21st Century Snake Oil

In a backlash against technological advancement, numerous anti-scientific beliefs are enjoying a surge in popularity -- even among the wealthier and better-educated segments of the populace.

Recently, I was chided by a couple of good friends for my response to their posting on Facebook a viral video purporting to show popcorn kernels popping when several ringing phones were placed next to the kernels. I was the "spoilsport" who pointed out the video was fake, and that were such a feat possible, the implications would be far more severe and noticeable. Extensive studies have proven cell phones do not cause any health problems, but vague fears of the effects of cell phone radiation (like a previous generation had for microwaves) abound in the popular imagination.¹

I have noticed, too, that the similarly-aged friends and acquaintances I know who pay attention to horoscopes, visit psychics, or believe in other supernatural ideas often do not accord much or any importance to the most mainstream supernatural belief: religion. Americans, especially young Americans, are less tied to religion than ever before -- nearly a third of people under age 34 do not claim a religious identification.² Could it be that these alternate beliefs are filing a vacuum of order in people's lives in the absence of religion? A report this week released by the National Science Foundation revealed that belief in astrology is on the rise, and that younger Americans are fueling this trend.

Beyond just supernatural ideas, anti-scientific beliefs, i.e. magical or non-rational concepts, are enjoying a high profile lately. They are driven by anything from yuppie fads (e.g. an obsession with "super" foods and alternative medicine) to superstitious celebrities (e.g. "energy" necklaces en vogue with athletes).

Cultural Back-Patting

The authors of a controversial new treatise on the superiority of certain cultures promote a dubious narrative about "model minorities." They wrongly give credence to blaming cultural values as the reason other groups are not succeeding.

In a buzzed-about New York Times column, Amy Chua (who first came to widespread fame -- or infamy -- with her "Tiger Mom" manifesto in 2011) and her husband Jed Rubenfeld opine on "What Drives Success." The authors promote eight cultures in America (an ethnic, religious, and racial grab bag of immigrant Chinese, Indians, Persians, Lebanese, Nigerians, Cubans, as well as Jews and Mormons) as being superior. These groups are better, say Chua and Rubenfeld, because they possess the "Triple Package" of having a "superiority complex," feelings of "inferiority," and have mastered "impulse control."

An elevated arch of the eyebrows in response to this "theory" is justified. The Triple Package is the latest example of pop sociology which can drive lively conversation at cocktail parties or dinner tables, but eschew rigorous documentation and verifiable fact in favor of sweeping generalizations and dubious conclusions drawn from personal anecdotes. It may be that these ideas are better fleshed out in the authors' upcoming book on this topic (several critical reviews I have read indicate they are not), but thus far what is presented has gaping holes or is often contradictory. Some examples that particularly galled me from the piece:

Islam and Assimilation in America

However improbable, over the past month the single dominant political issue in America has been the proposed creation of an Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center in New York City.  Far too much has already said about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque", somehow ridiculously conflated to constitute a threat to American values and an affront to victims of 9/11.  Enough people have tried to point out the folly in denying this high-profile opportunity to display our country's tolerant and pluralistic virtue and prove that we recognize that Islam is not our enemy.  I would also add that it is sad that many political leaders do not have the clarity on our country's principles, and the courage to speak out against hysteria fueled by misinformation and bad intentions.

Public opinion polls show the project is opposed by a large majority of Americans.  The same polls indicate that an unfavorable view of Islam may not be confined just to a handful of bigoted (or opportunistic) politicians, but that it is reflective of a significant part of the population at large.  This raises the troubling question of whether the Muslim-American community has in some way failed to be accepted as part of the broader mainstream American culture in general.

The Minority Rule

Indian-American Bobby Jindal's victory last week in the Louisiana gubernatorial election prompted me to examine what I call "the minority rule" in my Monday Diamondback column. People like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Condoleezza Rice are proof that minorities have successfully infiltrated that last frontier--the apex of political leadership in this country.

