You tell me that it’s evolution (Well, you know)

Standard

evo2

Despite straying from a traditional Christian upbringing, I still enjoy commenting on religion. Because, no matter what you say, there’s no chance of ever offending someone. (Ha! Get it?)

(It’s funny because it’s not true)

I enjoy discussing religion because it fascinates me. In it’s purest form, it has been the guiding force of civilizations since the dawn of mankind. I respect faith in the sense that it is necessary for a functioning society. As well as the fact that many Americans take it for granted. It’s easy to become a non-believer in the U.S. due to the fact there are far less daily existential threats (disease, famine, war, etc.). But in places like the Middle East, Africa, and Texas, I believe people truly need spirituality as a crutch. That’s what faith is for. And that’s fine. But it’s not fine when religious beliefs nullify logic. It’s not fine when conclusions are made based on blind faith. Not when it infringes on the beliefs of others. Especially not in American politics.

In a recent Pew Research poll titled “Public Views on Human Evolution”, 64% of white American evangelical Protestants believe in creationism (the belief that “God” created man). Now, you’re probably asking, how is that related to policymakers in D.C.? Here’s another poll by the Pew Research Center, illustrating The Religious Composition of the 113th Congress. 57% of the House identifies as protestant, as well as 52% of the Senate. How does that relate to Republicans? According to the first poll, 48% of Republicans deny evolution (a 9% increase over 4 years) (astonishing). The majority of protestants in both the House and Senate are Republican. So, basically, there’s a chance that the majority of policymakers in D.C. believe science is a lie.

evo house evo senateIn America, policy decisions on a federal level are normally unaffected by the religious beliefs of policy makers. However, state and local governments are more vulnerable. In November 2013, the Texas Board of Education delayed approval of a widely used biology textbook because of concerns that it presents evolution as fact rather than theory. (For the record, a “theory” is defined as a collection of facts intended to explain something) (but that’s beside the point). According to the New York Times,  Ide P. Trotter, a chemical engineer and financial adviser, was a member of the review panel chosen to evaluate the textbook. He raised concerns, citing “[the book] gives a misleading impression that we have a fairly close understanding of how random processes could lead to us.” If you told me that same quote was from someone referring to the Bible, I would have believed it.

It sounds alarmist but it’s unnerving when the majority religion in Congress is also (overwhelming) the majority religion of evolution-deniers. Now, I doubt that the majority of Protestants in the House and Senate are creationists. Where they fall on the spectrum of conservative evangelical and mainline Protestant is unclear. But their faith (regardless of denomination) is still relevant.

evo religion

My generalization is that Protestants likely vote for fellow Protestants to represent them in congress. These congressmen and congresswomen probably have similar beliefs if they were able to convince their constituents to elect them in the first place. So, where do their beliefs align? The thought of someone in a position of power who denies evolution is concerning. Because to deny the theory of evolution is to deny truth. Denying truth is to embrace blind faith. And blind faith, as we know, can be dangerous.

The majority of my childhood was spent in Catholic school. I’ve not only read the “The Bible” but I’ve studied it. I’ve also studied “The Origin of Species”. One is a book of parables that can be loosely applied to someone’s life in order to better themselves. The other is a foundation of a theory supported by indisputable facts. That’s the difference between a creationist and myself: objectivity. I’ve seen both sides. As much as religion fascinates me, it equally frightens me. Because despite being responsible for so much good in the world, religion is equally responsible for so much evil. As long as organized religion exists, extremism will exist, and there will never be world peace. To believe otherwise is to assume the sentimentality of a child.

But is that not why people choose to have faith? To be childlike? To be a child is to shed responsibility. To have faith in god is to shed the burden of choice. When you have faith, you don’t need to make choices. Choices are made for you by others. There’s no reason to think critically. There’s no reason to question your existence. There’s no reason to do anything besides kneel when you’re told and stand when you’re told. Our childhood is easy in the sense that it is absent of free will. Life is simpler when our choices are predetermined.

We choose to believe in creationism for the same purpose. Because it’s easier to believe there is someone watching over us–someone who created us–a parent or guardian. It’s more comforting to believe that than to believe we’re responsible for every choice in our lives–while at the same time–our life is ultimately random. It’s easier to believe that than to believe we’re alone in the universe (and descended from apes). It’s easier because having faith in a greater purpose is inherently human. It is instinctual. Religion is instinct.

“The very essence of instinct is that it’s followed independently of reason.”

-Charles Darwin

UPDATE: Texas charter schools teaching creationism (Slate)

Advertisements

Mad as hell… and no one cares

Standard

homeland

I have a compulsive habit of making analogous references to film and/or television. Not only because their narratives are relevant but also because I’m a lonely nerd who’s obsessed with both. It’s become entirely subconscious. Accordingly, when news broke concerning the recent NSA scandal, I couldn’t help but make a connection with one of my favorite TV series: Homeland.

