Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






American Catch


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

After Religion Fizzles, We’re Stuck With Nietzsche

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 9, 2010
AP / Olivier Laban-Mattei

By Chris Hedges

It is hard to muster much sympathy over the implosion of the Catholic Church, traditional Protestant denominations or Jewish synagogues. These institutions were passive as the Christian right, which peddles magical thinking and a Jesus-as-warrior philosophy, hijacked the language and iconography of traditional Christianity. They have busied themselves with the boutique activism of the culture wars. They have failed to unequivocally denounce unfettered capitalism, globalization and pre-emptive war. The obsession with personal piety and “How-is-it-with-me?” spirituality that permeates most congregations is narcissism. And while the Protestant church and reformed Judaism have not replicated the perfidiousness of the Catholic bishops, who protect child-molesting priests, they have little to say in an age when we desperately need moral guidance.

I grew up in the church and graduated from a seminary. It is an institution whose cruelty, inflicted on my father, who was a Presbyterian minister, I know intimately. I do not attend church. The cloying, feel-your-pain language of the average clergy member makes me run for the door. The debates in most churches—whether revolving around homosexuality or biblical interpretation—are a waste of energy. I have no desire to belong to any organization, religious or otherwise, which discriminates, nor will I spend my time trying to convince someone that the raw anti-Semitism in the Gospel of John might not be the word of God. It makes no difference to me if Jesus existed or not. There is no historical evidence that he did. Fairy tales about heaven and hell, angels, miracles, saints, divine intervention and God’s beneficent plan for us are repeatedly mocked in the brutality and indiscriminate killing in war zones, where I witnessed children murdered for sport and psychopathic gangsters elevated to demigods. The Bible works only as metaphor.

The institutional church, when it does speak, mutters pious non-statements that mean nothing. “Given the complexity of factors involved, many of which understandably remain confidential, it is altogether appropriate for members of our armed forces to presume the integrity of our leadership and its judgments, and therefore to carry out their military duties in good conscience,” Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien, head of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, wrote about the Iraq war. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, on the eve of the invasion, told believers that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a menace, and that reasonable people could disagree about the necessity of using force to overthrow him. It assured those who supported the war that God would not object. B’nai B’rith supported a congressional resolution to authorize the 2003 attack on Iraq. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, which represents Reform Judaism, agreed it would back unilateral action, as long as Congress approved and the president sought support from other nations. The National Council of Churches, which represents 36 different faith groups, in a typical bromide, urged President George W. Bush to “do all possible” to avoid war with Iraq and to stop “demonizing adversaries or enemies” with good-versus-evil rhetoric, but, like the other liberal religious institutions, did not condemn the war. 

A Gallup poll in 2006 found that “the more frequently an American attends church, the less likely he or she is to say the war was a mistake.” Given that Jesus was a pacifist, and given that all of us who graduated from seminary rigorously studied Just War doctrine, which was flagrantly violated by the invasion of Iraq, this is a rather startling statistic.

But I cannot rejoice in the collapse of these institutions. We are not going to be saved by faith in reason, science and technology, which the dead zone of oil forming in the Gulf of Mexico and our production of costly and redundant weapons systems illustrate. Frederick Nietzsche’s Übermensch, or “Superman”—our secular religion—is as fantasy-driven as religious magical thinking.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
There remain, in spite of the leaders of these institutions, religiously motivated people toiling in the inner city and the slums of the developing world. They remain true to the core religious and moral values ignored by these institutions. The essential teachings of the monotheistic traditions are now lost in the muck of church dogma, hollow creeds and the banal bureaucracy of institutional religion. These teachings helped create the concept of the individual. The belief that we can exist as distinct beings from the tribe, or the crowd, and that we are called on as individuals to make moral decisions that can defy the clamor of the nation is one of the gifts of religious thought. This call for individual responsibility is coupled with the constant injunctions in Islam, Judaism and Christianity for compassion, especially for the weak, the impoverished, the sick and the outcast.

We are rapidly losing the capacity for the moral life. We reject the anxiety of individual responsibility that laid the foundations for the open society. We are enjoined, after all, to love our neighbor, not our tribe. This empowerment of individual conscience was the starting point of the great ethical systems of all civilizations. Those who championed this radical individualism, from Confucius to Socrates to Jesus, fostered not obedience and conformity, but dissent and self-criticism. They initiated the separation of individual responsibility from the demands of the state. They taught that culture and society were not the sole prerogative of the powerful, that freedom and indeed the religious and moral life required us to often oppose and challenge those in authority, even at great personal cost. Immanuel Kant built his ethics upon this radical individualism. And Kant’s injunction to “always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as mere means” runs in a direct line from the Socratic ideal and the Christian Gospels.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Warsong, May 29, 2010 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, May 29 at 11:50 pm #

I’m not sure that Madison had any slaves, but, he was a self-made man who argued against slavery, and, fought for revisions to State and Federal Laws that would outlaw it. Jefferson? He freed over 600 Slaves that he inherited from his Father, which would amount to a ton of money in that day and age, and, he did it to conform to his belief that slavery was evil, in and of itself.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 29, 2010 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

“Lenin and his heirs also liked to believe that government control (theirs) was a necessary component of socialism, and authoritarian progressives are fond of it as well, as you can see by reading the pages on this website (and many others).”

“Yes, otherwise it is anarchy of the mob, the consequences of unbridled democracy.  Just the very thing Madison and Jefferson feared most and why they were very careful in crafting the guiding documents of our government.  Lenin’s solution obviously did not work, in many places, and I don’t know of any anarchic structure in history that worked….”

Anarchy does not imply mob rule or democracy.  Anarchy means “without leaders”, not without order or law (anarkhia vs. anomia).  Both mob rule and democracy contain the ideas of rule—some people coercing others—and therefore leadership, hierarchy, power.

Human beings largely existed without permanent institutions of coercion for most of their time on earth (150,000 - 200,000 years, whereas the state seems to have evolved only about 7000 years ago).  Many human relations today are anarchic, that is, they exist between people who are taken to be free and equal with respect to one another.  The problem is figuring out how to scale these relationships up to a size where they can begin replacing the coercive relations of the state (which proggies seem to love so much, although most rightists actually like them quite a bit, too).

Jefferson and Madison, although they were very clever fellows, were well-off bourgeois who were very concerned with protecting the wealth and power of the rich against the poor majority, and were unable to deal with slavery, so I don’t know how much advice they have to give us now.  We live in a different world where the superiority and wisdom of the rich can no longer—will no longer—be taken for granted.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, May 29, 2010 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, May 29 at 5:27 pm,

Thanks for the olive branch.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, May 29, 2010 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, May 29 at 4:56 pm,


Cyclical collapse as I used the term meant the so called “economic cycle” and the cyclical collapse of the economy of privatized capitalism, a process well documented; there is nothing theoretical about the cyclical collapse of privatized capitalistic economies from their origin in Britain to the present, as I have previously stated, this process is “WELL” documented by history.

It is fair to assume that since history documents that privatized capitalist economies cyclically collapse; from the period of time from 1790 to 1958 there were 45 major and minor collapses of privatized capitalism, some requiring intervention of social capital to resolve and others not.  I would consider that this is sufficient proof that an economy based upon privatized capitalism cyclically collapses as a matter of fact, rather than fiction.

Awareness of the populace that their social capital is being used for private benefit without benefit to the populace will eventually lead to a backlash by the populace subsidizing privatized interests without benefit when they can not even afford to provide for their own needs with regard to a decent standard of living.

China is engaged in a hybrid system of social capital and private capital.

Do you suppose that over the years that if the social capital that was used to subsidize and recapitalize private capital had been used to institutionalize socialized capitalism and the resources of failed privatized capitalism had been liquidated and sold to make markets for socialized capitalism that we would even be having this conversation about privatized capitalism? ——If social capital is not used to bring an economy based upon privatized capitalism back to life, history demonstrates that privatized capitalism will die and it is reasonable to assume that this demonstrable cycle of the death of a strictly privatized capitalist economy will not change.

Institutionalizing socialized capitalism is a process and the alternative is “welfare for the wealthy” in support of continuing the present economic cycle of privatized capitalism for the populace—— as a people, the American populace, will have to become aware and make a choice, a lack of awareness and inattention will result in more of the same, “welfare for the wealthy” by way of social capital and privatized capitalism for the populace.

Supreme confidence in the moment does not generally bear much fruit, but understanding and implementation of the beginning, the end and all points in between, causality, flows inexorably from cause to effect; we need causal understanding of both socialism and capitalism in the United States, rather than savant understanding and to the extent that we as a populace become aware of economic causality, we will begin to effect change to social capital and socialized capitalism.

Sorry about what you related to as the “snippy remark”; but, I am what I am, and what I am is blunt and to the point, and I have very little faith in anything other than what people do.  ——I really do believe that the last man blinks; the “last man” being humanity as a whole and “blinks” being to deceive.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 29, 2010 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

We need a balanced form of regulation that keeps capital moving equally between the citizen, bank and business. That is going to be tough nut to crack especially since the entrenchment of corporation within the gov’t apparatus, & the Federal Banking system is so deep. We must move away from the present system of legal bribery passing itself off as “free speech” for elections and for gov’t business with our legislators. One of many things within this Gordian Knot that must be unraveled and cut away before we would ever have a chance of fixing it. A mighty task that even Hercules might have been daunted by.

Thank you ThomasG for what you have to offer.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 29, 2010 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

By ThomasG, May 29 at 1:59 pm

“Do you suppose that if social capital was no longer used to
recapitalize privatized capital that privatized capitalism would not
diminish in direct proportion to its cyclical collapse,…”

Most likely it would diminish, but wouldn’t it be in an inverse ratio, as
one increased the other would diminish?  Cyclical collapse implies there
is no unique direction for events and stages of society, and that history
is simply a repetition in cycles and that when reserves are exhausted
the inexorable next step is collapse, meaning famines, disease
epidemics, warfare within and without, generally a decline of the
population.  That is a theoretical model, but how applicable to reality is
it?  Some even theorize that the result of such a collapse could be a
good in disguise by freeing up resources, as well as production per
person and consumption increases with an increase in population as
well, thus…a new cycle begins.  What in history has fit this model? 
What are the signs it is what the future actually holds in reality rather
than theory?  Even if we were to take China as the model, we see that if
it indeed had a collapse it has raised itself up like a Phoenix and
mixing in capitalistic economic theory with its former strong
communist archetype.  Changing its substrata will guarantee not a cycle
but more a spiral into some new hybrid.

“if social capital and socialized capitalism was institutionalized that
socialized capitalism, conversely, would not become stronger and
stronger as privatized capitalism became weaker and weaker from its
own cyclical collapse?”  Again, an inverse ratio model seems to be
highly likely, but still how would it happen?  What actuality takes place
for the inversion to take place in a beneficial way?

“as a nation need to institutionalize social capital and socialized
capitalism and let privatized capitalism compete for its own survival;” 
Institutionalizing social capital is easier to say than to install.  I agree
that privatized capitalistic institutions should be left to compete for
their survival.  That is what I think should have happened to the banks,
et al. But then what do I, as an ordinary citizen, know about such
things.  It just seemed prima facie the most propitious action but then
that is not what happened and no one had power enough to stop it or
influence it.  While I often say Volya Naroda, I do not think people such
as are in this country even understand that they have any power.  And
they don’t.  So it is a moot ignorance.

I too much prefer that we talk as we now do ThomasG.  You too are
improved.  Exponentially so.  I have not really changed. It could be your
lenses have been tweaked a bit to see me better?  Your snippy remark
about the possibility of a short term pretense was not necessary.  It is
gratifying to be able to speak as humans at any rate.  Since I am not a
sociologist, as I’ve mentioned, nor an economist, I don’t know if what I
have intuited from all the literature I’ve read has any real traction.  I
would expect that you would correct me, as you usually do, but in a
more thoughtful way.  I welcome it.

Report this

By Warsong, May 29, 2010 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

By Night-Gaunt, May 28 at 5:28 pm #

“The reason is the more I learn the more doors appear leading to new places of knowledge I hadn’t known existed before and going through such doors found the same behind them continuing in an ever expanding sequence. It may not be infinite but it is large enough to be within range.”

Exactly, and, each door you open draws you on, deeper and deeper. That’s what I didn’t say about the ever expanding Spirals of the Strings of the Universe. I kept backing away, looking at larger and larger Spirals, then suddenly found myself outside the Universe, looking at something that resembled a Golf Ball, with Bumps rather than Dimples. It suddenly occurred to me that this is exactly the same as the Primordial Egg 1 Trillionth of a second before the big Bang, and, I was looking at a Primary Partical in a larger Universe.

Spinning around, looking in all directions, I found the Firmament alive with other Universes, realized that I was raeaching out to touch the “Unknown,” and, snapped back to reality, bouncing out of a Yogi Trance state (a natural state that I drop into when shooting Competition Archery, racing Motorcycles, Hand to Hand Combat, and, deep thought beyond the bounds of current science…includes extended Time mode).

I understand about the alienation, that’s really why I created the “Urban Cowboy” personna. When all trajectories are downhill, I drop into my good ole country boy mode, and, spin the mood around. The Ladies at Gillie’s weren’t there to talk Physics beyond the boundaries of science, they came for entirely different reasons, and, I was happy and smart enough to jump on their wagon.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, May 29, 2010 at 9:59 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, May 29 at 1:15 pm,

Do you suppose that if social capital was no longer used to recapitalize privatized capital that privatized capitalism would not diminish in direct proportion to its cyclical collapse, and that if social capital and socialized capitalism was institutionalized that socialized capitalism, conversely, would not become stronger and stronger as privatized capitalism became weaker and weaker from its own cyclical collapse????

I think we as a nation need to institutionalize social capital and socialized capitalism and let privatized capitalism compete for its own survival; this, competition, after all, is the standard set by privatized capitalism and this standard should therefore be applied to privatized capitalism.

BTW, I much prefer talking to the new and improved, more enlightened Shenonymous; I hope the change is real and long term, rather than short term pretense that falls by the wayside.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 29, 2010 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

And Socrates said the one thing he knew was that he knew nothing!

Sorry ThomasG, I keep making that mistake.  I am trying to
overcome it.  I understand the mistletoe analogy.  How shall the
replacement of privatized capitalism take place in such a leviathan
as the United States and make an ingression into the compart-
mentalization of the financial world from the rest of the population? 
How shall the denizens of privatized capitalism be made to sell off
their assets to make markets for socialized socialism? 

Am I making progress?

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, May 29, 2010 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, May 28 at 10:45 am,

I do not advocate government control of the economy, whether it be privatized capitalism or socialized capitalism; I do, however, advocate government regulation of the economy, so that there is a framework to guide the economy in a way that prevents the economy from becoming financialized and manipulated to the point of collapse. 

Adam Smith wrote that an economy should serve all of the people that are a part of the economy, not just a select few and on this point, I agree with Adam Smith.

With regard to the origin of socialism, according to “Poverty and the Industrial Revolution” by Brian Inglis, page 202, the origin of socialism began with Robert Owen noted as follows:

“It was in this period that the term socialism was first used (at a meeting of an Indiana history society) to describe the views, or aspirations, of the Owenites.”

“Owen characteristically defined it as ‘truth, unity, progressive and increasing prosperity, universal charity and kindness, and the happiness of all, knowing no exceptions’.”

Socialism broadly is the greater and lesser community governance of, for and by the people of the community. 

Socialism is a “social system”, socialism is not an “economic system”.

I advocate social capital and socialized capitalism as an economic system.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, May 29, 2010 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, May 28 at 1:38 pm,

You apparently want to talk about Time Warp Socialism of the USSR, and I am talking about American socialism, the fact that American socialism has been in place and effective for over 230 years in support of the populace and the life line of capitalism; there is no reason why the American “model of socialism” cannot be expanded to effect social capital and socialize capitalism, socialized capitalism.

Socialism is a Social System and capitalism is an Economic System.

Socialism is the greater and lesser community that makes up a city, county, state, and nation; socialist institutions are the institutions of government, the infrastructure of the nation, and the infrastructure of the economy that enables capitalism.

