The Order of the Illuminati was an ancient secret society of freethinkers formed in large part to counter-act the suppression of modern science by the Catholic Church. The centuries old war between the Illuminati and Roman Catholicism can be seen as a symbolic smoking gun for the ongoing cultural antagonism between secularism and religion. The most famous of the early Illuminata—Gallileo, the founder of modern science—was denounced as a heretic and placed under house arrest for the final decade of his life by Pope Urban VIII.
Centuries ago, the Illuminati were the victims of a systematic campaign of ruthless persecution and murder by the Vatican. The story of Angels and Demons revolves around the apparent resurgence of the Illuminati and the fulfillment of their 17th century promise of vengeance against the Catholic Church. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks, finds himself caught in the middle of an apparent Illuminati plot to use “antimatter”—a substance said to hold the key to the creation of the universe—to destroy Vatican City during a papal conclave for the selection of a new pontiff.
The ingenious plot thus uses the secular-religious controversy of the origin of the universe as a philosophical backdrop for the drama of a grand scale murder mystery that pits the defenders of modern science against its historical arch-enemy, the Catholic Church. One of the striking features of the story—both the novel and the movie—is that the key character, Professor Robert Langdon, is a secularist with no use for religious faith. One reviewer calls him the “first atheist movie hero.”
The film is not only beguiling and riveting but rapturously clever. Director Ron Howard has created a cinematic masterpiece. Howard’s briskly paced, compelling adventure unfolds with a dramatic intensity that surpasses the excellent job he did with Dan Brown’s previous best-seller, The Da Vinci Code, which featured an equally suspenseful plot and an equally brilliant historical tapestry.
Tom Hanks again does a terrific job in the role of Robert Langdon—a man who clearly acts on the basis of logic and facts, not faith or feelings. Hanks adeptly captures Langdon's most essential quality--the power of his sparkling intelligence--and it shines through every scene. His beautiful and engaging female co-star, Ayelet Zurer, plays a scientist with a similar devotion to unswerving rationality. Both admirably represent the cause of realism and secularism, even while their services are enlisted by those who represent the exact opposite. It is as though mysticism were suddenly forced to recognize the superiority of reason for the sake of its own survival.
This reviewer is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the facts to address the issue of whether the author of Angels and Demons, Dan Brown, portrays the history of the Illuminati accurately. There are legitimate questions as to when the secret organization actually originated. Some historians view it as a direct outgrowth of the 18th century Enlightenment. But this historical controversy need not detract from the brilliance and ingenuity of Brown’s complex and amazingly exciting plot.
Convinced that the Illuminati are responsible for the Vatican threat, Langdon retraces the steps of the "Path of Illumination," a cryptic geographic route which the Illuminati used for inducting new members. This “Path” leads Langdon to many of the most enthralling locations throughout Rome. Besides being a riveting, breathtaking drama, the story also provides a fascinating tour and exploration of some of Rome’s most enduring and magnificent historical artifacts.
Near the climax of the story, a key Vatican spokesman eloquently expresses the threat which the church feels from the heretical forces of intellectual “Light”: “If science can explain the origin of the universe, what then is left for faith?” What better dramatic-philosophical premise could a secularist possibly hope for? (I understand the scientific question of the origin of the universe as we know it to be separate from the metaphysical fact that existence as such had no 'beginning'--i.e., existence exists.)
Dan Brown is remarkable. Not only has he succeeded in using the rich, captivating history of the Catholic Church to promote and popularize the cause of secularism, he has done so in a way that is richly entertaining and enjoyable. And director Ron Howard deserves similar accolades for a doing such a wonderful job of bringing Brown’s extraordinary fiction to the silver screen.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama's Divine Castration of National Security
Boy, he sure sounds good. That cocky stride to the podium, that authoritative voice, that precise delivery, those confident, perfectly timed head movements, that straight-ahead, no-nonsense, focused manner of an inspiring leader. Wow. Aren’t we all fortunate to have a great, valiant courageous intellect in the White House instead of that dimwit who preceded him?
“My single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe.” His predecessor, incidentally, despite all his numerous faults, did that for over seven years even though he faced one of the most evil, murderous, diabolical enemies in American history. This is the same administration whose national security policy Obama savagely attacked throughout his speech at the National Archives.
“We are cleaning up something that is quite simply a mess…” If Americans had to choose between the ‘mess’ he inherited and the alternative tragic loss of innocent life which Obama’s moral cowardice may well precipitate, they would gladly take the mess.
“I ran for President promising transparency…” “National security requires a delicate balance…” Empty platitudes resonate through his enraptured throng like insights from a profound thinker. He will continue to enjoy his masquerade of vacuous moral-intellectual stature right up until another 9-11 reveals him to be an empty suit and a disgrace to his office. We can only hope that his national security advisors can convince him that saving human lives is slightly more important than gilded rhetoric.
