Week 6, post 4 (Darwin's DNA)

Part One: A new and effective way to begin a demonstration when in a situation of explaining your view of Evo vs. Design. It is one that is relate-able and seemingly harmless. In particular, explaining the miracle of your (our) own existence is incredibly relevant, but most of all my favorite example in all this deals with the binary code, or four letter alphabet of the human genome. This is what finally, after all these years got me interested in Biology.

Part Two: Why? That is the question, the universal question for all of man-kind. The delving into the justification of man inventing religion, especially and potentially at the Neanderthal level, although, I realize that my prior wording is part of a misconception which we'll delve into the next paragraph. I DO NOT disagree with the anyone DECLARING that one scientist is "wrong", without stating "in my opinion" especially when their isn't sufficient evidence suggesting so, and especially when that figure is so highly accomplished. I am speaking of the author declaring that "Edelman rightly discounts Freud's psychodynamic theory". That notion is furthered in a quote from Gould who states that sociobiology or evolutionary psychology justifies acts such as murder, rape, etc. No, it does not! It aides in helping us to understand "why" it occurs. To make such a claim that Freud is wrong based on these claims is no better than a fundamentalist Christian denying evolution because it interferes with their belief in God! Freudian psychology, if taken into account, would solve many our issues in society including those named injustices. However, political correctness lives on!

Part three: This portion translates the blueprint that is DNA, which also serves as a true "Book of the Dead". Much of our history is revealed, as well as our more distant ancestry. It is here that archeology, anthropology and the work of Biological DNA work together in spelling out more of our history. Misconceptions are brought to attention and spelled out correctly such as the fact that we did not evolve "from" chimps, but we do share a common ancestor. Another interesting fact being that some evidence may exist suggesting that Neanderthal might have believed in the "after life".

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Week 6, post 3 (Fundamentalism/Flame on!).

Week 6, post 3 (Fundamentalism/Flame on!):

Fundamentalism is a disease: I have often come to such a conclusion while in Yahoo message boards! In all seriousness, I have! I cannot help, but to think that fundamentalists such as conservatives are just so full of “fodder” to even form a clear concise thought, thus inducing their brand of conservatism. Let us drop political correctness for a minute, while not all church goers are conservative, all conservatives are/or claim to be as such. Conservatism, to me, is nothing more than a blanketed excuse for being bias, prejudice and irrational, and all without any substantial reasoning! My point is that just as this film elaborates its namesake, fundamentalism is a self-induced form of mental disease! A disease that limits one in their scope! What was my favorite part of the film? “Well, he has a lot of explaining to do.” –Robert DeNiro.

Flame on! : I decided to piece this together with Fundamentalism is a Disease since there is a definite link between the two. I was already previously aware of the great homosexuals in history over many facets of human achievement and their plight. I was hoping that the film would have touched upon the myth that homosexual isn’t “natural”. I was hoping for the prospective mention of the various animals within the animal kingdom that commonly display homosexual behavior from the common fence lizard to mammals such as the bottle-nosed dolphin to the African elephant. I did like the mention of Proust and his guilt pertaining to his sexual orientation, as it is a major obstacle among men and women who face having this identity. A sexual orientation is not just limited to “which sex” it also pertains from sexual acts (kinks) to objects/parts (fetishes). Any desire that is sexual is deeply embedded within ones’ psyche, so whether it is genetic or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is PURELY PHYSIOLOGICAL!! No one chooses their sexual desires or vices. Therefore, it is only reasonable that society begin to approach, both the harmful and harmless orientations with this in mind. My point is not belittle the fetishist, segregate all pedophiles and savages to a special island and away from the general public, and to respect out homosexual brothers and sisters and their basic human right to live their lives and contribute alongside the rest of us without guilt and without plight!

-Mircelous Grimm (Jeremy Watkins)

Week 6, post 2 (Fallacy files).

