I really don't t want this to turn into a blog about religion, but some of the juiciest stories lately have been religion related.

     Yesterday a survey conducted by The Pew Forum on Religions and Public Life was released with some eye opening results.  The study, conducted by a religious organization, presented a set of questions about Christianity and other religions to a large survey population of Americans.  The survey and analysis look statistically sound and can be found here. 

     The results indicate that on average people with a Christian religious leaning have the least knowledge not only of religions in general, but also of their own Bible.  Atheists, Agnostics, Jews and Mormons scored the highest overall, and proved to be more knowledgeable about the Bible and Christianity than all Christian groups except White Evangelists.  Those same White Evangelist, though, scored near the bottom of the list when it came to questions involving any other religion except their own and even on questions involving the role of religion in public life (such as the teaching of religion in public schools).  Fewer than half of those surveyed knew who Martin Luther was or could identify the four main Gospels of the Bible.  Almost half believed that the Golden Rule was one of the Ten Commandments. 

     There are all kinds of conclusions which might be drawn from this, which are going to be contentious and controversial.  One might look at the relationship between religious belief and intelligence.  One might ask questions about "true believers" not really being informed in their beliefs.  One might point to the importance of wide religious education being necessary in school systems in order to foster more understanding an fewer misconceptions.

     Certainly this reflects on Christian zealots who criticize and pass judgement on other religious, when it seems that only a minority of them know what they're talking about.

     Read the survey. It's American, but, like most survey information, it has relevance in Canada, if only to warn us what we need to avoid in our own cultural evolution.  The stats are clearly presented and are broken down for quick analysis.  I think it raises an awful lot of questions and issues, and probably has a lot of fundamentalist groups squirming a little.

     (There are copies of the questions available on the web site (in an Appendix) if you want to test your own knowledge, but you should take it before reading the spoilers in the results.) 

     Just so I don't get accused of bashing any particular religion, I couldn't help drawing your attention to this brief article.
"Let's get married - for an hour" describes an Islamic practice in Iran. 
     "The penalty for having sex outside of marriage in Iran is 100 lashes.  So men wanting a dalliance or young unmarried couples craving a getaway turn to the legal loophole of 'temporary marriages': contracts of a specific duration - anywhere from 60 minutes to 99 years - and for a specified amount of money..."
     I'm not sure I oppose the basic idea.  I've always thought contractual marriage might be a good thing, and have written about it in previous blogs.  However, in this case, it is clearly a case of religious double standards.  The way it is being used, it amounts to little more than legal, Shia-approved prostitution. -Or, at best, a hypocritical approach to their religious morals.  I wonder if you can get temporary divorces to go with your temporary marriages. 

     The second article that struck me in this issue was one titled “Should the Pope face charges?” This article parades a series of statistics that defies belief. 

     Stats like almost 5 000 priest being accused of child molestation in the last five decades, that being almost 5% of the total number of priests.  One has to presume that because of the extreme level of dedication to faith, there must be many more, perhaps an equal number of unreported cases.  These are just the reported ones!  In one archbishop’s jurisdiction in Dublin, 46 cases of known pedophile priests were reported to him, with no reports ever reaching the police and the alleged pedophile priests being routinely reassigned to new parishes.  If things get particularly hot, the reassignment may be to Africa.

     The current Pope, it seems, was the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, -the Church body charged with overseeing its own laws and justice.  As such, he, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has been aware of the situation since 1981, and has responded by supporting or allowing cover-ups and relocation. 

     I have many Catholic friends, and my goal here is not to belittle their faith.  One must, however, stand in awe of the statistics and facts.  I just don’t understand how an institution which sets itself up on a moral pedestal, ready to denounce all kinds of controversial things such as abortion, homosexuality and women priests, can appear to be so blind to this particular moral problem.  There are lots of things that we don’t understand about the Catholic Church.  It has many esoteric practices shrouded in mystery.  We don’t understand things like exorcism, for example.  Given the circumstances, it’s valid to ask whether there may be some dark mystery about esoteric Catholicism which abides sex with boys.  It certainly is a tradition which goes back to medieval monasteries.  Why boys?  Why not girls?  Why not parishioner’s wives?  Why not other priests?  I don’t know what to make of it.  I just find the questions really interesting.  One can’t look at the abuse statistics, the extreme patriarchy of the religion, institutional policies like having altar boys (not girls), celibacy, -my God (no pun intended) the system is almost designed to maximize the opportunity for abuse. 

     (OK, so I’ve asked some very penetrating questions here.  If I happen to disappear in the near future...)

