Monday, October 12, 2009

Creciendo Con Fe

De niño iba yo a misa. Tipicamente cumplia con mi hora requerida los domingos en el templo.

Pero llego el momento en que pare de ir. Ya sea por que entre a la Universidad, por que estaba ocupado, por flojera, o lo que sea. Parte es la decepcion que senti al separarse y divorciarse mis padres.

Me case, tuve hijos, y mientras estos estaban chicos no habia justificacion o manera de regresar.

En los años de por medio fui expuesto a gente de diferentes culturas, religiones y filosofias, y lei libros que discutian diferentes aspectos de mitologia, religion, ateismo, etc.

Ahora los ninos estan yendo al catecismo. En las clases de catecismo le estan pidiendo que vayan a misa.

Por razones personales cruzamos la linea y los llevamos los sabados a Tijuana.

Asi que tambien regresamos al templo los domingos.

Desde este punto de vista, yo tuve una "ventaja" que mis hijos no estan teniendo: fui a una escuela particular catolica. Creci aprendiendo las enseñanzas basicas de la religion.

Ellos estan yendo a una escuela publica. En la escuela no estan aprendiendo nada de religion.

En casa, he tratado de ser sumamente positivo en lo que les enseño en cuestiones de religiosidad.

Por ejemplo en la religion catolica se hace mucho enfasis al aspecto de la culpa y el pecado y el castigo.Yo he tratado de enfatizar aspectos de responsabilidad personal y las recompensas que aquello trae.

Cuando los niños me preguntan algo trato de contestarles de la manera mas honesta que puedo, aunque esto posiblemente contradiga la instruccion que yo recibi.

Trato ante todo de contestar algo que yo si creo, y de no ser hipocrita.

En ese aspecto he tratado de analizar lo basico de las enseñanzas de Jesucristo y basar lo que les digo mas en mi interpretacion, mas que en lo que posiblemente yo haya escuchado previamente.

Como ya mencione, estudie con los hermanos Maristas, y tuve tres o cuatro muy buenos maestros.

El primero fue en quinto año, y se llamaba "Armandaro". "Armandaro" nos enseño, primero que Dios nos ama; que la manera de intercedir con Dios es por medio de Maria; y que nuestra responsabilidad esta en crecer para ser Personas.

Estas fueron sus principales lecciones. Un aspecto importante de el fue que Armando se dirigia al salon y hablada de "tu." Es decir se dirigia personalmente a cada uno de nosotros.

Las lecciones de este hermano Marista fueron muy formativas para mi y para mi fe. Y los maestros que tuve despues de el fueron para mi simplemente una continuacion de sus lecciones. Solo para que vean que no los he olvidado los menciono de nombre: "Lincoln", "Seven-up" y "Gasparin."

Algunos de estos hermanos dejaron la comunidad Marista posteriormente, pero esto realmente no viene al caso.

Una de las cosas que yo veo en la iglesia catolica es que existen infinidad de interpretaciones de las bases de la religion. Cada quien ve las cosas a su manera.

Por ejemplo vean la pelicula de Bill Maher, Religulous.

Bill crecio aprendiendo muchas cosas de la fe, pero la iglesia cambio de opiniones y el se quedo con las creencias y la fe del pasado. Esto posiblemente no esta sucediento a todos los catolicos.

Cuando yo creci, en Mexico, se hacia enfasis en la humildad y pobreza y en servir a los demas. Ahora que vivo en los Estados Unidos percibo a la iglesia catolica norteamericana como algo extraño.

Parece que la iglesia catolica en Estados Unidos es algo basicamente distinto que la iglesia catolica en Mexico.

Para empezar, historicamente ha habido inmensa influencia de la inmensa cantidad de grupos Cristianos fundamentalistas. La interpretacion de la Biblia tiende a ser mas literal.