Yet what they and Jindal have in common is what connects them with most politicians in high positions: their affiliation with a Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Simply put, being a woman or black or brown no longer makes you unelectable--as long as you still have the right religion. This, obviously, has some problematic repercussions:

"I definitely don't have any problem with religious people in politics, but I am concerned that religious people of non-Judeo-Christian faiths as well as atheist or agnostic people can be marginalized from the political process. I think the American public is definitely capable of judging a candidate on his or her merits and would not attach much importance to a candidate's religious affiliation. But because religion is talked about so much in the political arena, and because almost all politicians are Christians or Jews, I worry that others who would be great public servants are discouraged from running for office and thus never try."

Click here to read my new column. Also check out this interesting article from the Post about the generational divide between Indian-Americans' attitudes toward Jindal. The older generation (people my parents' age and up) are ecstatic at Jindal's win and proud to have an Indian-American in such a high position. They know how difficult it was for Indians when they first came to the U.S., and had a very different experience than people of my generation. The latter are much more likely to take Jindal's political considerations into account (and not vote for him just because he is Indian). They also are unhappy that Jindal distanced himself from his ethnicity during his run.

* * *

On an entirely separate note, take a look at my previous Diamondback column, in which I tried to explain what "love of the game" really is to a sports fan. It's everything and anything from the rollercoaster ride of following a team through its trials and tribulations with a community of like-minded believers, to the pride you feel when you see a player you saw as a rookie gradually grow into a living legend. And yes, allowing our moods to be affected by the performance of a group of highly-paid strangers is admittedly irrational, but that doesn't mean it's not worth the time and emotion. Read "Fan Feelings".

Dawkins' God Delusion

This past weekend I finished reading Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion. Dawkins, for those who haven't heard of him before, is a well-known British biologist most famous as an outspoken advocate of evolution. (Yeah, he's the scientist spoofed on South Park having a relationship with Mrs. Garrison.) The God Delusion, which came out late last year, has been a fixture on the bestseller list and has raised a lot of controversy for its polemical criticism of religion.

I share his viewpoint that believing in the supernatural is irrational, and that religion is too often granted immunity from criticism. Dawkins' book is full of great quotes from people ranging from Douglas Adams to Thomas Jefferson that humorously buttress his points. Who knew, for example, how much that champion of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, detested the influence of the religious right?

The actual substance of the book, however, is uneven. As much as Dawkins is a witty and engaging writer--regardless of your views, the book is readable throughout--I doubt he accomplishes the stated goal of his book: to convert believers into atheists.

I've said before that telling people they are idiots and simpletons, or worse, is not generally the best way to persuade them of your cause. Dawkins' methods, which include using statistical improbability to show the improbability of God's existence, are not going to have the slightest effect on someone who does believe in God.

Dawkins attacks religion for engendering fundamentalism, bigotry, hostility to science, and other negative influences. Of course, it's easy to knock down such targets as the Taliban, homophobia, literal interpretation of the Bible, etc., but everyone is aware of these externalities and yet most people continue to believe in God!

A chapter on how meme theory might explain why religion is so widespread throughout human cultures was the least interesting. I guess it sounded too hypothetical. More appealing to me was Dawkins' later argument that humans can act morally without religion, which I agree with. His explanation for this is that we have nurtured altruistic genes (which better our odds of survival) through natural selection. Yet of course, while atheists are definitely capable of being good, that does not mean an absence of religion is the end of all conflict. (The aforementioned South Park episode featuring rival groups of atheists battling each others brilliantly showed how human nature inevitably leads to conflicts.)

Another point I agree with Dawkins on, though much less polemically so, is on the religious indoctrination of children. Dawkins repeats ad nauseum how a child should not be referred to as a "Muslim child" or "Christian child" because at that young an age he does not have the capability to decide for himself the matter. (No one would call a child a "Republican boy" or "Democratic girl".) I don't have a problem with children being brought up in the religious tradition of their family, but surely at some age it only makes sense that a child be free to decide for himself whether he wants to be part of that religion, another religion, or no religion at all.

