Ranking the comics adaptations - Part I

I love comic books. I love movies as well. This means that I have a pretty soft spot for comic book adaptations. In a way, I'm probably not a good person to ask whether a particular one is good or bad, as I tend to find something good in almost all of them, even the ones where I can objectively see that they're bad. (Although as more and more of these movies are getting made, I'm probably less and less tolerant. If Green Lantern had come out when I was a teenager, I would have thought it was awesome. But with movies like The Dark Knight and Iron Man being out there? Yeah, it's not so good.)

For some dumb, obsessive-compulsive reason, I have decided to rank all of the various comic book adaptations. The first thing I did was start with Wikipedia's list of English-language comic book adaptations. This leaves out the Asterix movies, which I haven't seen, but as a fan of the comics, I'd like to one day. From there, I took off every movie that didn't have a theatrical release - so no rubber-eared Captain America nor Dolph Lundgren Punisher. Also, I'm not counting anything that came out before 1978's Superman. (There weren't too many of those anyway - mostly action serials from the 1940s.)

With that out of the way, there are a whole lot of movies that I haven't seen, or it's been so long since I've seen them that I don't feel right categorizing them. So, for the first two parts in this series, I'll be listing off the movies I've never even heard of, movies that I haven't seen and am actively avoiding, movies that I haven't seen but would be willing to see, and the movies where I just don't remember well enough to properly place. I'll give some thoughts about some of these if I've got something to say, but first:

The Movies I Don't Know Anything About - For all of these, I am unfamiliar with both the movie and the comic, and some of them could very well be direct-to-video or TV adaptations. I don't feel like taking the time to research each one of them. Leave me a comment if you've seen any/know anything about any of them.

2 Guns
The Amazing Cynicalman - Nothing amazing about that.
Faust: Love of the Damned
G-Men from Hell - This sounds vaguely familiar.
I, Frankenstein
I Sell the Dead
Model by Day - What is he/she by night? A dentist? Probably.
El Muerto - I'm intrigued by the title.
Oblivion
The Perils of Gwendoline in the Land of the Yik-Yak. - WTF?

The Movies I Haven't Seen and There's No Way in Hell I Will See - I'll tell you why for each of these.

Art School Confidential - This has been on my Netflix queue forever. I was intrigued because I liked another adaptation of a Daniel Clowes story, Ghost World, but I've heard that this movie is only so-so. I'm not totally opposed to seeing it, but it's probably just not going to happen.

Barb Wire - I actually read most of the comics from Dark Horse. The movie seemed to have little in common with them, and Pamela Anderson's acting doesn't exactly bring me running. I understand that she gets naked in it, but I have this feeling that there are other ways one can see that, if one were so inclined.

Bulletproof Monk - Never read the comic, heard the movie wasn't very good. Pass.

Catwoman - Yeah, right. I actually had a free ticket to see this that came in a DVD collection of Batman: The Animated Series. I still have it just in case they ever re-release it in theaters. Seriously though, anybody who likes this movie needs to rethink their standards considering that its star admitted that it was crap. And that costume? Ohhhhhh...sooooooooo....awful.

Constantine - I've never read the comics, and from what I hear, the movie bears little resemblance to them. Making him an American seemed to be the first of many things they got wrong.

Elektra - Okay, Daredevil wasn't very good, and supposedly this one was worse. Why would I do that to myself?

Jonah Hex - The comics are pretty much straight-up Westerns. This movie seemed like something else entirely. No thank you.

Josie and the Pussycats - I'm sure it's fine for what it is, but what it is isn't very interesting to me.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - This looked like crap on wheels and the reviews confirm it. I haven't read the comics, although I'd like to, but this seems to have little to do with them.

Son of the Mask - Umm...no, just...no.

Men in Black II - Didn't like the first one all that much. And did enough copies of the comic exist for this to even count for this list?

Men in Black III - See above.

Monkeybone - Despite all the Oscars and critical acclaim, I'm just going to have to pass on this one.

What can skepticism and freethought offer a person?

