Religion, The Government, And The Big Questions About The Universe

I'm from Asheville, North Carolina. It's very touristy, not a really big city, but it is occasionally in the national news for one thing or another. Recently, we elected a man to the city council who doesn't believe in God. Actually, he mostly just says he considers the question of whether or not there is a god to be irrelevant.

Who cares, right? People elected him, he gets put into office, end of story. That's what I would have said, had I not known about our state constitution, which is unconstitutional (that last "constitution" referring to the national one).

Every fourth grader in the state has to study state history. The glossy fourth-grade version, leaving out the civil war for the most part, and generally skipping over the state's economic origins in tobacco farming. One part of that, though, is reading the state constitution.

In that constitution, there's a line that says, basically, that atheists aren't eligible for public office. It doesn't say that a politician has to belong to one particular religion, just that he or she must believe in some god. Apparently, no one has ever run for public office and won in this state, while publicly not believing in god, until now. Which is pretty crazy, I guess, considering all the different public offices in the entire state, which isn't a small one, and all the time that constitution has been in effect, and the fact that about ten percent of Americans call themselves atheist, agnostic, or secular and unaffiliated with any religion.

But now, this guy is a city councilman, and not religious. And, as liberal as Asheville may be considering is surroundings, we're still in the South, and there is definitely a degree of outrage. Including from a black guy who stands on roadsides wearing a Confederate uniform and waving a Confederate flag. Sometimes I think I live in crazy town. Where people are apparently unaware of federal laws. And history. Which brings me to a story about my high school principal....but that's for another time.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks bringing this to court is a good idea; they'll only lose. Federal courts have ruled on similar cases on several occasions, and found that religious tests for holding public office are not allowed. That's not going to change, luckily (I'd have to permanently abandon this country if it did, honestly), and you could have found out about this story on any number of news sites, so why am I writing?

I guess, for two reasons. One, I'm just kind of marveling at the crazy. And the fact that there are a lot of people here who don't see it as crazy at all. I live in the Bible Belt, people, and it's called that for a reason. Those of you from more progressive parts of the world probably think we're all backwards religious fundamentalists. We're not, but there's a vocal group, arguably a majority, that are. Also, these people like to ignore the laws. Except when the laws are ridiculous and outdated but in their favor. They protest reasonable laws, like no prayer in public schools. Also no school-sponsored bible study clubs, but try telling that to my high school.....

I digress. The second reason I'm writing here, is because I like this guy's attitude. I don't live within the city limits, so I couldn't vote in this election, and I wasn't following it too closely until all of this got stirred up afterwards. He says, though, that the question of acceptance or denial of God is irrelevant. And that, I agree with.

Not on a personal scale--I'd say that it's very relevant for many individuals. And if you can find that kind of faith, if you can believe, and if it makes your life better, and if you don't use it as a reason to hate and discriminate, then more power to you. If it gives your live some kind of meaning, if it offers you guidance, if it helps you to be a better person to believe in a god, then that's great. And, if you don't go around trying to convert people. That kind of pisses me off. You have no business telling other people they're going to burn in hell for not following your religion, and handing out religious pamphlets to people who are clearly not interested kills trees. But if it's personal, then it's great for you.

But not for me, and that's not your business. Whether or not I believe in God is irrelevant. Or, at least, it should be. Like the councilman mentioned, I don't think the question is relevant to me; I don't know the answer, I don't care, and it doesn't change my life. It doesn't change what I believe about right and wrong, or how I'll choose to live my life. But on a larger scale, it is, or should be, irrelevant to the world at large. It should be personal, not relevant to politics, in particular. These people who are protesting this election are probably, many of them, those same people that profess blind patriotism much of the time because they believe in America, and in freedom. They may preach, but they sure as hell don't practice. Freedom doesn't mean imposing your religious beliefs on others through outdated laws.

Religion has too great a place in contemporary American politics. I can't imagine this country electing a non-Christian President; Kennedy being Catholic, just another brand of Christian, was scandal enough.

Freedom of religion is one of my favorite things about this country, and it's crazy fundamentalists like these that really piss me off, trying to ruin one of the best things about America.

One of the other best things is that anyone with half a brain can create a free blog on the internet and ramble about anything they like, audience or no. Or maybe you disagree. Maybe you wish I'd shut up. Freedom of speech, and I for one am glad I can ramble about this to someone, even if it's the internet at large, so at least I can fool myself into believing someone's reading!

Google vs Apple

This Wall Street Journal article, along with the accompanying diagram, would lead you to believe that Apple and Google are big competitors. It's interesting, but I really don't think it's accurate. I love both companies, and in a lot of cases, I think their products and services complement rather than compete with each other. I use a Macbook Pro, with Safari as my main browser, and an iPod as my mp3 player of choice (which of course means iTunes), but what I do with Safari, well, there's a lot of Google involved. It's my search engine of choice, my email service of choice, my blogging platform, RSS reader, and quite a few other things.

