Interesting use of Mockery

Talia Lakritz' YouTube video, "18 Things Orthodox Jewish Feminists Are Tired of Hearing", is fairly entertaining but a review I came across of the video was a bit confusing to me. Had I never read Antonia Blumberg's take on the video I never would have even considered that it was meant to support the idea that Orthodox Judaism and feminism are compatible. I had assumed based on what I saw that it was intended to ridicule the idea that the two could be reconciled. Watch the video and see if you can find any trace of even a single argument for compatibility. I've re-watched it a few times and still don't see how the creator thought it would be seen as anything other confirming that the two cannot be put together.

After mentioning a number of criticism that Lakritz portrays Blumberg states; "Lakritz challenges these arguments in her video." There's a slight problem with this observation. There's no basis in reality for it. Lakritz essentially creates a dramatized stream of mockery with no real explanations and certainly no argument/counter-argument. And, even if she did the tone still seems to be to mock the beliefs and practices of Orthodox Judaism. The implication is that the Orthodoxy is innately sexist. Changing the mysogynistic elements would basically end a huge part of what separates Orthodox Judaism from its more liberal counterparts. Doesn't that prove they are not compatible? "Things Orthodox Jewish Feminists Are Tired Of Hearing" makes no sense. If Lakritz's intent is as Blumberg describes she may want to do some re-editing.

Repost: Proof of God: Scenario 2 (originally posted 3-12-12)

It can and has been argued that aggression has served a variety of evolutionary purposes. However, it no longer seems to be of any benefit to our species in today's world. We also don't seem to be able to prevent it.

Another scenario I would accept as proof of God's existence is the cessation of all forms of human aggression. Since it no longer seems to be of benefit to us and we can't seem to end it ourselves there is no reason God could not solve the problem for us. I am fully aware of the rationale many theist use to contradict this idea. Free will has always been a pathetic excuse. I do not know a single person who has chosen to be mugged or asked for children to shoot other children. Since, I and others routinely push for crime prevention measures and gun control why are we made to suffer along with those who refuse do do anything useful about these problems. If God created us and our world then there is no reason God cannot make such a modification as the elimination of all aggression. There would still be plenty for us to disagree and make decisions on. So assuming that free will is even possibly in the presence of a supreme being, which it isn't, it would be unaffected by the absence of aggression.

Quotation

“All good intellects have repeated, since Bacon's time, that there can be no real knowledge but which is based on observed facts.”
August Comte
The Positive Philosophy

Didn't know, don't care

To be fair, I have no real interest in "celebrities" or being a "fan" of any sort. That does not mean I don't appreciate the individuals who often get lumped together as celebrities or pop-culture figures. I have absolutely no doubt that many of them are talented, intelligent, decent people. I still don't understand why specific aspects of their personal lives should matter to the general public let alone be reported on in any way. Two recent pieces on Religious News Service seems to play into such superficial tripe.

"Serena Williams’ secret weapon: ‘Jehovah God’"
"Omar Sharif wasn’t the only Muslim actor famous in America. Here are 5 others"

Omar Sharif and Serena Williams are both very talented. I am sure their beliefs are important to them but I fail to see how that made them the exceptional talents they are. So, why pay any attention to that one aspect of their lives? It seems, especially silly given that I have never noticed either of them making that big a deal of their religious preferences during any of the public appearances or interviews I've seen.

I didn't know anything about their religious preferences and still don't really know anything significant about their religious views. It has not changed anything. So why should I or anyone else care about that detail? What is the point? It seems odd that RNS would run both pieces on the same day unless their was something notable. Yet, I don't see any reason to run such similar pieces at the same time unless you are trying to imply that religion relates to talent. It doesn't.

CiNO?

You may have heard of RiNOs (Republicans in Name Only) and probably various other "in Name Only" acronyms/labels. I've never come across anyone using Catholic in Name Only? Why not? This isn't a new idea. A recent post by Cathy Grossman at the Religious News Service brought this back to mind. Her review of a recent study in "Catholic families: strong on prayer, weak on sacraments" is rather entertaining though slightly puzzling. She seems genuinely surprised by the findings. Doesn't she know any Catholics or have any awareness of related surveys and studies?

A growing number of self-identified Catholics do not actually agree with or follow many of the Catholic Church's doctrines. They certainly don't, as a whole, agree with most of the policies and practices that the church has created based on those doctrines. Many seem to be Catholic by heritage/culture rather than by belief and behavior. Many of the Catholics I know personally do not seem to abide by any of the doctrines or policies that distinguish the Catholic church from any other Christian sect or denomination.

I'd be willing to bet that the CiNOs outnumber the more orthodox, conservative Catholics by a long shot.