Bill Maher's "Religulous" = Disrespect and Immaturity

I have not seen this movie, nor did I ever plan to. When I first heard about the movie, it seemed like something I would find offensive, not because I am religious, per se, but because I respect each person's right to believe in what he/she chooses. This is the reason why I do not understand conflict between religious groups. If you believe in God, you should believe that he/she is everyone's God. There are a lot of small differences and manmade rules involved in religion, but I think that you have to be able to look past all of that and simply determine what and if you believe.
That being said, I turn now to my utter disdain for Bill Maher and his new movie, "Religulous." I had the displeasure of viewing a clip/preview of this movie online (not my choice, I was sitting with someone who wanted to see the preview). I have to say that within the first twenty seconds or so, I was utterly disgusted and offended by what I saw. I think it is interesting to study different cultures, religions, societies, and examine the differences, even if you do not agree with the teachings or practices of such. And if a filmmaker, performer, or writer wants to raise valid points about aspects of a particular faith that he/she finds outrageous or extreme, that would be his/her right. However, this film is not so much a study of religions, as it is a complete mockery of them. Just as it is Maher's right to be an Atheist and not be shown disrespect for his lack of belief, it is each person's right to believe in what he/she chooses and not be shown disrespect because of it. Bill Maher apparently does not feel this way. His handling of this film is revolting. He blatantly shows a complete lack of respect for anyone who practices any form of religion. Well, according to a Gallup International Millennium Survey, eighty-seven percent (87%) of the world's population believes in some form of religion or god.
So Maher, you have now offended at least 87% of the world. And actually, since those of us who do not practice religion but do practice respect and tolerance may also be offended by your movie, you have actually alienated a much higher percentage of the population. I daresay your film is offensive and disrespectful to everyone (except for people like yourself who may think that it is okay to treat others with complete disregard).

Gay Marriage Issue

The ban ended up passing, i.e. gay marriage will be prohibited in California. It is definitely a conflict-causing issue, even within one’s own mind at times. Though I do not practice religion now, I was raised as a Catholic, and was taught that such a union is morally wrong, but I also was taught tolerance and acceptance of all people, and so, I guess in the end, the latter sentiment has won out. One of the things I find kind of irritating about the gay marriage ban issue is that there are a lot of celebrities who are now voicing their anger (now, i.e. post election) about the ban, but before the vote, most of them did not really do very much in the way of encouraging people to vote against the ban.
It is kind of funny in general, how marriage, which is supposed to be a spiritual (or religious, if one is religious) bond between two people, became this legal institution, at least in many modern societies. A few months ago, I saw a story on National Geographic about a culture that handles its relationships a little bit differently. I especially admired the bond among the females of the society. Here is the link to the story: China's "Kingdom of Women."

The importance of body language and inner poise

How importance are charisma and confidence? How about body language and inner strength?

I noticed during the presidential debate that there was a great difference in the way the two candidates presented themselves. Particularly, I perceived a great variation in the body language of each. One stood tall, with arms wide, shoulders high. He seemed at ease. He looked directly at his opponent when the opponent spoke, and even addressed him directly at times. He smiled, but not too widely, he looked serious at times, but never did he appear cross or upset. He seemed relaxed and confident when answering questions. In other words, he kept his composure - inner poise.

The other candidate's body language was quite different. He did not look at his opponent when the opponent spoke; he mostly looked either down or straight ahead. To me, this projected either a lack of confidence or a lack of respect toward the opponent. Thinking about this person meeting with foreign leaders, one wonders if he would have a problem making eye contact with them if he disagreed with their policies. This candidate did not turn his body toward his opponent at any time. He frequently made reference to his opponent in the third person, as if he was not in the same room. It seemed a bit odd to me. This candidate's body language was more "closed," that is, his posture seemed more rigid and his facial expressions indicated a bit of tension.

Perhaps some would say that body language and poise are not important when choosing a candidate for president, nor important in any respect for that matter. However, I completely disagree. For example, what is the point of a job interview, if not to judge you by your body language and composure? The potential employer already has your resume and list of qualifications.

As a former student of Psychology and Sociology, I definitely feel that body language plays an important role in the way that we judge others. In addition, a person's body language can put us at ease or make us feel uncomfortable; it is that powerful.

Body language and poise go beyond an election. It affects the way others see us each day, and the way we view others as well, especially upon a first meeting. How important do you believe body language is in making an impression? Do you feel that it has an effect on the way others see you, or on how you perceive others?

"Uncontacted" Amazon Tribe: Will they remain uncontacted, or will the world (and media) worm its way into these people's lives?

I have been reading a little bit about these uncontacted tribes in the Amazon, and yesterday another article about them on National Geographic's website caught my eye. I have been wondering: will these tribes be left alone, or will people from the outside penetrate the tribes, and irrevocably change the way of life for these people? As a sociologist (observer) and a lover of anthropology, I am more inclined to observe and study than to intervene and change.
In the June 3rd article, it states that the group Survival International "takes the position that uncontacted tribes should be allowed to live in their own way on their own land, as recognized by international law. " One of National Geographic's explorers/authors, Wade Davis, later states that contact with the tribes should only be made if necessary, i.e. they are in danger, and not solely out of curiosity.
What do you think will happen? Have the wheels already been set in motion for this tribe's way of living to change because this story has been much publicized? Or was the tribe's culture and lifestyle already doomed to change due to the possibility of deforestation and infringement by oil companies in the Amazon? Will the publicity actually serve to protect them from habitat destruction?