For capitalism to accuse, condemn, denounce, demonize, and try to kill socialism is like mistletoe on a tree becoming aware and making a conscious effort to kill the tree, its host, that nourishes it.

I am not an enemy of privatized capitalism.  I am a friend of privatized capitalism in so far as privatized capitalism has a right to exist alongside socialized capitalism, and when privatized capitalism cyclically fails, as is inevitable, privatized capitalism should be dissolved into bankruptcy and sold off to make markets for socialized capitalism; rather than to be recapitalized at the expense of social capital without benefit to the populace, as has been done innumerable times in the past, every time privatized capitalism cyclically fails and goes into a death spiral.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

“I don’t remember who said it (Einstein? Fermi? Oppenheimer?), but, it seems apropos: “The more I learn, the more I realize how little I really know.””-Warsong

I can tell you I was one of them, then I read that either Plato or Aristotle came to that conclusion too, just like I did only over 2,000 years ago. The reason is the more I learn the more doors appear leading to new places of knowledge I hadn’t known existed before and going through such doors found the same behind them continuing in an ever expanding sequence. It may not be infinite but it is large enough to be within range.

All I can do is be a bellatrix, following on the heels of others who do the actual work of discovery. We do what we can with what we have. I just push myself hard on it. If I could enhance my intelligence 10X or 100X I would without a second thought. I experience popular alienation anyway so it would be a small loss indeed. If the interface of cybernetics with cheaper, smaller, faster computing power does come about it could happen for anyone who can afford it. If we don’t collapse in a post hydrocarbon world of GCC before it that is.

Report this

By Warsong, May 28, 2010 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

Hah, Night Gaunt, actually Religion preceded a belief in God or Gods, at a time in philosophical ‘evolution’ that coincided with beliefs in Fetishes, and, Taboo’s.

You are correct that many Scientists believe in God, and, many of those are involved in Astronomy and Astrophysics. I don’t remember who said it (Einstein? Fermi? Oppenheimer?), but, it seems apropos: “The more I learn, the more I realize how little I really know.”

The best description I’ve read concerning knowledge was in a series of Books by Carlos Castenada about Yaqui Indian Sorcerers, recounted by Don Juan Mateus (paraphrase): “There are three kinds of Knowledge: The Known, the Unknown, and, the Unknowable.

The Known is everything discovered by the Human Race since crawling out of the primordial mud millions of years ago, whether still known or not. The Unknown is everything remaining that can possibly be discovered. The Unknowable is a body of knowledge that is beyond the reach of man, and, cannot possibly be discovered.

The Known compares to the Unknown as the Earth compares to the Universe. The Unknown compares to the Unknowable in like manner, but, to ponder the Unknowable will lead to certain death.”

I think I’ve approached that boundary while pondering the relationship of Time/Duration/Inertia (three different aspects of the same thing) and studying FTLS applications in respect to ‘flipping the sign of Inertia.’ In order to accomplish this, we will need to define that relationship, and, develope applications that allow us to manipulate Inertia within a contained field.

Also, while pondering the ancient symbol of Infinity as a 3 Dimensional figure: a figure 8 laying on its side, with a vertical Bar. The vertical Bar is in fact a Figure 8 seen from the end. If you draw a line across above the symbol, drop two short lines off each end, and label them A-A, then look at View A-A, you’ll see a Plus sign. This is a Nexus Point where two Double Helixes cross at 90 degree angles. In fact there are two crossing in each direction, each spiraling in opposite directions.

If you look at one pair, moving away from the Nexus, as you move away from the Nexus, their paths diverge, one curving away and down to the left from the Nexus, the other curving down from the right, joining the first and approaching the Nexus. Each is part of a larger Double Helix, that is part of a larger Double Helix, and, if you look closely at the spiralling lines of each Helix, each is composed of smaller double Helixes.

That’s reduced to something you can actually put on paper, but, when you explore those paths in greater and greater dimensions and detail, you see a little of what I’ve been studying all my life, while working for a living. Thinking, and, pondering the imponderable are hobbies.

Here’s something I wrote about 20 years ago, that contains some of my concept of reality:

Wheels within wheels,
circles without ending.
Up extends in all directions,
Down is equal, opposite, the same.

Time flows in all directions,
neither beginning nor ending.
The Eternal Now does not exist,
It simply ‘IS.’

Space, Time, Duration, Inertia,
Creation, Evolution, Intelligence,
Infinity.

This pretty much contains the essence of my answer to a question from the Phoenix. Be aware, that, whatever the Phoenix is, it is neither Bird nor myth and would appear to define the boundaries of Power, Intelligence, and, Eternal Life…yet, having seen it and responded to questions from it, I don’t know what it is, only that ‘It Is.’

Neither the World, nor the Universe are as we percieve, yet, like innocent children we’re pushing buttons to see what happens, and, some of those buttons are deadly.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 28, 2010 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

I read this quote once: ”All men with honor are kings. But not all
kings have honor,”
as spoken by the actor Liam Neeson,  in the
movie, Rob Roy. But I would dare to revise it to say “All men with
honor are moral, and not all men are moral.”  It is not the case to
act “what it is like to be moral,” but to be moral.  This I think is
near to impossible for men unless they are rational men.

The reality is that the high minded notions of equality and individual
freedom are at odds.  Liberty sounds like a stellar condition, unless one
lives in a society.

“Lenin and his heirs also liked to believe that government control
(theirs) was a necessary component of socialism, and authoritarian
progressives are fond of it as well, as you can see by reading the pages
on this website (and many others).” 

Yes, otherwise it is anarchy of the mob, the consequences of unbridled
democracy.  Just the very thing Madison and Jefferson feared most and
why they were very careful in crafting the guiding documents of our
government.  Lenin’s solution obviously did not work, in many places,
and I don’t know of any anarchic structure in history that worked.

The solution for a successful cohesive society, then, is to navigate
between complete democratic anarchy and complete subjugation of
socialism.  Any suggestions for a good ship?  How about a sapient,
wise and judicious captain?  It is one thing to criticize certain forms
and another to have a coherent idea on what is better, what will work.

It would seem simplistically speaking that criticism and dissent are the
first antidotes to the oppression of the democratic mob or the
individual.  John Adams said, “The jaws of power are always open to
devour, and her arm[s] are always stretched out, if possible, to destroy
the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”

But more importantly he said,
“If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or
that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation
collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor
of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good,
the universal law, in preference to all private and partial
considerations… And that the desires of the majority of the people are
often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is
demonstrated by every page of history… To remedy the dangers
attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied,
will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the
right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual
citizen… In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals]
constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than
in absolute monarchies…”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 28, 2010 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

Some would say that only anarchism respects the individual.  But I
disagree.  Humanism without anarchism is an alternative.  But I
would say that the most important, most essential question that
faces us today is the proper relationship between the individual and
society.  Anarchists would love to appropriate the idea of knowledge
of the self, the Socratic imperative.  One of the most vocal anarchists
who holds couch on the net (meaning a giver of advice to the would-
be anarchist) falls into the same litany of solution that has been
around for millennia: a deliberate pursuit of enlightenment and
growth, seeking knowledge, and the development of the individual
and writes under the delusion that he invented all of the above. 
He obviously has not read much on the topic from Plato onward
and certainly nothing before Plato.

In a letter to The Guardian in 1993 Nicolas Walter, humanist and
anarchist, but better known for his humanism wrote and I think he is
right:
“All of us will die, and most of us will suffer before we do so. “The last
act is bloody, however fine the rest of the play may be”, said Pascal.
Raging against the dying of the light may be good art, but is bad
advice. “Why me?” may be a natural question, but it prompts a natural
answer: “Why not?” Religion may promise life everlasting, but we
should grow up and accept that life has an end as well as a beginning.”

While I am not a political scientist, I have had some education in forms
of government and some studies in history.  And as a member of this
democratic population, have developed opinions about the kind of
society in which I live.  Democracy is the combination of two Greek
words, demos, meaning people and kratos meaning power.  Therefore,
democracy means people power.

There are mainly two forms of democracy: direct and representative. 
Although there is no universally accepted definition of ‘democracy,
there are two abstract principles that defines the word democracy:
equality and freedom.  This means, essentially, all citizens are equal
before the law and have equal access to power and these are protected
by a conventionally crafted constitution.  All citizens are subject to the
same laws and no individual or group has special legal privileges. 

Majority rule is the main feature of democracy.  Without, however, a
responsible protective government, dissenting individuals can easily
become oppressed by what is known as the tyranny of the majority,
tyranny of the masses, or… mob rule (ochlocracy).  The single tyrant is
replaced by a tyrannical collective. It is a corruption of the original
intention of democracy to protect the majority whereby the majority is
transformed into the despot. Nietzsche, in his Human, All Too Human:
First Sequel: Mixed Opinions and Maxims used the term that was
coined by de Tocqueville in his study describing American democracy. 
The ability of the few to dominate and distort the political process is an
inherent flaw in the right to public choice.  Concurrent majority as a
concept that prevents majorities from oppressing minorities through
the power of the veto.  Term limits however reduces the tyranny of the
minority over the majority, as does secret ballot.  The inability to force
an initiative onto a ballot is also a deterrent.

The US Congress’s greatest risk is from the tyranny by a minority.  This
is an important reason why there is an imperative in a constitutional
check-and-balance law. Excessive special interest contributions to
congressional campaigns results in excessive influence on legislation.
These special interests are a minority, and their excessive influence
creates clear and present risk of tyranny by a minority.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 28, 2010 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

Of course the mistake made is so what if you clone the “Fearless Leader?” He won’t be exact and there is the problem of nurturing. You could still get someone that resembles the despot but they won’t be nearly the same. You would have to reproduce all of his life experiences too. (In cloning there is the problem of which genes will turn on, off and when; if it isn’t like the host then there will be differences.)

I like the orgasm ball better. Now there is something one could get addicted to and die with a smile on ones face. Just imagine if you got a credit card that with each swipe it would give you such a pulse of pleasure? Both devilish, devious and delightful! It would be banned immediately. Ah then the black market would make it far worse than any drug because this went to the heart of the matter, via the brain, the sexiest organ we have. Then religion would both fizzle and grow even more militant at the same time.

So you inventors out there get cracking on creating such a device—-I know you can.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 28, 2010 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

Night Guant, I remember the movie maybe several where the corporations took over the world, I especially remember a British one, though I do not remember movie names.

My favorite is Woody Allens “Sleeper”, I find cloning the great leaders nose seems more real now, then it possibly did when Sleeper first came out.

I find myself as possibly many feel, like Woody Allen, trying not to let them clone that fricken great leaders nose!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 28, 2010 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

t’s entirely possible to have religion without a Supreme Being, or any sort of God, which is pretty much the state of mainstream Science, today. ‘Things’ can be worshiped, and, a quasi-religion built around them.

A typical and wrong canard Warsong and damned annoying to see it return again and again like influenza. Where is the worship? Is it worship to use the dictionary again and again because it is a fount of knowledge? 40% of scientists are believers. That number hadn’t changed in 40 years (1960-2000) I just don’t know the breakdown by discipline is involved. I am betting more are in fields outside of biology like astronomers.

If it is a religion then it is very fluid as the “gods” are replaced as new information and proofs continue to supplant previous ones. (Continuous revelations in your parlance.) But then you can only think that one must worship something. (See Chesterton.) That is incorrect. I have no impetus to do so. You are seeing things, making connexions where non exist. Sorry.

All “Malthusianism” is is a recognition of a biological & natural limits of the ecosphere and population dynamics. We have too many people and the present conditions won’t maintain it for much longer. It is based upon petroleum and that is finite as is the land and food production. (Genetic engineering, corporate monoculture may hold it off for a little longer, but not much.) Think of a Dead Man’s Switch always waiting for us to fail to hold it down. Billions are already starving or poorly fed as it is, and once production costs more, the land is exhausted, war breaks, out people will die in larger numbers. It is a sad fact and it will be the poor who pay that price long before you and I will. A cold equation.

As for “Great Leaders” the ultimate one to sit on the white throne of the world will be the greatest of all and immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, narcissist and unkillable—-JHVH. Something like 1/4 to 1/3 of humanity must die in order to fulfill that particular promise. Are you eager for it? Many Christians who believe that do. Its in the Bible so it must be true, eh? [The Dominionist version doesn’t think JHVH will return unless they “prepare” the earth for its return and not before—no rapture either.]

Obama is just the latest front for the ultra-rich who are orchestrating the fall of the Republic in order to replace it with a corporate theocracy. Think of him as a CEO, they may change but the corporation is “forever.”

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 28, 2010 at 6:45 am Link to this comment

ThomasG, May 28 at 12:38 am:
’... A good deal of the difficulty with socialism becoming a mature social and economic system has to do with the fact that, out of fear, privatized capitalism has accused, condemned, denounced, and tried to kill socialism with hostile propaganda, sophism and rhetoric from the time of capitalism’s emergence in Britain hundreds of years ago. ...’

The greatest accomplishment along these lines has been the identification of socialism with government control.  The actual meaning of the word, as put forward by its inventors, was “the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers”.  No government involvement necessarily specified.

It has not only been private capitalists who have helped promote the canard, however.  Lenin and his heirs also liked to believe that government control (theirs) was a necessary component of socialism, and authoritarian progressives are fond of it as well, as you can see by reading the pages on this website (and many others).

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 28, 2010 at 3:56 am Link to this comment

Levels of discourse and commentary of opinion seem to have moved up a few notches here on Truth Dig since the wedgies, in fact quite a few notches, I hope this lasts and find it so much more enlightening than food fights.

In agreement or disagreement, no matter to me, it is refreshing when opinion is not portrayed as fact for then assimilation has a chance to evolve as it should.

Absolutisms presented by the self-righteous as facts does become stale and seems most common of Truth Digs past, I embrace the new era of reason with open arms!

Report this

By Warsong, May 27, 2010 at 10:33 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, Night-Gaunt

It’s entirely possible to have religion without a Supreme Being, or any sort of God, which is pretty much the state of mainstream Science, today. ‘Things’ can be worshipped, and, a quasi-religion built around them.

It is not so much that I said anything you haven’t heard before, just that it marked me out for who I am, what I’ve been, what I’ve done in the past that worries them. I don’t do Socialism, Malthusianism, or, anything that is destructive of human life, and, there are those with such strong beliefs in this direction that they consider me dangerous.

I’ve mentioned the “Book of Urantia,” and, the society it pushes toward is a Tribal Socialism built around worship of God, my God, that will not work on a global scale…if for no other reason than Human Nature, and, the corrupting influences of Power. Socialism is built around this, and, there will always be a “Great Leader” (with descending layers of little “Great Leaders” crouching at his/her feet) and, at this time, there are thousands of examples from history that I could list, but, the fat, little “Great Leader” of North Korea should suffice as a current example.

Now, getting away from theory, and, looking at implementation…there must always be only one “GREAT LEADER,” and, we seem to have a surplus of them at the moment, to include: Putin, Medvedev, Castro, Chavez, Obama, Asad, Ahmedinejad, etcetera. They’re spotted all over the Globe, and, when the revolution is over, they’ll begin sorting out who really is the “Great Leader” with rivers of blood that will grow into Oceans of blood…when one finally rises above all others and begins sorting the chaff, as he consolidates POWER.

People like us must be the first to go, because we’re idealists, and, the reality will never fit our paradigms for what is right: we’ll begin working to correct a system that they, in their Pathological Narcissism. adore.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 27, 2010 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

My humble apologies Night-Gaunt.  It seems I didn’t get
anything saved of that gap more than what is showing now on the
forum.  I was at work all day when the mishap hacking happened and
when I got home I thought I copied what had transpired through the
day but apparently I didn’t. I had my two responses to TG because
they were in a separate file so I could more easily edit them because
sometimes (a lot of the time) I write copious amounts and I hadn’t
dumped them as yet. Once I copy the forum as it is printed, I trash
the edits.  That is really disconcerting since I think I also lost some
comments twixt Warsong and myself that I had not written to a
separate document for editing. I don’t know what the heck we said.

