Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 24, 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


Blind Ideological Justice




War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar
The Bubble and Beyond

The Bubble and Beyond

By Michael Hudson

more items

 
Report

The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger

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

Posted on Jun 7, 2010
Truthdig collage based on a White House photo by Pete Souza

By Chris Hedges

(Page 3)

The Christian right has, for this reason, its own creationist “scientists” who use the language of science to promote anti-science. It has fought successfully to have creationist books sold in national park bookstores at the Grand Canyon and taught in public schools in states such as Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. Creationism shapes the worldview of hundreds of thousands of students in Christian schools and colleges. This pseudoscience claims to have proved that all animal species, or at least their progenitors, fit on Noah’s ark. It challenges research in AIDS and pregnancy prevention. It corrupts and discredits the disciplines of biology, astronomy, geology, paleontology and physics.

Once creationists can argue on the same platform as geologists, asserting that the Grand Canyon was not created 6 billion years ago but 6,000 years ago by the great flood that lifted up Noah’s ark, we have lost. The acceptance of mythology as a legitimate alternative to reality is a body blow to the rational, secular state. The destruction of rational and empirically based belief systems is fundamental to the creation of all totalitarian ideologies. Certitude, for those who could not cope with the uncertainty of life, is one of the most powerful appeals of the movement. Dispassionate intellectual inquiry, with its constant readjustments and demand for evidence, threatens certitude. For this reason incertitude must be abolished.

“What convinces masses are not facts,” Arendt wrote in “Origins of Totalitarianism,” “and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system which they are presumably part. Repetition, somewhat overrated in importance because of the common belief in the masses’ inferior capacity to grasp and remember, is important because it convinces them of consistency in time.”   

Augustine defined the grace of love as Volo ut sis—I want you to be. There is, he wrote, an affirmation of the mystery of the other in relationships based on love, an affirmation of unexplained and unfathomable differences. Relationships based on love recognize that others have a right to be. These relationships accept the sacredness of difference. This acceptance means that no one individual or belief system captures or espouses an absolute truth. All struggle, in their own way, some outside of religious systems and some within them, to interpret mystery and transcendence.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The sacredness of the other is anathema for the Christian right, which cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of other ways of being and believing. If other belief systems, including atheism, have moral validity, the infallibility of the movement’s doctrine, which constitutes its chief appeal, is shattered. There can be no alternative ways to think or to be. All alternatives must be crushed.

Ideological, theological and political debates are useless with the Christian right. It does not respond to a dialogue. It is impervious to rational thought and discussion. The naive attempts to placate a movement bent on our destruction, to prove to it that we too have “values,” only strengthens its legitimacy and weakness our own. If we do not have a right to be, if our very existence is not legitimate in the eyes of God, there can be no dialogue. At this point it is a fight for survival.

Those gathered into the arms of this Christian fascist movement are desperately struggling to survive in an increasingly hostile environment. We failed them; we owe them more: This is their response. The financial dislocations, the struggles with domestic and sexual abuse, the battle against addictions, the poverty and the despair that many in the movement endure are tragic, painful and real. They have a right to their rage and alienation. But they are also being used and manipulated by forces that seek to dismantle what is left of our democracy and abolish the pluralism that was once the hallmark of our society.

The spark that could set this conflagration ablaze could be lying in the hands of a small Islamic terrorist cell. It could be in the hands of greedy Wall Street speculators who gamble with taxpayer money in the elaborate global system of casino capitalism. The next catastrophic attack, or the next economic meltdown, could be our Reichstag fire. It could be the excuse used by these totalitarian forces, this Christian fascism, to extinguish what remains of our open society.

Let us not stand meekly at the open gates of the city waiting passively for the barbarians. They are coming. They are slouching toward Bethlehem. Let us shake off our complacency and cynicism. Let us openly defy the liberal establishment, which will not save us, to demand and fight for economic reparations for our working class. Let us reincorporate these dispossessed into our economy. Let us give them a reality-based hope for the future. Time is running out. If we do not act, American fascists, clutching Christian crosses, waving American flags and orchestrating mass recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, will use this rage to snuff us out.

Chris Hedges, who writes a column every Monday for Truthdig and who graduated from Harvard Divinity School, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” He was a reporter for many years with The New York Times. His latest book is “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.”


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.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 13, 2010 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

Where religion and politics are inextricably intertwined it would
be inefficacious dialectic to speculate if there were no supreme
being.

“Suffice to say that it is not so much that there are no
philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats
as that both parties are “controlled” by the same corporate,
financial and media interests, which means that the “people”
only get sops while both parties make sure their “masters” are always
taken care of.” 

This is what I believe Joan has argued against, and I agree that the
specifics have not adequately been presented.  I am not saying what
you say is untrue, I am saying you have not shown it to be true.

Maani, “am carrying on a topic-specific conversation with Thomas does
not mean that I am “entrenched” in my position vis-a-vis socio-
politics.  I have not even stated my position in that regard yet.” 

Fair enough.  But there is the appearance that you have taken a
position.  You might state what is your position so conjecture is
eliminated.

“Present company excepted, I hope: I have never suggested, nor acted
or spoken, in such a way as to “dismiss” any viewpoint or suggest that
secularists and believers in other faiths have nothing relevant to say.”  I
believe you Maani.  But I cannot see any exit except that Christians
believe they have the true vision.  If you disagree then I submit you are
not a Christian.  Logic dictates that there can only be one vision of God
if you are a Christian, for to deny that is to deny that the Christian view
has ultimate validity.  It cannot be one religion among many.  At the
end of the day, meaning at the end of world, in the Christian faith, it is
only Christians who will inherit heaven.  Is that not true?  If not, then
why would there have been a Christ at all?  It is the Christian view of
salvation that will determine which religion is the true religion, is that
also not true?

“Why would you expect any more “agreement” between liberal and
conservative Christians than you would between liberals and
conservatives?” 

Because political beliefs are not the same as religious beliefs.  There is
no prize of heaven for political beliefs, but there is heaven to be won
by religionists.  If all religions are equal then why would there be
different dogmas and doctrines?  Why not all be Gnostics, or Roman
Catholics, or Orthodox Catholics, why would the Protestant revolution
ever have occurred?  There are substantial differences between and
among religious beliefs that have implications for eternity.  But we
cannot say that of political ideologies.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 13, 2010 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 13 at 12:39 pm,

“I am getting the pattern of perception from you that you are incapable of separating standards of moral behavior from Christianity as a religion and realization that not adhering to a moral standard once it is freely accepted and glorified is an act of immorality, whether it be an atheist moral standard, a Christian moral standard, a Moslem moral standard, a Jewish moral standard, a Hindu moral standard or some other moral standard.” —ThomasG, June 12 at 5:41 pm to Joan on this thread

I am neither for or against Atheism or Theism, whatever the variety is that is chosen by those who make a religious choice, and I have included Atheism in my post of June 12 at 5:41pm to Joan, which I have quoted above.

I am solely interested in whether or not one who accepts and glorifies a moral standard is moral or immoral, if the moral standard accepted and glorified is NOT adhered to.

Since the time of Goldwater through Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and to the present day the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republican Movement is, has, and continues to preach their “moral superiority” in their Media Echo Chamber and make reference to the “moral hazard” of the American Populace.

“Moral superiority” and “moral hazard” can only be determined by a “moral standard”, and the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republican Movement and Privatized Capitalism historically have laid claim to the “standards of morality” of Christianity.