The diagram in the article shows five areas where the two companies theoretically overlap. First, operating systems. The claim is that Google's new Chrome OS will compete with OSX, but I think the markets for the two are entirely different. OSX is a fully-functioning desktop operating system, able to run native applications, surf the web, anything, really. Chrome OS, on the other hand, is, as I understand it, supposed to be a lightweight, web-based operating system. It won't run applications that are necessary for a lot of professionals, particularly in the design business, and won't really replace a full operating system like OSX or Windows; rather, it will be lightweight and perfect for portable computing, namely, netbooks. I don't think anyone's going to be giving up the functionality of OSX for Chrome OS; rather, one might have both operating systems, Chrome on a netbook, and OSX on a main computer.

The second area of overlap is music. Google lets you search for and listen to music, and this article claims that competes with iTunes, but, really, the two aren't alike at all. Streaming a song or two is nice if someone gives you a recommendation, but it doesn't replace iTunes' functionality, creating your own playlists, and, most importantly, owning your music, and allowing you to load it onto an iPod and have it anywhere you go!

In the video arena, Youtube and iTunes don't overlap much, either. Youtube is nice if you want to quickly find a music video, or one of the countless viral videos of people doing stupid and possibly dangerous stunts and finding an audience online, but iTunes video is more about movies and TV shows, high-quality, portable ones, which isn't something Youtube comes close to replacing.

Browsers is an area where they might actually compete, with Chrome and Safari, but I'd argue that's not such a big deal; neither browser is the main business of either company.

Mobile platforms are probably the biggest competition between the companies. The iPhone is undeniably awesome and popular, and Google's Android platform smartphones are increasingly popular, too. However, this brings me to a point: Apple's main business is hardware. They sell computers and mp3 players. Google's main business (where 97% of its revenue comes from) is advertising. Much of what Google does is aimed towards earning more out of advertising. Hardware does not enter the picture. It's more about the software, the web applications (and downloadable applications), and the vast majority of those don't compete with anything Apple has to offer. I'd say the two companies can coexist safely, at least for now. Of course, if you disagree, I'd love to hear it!

Why Read Fiction?

This is a college essay I wrote last year, one of my favorite college essays to write, and I thought I’d share it here. (For the record, I got in.)

Pose an original question and answer it. (500 words).

Q: What can we learn from fiction?

A: Most people agree that reading is good for your mind. Many of them, however, also seem to limit that statement to reading non-fiction, and see reading fiction as a waste of one’s time. I would argue, however, that fiction, even when it takes place in a world very different from our own, can be very educational. Certainly, we can learn concrete facts from fiction, about far-off places or historical time periods, but there is much, much more to be gained from reading fiction than what is easily quantifiable by a multiple-choice test.

John Green’s “Looking for Alaska” taught me that everyone has logical reasons and motivations for what they do, even if they just seem irrational from the outside. Alaska, who is as real as anyone I’ve ever known, behaves in erratic, irrational ways, but it all makes sense, knowing the details, and that applies to real life, too; as crazy as people seem, they have their reasons. Fictional characters such as the cast of Siobhan Vivian’s “A Little Friendly Advice” provide invaluable insight into the interactions and relationships between people. Vivian’s book explores in detail familial, friendly, and romantic relationships, and these relationships are far from picture-perfect–they’re true-to-life and messy. It might be impossible to quiz people on social interactions or the reasons for their behavior in reality, but fiction provides us that opportunity.

Harper Lee’s powerful words in “To Kill A Mockingbird” would not communicate her brilliant understanding of humanity half as well if their author didn’t have such skill with words. From fiction, we learn the potency of language and how to best wield that power by expressing ourselves in writing. We learn by example how to articulate our thoughts, hopes, fears, and the stories (fiction and non-fiction) that must be told. We learn to communicate with other people. We learn what methods are effective and which leave the reader bored to tears. Even if one never really pursues writing, the communication skills gained by reading fiction are essential.

Fiction teaches us about possibilities. It teaches us to dream of far-off places or ambitious goals, and not to give up on those dreams, but to reach as high as we can and then leap. Fiction lets us touch our dreams through words on a page, and hope they can be even more tangible someday. I am sorry for anyone who can’t see the value of fiction; I’m sorry for anyone who has lost their imagination. Without fiction, I imagine I would be a different person, a person who accepted what life gave me and never reached for anything more. We are all capable of more than what is handed to us in life, however much or little that is. Fiction teaches us that, and so much more, if only we feed our imaginations with fiction rather than ignoring it in favor of only that which we consider to be real.