Otra cosa es, posiblemente por que muchas de las familias descienden de trabajadores de campo, que veo tradiciones o creencias que no coinciden o que contradicen lo que yo vivi. Aunque en Mexico vi supersticiones, etas no tendian a aparecer en el ambiente escolar.

Parece que los sacerdotes que me tocaron actualmente viven en un vacio que ignora lo que sucede en el resto del mundo.

Nunca mencionan u organizan programas de ayuda a los demas. Cuando yo que iba a un templo humilde, escuchaba constantemente mencionar a las colonias aun mas pobres, y se nos pedia ayuda para ellas.

Los hermanos Maristas eran misioneros, y yo siempre vi enfasis en la hermandad de Africa, China, la Sierra Tarahumara, etc. Se me hace raro y se me hace dificil identificarme con esta comunidad que ignora al resto de mundo, empezando por Mexico.

Vivo a tres minutos de la frontera, y sin embargo el sacerdote de la parroquia nunca menciona a nuestros vecinos mexicanos. Nunca menciona los problemas sociales y politicos que actualmente hay en Tijuana, y creanme son muchos.

Sin embargo, simpre se asegura de pedir dinero para la propia parroquia. Como hace enfasis de esto! Hasta hay dos colectas diferentes durante la misa.

A la hora de el sermon es raro que este yo de acuerdo con el sacerdote. Si veo que hay algo que me parece bien, de inmediato lo contradice con otra cosa.

Dentro de la iglesia, orgullosamente, hay una bandera mexicana y una bandera americana. Y las demas banderas del resto del mundo, que?

En las oraciones pedimos por el ejercito norteamericano, sin embargo no pedimos por otro ejercito, no pedimos por el otro pais o por el resto del mundo.

Creo que es bueno que en Mexico se haya separado el Estado de la Iglesia, por lo menos los sacerdotes mexicanos no sienten al patriotismo mas fuerte que a su sentimiento de ser miembros de la raza humana.

Yo se que no es un error que la iglesia nortemericana difiera de la iglesia mexicana, o por lo menos por la que yo vivi. Pero me es dificil encajar. Me es dificil pensar que mis hijos van a crecer de esta manera y no van a poder ver un mundo mayor, una hermandad mundial.

Ahora, no crean que no tengo problemas con la iglesia mexicana. Cuando dejamos a los niños en el catecismo en Tijuana nos quedamos a escuchar una platica para padres, a veces dirigida por una hermana, a veces por un sacerdote.

Se me hace raro que personas que nunca han tenido que lidiar con una pareja o con hijos crean que pueden aconsejar a aquellos que si lidiamos con esta clase de problemas de una manera cotidiana.

Es dificil para ellos hablar de temas que realmente se aplican a la vida de diario de una familia, y en ocasiones hablan de temas que no tienen razon.

Por ejemplo en una ocasion la hermana hablo en favor de la union de la familia y en contra del aborto.

El problema de esto es que esta hablando con padres de familia que ya tuvieron hijos y ya tienen una familia establecida.

¿No tiene mas sentido hablar de estos temas con gente soltera?

¿De que sirve hablar de esto con gente que ya esta convencida de los valores en discusion?

En otra ocasion, el sacerdote hablo en contra de la homosexualidad.

De nuevo, ¿de que sirve hablar en contra de la homosexualidad si esta hablando con gente que ya establecio que quiere vivir una vida heterosexual, con una pareja del sexo opuesto y con hijos?

¿Tan importante es hablar que Dios esta en contra de las parejas homosexuales por la razon de que no pueden tenir hijos?

¿Y la adopcion que?

¡En la Biblia esta establecido que los hijos por biologia o por adopcion, igual son hijos!

¿De que le sirve a una pareja ser heterosexual (por mas hijos que tenga) si no hay cariño, si no hay respeto, si solo hay violencia y abuso?