Therefore, since the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Movement and Privatized Capitalism have laid claim to the “standards of morality” of Christianity, it is necessary to determine whether or not their claim is a moral or an immoral claim.

To make this determination , a process is necessary and the first part of that process is to determine whether it is moral or immoral to freely accept and glorify a moral standard, and then intentionally perform contrary to that moral standard in the name of the morality of that moral standard.

The fact that moral equivocating is being practiced on this blog tells me much about the actual “practice of morality” as opposed to the “doctrine of morality”.  If the “doctrine of morality” is a meaningless standard, apart from the “practice of morality” that is contrary to the “standards of the morality” freely accepted and glorified, why claim morality at all, because “standards of morality” then exist only as an equivocating tool of sophism, propaganda, and false rhetoric used to manipulate public opinion for or against differing political factions???????

Report this

By Maani, June 13, 2010 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous:

“All of the discussion of recent days and the ideas submitted by the article itself is predicated on the idea that there is a God and that Christianity is the prime religion that promotes that belief.  For it would hardly matter if Right-Wing Extremist Republican Conservatives Christian Fascists or Christian Liberals used their religion to justify their political aims if there was no deity in the first place on which to hang their justifications.”

Fair enough.

“The force of political action…actually originates in a perceived domination by purely political principles.”

I think one of the underlying themes of the discussion here is that your statement is not true where politics and religion are inextricably intertwined, whether in a theocracy or by a group or movement in which the two are heavily mixed.

“The difference between the conservative and the liberal point of view…although it is argued that Democrats these days are hardly distinguishable from
Republicans, it is still arguable, since they are not necessarily identical regardless of the claim, that the difference needs to be spelled out,
fairly through explicit definiton, if any sense of a real morality is ever to be achieved since this country is almost divided between the two antithetical political philosophies.”

This, of course, is another debate.  Suffice to say that it is not so much that there are no philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats as that both parties are “controlled” by the same corporate, financial and media interests, which means that the “people” only get sops while both parties make sure their “masters” are always taken care of.

“MarthaA and Joan are willing to make distinctions to some degree.  Maani and ThomasG are defensively entrenched in their own definitions.”

Not so.  That I am carrying on a topic-specific conversation with Thomas does not mean that I am “entrenched” in my position vis-a-vis socio-politics.  I have not even stated my position in that regard yet.

“But all are predicating their views on the idea that Christianity has some corner on the God market.  Secularists and non-Christian religious beliefs are dismissed out of hand as not having anything relevant to say about reality which shows a built in bias on their part and that they believe they have the only true vision.”

Present company excepted, I hope: I have never suggested, nor acted or spoken, in such a way as to “dismiss” any viewpoint or suggest that secularists and believers in other faiths have nothing relevant to say.

“[T]here is a disagreement between conservative and liberal Christians on how to interpret the Bible or the alleged teachings of Christ, which only have been given validity in the New Testament of the Bible, this shows that Christian beliefs are on tenuous ground and have been for over 2000 years. It would seem that agreement between these two groups is a priority to taking any sound stand against secularist’s or non-Christian religious beliefs.”

Huh?  Why would you expect any more “agreement” between liberal and conservative Christians than you woulod between liberals and conservatives?  In fact, take out the word “Christians” and replace “Bible” and “teachings of Christ” with “Constitution” and “philosophies of the Founding Fathers” in your paragraph and you will have an equally valid statement vis-a-vis liberals and conservatives.  Yet I doubt you expect such “agreement” between the two sides in THAT case.

Peace.

Report this

By Joan, June 13, 2010 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

ThomasG,

I can tell Stephen Hawking I am a cosmologist /physicist and after one minute of discussion with me he would realize that I am no such thing and pretty much discount my ideas on cosmology/physics.  It’s as simple as that. Not everyone who claims he is a Christian acts like one or is one. One can’t condemn all Christians for that. 

In the context of your list to Maani of behaviors that you believe are violations of Christian teachings, recalling my initial post to which you responded, I asserted that Christians are those who follow the teachings of Christ, a simple but complex statement in the face of those who would exploit Christ and bastardize his words to their own ends.

These opportunists, those who play the Christ card, will always be with us and we astutely must see through the sham, usually on a case by case basis, being careful not judge Christians to have failed a standard they do not see as part of their Christian mandate.  Thousands of texts have been written on what it means to be a Christian. 

For instance, Maani is a Christian minister. I was raised Catholic. We both gave you a different explanation of what it means to be Christian, explanations that are not exclusive of each other. Asking you for your definition of Christian is not a moot or facetious question.

On a lighter note, I have not heard anyone invoking the Bible to justify invoking the divine right of kings since the Magna Carta was signed.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 13, 2010 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

Joan, June 13 at 12:09 pm,

Do you suppose that your same argument would also apply to the people who are “wage slaves” for the so called small businesses that you represent, and that unlike the small business you represent that the people working as “wage slaves” do not receive capital for their contribution and a “revenue stream” from that capital, as does your so called, not so small, small businesses?

A small business is not a ma and pa operation:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 13, 2010 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

All of the discussion of recent days and the ideas submitted by the
article itself is predicated on the idea that there is a God and that
Christianity is the prime religion that promotes that belief.  For it
would hardly matter if Right-Wing Extremist Republican
Conservatives Christian Fascists or Christian Liberals used their
religion to justify their political aims if there was no deity in the first
place on which to hang their justifications. 

ThomasG more or less says that religion is superfluous to the political
goals of the respective political ideologues but wants to dress the
extremist Republicans as Christian Fascists who are not following the
tenets of their own religion, and therefore are immoral.  The force of
political action, however, actually originates in a perceived domination
by purely political principles.  If I have misunderstood, I am certain he
will say so, and clarify my error.  Chrisitian Morality then must, then,
be defined and not vaguely.

The difference between the conservative and the liberal point of view,
or more colloquially, the Republican and Democrats, although it is
argued that Democrats these days are hardly distinguishable from
Republicans, it is still arguable, since they are not necessarily identical
regardless of the claim, that the difference needs to be spelled out,
fairly through explicit definiton, if any sense of a real morality is ever
to be achieved since this country is almost divided between the two
antithetical political philosophies.  If this is not done, then only a
quantity of hot air has been expelled.

If no one wants to make that distinction, then I say you are feeding
your own ego and not really intent on seeing into the strength or
weakness of your beliefs, political or otherwise. 

MarthaA and Joan are willing to make distinctions to some degree. 
Maani and ThomasG are defensively entrenched in their own
definitions. 

But all are predicating their views on the idea that Christianity has
some corner on the God market.  Secularists and non-Christian
religious beliefs are dismissed out of hand as not having anything
relevant to say about reality which shows a built in bias on their part
and that they believe they have the only true vision.

There are huge and unresolved arguments that there is justification for
belief in a god to begin with and that if unsubstantiated all argument
that includes either explicitly or implicitly belief in a supernatural being
go out the window by reason that personal beliefs dictate and thus
only have that kind of weight even when there is an overlap of that
belief by several individuals. 

Furthermore, there is a disagreement between conservative and liberal
Christians on how to interpret the Bible or the alleged teachings of
Christ, which only have been given validity in the New Testament of the
Bible, this shows that Christian beliefs are on tenuous ground and have
been for over 2000 years.  It would seem that agreement between
these two groups is a priority to taking any sound stand against
secularist’s or non-Christian religious beliefs.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 13, 2010 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

Maani, June 13 at 3:03 am,

“I have noted that the 11 precepts of Jesus’ ministry are love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth.” Maani, June 13 at 3:03 am

Your post contains a number of attributes that are a part of the “standards of morality” for Christianity.