A quick summary for the uninitiated: The show centers around two main characters, Carrie Mathison and Nicholas Brody. In the opening scene of the first episode, we’re introduced to our protagonist–Carrie–a hot, blonde-haired CIA agent with a knack for doing things her own way. We find out that Carrie has bribed her way into an Iraqi prison to speak with an informant. The informant, reluctantly, tells her that, “An American prisoner of war has been turned”. Coincidently, a few days later, Nicholas Brody, a sergeant in the Marines who went missing 8 years prior, is rescued from captivity in Iraq and brought back to America. Upon his return, Brody is presented to the country as an American hero. Carrie, however, has her suspicions. Is Sergeant Brody the P.O.W.-turned-terrorist that Carrie’s informant warned her of? If so, what are Brody’s plans? And, more importantly, will Carrie and Brody eventually cross paths, resulting in a sexually-charged love affair? You’ll have to see for yourself.

I know I’ve gone completely off-track but it’s for the purpose of context. My analogy is related to a specific scene in Homeland when Carrie’s suspicions lead to paranoia. She’s convinced Brody is a spy and wants him under 24/7 surveillance. She confides in her mentor at the C.I.A. (Saul Berenson). Carrie begs for permission to spy on Brody. However, Saul’s response is surprisingly blunt: “No”. As a veteran of the agency and a man of principle, Saul chastises Carrie on how un-American it is. How the C.I.A. doesn’t spy on it’s own citizens. How Carrie is absolutely prohibited from doing so. (Spoiler Alert!) She does it anyway. Saul eventually finds out. At first, he’s outraged with Carrie. But after a scolding, Saul convinces a judge to grant Carrie a month-long FISA warrant giving her full-access to Brody’s life. Even though she already orchestrated her own version of big brother within Brody’s home–without permission–she never faces the repercussions. On the contrary, she’s encouraged to continue. It was after I recalled this particular scene when I asked myself: is this not a perfect reflection of the current state of affairs in America? A society defined by status and devoid of accountability. The worst part about it is: no one cares.

nsa-logo

Back in the real world, in early June, the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper began publishing a series of exposes outlining the extensive nature of America’s top-secret surveillance program. The whistleblower responsible for the leak turned out to be a contractor working for the NSA (National Security Agency) named Edward Snowden. It began on June 5th, when the Guardian released top-secret information regarding a request made to the FISA court, ordering Verizon to provide data for all telephone calls “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls, and all calls made between the U.S. and abroad.” This revelation wasn’t exactly mind-blowing. The PATRIOT Act made it clear that this has been happening since 9/11. However, what we didn’t know, was the extent of the surveillance. What no one expected was that the warrantless wiretapping that took place during the Bush administration was only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Let’s rewind. To better understand this issue, one must better understand a brief history of domestic surveillance. In 1978, an act was signed into law known as FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). This law prescribed procedures for the electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information (which may include American citizens and permanent residents). More importantly, FISA set up the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court). This federally-appointed court is charged with overseeing the processing of all FISA requests (requests for surveillance). Important to note is that these court hearings are “ex parte”: a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. Basically, “ex parte” is a big middle finger to due process. It remains true that FISA–initially–was enacted as a form of checks and balances, in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Ironically, FISA was supposed to limit the surveillance of American citizens by filtering unjustifiable requests through the FISC. Unforeseeable, the events of September 11th, 2001 would change everything.

After 9/11, the Bush administration added an amendment to FISA known infamously as the PATRIOT Act (Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism) (our government LOVES acronyms). Among other things, the PATRIOT Act significantly weakened restrictions on law enforcement agencies’ gathering of intelligence within the United States. The act also expanded the State Department’s classification of “terrorist” to include “domestic terrorist”. What followed was a substantial increase in the number of operations to which the PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers could be applied. Not surprisingly, this free-range access of information led to widespread abuse of power. A New York Times whistleblower would eventually disclose information confirming the unauthorized warrantless wiretapping of American citizens by the Bush administration. While the FISC demonstrated executive overreach by giving the middle finger to due process, the PATRIOT Act gave the middle finger to the entire U.S. constitution.

ashcroft

Fact: John Ashcroft has never been refused a woman’s phone number.

To think of the FISC as a jury of peers would be a complete misperception. The court is basically just there, ostensibly, as a tribunal to make the FISA process appear as if it exists in the realm of legality. In truth, the FISC is what’s known as a “rubber stamp”. Surveillance requests are granted by the FISC 99.97% of the time. Since 1979, nearly 34,000 FISA requests have been made and only 11 have been rejected. About 20,000 of those requests were made following September 11th, 2001. Nearly 60% of all requests were filed within the last decade.

wp-fisa

wp fisa 2

Fast forward to 2013. On June 6th, one day after the Verizon leak, another bombshell was dropped on the American people by the Guardian and Washington Post. It was revealed that Verizon was just one of nine companies, all contributing to a top-secret clandestine surveillance program known as PRISM. This program operates under the FISC and is the primary source of all analytical data at the NSA. Among leaked information were slides from an NSA Powerpoint, outlining the extensiveness of PRISM:

prism1

Strange how something so evil can look so shitty.