Estoy seguro de lo que Cristo responderia ante esta situacion. Ya que Cristo no se juntaba con los justos, sino con los pecadores y las prostitutas, segun nos dice la Biblia. Cristo solo les decia: "Ni yo te condeno, vete y no peques más" (Juan 8:3-11)

Pelicula recomendada 1: Religulous (2008)

Pelicula recomendada 2: The Milky Way (1969)

Pelicula recomendada 3: The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

The Golden Compass - A Movie Review - Part II

Later:

I saw the second half. It does get better, and in fact if the first half was as good as the last we'd have an excellent movie. The best things: Sam Elliot's cowboy, the girl's acting, the visual design, and if you insist, the bear warriors, even if they don't make much logical sense.

My recommendation: Only see the second half. You won't miss the exposition of the first half at all.

Regarding the bear warriors. A war is mentioned and the cowboy (who is a friend of the bear warrior sez "War? I haven't heard of any war?" Which only proves my point about the unjustified existence of a warrior race in this planet.

A recommendation to writers and movie makers in the future: Quit ripping off Star Wars. While the first movie was fun, the dramatic components of the series (and I am talking about the three first movies,) are at the level of TV soap operas. It is not worthwhile to rip this off. I am talking to you Eragon, and to Golden Compass on a lesser degree (lesser than Eragon, but still quite substantial.)
The people who grew up on Star Wars and are now writing novels or making films seem to have read or watched nothing else at all.

Also, while it is obvious that Golden Compass was to be a series, and it is likely to remain unfinished as such (since it tanked,) the open ending manages to work quite well. We don't need to see a series of what is likely to be fantasy cliches played out. We already know how the thing ends.

...this is an adaptation of a highly regarded literary work...

I've never read the novel, so I cannot comment there.

But the execution certainly does not work as film.

While the poetry may work in the novel, the fact that these people deal day in and day out with this leads me to think that people would not even mention it, specially if the daemon has its own name, as Pan does.

I can go a whole day without mentioning I have an immortal soul or what I think of it and its nature.

When everyone knows that Pan is a daemon, there is no need to call attention to it.
I would mention my companion Pan by name, if I needed to refer to him, but I wouldn't even need to mention that he is what is known as a daemon.

An outsider would simply think of it as my pet, or my animal companion. My familiar even, to a particularily perceptive audience member.

I could call my son, my "human son," every time I mention him, but it would have a weird effect on my conversations.

Just think of the movie Dragnet, when Joe Friday kept calling the lady a virgin. This has a comedic effect simply because people do not express themselves in this manner and do not call attention to what is obvious to everyone else or what is simply superfluous information.

There are movies about homosexuality that do not mention the word homosexual because of this same reason of avoiding controversy. I'm sure it could be done and that it would work. That at least would have circumvented the backlash.

As I said, the backlash is but a small problem with the movie, but one that stopped and will stop many people from seeing it.

...To suggest that the word "daemon" not be used is kind of like suggesting that Peter Jackson should have discarded the word "hobbit" and gone with "half-pints" or "small fry" instead.

I disagree, simply because "Hobbit" is not something that might be offensive or might disorient the audience. Plus consider the fact that "Hobbit" has been a part of the current popular culture much more than the obscure term "daemon".

And yet, personally, I don't have a problem with the term "daemon".

I knew the movie used it even before getting the movie. (The movie was recommended at the office as a beautiful film, which I agree it is.)

I have a small kid who is beginning his Catechism and I had to explain the difference between "demon" and "daemon" to him (I'm sure he still didn't "get it").

I had no problem with him seeing the movie.

But it is obvious to me that others do and will.

An example is the word shag" in the Austin Powers movies. The American audience did not have a problem, because "shag" was a term not frequently used, if not a new term.
To some European audiences, it was however offensive, from what I heard. However, in a movie like Austin Powers that was probably an unintended bonus.

...I don't think starting to watch at the midway point is really going to help, but maybe you were joking about that.