How do the “Standards of Christian Morality” you have indicated in your post compare morally with the following list of Christian moral practices:

1)  The Divine Right of Kings represented as
    God’s Divine Will,

2)  Laissez-Nous-Faire Privatized Capitalism
    represented as God’s Divine Will,

3)  Fascist Governance represented as God’s
    Divine Will
,

4)  Manifest Destiny represented and enforced
    as God’s Divine Will,

5)  Right-Wing EXTREMIST Evangelical Christian
    Fascist Religious Movement’s representation
    of God’s Divine Will as their
    authority,

6)  Christian Prosperity Gospel represented as
    God’s Divine Will,

7)  Genocidal history of Christianity performed as
    God’s Divine Will, and

8)  Thomas Malthus’ Law of Population that
    underpins Privatized Capitalism represented
    as God’s Divine Will.

Would you say that the eight examples I have given are moral examples of Christianity or immoral examples of the Christian Standards of Morality indicated in your post?

Report this

By Joan, June 13, 2010 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

Elisalouisa,

I mentioned the entitlement programs in the context of the discussion, namely that the wealthy were not doing enough to assist the beleaguered.  You are right. Income taxes cover the price of war.

I enjoyed our exchange too…all the best…


MarthaA,

The stats on tax- exempt corporations are interesting but need delineation.

Small entities can be incorporated. If a small business owner incorporates and does not earn enough to be liable for taxes, he is exempt. This allows the budding entrepreneur to hang on to new business to develop it, re-invest in it and hence grow the economy and job opportunities for others who need work.

I do not have the stats but I understand the majority of businesses in this country are small businesses owned and run by private citizens who are likely to incorporate for the tax advantages. Did they not get these advantages, these businesses wouldn’t be viable and there would be all the more unemployment. The more people work the bigger the tax base.

I have little background in business but I understand that this is some of the reasoning for the tax exemptions and may explain the high percent of tax exempt corporations. Of course the tax dodgers will alway be with us too.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 13, 2010 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

While you are at it,  trying to get corporations to pay taxes, how about making the Churches and other religious organizations pay taxes at the same time?

So from what I have heared, the corporations all moved to someplace called Doobie so they don’t have to pay any taxes and the Pope has his castle in someplace called the vacuum!

Report this

By elisalouisa, June 13, 2010 at 7:29 am Link to this comment

MarthaA 6/13 at 2:19 am
Since 68% of corporations don’t pay taxes at all, it makes it really difficult to accept that their charity is doing that much good for the populace.  I think the populace would be much better off if corporations were actually made to pay their fair share, but since they don’t, any sane person will have to admit zero can’t be a fair share.

Thank you Martha for that statistic. Not only that, such corporations did not hesitate to ask and receive bail out funds with no transparency required. How much was paid back? All buried in tricky bookkeeping and lack of transparency.  Many of the same CEOs that caused the calamity on Wall Street received multi-million dollar bonuses the following year.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 13, 2010 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

Morality defined by words from the goat headers manual seems like it should be simple, but it becomes complicated when there are 3000 different versions of interpretation,  especial when all of them think their version is the only right interpretation. 

After my wife ran off with bible sales man, I put all those left behind bibles to good use, the smaller ones make good casters for tables and since I am quite short, the bigger bibles can be used like a step ladder to reach higher places and to press wrinkles out of my bib overalls.  Actually kind of spiritual, don’t you think?

Report this

By Maani, June 12, 2010 at 11:03 pm Link to this comment

Thomas:

“Moral standards of behavior are objectively stated in the Bible that Christians freely accept and glorify.  The moral doctrine of the Bible is objective as Moral Doctrine, and when it is freely accepted and glorified as a Standard of Moral Behavior by Christians in the name of Christianity, it becomes immoral for Christians not to follow the Standard of Moral Behavior that they have freely accepted and glorified as their standard of moral behavior.”

I have noted that the 11 precepts of Jesus’ ministry are love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth.  I am not certain if that forms the basis of a “morality,” but, if so, then that is the “morality” of Christianity, as I understand it.

If this is not what you are referring to, then this is exactly the question Joan has been asking you: please name the “moral standards of behavior” that are “objectively stated” in the Bible.

Peace.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2010 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment

elisalouisa, June 13 at 1:15 am and Joan, June 12 at 7:13 pm,

68% of corporation do NOT pay taxes at all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html

Since 68% of corporations don’t pay taxes at all, it makes it really difficult to accept that their charity is doing that much good for the populace.  I think the populace would be much better off if corporations were actually made to pay their fair share, but since they don’t, any sane person will have to admit zero can’t be a fair share.

Report this

By elisalouisa, June 12, 2010 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

Joan, I have always referred to the items you listed under “bill paying,” such as Medicare, Social Security benefits, and Medicaid as Social programs. You do not include cost of our wars or military in this list. Just wanted to mention this, I expect no answer as quibbling over semantics is not my idea of fun. I would prefer that my taxes be invested in social programs and education and not fund our continual wars. However, no one asked me, I may protest and write my representatives but finally must accept the decision of my government or go to jail. Yes, many do not pay their fair share of taxes, there shall always be injustice and what a fair share is shall always be debatable. The scale of justice may not be properly balanced as to what the
“have and have not” do enjoy. Taxes is but one way of making that scale more balanced.
Even though we are not on the same track concerning many issues Joan,  I have enjoyed this exchange with you. You are sincere in your comments and I respect that.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2010 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 12 at 10:28 pm

Thank you for the 2006 figures:

Rep 32.29% -10% Elites ======= 22.29% Populace

Dem 41.64% - 20% Prof.Mid.Class= 21.64% Populace

Independents ===============24.8%  Populace

Others ====================00.79% Populace

Difference to Equal 100%========00.48% Populace
             
TOTAL POPULACE =============70.00%


There is definitely NOT a 50/50 Ratio from these figures between Democrats and Republicans as the media always shows, because these figures show 32.29/41.64, which is far from 50/50.

Nevertheless, these figures show 22.29% of the populace in the Republican Camp and that is too many voting against themselves.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 12, 2010 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

Maani, June 12 at 9:27 pm,

Moral standards of behavior are objectively stated in the Bible that Christians freely accept and glorify.  The moral doctrine of the Bible is objective as Moral Doctrine, and when it is freely accepted and glorified as a Standard of Moral Behavior by Christians in the name of Christianity, it becomes immoral for Christians not to follow the Standard of Moral Behavior that they have freely accepted and glorified as their standard of moral behavior.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 12, 2010 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

Joan, June 12 at 8:58 pm,

Again this is a false comparison between individual behavior and the behavior of a movement. 

I have read your posts and I know that from your posts you are smart enough to know the difference, so why do you use this sophistic play to defend immoral behavior as a movement activity?

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 12, 2010 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment

Joan, June 12 at 7:26 pm,

What is it that you agree with? 

