Halloween Is Not A Celebration of Evil

Today, I read an article by Albert Mohler, “Christianity and the Dark Side – What About Halloween?” The thought is provocative that millions of people across the country will be embracing the dark side tonight in contradiction to their Christian faith.  So I took the bait, read it and have outlined below a counterargument.

Mohler criticizes the Pagan background of Halloween: “How should Christians respond to this pagan background?... [some] argue that the Pagan roots of Halloween are no more significant than the Pagan origins of Christmas and other church festivals.”  I’m glad he skirted this argument without addressing it.  He should look more closely at the origins of Christian holidays just to see how close it is with other faiths, such as Christmas Trees and Santa Claus.  In fact, many modern practices and traditions were absorbed from Paganism.  I encourage you to research Paganism and you'll realize it's still present today in many surprising places.

Why is there an inherent darkness in the holiday’s history of celebrating the dead?  Should we forgo all funerals and memorials from now on?  “All Hallow’s Eve” is more likely to be a celebration of life than it is of death.  Little kids go from door to door to get free treats from complete strangers.  Adults attend parties and laugh and dance, celebrating life.  In the tagline phrase “trick or treat”, isn’t it comforting that the overwhelming choice is “treat” and not “trick”?  Halloween brings out more good than bad; more good deeds than sins. Ultimately, this is a social celebration of community and people.

Even if there is darkness in Halloween, an examination and transportation to the darkness can actually help society appreciate the light as well.  One day of darkness as a learning experience is better than only being exposed to good things.  This confrontation with darkness is also true in the New Testament with the introduction of Hell, the Devil and Sin.  So a fundamental pillar of the New Testament contradicts Mohler’s theory.

He quotes Skal, “One’s identity can be discarded with impunity. Men dress as women, and vice versa. Authority can be mocked and circumvented, and, most important, graves open and the departed return.”  Mohler should also accept that dressing up as a zombie is not a tacit endorsement of soulless, man-eating beings walking the face of Earth.  The weirdness that is on display for Halloween should be accepted for what it truly is: people putting their inner weirdness on display once a year.  That weirdness exists regardless whether or not we can see it while walking down the street on an average day.

Mohler: “Skal’s approach is more dispassionate and focused on entertainment, looking at the cultural impact of Halloween in the rise of horror movies and the nation’s fascination with violence.”  The nation’s fascination with violence exists 364 other days of the year as well; this can be seen in action movies, car wrecks, sports, video games, etc.  Let’s not forget that the bad guys usually lose in Hollywood--even in Horror movies. 

“For most parents, the greater fear is the encounter with occultic symbols and the society’s fascination with moral darkness.” I’m not a parent so I cannot fully address the validity of this one but this mentality seems like a rarity.  There doesn't seem to be any worshiping or religious practices involved in trick-or-treating or dressing up as a sexy nurse to go to a party. Let’s also not forget that 99% of this is just pretend fun.  It’s not even serious.  In fact, it is ten times more likely to be mocking evil than praising it.  In the end, the choice between dark and light seems to exist more in the choice of how you perceive it; my way or Mohler’s way.

If you remain unpersuaded, here are some additional questions you can pose to yourself to come up with alternative conclusions about Halloween: Why do people watch scary movies? Why do people dress up in costumes; and are they always scary?  What are typical Halloween activities?  Do they worship anything?  To spite its origins, what is the modern practice (and how much influence do the origins have)?  Do people actually choose evil on this day?  

Freedom of the Press vs. Presumption of Innocence

A core tenet of our civil right is the “presumption of innocence”, which basically means that we are innocent of accused crimes until proven guilty in a court of law. 


Now, a common occurrence in our modern society is for the press (or media) to report on the alleged criminal acts before any allegation is proven guilty in a court of law.  Traditionally in the US culture, the press is entitled to conduct such reports via the principle of the “freedom of the press”.  So although a person may be exonerated by a court of law, the person may be convicted by the general public.


So does the Press/Media respect the ‘Presumption of Innocence’ principle?


The police, while usually a competent and reliable enforcer of the law, is capable of making mistakes.  The initial suspect for a crime doesn’t always end up being the one prosecuted for the crime.  Regardless of whether the police gave the news station the wrong picture or any other flaw, the man is now assumed to be guilty.  In the town he lives in and according to his peers, he is presumed guilty and his life is forever altered and judged based on an act he may not have even committed. 