My wife saw only the last half, and she quite enjoyed it. I told her she could watch the first half if she really wanted to, but that I did not recommend it. I don't know if my appreciation of the movie exceeds hers, but at least she didn't suffer thru the initial bad portion of the movie.

Like I said, I did not read the novel, nor do I feel like reading it, and I certainly don't feel as if the movie needs to be faithful to it. Especially when the translation of novel to film doesn't work.

...your lack of even the remotest interest in the source material is hard for me to understand.

I have piles of reading stuff on my night table. I am (actively) going thru Dirk Gently (which I never read before, but for some reason thought I had) currently in addition to the two last issues of VW Magazine.

I also just purchased 4 Discworld novels that I wanna read.

I started Stars In My Pocket Like Grains Of Sand... and laid it to the side, but I intend to finish it.

I just finished the three volumes of DVD Delirium which I started in June of last year.

I have literally hundreds of movies and TV shows which have been purchased and are sitting on a shelf and in boxes waiting for me to watch them.

I'm sorry I don't have time or interest to read this series, I don't know the author and he hasn't been recommended to me, in addition to the fact that I find myself not having patience with Juvenile Fiction lately.

I don't think the material should be dumbed down, I simply think that for the movie to work much exposition needs to be taken out. If that screws up some of the story clarity, so be it. How many obscure films have I seen? God knows. When I watch a surrealist movie I don't understand everything I see, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it, or thinking about it or discussing it.

They can take the word "daemon" out of it, without dumbing it down, easily: leave everything exactly the same in the script, but every time someone says daemon substitute the name of that particular daemon instead.
That would simply make it more accessible to lots of people who would otherwise not see it, I know the author would not be happy with it. But they never are, anyway.

Monday, September 21, 2009

The Golden Compass - A Movie Review - Part I

I've started watching it, and even though I haven't finished I have some thoughts. Most of the dialogue so far is expository: what the world is, how the universe works, who each of the groups mentioned are and a complete dictionary full of weird new terms used, which serve no purpose at all, etc. That is a lot of exposition to sit thru for so little characterization. Most of the actors feel wasted (Chris Lee?)

The story seems to be about a kidnapping and a rescue. Do we really need all those earlier things explained? They are unnecessary and should be cut out.

You wanna see how it's done? See Howl's Moving Castle, for example. Another universe with different laws, visually beautiful, but does not waste any time in this exposition, instead, it focuses on the characters, and even though one character (Howl himself!) fails the rest make up for it.

In Harry Potter and Narnia (or other similar movies) we also have a lot of exposition, but it is justified, because Harry and the Pevensies are being introduced to a new world/universe, thus they stand in for the viewer.
In this world all dialogue feels artificial because characters are constantly explaining to one another what words mean, what things are, and how they operate, things that should be taken for granted by people who've lived there their whole lives!
If the dialogue was written this way (taking all of this for granted,) it would explain less or at least in a slower manner, but it'd be more effective, because, really, we don't need any of these explanations, as they have nothing to do with the basic suspense generating premise (the kidnapping)!

Why treat the story as a mystery? Isn't it enough that we are discovering a new universe? Do we also need a mystery within it to make it even more interesting?

Why cheat to the audience into thinking the kids are enemies (or in danger from each other,) while using terms the audience does not yet understand ("gobblers") only to learn a few minutes later that it is only play, and that there really are gobblers in the story, but these are not them, the danger actually lies somewhere else? The kids are not the gobblers, but are playing at being gobblers. The real gobblers are actually another group, which we've yet to meet! Why have the mom urgently try to stop the kids from this play, if she knows it is only play, even if the audience does not yet know it?

This endless audience manipulation does not work, here or in any other movie. I resent it and probably other audience members do. And it works even less when it is pointlessly used, why do we need to think that these kids might be a threat?

The use of the word "daemon" is unfortunate and unwise. Yes, some of us know the difference, but most will be confused.
Why not use something like "Dopple" instead? Any word would have done.