     I want to highlight a couple of great articles from Maclean’s magazine (Sept. 20 issue). 
The first is called “Third World America”, which outlines in frightening detail the collapse and decline of the American economy.  It outlines the disintegration of municipal services all over the country, including police, education, and infrastructure.  One report describes how many states are ripping up and crushing paved roads in order to replace them with maintenance cheap dirt roads.  Collapsing bridges, over-crowded schools, exploding pipes in New York, all demonstrate a dire and serious situation. 

     Rather than blaming this on the Obama Democratic government, people have to realize that 90% of this problem was inherited by the current U.S. administration and the crisis has been building for at least a decade.  If there is any responsibility, it should be borne by the previous administration, not the current one.  And yet, it is the philosophy of that previous administration, the Republican conservatives, who are the most vocal critics of the problems, hoping that the average semi-conscious voter will respond with a knee-jerk reaction of blaming the current administration. 

     Compare their situation to Canada, who has survived the economic crisis of the past few years relatively unscathed.  Why is this?  It is generally felt that we owe our good fortune to the built in regulation our system of government placed on banking and financial institutions.  Yes, regulation; that ugly word that American conservatives despise.  Our government is willing to step in and establish criteria and standards for the economic community which tries to guarantee the well being of our society.  Your average American conservative will say that they don’t trust the government to take care of the well being of society.  Well, I would ask why they feel they can trust the motives of big business any better.  The economic institutions of America have demonstrated without question the putrid core of their ethics.  Their greed and complete disregard for the well being of society was the principle cause of the recent depression, which in turn has accelerated the general demise of the American way of life. 

     We, in Canada, are in much better shape, but we have to be careful not to fall into the same trap.  How do we avoid ending up in the same boat as the U.S.?  Well, I would say the best way would be to not travel down the same road.  –the road of conservative deregulation of the economic system.  –the road of conservative policies that depend on economic institutions and big business regulating themselves in favour of the best interests of society rather than greedy self-interest.  –the road where a system does not support medical care for all people because of some irrational fear of abuse (as if the insurance companies never abuse the mandate they have to care for their customers!).  –and the road of knee-jerk, reactionary politics that promise short term, hard line, miracle cures instead of real long term solutions. 

     It’s not time to get tough.  It’s time to get smart. 

I just had to share this.  Stolen from Scalzi's Whatever Blog.  (If you check out the source, scroll down and don't miss the mewing chior boys!!)

Got a call yesterday from the Star (newspaper).  It came at one of those inconvenient times, so I was annoyed with it, especially since I'm supposed to be on the "no call" list.  When I mentioned that to the caller, she said that newspapers were exempt from the rule.  I politely informed her that my policy is that people who bother me at home are exempt from my patronage, and that I would definitely be avoiding the Star now in the future.  That's my standard reply, hoping that companies learn that bothering people at home actually has the opposite effect that they're hoping for.  She just kind of chuckled and said that she'd remove my name from their call list.  Sure.  ...The way that Rogers has removed my name from their list, but still calls me about twice a month. What's the point of having a no call list if there are so many exemptions?

My other tactic has been to tell the caller that I'd be happy to listen to them if they would be kind enough to give me their own home telephone number.  Obviously, they refuse, at which point I ask them why they think I'd want to be called at home when clearly they don't. 

Ya, I know, it probably is futile, but only because more people don't do it.  If there was a popular backlash to telemarketers, I'm sure they would reassess their effectiveness. 

     “127 Hours” is not at all what you would expect from Danny Boyle as a follow up to “Slum Dog Millionaire”. 

     The movie retells the story of Aron Ralsten, the rock climber who was forced to amputate his own arm when it became pinned under a rock while climbing in a slot canyon outside of Moab, Utah.  The movie begins with some breathtaking action shots of biking and hiking through the spectacular Moab landscape.  I’ve spent a lot of time in this area and the cinematography does the area justice.  The main part of the movie documents the 127 hours that Ralsten spends trapped in a slot canyon with no hope of being found or rescued.  You would think that would make for a dull story, but with the addition of several flashbacks and careful editing, your attention is maintained.  I think the slow pace of the film in the middle contributes to your identification with the character and his plight, making the conclusion all the more moving.  Apparently, several people fainted at the premiere screening. 

     In the Q&A following the film, Boyle said that, with the exception of a few scenes such as the swimming hole scene near the beginning of the film, his depiction is pretty true to the actual events in all ways that are important.  Even that scene was included because it highlighted the contrast between the abundance and scarcity of water.  Both he and actor, James Franco spent a lot of time interviewing Ralsten in order to capture the authenticity of the story. 
   
     While it is definitely not a happy movie, the drama and the desperation of the film make it a serious emotional experience.  You end up wondering whether you could have done the same thing.