Dawkins is at his best at the end of the book when he evokes the wonders of science to show how scientific inquiry reveals the universe to be even more awe-inspring and amazing than people (especially religious fundamentalists) give it credit for. I wish he had chosen to emphasize this approach more, because I think it would be the one that's most convincing.

A book like Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, which explains the scientific method and promotes rational thinking, or even the one I'm reading now, A Short History of Nearly Everything, does more to enhance science's stature and increase the general public's scientific interest. That is the best way for Dawkins to achieve his goal of a less fundamentalist, less anti-science world. Unfortunately the tone of his own book does not help.

Holy Wars

Among my friends and others, I have a reputation for sometimes having controversial or irreverent views. (Go figure, South Park is one of my favorite TV shows.) It seems to me that most of the time when people get offended, it's by something petty or trivial. I always want to tell them to stop and ask themselves "Are my beliefs or opinions really that fragile that I can't be presented with signs of other people's beliefs or opinions?"

It was in that mindset I wrote my recent column "Holy Wars" for today's Diamondback about how to strike a balance between secularism and religion in the United States. Given that I chided secular people for their hostility toward religious people, and the latter for constantly trying to push their beliefs on others, it was predictable that I drew fire from both sides. But I also found a lot of people who agreed with me, which was heartening in that it proves the polarized wings are not the majority.

Sample grab:

Despite caricature-worthy cases like the Westboro evangelists, crazy demagogues constitute a distinct minority of the population. The vast majority of religious Americans are good, decent, ordinary people. They should not be patronized, insulted or generalized as stupid folk from the South or Midwest.

Less hostility toward religion would go a long way toward defusing cultural tension. There is no need to continually deride obvious inconsistencies, outmoded thinking and immoral actions committed in centuries-old religious tradition. Regardless of the downside of rigid and literal interpretation, it should be obvious that the moral and humanitarian side of religion is a positive.

...I have several reminders for people of faith as well...one person's particular beliefs are not the only ones in existence. No one maintains a monopoly on what everyone should think. Respect the beliefs of people who belong to another religion, no religion or some religion.

I conclude by acknowledging that many aspects of America's values have been strongly influenced by religion but that the U.S. must remain a fundamentally secular nation. Click here to read the whole article.

Dungy to Rest of NFL: Zeus Smites You

This post is imported from my group sports blog, Da Sports Authority."

Does God hate the Chicago Bears? I can't seem to find the big fella's cellphone number to call and ask Him, so my best guess as to how He feels comes from statements from the Indianapolis Colts' camp.

After the Colts' Sunday victory in the Super Bowl, coach Tony Dungy attributed their success to "showing that you can win doing it the Lord's way." His comments echoed Colts' owner Jim Irsay, who said "we're giving it all to God again because that's what got us here."

People in the sports world invoking God is not news--it's done on a routine basis. But I always find it amusing that these athletes or coaches or whoever are presumptuous enough to assume that, if there is a higher being, God or Allah or Christina or whoever has a rooting interest in the outcome. Even if the Almighty deigned to choose a favorite squadron, it's probably not yours--that whole "meek shall inherit the earth" thing sounds a lot like it came from an Arizona Cardinals fan.

I'm fine with an athlete saying that his inspiration is due to his relationship with God--how you find motivation and balance in life is up to you. but it should stop there. Despite what Dallas Cowboys' fans might think, there is no such thing as "God's Team," and religion should be dealt with on an individual basis, not applied to a team as a whole.

Just in case I'm wrong though, I have no problem with Joe Gibbs' monthly tradition of sacrificing six goats and a virgin if it will help the Redskins back to glory next year.

South Park vs. Cowardly Central

Having been laid out sick in bed for most of the past week, I finally got around to watching the recent, much talked-about South Park take on the Mohammed cartoons. And I have to say that the two-part "Cartoon Wars" episode was undoubtedly the smartest, most biting take on the controversy I have seen--better than any blog, op-ed column, etc. I'd also like to observe that just a few weeks after being ridiculed for pulling a South Park episode that poked fun at Scientology, Comedy Central has again stuck its head in the sand.