Do you agree that if a person freely accepts and glorifies a moral standard and then does not follow that standard of morality, that they are immoral according to the standard of morality that they freely accepted and glorified?——If this is what you agree with, indicate that you agree and we can go on from there.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 12, 2010 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

The statistics are not as represented.  The registered voters are
divided according to 2006 statistics (the latest available and has
maybe changed but not by much) Democrats are at 41.64%;
Republicans 32.29%; Independents 24.8%; and others at 0.79%. 
This is the way the vote went in 2006.  If the argument is that a
large percentage of Democrats are voting more with Republicans
that may be valid, but the election results thus far don’t really
support that.  However, November may reflect a turn by the
voting population that might just vote conservative.  I would not
like that to happen and will work in the ways that I can to keep it
from happening.  I used data provided at: 
http://ballot-access.org/2007/010107.html#11

Joan’s points are well-founded for the most part, except for the
statement, “I believe that some secularists use or believe in the
rightness of certain Christian rules like not killing.”  The moral rule
against killing is not uniquely Christian.  Seems in the Abrahamic
relgions it goes as far back as Moses’ 10 Commandments.  Secularists
are just as moral as much as many Christians are not.  And the moral
rule predates Judaism and is found in all religions.

Joan’s correct report that conservatives are more generous donors to
charities should have been referenced.  Since she did not do it, I will. 
See the website at
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-
contents/a-nation-of-givers
You will have to copy/paste the webaddress into your browser since
Truthdig’s line length does not activate the entire address.  But the link
is worth accessing.

Not only are conservatives more likely to give , they also give more
when they do give than liberals.  More religious people give to charities
than non-religious. That doesn’t mean that secularists don’t give, they
just don’t give as much.

Percentage of income, however shows that low-income families are the
most generous giving about 4.5% of their income on average. 

“What is important is the striving for proper distribution of wealth and
that the greedy be stopped from grabbing a larger piece of the pie.” 
This statement seems like a normal egalitarian view, but it is unclear
what is the “proper distribution of wealth,” as it seems rhetorical rather
than constructive.  The second part of the sentence is also ambiguous
for what is meant exactly that “the greedy be stopped from grabbing a
larger piece of the pie?”

A synoptic sentence like “We are all paying for the deregulation that
started a few years back,” sounds more like a slogan rather than truth. 
What laws exactly were changed to favor the wealthy?  It might be true
that the Republicans are fighting restructuring the financial system as
they repeatedly vote no on most action in Congress, and are
obstructing on all legislation it doesn’t matter what is the specific bill,
although they did come across for financial reform.  As a matter of
fact, an April 29, 2010 Reporter article headline is “The most sweeping
new controls on financial institutions since the Great Depression are a
big step closer to approval in Congress.” 

I was not served with that ad, maybe it is a message from a god to you,
Ryan Wiancko, June 12 8:30 pm?

Report this
Arabian Sinbad's avatar

By Arabian Sinbad, June 12, 2010 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

With the intent of spicing-up what seems to be a very seriously unpleasant conversation about an eternally unpleasant subject, take a break please to read the following piece of humor! It has bearing on both religion and economics; the two most hot topics of all times!
=============
“Two beggars are sitting side by side on a street in Rome.

One has a cross in front of him, the other one the Star of David.

Many people go by and look at both beggars, but only put money into the hat of the beggar sitting behind the cross.

A priest comes by, stops and watches throngs of people giving money to the beggar behind the cross, but none give to the beggar behind the Star of David.

Finally, the priest goes over to the beggar behind the Star of David and says, ‘My poor fellow, don’t you understand? This is a Catholic country; this city is the seat of Catholicism…  People aren’t going to give money if you sit there with a Star of David in front of you, especially when you’re sitting beside a beggar who has a cross. In fact, they would probably give to him just out of spite.’

The beggar behind the Star of David listened to the priest, turned to the other beggar with the cross and said: ‘Moishe, look who’s trying to teach the Goldstein brothers about marketing?”

Report this

By Maani, June 12, 2010 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment

Thomas:

Not reneging on anything I have said thus far, I think you err in saying, “You have taken the position of Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Christian Fascists, which is refuge in the amorphous nonsense of subjective belief, rather than objective analysis of moral standards of behavior apart from religious doctrine.”

How can you have “objective analysis of moral standards of behavior” when (i) moral standards are (as was debated fiercely here) subjective, and (ii) as Joan points out, not all Christians agree on what specific “moral standards” underlie “true” Christianity?

This is neither sophistry, amorphous nonsense, nor evasion.  It simply is.

Peace.

Report this

By Joan, June 12, 2010 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

ThomasG,

I think Maani makes a good point. There is a difference in just being human and not living up to certain ideals as opposed to being immoral, a much more serious charge.

Report this

By Ryan Wiancko, June 12, 2010 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe I’m the only one that was served with this ad, but I find it slightly ironic that the main google ad showing up in the middle of this article is titled ‘Is God calling your to Serve?’ and takes me here: http://www.nbc.edu/information/ordination/index.php?ad=1244&gclid=COH3tIDam6ICFQlZiAodSVjowA

Geniusly insidious!

Report this

By Joan, June 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

ThomasG,

This is what I have been trying to get you to discern, specifically…what is the difference
between this Christian moral code and Christianity iself? My second question is…just how are Christians violating this code?

I believe that some secularists use or believe in the rightness of certain Christian rules like not killing. But to me and for other Christians, I suspect, this is just a part of their religion. 

So I agree with you… I do not make that distinction. You do, so please explain it.

Report this

By Joan, June 12, 2010 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

Elisalouisa, 

By paying the bills I mean that as matter of fact a relatively small percentage of people   pay well over 50% of the income taxes which pays for Medicare, Social Security benefits, Medicaid etc. while almost 50% of the population pay no income taxes at all. The wealthier segments of the nation are already footing a lot of the bills for those who either cannot or elude paying them. 

Conservatives and Republicans are more generous charitable donors than liberals and Democrats, likewise supporting those in need. So I really find some of the accusations that some people are not bearing their fair share of the load like the wealthy or conservative Christians off the track.   

The rich may be getting richer but I am not so sure the poor are getting poorer. The poor have much more today than when I was growing up. We all do that’s for sure…When the rich get richer in America, they pull along a lot of us with them. Poor people don’t create jobs. Why do you think so many people from hopeless, indigent countries migrate here?   

If people work to earn their money, I don’t see why anyone else is automatically entitled to someone else’s money just because they don’t have the same amount of money.  I do not see how anyone is “rightfully” entitled to someone else’s money. 

MarthaA,

You my not like George Will but that is neither here nor there when it comes to the validity of the information. The information is researched by another source, a professor from the University of Syracuse and thus far not refuted.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2010 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

Joan, June 12 at 1:48 pm,

George Will is a Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republican and anything he says is questionable.

Report this

By Maani, June 12, 2010 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment

Thomas:

“My point is that Christians must learn not to let Christianity be used as an expedient tool for man for power and control over man’s fellow man.  Thanks for your support in helping to get this point across.”

You are welcome.  The point is arguably axiomatic.

However, re “To the extent that Christians freely accept and glorify the standards of morality of Christianity and behave contrary to those same standards of Christian morality, it can be said that Christians are immoral,” I say: not quite.  It simply shows that they are imperfect, and are “human” to the extent that they can and do fail, whether consciously or not.  This does not preclude that some Christians are, in fact, flagrantly hypocritical regarding their claimed faith/morality versus their actual behavior.  But painting with broad brushes does not take into account the finer brushstrokes of faith, morality and behavior.

Peace.

Report this

By elisalouisa, June 12, 2010 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment

Joan, could you be more explicit as to “bill paying.? There will always be a tug as one’s “rightful share.”  However, when the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer as attested to in the last sentence of my last post there must be a reevaluation of wealth distribution.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 12, 2010 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

Joan, June 12 at 3:43 pm,

Comparing individual actions to movement activities is a false comparison, and you know it.