I wrote about a month ago how I wanted to start advocating for skepticism and free-thought rather than atheism. It's my belief that those two modes of thinking naturally lead to atheism, so I figure that it's best to put the horse before the cart. After all, advocating a non-belief is telling people that you want to take something away from them rather than offering them something good.

I suppose I should note that while I'd love it if people of all types read my blog, I think that this one is directly addressing the fence-sitters - the people who just aren't sure what they believe. Perhaps you're somebody who believes in God, but there are a lot of doubts that are gnawing away at you. One way or the other, the issue is important to you, and you want to make the right choice. With that said, let me tell you why I think that looking at the world through a skeptical, naturalist, freethinking point of view is best.

For starters, let's get out of the way what WON'T happen to you if taking this path causes you to reject belief in the supernatural in general, and God in particular. Here are a few things you won't have to worry about:

1. You won't fall into despair thinking that the world has no purpose. We human beings are generally pretty resilient animals. Even though you might no longer see purpose the way you used to see it, that doesn't mean that you still can't create purpose - one that's as satisfying or potentially more satisfying than the one you had before.
2. You won't lose any sense of awe or wonder about the world, despite what Oprah might tell you. The universe is an amazing place, and it doesn't suddenly stop being amazing when you no longer accept supernatural claims.
3. You can still believe in love. It's an emotion that you feel. Sure, it's not tangible, but realizing that it's brought about by the natural phenomena of millions of years of evolution among a cooperative species doesn't suddenly make it less real to you. If anything, that's one more thing at which to marvel.
4. You won't become a drug-abusing murderer who no longer has to answer to a higher power. Even if religious faith "saved" you from drug abuse, abandoning it won't make you revert to your old ways. I don't say this from personal experience so much as from people whom I have personally known. Also, if you weren't a murderer before, it won't suddenly seem like an appealing thing to do. Even if I knew that I could get away with killing a random person, I wouldn't do it. Even if you paid me to do it, I wouldn't do it. Why? Because empathy, that's why. Where'd I get that? From my ancestors who developed it to help them survive in groups when they didn't have fancy things like sharp claws and wings.

Okay, so those are things that won't happen to you. Is that all it is? Just a break-even if you completely alter your approach to the world? How about some advantages? Well, I can name a few:

1. You can trust your doubt. It's a good thing, and while I hear religious people say that they embrace their doubt all the time, I just don't see that as being a genuine sentiment coming from them. After all, what do they tell their fellow believers when it comes to doubt? Pray about it. In other words, it's okay to doubt so long as you realize that you're wrong for doing so and you eventually have to come back to your original position. With free-thought, you can fully embrace your doubts. Your doubts might even be pulling you in the CORRECT direction. Listen to them, consider them, and then make your decisions accordingly.
2. You won't be troubled by so much cognitive dissonance. One thing that really troubles a lot of people of faith, Christians in particular, is the issue of how to treat gay people. On one extreme, you have complete intolerance. A bit better than that is "hate the sin, love the sinner" which still puts gay people as doing something wrong for simply being who they are. Recently a friend of mine posted this article from the Huffington Post, where the author abandons that particular phrase, but at the end of it all, he's still left with the thing that homosexuality is a sin; in other words, it's wrong. I see so many Christians struggle with this because on one hand, they don't see how gay people are doing anything wrong, yet they still have to think that it is because The Bible says so. Well, here's a possibility you get to have if you approach things from a skeptical point of view: The Bible might be wrong. This gets to be a very real option, and when you embrace it, you find yourself struggling a whole lot less.
3. The world becomes less scary. I realize that this one will hold more appeal for some people than others, but I know that before I embraced skepticism, I was troubled by demons. I also know of people who have scary instances in their lives where they feel some sort of presence that makes the hairs on their arm stand on end. The world seems to be full of all kinds of hidden terrors that aren't detectable through conventional means. However, when I hear strange noises or get random chills nowadays, I don't pay them a second thought, and I'm able to move on with my life. You can read more about those experiences and why I abandoned them here and here.
4. There's no need to fear death. Sure, dying might be scary, but as far as we can tell, our awareness is in the brain, and when the brain ceases to function, there's no reason to believe that it continues on. As it's been said before, there's no reason to think that it will feel any different than how it felt before you were born.