But anyway, the concept is weak, having two vulnerable connected bodies does not make sense. Why would I want my soul to be trapped in a small bird or mouse? I would think that people would not live very long in this universe ("oops! sorry, I stepped on your mouse, o wait, you're already dead",) unless they were able to strengthen their souls early in their childhood.

Some of the other concepts also do not make sense, and we just have to accept them.

Why are there bandits in a snowy waste, where nobody in their right mind would travel? Who do they live off? Why call them bandits at all?

Oh, we call them bandits because we want the audience to know they are evil...

Why are there polar bears warriors? Isn't it sorta established in the beginning that this is somewhat of a peaceful and prosperous world? Where is the war taking place?

How useful can a polar bear be as a warrior (even if he is armored,) when you've got plenty of technology which renders the concept of an armored warrior obsolete?

People stopped wearing armor as soon as gunpowder was invented. Doesn't the writer have any idea of this? He must, because at the point where the bear is surrounded by people with guns no one bothers to shoots him.

Isn't a polar bear limited by geography? Why not have him be simply a giant or an ogre or troll of some kind?

Oh, we have bear warriors, because they are cool, and marketable and good Coke pushers, and we might need them later on...

I'll have more comments when I finish the movie...

Friday, September 18, 2009

Lounge Music

What I'm doing right now.

Listening to some Lounge Music.

Recommended site:

http://www.basichip.com/

Thursday, June 11, 2009

You were fired, terminated, dismissed, discharged or laid off... ...What now?

This is a practical list.

As you can probably deduce, we've had a job discharge in the family.

This is probably some pretty good timely advice. Unemployment claims have gone up in the last few month.

Lots of employers seem to be looking for ways to create cause to fire employees rather than lay them off... ...just so as not to have any rate increase in their unemployment premiums.

It is stressful losing your job... ...it is more stressful being denied unemployment... ...so be sure to stay calm and not say anything stupid or irrational to your employer or respond emotionally with a letter addressing personal issues and red herrings. Keep correspondences professional and well thought out.

This is one of the reasons I haven't posted anything in a while. I'll probably be kept busy for some time with this issue. Please bear with me.


This is a list of the things we've done.

I am putting it down as a guide for others so that they don't have to rewrite the book we've already written.


Please advise, comment or write your own experience. This is to help others.



Don't send the angry letter to the employer.

That is mistake number one.

You should have requested meeting with upper management at the time of discharge.

If it was given to you, you are lucky, that was your opportunity to state your case.

If it was denied, you are outta luck. They don't wanna talk to you.


You may have a chance to state your case...

...If you are lucky.

Even if you have a chance to have your say it will be delayed beyond satisfaction.

For the most part you may not have an outlet for your anger.

You have to be careful that you do not get in bigger trouble than what you are in right now, you want other people, including that judge, on your side.

Be careful what of you say and, more importantly, what you write.

It is good to have a second opinion on your emails before you hit that send button.

Apply for unemployment insurance.

You may have a right to it even if your ex-employer denies it.

Make a narrative of everything that went on. Some of these procedures last for years. Do it now while it is fresh.

Make sure you include all the evidence you can: Memos, emails, letters from clients, coworkers and supervisors, personal notes, etc.

Be careful about proprietary and confidential information, make sure you are aware of all employment agreements you signed at the time of hiring.

You don't wanna get in trouble cause of that.

At the time of discharge you should have requested a copy of your employee file (good luck with that, but it doesn't hurt to ask!)

Internet searches are OK, but not good if you do not know what you are looking for. Legal information is vague and disheartening.

Some of the terms that were useful to us were:

Unlawful discharge
EEOC Investigation
Wrongful termination, discharge
Unfair dismissal
Constructive dismissal


Make sure you know what your rights are.

