's right-not the right or duty of anyone else.

Politicians will use whatever words or phrases they can to get around using the word "censorship." Nonetheless, whatever words they use, it will not change what it is that they are actually doing. It is every American's Constitutional right to express themselves. Hollywood entertainers and video game makers are no exception. The government, on the other hand, does not have that right in the same way. The government cannot make statements that discriminate against or persecute a class of people. For example, it would be wrong to put a plaque that states, "White People are Cool" on a government building. The implication is that non-white people are not cool. While private people are free to place such a plaque on their homes or businesses (publicly declaring themselves as racists), the government has no such right because it would conflict with its responsibility to safeguard the rights of all of its citizens.

Now of course, this is an analogy for the Ten Commandments plaque on the Chester County Courthouse and many other courthouses around the nation. Such a plaque on a government building restricts the freedom of non-Christians just as the "White People are Cool" plaque would restrict the rights and freedoms of non-whites were it placed on a government building. Because the government is in a position of power, it has the responsibilities previously mentioned.

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Certain freedoms carry with them certain responsibilities. However, not all freedoms carry all responsibilities. While artists must take some responsibility for their art, they are not responsible for how that art is interpreted or who is allowed to experience that art. They may suggest that people of a certain age not experience their art, but just as they are free to create art, all people are free to experience it. This is America, after all-the land of the free and the land of liberty.