Yet this is not a harmless mistake because the legally innocent man has been socially convicted and there is no appeal mechanism for this type of conviction.  Once a person’s reputation is tainted even by the public allegation, then that person’s life is forever stained.  The social consequences are boundless.  A person may have to leave their community entirely because they cannot go out in public without their peers judging them as if they were carrying a cloud of guilt over their head.


Let’s look at a present-day example: the allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK).  I won’t go into the details of the legal allegations because I want to focus on the role of the media.  DSK is/was a prominent public figure because he was the head of the International Monetary Fund.  DSK was living in the US for his job at the IMF but he is a French national.  As one of their political elite was in the headlights of the international media scandal, people in France paid close attention to the coverage in the US.  The US covered the story with pictures of DSK in police custody in handcuffs and surrounded by authorities.


A CNN article articulates the differences in US and French culture as the French have censorship laws which prohibit the media from prejudicing a legal case.  One French resident thought, “that for Americans it’s the normal procedure, so there’s nothing shocking about these pictures, but in France it’s true that these pictures are very shocking for us, because in France we don’t have the right to show images of a man who is charged but not yet convicted.”  The case against DSK has since been dropped.  So DSK has avoided criminal conviction, but his political career was not spared as he had been positioning himself to run for the French Presidency in the next election.  That aspiration is no longer plausible. 


So for alleged criminals like DSK, I do not believe the media appropriately respects the presumption of innocence that should be afforded to every citizen.


Censorship Harm


There is also an issue where the media assists authorities in making the public aware of a criminal so they can be caught. So a local news station may show a picture of a man who had just shot a convenient store clerk in their nightly news segment. A citizen who knows or has seen this man may might then call the police with information related to the man’s whereabouts. However, when the news station shows that man’s picture, everyone who sees it assumes that he is guilty.


Prohibiting prejudicial reports by the media may also harm the ability of the media to do investigative journalism.  We often see the media uncover corrupt and potentially criminal behavior which leads to a criminal investigation by the government.  Under new censorship, this investigative practice would undoubtedly be limited in some way because it would limit the degree to which the report can implicate a person in criminal activity.  ideally I’d like there to be a happy medium because I do fear truly investigative journalism would be jeopardized.  Appropriate and more specific limits definitely need to be debated further before any new law is formulated.


Yea it’s different, but let’s at least talk about it…


I think the freedom of the press should be limited to protect the presumption of innocence. At present in the US, there is no such presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion. When a media outlet runs a story on ‘alleged’ crimes, the audience forms a prejudice by assuming the media report to be truthful and unbiased.  It’s imperative that the media continually emphasize that the crimes are “alleged” and detail the arguments for both the prosecution and the defense.  It’s definitely time for at least a debate on the press/innocence conflict because the internet has the ability to make a mugshot a ‘kiss of death’ for a person’s social and political life.


If the person is convicted, then I think the press is entitled to report on it. But until guilt is proven in the court of law, the court of public opinion must respect every citizen’s presumption of innocence.  Granted the ‘how’ is complex the two principles can coexist.

Are We Thriving and Coming Together?

I needed some inspiration so I decided to re-watch the President's speech in Tucson, Arizona from several months ago (click on my nicely embedded video to the right if you would like to as well).  I first watched it the day after the speech was given, and I still remember tearing up at the end.   

I have copied (from here) the ending below, just as a tribute to how all of us can be better, and not just for ourselves....

Together We Thrive: Tucson and America

(all of the emboldened parts are where I get goosebumps!)

"...They believed - they believed, and I believe that we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved life here - they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that's entirely up to us.

"And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

"That's what I believe, in part because that's what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed.

"Imagine - imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation's future. 

"She had been elected to her student council. She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

"I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us - we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations.

"As has already been mentioned, Christina was given to us on Sept. 11, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called 'Faces of Hope.' On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child's life. 'I hope you help those in need,' read one. 'I hope you know all the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart.'  'I hope you jump in rain puddles.'

"If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on this Earth - here on this Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and we commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit..."  - President of the United States Barrack Obama January 12, 2011

I can't remember a moment where I've been prouder that he is my President.  And I wanted to ask: do you think America is thriving and coming together?  I feel like we have exited the time of depolarization and the country is once more characterized by its political divisions than its commonalities.  Even though it was short-lived, I hope we can get back to that time when we did not let our divisions define us.

Just some other things that motivate me...

Park Scene from Good Will Hunting

"Ocean" by John Butler Trio

Alicia Keys on CNN's Impact Your World - "I want to be known as an incredible, global citizen and a person who has made their mark in an inspiring, positive way....this is my generation--we're about to do something really big."