Fallacy is exactly what drew me to take a philosophy class in the first place, specifically this class Critical Thinking. The concept of argument as an art form based on correct reasoning and logic felt not interesting, but essential in mine and any ones journey to a higher education. One who achieves such a feat immediately has a higher expectation placed on them, and reasonably so.

As noted at the beginning of this page it is stated that the fallacies listed range from obvious to examples that are a bit more obscure in scope. One of my favorite, and perhaps the simplest of them all was an act, or rather trick of reversing ones presented reasoning, or logical fallacy, by one Penn Jillette of the magic/comedy duo Penn & Teller. An excerpt posted on the site (fallacyfiles.org) reveals a scene in which Penn is speaking with a spirit board collector who references “thousands of years” of related paranormal activity to which the collector concludes that if such knowledge is true then, “surely a spirit board can work”; Penn replies “So then if those aren’t true, a spirit board can’t work? Cool!” (Penn & Teller, Ouija Boards/Near Death Experiences, B.S.!). Another clear example of a fallacy or mistake was one taken from Tom Cruise, who had suggested that the Nazi’s had originally named methadone after Adolf Hitler. On the other end of the spectrum, we have an excerpt from The American Prospect (Nicholas Confessore, 1999) where the posted paragraph offers an anecdotal account of a presidential endorsement display inside Madison Square Garden which donned a few athletes and various other celebrity figures. The other went on to express his suggestive disdain for the endorsement suggesting that “If we pick our presidents in much the same way that we pick our underwear, then Michael Jordan's preference for Bill Bradley is precisely as relevant as his preference for Hanes.” I may be branding myself an offender here, but I am under the impression that the fallacy is with society and not Confessores’ reasoning, because I agree with him close to one-hundred percent that irrational factors such as celebrity has and continues to dictate the logical decisions of the masses where it ought not be. One could argue the election of Ronald Reagan was not, however, the election of Schwarzenegger well could have been. Lest we forget, what is a celebrity really? Well, let’s take a look:
-Famous/well-known
-Value of the individual as a person in the eye of their adoring public typically exaggerated.
One could argue that George W. Bush won his 2000 campaign due in large part to his “endorsement” by the Christian savior Jesus. Any political expert will tell you that without his declared faith and his spearheaded endorsement by the Southern Baptist Church who influenced all other fundamentalist branches he was nothing more than a sure-fire runner-up! To such like-minded people it is an endorsement from “the lord”.
-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Week 6, post 1- (Critical thinking film 6).

Not faith but testable avenues of investigation- This is perhaps the best of all the presented logic in this film. As stated it leads to (lest, anyone forgets) to “pragmatic results” such as what we nourish our bodies with, the knowledge to engineer medications and a more in-depth look at the ailments like viruses that that our man-made medicine is specifically tailored to fight. It is through Darwinism’s straight forward opportunity to observe that we learn how to better survive and what we are fighting. A privilege that faith itself could not afford us. Luckily, we have grown beyond a constrictive diet that is just mere faith, and learned how “eat our universe” to survive. And survive we do, long enough, nowadays to better understand our world and the universe for our own curiosity to quench our own thirst for knowledge, and to pass on that learned knowledge to the next generation so that they may pick-up where we left off and pass on their findings to the next, and so on.

“Man would have to invent god, even if such a being didn’t exist”- Voltaire (second hand) - Very fascinating, and another provided way to view faith, especially in more modern terms. Just as the discussion of medicine came up earlier, so does faith or at least the idea of faith in a similar concept. The idea or the concept of “god” is being used as a form medicating ourselves from a reality that may be to real truly grasp. At the same time, one may be able to see a comparison to the virus in the same context just on the other end of its prescribed meaning, or maybe that is just my own perception talking, we shall see.  Prior to its conclusion the film goes on to state one of the more easily overlooked facts, and that is that such a concept of “idiocy” was actually founded by the inner-workings of a larger brain. A brain that perhaps was gazing into the sky and in doing so was pondering our existence and purpose, and perhaps spawned one of our first significant hypotheses.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Week 5- post 5 (Friedrich Nietzsche).