That's just for starters. If that sounds good to you, then what's the next step? What does it mean to be a freethinker and a skeptic? You start with Carl Sagan's maxim: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." From there, determine what counts as evidence, as that's a word that's thrown around quite a bit. But if you want to truly be a skeptic, have your definition be consistent. In other words, don't consider something to be evidence for what you want to believe that you would reject for another claim. (You know,t things like personal experiences. If you can reject it as a likely hallucination in somebody else, then you can't use a different yardstick when you evaluate your own beliefs.)

There are a lot of great books out there by the likes of Michael Shermer, James Randi, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc. to help you to continue this journey if you're ready for it. The best part is that you get to go wherever the truth takes you - you're not bound by anybody's dogma - even your own. You won't have all the answers, and you'll have to get used to using the phrase, "I don't know" but you'll be living as honest a life as you possibly can, and there's a great deal of satisfaction in that.

Can you choose to believe?

I had a conversation recently with a thoughtful theist where we were discussing raising children and passing on our belief systems to them. I was relieved (but not surprised) to hear that she wasn't feeding her children misinformation about atheists like how we're somehow "broken" or "love sin too much" or some other total strawman. She told me that when she explained nonbelievers to her kids, she started off with how God gives us free will, and we can make our decisions from there. I thought that was a really fair response, but it's kinda stuck in my brain, and while I wouldn't tell her to change what she says, I'm not so sure that whether people believe or not is a matter of choice.

I've been told before that my problem is that I need to read The Bible with "an open heart" and "ask God" to help guide me as I do so. I always respond with how that's a strange request, as how can I genuinely ask a thing that I don't believe to help me? Sure, I can mouth the words and maybe even go so far as to think: "Okay, if there is a God, help me out here!" but that's not the same thing as making a genuine request. I compare it to asking Superman for help the next time you're in trouble. Sure, you can say, "Superman, help!" and you can have the mindset where if Superman actually comes along to help you out, you're not going to question it. The point is that in both situations, you're not genuinely expecting help from something that you don't think is actually there.

I think that this works both ways, and that's why it's pointless to try and talk somebody out of belief. If a person genuinely believes in Allah, for instance, and you offer them a billion dollars to stop, he or she might go so far as to tell you that the belief is gone, but if you believe you believe. No matter how much you tell a person that his or her belief is nonsense, that's not going to get you anywhere. If anything, it'll just make that person dig his or her heels in even further.

I should note though that I'm not saying that there's no point in debating beliefs. If it weren't for people who debated with me, along with numerous debates that I listened to, I'd probably believe a whole lot of different stuff than I do now. The point though is that it wasn't somebody trying to cajole me into changing my mind that did the trick. What made me change my mind was a slow process, but much of it had to do with how I approached the world. Different people introduced me to new ways of looking at things, and once I opened my mind up to the possibility that I was wrong, my faith's demise was inevitable.

I realize that theists hate it when atheists compare the belief in God to the belief in Santa Claus, but if any believers out there really want to understand it from our point of view, then don't take it as an insult when I say that it's as likely that I can start believing in God again as I can start believing in Santa. It's not that nothing will change my mind. If I got some empirical evidence for St. Nick, then what choice would I have but to believe in him again? It's the same with God. Yes, I know, belief in God is a deeper, more life-altering belief than the one in Santa, but that doesn't address the reason why I don't believe - a lack of evidence. If I were to ask you to write a letter to Santa next Christmas, you'd look at me the same way I (really want to) look at you when you ask me to ask God to help me with my understanding of The Bible.

So, if you're on board with me that belief is not a choice, then what can you actually choose to do?

1. You can choose to have an open mind. This is a bit of a loaded phrase, as it's unfortunately come to mean that you should give equal weight to any and all claims that come your way. When I say it, I mean that you should be willing to follow the evidence to whatever conclusion is supported by it, and once you reach that conclusion, be ready to change it as new evidence comes your way. That doesn't mean that you can't feel secure in saying, "There probably aren't any chimpanzees that live in my ear." but just be ready to change your mind when a bunch of chimps start flying out of your auditory cavity.