I am getting the pattern of perception from you that you are incapable of separating standards of moral behavior from Christianity as a religion and realization that not adhering to a moral standard once it is freely accepted and glorified is an act of immorality, whether it be an atheist moral standard, a Christian moral standard, a Moslem moral standard, a Jewish moral standard, a Hindu moral standard or some other moral standard.

If all you are capable of understanding is sophistic carping and contending over your subjective religious beliefs, it is a waste of time to talk to you.

You have taken the position of Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Christian Fascists, which is refuge in the amorphous nonsense of subjective belief, rather than objective analysis of moral standards of behavior apart from religious doctrine.

Report this

By Joan, June 12, 2010 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

elisalouisa,

When people complain about who is not being morally responsible, it is important to know who is paying whose bills. 

Just who determines one’s rightful share?

Report this

By Joan, June 12, 2010 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

elisalouisa,

When people complain about who is not being morally responsible, it is important to know who is paying whose bills. 

Just who determines one’s rightful share?

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, June 12, 2010 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Chris, “Christion Fascists”, as you say, “seek(ing) to co-opt the pillars of the Enlightenment in order to abolish the Enlightenment”, caused me to think about the potential for precipitating exactly the opposite—- something akin to a second Renaissance and new level of ‘enlightenment’—- precisely to confront the global fascist corporate/financial/militarist (and yes, “Christian Fascist”) EMPIRE—- by leveraging the miracle of ‘analogy-thinking’, in a conscious manner to confront this damn EMPIRE.

I strongly believe that a peaceful second American Revolution and second Renaissance ‘enlightenment’ can be consciously precipitated by the knowing application of what George Lakoff (Berkeley’s leading cognitive scientist and the author of the latest book, “The Political Mind”) describes as ‘analogy-thinking’.

Like the miraculous revolution of the first Renaissance ‘enlightenment’ in which rational thought displaced irrational, mysticism, fundamentalist religion, witch-craft, and authoritarian tradition, the conscious and free use of ‘analogy-thinking’ can become the normal and majoritarian way of thinking—- just as rational thought freely displaced the slavery of irrational thought.

The human mind’s miracle of “Analogy-thinking” naturally occurs, just as ‘rational-thinking’ occurred even before the Renaissance, but both types of thinking which free men from brutal and base behavior based on oppression have been suppressed at times over the evolution of our continually changing History [apologies to Francis Fukuyama, but History has definitely NOT Ended, despite your book of that title].

The one significant difference between the first Renaissance ‘enlightenment’ with ‘rational-thinking’ and a successful second Renaissance ‘enlightenment’ with ‘analogy-thinking’ is that ‘rational-thinking’ had always been something that man could sense, understand, and use consciously (as long as he was allowed by the powers that be to do so), while ‘analogy-thinking’ much more frequently occurs only sub-consciously in its natural state of creating ‘viola’ moments of creative break-through after sleep or sub-consciousness from exhaustive study or focus, and only a moderately few people, like Lakoff, who really understand how the miracle of ‘analogy-thinking’ works in cognitive science of our brains’ method of storage and recall of analogous models, are practiced in consciously leveraging this deeper value of ‘analogy-thinking’.

But fortunately, like ‘learning’ how to think rationally during the first Renaissance enlightenment, ‘learning’ how to leverage this more modern discovery of ‘analogy-thinking’ can be TAUGHT by those who first understand the natural powers and miracle of our brains’ ability to use ‘analogy-thinking’.  And, the real benefit is that teaching and learning how to consciously think a new way by leveraging ‘analogy-thinking’ can be shared with all people——including the vast majority who already understand and use rational-thinking from the revolution of the Renaissance, and the majoritarian ‘democracy-thinking’ learned from the American Revolution, but ALSO including the tiny minority of ruling-elite who misused and abused their understanding of ‘rational-thinking’ selfishly to practice ‘Empire-thinking’ during and beyond the First American Revolution.  Hopefully, such a second Renaissance miracle of ‘analogy-thinking’ will be so ‘enlightening’, even to the ruling-elite, that we will not have to face the singularly unattractive prospect of having to confront this global Empire by eliminating the physical presence of those few elites who still practice ‘Empire-thinking’.


Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Report this

By elisalouisa, June 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment

<body>

What is important is the
proper distribution of wealth and
that the greedy be stopped from
grabbing a larger piece of the pie.


Joan: 6/12/ 1:48 pm
Additionally a very small percent of the highest earners pay well over 50% of the income taxes while nearly 50% pay nothing…google it.

Not relevant. What is important is the striving for proper distribution of wealth and that the greedy be stopped from grabbing a larger piece of the pie.  We are all paying for the deregulation that started a few years back. It was legal
because the laws were changed to favor the wealthy, it was also immoral. The Republicans are fighting any restructuring of the financial system and paying big bucks to our representatives to put a stop to to any revision that will not favor the wealthy. Such immoral maneuvers have revised my outlook. I no longer look down on those who take because they have not. Look at all the
haves who manipulate the legal system to take more and more and more. Make them pay their taxes. Least they can do after they have made a sham of our financial system.

Additional Note:
From Wikipedia: Distribution of Wealth:
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of
global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for
85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1%
of global wealth.[11] Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own
more than half of global household assets.[12] The distribution has been
changing rapidly in the direction of greater concentration of wealth.
</body>

Report this

By Joan, June 12, 2010 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

ThomasG,

RE: Equivocating…Interesting word. Are you talking about a religion or some moral code external to a religion but somehow based on a religion?…a Christian moral code, not a religion but from religion. What is that exactly, a secular code or a religion?  I am talking about a religion, Christianity. 

Anyone, faith- based or secularist, who says one thing but does another, is maybe a hypocrite/ maybe immoral. Agreed. That’s pretty easy to conclude. On the flip side, someone saying they are going for ice cream and changing his mind is neither

I gave you some specific descriptions of Christian beliefs and how Christians have been faithful to them.

Now what specific Christian moral codes in your opinion have these Christians violated?  Until you ante up, from my point of view, you have not made any case that justifies your calling these people immoral.

I gather you think that because Christian politicians have not “Christianized” the law by some non- religious Christian moral code (still undefined), they are hypocrites/immoral. I countered that Christ never directed political action to implement his ideals. That was not the path he outlined.  How are these people then immoral? 

I suspect you may think, well…even if it is not in the religion, these are still Christian- like moral codes that need to be implemented and not doing so is immoral.  And I would say what codes are they neglecting to implement because it is not obvious to me.

Last call. 

RE: the nearly 50 % not paying taxes…nearly 50% paying no taxes and the few paying the bulk of them is not to be dismissed when lamenting that the upper class provides no support. 

RE: charitable donations…research reveals that conservatives and Republicans are the bigger donors as opposed to liberals and Democrats.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 12, 2010 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

Maani, June 12 at 12:51 pm,

“I agree with Joan’s various posts, but also agree with Thomas’ basic point: if one does not follow the “moral code” (or basic foundation) of the belief system that one purports to follow (or self-proclaims), then one’s claim to being a “member” of that group is at best suspect, and at worst fraudulent and hypocritical.

Once again, my comment holds: most self-proclaimed Christians would not know Jesus if He bit them on the ear…LOL.”  —Maani June 12 at 12:51pm

My point is that Christians must learn not to let Christianity be used as an expedient tool for man for power and control over man’s fellow man.  Thanks for your support in helping to get this point across.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 12, 2010 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

levinpsy, June 11 at 12:47 pm #

“Chris Hedges is the finest writer we have, speaking the truth, plainly, consistently, and bravely.

Only the truth will set us free, and here it is, every Monday.