Christianity destroyed the renaissance. I am not a history buff, and as we all have our one subject that we aren’t particularly interested in, mine is history. History bores me so! That said, I have been unaware as what the Renaissance was conceptually. I know its general sliver in time, and I was familiar with Martin Luther. However, knowing of him from a second (really third) hand knowledge, that is a purely Christian, mostly catholic point of view I hadn’t known Luther from this perceptive. Again, it doesn’t cease to amaze me that at every corner Christianity and the Catholic church especially have more appalling skeletons in their figurative closet. As Nietzsche puts it, what if the renaissance had succeeded? And, in my own delving I wonder what kind of world we’d have been living in for the last four and a half centuries. I’ll refrain from making an anti-logical guess that we’d be living in a virtual utopia, however, I wonder about certain wars, intolerances and injustices we now know in the name of god. Could this have in a manner of influence possibly culled the growth of Islam?  

Getting back on track, Nietzsche recalls a catastrophic crime committed by the Germans in this instance in history which seems to almost rival in comparison to the German occupation waiting to take its place in history some 39 years after Friedrich Nietzsche’s death. To justify my notion, he explains that “If mankind never manages to get rid of Christianity the Germans will be to blame.” One must understand that to Nietzsche’s discussed for the Christian church, “the greatest of all imaginable corruptions,” and “I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race”. From there he goes on to pick a part any notion that the church has done any right, or “humanitarian” favors to the world, and that’s its humanitarianism is just mere partisan of its own behalf that sucks the beauty out of life. When not kept separate from inter-human realties such social aspects and political ones I must second that notion.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Week 5- post 4 (film 3).

If there was a sentence to define film three, it could look something like this, science as reason, and reason as science. The film, to me, generated a definitive understanding and a translation to more mythical procedure, in some instances (i.e., “technology is alchemy without the superstition”) and a better overall and simplified understanding for those who don’t as well, or maybe at all.

I find this stuff really romantic in a sense. I love science and the blue-print for life that is mathematics. It is very interesting to the sometimes illusive casings explained to the layman, or those who just aren’t as finely adept as those mentioned or those working in the scientific fields. The film began and concluded with separate, but conceptually similar quotes by both, Feynman and Einstein respectively, as each of them stated a desire to scale physics and its inherent complexity down to a basic set of laws and explanation that everyone can comprehend.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Week 5- post 3 (John Polkinghorne).

Polkinghorne states, that the universe in rationally transparent with regard to its function. He continues that the anthropic principle is the “hint” of god in the universe. Polkinghorne furthers this statement with the mention of Sir, Fred Hoyle the late English astronomer and mathematician, who was an opponent of religion. Polkinghorne quotes Hoyle as saying that, “The universe was a put-out job. It wasn’t an accident.” What Hoyle was referring to was the Physical constant, life producing universe, made possible by stars that will burn for a long time for neighboring planets, as well as themselves that require great balance to sustain life. Most specifically, Hoyle was stating the occurrence of the chemistry of carbon made in the nuclear furnace of the stars, a delicate balance of a nuclear chain, says Polkinghorne. Believers in a divine designer giving reference to chaos and anthropy aren’t anything new, however, he does acknowledge a correlative belief in the big bang along with evolution as well, giving way to a discussion of a metaphysical nature, with both light discussions of quantum physics and philosophy.

Polkinghorne states, that “god” isn’t puppeteer, but a force that permits man’s free-will. Not a man in the sky with a beard. Why didn’t god reveal himself in other parts of the world? Robert Wright poses two questions cliché in nature, but more relevant and appropriate to ask a person of Polkinghorne’s stature in both faith and science. Wright asks about the “pain and suffering” in the world and “why god has only made himself known to one part of the world?” He (Polkinghorne) provided deeply philosophical answers one that stemmed directly from biblical philosophy in reference to cancer being price of man’s free-will. He was unable to really give anything more direct, or one that could suffice, he himself even admitted such at the conclusion of one of his answers.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Week 5- post 2. (Philosophy in less than 5 minutes: film one).