A 'Jeremy original':  "What happened in your past does not determine your future because expecting  future outcomes to be the same as past outcomes is naively assuming nothing has changed between then and now."  It comforts me to know this when I am struggling.  It tells me that any failure or unrealized opportunity from the past does prevent me from being able to realize my potential in future endeavors. 

I Miss My 4Runner

So I have been in Australia for about 11 months now and I have really been missing my '05 4Runner that's back home in the US.  I was thinking about looking for a new car when I get home but I have reservations about making a change.  One advantage would be getting better fuel efficiency and I got to thinking about what kind of impact that would actually have.  So, let's imagine an argument for buying 'better', fuel efficient cars. 

The Question:

If I'm shopping for a car, you tell me to buy the one that gets 30 mpg versus the one I really like but only gets 22 mpg.  Now you say: Jeremy do you want to 'do the right thing' and help the environment or be bad and hurt the environment?  Then I tell you to shove it because that 8 mpg-difference isn't going to make much difference in the big scheme of things.  

The scheme of things:

Now I'm going to do some math, so I'm sorry if you don't like math but I like using it because it's hard to rebuke.  I usually drive about 5,000 to 6,000 miles per year, about 110 miles - or 5 gallons of gas - per week.  Let's guess the average truck driver drives 10 hours per day at 60mph on highways, equaling 600 miles per day over 5 work days, totaling to 3000 miles per week.  In 2 weeks, a truck driver drives as far as I do in 1 year.  It would take me 25 years to match that of a trucker's annual driving mileage.


A truck driver, who gets worse fuel efficiency - between 3-8 mpg - than my 22mpg, expends two to five times as much fuel.  So, a trucker expends 75 to 200 gallons of diesel - aka carbon emissions - in 1 day compared to my expending 27 gallons for the same distance.  (By the way, diesel fuel used by truckers and unleaded gas used by most cars do not have the same, but rather similar carbon footprint).  So while I consume 225 to 280 gallons per year, a truck driver consumes 18,500 to 50,000 gallons for their 150,000 miles per year.  My 22mpg car is so insignificant that, at my highest projected consumption and the truckers' best fuel efficiency, it would take me 65 years to match the carbon emissions output of 1 single truck driver in 1 year.  


To top it off, that 8mpg that you wanted me to save -- 280 gal. per year (22mpg car @ 6000 miles) minus 200 gal per year (30mpg car @ 6000 miles) = 80 gal. difference -- would be equivalent to 1 day's work for 1 trucker.  And there are millions of truckers on the road every single day...


I imagine, with 970 gallons as the average fuel consumption per hour of a commercial airline flight when total airline energy consumption represents 10% of all transportation consumption, that energy efficient airplanes should be relevant part of the discussion too.  I won't go through all the same math with this one but the amount of fuel I would save each year (80 gallons between 30mpg and 22mpg car)  is less than one-tenth of the average fuel consumption of one commercial flight.  Imagine American Airlines decides tomorrow to cut just one of its weekday back-and-forth flights from Dallas to New York for one year (260ish days x 1940 gallons = 504,400 gallons).  That change alone would save more fuel than I could possibly consume in 100 lifetimes.  


Airplane fuel efficiency has improved over the last decade but the targets are still laughably unambitious.  Every time I'm walking to class and a plane flies overhead I don't feel my walk has impacted the big picture, but I still enjoy my walk of course.

My Answer:

Regardless of the individual perspective, small scale automobile transportation as a whole accounts for more than 50% of total transportation energy consumption.  So while it may not matter what I do, it matters what we do.  It's going to take an industry-wide fuel efficiency standard to make an impact for the environment and for consumers.  If consumers are given choices where the minimum fuel efficiency for every vehicle is 25mpg, then I think we'd make some headway.  Policymakers need to get ambitious.

I agree that climate change and carbon emissions are a vital interest for every human being on the planet.  I consider myself pro-environment and I'll vote for limits on carbon emissions any day.  I'm only stating my view on what kind of impact I can effect as a consumer, specifically as a user of transportation.  

As long as the fuel efficiency of airplanes and trucks continues to be pathetic all while the best comparable change I can muster is a measly few mpg's, then I'm sticking with my 20mpg Toyota 4Runner that I love dearly.  What are you coming back with now?

Last Post about bin Laden Raid

This will probably be my last post about the raid of bin Laden's compound which resulted in his death.  Pakistani officials are sill condemning the US for the raid, as they should based on the Pakistani public's anti-Americanism...all politics are local.  However, Pakistan turned over the intact tail section of the Black Hawk left behind from the raid as a result of Senator John Kerry's diplomatic efforts.  The CIA was also allowed to interrogate the survivors of the raid.