“We uphold out most cherished values, not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe.” So we are obliged to empower those who want to kill us by letting them use our values against us, thereby weakening our ability to defend ourselves? Please take note: you to do not owe ethical conduct to someone who wants to kill you. Honesty does not oblige a woman to tell a prospective rapist that she is home alone. You cannot permit an enemy to transform your values into the means of your self-destruction. When your life and survival are threatened with violence, the only value that counts is self-defense. Period.
“Some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding are necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more.” Translation: The fact that it worked on the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and saved countless American lives can be conveniently ignored if I make it sound like I am some high-minded idealist. Meanwhile, he authorizes (correctly, in my view) the collateral deaths of Pakistani civilians in bombing raids targeting Al Quaeda strongholds. No inconsistency there?
“We should give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel.” So we must now give enemy combatants all the protections of the US Constitution. Those who are devoted to destroying America and everything it stands for should have all the rights of U.S. citizens—while their daily sustenance is provided by the U.S. taxpayers they want to kill.
“Our government made a series of hasty decisions.” Guantanamo is “a misguided experiment that endangered America” and has become “a recruiting tool for Al Quaeda.” Perhaps. But for the opposite reason Obama suggests. America is endangered because our overly benevolent treatment of those who want to kill us is seen as weakness. There is no good reason to close Guantanamo. To call it a national embarrassment is an act of sickening cowardice in the face of unfounded ‘touchy-feely’ criticism and unconscionable moral timidity.
Is philosophy irrelevant to daily life? Here is the mind-body dichotomy—the quasi-religious view that the spiritual is inherently cut off from and in conflict with the physical world—rearing its ugly head in governmental policy, working to undermine human survival. We can be thankful to have a President who is not held hostage by an archaic, anti-life, evangelical perspective, but unfortunately many of his policies reflect the exact same religious base as his predecessor.
There is no conflict between moral values and the real world—the whole purpose of values is to sustain human life. A divine perspective on moral values enables evil to use your values against you, because religion drops the context that it is life which makes the concept of values meaningful. Ayn Rand called it the principle of “The Sanction of the Victim.”
The national media seem quite impressed with the emperor’s new clothes. If only it was just the emperor who was naked. And not the brazen weakness of America’s national security.
“My single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe.” His predecessor, incidentally, despite all his numerous faults, did that for over seven years even though he faced one of the most evil, murderous, diabolical enemies in American history. This is the same administration whose national security policy Obama savagely attacked throughout his speech at the National Archives.
“We are cleaning up something that is quite simply a mess…” If Americans had to choose between the ‘mess’ he inherited and the alternative tragic loss of innocent life which Obama’s moral cowardice may well precipitate, they would gladly take the mess.
“I ran for President promising transparency…” “National security requires a delicate balance…” Empty platitudes resonate through his enraptured throng like insights from a profound thinker. He will continue to enjoy his masquerade of vacuous moral-intellectual stature right up until another 9-11 reveals him to be an empty suit and a disgrace to his office. We can only hope that his national security advisors can convince him that saving human lives is slightly more important than gilded rhetoric.
“We uphold out most cherished values, not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe.” So we are obliged to empower those who want to kill us by letting them use our values against us, thereby weakening our ability to defend ourselves? Please take note: you to do not owe ethical conduct to someone who wants to kill you. Honesty does not oblige a woman to tell a prospective rapist that she is home alone. You cannot permit an enemy to transform your values into the means of your self-destruction. When your life and survival are threatened with violence, the only value that counts is self-defense. Period.
“Some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding are necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more.” Translation: The fact that it worked on the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and saved countless American lives can be conveniently ignored if I make it sound like I am some high-minded idealist. Meanwhile, he authorizes (correctly, in my view) the collateral deaths of Pakistani civilians in bombing raids targeting Al Quaeda strongholds. No inconsistency there?
“We should give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel.” So we must now give enemy combatants all the protections of the US Constitution. Those who are devoted to destroying America and everything it stands for should have all the rights of U.S. citizens—while their daily sustenance is provided by the U.S. taxpayers they want to kill.
“Our government made a series of hasty decisions.” Guantanamo is “a misguided experiment that endangered America” and has become “a recruiting tool for Al Quaeda.” Perhaps. But for the opposite reason Obama suggests. America is endangered because our overly benevolent treatment of those who want to kill us is seen as weakness. There is no good reason to close Guantanamo. To call it a national embarrassment is an act of sickening cowardice in the face of unfounded ‘touchy-feely’ criticism and unconscionable moral timidity.
Is philosophy irrelevant to daily life? Here is the mind-body dichotomy—the quasi-religious view that the spiritual is inherently cut off from and in conflict with the physical world—rearing its ugly head in governmental policy, working to undermine human survival. We can be thankful to have a President who is not held hostage by an archaic, anti-life, evangelical perspective, but unfortunately many of his policies reflect the exact same religious base as his predecessor.