It goes without saying. That is my answer to the final question of the first film. Right now, at this moment I am literally in a trance like state. My face has a stoic feel to it, so I must assume that my expression matches it. Questions like these I have been contemplating for years. I remember the first time I did so. I was in the back seat waiting for my grandmother to take her seat in her red Cadillac while I resided patiently in the white leather back seat. My mind began to journey in my temporary moment of solitude on what felt like a warm spring or summer afternoon. I began to contemplate what life was. I wondered about consciousness, relationships and communication and whether or not they made sense. I began to contemplate life as a possible illusion. The thoughts were more detailed, mind you, because I wasn’t familiar with such terminology, however, the concepts I did despite the fact that I was four years-old and one year shy of kindergarten.

I have to say, that here I am again, and I just really don’t know. I don’t think any of us know whether this occurs and whether or not we’d do it all over again. Even those in the greatest of life’s hardships, such as inmates, the critically wounded, and the homeless, beg or fight for their lives when in peril of being shut-off. Would I do it again? I just have two hopes. One- I can still have my same children and family; two- Barring, that their aren’t great changes (my daughters) I would hope to have the option of making better decisions at certain points, kind of like reading the “Choose your own Adventure” book series.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Week 5- post 1.

Canadian proactively shuns Singh.

Canadian proactively shuns Singh: Canadian news actively declared Singh’s presence in Canada and his aspirations to recruit in the Canadian colleges. His first scheduled stop in Montreal was proclaimed by the Canadian media loud and clear. Judgment wasn’t passed, but something was clearly a bit awry to the media there. They did a great job of investigating and informing

The College administration did a wonderful job in being proactive toward the Singh situation. Singh was thoroughly investigated and thus barred from speaking to the student body. I’m sure the remainder of his Canadian “tour” was just as unfulfilling in his quest for new converts and followers. A great job to both the Canadian media and college system for being proactive and working together to protect their citizens and college students. It seemed to be done without preconceived bias or judgment. I commend them especially from the vantage point here in the states.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Singh sexual allegations.

Singh’s sexual allegations are clear traits of one with an immense amount of power, and a sexual desire to compliment it. If we were so inclined to revert to basic psychology, we may come away with a personality traits that yield uncanny similarities to some of history’s most notorious dictators. If allegations hold true to reality in connection with these allegations, one could affirm that the sense of power, the beatings and feeling of authority are fuel for a sadistic ego. The allegations do fit the traits in retrospect, however, again we are restricted to speaking in terms of speculation and investigation. However, some confirmed information is compatible and other confirmed allegations seem to coincide with the prior list of sexual misconduct, in that the mental patterns fit. I am speaking of the child-abuse occurring within the Singh camp.

Given the nature of Singh’s teachings and some the illogical delusions possessed by some of his followers pertaining to his presumed divinity, it is almost safe in a manner of civil prosecution to assume that the alleged sexual misconduct is in direct connection with Singh’s other mental and behavioral patterns documented by both former followers and current loyal followers of his teachings and inner-methods.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Sathya Sai Baba.

The film is a bit too grainy, even on my “huge” laptop screen/monitor. I only came up with the image of the necklace upon seeing the rest of the first video. Prior to that I had spent just under five minutes on the first few seconds of the video to observe the circle. I am a rare person, nowadays of 20/20 vision and still was left guessing as to what the controversy was.  Therefore, I must declare that I didn’t truthfully see anything conclusive suggesting whether Sathya Sai Baba did or did not ‘cheat’. I also have not witnessed any of the allegations against him (Baba), and therefore cannot declare an objective opinion and I will refrain from judgment. I think the point of a select amount of certain gurus as false teachers is valid and I respect in it terms of helping those who are seeking to be more vigilant in their spiritual quest.