Thank you Mr. Hedges.

Daniel Levin, Ph.D.
St. Louis “


I am in agreement with your post, Dr. Levin.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 12, 2010 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

Joan, June 12 at 1:48 pm,

What is your point?

The 50% that you say do not pay taxes, consume and labor in the economy, and that labor and consumption generates capital for those who own the means of production and distribution.

All you are really saying is 50% of the population are being used as “wage slaves” to generate capital for private benefit without receiving or providing benefit to themselves or the nation, because they are exploited as “wage slaves” by privatized capitalism.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 12, 2010 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

Joan, June 12 at 1:06 pm,

Again, you are equivocating on religion and I am not accusing Christians or anyone else.

All I am saying is that if you separate the standards of morality of Christianity from Christianity as a religion and judge the Christian Fascist Movement and the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republican Christian Movement on the basis of whether or not they are following their own Christian Standards of Morality that they freely accept and glorify, that their own behavior labels the Christian Fascist Movement and the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republican Christian Movement as immoral.

To the extent that Christians freely accept and glorify the standards of morality of Christianity and behave contrary to those same standards of Christian morality, it can be said that Christians are immoral.

Have Christian Fascists of the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republican Movement from the time of Goldwater through Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II to the present, freely accepted and glorified the standards of Christian morality and behaved contrary to those same standards of Christianity?

To the extent that Christians have, Christians are moral; to the extent that Christians have not, Christians are immoral?

Is it the claim of Fascist Christians of the Right-Wing Conservative Republican Movement that they are moral or immoral?

From the behavior and activities of the Fascist Christians of the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Movement in their Media Echo Chamber and Evangelical Christian Churches constantly preaching against the doctrinal standards of Christian morality that they freely accepted and glorified, the standards of Christian morality as indicated in the Bible, will clearly show their behavior to be immoral, and that immoral Christian behavior in the name of God’s Will and Christian morality has been going on since Christianity was reduced to a “doctrine of populace control” by the Priesthood of Christianity subsequent to the death of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

When behavior is immoral according to the accepted moral standards, then the behavioral standard is a “standard of immorality” that is the moral standard of practice, rather than the moral standard of process;— according to the moral standard of practice; therefore, the Fascist Christian Movement and the Right-Wing Conservative Republican EXTREMISTS are immoral, and moral only by claim to process that is NOT adhered to in practice.

The following policies and practices of Christian Fascism and the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Christian Republican Movement are touted in the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Christian Republican Media Echo Chamber and the Evangelical Fascist Christian Movement from their church pulpits and media podiums as moral, although the following eight examples of policies and practices they advocate are contrary to the doctrine of morality of Christianity as specified in the Bible:

1)  The Divine Right of Kings represented as
    God’s Divine Will,

2)  Laissez-Nous-Faire Privatized Capitalism
    represented as God’s Divine Will,

3)  Fascist Governance represented as God’s
    Divine Will
,

4)  Manifest Destiny represented and enforced
    as God’s Divine Will,

5)  Right-Wing EXTREMIST Evangelical Christian
    Fascist Religious Movement’s representation
    of God’s Divine Will as their
    authority,

6)  Christian Prosperity Gospel represented as
    God’s Divine Will,

7)  Genocidal history of Christianity performed as
    God’s Divine Will, and

8)  Thomas Malthus’ Law of Population that
    underpins Privatized Capitalism represented
    as God’s Divine Will.

Christians must learn to not let Christianity be used as an expedient tool of MAN for power and control over man’s fellow man.

Report this

By Joan, June 12, 2010 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

Here is just a little bit of a reality check about just who opens their checkbooks and makes the higher percentage of charitable donations in this country. The numbers have not been refuted to the best of my knowledge. 

“Conservatives More Liberal Givers”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Additionally a very small percent of the highest earners pay well over 50% of the income taxes while nearly 50% pay nothing…google it.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2010 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 11 at 11:14 am,

I stand by the ratios of percentages that I quoted in the MarthaA post June 11 at 6:36 am on this thread as follows:

“I have a hard time believing 40% of the common populace are stupid enough to always vote autocratic conservative Republican against the best interest of the common populace, with only 20% voting with the Democrats, which is what would have to be for the vote to always come out 50/50 every time.” 

“It appears to me that something is extremely wrong with this picture, as there are only 10% of the population that the Republicans actually represent, the aristocracy; the 20% professional middle class Democrats would never vote against themselves, which makes the 70% majority common populace always have (sic) 57% of their constituency voting Republican or not voting for there to be a 50/50 ratio.”

“These are good ratios,  so there must still be 40% of the populace that are stupid enough to still think they are Republicans, or the election results are flipped.  It is unbelievable that 40% of the common populace could be that stupid while they are losing their homes and livelihoods, as the only help they could possibly get would be on the Democratic side.”

I agree with Chris Hedges assessment on the Christian Right’s Fascist Movement being followed by deceived Christians, because the figures show plainly there is, as the media’s voting figures always show a 50/50 ratio of Right and Left which would be impossible unless the Christians are being fooled, because in actuality there is a 90/10 ratio of Right and Left and that is being generous.

Christians of America be not deceived, this is a spirit of Antichrist, it is not the Lord’s plan for YOU to take over the world, it is He, the Lord, that fights for you, not YOU fighting for the Lord.

Christians need to read the Bible and not just follow whatever just because it is being promoted by “steeplejackers”.

Report this

By Joan, June 12, 2010 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

ThomasG,

On the one hand, I agree that a moral standard can be gleaned from a religion. On the other hand, regarding Christianity there are uncountable tomes written on what Christianity obligates of its followers or how to apply those moral standards.

You give me the idea you think Christian moral standards are intuitively understood, universally grasped and readily applicable. Would those evil people just apply them and all will be well. Christ himself did not achieve that nor should he have. We are charged with accomplishing our own moral development. 

I think certain aspects of Christian morality are intuitively understood, few universally grasped and not many easy to apply en masse, across nations, especially in secularist nations these days.  Everyone pretty much likes the idea that we should be equal before the law, derived from the Christian idea that men, unequal in nature, are equals as children of God. Personally, excepting that idea, I think there is not much in Christianity that is not debatable, as the numerous texts suggest.

As for codifying Christian morality, look at the eternal abortion/gay rights clashes. As I said, Christians are damned if do (codify) and damned if they don’t, just easy whipping boys now. 

In hospitals, classrooms, homes, stores all over the place, I routinely see Christians turning the wheels of this country, exercising Christian kindness and generosity, running into burning towers and crashing into the earth, giving their lives to save the lives of people they never knew. 

You said Christians are failing their religious obligations. All I am asking is for you to identify a few moral precepts of Christianity that Christians are not obeying en masse.

I have taken the position that Christ leads the Christian movement and he did not mandate Christian moral codes be codified which is what your accusation suggests to me.

When presented with the opportunity to speak about the lawfulness of paying taxes to Rome, hardly a beacon of moral rightness, Christ, a Christian, deferred to Rome. “Render unto Caesar…” He did not say,” All ye listen up and make laws to fulfill your obligations to end the suffering of mankind.”  That’s not the direction in which Christ steered his following. 

I just don’t see the basis for your accusations about Christians failing their moral codes. Christ did not command political action and many, many Christians apply their kindness and generosity on an ongoing basis.

Report this

By Maani, June 12, 2010 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

She:

Unless you are LOLing (and I can’t always tell), it seems you missed the point that I was defending you, not “picking on” you: I was noting that I’d rather get one email as the result of a long-ish post (and yours are long-ish, though you are right that some others’ are too) than ten emails from shorter posts.