Mannn, I’m sorry.  I used to copy entire forums for a writing project
but my computer got too clogged and I stopped doing that some time
ago.  Guess I’ll go back to it.  I just bought an external harddrive to
start archiving stuff anyway.  For this time though, we are both out of
luck.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, May 27, 2010 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, May 27 at 10:39 am,

I like the word, inchoate, that you used, the meaning being in an early or rudimentary stage.  Inchoate applies to socialism, as a social system, social capital, and socialized capitalism as an economic system in the United States. 

A good deal of the difficulty with socialism becoming a mature social and economic system has to do with the fact that, out of fear, privatized capitalism has accused, condemned, denounced, and tried to kill socialism with hostile propaganda, sophism and rhetoric from the time of capitalism’s emergence in Britain hundreds of years ago.  Most likely because the destruction of socialism as employed by the British peasantry was necessary from the capitalist point of view to enable, perpetuate and maintain privatized capitalism.

With regard to socialism, social capital, and socialized capitalism, the following 1897 quote of Leo Tolstoy is applicable to forming a new understanding of socialism, and socialization of capital that is free of privatized capitalistic demonization by hostile propaganda, sophism, and rhetoric:

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.”

After years and years of hostile propaganda, sophism, and rhetoric by privatized capitalism in an effort to accuse, condemn, denounce, demonize, and kill socialism, everyone has preconceived notions about socialism that has been inculcated into them that socialism is their enemy. 

It is necessary that we, as a nation, get past privatized capitalism’s demonization of socialism of the 1950’s time warp variety and failed models of socialism like that of the USSR, and start to look at Models of Socialism that have stood the test of time:

The infrastructure of the United States and the political aparatus that maintains that infrastructure is an example of a Model of Socialism that has been in place for over 230 years that has worked admirably and is used to enable privatized capitalism, rather than socialized capitalism. 

Capital is an asset that provides a revenue stream; i.e., money, education, and the means of production and distrubution.

Assets that provide a revenue stream, capital, should not be limited to private ownership.

I envision socialized capitalism as the use of social capital in corporate and co-operative commercial enterprise and banking that is run for the public interest by a president, CEO, and board of directors responsible to the public as shareholders, rather than the U.S. Government, that can provide a revenue stream beyond operating expenses and capital reserves to augment and replace direct taxation.

I also envision socialized capitalism as an expedient means of dealing with the cyclical failures of privatized capitalism.

Socialism is a social system——socialism is NOT an economic system.

There are many examples of socialism that have been used both in and outside of the United States for hundreds of years or more that have been used, in fact, since the Stone Age without failure, and that in our time gives society protection against the cyclical failure of privatized capitalism.  If you can’t conceive of what they are on your own, I can provide you with examples.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 27, 2010 at 7:09 pm Link to this comment

Yes please, your kindness is heartwarming to me. Thank you.

God would know it all ahead of time for billions of years, or just 6,000. So ain’t that special?

Report this

By ofersince72, May 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

might want to keep this one !!!!


Does God Really Have To Watch All This Shit ??


(ofcourse, Carlin)

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 27, 2010 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, I have been recording posts where I am a
participant. I later edit most of the dialogue out for only what I
want to keep.  I do a lot of research and want to keep a journal
and this is one way to do it.  If you wish I would be glad to repost
your comments for this forum.  Shall I review it for those comments
that had been lost in the crash?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 27, 2010 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Here is s’more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1GUfBkPiJc
about 10 minutes 47 seconds if you need to “feel a moment of
divinity” someone wrote!

You are welcome.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 27, 2010 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

Ah yes, here is mankind represented as Adam, the first man in all
his… ahem… glory, and God’s sparking life from one index finger
to another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCb4KaPBHk&feature=related

Poor little Siren can’t hold a candle, but then she doesn’t hold candles.

A little Bach thrown in for good measure, and you can say thank you,
Shenonymous.  Prelude and fugue in g major Turn up the volume on
your computer!  It is thrilling.

But then those who cannot appreciate ancient Greek art are not
expected to appreciate masterpieces either by Michelangelo or JS Bach.

Here is 7 minutes and 19 seconds of grandmaster Bach who wrote
mostly for the church! Ah yes, religious music that George would have
appreciated and so do we.  I might have to repeat this post on another
forum that seems to need it.

Report this

By ofersince72, May 27, 2010 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

“The Only Good Thing Ever To Come Out Of Religion
  Was The Music”

  George Carlin

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 27, 2010 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

Warsong It does my heart good to know you are a happy
individual. I am one of those who needs no god and am happy
too.  I have not ever seen any confirmable reason given why I
should believe in a supernatural being.  I choose to be a moral
person within the definition that has been conventionalized in
my society.

That you have selected to believe in a supernatural being is definitely
your choice and is your right at least in this country.  And I would fight
to the death to defend that right.  Many of my stripe have gone to the
gallows and the stake and to unbelievable torture for their unbelief.
That could not be rewarded for the executioners in any imagined
heaven. 

Night-Gaunt, there are religions that have no deities, Jainism for
one. Also referred to as Shraman (self-reliant) Dharma or the
religion of Nirgantha (who does not have attachments and aversions) by
ancient texts.  It is mildly remindful of Emerson’s idea of self-reliance. 
Its dogma prescribes a path of non-violence towards all living beings. 
Anyone who achieves through self-effort all its inner enemies achieves
the state of supreme being, called Jina. If I were to want an organized
religion, I think that is the one I would choose.  I am only discouraged
by the 24 acetic leaders, the Tirthankaras, since I believe hubris would
exist in some form even very slight among a group of that size.  I may
be wrong.  For the core beliefs of Jainism, a decent job is done on the
Wikipedia site. I truly like the one that says each soul is the architect of
its own life, here (and this is where I would depart) or hereafter (as I do
not believe in a hereafter.) So 9 out of 10 isn’t bad.  Taoism and
Confuscianism are two others.  Though some would list them more a
philosophies rather than religions.  A matter of perspective I guess?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 27, 2010 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

Sounds to me like you, Warsong & DaveZx3 have something in common on that front. He also claims to have had a personal experience that changed him in the realm of deities. I will be on the outside looking in on that particular subject. Since I was very young none of that religious stuff affected me. None in the least. I was in fact immune to its siren call because I was one of the fortunate, or unfortunate, to be without the equipment to be turned on by it. I wasn’t inclined to do so congenitally. If you have studied evolutionary theory you would understand what I mean.

A lousy thing to happen this hack. Cut out some of my posts & I have no way of saving them or I would have. A real pain to say the least. Only I don’t think any of my writings would be so dangerous to cause them that. Though I don’t see how you Warsong have written anything, that I have seen, would cause such at all, very conventional by my reckoning. Both Shenonymous & myself would be in the religiously incorrect areas to warrant such attacks by fanatics wouldn’t you think? Better still the whole TruthDig would be the subject not any of us individually. I have a certain paranoia (experiences of helicopters circling the building etc,) but I am skeptical here.


Believe-you-me, I am more unconventional than you Warsong at least in my ideas certainly so I don’t as yet understand your reasoning. Please elaborate as best you can without names or places.

Religions can’t exist without deities so the idea that they are separate from them doesn’t fit. That is for you DaveZx3 for they are the body from which the deity speaks to its followers. It usually starts with one who has a communication with it then a written book after verbal preaching, building of followers etc till it is like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism an Shinto among many others.

Report this

By Warsong, May 27, 2010 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, May 27 at 10:39 am #

Actually, I’m one of those people who can be happy wherever I am. I’m usually good natured, until, someone pushes all my buttons, and, that is not good.

I’m one of those people that nobody believes in, and, I have a connection to God that won’t be denied, but, allows me do things others can’t do.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be under my control, I just have to roll with it, when my Father says, “Do this…” I go there, do that, and, withdraw, disavowing all credit (I don’t need the Fame, or, Infame). I do it for love of life…all life.

And, those upon this Forum who don’t believe in God, could never understand what this means. I’m not a preacher, and, I’ve got the scars to prove that (Gillies and other places), along with a world class case of Stage Fright that would prevent it. I just go in, fix whatever problem they have, then fade into the background while someone else stands up in front of the Cameras and brags about “...no psychics involved, just good, solid, investigative Police work.”

Of course, this is all beyond your belief structure, but, there is more to this Universe, and God, than we can ever know.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 27, 2010 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

WOW Warsong, you did that?  Let’s hope the hackers have
been thwarted. And that you are in a safe place.  And that you
continue to be the iconoclast that you are.  That is a tribe I can
relate to.  Misery loves company.

Good morning ThomasG.  You said of me in your last post,  that I
have “demonstrated the most superficial understanding of the
Enclosure Movement in Britain and the peasantry of both Britain and
America that [you] have heard in the course of [your] nearly 65 years of
life on this earth.”



True, I knew that going in.  I am learning.  I am not an economics
major, nor a sociologist.  But I am willing and want to learn.  So don’t
be so expectant. Or I would have to accuse you of deifying me and
expecting me to be omniscient.
  Let’s keep it respectful sil vous
plait.

I doubt what I’ve posted a third-grader would comprehend, nor be able
to even find it.  So, please…Tom.  I won’t take pot shots at your
superiority complex if you won’t shine on my ignorance.  You are being
unusually polite though and it is appreciated.

I said where I gathered my information.  I don’t have time to read all
the books you threw at me.  But I will get them for future reading.  I’ll
search them out today!
 
“Please do not take my criticism of your superficial treatment of the
issues I have addressed in my posts personally——No personal criticism
is intended”

All right.  We seemed to have entered a new era of relation here and it
suits me very much.  I will remember from whence we came and
proceed happily on this new path.  Whatever superficial mode I sank to
was because I do not have an education nor books on the topic.  Just
some world history books that did not cover it much more than a
passing paragraph. And a couple of articles and a book or two by
Gouldner that MarthaA suggested.  Which means I am taking you
seriously.  Gouldner is slow reading, kind of boring.  The dynamics of
his thesis is long before my time and his language is antiquated.  But it
is easier than reading Plato in the Greek.  And I will see about getting
the books, soon, but they may not arrive until after the relevance of
this forum???  As I said, I am not omniscient even though you think I
am. (meant in a playful way).

I don’t know what would be a deeper understanding.  I was trying to be
respectful to the Native Americans who went through a staggering
relocation of their entire nation as a result of losing the war between
them and the new society nation that appropriated their land.  There
are a flood of articles that are not.  It is difficult to know what is the
truth coming from a platform of ignorance, although I did more than a
casual glance at google results.

Since you spent most of your last post kind of chewing me out for
being less than perfect, I turned to the Truthout article.  I do not
disagree that from even my uneducated perspective with all the
corruption that is reported in the news, and I don’t’ mean any
particular partisan news outlet, but all of them, are saying it, that
things need fixed.  It is broken.


I cannot be as reactively refractory as our Republican brethren who
seem rabid to me and in thought word and deed seem to want to stop
this president in his tracks of trying to fix things.  He is bending more
than over backwards which I think is infuriating to many liberals.  It will
play out a it will.  It is inexorable at this point.  On the other hand,
there is reactivity coming from the far left as well and it is not easy for
ordinary people (those not in politics) to navigate the two partisan
views if the truth is what is wanted.  The problems will take an
enormous more amount of time than anyone can reasonably expect.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 27, 2010 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

The characters involved are entrenched in their positions and since
there are so many the filtering has a lot of ground to cover.  Over
400 in the Congress and 100 in the Senate are numbers that have
to be dealt with not to mention a volatile world in the chilipot.  But
this set of problems are not what we are talking about.
 
What we are about here is the future.  Nothing we say or even could
do, if we can do anything, will fix the current state of affairs.  It is
written in stone already.

Whatever we do, it will have to be done for the future, hopefully sooner
than later future.  Changing any form of economic structure is not
going to happen in any easy way.  Poor Howard Zinn worked almost his
whole life for change and he hardly made a dent even with his coterie
of followers and interviews on Democracy Now.  He was an eloquent
speaker and did move a small herd of people.  I was on his mailing list
and read most of the articles that came. But not much has happened
from it all.  In spite of Amy Goldman on NPR.  In spite of Bill Moyers.
And these are also eloquent people. From what public apparatus are
you thinking to launch a change of the magnitude you are talking
about?  It is just a teenie tiny question.

All the talk about socialism, capitalism, democracy, privatized
capitalism, social capital, the American populace is a mixed salad bowl. 
I want to hear rational arguments of why these are either good or bad. 
The American People’s brains are being rendered apart by this faction
and that faction.  This and that just does not spell progress.
There are insane people working at fevered pitch to bring down the
government by violent means as if it was a banana republic. One
actually hacked this website yesterday!  Yeowie kazowie. 

This is a huge country, and unique in its diversity of people.  We are
not China that is almost completely homogenous, nor Canada, which is
really sparse and not much of a world power.  Comparisons are just
not there.  Even with Brazil.  I don’t know if socialism is or is not the
enemy of democracy or capitalism.  When you say socialism is the
friend and foundation of democracy that does not sound right. It
sounds very odd.  Americans have been conditioned for almost a
hundred years to believe this.  You would have to say how it is, not
simply that it is.  What kind of socialism?  Everybody even third-
graders knows that the kind of socialism that has existed in the world
has miserably failed and many millions of people were killed over it. 
Whether or not this capitalistic country has also been responsible for
many deaths in the Middle East, it is not the question. That is
deflecting the answer to the one about socialism.  We are here looking
at the positivity/negativity of socialism.  We can deal with capitalistic
democracies next.  One chew at a time.

Yes the rich are if not directly then by proxy a selective minority private
capitalists, but that does not explain how they do it and what exactly
can be done realistically to stop it.  I think regulations. That is a
socialistic action.  But it has to be done with directed consciousness not
carte blanche.  We cannot stand the extraordinary swing action of
reactive approaches.  The reviewer of The Case for Socialism makes
note that it does not provide a roadmap for creating a more just socio-
economic order…or moving countries away from capitalism.  The
author does have a problem.  And I say the problem is endemic to the
will of the people which may not match his thesis.  I don’t quite believe
the Democratic party is beyond reform.  A diehard maybe.

You seem to be saying something important.  It is just too inchoate the
way you are saying it.

I would never support a violent change in this country.  I would not
support any militant revolution.  I would resist.

Report this

By Warsong, May 27, 2010 at 2:31 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

Thanks for the Kudo’s, but, I feel that I need to appologize to everyone for the Hacking of the Forum.

It appears that I revealed enough to those who’ve been watching me for 20 years, that they were able to home in on me, and, remove any effective posts, by just knocking down everything and ensuring that the damaging posts were removed. And, I assure you, the moderators, such as they are here, had nothing to do with it.

To some people in this world, I’m a dangerous man.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 26, 2010 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment

Post 1 Recovered
By Shenonymous, May 26 at 8:59 am #
ThomasG - you compare the American peasant populace with
the ?British peasant.  Of the 7,580,000 results yielded from a google
of the ?word populace, to which one are you partial?  I like the one
from the ?Urban Dictionary (one of my favorite haunts) - Term used
instead of ?“ignorant masses” basically stands for 99.9% of the worlds
population. ?quite fun to utter under your breath, as in “the populace
really pisses ?me off.”

Googling British peasant yields 2,520,000 results.  Please choose which
?of those you like best.

I don’t use the term ‘peasant’ so it is a murky word for my integrated ?
thinking practice and I would not be able to “know” what the American ?
peasant populace is.  In googling the word ‘peasant’ there are ?
15,500,000 results, but I will go with the Wikipedia, free encyclopedia ?
definition: A peasant is an agricultural worker who subsists by working ?
a small plot of ground. The word is derived from 15th century French ?
païsant meaning one from the pays, or countryside, ultimately from the
?Latin pagus, or outlying administrative district (when the Roman Empire
?became Christian, these outlying districts were the last to Christianise, ?
and this gave rise to “pagan” as a religious term).  The term peasant ?
today is sometimes used in a pejorative sense for impoverished ?
farmers.

I am not up on the state of American farmers, except Leefeller ?
stated once he was an American farmer, but I do not think he is ?
impoverished since he has goats, cats, pigs, I think, and hay and reads ?
Playboy Magazine on the head.

