I HOPE Jesus is nothing like the vindictive and ill-informed Christian broadcaster and one-time Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson, who makes the case that Haiti has suffered throughout its history because of a supposed “deal with the Devil” slaves made in order to defeat their French overlords. I love how Robertson neglects these tidbits of Haitian history:

• The U.S. played both sides in the slaves’ revolt against the French, giving supplies to both.
• The French, who under Robertson’s theory must’ve had God on their side since the Haitians had the Devil, violated a truce in order to kidnap the rebels’ leader and had him sent back to France where he died in prison from maltreatment. Way to go, Christians!
• In the 19th century, the U.S. obstructed substantive support to the newly freed nation of Haiti because slaveowners in the South didn’t want their own slaves to get any ideas about revolting. Southern whites lived in dread fear of having an independent black state so close to their shores.
• France tried repeatedly to take Haiti back by military force. Unsuccessfully. But their eventual peace agreement with Haiti required the country to pay France for its freedom, which Haiti could only do via high-interest loans happily given by the United States. It took Haiti until 1947 to pay back these loans.

Haiti’s poverty is directly linked to the shabby and opportunistic way the United States has treated that country. America needed an example to other blacks, especially its own slaves, of how they would be unable to govern themselves.

For more about Haiti’s sordid history, thanks to the U.S. and (naturally) France, you can read this illuminating retrospective from the Times Online (UK).

WTF, Netflix?

Technically, Netflix’s choices are more about me than about them, but seriously, Netflix, why would you include these two movies on the same recommendation screen? Superman: Doomsday — a cartoon for whom children are the intended audience (which I have actually seen) — beside X-rated Caligula?

Would Jesus be so Spiteful?

In the wake of the District of Columbia’s city council’s passage of an ordinance allowing gay marriage in Washington, D.C., the Catholic Church plans to retaliate in a most un-Christian manner: Threatening to deny its charitable services to the poor and needy in the nation’s capital. Bad form. Even if you believe Jesus hates the homos, he’s certainly on record as being pro- the needy (Matthew 25:31-46):

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

PLAYING ON THE EMOTIONAL appeal of “fair play,” creationism proponents in Texas want the state’s board of education to rule that the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution should be included in its science curriculum.

Surely a balanced examination of any theory should be welcomed as an educational approach in teaching science; the scientific method practically requires it, right?

Sure, but the “strengths and weaknesses” language appears to actually be code for “teach creationism.”

Kathy Miller, director of the Texas Freedom Network, tells the New York Times, “‘Strengths and weaknesses’ are regular words that have now been drafted into the rhetorical arsenal of creationists.”

Indeed, creationists rely on colloquial definitions, rather than established scientific meanings, to bolster the political case for teaching so-called Intelligent Design since proponents have ever failed to make a scientific case for the concept.

A WAR ON WORDS
Typical of the approach is the laser-like focus of creationists on the term “theory” to describe evolution. They fixate on the term being the equivalent of a hunch, speculation, supposition or even opinion.

In science, “theory” describes a well-substantiated explanation of key aspects of the natural world that includes facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses.

This illustration from the Web site of Texans for Better Science Education attempts to rally support for the science curriculum changes that would highlight the “weaknesses” of the theory of evolution.

Gravity is merely a theory, too — part of Einstein’s theory of relativity, which is judged “a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far passed every unambiguous observational and experimental test to which it has been subjected.”

If the “theory” weren’t true such things as nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, even atomic weapons, wouldn’t work. Yet they operate just as predicted by what’s merely a “theory.”

Do we see, then, such groups as Texans for Better Science Education clamoring for science teachers to present evidence against Einstein’s theory of relativity? Do they deny the observable, predictable and practical applications of the theory? Did not an atomic bomb obliterate two Japanese cities in 1945? Do nuclear reactors not provide nearly one-fifth of the world’s electricity needs?

Next: What other science is suspect? »

I WAS KEEN to see the new movie, “Jumper,” last week because I am a big fan of the book upon which the film is based. Even though I enjoyed the film, I had the same problems that a lot of the reviewers had — a protagonist (Hayden Christiansen) who wasn’t very sympathetic, plot holes of varying sizes, and a supporting character (Jamie Bell’s Griffin) who was better acted, more interesting and more sympathetic. Not to mention that the producers’ plans to make this the first of a trilogy made them think they didn’t have to deliver a complete story in their first installment. One reviewer put it pretty well that the film seemed to entirely lack a third act.

That said, I’m happy that it still performed well at the box office because I liked the book so much. The book has a lot more heart than the movie was able to deliver, and I hope that the opportunity to make a sequel based on a solid opening weekend box office will result in better second and third installments.

But in a ‘What Would Buddha Do?’ vein, my friend Adam pointed me to an enjoyable and fresh perspective on movie reviews courtesy of the Buddhist Channel, whose review of the movie contrasts the aims of Jumper’s protagonist with those of the Buddha:

In “Jumper,” David (played by Hayden Christensen) found it liberating to jump to wherever his heart desires, not realizing that he could not jump to liberation itself. As a song (Love Comes Quickly) by Pet Shop Boys goes, “You can fly [jump in this case!] away to the end of the world, but where does it get you to?” Jumping motivated by greed and impatience for escapism might bring fleeting worldly happiness, but it brings no ultimate happiness. You can’t jump all the time anyway. Flee as you might, you can never jump away from the fleeting moment that is now.

All that and a Pet Shop Boys reference, too. Buddhists rock! Read the full review and be enlightened.