2.  You can choose to expose yourself to other points of view. This step is pretty much pointless if you're not willing to take the first one. Many people only like to expose themselves to the opposing point of view through the lens of those already on their side. This is why you get so many creationists still saying the same old canards like "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" or "If evolution is true, why is it just a theory?" (If you think that those are good questions, then you haven't looked into evolution from the point of view of those who actually accept it - and not even in the most cursory way at that.)

3.  You can choose to embrace your doubts. When a doubt comes along about a particular belief of yours, you can shut your brain down and blame yourself for not thinking correctly, or you can say, "Maybe I'm doubting this for a good reason." From there, you can put your belief into a holding pattern of "I'm not sure about this." until more evidence comes along to sway you one way or another.

4.  You can take the time to figure out what would change your mind. For instance, I personally believe that it's a good idea to let my son decide how much he should eat at dinner time. I don't make him sit at the table until he "cleans his plate". I know precisely what would make me change my mind though. For once, if he started to look malnourished, that would be a pretty big indicator that I could be wrong. (But not quite enough to convince me entirely - there could be other factors at play.) The point is that I have no problem saying what would get me to think differently. Some people seem to act like it's a virtue to say, "Nothing can change my mind." That sounds pretty unreasonable to me.

5.  You can choose to lie. Unfortunately, there are many people out there who do just this, and I don't judge them for it when it comes to this particular issue. Some folks are afraid to tell their friends and family how they really feel out of fear of being ostracized. In that case, you have people who do things like go to church and pray at the dinner table, but they believe about as much as I do. Like I said, I don't judge, but I would encourage more people to "come out of the closet" in that case, so others can learn that nonbelievers aren't evil people.

That's all I've got. If you've got something else, feel free to comment and let me know. 

Can we be honest about the word "faith"?

I have faith.

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I have faith that when I take NyQuil, my cold symptoms won't prevent me from getting a good night's sleep.

I have faith that my dog will come back to me when I call her.

In all of these cases, I'm using the same word, but the meaning is not exactly the same. The problem with language is that its use can often be rather imprecise, which can create confusion.

In the first instance, when it comes to the sun, I'm not really taking much of a leap. It's risen every day of my life. (And yes, astronomy nerds, I know that it only appears to rise. You know what I mean.) As far as I can discern, it has risen every day since recorded history. Considering the explanation as to the mechanism of what makes it "rise" every day, there is no reason to believe that it has EVER failed to rise.

If the sun were to not rise tomorrow, that would mean that centuries of knowledge about our solar system has been completely wrong. Is it possible? Sure, but only in that same sense that anything is technically possible. It is, however, totally improbable, so much so that you can feel safe saying it's impossible, knowing that people will have bigger concerns if you turn out to be wrong.

In the second instance, my faith in NyQuil is also based on experience. Has it sometimes failed me? I think, maybe once or twice when my symptoms were particularly bad. However, for the low-grade colds that I tend to get, it usually does the trick. Sure, I don't have as many tests as I do with the sun rising, but I can also talk to people who have had similar experiences. Not only that, but there is science behind it that one could research if one were so inclined.

Being wrong about NyQuil is also improbable. While one can certainly attribute some instance of feeling better to the placebo affect, we'd have to account for a whole lot of people getting one hell of an effective placebo. Also, much work would have to go into rethinking everything science knows about alleviating cold symptoms. Perhaps it's a bigger leap than the sunrise thing, but you're still operating on that which is verifiable and objective.

The biggest leap of faith comes with my dog. She's a really good girl, and even though I spent far less time training her than some other dogs I've had, she sometimes strikes people as being "well trained". She's just very submissive and obedient, which is a nice thing when you're trying to walk a dog and watch out for an inquisitive three-year-old boy who's tagging along on the walk.

Much like the other two examples, I have experience with her which makes me feel confident in letting her off leash in a public park. Sure, sometimes I have to say her name a couple of times, particularly when she's sticking her nose in something disgusting and awful that she finds delicious. However, I can rely on the fact that she doesn't run up to strangers and other dogs, and she'll come running back to me soon enough.