RetiredBiker:

Almost.  You are correct that the earth is closer to 4.5-5 billion years old than 6 billion.  However, the Grand Canyon began to be formed (by the intrusion of the Colorado River) about 17 million years ago; even the most “recent” estaimte is 5-6 million years.

All:

Re the interesting Christianity/morality discussion, some comments:

-Jesus was, indeed, a Jew, and His original “mission” (if one wants to use that term) was not to start a new religion, but to help make Jews “better” Jews: to teach them that the spirit of the law was more important than the letter of the law.  This was His argument with the Temple priests, scribes, pharisees et al, and is inherent in virtually every part of His ministry, from the Sermon on the Mount to the “You have heard it said that…But I say unto you that…” passages in Matthew 5:21-48.  It was only when the Jewish populace (i.e., other than the small percentage who followed Him) rejected Him that He took His message to the gentiles (actually, to anyone who wanted to hear it).

-But His message having been rejected by the Jewish populace led, ipso facto, to the foundation of a new “Jewish” philosophy, which I have often referred to as the Judeo-Christian construct.

-That foundation was used by both those around Him (including the putative writers of the Gospels) and by Saul/Paul to create a new “religion,” which was first called “Christianity” in Antioch in about 40 A.D.

-Re the chronology of NT scripture, many people get this wrong because they think A.D. means “after death,” thus “backdating” Jesus’ birth to ~33 B.C.  However, this is incorrect; the vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus was born closer to 1 A.D., and was thus crucified in ~33 A.D.

-Given this, the fact that the first-written NT book (Mark) has a widely accepted date of 60 A.D. means that the “codification” of Jesus’ ministry began only 30 years after His crucifixion.  As an aside, it is also widely accepted that the writers of the Gospels were, in fact, either disciples or actual apostles who were with Jesus during His ministry. It is also widely accepted that the writer of Acts - in which the first use of “Christian” appears - was the same writer as the Gospel of Luke.

-Although it is true that Paul became the “PR man” for Jesus/Chrisitanity, as noted we already have some “codification” of Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the writings of the Gospels, Acts and other books.

I agree with Joan’s various posts, but also agree with Thomas’ basic point: if one does not follow the “moral code” (or basic foundation) of the belief system that one purports to follow (or self-proclaims), then one’s claim to being a “member” of that group is at best suspect, and at worst fraudulent and hypocritical.

Once again, my comment holds: most self-proclaimed Christians would not know Jesus if He bit them on the ear…LOL.

Peace.

Report this

By Phillip Goldman, June 11, 2010 at 11:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow.  Chris Hedges, you are a nutcase.

Report this
LocalHero's avatar

By LocalHero, June 11, 2010 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

By Ephraiyim,

“The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked”.

This is why I’m so thankful that, after the first time through the Bible, I put it down and have never been tempted to pick it up again (well, that, and the fact that I now know that no such person as Jesus ever existed as a flesh & blood man). Any religion that could attribute the best part of humanity (the heart) to evil is despicable and no loving person could ever be a part of it.

And MarthaA,

“There is no respect of persons with (your) God. ——Romans 2:11”

Kinda goes without saying, don’tcha think? Just look at history!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 11, 2010 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment

Sorry.  I was just having a little fun with the Bible.  You know,
stretch it out a bit…

Yes, ThomasG, it seems an academic question that contains its
own answer.  Sort of a self-referential.  The R-WCEFs not only would
qualify to be immoral, they would be hypocritical as well.  So getting that
out of the way, and seeing that it does not have anything to do with
Christianity, what is the next big thing?

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 11, 2010 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

Joan, June 11 at 7:59 pm,

You are talking about religion and I am talking about acceptance of a moral standard. 

My question is whether or not one who freely accepts and glorifies a moral standard is moral or immoral, if they do not follow the “standards of morality” of the moral standard they have freely accepted and glorified.  This point must be resolved before moving on to Christian morality and the moral standards of Christian morality according to the Bible apart from religion, which I have no interest in at all.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 11, 2010 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 11 at 8:46 pm,

If you accepted and glorified a moral doctrine and glorified your acceptance of that moral doctrine and did not follow the moral standards of that moral doctrine, would you be moral according to the doctrine you accepted and glorified, or, would you be immoral? — this is the question I am interested in and it has nothing at all to do with Christianity.  This is a question of moral and immoral based upon the acceptance of a moral standard, and should not be all that difficult to comprehend apart from Christianity.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 11, 2010 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

That was Kaine Diatheke, for the New Testament in the Greek.
sorry for some reason, the e’s came out as question marks???
(those last ones are question marks, LOL)

Some of the formatting on TD gets weird.  Sometimes there will
be a double post due to the tardiness of showing up and the
poster thinks it didn’t get through somehow.  Oh well, just acting
silly here about the TD formatting.  I guess it is no biggie.
Over and out.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 11, 2010 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment

ThomasG asks, “What I am concerned with is whether or not it
should be acceptable to Christianity for Right-Wing Conservative
EXTREMIST Republican Fascist Christians to immorally lay claim to
moral leadership of Christianity that is contrary to Christian
doctrinal “standards of morality”?”

It would seem then, ThomasG, according to your concerns that
Christians are the only ones able to answer what is acceptable or not. 
I can think of only one way to find out.  Ask them.  Given that a lot of
Christians go to church, a survey of those at church on a Sunday
morning might give a figure of significance.  How many churches would
be representative of the total number would need to be discussed.  A
simple questionnaire of maybe one or two questions would do the
trick, having had to design a poll once in college. The more simple the
survey, the more pertinent are the statistics gathered.  also there is the
need to frame the question so that you get the answer sought.  The
final analysis should show whether most Christians support the Right-
Wing allegedly fascist Christians’ claim for morality. 

2.
Kain? Diath?k? is the name given to the second major division of the
Christian Bible, called the New Testament which is a collection of
works, an anthology.  Nearly all Christian traditions today accepts some
version that consists of 27 books.

The original texts were written beginning around A.D. 50 in Koine
Greek, the common language, called the lingua franca, of the eastern
part of the Roman Empire where they were composed.  All of the works
which would eventually be incorporated into the New Testament would
seem to have been written no later than the mid-second century. That
would have been about the year 150 AD.  One hundred fifty years after
the putative death of Jesus.  So 50 years after his alleged death, for
about a hundred years to the second century is when these chapter
books of verses were written.  Much arguments during and since has
involved which books ought to be included and which ones not in the
‘approved’ collection.  Anyone interested in the veracity of the Bible
really ought to make a research study of its history. 

Even a truncated historical exposition of the New Testament as found
on the Wikipedia would be a decent place to start as there are further
readings, extra references, and additional links that would get one on
their way. Having a bible on hand would help also.  Language and
translations have always presented enormous problems of the veracity,
or truth, expressed in the entire collection.  There are at least 10
different manuscripts of early texts. 

Through the centuries, in the way that all literature falls heir to the
inconsistencies of hand copying manuscripts (and that is all we have)
that only fools deny that changes find their way into texts and the New
Testament is no exception.  Reconstructing the actual time of Jesus and
the man himself has been fraught with much disagreement, and those
textual critics who specialize in the New Testament have identified
gross variations and additions and deletions accidentally but also
intentionally.  Mark from Mark 16 onward, Luke 22, particularly 43-44,
John 5:47-8, John 7:53-8:11, Romans 16:24 and 1st Corinthians
14:33-35 are highly likely to have been interpolated, modified in some
way, for the most part done in the 4th century.  That is 300 years after
the death of Jesus. 