This article still doesn't clarify the all-important reason the SEALs shot bin Laden.  There were guns nearby, but the alleged 'threat' which warranted a double-tap to the head and chest is not clearly justified.  So the legitimacy of the supposed "kill or capture" objective of the mission is still in question.  Regardless, I think I'm gonna lay my opinions to rest for now.  

I thought the article was a pretty good description so I'll just re-post it, unabridged - New details about the bin Laden raid from the Associated Press:

"Aboard two Black Hawk helicopters were 23 SEALs, an interpreter and a tracking dog named Cairo. 19 SEALs would enter the compound, and three of them would find bin Laden, one official said, providing the exact numbers for the first time.  Aboard the Chinooks were two dozen more SEALs, as backup.

"The Black Hawks were specially engineered to muffle the tail rotor and engine sound, two officials said. The added weight of the stealth technology meant cargo was calculated to the ounce, with weather factored in. The night of the mission, it was hotter than expected.

"The Black Hawks were to drop the SEALs and depart in less than two minutes, in hopes locals would assume they were Pakistani aircraft visiting the nearby military academy. One Black Hawk was to hover above the compound, with SEALs sliding down ropes into the open courtyard.

"The second was to hover above the roof to drop SEALs there, then land more SEALs outside — plus an interpreter and the dog, who would track anyone who tried to escape and to alert SEALs to any approaching Pakistani security forces. If troops appeared, the plan was to hunker down in the compound, avoiding armed confrontation with the Pakistanis while officials in Washington negotiated their passage out.

"The two SEAL teams inside would work toward each other, in a simultaneous attack from above and below, their weapons silenced, guaranteeing surprise, one of the officials said. They would have stormed the building in a matter of minutes, as they’d done time and again in two training models of the compound.

"The plan unraveled as the first helicopter tried to hover over the compound.  The Black Hawk skittered around uncontrollably in the heat-thinned air, forcing the pilot to land. As he did, the tail and rotor got caught on one of the compound’s 12-foot walls. The pilot quickly buried the aircraft’s nose in the dirt to keep it from tipping over, and the SEALs clambered out into an outer courtyard.  The other aircraft did not even attempt hovering, landing its SEALs outside the compound.

"Now, the raiders were outside, and they’d lost the element of surprise.  They had trained for this, and started blowing their way in with explosives, through walls and doors, working their way up the three-level house from the bottom.  They had to blow their way through barriers at each stair landing, firing back, as one of the men in the house fired at them.  They shot three men as well as one woman, whom U.S. officials have said lunged at the SEALs.  Small knots of children were on every level, including the balcony of bin Laden’s room.  As three of the SEALs reached the top of the steps on the third floor, they saw bin Laden standing at the end of the hall. The Americans recognized him instantly, the officials said.

"Bin Laden also saw them, dimly outlined in the dark house, and ducked into his room.  The three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon, and one by one they rushed after him through the door, one official described.  Two women were in front of bin Laden, yelling and trying to protect him, two officials said. The first SEAL grabbed the two women and shoved them away, fearing they might be wearing suicide bomb vests, they said.  The SEAL behind him opened fire at bin Laden, putting one bullet in his chest, and one in his head.  It was over in a matter of seconds.

"Back at the White House Situation Room, word was relayed that bin Laden had been found, signaled by the code word “Geronimo.” That was not bin Laden’s code name, but rather a representation of the letter “G.” Each step of the mission was labeled alphabetically, and “Geronimo” meant that the raiders had reached step “G,” the killing or capture of bin Laden, two officials said.

"As the SEALs began photographing the body for identification, the raiders found an AK-47 rifle and a Russian-made Makarov pistol on a shelf by the door they’d just run through. Bin Laden hadn’t touched them.  They were among a handful of weapons that were removed to be inventoried.

"It took approximately 15 minutes to reach bin Laden, one official said. The next 23 or so were spent blowing up the broken chopper, after rounding up nine women and 18 children to get them out of range of the blast.

"One of the waiting Chinooks flew in to pick up bin Laden’s body, the raiders from the broken aircraft and the weapons, documents and other materials seized at the site.  The helicopters flew back to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and the body was flown to a waiting Navy ship for bin Laden’s burial at sea, ensuring no shrine would spring up around his grave.

"When the SEAL team met President Obama, he did not ask who shot bin Laden. He simply thanked each member of the team, two officials said.  In a few weeks, the team that killed bin Laden will go back to training, and in a couple months, back to work overseas."