Of the 47,900 results when googling the British enclosure movement, ?
the first four appear interestingly informative, while the sixth one does ?
as well.  The rest of the 47,894 seems to be redundant.

The British enclosure movement seems to have been “a precursor to the
?industrial revolution.  Much of the land was owned by the public, ?
meaning owned by the government, and ordinary (the peasants) people ?
farmed the land.  Building fences seems to have been a discovery by ?
the wealthy people, converting the public lands into private estates.  ?
Done on a grand scale, squatters were forced off the land and into ?
cottage industries, meaning crafts businesses.  In other words, ?
squatters were turned into businessmen.  Further, many squatters, viz.,
?landless people, moved to the city where they found work in the ?
factories that burgeoned into what is called the Industrial Revolution.  ?
Most of this is high school textbook information that American children
?are taught as a rule.  But to satisfy your thesis I am providing all of this
?information so others may ‘discover’ for themselves.

The Wikipedia entry gives enclosure the definition as Enclosure or ?
inclosure is the process which was used to end some traditional rights, ?
such as mowing meadows for hay, or grazing livestock on land which is
?owned by another person, or a group of people. In England and Wales ?
the term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of ?
arable farming in open fields.

Deeding or titling of land became ‘common’ practice not only for the ?
wealthy but for all people everywhere as there are few places in the ?
world where land is held in common.  The Tragedy of the Commons ?
has been discussed on Truthdig before without any resolution, no ?
revolution.  It is certainly a topic that may be revisited.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 26, 2010 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment

Post 2 Recovered
By Shenonymous, May 26 at 8:57 am #
The circumstances of the American Indians is an interesting case
in ?point when it comes to entitlement of land.  A brief history of
how ?the American Indians came to be concentrated on reservations
is ?offered in the article: American Indian reservations: The first?
underclass areas? by Gary D. Sandefur, sociologist from University
?of Wisconsin/Madison who is affiliated with the Institute for
Research ?on Poverty.  This is worth a read by all Americans.  I won’t
summarize ?it more than to say that Native Americans who were
reservationized? went through a few different mutations of land
relocation and ?allocation.  Reservation, forced assimilation to become
part of the ?American Populace, and by the device of allotment, which
did not work ?out too well, but the goal of this policy was to enable
Indians to ?become farmers or ranchers, the major occupations in the
areas where ?Indians were located, and full members of American
society.  In other ?words, to be come land owners.  This did not have the
health and ?wealth consequences that was imagined, and in many cases
the Indians ?were worse off and reservations remained as the land
solution. 

By ?about the 1950s many reservationized Indians moved away from the
?reservations through a desire of their own to become assimilated, ?
hence Assimilation became a solution by natural inclination.  There ?
have been several approaches to the problem of what can be done ?
about the living state of the American Indian.  There is no succinct way ?
of putting it.  Arguments can be made that if the Europeans had not ?
ingressed this country the Indians would not have been a problem. ?
However that is not how history proceeds nor proceeded and in my ?
estimation never proceeds.  Humans historically have conquered lands ?
and appropriated and confiscated the property and land of others.  ?
Conditions are dealt with as they arise at the time history is made.  ?
How they are dealt with is evaluated in retrospect.

Well without any intention this reply probably got away from your topic ?
and I promise to deal more directly in a future post.  I do not mean any
?disrespect for what you are discussing.  I hope I haven’t shown any.  At
?some point we conscious beings do have to philosophize on what to do ?
with human beings.  There are so many of us.  There are a few ?
different ways that are more moral than others but what is moral has ?
to arise within various society structures.  I am a firm believer in the ?
adage Water Seeks Its Own Level.  All things shake down and Gravity is ?
the High Command.  What I mean by this metaphor is that dynamics of ?
a society goes through many permutations and eventually through ?
turmoil and stress and negotiation things settle down.  It seems there ?
will always be some strife among human beings as it seems to be their ?
nature to covet, to desire what others have, and often, too often, not to
?want to work themselves for it.

Shall we continue our conversation about all of this and the relative ?
merits of socialism, socialized capitalism, and democratic capitalism?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 26, 2010 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

No, Night-Gaunt, T-G and I more or less moved into this
one.  It’s all right. We can use the diversion while I get over my
recent forum nausea.  If you will notice, we have entered a new
era of mutual respect.  It might even prove to be fruitful.

In the next two posts I am repeating the two posts that apparently
were lost.  TD was very responsive.  I had written to their office
when the crash happened and they replied immediately and fixed the
hacking.  I guess a lot of comments were lost. TD is trying to see if
they are retrievable but I’m not concerned.  I always save my own
posts. 

ThomasG, I would feel more comfortable if my posts were
reinstated then I could reply in a cogent manner to your comments.  So
if you will indulge me this time, I will post then read what you just
wrote then reply.  Sound like a plan?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 26, 2010 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

ThomasG you are off topic so it must mean you are on the wrong forum. Oops!

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, May 26, 2010 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

Something happened to your two posts answering my two May 25 8:09pm post, but I read your two posts and here is my answer:

“Laissez Nous Faire” was the beginning, the end and all points in between in the establishment of privatized capitalism in Britain, the doctrine that it is God’s Will to let the economy be and not interfere with the Free Market.  This very day the doctrine of Thomas Malthus and the Malthusian Theory of Population Growth is taught as “Laissez Nous Faire” doctrine of Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans.

There are so “many of us” this statement by you is reminiscent of Thomas Malthus and his ‘Theory of Population Growth’.

You have demonstrated the most superficial understanding of the Enclosure Movement in Britain and the peasantry of both Britain and America that I have heard in the course of my nearly 65 years of life on this earth. 

If you are going to dialogue competently upon the Enclosure Movement, Laissez Nous Faire, the peasantry, Capitalism, and the genocide and confinement of the Native populations, the American Indians, to concentration camps in the United States, you should read up on the subject, so that you are less superficial in your understanding of the subjects.  I suggest the following books with regard to broadening your understanding past the propaganda of a third grade education:

“Poverty and the Industrial Revolution” by Brian Inglis,

“Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy—Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World” by Barrington Moore, Jr., and

“Education for Extinction” by David Wallace Adams.

Please do not take my criticism of your superficial treatment of the issues I have addressed in my posts personally——No personal criticism is intended——However, if you would peruse the suggested reading list I have provided, you will be more competent to address the topics addressed in my posts with more in depth understanding that is up to the level of your past performance and prior demonstrated ability to perform with thought and reason in the absence of emotional superficiality.

I know you are capable of more, so it was a disappointment to see you sink into such a superficial mode.  Hopefully, it is nothing more serious than a bad case of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with freedom and justice for all, that allows superficial third grade perception of propaganda and tropes to willingly replace deeper understanding.

Whatever the problem is, I do not mean to offend.  Hopefully, I have not, in my usual straight forward approach, hurt your feelings by telling you what I really thought of your post.

Here is a post about socialism that is not a time warp caricature:

http://www.truthout.org/the-case-socialism59538

Socialism is not the enemy of democracy or capitalism, socialism is the friend and foundation of democracy in the United States that is used to provide socialism for the rich, while privatized capitalism is forced off by the rich on the populace.  If socialism is appropriate to provide social capital to bring privatized capitalism back to life every time privatized capitalism cyclically dies, socialism is appropriate to provide community benefit to the populace and administer social capital and socialized capitalism for the benefit of the American populace, rather than a selective minority of private capitalists.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, May 25, 2010 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, May 19 at 4:00 am,

(Page 1 of 2)

It is good that you have realized that “this country has experienced a colossal financial catastrophe”, that is a start.

With regard to the American peasantry, the American peasantry are the 70% majority common population of the United States, the American populace, Back Street America.  You are capable of goggling the term——populace——; Google populace and combine the definition of populace with that of British peasant and you will know what the American peasant populace is. 

I have studied the “Enclosure Movement” in Britain and the origins of privatized capitalism and when I talk of a peasant population, I talk of the populace of Britain that were displaced and had all of their property and possessions confiscated to enable capitalism, and that same class and culture of American peasant populace that continue to be a population of wage slaves that are oppressed and suppressed by the making and enforcing of legislated law and order in much the same way that British peasants were dispossessed to make a work force for privatized capitalism.  The American peasant populace in subjugation to privatized capitalism as a work force are the 21st Century version of the Cottager Peasants of Britain.

Capital is an asset that provides a revenue stream.

There is no reason why people as a part of socialized cooperatives cannot administer capital for the benefit of the community and the nation as a whole and that the making and enforcing of legislated law and order be made to support community interests”, rather than privatized interests and represent community interests as superior to private interests.

At present private interests of privatized capitalism cyclically FAIL and are cyclically brought back to life by socialized communal resources without community benefit; this has been going on for hundreds of years, and it is time to recognize and acknowledge the cyclical death of capitalism and its reanimation as the living dead, a zombie, by the use of communal resources of the populace that has been going on for hundreds of years.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, May 25, 2010 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, May 19 at 4:00 am,

(Page 2 of 2)

In the United States, socialism has never died and had to be brought back to life like privatized capitalism.

It is time for a change to socialized capitalism, to put control of capital, assets that provide a revenue stream, into the hands of a socialist model, like the socialist model used in the United States, that has been used in the United States for over 230 years, so that socialism can provide a revenue stream for community benefit, rather than private benefit. 

Socialized capital always resurrects privatized capitalism for privatized benefit.

It is time for a change; it is time for socialized capital to resurrect capitalism as socialized capitalism for the benefit of the community and the nation as a whole and let the dead corpse of privatized capitalism stay dead with the realization that you get what you pay for when a reanimated dead privatized capitalist zombie runs the American economy, one more cycle of death and resurrection at the expense of socialized capital.

With regard to your question about what you would or would not own personally, with an economy based upon socialized capital, assets that provide a revenue stream, what you own or do not own would be up to your own personal endeavor.  However, with regard to assets that provide a revenue stream, those assets would be under community control from the level of community to city, county, state, and nation to serve the greater good, rather than the greater greed.

One thing that would be of interest is that your taxes would be significantly reduced along with the nickel and dime expropriation of your personal resources by way of licenses, fees and permits whose funds could be replaced by the revenue stream of surplus capital, socialized assets that provide a revenue stream.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 25, 2010 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

OM, manipulations and disruptions have been successful in taking away the moment,the twist in me mustache is long gone. 

Processes of sabotage, have dissuaded my interest, I suppose if only the momentum of the moment.

Time for me to take a hike,... Adiós for now!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 25, 2010 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Night Gaunt said: Ozark Michael your arrogance of a true believer is showing.

Sometimes the attitude I project is a for an effect. In this case, I wanted to challenge certain people and entice them to debate me instead of just name call. especially the ‘hard-core’ atheist. Which apparently overwhelmed the poor guy. Either that or he realized he wouldnt have a possie to back him up so he had no choice but to exit anyway.

nemesis too, it was his idea to start this. he was was begging for it. It seems he really didnt want what he asked for.

Oh well, we will continue. I will tone down my rhetoric, which was a bit like a carnival barker in a dunk tank, “I dont think anyone here has a good enough arm to hit the target!”

No need for that now.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 25, 2010 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

For the male genetalia allusions of course LeeFella!

Ozark Michael your arrogance of a true believer is showing. Which is fine, I just thought I would mention it in case you forgot about being humble. I believe that is one of the prerequisites in your religion isn’t it? For me I will jump at the chance to correct someone who mistakes my meager knowledge for infinity. To me a know-it-all is either a mistaken impression or an arrogant fool. I have my limitations and they are vast. Gnothi seaton.

Please continue.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 24, 2010 at 8:37 pm Link to this comment

When I was a little kid, I remember this one kid named Ralphe, when we played baseball he always brought the balls, his dad worked at the local minor leage baseball park.  One day Ralphe forgot his balls, so we couldnt play baseball that day. Several other times Ralphe got mad because someone made fun of his bat, so again Ralphe grabbed his balls and went home!

Since I really never liked playing baseball, I learned many different bat jokes!

Why am I all of a sudden remembering Ralphe and bad bat jokes?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 24, 2010 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

elisalouisa,

as you leave its a sad goodbye. I am sad because I had hoped that you would hang around and contribute to the discussion.

Maybe the topic I have chosen doesnt interest you, or it is also possible that you are not smart enough- but I dont believe that, because you really stayed with it against nemesis and it was a good back and forth argument. I think you were on the verge of making clear a really good point.  Nobody helped you. I didnt think you needed any help and I was waiting to see where it would go. I think it was in your mind but it never got clearly expressed about ‘the spark’. Maybe you will come back to that sometime?
 
The other thing I am sad about is that you are taking the argument(about what exactly? I still dont know) with Shenonymous so seriously that you didnt enjoy my joke. A little banter would have been nice, and a break from the tension. Lets not take ourselves so seriously all the time.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 24, 2010 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

Truedigger said: Alluding to me as “one of those yahoos” was not very nice and was uncalled for, Doc. I think you were using your dick to impress Shenonymous.! I too, have a large collection of all kinds…

I never claimed to have a collection of all kinds.

I only have one.

The one I have is plenty.

Any person who needs to acquire more obviously ‘aint got enuf’ to start with.

Good luck with your collection.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 24, 2010 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

Again as is her usual condition, elisalouisa remembers with
pathological faulty towers, leaving out the prelude to why I called
truedigger3 a housebound pervert.  It is all right because
selective memory will be the fare for small minded people, it is a
disease not easily cured.  She flatly contradicts herself when she
would give TD3 the right to defend himself but not to me who
was to be the first to defend herself against his pathetic vulgar mind.
Desperation makes bedfellows wherever it can. 

It is all here on the forum and if anyone in their right mind really wants
to see for themselves, and I would think they might be a bit odd to do
so, it is there in all its glory and I’ve provided the dates and times.

Just let it be known that should we meet on any other forum you
might think twice, if you are capable of such thinking, before you
embark on calling me a name, any name, or denigrate my person in
anyway, any tiny way.  Left out are all the name-callings
truedigger3 did to so many others that it would take a day to
pull it all together and I say… fuck it.

Report this

By elisalouisa, May 24, 2010 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

Ozark Michael:
Have a great debate. Leefeller and also others are eager for you to start.

Report this

By elisalouisa, May 24, 2010 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment

By Night-Gaunt, May 24 at 2:40 pm #
elisalouisa how is it you can’t see that Truthdigger3 called a fellow member of this forum names including a “liar” but did not prove it? How can you support that? How can anyone? I am disappointed in you.
******
It is I who am disappointed in your Night-Gaunt. As I recall, there was a disagreement as to stated facts/opinion. She called Truthdigger3 some kind of pervert. Truthdigger3 made it clear that such name calling would not be tolerated and there ensued a disagreement. You as self appointed arbitrator decided that TD3 should not get upset at verbal abuse. As
I recall She in one of her discourses said that she would never stand for anyone calling her names but apparently others should, especially when she was doing the name calling. I do not condone verbal abuse, you Night-Gaunt seemed to think it was nothing. You were telling TD3 that “pervert” or whatever the name calling was, was unimportant. Shouldn’t the person who is being verbally abused decide where the line is drawn?  Then suddenly there seemed to be a posse against TD3.  Verbal exchange took a downward direction. That’s when Sodium-Na stepped in and shared with us events that occurred sometime back where She was also at the center of a dispute making reference to She’s posts then compared to those now posted. As verbal exchange continued a downward spiral Sodium-Na requested that for the sake of continuance of the thread TD3 no longer engage in this verbal exchange going nowhere.  In your post Saturday night 5/22, you kept at it. Give it a rest Night-Gaunt, let’s leave it at that. I have instructed my e-mail to no longer inform me when someone writes a post on this thread. Finis.

Report this

By truedigger3, May 24, 2010 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael,

Okay!. What a relief. I was afraid I started a discussion, that I don’t have the time or the inclination to continue. Great!.
By the way, I never showed any symptoms that I am one of those who think or claim “to know it all”.
Alluding to me as “one of those yahoos” was not very nice and was uncalled for, Doc. I think you were using your dick to impress Shenonymous.! I too, have a large collection of all kinds of not very nice words and some of them are real nasty, but I will pass and move on.
Enjoy your debate with Shenonymous and I hope you will have a lot of fun!.