PRISM takes surveillance to entirely new levels. Forget warrantless wiretapping, this program data mines EVERYTHING. Honestly, look at the above list and tell me you haven’t used your computer for at least one of those reasons, through at least one of those carriers. And if you think the government is asking nicely for permission, you’re sadly mistaken.

According to the New York Times, in 2008, Yahoo challenged a FISA court order requiring the company to give them data without a warrant (Yes. The FISC–the federally appointed court charged with granting warrants for spying–asked Yahoo for permission to spy without a warrant). Yahoo’s argument was simple: “The order violated its users’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The FISC responded by saying, give us the data or face federal charges of obstruction of justice.  Yahoo obviously lost. Subsequently, in 2008, the company became one of the first of many to join the ranks of PRISM (albeit, against their will). 

prism 2

In the grand scheme of things, no one should necessarily be shocked that this type of covert operation exists. Since September 11th, it’s no longer breaking news that homeland security has metastasized into a monolithic entity. My concern isn’t so much with the extensive nature of surveillance slowly pervading this country. My concern is more focused on the fact that no one cares. By that I mean, what does it take for Americans to get pissed off at the establishment again? Where is the red line? Does it even exist in contemporary society?

During the Vietnam War, one of the most famous intelligence leaks in American history came to light thanks to a man named Daniel Ellsberg. He was a military analyst working for RAND (Research and Development). In 1971, Ellsberg leaked a cache of top-secret DoD intel to the New York Times known as “The Pentagon Papers”. Not only did the documents outline the U.S. government’s decision-making policy related to the Vietnam War but also provided a thorough report on U.S. political-military involvement in Vietnam between 1945-1967. The Pentagon Papers revealed that the U.S. had unknowingly expanded it’s war in Vietnam with bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia. Above all, as the New York Times said of the 1971 leak, “demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon B. Johnson administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance”. Consequently, from 1971 to 1975, the largest grassroots anti-war movement in American history reached it’s tipping point, eventually playing a significant role in ending the conflict in Vietnam.

vietnam

We currently find ourselves in the same situation. A top-secret intelligence leak coupled with yet another “revelation” that are government lies to the masses and lurks in the shadows. And what is our response? Protests like the 60s and 70s? Of course, not. Instead, we illustrate an overall sentiment that defines a generation of Americans. It’s characterized by a form of complacency which occurs by not caring about what’s happening in the world, simply because you’re not being directly affected by it: out of sight, out of mind. “Why should I care if the government has access to my life? I have nothing to hide.” You should care because this is just the beginning. Because, since 9/11, surveillance requests have tripled. You should care, because, if you don’t care, it sets a precedent and sends a message to our government that translates to: “Do whatever you want.”

During it’s time, the Watergate scandal epitomized government corruption. So much so, that President Nixon was forced to resign. Within the past decade, we’ve watched as the pinnacle of corruption has reached new limits. We’ve seen the Bush administration fabricate sources to justify invading Iraq. Wikileaks became the Pentagon Papers on steroids. And now PRISM.

In the past decade, we’ve also seen incredible injustice. We’ve seen Wall Street nearly bankrupt the world economy. We’ve seen the BP oil spill, the largest ecological disaster in American history. We’ve seen two wars. Mass shootings on the rise. Incompetence in Congress. A shrinking middle class. Shrinking employment. Shrinking privacy.

shrinkage

“It was shrinkage!”

It seems in the aftermath of incredible injustice, there is rarely ever a face on which to place the blame. However, when it comes to whistleblowers–Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden–fighting AGAINST injustice, it seems there is always someone there to conveniently absorb the wrath of the U.S. government. It’s rarely the other way around. And for that, we the people, are to blame.

At what point do you say, enough is enough? At what point do you become angry at everything that has happened and everything that is happening around you? Are you even aware of what is happening? Or do you just not care?

You should care. Regardless of politics. Regardless of whether or not you think all whistleblowers are traitors. Regardless of whether or not you believe anything I said directly affects your life. If you’re an American citizen, you should care. Because not caring only shows our government that they don’t have to care either. If Homeland taught us anything, it’s that our government is rarely held accountable. Carrie spying on Brody? No problem, here’s a FISA warrant. The NSA spying on Americans? Oh well, shit happens. Our government is basically the geo-political equivalent of Chris Brown.

The less accountability we choose to wield, the less power we hold as a democracy. The more complacent we become, the more powerful and unaccountable our government becomes. Thanks to the internet, our generation has access to more information and more ways of sharing information than anyone in history. It can be utilized to bring about social change only if it is protected by the people who use it. The same can be said about our democracy. We have the tools to stand up and be heard, to fight for our guaranteed rights, and we live in a country that still allows us to do so. It’s time to start caring while caring is still an option. It’s time to get mad as hell. (See below)

mad as hell

UPDATE: Snowden claims U.S. surveillance worse than Orwell’s “1984”