I came across a shirt at Zazzle which you must see for yourself – http://www.zazzle.com/ron_paul_carl_sagan_quote_shirt-235413248805217644

Please take a minute and send the following email to:

content_review@zazzle.com

Link in violation: http://www.zazzle.com/ron_paul_carl_sagan_quote_shirt-235413248805217644

I am appalled at this for two reasons:

1. Dr. Carl Sagan never said “Ron Paul.” So the quote is fallacious.

2. Based on his writing, lectures, and interviews, there is absolutely no way one could ever believe Dr. Carl Sagan would support that hateful man.

Furious,

your name

1. The average person finds the work violates contemporary community standards;

2. The work as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex;

3. Patently offensive sexual conduct;

4. Lacks redeeming literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit.

Effectively, this said nothing different then Justice Stewart in 1964.  Quite frankly, it’s not generally the work of the average person that makes waves, it is the work of the extraordinary, the visionary.  In addition, why can sex not be art?  Finally, why would we again put the judging of merit in the hands of the average?  All in all, nothing was truly decided in 1973.   In fact, I could almost hear arguments of the unenlightened and prudish using such a decision over the last hundred years or so…

“Matisse’s, Bohneur de Vivre if it were to be something of a return to an innocence of Eden one could argue the painting betrays such innocence with its blatant nudity.  Such thoughts may be confirmed by another Matisse, Dance, where again he turns to the nude form.  An honest prude may take that as a sign of impropriety by design.

“Picasso also delved into the obscene with his painting of Gertrude Stein, a portrait of an obvious symbol for homosexuality, whether spoken aloud or whispered.  One must wonder what other subversive material Picasso might be hiding away in his works.

“The obscene may extend to the political as well.  Imagine a photograph, Margaret Bourke-White’s At the Time of the Louisville Flood where she had the audacity to not only attempt to flash a sympathetic light upon the Negroes while so many white families suffered, but imply that the suffering was the Negro’s alone, as if they were human.  Such subversion of the popular thought, including the inherent questioning, if not slander, of American socio-political culture, must not go unchecked.  Her illicit undermining of the natural order of rule was again clear with her sympathetic lens which she leveled at Ghandi.

“Furthermore, such examples of artistic expression that go beyond just the visual   obscenity of flesh and form extend to the perversion of thought and remark.  Just what are Hamilton and Hanson really saying about this great country, these United States of Christian America?  While Warhol and Lichtenstein poke fun at a wholesome America, others like Trumbo, Rosenquist, Haelberle et al, Oldenburg, and John Paul Filo subvert the populace through their words, art, and out-of-context photography.  Such subversive material must be destroyed… burn it and bury the ashes.”

In the above imagined arguments, we can be reminded of the Dark Ages, al-Ghazari’s philosophy, the Nazi’s, Stalinism, and quite frankly, some parts of modern America.

We’ve heard bits and pieces of it throughout centuries of human culture.  There seems to be those who would silence others generation after generation.  I wonder how many voices have been silenced in our past that we may never know.  And are there untold consequences to that silence?  What is the danger in such thinking, this thinking that censors ideas of any kind?  Well, when confronted with the suppression of ideas I immediately think of Chaos Theory, or known more commonly as the “Butterfly Effect,” where it is thought that the flapping of a butterfly’s wings can set off a tornado thousands of miles away.  If such events can be spawned from the flapping of a 3 inch wing as light as air, imagine what can, or in the vein of this essay, what could have, come from ideas and expression.

Thirty-four thousand years ago our ancestors, modern humans, created art on cave walls… this is a precursor, if not a direct tool, in creating language, and subsequently, intellectual and technological progress.  Simple paintings from thousands of years ago are the foundation of not only art, music, and literature, but also of the automobile, microwave, medicines and more.  What if someone in this ancient tribe of humans indicated through some series of grunts, or a beating, that ink should never be placed on cave walls in the way that later led to language?  Maybe there was something else besides the precursory language to be written or drawn.  What if the no art rule was applied because of a severe storm or drought or other localized disaster?  Could that be the underpinnings of mythology and religion?  Could those mythologies be to blame (again) for a void in human progress, something we missed along the way that we are not even aware of?  And finally, as rational human beings who understand and can contemplate the possible consequences of stymieing ideas, be completely and utterly against such censorship in our “civilized” world today?

Maybe, through some un-censored art, we could suppose our kind could have come across a better way to get food a little earlier in our history.  A consequence of that may have been a greater community among our tribes and of our females.  This may have spurred on a gentler disposition, like in our cousins the bonobos, and made our coming language skills and interactions a little softer.  Imagine a human species which happened to be built as a female dominated species making love, a lot of love if the bonobos are our model, and not war.  It’s one thing to dream a dream of past possibilities, to speculate, maybe even somewhat wildly; but, using such speculation, as cognitive, rational creatures, should we not avoid such artistic suppression if not in the name of today, then for a hundred generations from now?  Plainly spoken, censorship is derivative of subjective observation, and since progress is generally science-driven, shouldn’t we maintain an objective stance and therefore end censorship for the good of mankind?

The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

Article 11 –

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”

I believe our second president, John Adams, who signed this treaty after it was read to the Senate would know since he was a founding father of the country.

I urge you to think independently.

Seriously dude, we're not...

Speak Up, Fight Back!

I want you to think of your favorite sport like football, baseball, or boxing.  I’ll choose boxing for my example. Let’s say you were going to create the ultimate boxer: Ali’s footwork, Tyson’s power, Mayweather’s defense, Patterson’s hand speed… you get the idea.  You have now made the greatest boxer of all time!  Now, take the same concept and apply it to the minds and cultures that pour into this country, add a dash of free inquiry, a pinch of respect, and a couple cups of free speech and you have some amazing American stew in that melting pot.  We saw great influxes of ideas before, especially at the outbreak of WWI and later during the rise of Nazi Germany, the latter of which gave rise to the US’s outstanding advances in particle science… why do you think the heavier elements have such American names like Berkelium and Californium… it’s because we made them right here in America.  Anyway, the point that I am meandering to is simply this:

“We are all Africans.” and yes, “We are all one.”

Now, maybe Aesop didn’t know the absoluteness his idea beyond the Greek states, and maybe he did; and it is possible that Patrick Henry recognized it beyond the politics of the day, and maybe not… but I like to think they did, or would, at the very least, see it in our contemporary context; the context of today’s America.  That revolutionary idea?…

“United we stand, divided we fall.”

American Stew

Speak Up, Fight Back!

Richard Dawkins on militant atheism

Cheers!