Report this

By truedigger3, May 24, 2010 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, May 24 at 7:48 pm #


Life is too short for this kind of shit. We wasted a lot of time on that nonsense and I have a lot things to take care of. I am moving on. OVER AND OUT.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 24, 2010 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

It is too bad that I feel I have to use Truthdig space to do the
following defense.  But when a vermin such as truedigger3
insists on his frontal attack, it is MY INTEGRITY AT STAKE and he
can bloody well go to hell.  I apologize to all other Truthdiggers and
hope you understand.  If not, well you can go to the same place as
truedigger3.

truedigger3, the pathetic name-caller, posts the following:
”By truedigger3, May 24 at 4:51 pm #
Re:By Night-Gaunt, May 24 at 2:40 pm #
Night-Maggot wrote:?” elisalouisa how is it you can’t see that
Truthdigger3 called a fellow member of this forum names including a
“liar” but did not prove it? How can you support that? How can anyone?
I am disappointed in you.”?
________________________________________________
Night-Maggot,
Now, you are being a liar.!?You requested a proof, and I sent you 3
quotes by Shenonymous with the Date and Time stamp
and
you IGNORED them completely, and you didn’t even say a single word
about them,  and kept attacking me.!!?Give it a rest and knock it
off.!!!”

truedigger3 – I just checked the entire forum, from May 10 when
I first showed up until now.  YOU are the LIAR!  I now have 30
pages of comments between you and me and you only referred to one
quote of mine to Night-Gaunt on May 13 at 3:38pm.  I am more
than happy to repeat all the comments between you and me AGAIN
here on Truthdig and it would take about a dozen posts or more if I
post them word-for-word and I will do it if necessary to show exactly
what kind of an inveterate liar you are!  But I will repost the
abbreviated version I posted on March 16. 
What is more, to the quote you gave Night-Gaunt, I ANSWERED
IT!
  But you refuse to accept my answer.  So here is my middle
finger once again.  You know, just go get a life. 
On May 16 at 2:28pm and at 2:29pm I posted the dates and times of
all our interacting comments.  I do so here once again in a little
bit more expanded format in the next two posts. 

Setting the record straight AGAIN:  This will be painful but the truth
often is painful.

Posted By Shenonymous on May 16 at 2:28 and 2:29pm #
The expose of a Namecaller and Liar
?
I jumped into the fray on? May 10 at 5:56pm. truedigger3 chimes
in May 11 ?at 8:36am no mention of Shenonymous.  I interact
with ITW, Leefeller DJmysticDJ, Warsong, and balkas, but
not truedigger3.

On May 12 at 3:53pm truedigger3  shows up with a remark to
warsong, calling him ?nonsensical and senile, demonstrating his
habit of name-calling.

truedigger3 speaks at 4:27pm without providing ?any sources for
his own pronouncements to Iftekhar as if Iftekhar does ?not
know what he/she is talking about.

At 5:06pm truedigger3 initiates his attack ?against
Shenonymous.  He strangely compliments her on one hand then
attacks on ?the other. Cute way of starting his descent into namecalling.
At 6:32pm She replies to truedigger3 with much respect
and absolutely no namecalling
but offering a reason why he
perceives me the way he ?does as having a preconceived bias

(recalling his usual criticisms of me ?on all other forums where we both
show up).

truedigger3 remarks at ?8:38pm accusing She of large
errors, which is all right, no name calling ?there, whereupon at 9:24pm
She responds asking for truedigger3 to ?show the large
errors I made and with absolutely no namecalling nor even a ?smell of
it.
  That is really a very fine post by me if I have to say so ?
myself.
  Even providing some beautiful Middle Eastern music! (Which
is ?something I frequently do, provide music, never by anyone else!)  Oh ?
well, sigh …to continue.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 24, 2010 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

At 2:12am She replies to indirectly to Sodium ?Na, it was
obvious as I copied and pasted his entire previous comment ?to me.
No remark directed to truedigger3

At 9:09am truedigger3 directs a ?comment at me where I had
defended a comment I made at 2:11 to ?Outragedtoo about
commodities marketplace and the Middle eastern ?countries that are
doing “better than fine.” truedigger3  seems to have taken
?exception to that remark and exaggerates that I forgot the Jews in
my ?report calling me “dishonest.”  That is a name-calling. 

Seeing my ?apparent omission, I explain that in my reply to Sodium
Na’s
second ?Islamist defensive comment to me and to
truedigger3 my explanation ?of why I omitted the Jews WITHOUT
CALLING truedigger3 or Sodium Na A ?NAME but implying
that the latter is unmannerly in his attack on me ?(which I called
harpooning, and which he was unable to fathom).

It is at 12:09pm when truedigger3  shows his name-calling
colors, ?calling me a screamer and flailer and as me calling and hurling
all kind ?of accusations without so much as saying where I did that, and
then ?that I should take a hike while at the same time name-calling
warsong,  ?without any provocation from him, an idiot.

What is truly ?interesting is Night-Gaunt at 2:47pm does complain
that truedigger3?DOES NOT provide proof of his allegations,
which in some small way? corroborates my complaint to
truedigger3

Night-Gaunt again indicts?truedigger3 for his overreaction
to N-G’s comments earlier and? reminding TD3 of his
earlier blatantly reactive accusations of me ?being dishonest, screaming
and flailing.

At 3:38 truedigger3 starts out? being informative but ends up
accusing me of being accusatory and ?deliberately being ethically
dishonest!  A ridiculous charge since I had ?already explained about
the Jews, it is just that he chose to ignore it ?and keep taking a partisan
issue with it attacking my person instead of ?explicitly dealing with what
I said.
  Obviously having a weak argument, ?he resorts as usual to
name-calling. 

At 4:06pm I call him on it.  I begin ?to see that I have hit the nail on the
head.  I do begin to slide into ?preliminary defensive name-calling as
flamer, and vacuous.

Again at ?4:17pm I continue with that metaphor of he living under a
rock ?(meaning he is entrenched in his own opinion)  I ask him
questions ?that he ignores obviously because he cannot answer.  He is
vacant in ?any answers.  Others begin to see his sham.

There is no interaction between he and I until again at May 14 ?
11:40pm when he takes up the excessive name-calling, calling me a ?
liar and fabricator and as falling flat on my face because he senses I ?
did not take his advice (which was rather empty in all reality) and that I ?
was a part of a Zionist continent and embarrassment and liability for ?
some mythological group of people who cheer and egg me on (with ?
absolutely no evidence of that insanity) that I was dumb, and spewing ?
laughable nonsense.  That was a perfect example of his idiotic practice ?
of name-calling.  It was from that post that I surmised he was a ?
housebound pervert that needed public denigration who only baits to ?
get it.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 24, 2010 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

truedigger says: If what you call, the noble traditions of the West, was heavily influenced and formed by Christianity, then how do you explain the heavy influence of Christianity, in ifluencing or forming behaviour in Medievial Europe from the atrocities of the Crusades, (... and etc)

By pure coincidence we just so happen to be discussing that very topic. I know you have been absorbed by other questions(important ones? what are they again?) so you have missed it.

In my humble opinion, these noble traditions came as a result of the enlightment and the ascendancy of Reason. Christianity has nothing to do with these noble traditions except to try smothering it... and etc.

It is nice of you to say it is a humble opinion, but in fact your opinion is massive because it is shared by many. This massive opinion is taught as “history” in universities, which erects the facade of official truth over the massive opinion.

I challenge that mass of opinionopinion. Yes it is only one person against many, but I have a friend that will break your opinion into little pieces. That friend of mine is called the truth.

But dont worry, you will not have your atheist ‘humble opinion’ disturbed. Because you arent paying attention. In other words, you can be as ignorant as you want to be. Is that not the prerogative of hard core atheists?

Did you know, truedigger, that really interesting things only happen rarely? The more intensely interesting an event is the more rare and more powerful it is.

Did you also know that the most rare powerful events are not announced with fanfare but with quietness? Like the ‘stillness in the wind before a hurricane begins’. And after its over you will blink your eyes as you lie in the rubble, wondering what happened. But there are no instant replays in life. The rare event is over and will not oblige itself to be repeated for you.

My challenge appears insignificant to you?(yes, you didnt even notice) That works to my advantage.
You are on the side of the many who think they know it all? I like it that way, it works to my advantage too.
Hard core atheist and all that? Oh my, that works to my advantage more than anything.
You arent paying attention? Perfect!

There are only two or three people here who are intelligent enough to slow me down, and only one person here who is willing to do the work required to stop me from winning this debate. That one is Shenonymous. As we clash She will learn something from me, and i am also in danger of learning something from her.

But fortunately for me, She is busy fending off a band of yahoos who are arguing about whether she said something on may 3rd or may 4th, and what she might have left out on May 5th, and did she mention it or leave it out on May 6th, and the continuation of this topic leads to a climax: the argument with about which parts of their body her friends are thinking with.

Shenonymous knows that my attack is a serious threat.  She will have to learn a great deal before she can stop me. She is trying to build up the breakers, and secure the foundation, because She knows what the stillness in the wind portends and what the strange color of the sky signifies.

But She has to do it alone. Not alone exactly, because she has a band of yahoos trying to trip her up!

This is what i call the perfect storm.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 24, 2010 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Trying to account for his irrational insistence please do see my
retort at May 15 12:23am.  It is a beaut.  I repeat it here for
your appreciation as well.

“By Shenonymous, May 15 at 12:23 am #
Why truedigger3, thank you for the compliments.  It thrills
me ?to see that you are badly stung and can only commence to
speak of? me in such a grody derogatory manner.  Your attempt to
defame me ?is idiosyncratic and simply reflects your continued inability
to make any ?real contribution to any forum on which you try to take
part.  Hence ?you focus on me so that it appears you are doing
something when in?fact you are only crapping in your pants.  My
reasoning is sound by ?the fact that you never say exactly what it is I
have fabricated, what is ?blatant and ridiculous.  What makes you think
any paltry ‘advice’ you ?may give has any merit whatsoever, that in your
conceit you imagine ?you have anything worthwhile to say, or that I care
the tiniest trickle ?what you think. 

And if you think I fall flat on my face, it is of no ?consequence since my
face has been flat since the day I was born.  ?Yup, flatter than a
pancake.  Why it is so flat that I was included in the ?best seller How to
Get Things Really Flat.  It is often difficult to blow my ?nose.  It is all
right though since when I fall flat on my face I never ?injure my nose.

You are a bag of wind that is unable say what I lie ?about, or fabricate. 
I have no worries about tenure or promotion since ?I earned that long
ago. How long has it been since you worked an ?honest day’s work?  So
glad you can laugh since that is all you have ?and I would not deny you
your last breath.  I suspect truedigger3 ?that you are one of those
housebound perverts that needs to be ?denigrated in public and just
keep baiting me to serve your abnormal ?need.  I don’t mind being used
that way.  I’ll be happy to keep showing ?how unhealthy you really
are.”

At 12:18pm truedigger3 ?says I am a hag and a drunk low level
down street whore!  Hmmmm ?what do you make of that, Namecaller? 
Impotent to deal with my ideas ?and resorts to denigrating me.
 
I reply a couple of times, once at ?1:11pm quite obviously pissed off,
and again at 5:09pm.  Also a tour ?de force retaliation. 

His return comment at 7:00pm declares I am ?venomous (which is really
the first truism he’s given, I do have venom ?waiting in my psyche for
any miscreant that dares to attack me).  He ?deludes himself that I care
if he has no respect for me, because first of ?all he has no respect for
himself and easily able to spout epithets to ?those who dare to challenge
him. 

I do respond at 8:52pm calling him ?a disrespectful blockhead.  I am
left with that impression.

After that he ?starts on other people about me, with OzarkMichael
at 11:17pm, ?Leefeller at May 16 12:58am, again with
OzarkMichael at 1:16am, he is ?obviously obsessed.

I chide ITW at 3:00am as it is fast becoming a ?comedy show. 
Then TD3 attacks ITW and attempts to mate him with ?the
Shepotamus!  How hysterically funny.  The guy has obviously come ?
unhinged.

At May 16 9:23am he calls me ugly and repulsive and ?hygienically
challenged (what?  I have body odor?  Oh come on, it is ?middle eastern
men who don’t bath very often).

It is with regret that I have had to do this, but the inveterate and
habitual liar that is truedigger3 must be exposed.  If this is not
enough I will repeat it until it is!  Otherwise, we may move on.

Report this

By truedigger3, May 24, 2010 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment

Re:By Night-Gaunt, May 24 at 2:40 pm #

Night-Maggot wrote:

elisalouisa how is it you can’t see that Truthdigger3 called a fellow member of this forum names including a “liar” but did not prove it? How can you support that? How can anyone? I am disappointed in you.”
________________________________________________

Night-Maggot,

Now, you are being a liar.!
You requested a proof, and I sent you 3 quotes by Shenonymous with the Date and Time stamp and you IGNORED them completely, and you didn’t even say a single word about them,  and kept attacking me.!!
Give it a rest and knock it off.!!!

Report this

By truedigger3, May 24, 2010 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael wrote:
“So there is a clash and a problem that is not resolved between islam and the West. For i love the noble traditions of the West, which are heavily influenced and formed by Christianity, which i love most of all.”
___________________________________________________

OzarkMichael,

If what you call, the noble traditions of the West, was heavily influenced and formed by Christianity, then how do you explain the heavy influence of Christianity, in ifluencing or forming behaviour in Medievial Europe from the atrocities of the Crusades, the atrocities toward the Jews, burning people with different opinions on the stacks and the horrors of inquisitions.
In my humble opinion, these noble traditions came as a result of the enlightment and the ascendancy of Reason. Christianity has nothing to do with these noble traditions except to try smothering it and persecuting any one who was trying to think differently at that time.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 24, 2010 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

I said: “I agree with elisa on this one. When a man is a bit protective, and assists a woman, there is no doubt that part of the motivation arises from masculinity. And frankly, the species would be extinct if men did not ‘think with their dicks’

elisaL responded: OzarkMichael, thank you for your comment for many reasons. Although some may protest, women are usually aware of this and may use it to their advantage.

You have proven that you are not partial thus hopefully making the debate more interesting.

Unfortunately i have not proven my impartiality. Just the opposite in fact.

Notice I did not assist truedigger or ofer, but i did assist you, elise. You are a woman. I am a man who came to your side.

By definition, my interaction on your behalf is tainted by the the anatomic unmentionable. You know, ‘thinking with my dick’.

And a dick can be many things, but it is never impartial when it comes to the feminine.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 24, 2010 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

elisalouisa how is it you can’t see that Truthdigger3 called a fellow member of this forum names including a “liar” but did not prove it? How can you support that? How can anyone? I am disappointed in you.

Truthdigger3 your presentation is stale but your new affronts will be fresh always.

My knowledge of Islam is lacking but I do have a copy of the Al-Qur’an but haven’t read it yet. (From the Institute of Islamic Knowledge)

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 24, 2010 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

nabih, thank you for a good response. There is only one problem that remains on the table between us.

So let me be direct.

Modern praise or condemnation of a book about Islam isnt over scholarship. Praise comes to the author who is upbuilding the Quran and praising Islam in history so that the West will appreciate it better. And then, this is hoped to bring harmony and peace.

The respect that Islam commands, and which you have for it, is surely a noble thing. the goal of peace is a noble thing too.

The result of this nobility is that if an author pronounces anything other than a positive view of Islam, they are automatically ‘discredited’ no matter how many degrees they might have in history and no matter how much they study.

Meanwhile, a person of lesser knowledge can easily earn the laurels of scholarship by merely extolling the glory of Islam.

Out of respect for you, nabih, whenever you are present, i will in a sense go along with it.

But there is also nobility in the traditions of the West. Here is one noble tradition: To fearlessly ask questions. Another noble tradition: To tolerate dissenting points of view and allow them to compete in the marketplace of ideas. in my opinion our culture needs more of this not less.

So there is a clash and a problem that is not resolved between islam and the West. For i love the noble traditions of the West, which are heavily influenced and formed by Christianity, which i love most of all.