Still, she is a dog. She has instincts that can overwhelm her loyalty and obedience to me. Also, she will get older some day, and perhaps she'll be less inclined to come running when I call her. I'm taking a leap when I let her off that leash, and the very possible truth is that one day my faith in her will fail me, and she'll have to remain on the leash every time we go for a walk.

So there you go, three examples of faith, all somewhat similar, but all a little bit different, as some require greater "leaps" of faith than others.

And now let's get really clear - the following statements also use the word "faith" but are not the same as any of the other examples:

I have faith that God exists.

I have faith that Jesus rose from the dead.

I have faith that the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard have the ability to unlock one's true potential. 

The first one is different for the simple reason that it's not an expectation like my previous three examples. It's a belief in something for which there is no verifiable and objective evidence. And while I risk using generalities, in my experience most people who use this phrase use it as a knowledge claim, and when you ask them what would shake their faith, they give everything from a long-winded answer to a flat-out "Nothing can convince me otherwise." This is also different from the sun rising scenario, as any person would tell you that the thing that would convince them that they're wrong would simply be it failing to rise in the morning.

The second one is making an even more specific knowledge claim. It's stating a belief about an event in history. And while it's true that we can't know for certain that the campaigns of Julius Caesar, for instance, occurred as they did in recorded history, we have multiple sources and multiple forms of evidence. In the case of Christ's resurrection, we have a series of writings that were not written by eye-witnesses and contradict each other. Even more importantly, there is nothing about Caesar that contradicts everything we know about the laws of nature. Saying that you have faith in the resurrection of Christ involves you saying that you believe that something extraordinary happened yet you don't require the necessary extraordinary evidence. In other words, it's not just believing something that "might" not have happened, it's believing something that in all probability couldn't and likely didn't happen.

The third not only is unlikely, but it goes against everything we know about the human mind. And unlike the historical Jesus, where most of the details are shrouded in myth and legend, we know a thing or five about L. Ron Hubbard and what a con-artist he was. We know that the reason why Scientology rejects psychotherapy is because when he submitted his "findings" to psychiatrists, they rejected it for the quackery it was. So, even more extreme than the other two scenarios, having faith in Dianetics is not only believing something that's unlikely, it's believing something where the evidence is overwhelmingly AGAINST it.

Lastly, I will point out that the following uses of the word "faith" are non sequiturs: 

I have faith that there is no God.

I have faith that Billy Dee Williams isn't standing behind me right now.

I have faith that astrology is bogus.

It requires absolutely no leap at all to reject a concept. I mean, Billy Dee could very well be behind me right now. I'm not even saying that he definitely isn't. I'm just saying that I don't have a good reason to think he is, so I'm just going to assume that he isn't until given evidence to the contrary (like somebody handing me a tall, cool Colt 45). I'm not hoping, wishing, counting on, etc. any of those things. I'm just taking the default position of: "I'll believe it with evidence."

So yes, we all have faith, but we don't always mean the same thing when we use this word. Let's just be honest about what we're dealing with, and then we can have more productive conversations.

Pumpkin Ale 3 - Pumpkin Fail

Want to know the best thing about homebrewing?

You can totally screw it up and still wind up with some awesome beer.

This is certainly the case with this year's Pumpkin Ale. I've already written about my first two attempts at a Pumpkin Ale. The first one was pretty good, and the second one was excellent. This year, I wanted to continue the experimentation and ramp it up a couple of notches. I basically wanted something kinda like a Belgian Dubbel, but with pumpkin. Also, unlike last year's, I didn't want to use a whole lot of pumpkin spice, figuring that the spicy taste created by the Belgian yeast would provide the balance that I desired. My last thought was to add maple syrup. This would be the second time adding that particular ingredient. The first time, I added it really early to the boil of a strong Brown Ale that I made.  While it didn't contribute any kind of a maple flavor, it did create a really nice dry taste to it. I figured it might be even more appropriate for a Belgian style, as typically those have you add candy sugar to them, and maple syrup isn't too far off from that.