In the South Park spoof, America is gripped in fear when Family Guy (the stand-in show for South Park within the episode) decides to broadcast a cartoon of Muhammad. A terrified American public tries to avoid responsibility by burying their heads in the sand--quite literally. The few voices of reason who argue in favor of free speech are ignored. And the airing of the Muhammad cartoon in the U.S. is met by reprisal from Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden--who decide to produce their own offensive cartoon.

(On an unrelated note, the fact that Parker & Stone made a brilliant, funny satire while relentlessly lampooning Family Guy, a show I have soured on for the exact reasons South Park cites, made it twice as sweet.)

Of course, by now everyone has heard that Comedy Central censored the episode, removing South Park's innocuous depiction of the prophet Muhammad, a move anticipated by show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. While the frame with Muhammad was cut out, mirroring in fact the plot of the actual episode, Comedy Central had no problems running a purposely gratuitous scene involving President Bush and Jesus defecating on one another. How's that for a demonstration of the difference in tolerance?

Find a neighbor who Tivo'd it, and watch this episode!

Defending Bush on the Ports Deal

Richard Cohen emerges as another unlikely Bush defender over the UAE ports deal. (His Post colleague David Ignatius and the New York Times' Nick Kristof have also written columns this week taking a similar stance.) I cut out the article and highlighted the following few paragraphs to show to Muslim friends:

The politic thing for a president with a dismal approval rating (about 40 percent) would have been to join with the critics, get ahead of the anti-Arab wave and announce that he, too, was concerned about the deal, which was the fault, now that he thought about it, of pointy-headed bureaucrats, Democrats and the occasional atheist. Instead, the White House stuck to its guns, ordering a symbolic retreat -- more study -- but continuing to back the deal.

That Bush has done this should come as no surprise. As a bigot he leaves a lot to be desired. He has refused to pander to anti-immigration forces, and shortly after Sept. 11, if you will remember, he visited Washington's Islamic Center. He reassured American Muslims and the worldwide Islamic community that neither America nor its government were waging war on an entire people.

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam," Bush said back then -- and he has since repeated this message over and over again. That very year -- in November 2001 -- Bush invited 52 Muslim diplomats to a traditional Iftar dinner, breaking the daily Ramadan fast, and he has occasionally cited purported racism as the reason some people doubt the Muslim world will, as Bush so fervently wishes, make progress toward democracy. They think people whose skin is "a different color than white" are incapable of self-government, he has said.

Muhammad Cartoon Craziness

It hasn't been the greatest couple of weeks for blogging. School and work have made deep cuts into my free time, and the leading stories in the news of late haven't struck me as all that fascinating.

I refrained from commenting on Dick Cheney's hunting accident, because after all, what more was it than a tragic incident for the attorney shot and ripe picking for the late night comics? After I found out that the Veep wasn't drunk or otherwise negligent when he filled Harry Whittington with buck shot, I lost interest.

Then there's the current flap over the UAE port deal, which looks to me to be a cheap excuse for the Democrats to try and run to the right of President Bush on a security issue. Everything I've read about the deal indicates that the Dubai company has a great track record and that their taking over six American ports will not jeopardize our security.

The other big story to dominate the news this month, of course, is the storm over the Muhammad cartoons. I finally tackled the controversy in a column for today's Diamondback, though by now I hope this will serve as a retrospective and we can finally stop reading about burned down embassies.

Regular blogging to commence next week, or that's my intention at least. In the mean time, check out the following links that helped shape my views with regard to the cartoon controversy.