But I do not wish to disrupt the peace that ought to be between us. So out of respect for you, Nabih, the noble tradition of Islam prevails when you are present.

Report this

By Sodium-Na, May 24, 2010 at 6:14 am Link to this comment

Re: OzarkMichael,23 at3:24 pm.

I am pleased that we have agreed on three points as you have commented on them in your above Re.

I shall attempt here to reach even more accommodation with you,as much as I possibly can:

Quote
======

You have told me that only a scholar of Islam has the right to make the critique of Islam,but I am not sure if you really mean it. Because you are still defending this Toynbee fellow. I get the feeling that the issue isn’t settled,that some people who are not scholars of Islam are allowed to express their opinions. In that case let us for a moment break the rules and have a discussion. Just for a moment let us express our own oppinion.

Unquote
=======

Fair enough,Ozark Michael.But I must be honest with you here that I will stop posting about Islam after I finish this post to let you and others use as much of this forum to debate Inquisition.I have no intention to get involved in the Inquisition debate.I have no time.

My comments on the paragraph of yours quoted above:

~ If I said that “only a scholar of Islam has the right to make the critique of Islam”,I wish to withdraw it.I do so with a sincere apology. If I told you that it must have been,somewhere,in the 13 different topics I presented to you and Shenon,two or three years ago.I have to check my records just to satisfy my curiosity related to the “why” I goofed and said so.

~ Defense of Toynbee is based on his scholarly,  implacable works of a life time as a well known scholar in the history of mankind. I have made it clear that the reason I listed him because he covered Islam from a historical dimension.That means to me that his scholarship stops there as far as the subject of Islam is discussed or debated.At the top of that since you have so low opinion of him,there is no need to keep him in the list and I suggested that you might wish to make a list of anti-Islam “scholars?” and post it,even if it includes the discredited Robert Spencer anti-Islam empty rhetorics,and you will not hear a protest from me similar to your protestation as I included Toynbee.Please notice I have put the word “scholars?” for the anti-Islam types between quotations and a question mark immediately followed the word. The reason for that is the fact that all those that they claim that they are scholars in thei anti-Islam rhetorics have been proven wrong and discreted time and time again.

As to your suggestion “to violate the rules for the moment”,I do not feel I am violating any rule because I live here in the U.S.and the First Amendment protects my right for free expression.

To cover the other unquoted points in your above Re,I submit the following responses:

* The Qura’n mentioned more than once the two Arabic words and I quote those two words in Arabic exactly as they appear in the Qura’n:“Ahl Al-Kitab”,Arabic tranlastion into English:

Ahl means “People”.
Alkitab means"The Book”.

The end result of the translation is:

“THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK”

To my knowledge all Islamic scholars at the most prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo,Egypt and through the ages as explained by Islamic scholars in different countries,have agreed “THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK” refers to Christians and Jews and the entire Holy Bible,with the Old Testemant and the New Testament combined.

I think the reason for refering to Christians and Jews as “THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK” was do to the fact that in Arabia before Islam appeared in the scene,the Arabs had no Holy Book(Bible) like the Christians and Jews.Hence the Bedouin Arabs of Arabia used to call them exactly as the Qura’n called them “Ahl Al-Kitab”

To what extent or degree the New Testament is recognized in the Qura’n,Sirah and Hadiths,I just do not know.The recognition in the Qura’n is so explicit and I find no problem there. But in the Sirah and Hadith I have no idea. I am the wrong man to address such question to. Perhaps,such deficiency enhances the authenticity of Qura’n even more.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 23, 2010 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

While polishing apples for the apple eater, my funny bone got tired because I have been called a 0 by his nibbs the notable apple eater of ill repute and now it seems we may not learn about the great regions of the world, plus I have been accused of thinking with my ass. 

Interesting choice of words TD, my neighbor just shot his ass with a hand gun, which took 5 shots before he succeeded in dispatching it into donkey heaven, because he couldn’t find an elephant which would have been a much larger target. (True story, except for the elephant)

I would be happy if we could we get back to doing the history, I found it very interesting even with out the Scholarly approval and blessing by his royal nibbs.

Report this

By elisalouisa, May 23, 2010 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

Did you make this up all by yourself Elsia or did some slithering snark whisper it into one Elsa’s ear?
******
Whatever Leefeller, the devil made me do it. He/she whispered into two elisa’s ear.
Personally, best comment of the day is TD3’s.
I shall not repeat it but it’s the last sentence of his 5/23 at 7:40 pm post. What the heck, I’ll repeat part of it. You can fill in the missing words.
You are not thinking with your——but with your—-. Just try and you’ll get it. grin

Report this

By truedigger3, May 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

Re:By Leefeller, May 23 at 3:44 pm #

Re:By Leefeller, May 23 at 6:43 pm #

Weefeller,

What happened to you?! Did you give up on being funny, and started on being nasty and mean spirited.??!!
Two of your buddies, Night-Magott and Shenonymous don’t want to move on, despite the obvious desire of all parties to do so. Now with the front is quite and everyone wants to enjoy peace, they keep sniping without any provocation, knowing exactly that this will eventually escalate. And now, you are blaming elisa for that??!! Give us a break??!!
You are not thinking with your dick, but you are thinking with your ass.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 23, 2010 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

The drivel made me do it! Seems, I have said so before.

I don’t want to cause any problems, or anything, not interested in getting in to a debate or anything, I just cannot stand it when one person can be so smart, so I will say something stupid like someone thinks with his dick! Yeah,..... thats it, what a revelation, I will say he thinks with his dick, but I am not trying to start a debate or cause any trouble, not nothing like that!

Did you make this up all by yourself Elsia or did some slithering snark whisper it into one Elsa’s ear?

As for thinking what people mean when they say something, maybe you should reread what Nemisis stated to you, one never know maybe it could possibly sink in?..... Nope not likely!

Actually it is probably only me, but me thinks I see a pattern here, sort of an alignment of those that slink together!

Report this

By elisalouisa, May 23, 2010 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

Thank you Leefeller for assuming my words carry so much power that I could disrupt an entire thread with my two small posts.
Other statements you make are so much drivel they don’t even deserve a commentary.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 23, 2010 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Jealously becomes conspicuous when disruptions and manipulations seem all to constant and apparent.

Can Elowisa successfully continue with this devious plot bringing an end to all this Un-Scholarly discussion, intended for only preselected Scholar types, otherwise what would the Oracle of Delphi do?

Wrong, wrong yes wrong, proclaimed it is wrong, apple polishers should never be right, because it is said to be so in the sick mind of the demented one, who is so full of him self and has become known as the hypocritical apple eater to the zeros of the world.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 23, 2010 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Sodium says: I emphasized time and time again that I am NO scholar of Islamic studies but only trying to learn.

You are no scholar of Islam, I accept that. The issue is settled. 

And if you are no scholar neither am I. That issue is also settled.

You are still learning. I think that is good. I hope that it continues to enrich your life. That issue is settled.

You have told me that only a scholar of Islam has the right to make the critique of Islam,  but I am not sure if you really mean it. Because you are still defending this Toynbee fellow. I get the feeling that the issue isnt settled, that some people who are not scholars of Islam are allowed to express their opinions. In that case let us for a moment break the rules and have a discussion. Just for a moment let us express our opinions.

I have a question anyway, so i will ask it while I can.

I have been assured and I have even read that Muslims accept the Christian New Testament as a holy book. What i dont know is at what level do they place the New Testament and refer to it as scriptural authority? Equal to which of the following:

A. The Qura’n (The Muslims’ Holy Bible). 
B. The Sirah ( The way Prophet Muhammad conducted his personal life).
C. The Hadiths ( Speeches,comments made by Muhammad).

Since neither one of us are scholars this conversation is frought with difficulty and danger. But a furtive quick expression of your non scholarly opinion is probably safe.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 23, 2010 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

Dr. Ozark Michael

“anatomic unmentionables”, from a doctor no less?

“What’s the diagnosis Doc.”?

“Well according to the anatomic unmentionables,.... it may be something I cannot mention!’

“Wow, is that bad Doc?’

“Not sure,.... because we never mention it”!

Report this

By elisalouisa, May 23, 2010 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

By OzarkMichael, May 23 at 11:28 am #
I agree with elisa on this one. When a man is a bit protective, and assists a woman, there is no doubt that part of the motivation arises from masculinity. And frankly, the species would be extinct if men did not ‘think with their dicks’,

*******
OzarkMichael, thank you for your comment for many reasons. Although some may protest, women are usually aware of this and may use it to their advantage.
You have proven that you are not partial thus hopefully making the debate more interesting.

Report this

By Sodium-Na, May 23, 2010 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

Re: OzarkMichael,May 23 at 10:29 am.

OzarkMichael,

It looks like I hit a nerve so that the Old OzarkMichael I happened to know got excited and subsequently imploded. I know where that nerve is. I intend to overlook it at this time because it will serve no purpose.

What will serve some purpose are the following points raised by you that deserve some responses from me:

“However,a non-scholar like yourself cannot explain the correct interface between Qura’n,Sirah,and Hadiths. A mountain of scholarship goes in to produce the balance.Amountain that you and I have not climbed. No doubt you are misunderstanding not only the Qura’n,but also the scholar Al-Bukhari.”

Wrong!!!  Wrong!! Wrong!! Wrong!! And More Wrongs!!

Islamic scholars differ among themselves about the Qura’n,Sirah and Hadeaths. As a result,all that “mountain of scholarship ” you mentioned is mostly DISAGREEMENTS among equals. What does that prove? It proves nothing.

I have never claimed I understood Islam the way it should be understood. Never. But you have jumped into your usual obsession by any one saying a kind word about Islam. You have not changed Ozark. The same good ol’ OzarkMichael!!! I thought you did. I was wrong.

              ===               

As to the man of piety called Al-Bukhari,you really goofed very badly since all what you have said that I misunderstood him without a grain of salt to prove your accusation. In a court of law,the court will not only reject your emotional accusation but also will kick out of the court.

I do not claim I understood every thing Al-Bukhari said or did completely. But I can assure you that I understand the language of NUMBERS:

According to Mohamed Charfi,Emurits professor at University of Tunis,Al-Bukhari recorded the most correct Hadiths that were said by the Prophet Muhammad and then examined every Hadith claimed by all kind of claimers. Here what he had found:

Total number of all Hadiths claimers claimed that they were said by the Prophet Muhammad were 600,000(six hundred thousands)

Al-Bukhari Retained only 7,257 as certain the Prophet had said.

Out of the 7,257 he found that 4,000 Hadiths were merely repetitions.

Therefore,the true Hadiths according to Al-Bukhari are only 3,257.

The difference between 600,000 and 3,257 is 597,743. A huge,huge,huge and more huges of difference.

Question: who is in his right mind could argue with the language of these numbers?? If you can,I certainly could not!!!

The authenticity of Islam depends upon the authenticity of the Qura’n,not on the Hadiths as the language of numbers have proven. In other words,The Qura’n is authentic. The Hadiths are not.
                  =====

“So you want us to divide books into two types. books that criticize Islam and books that praise Islam.
Is that distinction based on scholarship? I do not think so.”

Ozark,you are the one who divided the list of books I had listed into bias books and unbias books by implication;the moment you assaulted the outstanding British historian Arnold Toynbee and said about a man,most like you had not met and did not know much about when you said and I quote,“He is Pretender”. I responded it was fine with me exclude Toynbees books out. And at the top of that,you bring the scholarship again after I emphasized time and time again that I am NO scholar of Islamic studies but only trying to learn. 

I can disect more of your faulty claims as you expressed them in your above Re. but I have to stop here because I am running out of space(the 4000 words allowed by Td).

Yes,indeed,you should go back to the Christian Inquisitions of Europe where you most likely know more about than about Islam. That is where you really belong!!

Have a nice day,my friend of old.

Report this

By ofersince72, May 23, 2010 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

ThanK You She for posting that

I had totally forgot that.

Report this

By truedigger3, May 23, 2010 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, May 23 at 10:06 am #


Shenonymous wrote:


You perceive me as being ‘against’ TD3 and that is the skewed misperception to which I was referring.  I am and never was ‘against’ TD3 and I only started my ascendency to my indefatigable royal seat on the high horse of self perservation against his inception to call me the vilest of names and cast aspersions against my character because he was incapable to give a decent answer to the topic at hand. “
____________________________________________________

Shenonymous,

I thougth we have moved on past this episode of shrieking with an EVIL PITCH.
Now since you are ensconced in your high throne,
maybe it is better to pay attention to your mortal subjects, and spreading peace and harmony in the land, instead of this inceassant preoccupation and regurgitation of that episode with its shrieking piercing tone with an EVIL PITCH.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 23, 2010 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

Acting like the Gate Keeper of Debt, OM, you seem to give
great stock in the fact that men only react with their dicks and
never with their brains.  I will keep that in mind and every man is
now subject to having dickitis, a serious condition for which many
more male enhancement drugs will be needed given that most are
impotent by reason of thinking so much with their dicks instead of
their brains.  Personally I prefer the latter.  And then you will be able
to give even greater stock to the disease.  You shall have to include
yourself won’t you?  What a different world it would be if dickitis were
eradicated but it might eliminate even that strain of the affliction that
acts on behalf of assaulted women, who are assaulted by their brethren
dickheads. 

It is an interesting strategy though OzarkMichael.  You have now
successfully earned a permanent seat at the right hand of
SodiumNa The most virulent She Basher.  For what you have
essentially done is to try to neutralize Shenonymous completely.
For now whenever a dickhead takes his dick in hand to bash and
viciously attack Her no other dick will be brave enough say anything
even on behalf of rightness, from fear of being called one of The
Benevolents Who Think With Their Dicks.  But contrary to your plan,
She is not afraid to stand alone. 

Right it was not dear Bobby, youtube is not playing his own vocals
much these days.  It must be a copyright thing.  The version you
posted is okay.  I’m not fond of the quality of voice though. And it is
intermittent which is distracting.  The pictures are not too enjoyable
either.  So a difference in taste is not uncommon.  I have the real Bobby
on cd and can listen most of the time, actually anytime.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 23, 2010 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous said: I do not know how to thank a dick though, would you please instruct further?  Then I can thank you too.

For all men at all times everywhere, interacting with a woman is always a complicated thing. We never know if we are getting lucky or getting into trouble… or both… or neither.

Either way, you got me pretty good. eheheh.

Jokes aside, we move on to your Bob Dylan link, which was not Bob Dylan but a cover of his song. Here is another cover, this time by a woman and I like it too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPxzbJME2xs&feature=related

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 23, 2010 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

I said you had a superlative sense of humor and you only prove me
right, Warsong.  And you are good natured as well.  I so much
enjoy your comments.  I can just see Isabella jumping up and down.
Trampolines must not have had been invented yet.  Imagine the
additional power she could have wielded had she had one! 

Aye, OzarkMichael.  Duly noted.  I thank you, elisalouisa.
Do you really believe, OzarkMichael, that is all she is asking
for?  I thank Night-Gaunt, though I do believe (and it is only a
belief based on an accumulation of his consistent excellent posts) he
was being masculine but not on my behalf but rather on the behalf of
reality.  He does strike me as an unusually masculine male realist. 