There is no conflict between moral values and the real world—the whole purpose of values is to sustain human life. A divine perspective on moral values enables evil to use your values against you, because religion drops the context that it is life which makes the concept of values meaningful. Ayn Rand called it the principle of “The Sanction of the Victim.”
The national media seem quite impressed with the emperor’s new clothes. If only it was just the emperor who was naked. And not the brazen weakness of America’s national security.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama at Notre Dame: The Evil of the "Pro-Life" Agenda
The labels placed on the opposing sides of major cultural/political controversies are often not only misleading but exactly opposite to the truth. The label of pacifism given to those who reward aggression with appeasement, thereby inviting mounting violence against the innocent, is one example. The only rational way to truly promote peace is to advocate immediate and overwhelming force against the perpetrators of force.
The labels given to those on opposite sides of the abortion issue are another example. The protests directed at the administration of Notre Dame University for inviting President Barrack Obama to speak at their commencement ceremony—and for giving him an honorary law degree—are based on a moral premise that is fundamentally anti-life.
Obama was exactly right when he said that “the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory.” The opponents of abortion describe themselves as “pro-life,” yet totally ignore the life of the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
When that situation occurs, regardless of whether the woman used a prophylactic method or not, there are two lives involved, not just that of an embryo. To ignore one of those lives is to suggest that the woman’s interests are no longer of any significance. Her life, her happiness, her needs, her future are no longer of any consequence. All that matters is the life of the "unborn." The significance of the existence of “potential human life” per se is elevated to moral supremacy, and everything else is diminished. That life, even if it is barely distinguishable from the life of the lowest animal, must be preserved at all costs.
Apply that same standard to other situations where two human lives are in conflict—where the preservation of one life may require the abrogation of another’s rights. An example would be a life-threatening medical problem where a sibling’s life depends on a bone marrow or organ transplant from a brother or sister. And to make the comparison more accurate, let us suppose that the surgery represents a serious danger to the survival of the brother or sister, threatening his/her future life and happiness. Would the advocates of the so-called “pro-life” position seriously suggest that the brother or sister has no right to say no? Or would they see that, by describing their position as “pro-life,” they are totally ignoring one of the two lives?
In the case of abortion, of course, we are talking about an enormous impact on the woman’s life that goes far beyond the biological act of delivery. Her entire future will be impacted in a major way, regardless of any heart-wrenching option of giving up the baby for adoption.
And, more importantly, we are also talking about an undeveloped embryo as opposed to a fully independent human being. No genuinely “human” being can claim any rights that require the abrogation of another’s rights. Yet abortion opponents want to grant such rights to a zygote or embryo. That is why the issue must be understood in terms of individual rights, not some arbitrary definition of “when life begins.”
The only genuinely “pro-life” position in the abortion debate is that of favoring a woman’s inalienable right to choose.
The labels given to those on opposite sides of the abortion issue are another example. The protests directed at the administration of Notre Dame University for inviting President Barrack Obama to speak at their commencement ceremony—and for giving him an honorary law degree—are based on a moral premise that is fundamentally anti-life.
Obama was exactly right when he said that “the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory.” The opponents of abortion describe themselves as “pro-life,” yet totally ignore the life of the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
When that situation occurs, regardless of whether the woman used a prophylactic method or not, there are two lives involved, not just that of an embryo. To ignore one of those lives is to suggest that the woman’s interests are no longer of any significance. Her life, her happiness, her needs, her future are no longer of any consequence. All that matters is the life of the "unborn." The significance of the existence of “potential human life” per se is elevated to moral supremacy, and everything else is diminished. That life, even if it is barely distinguishable from the life of the lowest animal, must be preserved at all costs.
Apply that same standard to other situations where two human lives are in conflict—where the preservation of one life may require the abrogation of another’s rights. An example would be a life-threatening medical problem where a sibling’s life depends on a bone marrow or organ transplant from a brother or sister. And to make the comparison more accurate, let us suppose that the surgery represents a serious danger to the survival of the brother or sister, threatening his/her future life and happiness. Would the advocates of the so-called “pro-life” position seriously suggest that the brother or sister has no right to say no? Or would they see that, by describing their position as “pro-life,” they are totally ignoring one of the two lives?
In the case of abortion, of course, we are talking about an enormous impact on the woman’s life that goes far beyond the biological act of delivery. Her entire future will be impacted in a major way, regardless of any heart-wrenching option of giving up the baby for adoption.
And, more importantly, we are also talking about an undeveloped embryo as opposed to a fully independent human being. No genuinely “human” being can claim any rights that require the abrogation of another’s rights. Yet abortion opponents want to grant such rights to a zygote or embryo. That is why the issue must be understood in terms of individual rights, not some arbitrary definition of “when life begins.”
The only genuinely “pro-life” position in the abortion debate is that of favoring a woman’s inalienable right to choose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)