The Art of Discussion: Conversation versus Domination

I sometimes try to avoid discussing social issues for fear of running the risk of offending someone. However, when discussing any issue that may be considered controversial or sensitive, one runs the risk of offending someone.
Discussion is a key element in learning and sharing. However, all too often, discussion, be it online, in person amongst two people, or in a group setting such as a classroom, turns into heated and sometimes angry debate when one party tries to dominate the other by speaking loudly (i.e. talking over the other person), using domineering body language, being nasty or insulting, or putting the other party down and being disrepectful.
I do not feel that such behavior is necessary. It is possible to express one's opinion without trying to dominate those who oppose it. I am wondering if gender plays a role in the outcome of such discussions. Do you feel, or have you experienced situations where, either men or women specifically try to dominate the discussion? Do you feel that gender does play a role in the turn these discussions take? How do you get your point across; are you guilty of these negative behaviors? Or do you avoid talking with co-workers and friends about sensitive issues, for fear the conversation may take an ugly turn?

Why must we possess what we admire?

I love, therefore I must own. In our society, love equals ownership. Is this an innate human fault, or a societal one? One possesses one's spouse, home, land, form of transportation, children. If I love the ocean, do I need to purchase beachfront property? This trait is hardly exclusive to the United States. Perhaps there is also an issue of power; I read an article today on BBC News' website which provoked these thoughts. In the BBC's article, Tibet is described as "the site of a mystical Utopia." Is imperialism by large and powerful nations just an extension of this human need to possess?

The Olympic Committee Lays Down the Law...

According to the Associated Press, the participants in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing will be under scrutiny based not only on their athletic performance, but on a plethora of other indicators, i.e. showing any kind of support for the Dalai Lama or Tibetan freedom/rights.

The International Olympic Committe (IOC) Rule 51 states "no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas."
And according to the AP, a letter by the IOC expanded on the rule to include appearance, actions or gestures.

However, back on April 24th, the Athletes Commission banded together and issued a statement, which you can find on the Olympic Movement's website. It specifically stated in this release: "Athletes have a right to express themselves, and plenty of opportunity to do so ahead of and during the Games. "
The mandate issued by the IOC today is in direct contradiction to the April 24th statement.

The Olympic games center around athletic performance and a long-standing tradition. However, should political oppression and civil freedoms take a holiday during the Olympics? And to be realistic, the Olympics are not immune to political influence and have in fact been used in order to take a stand against oppression in the past. [reference 1980s, Cold War, Olympic boycotts]
The athletes that make it to the Olympics are supposedly fulfilling a lifelong dream, but is the only thing that matters that they get to showcase their talent in the sports arena? Do they not have a right to express their political, religious, and philosophical beliefs? Dissension from the happy-go-lucky, neutral facade of the Olympic Games is obviously being frowned upon by the Committee. It leaves a question in my mind though: how can countries who pride themselves on "making the world a safer place for democracy" take part in an event in which the expression of dissent is frowned upon? Isn't the right to express oneself and one's beliefs - be they political, religious, or otherwise - one of the cornerstones of democracy?

Oppression

Why do some people oppress others? There is a lot of anger in the world; lately, I have come to believe that much of this anger is a result of oppression. Oppression begets frustration, which begets rage. What causes some people to oppress others? Is this a natural inclination? Do certain animals oppress others in the wild? Is there oppression within animal species, such as there is with humans? Is the act of oppressing another always a conscious choice, or is it somethings that is done subconsciously at times?

Is the southern U.S. in need of a cultural revolution?

"You're not in the schoolyard playing cowboys and Indians anymore!" That is what I should have said to him. But instead, I said nothing when he expressed his ignorance. I remained quiet when he mocked things that were different from himself. I laughed nervously when he jokingly belittled my principles. I opted for silence when I should have spoken up. I made jokes about his customs in defense, when I should have said "Enough!"
I currently live in western Florida. I have been here for about a year and a half, and it seems that there is a lot of ignorance here. This is not to say that the area is completely devoid of intelligent or open-minded people, but it does appear that discrimination, ethnic and sexist jokes, and fear of what does not conform to the local norms is much more acceptable here than it is in the part of the country where I am from, i.e. New York City. In New York, things are always changing; there are new people from different cultures and ways of life entering the city everyday. I have heard New York City called "a melting pot" many times, but I did not truly understand what it meant until I left the city. In New York, all of the differences and cultures and traditions sort of blend together until there is no norm. The norm is difference and variety. I had always taken this for granted until I left New York, and began to see that life in other parts of the United States is indeed very different. I had thought prejudice and sexism were things of the past, but now, sadly, I see that they are very real.
It is a wonder to me that legal segregation was abolished less than fifty years ago, and less than ninety years ago, women were not allowed to vote. Despite the fact that legally, we are all "equal," it seems that racism, prejudice, and sexism have still not been obliterated. And historically, the southern U.S. has lagged behind with regard to acceptance and tolerance of diversity and equality.
So what do you think? In what part of the world/U.S. do you live, and how do you feel with regard to the level of cultural diversity and equal treatment for men and women? Do you feel your city/region is behind the times, or is it progressive?