I do not know how to thank a dick though, would you please instruct
further?  Then I can thank you too.  And anatomical unmentionables do
not deter me either, but I do watch my language, most of the time.  Oh
boy that reminds me of another Bobby Dylan song.  Gotta love that
Jewboy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AledV2zcfCo&feature=related

Most Of The Time

Most of the time
I’m clear focused all around
Most of the time
I can keep both feet on the ground
I can follow the path, I can read the signs
Stay right with it when the road unwinds
I can handle whatever I stumble upon
I don’t even notice she’s gone
Most of the time

Most of the time
It’s well understood
Most of the time
I wouldn’t change it if I could
I can make it all match up, I can hold my own
I can deal with the situation right down to the bone
I can survive, I can endure
And I don’t even think about her
Most of the time

Most of the time
My head is on straight
Most of the time
I’m strong enough not to hate
I don’t build up illusion ’til it makes me sick
I ain’t afraid of confusion no matter how thick
I can smile in the face of mankind
Don’t even remember what her lips felt like on mine
Most of the time

Most of the time
She ain’t even in my mind
I wouldn’t know her if I saw her
She’s that far behind
Most of the time
I can’t even be sure
If she was ever with me
Or if I was with her

Most of the time
I’m halfway content
Most of the time
I know exactly where it went
I don’t cheat on myself, I don’t run and hide
Hide from the feelings that are buried inside
I don’t compromise and I don’t pretend
I don’t even care if I ever see her again
Most of the time

Report this

By truedigger3, May 23, 2010 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

By Night-Gaunt, May 22 at 7:08 pm #


Night-Gaunt,

It seems everyone is moving on except you??
I used to deride you, but now I feel sorry and pity for you.
You need serious introspection, and most likely professional help.!!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 23, 2010 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous discusses elisa L’s post: But never have I ever said anyone was thinking with their dick as you did of Night-Gaunt, who of all the men who post on Truthdig, is the least one who thinks with his dick!

I agree with elisa on this one. When a man is a bit protective, and assists a woman, there is no doubt that part of the motivation arises from masculinity. And frankly, the species would be extinct if men did not ‘think with their dicks’, instinctively putting themselves between danger and the female.

On the other hand, men ‘thinking with their dicks’ could also refer to the aggressive instinct which causes men to start fights and wars for no good reason.

That does not seem to be what NightGaunt was doing. I think he was “thinking with his dick” in the former, good and helpful way. In which case, Shenonymous, you should thank Elisa for pointing it out. You should thank Night Gaunt, and while you are at it perhaps a brief thanks to his dick is in order. This seems to be all Elisa is asking for.

I am happy to explain exactly who owes what to whom and why. Even the anatomic unmentionables do not deter me.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 23, 2010 at 7:01 am Link to this comment

Wow!.... Eloisa talking dirty,..... this may prove to be a
new fetish I need to explore, a proclivity conjuring
hidden flushes of excitement with twisted newer different
meanings?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 23, 2010 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

Therefore,my entire relationship with Islam is based mainly on the Qura’n,its wise verses,but above anything else,its exceedingly beautiful Arabic langage. I define it,in time past,that it is NOT Arabic poetry,NOR is it Arabic prose,rather it is the “Qura’nic Arabic”. And I love it.

I would never want to denigrate that. If in the past, in the heat of argument, I have done so or even seemed to do so, I apologize.

Altough I do not deny that there were Sirah and Hadith in Muhammad’s life. However,those two,in my views,should be considered secondary to the Qura’n,not as certain forces in this country trying to make belief that the Sirah and Hadith as more important than the Qura’n to the Muslim. Why? because a man of piety by the name of Al-Bukhari had shown that most of the recorded Hadiths and Sirah were FALSE. The authenticity of the Qura’n is for real.

However, a non-scholar like yourself cannot expalin the correct interface between Qura’n, Sirah, and Hadiths.  A mountain of scholarship goes in to produce the balance. A mountain that you and I havent climbed. No doubt you are misunderstanding not only the Qur’an, but also the scholar Al Bukhari.

You appreciate the Qur’an, there is nothing wrong with that. You also appreciate the judgement of Islam upon us, namely, that non scholars such as ourselves are only prattling when we discuss Islam.

If in the past I ever discussed the meaning of Islam(and yes I know I did!), out of respect for your view of Islam, which is also the view that Islam has of itself, we will play by your rules, Islam’s rules.

So, if one, or all of the books I personally have already recommended in earlier posts are not accepted by my good friend Ozark,it is fine with me to withdraw them all,...

That is acceptable to me. It seems the wisest thing to do.

...if he can provide more unbiased books

Bias? When did bias enter the picture? We are speaking of what Islam requires from us before we can have a meaningful discussion of Islam, and we have on this forum collectively decided that we do not meet those requirements.

...if he can provide more unbiased books,
as long as they are not the discredited books that certain forces in the U.S. are trying to promote to keep the hatred toward Islam and Muslims as fuel to wage war and satisfy the Military Industrial Complex.

You want us to divide books into two types. Books that criticize Islam and books that praise Islam.
Is that distinction based on scholarship? I do not think so.

Also, you are bringing motivations into it. If good motivation is what elevates a book to the level of Islamic scholarship, I would like to know exactly which motivations one must have.

The idea that correct motivation and correct bias is needed for a book to be acceptable, while all other books are eo ipso “discredited”.. reminds me of something… I cant quite figure out what… but I have heard that before.

No matter, we can talk about something else instead of the unapproachable majesty of Islam. We will talk about plain Christianity. 

And the Inquisition…

...did anyone else just hear an echo?

Well, on to the Inquisition!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 23, 2010 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

elisalousia since you mentioned my name in vain I am
behooved by my integrity to make a few comments.  It appears
to me that your perception is skewed and your language is more
foul than I have ever written.  Would you please recite the “crude”
language used on this site, as crude is in the eye of the beholder.
Well… I do admit to using the word fuck about fourteen times in one
post on another forum about a year ago in defensive response to a
real “dickhead” who thought he could commence to rip
Shenonymous to shreds.  Needless to say he didn’t.  And on
occasion I have used the word ‘shit’ having learned such scatalogical
expletives from my very precocious nephew who influences me a lot.
But never have I ever said anyone was thinking with their dick as you
did of Night-Gaunt, who of all the men who post on Truthdig, is
the least one who thinks with his dick!  Why whatever possessed you? 
A sexdemon, I’m sure.  Or an instant inordinate need to talk dirty? 
Perhaps a sign of immorality lurks closer to the surface than you might
think.  It makes you look… jealous.  And aren’t you the one that goes
about reminding others of Jesus’s benevolent sentiments?  What a joke. 

Now here is something most interesting you said in your last post “As
to the bickering on this forum, there is a sexual connotation on these
threads that is mostly unconscious and may influence the posters. Thus
allowing for the fact that there are so many crude comments on these
threads you will allow me one.”
  What exactly shows there is a
“sexual connotation” that is mostly unconscious?  And what is the
degree in psychology that you have that gives you authority to make
that statement?  And what justifies the case of why you should be
allowed one sexually crude statement?  Weird logic going on.  It is a
misperception that crude language might be a ticket into certain boys
clubs, so I’ve heard.  Girls have to do a whole lot more to break in their
doors, uh…get in their pants.

Now you have the inalienable right to choose whomever you wish to
make friends with, but you ought not to do it at the expense of others. 
It becomes another sign of immorality, perhaps also unsuspectingly,
uh…unconsciously.  It kind of makes you look like… a camp follower. 
But suit yourself. 

You perceive me as being ‘against’ TD3 and that is the skewed
misperception to which I was referring.  I am and never was ‘against’
TD3 and I only started my ascendency to my indefatigable royal
seat on the high horse of self perservation against his inception to call
me the vilest of names and cast aspersions against my character
because he was incapable to give a decent answer to the topic at hand. 
I suppose you approve of men doing that?  He, erroneously, did not
calculate that I would and could field all of his crude aspersions
mightily.  And I’m sure you are yourself astounded!  First Rule of
Acqusition of the Ferengi:  One must not awaken a sleeping dragon. 
You might get yourself to a psychiatrist to see what it is that is causing
you such psychiatric problems.

Report this

By Sodium-Na, May 23, 2010 at 5:04 am Link to this comment

Re: OzarkMichael,May 22 at 7:02 pm.

Ozark,my friend of old,

I wish first to make a few comments about my relationship with Islam:

(1) I have never considered myself scholar in the subject of Islam because I am not. Period.

(2) I may know more about Islam than the average person. That means exactly what the words here mean: Knowing a little bit more than the average person. once again period.

(3) The above points (1) and (2) are true about my relationship with Islam as a complete whole. The whole is fundamentally composed of three issues,each has its own dynamic:
A. The Qura’n (The Muslims’ Holy Bible). 
B. The Sirah ( The way Prophet Muhammad conducted his personal life).
C. The Hadiths ( Speeches,comments made by Muhammad).

(4) Altough I do not deny that there were Sirah and Hadith in Muhammad’s life.However,those two,in my views,should be considered secondary to the Qura’n,not as certain forces in this country trying to make belief that the Sirah and Hadith as more important than the Qura’n to the Muslim. Why? because a man of piety by the name of Al-Bukhari had shown that most of the recorded Hadiths and Sirah were FALSE. The authenticity of the Qura’n is for real.

I ask the following fundamental question:

Without the Qura’n could have been a religion called Islam? The answer is obvious.

Therefore,my entire relationship with Islam is based mainly on the Qura’n,its wise verses,but above anything else,its exceedingly beautiful Arabic langage. I define it,in time past,that it is NOT Arabic poetry,NOR is it Arabic prose,rather it is the “Qura’nic Arabic”. And I love it.

So,if one,or all of the books I personally have already recommended in earlier posts are not accepted by my good friend Ozark,it is fine with me to withdraw them all,if he can provide more unbiased books as long as they are not the discredited books that certain forces in the U.S. are trying to promote to keep the hatred toward Islam and Muslims as fuel to wage war and satisfy the Military Industrial Complex.

I regret that OzarkMichael has a low opinion of a great historian like Arnold Toynbee,one of the most respected historians,if not the most respected,world wide. His talent and ability in recording history of mankind,including religions are highly recognized among the community of nations.

I have included Toynbee and I specified why: “He covers Islam from a historical dimension”. Nothing more and nothing less.

Again,I must remind my good friend that what matters to me is the language of the Qura’n and then the correct interpretations of its verses. Accepting or rejecting the recommded books is totally secondary to me. Therefore,let every one find what his or her own unbiased books. It is going to be tough-real tough. Good luck to everyone interested.

Report this

By Warsong, May 23, 2010 at 4:46 am Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, May 23 at 8:12 am #

Very good answer, and, you’re right, the Treaty of Grenada was written in 1491, and, signed in 1492. The other Treaty in 1500 (as I recall), concerned Moracco.

Some databases use the 1491 date, but, the Muslim world refers to the actual signing in 1492, as the greatest blow ever suffered by Islam.

The ‘reputed’ author of the “Treaty of Grenada” is Christopher Columbus, and, his price for this service was three ships, The Nina, the Pinta, and, the Santa Maria. But, this is not mentioned in any story I can find on Wikipedia, or several others I’ve tracked down, only in books about the “Holy Grail,” specifically those of Baigent, Leigh, and, Lincoln (all three athiests…the “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” series), and, others I’ve read by other Authors (which may have drawn from the books mentioned).

You’re good, ya know?

Incidentally, Ferdinand and Isabella appear on my family tree, and, this is not something to be really proud of, she may have been one of the squirreliest broads that ever lived. Her favorite pastime seems to have been jumping on her bed, squealing with maniacle joy.

Report this

By elisalouisa, May 23, 2010 at 4:21 am Link to this comment

By Sodium-Na, May 23 at 5:21 am
I agree with your post entirely. As to the future, I also have no intention of debating this issue or any other issue and just making occasional comments on Chris Hedges columns. Perhaps Sodium you could post your views on Islam on your website at a future date that would include the relationship of men and women and the family unit and why that relationship is as it is. I would hope that you could handle this subject without bias.

As to the bickering on this forum, there is a sexual connotation on these threads that is mostly unconscious and may influence the posters. Thus allowing for the fact that there are so many crude comments on these threads you will allow me one. Nigh-Gaunt has gone way off track and is thinking with his dick in his biased and continual siding with She against TD3.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 23, 2010 at 4:12 am Link to this comment

Warsong, Not sure what you are up to here, but there were
two such called treaties, one dated 1491 between the Catholic King
and Queen of Castile and Aragon and the Sultan who was the amir
of Granada, Abu ‘abd Abdallah Muhammd XII (King Boabdil), (most
likely the one you are talking about), and the treaty of 1500 between
that same king and Louis XII of France (that would not directly pertain
to the discussion here). 

The 67-point Treaty came after a 10-year intermittent war between
Christians and Muslims.

I suggest that you not be cryptic, since playing guessing games is not
a favorite pastime of mine.  I will provide this time some of what you
ask, and this time only since you are able to do your own research,
much as I enjoy it I do it mainly for myself.  But, to show my honesty in
pursuing truth, as also do Night-Gaunt, and in his own unique
way, Leefeller, but I am unable to provide all.  If you don’t
already know the answers, and I suspect you do, you might find some
answers at
http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/tbirving-2/title.htm or
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=7114
An interesting description of what led up to the Battle of Granada and
consequences into the 16th century (a question of succession to the
crown was part of the cause) and the outcome.  Ferdinand II was cagey
and used King Boabdil to finally conquer Granada.  It is highly likely
that Boabdil’s action eventually caused the destruction the Moors in
Spain.  Much intrigue between Ferdinand II and the Mamluks of Egypt. 
Also fascinating is the continued trade between North Africa and
Castile.  Sort of remindful of today’s economic structures.  Does history
repeat itself even in some small ways? 

A more concise account may be found at
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Isabella-of-Castile#Granada

A more colorful account may be had reading Olivia Remie Constable’s
book, Medieval Iberia: readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish
sources
pages 343-350.  I have to assume that Boabdil wrote the
67-clauses since they protected the Moors and Ferdinand II grated all
requests and stipulations as collected from a survey of the Muslim
people.  What he benefitted may be seen in those 67-clauses, also
called the Capitulations of Granada.  Boabdil was offered money and the
rulership of a small principality in the mountains but when that didn’t
work out, he went back to Morocco and lived there 40 more years. I’m
sure you can fill in where I’ve left gaps.

In the final analysis it didn’t do much good since by reason of converso
all the Moors left in Spain either had to convert or be executed.  The
relative benefit was short term.  Now I am conjecturing since I am not a
scholar of Islam, Iberia, or Christianity of that era.  I have a couple of
books and have to research on the net for whatever meager information
there is.

Report this

By Sodium-Na, May 23, 2010 at 2:34 am Link to this comment

Re: Truedigger3,May 22 at 10:37 am.

Quote
======

I think I figure out what do you mean by “debate the issue honestly.

For you the most important issue is to explain and discuss Islam.

Unquote
=======

Td3,

Rest assured I have no intention to initiate,
faccilitate or participate in any debate about religions,including Islam. Reasons:

* I have limited time to spend behind the computer because of family obligations. I may extend a helping idea to the debate if my time allows,providing my time allows to do so.

* Discussing and explaining Islam or any other religion has never accomplished anything positive,only waste of time and possibly or rather probably hard feeling at the end between the people involved. I went through such an experience countless times. The result was similar,if not the same. I may make a comment to a poster like OzarkMichael who does indeed have a degree of knowledge about Islam,however sometimes incorrect. The idea here is not to debate him, but to remind him that any issue in Islam cannot possibly be that simple as he may fall in the simplicity traps for an easy way out.

* I have now my own website for which I have plan that may require all the free time I may have and hence even less and less time to post on TD. However,Whatever happens,Chris Hedges I will read.

As you may see,it is not what it has appeared that I am after starting a debate on Islam because I have no such intention whatsoever.Period.

Report this

By Warsong, May 23, 2010 at 2:25 am Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, May 23 at 4:06 am #


”...visited Granada when the anniversary of the fall of the city to the army of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella was having a celebration. The church bells were ringing and much ebullient feasting going on…”

1. What was the date of the “Treaty of Granada?”
2. Who was the author? (debatable)
3. And, how did he benefit thereby?

Report this

By Warsong, May 23, 2010 at 2:06 am Link to this comment

By OzarkMichael, May 22 at 7:02 pm #

“I will prove it, starting with this Islamic concept: That only the highest level of correctly acquired scholarship attained by a lifetime of study (performed in Arabic) can hope to attain a true understanding of Islam.”

I gather, then, that you believe the victims, in any historical tradgedy, should not have a voice, and, their complaints stricken from the record as irrelevant.

Report this

By Sodium-Na, May 23, 2010 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

Re: Truedigger3,May 22 at 8:18 am.

Td3,

You certainly have misunderstood what I meant by “other posters who genuinely wanted to debate the issue honestly”:

elisa
Anarcissie
OzarkMichael
nemesis2010
MarthaA
ThomasG
( I apologize if I left any other names )

The rest,including myself,got themselves involved in bickerings that seemed to have no end to it. I felt it was time to end the bickerings in due respect to the posters whose names where/are cited above.