Before I give my fellow homebrewers the recipe, let me tell you a bit how this turned out. Essentially what I have tastes a lot like a Doppelbock with a Belgian yeastiness to it and a faint maple flavor that arrives in your nose once it's gone down your throat. For those of you not familar with all the beer-nerd jargon, it's got a spicy (not caliente-spicy, but more like gingerbread where they didn't spare the ginger) smell and initial taste when you take a sip. In your mouth, it's thick and bready - somewhat reminiscent of pumpernickel. And as I already wrote, you can catch a bit of that maple flavor once you've swallowed it down.

In short - it's a tasty beer. It's great for cold weather, and it stands up to all kinds of food - either something really rich or something spicy. It's also a good one to have when the day is done and you're looking to just relax and watch some TV while sipping a yummy brew that gets more interesting as it warms up a bit.

Then why is this a "Pumpkin Fail"?

'Cause you don't taste the pumpkin. Like...at all. I'll include it in my list of ingredients, but if you're looking to make this beer, save some money and skip the pumpkin. I'm not sure what went wrong. It's quite possible that the strong flavors of the malt, along with the Belgian yeast and maple syrup, just completely overpowered it. Another possibility is that I used a white pumpkin this year instead of the green one that I used last year (which gave me a great, smooth pumpkin flavor). More likely than that last reason, I didn't keep the pumpkin in for the entire boil. I put it in my grain bag (with the rest of the flavoring grains) for the first half hour - before it all went to a boil. I then tried my best to squeeze as much pumpkin juice/pulp from the grain bag, but that probably wasn't enough to get the full flavor.

I also added a few dashes of cinnamon about halfway through the boil, and I really can't taste that at all.

So, here are the ingredients. I recommend making this beer if that description sounded good, but again, skip the pumpkin (and cinnamon too) and you'll probably get basically the same thing.

1 medium pumpkin - sliced, baked (at 400 degrees for one hour), and turned to mush in the food processor

 Flavoring malts:
.5 lb. chocolate wheat
1 lb. Belgian biscuit
.5 lb. honey
.5 lb. chocolate

6 lbs. Munich malt extract
2 lbs. dried malt extract

hops:
1 oz. Experimental - bittering (used for entire hour long boil)
1 oz. Herrsbrucker - flavoring (put in during the last few minutes of the boil)

32 oz. maple syrup - added one minute before the end of the boil

yeast:
Wyeast Saison - This is a high-alcohol beer, so either pitch a couple of packages or re-use from a previous batch (which I did with a Saison that I made).

How can you celebrate Christmas?

My wife was asked recently by a relative of hers how we were able to celebrate Christmas when we're both atheists. After all, it's CHRISTmas, which celebrates the birth of the son of God, right? So how could we celebrate something like that?

A Christian friend of mine who's living in Japan expressed some disappointment that while Christmas is big there, Christianity really isn't. So you've got all sorts of Buddhists, Shintoists, and basically irreligious folks getting on board with a Christian holiday.

I also have a friend who called me a "hypocrite" for celebrating Christmas. This is because I go around telling people not to celebrate it, I kick over manger scenes, and I burn down every Christmas tree I see. (Actually, I don't do those things, but that's what I would have to do if he was using the word "hypocrite" correctly.)

Seems to me like a strange thing to wonder why non-Christians celebrate Christmas. It seems even stranger to care, as I don't care if you're a Buddhist who celebrates Hanukkah, a Muslim who celebrates Diwali, or an Odin worshiper who celebrates the birthday of Confucius. You want to have a happy day with rituals? Be my guest. However, unlike those other examples, if we take a look at Christmas, there really isn't all that much that's specifically Christian about it. Check out the following list. What's specifically Christian about any of the items off of this list?

• decorated trees
• yule logs
• Santa Claus
• flying reindeer
• elves
• gift giving
• mistletoe & kisses

Most of those things are from pre-Christian religious traditions, (You won't even find most Christians arguing this.) and gift-giving is something you're likely to find in all sorts of cultures, so even if you can make the argument that it's a Christian practice, it's not a uniquely Christian one. And yeah, Santa Claus has his origins in St. Nicholas, but he's also got a fair amount of Odin mixed in with him as well.