Recommended reading:

• Overview of the controversy on Wikipedia
• "Drafting Hitler"[$] by David Brooks (Feb 9, 2006)
• "Editorial: Cartoon Wars" by The Economist (Feb 9, 2006)
• "Why I Published Those Cartoons" by Flemming Rose (Feb 19, 2006)

Danforth's Common Sense Christianity

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

-- JOHN DANFORTH

Gay marriage; PBS; Terri Schiavo: battlegrounds from the rampant "culture war", stoked by extremists on both the left and the right, which has done tremendous damage to the public discourse. With both sides firmly entrenched in their respective ideological positions, the middle ground is hard to come by these days. That's why it was refreshing to read this past week in the New York Times an op-ed by Episcopal minister and former senator John Danforth (R-MO)

In "Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers", Danforth urges a return to the era of civility which, although abandoned only in the past few years, already seems like a distant memory. And Danforth is not shy about confronting those on the right whom he faults as culprits for the current state of the union. "In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics," Danforth says. "With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions."

The reader at this point of the column surely must have shouted "Hallelujah!" and rejoiced to hear someone point out that the fight between "us" and "them" is not between people of faith and godless atheists. Rather, the fight for the future of America's character pits rational-minded people (religious or not) versus intolerant ideologues (Bible-thumpers and secular zealots alike).

To be sure, the role of the religious right is a vital force in shaping American society. But that role looks nothing like the hard-edged, confrontational identity it currently assumes in forcing feeding tubes, assaulting science, discriminating against gays, and trampling all over the separation of church and state. Danforth suggests the responsibility of the faithful as "moderators":

We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.

As moderators, the religious community's responsibility is not to seek the merger of church and state but rather to preserve the boundary between the two. Both believers and non-believers are working toward the same goal of a better America. Reverend Danforth shows us that common sense leads us to an intersection where both groups can co-exist peacefully. Amen to that!

Dude Looks Like a Lady

"Allah is not prejudiced. Are you?"

This past Friday, Muslims in the New York City area were shown an example of a more inclusive, tolerant faith when Dr. Amina Wadud, a woman, led a prayer service. By doing so, Dr. Wadud broke a long-standing Islamic tradition which dictates that only men may serve as imams (prayer leaders). Not only that, but there was no separation of men and women among the congregation, an Islamic tradition I had seen myself on a visit to a local Muslim prayer hall. Men and women prayed together at this event, which took place despite negative reaction from area mosques and even a bomb threat.

Not surprisingly, this incident has sparked a lot of controversy in the Muslim world. In the Middle East, some clerics have angrily denounced the practice while others have defended it. I noticed that on Al-Jazeera's English website, a largely negative report of the event was one of the most e-mailed stories.

The article did note, however, that in China women "routinely lead mixed Muslim congregations." So the practice is certainly not without precedent, and hopefully will receive more support from American Muslims. Here is as good a place as any to overturn a practice that is not even supported by the Koran.

Despite a lot of research on my part, I am thus far unable to find a reason why this practice has gone unchallenged for so long. If the matter were a central aspect of Islam, that would be a more difficult matter, but surely mainstream moderate Muslims don't believe that women are naught but distractions to men.

Searching the Internet for more reactions from Muslims, and coming across too many in the vein of this Morocco Times piece, I was heartened when I saw in an Arab News article the quote that led off this post. Those who are not fundamentalists, especially Muslims in this country, should ask themselves that question seriously. Change is overdue.

Submission (to Fear)

Last November, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamic extremist angry at Van Gogh's treatment of Islam in his latest film. That film, titled Submission, was highly critical of the treatment of women in many Muslim societies. With the shocking killing making news around the world, the Netherlands was forced to take a hard introspective look at its society and confront a growing cultural schism.

Instead of coming up with any helpful solutions, it appears that "Dutchland" is dissolving into a culture of fear. Submission was scheduled to be the highlight of the Rotterdam Film Festival this weekend. Until now that is. Citing security concerns, the organizers of the show have now declined to air the Van Gogh film. Not exactly the most inspiring statement of commitment to the principles of freedom of expression, huh? Meanwhile the Muslim writer of Submission, who happens to be a member of Parliament, is living under a heavy security detail.

Those who would promote a climate of apprehension can only be emboldened by the emasculated status of their adversaries. Even more alarming is the attitude of some of those who are fighting back. In today's Washington Post there was a profile of Geert Wilders, a popular Dutch politician with an "aggressively anti-Islamic" agenda. "Islam and democracy are fully incompatible," he proclaims. "They will never be compatible -- not today, and not in a million years."

Wilders' opinion about the idea of Islam coexisting in a free society seem to coincide perfectly with, ironically enough, sentiments recently expressed by the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Humor aside, the very fact that Wilders' extremist views are somehow finding support is troublesome and is indicative of the severity of the crisis in the Netherlands. Many of the affluent countries of Europe are having to deal with the societal upheaval caused by an influx of Muslim immigrants into their community. They have not always found it easy to deal with. One incident that comes to mind is the French ban on the wearing of Muslim headscarves (and other religious icons or symbols) in public schools.

But the worst of it may be in the Netherlands, where the entire concept of multiculturalism seems to be in decay. It's a sign of the dissatisfaction of the times that people like Geert Wilders can effectively channel public anger into popular support. But really, Wilders and his kind are also extremists on end of an ideological spectrum. Like the terrorists they despise, they too are contributing to the hostile atmosphere that poisons a free society.

Says Wilders, "We are in an undeclared war. These people are motivated by one thing: to kill everything that we stand for." Yes, Mr. Wilders, there is an undeclared war taking place right now in your country and across much of Europe. But it is not an ethnic conflict with "these people", as you might think, but rather a fight to maintain respect for freedom and tolerance of all people and all ideas in an era when those values are under assault.

Muslims Offended by 24

Fans of 24, myself included, are eagerly looking forward to tomorrow's installment of Fox's hit counterterrorism drama. This season, only a week old, has already attracted a lot of controversy over its negative portrayal of Muslims. In a show whose plot focuses on a terrorist attack against the United States, it is reasonable to expect Islamic extremism to play a part. Even then, through the show's first four episodes, I've found myself wondering whether the show had gone too far in caricaturing American Muslims.

The story centers around an upper-class Muslim family that is in fact a terrorist sleeper cell. Last week, the mother poisoned her teenage son's non-Muslim girlfriend. The son, who for all appearances on the outside is a good high-school student, is helping carry out the family's plot, which thus far includes an attack on a commuter train and the kidnapping of the Secretary of Defense. While all the villains are Muslim (not unexpectedly), there has been only one "good" Muslim character thus far. This was a minor, unnamed character given only a second or two on-screen to complain about how terrorists are giving Muslims in America a bad name.

In light of this negative portrayal of American Muslims, I was not surprised to read that complaints by Muslim groups have caused Fox to respond: "Fox Cuts Anti-Muslim Scenes From 24". Fox has agreed to air PSAs by the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) showing how Muslims in America have contributed to their society. I assume that upcoming episodes of 24 will also tone down its depiction of Muslims.

I've heard some people argue that all this fuss is unnecessary. Does every potentially offensive book or TV show or movie need to go to extra lengths to appease its critics? After all, The Godfather painted Italian-Americans in a bad light, and no one thought a disclaimer from the Pope was necessary. That's what artistic license gives you the freedom to do.

I think the situation here is different. My problem is not that the villains in 24 are Muslims. In all honesty, that is a completely fair and reasonable decision given current events. I think the problem though is that the show is relying too much on Islamophobic stereotypes to create its characters and plot.

This is not a major offense, but still an understandable issue of concern to the Muslim community. The public's attitude toward Muslims is influenced in large part by what is shown on television. Given that a recent study by Cornell University showed that nearly half of all Americans believe in restricting the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, they have a right to see that they are better treated in the media.

CAIR's Rabiah Ahmed pointed out that "There aren't any positive or even neutral portrayals of Muslims on TV." She raises an excellent point. That is something that should be remedied. And while we're at it, I'm going to suggest that more Muslims should go into the entertainment business. Reversing their underrepresentation in that field is one way for Muslims to help shape the public's perception of them.

In any case, I know where I'm going to be tomorrow night--parked in front of the TV to catch the new hour of 24!