This movie gets a B+.

     “Submarine” was one of the best, most entertaining films I saw at TIFF.  It is a dark, coming of age comedy about an eccentric, 15 year old boy growing up in a small town in Wales.  Throughout the film I kept feeling that this is what “Youth In Revolt” should have been (instead of the pathetic massacre starring Michael Cera – who oddly got a credit at the end of this film).  It’s not as crazy as Youth In Revolt, but has that quirky humour and irreverence combined with the naivety of the too-intellectual teenager trying to make sense of a relationship. 

     The director, Richard Ayoade, demonstrated his own quirky sense of humour in the Q&A, where he answered such questions as, “Why did you shoot the movie in Wales?” with responses like “Because we wanted it to look Welsh!”  I’m not familiar with him, but apparently he is a comedy actor in his own right, and could get a job as a stand up comedian if he tires of making movies. 

     I really hope that this movie hits the mainstream screens.  It is well worth seeing.  The only criticism of the film is that the Welsh accents make some of the dialogue challenging to comprehend. 

This film gets an A-. 

     One of the films I most looked forward to at TIFF was the remake of the Norwegian “Let The Right One In”.  In the age of “Twilight”, this horror film about a bullied young boy who meets a young girl, who is more than a girl, was hailed as one of the best horror films of the decade.  Rolling Stone magazine declared that it was the best movie of 2008.  It’s kind of the anti-Twilight. 

     So when the American remake is made, naturally people are worried that the original masterpiece might be trivialized or butchered.  Have no fear.  “Let Me In” retains all the best qualities of the original and maybe even tweaks a few improvements. 

     “Let Me In”, directed by Matt Reeves, follows the original movie almost scene for scene, maintaining the dark, winter ambiance and capitalizing on the innocence of the characters.  Acting by Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee are heart-wrenchingly sincere, and Dylan Minnette truly makes you want to see the bully get his “due” at the end.  Slightly improved editing and a beefed up sound track help to intensify the at times almost too slow pace of the original movie.  Of course it is sanitized in the American way with more blood and less nudity, but aside from that it is only fair to say that it has retained all of the best points of the original.

This film gets an A-.

     As I took my seat in the theatre I could sense the tension around me.  Nearby, two guys were talking, wondering whether the Q & A would result in fisticuffs or just a shouting match. 

     “Cool It” is a film directed by Ondi Timoner, examining the work of Bjorn Lomborg, controversial author of the book The Sceptical Environmentalist.  In his book Lomborg, a Danish professor and founder of a Nobel Laureate think tank, states that while Global Warming is a real problem, we’re over dramatizing the effects and going about dealing with it in a completely wrong way.  He states that no efforts to reduce green house gasses have been successful so far, so it is necessary to  look at alternatives.  The $250 which has been budgeted for methods to reduce CO2 emission , he says, would have a minimal effect  on global warming and we are obligated to examine alternative strategies which might yield more success, such as investment in alternative energy or even geo-engineering.  He goes on to claim that people wanting to get their hands on part of the $250 billion are interested in producing a climate of fear about climate change.  For example, we’re presented with visions of endangered, cute polar bears while, in fact, the polar bear population has increased by a factor of four since 1950.

     One of my favourite points in the film was a discussion of why cities are getting hotter.  Increasing use of black roofs and roads absorb more heat and turn sunlight into thermal energy.  Any gr. 7 student can tell you that (or at least mine had better be able to).  So Lomborg suggests that we paint the roads and roofs white.  This would be a simple, cheap solution which his think tank says would have a huge impact on ambient temperatures in cities.
 
     I found “Cool It” to be refreshing and even-handed.  I consider myself a strong environmentalist, but saw no problems with the information presented in this film.  I’ve often said that, while efforts like recycling and energy conservation are good for PR and public consciousness, we’re deluding ourselves if we think they contain any real solutions.  I’ve recently discovered that recycled cardboard is stored in huge warehouses because there is no market for it.  The real solutions will only come on a much grander scale, such as how we build communities and technology advancements designed to tackle the problems. (A good example of this is the use of drain cleaners, where millions of litres of caustic chemicals are poured down the sink every year to clear clogged drains, while a much more effective solution would be to redesign drain pipes so that they don’t clog.)  This large scale, technological approach to our problems is known as “Bright Green Environmentalism”.  The reluctance to throw science at the problems out of a fear of worsening the conditions is valid, but should not exclude the use of rational, balanced, good science in determining how $250 billion will be implemented by governments and businesses.

     This technology exists.  Alternative energy research is on the verge of major breakthroughs.  Breaking our dependence on carbon fuels will be a lot easier when we have viable alternatives.

This film gets an "A".