I am not in doubt of the allegations just as I am not convinced of them. I do know that this practice is quite common among “spiritual leaders” of various spiritual ties throughout human civilization. Every allegation listed has been founded among many and that is unfortunate. I just cannot comment any further on this one, as I do not have the evidence in my own hands to make a fair and substantial statement. I full-well realize that I have made many hypothetical statements in the past, especially regarding society and it’s direction. However, I can see various effects taking place in real time and on a daily basis. I cannot see Baba’s effects, as he has not exposed himself to me, or I to him. If you’d like my “gut” reaction or assessment, I ‘d say you’re absolutely correct.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Beyond Belief 6

Crucial distinction was the core objective of the first speaker. She challenged a quote by Steve Weinberg coming right out of the gate in reference to “religion being on her last leg…” she openly challenges his credibility, or at least for that statement. Her monotone speech instills much logic that point to a medium that should be met. Later on, she speaks of religious-based ethics, or if solely derived from therein as being comparable to a four year-old or toddler logic, “be good and I’ll give you the cookie.” I agree. She presents moral behavior as an interest of human beings, thus making it a natural occurrence, although she states that it is not a “sense”. I actually wasn’t aware that northern slavery was more brutal than southern slavery.

Loyal Rue sort of takes off where Richard Dawkins left off in the previous video. He examines morals and their grass roots among human beings. His testimony was a great argument against the religious myth in regard to the origin of human morality. He starts off with a basic example human communication and a co-op system of regulating individual and commutative behavior as our naturalistic starting point giving a simple modern day example of his own home as an example. Rue states that “everybody knows the limits”.
He gives an interesting graph that pin points some of that, but that also includes a breakdown of how the presumed crucifixion relates to human behavior and angst. He provides that going through a tough time, set backs, losses, and continuing on is the “crucifixion and resurrection”.   His octagonal graph depicts religion as a human experience in various areas or strategies which deal with the ritualistic, commutative, and empirical in general. He states that early Christianity struggled to pick up and didn’t quite do so until it found it’s niche in human behavior, more or less to excite it.

The last speaker speaks of an all-knowing god that she was raised to know and fear. An all-knowing and seeing god that she even attempted to hide from. Loss of faith soon ensued after losing her mother in an accidental drowning, and later her father to a melanoma. She found it inconceivable that a higher being was overlooking injustices such the one she encountered as a girl. The rest of the video goes blurry after that. No audio and barely a scrambled picture.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Beyond Belief 7.

The beginning for myself was a step in a direction I had never really encountered before. The concepts of perception presented in Beyond Belief seven displayed surveys which displayed a key to learning of an individual and/or groups perception with regard to gender and racial schemas. Appropriately enough this segment commenced with a more generalized sample of human perception with the use of a picture of two tables, which is apparently widely used or known in psychology circles. To us, when we look at the two tables pictured they appear to be different, one square and the other more rectangular in shape; however, as shown by the speaker they are exactly the same. The speaker then continues into a discussion of “bugs” as being the perpetrators that narrow our mental scope with regard to our human perception of the world around us. She continues into a couple of surveys that have yielded consistent results among their human survey takers almost regardless of group characterization or affiliation. One example, being that of a survey among male and female college students at Princeton. The survey poses questions regarding primary desires in taking on a job. Among the noted categories were salary, city, boss and some others, great detail wasn’t given, as it wasn’t the point. The point was the results so consistently obtained which stem from the quantified use of a mathematical blue print which supports the structure of this survey. According to the speaker the results tallied indicate that 75% of the students, male and female, would sacrifice up to three thousand dollars in salary and even a better city to work under a male boss. I’m a little sketchy now on the way society is possibly being surveyed and controlled by uses of structures such as this. This clearly explains the feminization of boys in the public school system to rid the younger generations of gender schemas that are more or less natural in my opinion. It definitely explains society’s obsession with  celebrity and pop-music which leads to mass consumption of big corporation product such as Coke, Apple, Media outlets (Clear Channel, Murdoch) and Disney. What makes you or I think that this type of insight for quantifying human perception isn’t being used for other purposes? Ant-farms and rat-labs. Mass consumption could very well be our undoing which leads me to Richard Dawkins.