The EEOC is the federal agency to contact if you feel you've been discriminated for your age, disability, equal compensation, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion and sex. Cases of sexual harassment. Cases of retaliation (this means that they went after you because you made a report or complaint, or even simply protested, of discrimination or harassment.)
It's all good for them.


Make an appointment or simply stop by. They'll take good care of you (it's free, too!)


http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=26331 very thorough explanation directed to employers.



http://www.ehow.com/how_2036885_prepare-eeoc-investigation.h...



http://resources.lawinfo.com/cobrand/en/Videos/EEOC-Violatio... news reports videos.



http://youth.eeoc.gov/filingfaq.html this is a very simple explanation for working youth.



http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/investigations.html



http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/equal_employment_opportun...



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090129073402AA... sample cases with questions.



http://www.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/employment... How the EEOC investigates discrimination claims

If you feel you've been illegally treated, but no discrimination is involved, then talk to a labor lawyer.

There is no way around this. You need to know if you have a case.

You don't have an income, make sure you request a free consultation. Or at least work something out so that the employer pays for legal fees.

Time is of the essence. You probably have less than a year to file charges, depending on what your next step is.

You better get moving!

Visit your library. Some books that were useful to us were:

Fired, laid-off or forced out : a complete guide to severance, benefits and your rights when you're starting over
Busse, Richard C.

Laid off? Don't stress! : how to get from mad to glad
Wiemelt, Kitty.

Career comeback : 8 steps to getting back on your feet when you're fired, laid off, or your business venture has failed--and finding more job satisfaction than ever

Richardson, Bradley G.

Reserve them from a local library and check them out.


You are gonna be fully (100% capacity) stressed for at least a month (however, legal procedures can take years!)

Make sure you watch lots of intense horror movies to take your mind off work problems and help you relax.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Chabelo y Pepito contra Los Monstruos - DVD review

A very Mexican Phantasm meets Monster Squad meets Die Monster, Die.

It is hard to say how the Chabelo phenomenon came to be. Chabelo was already old when I was a kid. But I guess the US equivalent would be sort of a novelty Nightclub/Vaudeville comedy act in which a baby faced adult with a high pitched voice plays a kid.

While it is common for many comedians to be child-like, Lou Costello, Jerry Lewis, Pee-Wee Herman and Rowan Atkinson have done it, it is less common for them to play actual children.

There have certainly been instances in which US adult comedians played children. Stan and Ollie did it. Martin Short did it.

Chabelo is just such a comedian. As far as I know he has played a kid all thru his career. A familiar face on Mexican sitcoms, and some movies, the Chabelo y Pepito movies are probably his best work. He may have started in radio, but I think he is more of a nightclub performer than anything else. Even now, in his seventies(?) he's still doing the same kid act.

In the early 1970's he was teamed up with a little kid called Pepito for a series of films. Pepito is typically the name of the kid in Mexican jokes, so it's an apt name. Every single kid protagonist of a Mexican joke, dirty or not, is named Pepito. Just imagine as if the name Bart Simpson has been used, time immemorial, in every kid joke.

In Chabelo Y Pepito Contra Los Monstruos Chabelo and Pepito are cousins. Chabelo is actually younger than Pepito, but is what is commonly known as a glandular case. He is constantly eating and when he is not eating he is loudly complaining that he will die of hunger.

Chabelo and Pepito are boy scouts and they go on this camping trip.

News reports of a vicious gorilla escaping a zoo are seen on TV.

Pepito's older sister (Silvia Pinal's daughter, Silvia Pasquel) tags along as she is dating the troop leader. None of the boys are happy about this female intrusion, but they can do nothing about it.

The boys help a man in a cart and he warns them not to go the the Devil's House, which is nearby. The man has a curious deformity. This is one of those freaky scenes I remember even though I pretty much did not remember anything else about the movie.

Chabelo and Pepito are so upset about Pepito's sister that they secretly take off in the morning to investigate the Devil's House...

The troop notices they are missing and tracks them to the caverns below the Devil's House...