I'm not trying to say that it's NOT a Christian holiday. Yeah, it's called CHRISTmas, and many people celebrate with songs and decorations that are specifically Christian. (But let's not get too carried away with the name of the holiday. After all, Easter is the name of a pagan goddess, so if the name is what's important, than let's start putting the Ēostre back in Easter. And don't get me started on Thor's Day.)

Obviously, if you are a Christian, then it's pretty easy to get into the religious spirit. My point is that the holiday is malleable.There is so much to its traditions that it can be celebrated by anybody. If a Christian thinks that me being an atheist is a problem with me celebrating the holiday and they ask "How can you celebrate Christmas?" then it makes just as much sense for me to turn it around on them and ask them the same question considering how much paganism is involved.

That is, I would ask them if I cared what they celebrated.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Beliefs matter

I once had my seniors write a piece on the Dalai Lama, and I asked them to share their personal thoughts at the end of their paper. One student, who's particularly religious, wrote something along the lines of how he seems like a good man, but not all religions can possibly be correct, and all of eternity was at stake. Yes, the student was a Christian - a pretty devout one at that, so you can probably read between the lines here. I wrote one comment next to the bit about how they all can't be correct: "I agree."

I think that this is the bit of common ground that I have with your more conservative/fundamentalist/etc. types. Generally speaking, I find myself rolling my eyes a lot less when I speak to religious believers who tend to be open minded and less dogmatic. There is one thing though with many more liberally-minded folks that I often find frustrating, and that's this idea that beliefs don't matter. Of course, I never hear it put in quite those words. It's more along the lines of: "Hey, if it makes him feel good, then who cares what he believes?"

I also have heard (several times lately) the puzzling phrase that "it's true for them". The first time I heard this was when discussing religion with a Catholic, who said that she had a Muslim friend, and the Muslim's beliefs were "true for him" and her Catholic beliefs were "true" for her. I cannot for the life of me fathom what this means. Unless one means to propose a completely subjective universe, where reality is dictated by one's own perceptions and beliefs, then it strikes me as sounding rather nice but meaning very little. After all, Catholicism and Islam have conflicting ideologies. Either Mohammed was the last prophet or he wasn't (among other things). While they can both be wrong about who's a prophet and who isn't, they certainly can't both be right.

And yes, I am aware that when it comes to many Eastern religions/philosophies, the belief systems can be a bit more accommodating. This is why Buddhism didn't wipe out Shintoism in Japan, and you have some people, particularly in China, who follow Confucius, Taoism, and Buddhism. I'll let the experts in those subjects handle whether that's logically coherent or not, but I feel like I'm on firm ground when I say that if Islam is true, Christianity isn't. No eating all your cake and then claiming to still have it.

So, let's get past this whole notion that "true for you" only fits if we're talking things that are purely subjective like what the best flavor of ice cream is, not objective knowledge claims like who got the right message from the creator of the universe. If you're with me so far, then let's get back to this notion of whether we should care what people believe or not.

There are two major reasons why we should care what people believe, and they're linked together. The first is that my beliefs affect my actions, and the second is that my actions affect other people. Gay people in California wanted to get married and have all of the benefits that come with that. The citizens of California voted against them having that right, and so many couples who had been together for years, if not decades, couldn't enjoy the same privileges that I can with my wife. Now, whether you are for or against marriage equality, you cannot deny that people were effected by the beliefs of others. (Thankfully, it was overturned by the courts, and now gay people can get married here - but my example still stands.)

I understand the democratic, egalitarian motivation behind it when people talk about just letting people have their beliefs. (And let's be clear, I only advocate changing people's beliefs through dialogue and education - I don't believe it's either possible or ethical to force people to change their beliefs.) However, I think that it's a flawed idea. We don't all live in a vacuum. What we do affects others, and what we do is motivated by what we believe. In other words, beliefs DO matter, so let's stop pretending that they don't.

But hey, that's just my belief. If I'm wrong, tell me why - although you'll kind be proving my point if you think it's worth taking the time to convince me otherwise.