The headliner closing the session from Beyond Belief seven was the renowned Richard Dawkins. Dawkins opened as any highly anticipated speaker would and with his familiar and noted qualms toward religion, but minus his usual underlying and applied ferocity on the subject. I cringe at his usage of the term abuse when applying the notion to labeling a child with a religious tag, because I think such language is a bit over the top if induction and induction are the only actions involved. However, I do wholeheartedly and completely agree that children should not be labeled as such, and the same goes for any tag that the child isn’t cognitively ready to bare or identify with including atheism. I think that any such labels, especially those of a religious bind do cripple a child’s intellect or potential along with their overall scope and world view. As an Atheist father myself, I’d like nothing more than for my daughters (It’s plural now) to view the world as it theoretically appears, a product of an explosion and an ensuing and currently active evolutionary cycle. However, and I’ve said this before, if it happens that when they are ready to make such informative decisions about where they and the rest human race stand in the universe, I’ll gladly support their decision as long as they’ve gathered logic to support it and allow their fellow man to live as each one sees fit. And that is to say, I wouldn’t want to abolish religion completely, as Dawkins has famously proposed, if the two sides could live in harmony and agree to disagree. Simply put, I’ll keep my science and politics out of your religion, if keep your religion out of every ones politics! Some of the worst offenders are what Dawkins referred to as the “cherry-pickers”. A majority of the religious in modern times, and perhaps always is the “cherry-pickers”. When it comes to the disruptive effects of applied dogmatic enriched politics in the world, something that I know that spurns those such as Dawkins and Sam Harris the most, it is typically those that pick and choose what the “good book“ is saying, or they exaggerate a scripture to make it sound more hateful. Those that reside within the so-called “bible-belt,” along with Roman-Catholics I have found to be guilty of these acts of Cherry-picking. What’s worse, is that they label their children without providing them with substance, but instead a closed mind and fear based morals. I loved his sermon (pardon the term) in reference to morality and it’s roots within the human condition. This specific topic is a longstanding philosophical argument that those on the side of religion have been hanging onto and virtually all of them see it as a point tallied for their side. Dawkins’ core argument the shifting of the moral zeitgeist, is an effective one in that notable changes have occurred in the human condition within short periods of time during an era when the church’s influence appears to be weakening.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Professor Mark Juergensmeyer.

Globalization isn’t a concept that I have familiarized myself with as of yet. I have heard it plenty of times, but have never myself made any sort of reference to it due to my lack of knowledge. The spoken concept presented by Juergensmeyer helped to propel my limited knowledge and understanding of the term globalization as a concept. Looking back the last two or three decades my learning curve certainly rose which aloud me to further investigate what Professor Juergensmeyer was speaking of. 

Loss of identity is was the first chord struck in my grasp to for a better understanding of globalization. Given my limited knowledge I may be a bit off key, but what I am conjuring up within my grasp is the exchange of products, trademarks, ideas, inhabiting foreign corporations and the introduction of new cultures, particularly from the west to the east. Specifically, I am speaking of a McDonald’s in Cairo, an abundance of Toyotas in western rush hour traffic, headlines featuring Bradgelina’s (Can’t believe I just typed that) whereabouts or the African child that Madonna is going to use to compete with the famed two-headed celebrity monster for publicity at a Seoul news stand, Fender guitar factories in Japan, Citi Bank customer service in India, Cathay Bank in Hacienda Heights, and, of course the Euro. I am guessing that this is globalization. Well, if so then I guess I can understand his (Juergensmeyer) point and where it stems from.

Secular means breed secular ideas. That is the common thought amongst those who follow a religion or a “holy” book. I know this to be true with Christians and Muslims. However, in a country such as those in Latin America and the Middle East, religion and cultural identity are commonly thought of as being synonymous. Coming from a Latino background on my mother’s side I know first hand the point of view that is brought upon the children. The common notion is that, to change your religion is denounce your cultural or ethnic identity. Race somehow always manages to be bred into ones’ beliefs, that is evident from the catholic mother Guadalupe, black Jesus and Mohammed to name a only a few. It seems, with the exception of progressive-minded seekers, that one can only love a god so faithfully if he is drawn up in his own image. My assertion stemming from this new found information is, assuming I’m on the correct track, that those who take part or support these militant acts or demonstrations are in-fear of their culture and possibly the entire body of their people being filtered out in an act of, if you will, economic terrorism. Of course, if you take America into account as a religious reference you can also assume that their also a guarding and policing of morals as well. Taking both of these notions into consideration, it should be noted that in any given culture from America to the Middle East to Latin America, no matter how faithful or religious or secular one might be. One who adheres to, or makes the associative claim to subscribe with these set of values are quick to defend them in a vehement manner when they feel the virtue of those values or the very morals themselves are threatened. Both, culture and religion fuse as one in that instance. That makes for a very stern response, sometimes one of spite and defiance. This I believe is what Professor Mark Juergensmeyer was speaking of.

The professor spoke of having a genuine concern for the beliefs of those having committed the acts, or those who may inspire to. If a “happy medium” shall ever be reached this is the way to do it, but of course, coming to and from both ends. A mutual respect and attention must be paid, borrowing a line from Arthur Miller to get my point across, I am dead-even and sincere that this is the only way. Of course, knowing the solution and having the tools, means and cooperation to achieve it are polar opposites. Hopefully, one day man may have a mutual respect for his brother.

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)

Takar Singh.

The first question I must ask myself is what prompts one to delve so deeply into a “spiritual” search that they neglect to observe their surroundings? I guess you can say or assume that I place most of the blame on the followers. The answer to that is yes, but only the consenting adults. It is the children for who I have a great deal of sympathy for. Having your life determined for you, and to be given an objective based on a nothing more than a hypothetical being and an even more questionable doctrine is terrible. Being given such a daunting task, even for a mentally developed adult of achieving a certain level of sanctity and inner enlightenment is ludicrous. From age 1.5 to the age of 5 these children are subjected to an thinkable situation in an even more unthinkable environment. As a parent, that really does strike me in a way that I just sit trying to fathom what is could be going through the minds of the parents! However, the only answer that I can muster is a feeling that as a parent, when pertaining to your child or children, you never want to feel and wouldn’t ever wish on your worst enemy, helplessness. With that stated, where are these parents, and how are they feeling?

So let us nix the former question and let’s be real here! Forget about the commonsense of the young man surely in his early to mid twenties who admitted that he’d die for Singh, and even proclaimed that he and those around him (Singh) would remain unharmed even in the event of the detonation of an atom bomb. Let us toss aside the women, who receive but aren’t entitled to my pity for the violation of the their bodies and perhaps their virtue. And, lastly I commend those who had the sense to achieve a moment of clarity, rather than spiritual sanctity, and found their way out from Singh’s tutelage. Allow us to concentrate on the former of my two questions.  Where are the parents, and how are they feeling? I’m sure, and one can only hypothesize that some are elated at the notion of their children being reared so early as sheep, while other may be questioning the methods being used on their children; and, perhaps others are wanting to bail and leave this cult so that they may salvage what ever hope is left for their child.

Similar to any cycle we have arrived back at the starting point, what prompts one to delve so deeply into a “spiritual” search that they neglect to observe their surroundings?

-Jeremy Watkins (M.G.)