Lots of strange goings on, some very creepy moments, a few very funny lines, with one an absolute classic, and ultimately a kind of happy ending.
To say more would be to spoil some of the surprises.

But you do meet lots of monsters as listed on the title, no cheats at all (well, cheats of a sort, but genuine chills and thrills.) You will see death and actual red blood on screen, plus a few disturbing off-screen deaths.

This is a very fun movie that goes from one thing to another without a wasted moment.

Yeah, the adult-as-kid is strange if you are not familiar with Chabelo, but it fails to get to Michael Jackson creepy territory, though there are a couple of opportunities for that.

Wait to see the aged Chabelo on TV for that!

Some non-PC seventies Mexican macho culture humor, the English subtitles don't quite capture the flavor of the jokes, but are definitely PG-13, not cleaned up at all!
Still, family fun if you can accept a different culture and a different time.

Recommended!!!

The other two movies I remember are Chabelo y Pepito y la Lampara Maravillosa (The Magic Lamp,) and Chabelo y Pepito, Detectives. Those I don't even remember as well as this one, other than a pirahna pool in one of them.

Chabelo y Pepito, Detectives is a direct sequel to Monstruos. In the last scene of Monstruos C & P have been deputized by the police to help them investigate other cases.

The movie starts with a destruction and mayhem scene worthy of Msrs. Laurel and Hardy. C & P meet with the police and are asked if they are willing to go undercover to investigate a rising in kid crime and some child disappearances. C & P participate in some set-up thievery in a local Mercado Sobre Ruedas, get away with the loot and are soon contacted by a ciminal kid gang.

They agree to join. The get trained by the gang and soon graduate to another, more sinister organization...

Where Monstruos focused on Gothic Horror, this entry is their Science Fiction episode. This movie is now a blend of Los Olvidados, Enter The Dragon, Village Of The Damned plus a caper film of your choice.

Yeah, for a monster kid it is not as much fun as the horror episode. The laughs don't come as often, yet they are still there. I think I laughed more at this one than the other one, however.

Chabelo's big appetite is still there though more subtle. You really wouldn't want this to be simply a copy of the other one.

So here you got your basic Mexican science fiction conspiracy caper comedy.

Recommended if you got kids. My kids are now hooked and they want me to get Lampara Maravillosa for them, which is the Fantasy chapter in the trilogy.


As a side note, I heard rumours that Chabelo had recently been a victim of a kidnapping in Mexico City, and when the kidnappers recognized him, they let him go!


Mmmmm, chuletas de vampiro!

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Faith versus Facts

What does faith have to do with evidence?

As soon as you have evidence the view you hold is no longer based on a belief.

If you understand the nature of belief or faith, that is, that you are able to believe without evidence, then I do not understand why you would be insulted when someone else labels it as fiction. The failing is in the person feeling insulted, not in the doubter. The most you could say is that the latter is tact deficient. The least you could say about the former is that their faith is weak.

To clarify my point:

Faith entails an individual's belief without proof. Others who do not share the same faith are bound not to see eye to eye with the faithful. It is inevitable. This is the reason why in an open society there needs to be freedom of faith/belief.

Faith is a term which is often misused.

When proof comes into it, such as with the knowledge of the earth being round. Faith no longer comes into it. We typically call this a fact. Fact is something that is empirically true and can be supported by evidence: that is information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

Fact is also a term which is often misused.

I could say the earth is flat (as was done in the past, and still is, apparently,) but experimentation would prove that this is not the case. Thus I can say for a fact that the earth is not flat.

Contrariwise, I could believe or have faith that the earth is flat, even if evidence points to the contrary.

On the one hand Science cannot possibly explain the whole of the Human experience. On the other hand we have Faith (we also have stuff like Film, Literature, Poetry, Art, Humor, Myth, etc.) These are things that science cannot measure or dissect, but still have bearing on the Human experience.

It does not good to try and mix and match, much like asking someone to prove their faith (or, equally, trying to disprove someone's faith,) but only when Science and the Humanities come together do we have the whole (or an approximation) of the Human experience.

Although Religion openly uses Fiction, as in Parables (or even other things, but I don't want/need to get into that,) to teach important lessons, Religion and Fiction are not the same thing.

Someone who equates them is making a mistake.

As an example I'd like to cite Joseph Campbell trying to explain the meaning of Myth on a TV program, and the host of the program can only respond: "Oh, a Myth is a Lie."
The guy is missing the point.

If Mr. Campbell cannot make him see this, then I would not even try.

I do have a problem with forcing others to respect all beliefs.

While I could respect an individual, as an individual, even if he/she believes the earth is flat, I don't think I could respect his/her faith.

This person is simply ignorant, and nowadays he/she has no excuse to be so.

I still wouldn't be insulting, I think you can see from my post I am expressing myself very carefully and respectfully, but that is just me.

I don't think I have the right to request others to respect his faith.

Simply put, they have every right to think him/her ridiculous and to behave in any manner they choose, even if it is insulting.

Ridicule does sometimes serve a positive purpose.

Is there any such thing as "a right not to be insulted?"

I don't think so.


This kinda stuff happens to me all the time in my family:

My Mother-in-law, for example, will have an outrageous faith-based opinion, which is additionally based on ignorance.

I will respectfully point out the facts as I know them, I will point out that the decision that she is about to make is based on a false belief, and that the results will not be as she wishes them to be, and that she should change her course of action.

If, after a few minutes, I cannot change her mind I will announce I have done my best, and that I will no longer speak of the matter.

And I'm not joking, this happened just last weekend.

If she clings to whatever course of action she was going for, this will not make me respect her more. I can assure you that.
In my view, ignorance and stubbornness are a deadly combination.

If I respectfully allowed her her beliefs, just because they're faith-based, then I would be failing myself.


In my example I am citing that my Mother-in-law believes that an asphalt driveway sealant is a good way to waterproof a flat concrete roof, because the guy that is fixing the roof for her told her it is. She claims this is done all the time, and that this is the way the roof was fixed four years ago, it lasted four years, didn't it?

That fits my definition.

When she disputes me, it is because she thinks it is a case of my word against his. All of this is faith based. It doesn't occur to her that she could read the packaging and trust what is described there.

I actually have no proof that asphalt driveway sealant is the wrong product. But, for example, my arguments include the fact that the warranty will be voided if the product is not used per the manufacturer specifications.

In our society, typically, Faith does not put us or our neighbors in immediate danger.
Someone living in the rain forest is not affected by whatever their belief of the shape of the earth might be.

But there definitely are exceptions: Just think of dangerous cults (such as Heaven's Gate,) or practical day-to-day beliefs, such as my example, not dangerous in this case, but costly.

When we get to the red areas in the dial, it is important to recognize it and point it out in a clear, loud voice.
We need to have the freedom to do this, even if it is uncomfortable for some.

I choose to show respectful behavior, even though I may think the person does not deserve it. This has nothing to do with them, and everything to do with the way I choose to live my own life.
I do not mind being challenged in my assumptions and beliefs, this is something I deal with pretty much on a day to day basis, but I know for a fact that some people do not want to be challenged or contradicted.
I think it is generally a good idea to live this way, but I cannot impose my own lifestyle on others. Everyone should be free to live their own way even if I do not agree with them.

As I've said, there are some issues which should not be left to faith, when there is proof that the faith is badly placed. For example: Selecting the proper products in fixing a roof or even choosing the correct vehicles in a trip around the world.

And there are some issues where faith works as it should, dealing with matters where other disciplines cannot possibly go. For example: Dealing with spirituality or the afterlife.

Recommended viewing: The Power of Myth - Joseph Campbell

Recommended website: Flat Earth Society