Is that clear to you,Td3?

I consider all your insulting comments in your above Re caused by an unguarded moment of misunderstanding and anger. We all are human beings and have our moments of weakness and subsequently we all are not immune from making mistakes.

One important point I suggest you remember: If you meant nothing to me,you would have heard nothing from me,at all.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 23, 2010 at 12:06 am Link to this comment

The way we see things we see them from our own perspective and
does not very often meet the way things are. For the way things
are have a history that are hidden from general view.

It is told that once the famous Syrian intellectual Muhammad Kurd
‘Ali, writer of Khitat al-Sham, a 6-volume history of Syria, had
visited Granada when the anniversary of the fall of the city to the
army of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella was having a celebration.
The church bells were ringing and much ebullient feasting going on,
but in Kurd ‘Ali’s mind, the people he was walking with were in his
reality celebrating a historical tragedy – a triumph of ignorance over
science – and he gloomily predicted that Morocco (which was still a
French colony at the time) would be the next place from which the
Arabs would b expelled.  They were expelled in 1570.

Without a doubt your argument about understanding Islam is strong
OzarkMichael.  I cannot speak for anyone else nor would I dare
to, but for myself, to the degree that we can have some peripheral
knowledge I think it is worth the effort to do so since Islam is one of
the strongest forces in the world today and affects the lives of every
American, Muslim or not. 

Unfathomable as a religion is, it should not deter anyone from trying to
learn about it.  For instance, sometime ago an old gentleman who once
said he was my friend sent me a lovely book on the Alhambra which I
read with much admiration.  The friendship went bye the bye but I still
have the lovely book and the far reaching history that accompanied it.

But OzarkMichael is right.  It would take a lifetime and still an
infidel would not understand it, especially an atheist! I try not to let my
atheism get in the way of learning about others’ beliefs or respecting
them if that is reciprocated to the same degree.  It think if I am going
to live in a multicultural world, and if I believe in the freedoms I hold as
dear as anyone else, then I should be tolerant to a high degree.  I don’t
know, could it be a genetic thing, or is it something I learned? The
age-old question, nature or nurture?  All that notwithstanding, I do
believe it is worthwhile to gain as much knowledge about Islam even if
one has infidel status.  What I do not like is when I my personal being
is criticized with such hatred up and down the Mesopotamia that as a
non-Muslim it makes me not want to learn anything more about it and
its peoples and its beliefs if these people represent what it is all about. 
The face that has been shown to me on these forums is the same
ugliness that is spoken about on the vacuous news media.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 22, 2010 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

Christianity in Three Parts (it is fitting, is it not?)
I have not said much about Christianity the reason being is that
it is to come (starting now) and it is the tradition into which I was
born and know as well as a Muslim would know Islam. 
OzarkMichael is a Christian and speaks proudly of being a
Christian, which is commendable for one should own what one
believes in.  Most Americans are from the Christian tradition even
though the ratio is dwindling with the influx of different cultures but
I highly doubt it will be eclipsed by any other and even as the ratio of
atheists climb almost exponentially if the statistics can be believed,
Christianity will still be the largest group.

It seems to take OM’s project seriously we have to take his
questions seriously.  I do but I don’t speak for everyone.  Nous ne
laisserons pas cet arrêt nous, nous?

His question as I understand it, is what are the different ways that
Christianity is responsible, if it is at all, for the Spanish Inquisition.  I
believe if we can get through it we will all learn something valuable
from the examination.  We may not solve the heavy issues of the day in
the world, but in this little world of Truthdig, we might leave with more
tolerance, more respect, more integrity. For it is those things in our
own selves that we must preserve.  One person at a time is the only
way the world will be changed.

OzarkMichael seems to think, prima facie, that there is no
connection or so I got that implication from an earlier post.  He asks
why would a person, a typical person support the Inquisition which
Pope Sixtus IV (the Church) and later the King of Spain, Ferdinand (the
State) ordered to be put into practice.  And further, what specific
doctrines of Christianity gave those orders legitimacy?  Reciting
Romans 12: v1 and 2, he seems to think those verses gave the
Christian peasant the holy reason that translated into duty, his
Christian duty, to surrender himself to the will and authority of another,
in OM’s words, submit.  We should hold that question to visit again
later as that very mien will be seen to be most important.

OM goes on to say that “there are many other reasons to support
the Inquisition (other than duty), many other reasons to blame the
Inquisition on Christianity. And he is correct again, in my opinion, a
good look at the leadership rather than the common people is the
“ought” here, what we ought to do.  It might be easier since single
large targets are easier to analyze than whole abstract common people
who are faceless and hence we cannot know their mind in the least.  At
least not as well as we can those leaders who have had faces. 
Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that it is the religion itself that
is on trial here, right?  But we will get to it later on.

Now we might as well start with the Pope, Sixtus IV,the Pope at the
time of the 15th century, because it is believed the Pope speaks for
God.  The Pope, or the bishop of Rome, is the “shepherd” of all
Christians.  And it is here we have to digress just a tad because, again,
in Christian thought the Pope is considered the infallible leader of the
religion and is inextricably linked to anything that is done in the name
of the Church.  To be infallible means it is exempt from the possibility
of error.  The encyclopedia says that infallibility, in Christian
thought, in addition to the Pope, is also bestowed on the Church as the
teaching authority, as a gift of the Holy Spirit.  This has been believed
since the earliest times of Christianity to be guaranteed in such
scriptural passages as the New Testament, the Christian Testament,
John 14:16,17.  The analogous attribute of the Bible is usually called
inerrancy.  Veritable truth.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 22, 2010 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

Segueing into that the Orthodox Eastern Church holds that only
the Church, taken as an integral community and spiritual body
guided by the Holy Spirit, is infallible.  Where as Roman Catholics
hold that the infallibility of the church is vested in the pope, when
he speaks ex cathedra (i.e., with the authority derived from his
office, his position, that is, from the chair of Peter, existentially
being the visible head of the church) on matters of faith and morals.
Definitive pronouncements resulting from an ecumenical council, when
ratified by the Pope, are also held to be infallible. The pope speaks
ex cathedra.

Protestants, however, widely reject infallibility of the Church although
many fundamentalists believe in the explicit truth as the verses are
written, from the Logos and Fall from the Garden in Genesis to the last
words of Revelation.  It is what provides authority for Christian faith. 
Even though there are differences of opinions as witnessed by the
number of religions within Christianity, beginning with Catholicism,
there are five major sects: Anglicanism, Assyrian Church of the East,
Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Roman Catholic Church.
And within these while not exactly different religions, there are orders
or a variety of beliefs that differ in some way from each other.  On the
Protestant side there are 22 sects that includes the two Pre-Lutheran
Protestants, the Hussites and the Waldensians.  Among these 22, there
are according to Christianity Today – General Statistics and Facts of
Christianity Toda, approximately 38,000 denominations, that is thirty-
eight thousand not all verifiable according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Is there something curious with this information. 

So to bring it back around, what does this all mean with respect to
OM’s question about leaders?  We have dispensed with the nature of
the Pope, but not The Pope Sixtus IV who ran the Christian Show in the
15th century.  Radical Protestantism did not begin until Luther’s 95
Theses and his door.

But it was not just the Pope, who really was a kind of a waffling Pope. 
First he sanctioned the Inquisition, then he didn’t, then he did again. 
There was another figure, one huge butt kicking friar, Tomás de
Torquemada.  A Dominican friar, and the first Inquisitor General of
Spain.  The structure of the Inquisition was based no a military model,
hence it was a war. 

The Inquisition is believed by most historians to have been a combined
decision of the Pope and Torquemada.  Torquemada is also believed to
be a notorious mass murderer.  My next post will say a few words
about Torquemada as I am getting drowsy. 

I wanted to say before snoozing off, that I agree with Night-
Gaunt,
and would hope because he is such a fine and logical
thinker, that he will contribute all that he knows about the involvement
of Christianity with the Spanish Inquisition as well and how does
Christianity itself fit into the puzzle of the Inquisition.  Of course,
anyone, everyone, else is joyfully invited to do so as well.  I hope so as
well!

Aren’t you so lucky you have someone to do all of this work and
thinking for you?  LOL Research writing is my academic thing.  You
thesis and dissertation writers know what I am talking about!  This is
not a project that can be dismissed with clever comments.  Although I
hope many do show up! 

This is so much better than bickering, isn’t it?  Bonsoir et bonne nuit

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 22, 2010 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller

My Synopsis here; So it seems the Inquisition made everyone trade in their camel for a donkey or become the Popes dish rag.

I think I am learning something here and this remands me of Buck Rogers or Flash
Gordon and the bad guy, who was like the pope!

From what I understand, people used to pay money for front row seats at these inquisition showings?

Like Night Guant, I find these historical contributions interesting, though I suppose not for the same reason. Please continue!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 22, 2010 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

Why would the typical person support the Inquisition which the Pope(the leader of the Church) and later the King of Spain(the leader of a state) ordered to be carried out?

What particular doctrines of Christianity were used to support the idea of an Inquisition?

It was not long ago that nemesis was begging for a Christian to ‘own’ the Inquisition. I agreed to do so, and here I am. This is his chance. Is nemesis so polite that he doesnt want to hurt my feelings?

In that case, let me go first. I will start from a Bible verse which leaders of state and church used to justify themselves and command compliance:

Romans 13: v1 and 2

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God. Consequently, he who resists authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

A Christian peasant might understand that it was his Christian duty to submit, and that those who resist the authority of the Pope or the King of Spain deserve the punishment that was about to be inflicted upon them.

There are many other reasons to support the Inquisition, and there are many other reasons to blame the Inquistion on Christianity.

Perhaps we should work on the leadership end instead of the common people? Would that be easier?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 22, 2010 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

Let us return to the topic which we may discuss freely.

Starting with the year 1252, I was hoping for an explanation of why the average Christian person in medieval times would give tacit or enthusiastic support to the Inquisition.

Since we are associating the Inquisition with Christianity, I would like to understand the different ways that Christianity is responsible. It might require assuming a Christian mindset but that should not be difficult. It could also be done with some research.

If we cannot show that Christianity is responsible for the Inquistion in any way, then we must no longer link the two. And the university would be requested not to link the two either.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 22, 2010 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

Night-Maggot? At least maggots are true to themselves and only eat dead things. What are you? Truth? Not so far. Redemption is a good thing not bad.

Even Sodium-Na saw that you were wrong. You say something but then refuse to back it up. A dead end way on any forum. So get alive! (Note: I have had to apologize when I have been wrong. No one is right all of the time. We grow from our mistakes and die from not seeing, heeding and eliminating them from our character.)

I enjoy both the contributions of Ozark Michael & Shenonymous for their education series. Please continue. It fits with the topic of this forum.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 22, 2010 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

For a few days now several people have contributed opinions and links to books about Islam: Sodium, Shenonymous, Truedigger3.

In the judgement of Islam, this is a frivolous activity.

I will prove it, starting with this Islamic concept: That only the highest level of correctly acquired scholarship attained by a lifetime of study (performed in Arabic) can hope to attain a true understanding of Islam

We all confess that none of us have attained that level of scholarship. Sodium has spent years of formal study. I have spent years of informal study. If Sodium is not a scholar, then neither am I.

Now if the ones who have studied the most are not scholars, then surely the ones who just possess 6 or 8 Islamic books in their library are not scholars. And if 6 or 8 books doesnt make you a scholar, then the ones with no Islamic books certainly arent scholars.

It follows logically that everyone’s criticism of Islam is invalid. If we are not scholars of Islam then we do not know what we are talking about when we criticize it.

If we do not know what we are talking about when we criticize Islam, then it stands to reason that our praise of Islam is also made from ignorance. Praise attempts to signify our knowledge, but in fact our praise of Islam is ignorant, it is fluffy frivolousness of the most presumptuous kind.

So unfortunately if our criticisms are invalid, then our praises are also invalid.

If our both criticism and praise of Islam is invalid, then our internet links are surely invalid. If you dont know where you are going, how foolish for you to direct the rest of us with an internet link?

I am surprised and that anyone(especially shocked that Sodium) would presume to try to direct anyone to anything, as if it could lead to us gaining a proper opinion of Islam. For three reasons:

First, several or maybe all of those books/links were not written by Islamic scholars. For example, this Toynbee fellow that Sodium recommends. Did Toynbee spend a lifetime toiling in Arabic at Al Azhar? No. Strike Toynbee’s accursed name from the list. Islamically speaking, he has not earned that right. He is a pretender.

Secondly, even if one of the links is to a true scholar of Islam, which of you is egotistical enough to believe that in a few hours of reading you will somehow attain the work of a lifetime? As if you can grab scholarship from out of the scholar’s pocket and run with it? Islam has guarded itself against such banditry.

Thirdly: Even if by a miracle one of us had an epiphany and attained instant scholarship, we could not could not render an original opinion of Islam, since any new evaluation of Islam is highly questionable. Many scholars opine that there has been a freeze placed on new interpretations, the so called “closure of the gates of ijtihad”.

Islamically speaking, it almost a crime to invite people to browse a book and form their own opinion, which Sodium seems to be doing.

So whether your statements about Islam are complements or whether they are condemnations, whether you link to this favorable book or that critical one, even if you happen to get lucky and by chance link to a true scholar of Islam, even if by a miracle one of us attains instant scholarship, it will do us no good.

Islam is a fortress. You either go in it or pass it by. If you become a Muslim you are in the fortress, and you may be limited in your options to criticize Islam and to leave Islam.

If you are not a Muslim, you are outside the fortress. But even then Islam defines your role:  silence and respect. This is what Islam expects from every person within the global village.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 22, 2010 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

No matter how much is written, there is always more that can be
written:

The real reason no Arab Muslims were to be found in Spain at the
end of the 16th century, is because they all had to convert, be
exiled, or die. 

Ten years after the expulsion of the Jews, Isabella, on 12th February
1502, issued a royal order giving all remaining Moors in the realms
of Castile the choice between baptism and expulsion. The majority of
the native Moorish communities, the Mudejares, chose to stay and be
baptised. How free such a choice was is illustrated by the fact that
emigration was made literally impossible. The historian Galindez de
Carvajal says that although Moors were technically allowed to leave if
they chose, in practice the authorities would not allow them go and
instead forced them to accept baptism. Under such conditions the mass
of the remaining Moorish population of Castile came into the Catholic
fold.

The fate of the Moriscos in the South was no different to that of the
Moriscos in the North. Their mass baptism which has been organized
by Ximenes in the first years of the sixteenth century was completed
well before the mass baptism of the Mudejares in the North, and if
anything the subsequent persecution by the Spanish Inquisition was
more severe in the South than in North…. For the majority of Moriscos
this meant the imposition of silence whenever they were in the
presence of a Catholic Christian, for Arabic was the only language they
knew. They were also forbidden to wear Muslim dress

The provisions of the Edict prohibited virtually every aspect of Islam in
a Muslim’s life from birth to death.  No Morisco woman was allowed to
act as a midwife. A Christian midwife was posted in every Morisco
village. She supervised al1 the pregnant women and as soon as a baby
was born, the priest was called and the baby was baptised. There was
thus no opportunity to call the adhan (call to prayer) into the child’s ear
at the time of birth, and if the baby was a boy he could not be
circumcised, nor could a ram be sacrificed in thanksgiving. The most
that the Moriscos could do under the circumstances was to bathe the
baby where the priest had touched it, in an attempt to ‘undo’ the
baptism and that cemeteries could be established near the churches
changed from mosques, but Old Christians were not to be debarred
from burial there if they wished. This partially satisfied them and it
continued until 1591 when it was ordered that they should be buried
inside of the churches, which was so abhorrent to them that they vainly
offered more than thirty thousand ducats if king or pope would allow
them to be interred elsewhere, even though in dunghills.

Between birth and death the Muslims faced continual persecution, and
in the process the family structure was severely affected….
For more information:
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/16thspain.html

Report this

Page 2 of 9 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook