March 29, 2014

Why did the Christie report not investigate any motive for closures?

This is what the report is trying to whitewash:

"I don't know if we'll ever know what the motive is," Christie told reporters. "As I said when I was here on Jan. 9, it mystifies me on every level why this was done. And I hope someday to have an answer to why it was done. But I certainly don't have a crystal ball and I can't tell you if or when I'll ever know. But do I hope to after all this? You bet I hope to."

If Christie can't even imagine what reason they might have had, he has a pretty poor imagination. He should at least try to guess.
But there is no likely explanation given so far except revenge.

The closures weren't down lightly. He is basically saying willing to jeopardize their careers for a show-off gesture. He might at least have thrown out the idea that they were in the pay of his enemies!

I feel that's highly unlikely that the closure could have been payback to Ft. Lee's mayor. Here is another take on the motive:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/is-a-billion-dollar-development-project-at-the-heart-of-bridgegate

Now, these developers really had a lot to lose if those lanes were not available right next to their development.

March 22, 2014

Why science has nothing to say about religion and vice versa

There seems to be some idea floating around that religion and science are talking the same language . . .but they're not. They are self-contained belief systems based on totally different modes of thought.

Take the word "belief"

science: an idea based on repeatable physical or theoretical experiments using the scientific method

religion: an idea based on the revelations of or inspired by a supernatural being known as "god"

or the word "how"

science: an explanation of the process by which something happen

religion: an explanation of why something happens

Both religion and science may stray from such strict definitions of these words.

A scientist may say that because he doesn't need the concept of god to explain the universe, there is no such thing.

Or a religionist may say that because science doesn't include a god, it cannot be true.


Science has never proven a religion wrong . . . to any believer . . .

So what do we do about religions that deny science?

Not much. Fundamentalism arises in times of change. People who have lost their livelihoods, their homeland, their hope for the future will turn to the nearest theory that provides them with a defense to change: the ideal past. And the more change there is the more defensive the religions become.

But the past never returns. An idea never dies but the support for it will dwindle until the next paradigm shift.

March 10, 2014

beyond that cross at ground zero

This is a good learning experience for all of us on how discrimination works. Here is the catechism for the day.

Let's start at the beginning: Why was only a cross put up in the first place?

Because the majority did not even think about the other religions in America . . .no one thought: gee, i think that we should make this an ecumenical site for all Americans.

That's the way discrimination works: the majority isn't even aware of other's religions or non-religions. they assume that they should express their feelings in a public place, end of story.

So lessons learned:

a. devaluing others is an unacknowledged assumption in most social discourse.

b. the importance of diversity in widening the discourse.

Now that I've cleared that up, next question:

What should we do about it?

Don't remove the cross at this point. Include any others who want to honor the dead according to their beliefs. Including atheists.