Biblical scholarship of which I have been involved to some degree as I
would guess so have most Christians, has not shown that the Bible has
been an easily won collection.  Much fierce argument through the
centuries has occurred.  The practice of standardization became
necessary in order to proselytize the ‘faith.’

Report this

By Joan, June 11, 2010 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

ThomasG,

I should have been more clear in my response. Sorry…

On this thread there seems to be much finger pointing at Christians, you included, for their failures as Christians (like conservative right -wing EXTREMIST Republicans) to ameliorate all the suffering/ injustice afflicting mankind…to support the right sort of laws that are a function of Christian duty to that end.  (Of course if they support Christian based laws for that reason alone, they are the Christian fascists.) It seems to me that Christians now, all things being equal, are in a no win situation. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. 

My point to you is twofold. 

First, Christ, in no way ever commanded that his principles be codified or become the government mandate for everyone.I think this is because, second, his task was about spiritual deliverance not temporal deliverance. He did not come to save us from the trepidations of this world or to establish a theocracy, which is what a Christian based government per se would be.  Therefore, beyond Christians failing the mandate to treat others the way they want to be treated when legislating, Christians are not failing their mandate if they do not by use of government means end life’s miseries.

Christ notes that there will always be the poor. Temporal salvation is not the point of Christ’s exercise. This is an important aspect of Christ’s theology to understand. Salvation in Christianity is spiritual deliverance not temporal deliverence. It helps to make sense of God’s seeming indifference to our suffering in His creation. 

The one who leads Christianity is Christ, not any political voting block. Christianity, as Christ preached it, is a personal choice.

We in the US are lucky that certain aspects of Christian morality are codified because it is a good moral code but it was freely chosen. 

You can’t say that people are not adhering to a moral code that you are unwilling to explicate.  My question is similar to She’s point… What exactly is your definition of the Christian moral code, standard of behavior? And how did these people fail?

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 11 at 5:18 pm,

My point is an academic one, rather than a religious one.  My point is that there are “standards” that currently exist as “moral standards” of Christianity that define by doctrine what Christian “standards of morality” are, and that a Christian that accepts those “standards of morality” is immoral to the extent that those “standards of morality” are accepted and NOT followed.

Therefore, by the “standards of morality” of Christianity, as defined by Christian Doctrine, Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Christian Fascists and the entire Christian Fascist Movement is immoral, because they do not adhere to the Christian “standards of morality”, as defined by their own “moral doctrine”.

I, like you, am not at all interested in religion.  I am only interested in whether or not Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Fascists and the Christian Fascist Movement are moral or immoral according to their own Christian “standards of morality”.

To enforce the power and the glory of God’s Divine Will, the Right-Wingers accepted the “moral standards” of Christianity, as set forth by Jesus Christ and Christian “moral doctrine” in the Christian Bible; therefore, if the Right-Wingers do not follow the “standard of Christianity” that they have accepted and advocate as Christians, Right-Wingers are immoral, to the degree that they do not follow the “standards of Christian morality” they have accepted that are set forth by Jesus Christ and Christian “moral doctrine”.

It is therefore possible to prove by the “moral standards of Jesus Christ” and the Doctrine of Christianity that Right-Wingers who preach and do not follow the “moral standards of Jesus Christ and the “moral doctrine of Christianity” are immoral.

The next question is whether or not Christianity should allow itself to be led by immoral Right-Wingers, who do not respect the “standards of morality” set forth by Jesus Christ and the moral Doctrine of Christianity?

According to the Christian Doctrinal “standards of morality” the Conservative Right-Wing Republican EXTREMISTS are immoral and in the name of morality the Conservative Right-Wing Republican EXTREMISTS, as Christians, are leading Christianity to follow immorality and amorality as morality.

What I am concerned with is whether or not it should be acceptable to Christianity for Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republican Fascist Christians to immorally lay claim to moral leadership of Christianity that is contrary to Christian doctrinal “standards of morality”?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

1.
Surprising as it might seem, and in spite of my atheism, I have
spent time as a youngster, teenager and adulthood with the texts
of the Bible.  My “conversion” didn’t take place until about the age
of 16.  Nevertheless I’ve continued to stick my nose into the
various books both Old Testament and New as questions came up.
Most likely many who grew up in the Christian tradition do the
same thing.  Maybe not.

At any rate, seems like there is lots of quoting and interpretation going
on on these forums, I include myself as having committed such acts,
that I think some ambience could be helpful to further discussion
between believers of all kinds and non-believers also of all kinds.  I
would expect those who think of themselves also experts would sign in
and add to, or correct my entries.  Corrections are always welcome. 
But please, no name-calling.

It seems that religion is being used as an excuse by both conservatives
and liberals alike from which to provide a foundation to their respective
political agendas.  It is a kind of pimping of religion.  That may or may
not be true.  It would have to be argued one way or the other.  BUt that
is what I believe.

However, I still have to ask what it is in the nature of religion, Christian
or any religion, that provides sustenance or inspiration to be
prostituted for political purposes that often leads to war and other
forms of destruction.  Judaism which claims Jews to be “chosen” by God
to earn heaven, and Islam, the Islam that claims to be the religion of
peace, are guilty of the same usury of their religions.  This is not to
say, and it ought not to be gotten wrong, that I am saying “all”
practitioners of these religions are culpable.  Most of the religious are
altruistic minded in all these religions and deeply care about humanity. 
We are not concerned with these.  But we are concerned with those
groups who use their religion rather than practice it.

It is my plan over the next few posts to bring some perspective to this
sacred Christian book since there are large factions in politics that
claim to be Christian yet have remarkably different interpretations and
what it means to be Christian.  The irresolution of these differences is
what is causing a great deal of strife in our country.  We might, “heaven
forbid,” have to side with Christopher Hitchens who accuses that
religion poisons everything. But we won’t take that position…yet.  We
want to see if it does.

ThomasG, what you say might be true, or might be overstated.  We
shall have to find out for ourselves.  What that “standard” morality was
as you claim defined by Jesus does not jump out of the Kain?
Diath?k?
.  First of all it cannot be Christian, if it was Jesus’s, since
he was not a Christian, he was a Jew.  Christianity could not have
begun until he transfigured into the Christ, if the story is to be believed
and not until.  It is my belief that Paul conceived the religion 35-85
years after the death of Jesus.  Now you may not believe it this way, but
I do and there is just as much evidence on my side as there is on yours
which is really none.  What ever is attributed to jesus was attributed by
ordinary men and long after the historical Jesus died.  Whether or not
this figure appeared to these ordinary men after his death is debatable,
whether you agree or not.

A google search at biblegateway.com shows there are over a hundred
versions of the Bible, from the Amuzgo Guerro (AG) to the Chinese
Union Version in two subversions traditional and simplified.  It is those
simplified ones that I really worry about.

Given that many versions, if Jesus did indeed give a model for morality,
which of these versions shall be used that gives his extant words?  Or
is it relative?

Report this

By Retiredbiker, June 11, 2010 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thought provoking and disturbing article, but Hedges should check his facts when it comes to geology. The Grand Canyon was “created” (carved by weathering, mass wasting, and the Colo. River) 6-10,000 years ago; and the earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, not 6 billion.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 11, 2010 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

Joan, June 11 at 3:59 pm,

What is your point as it relates to my post?

The “moral standards” of the Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start with regard to my post of June 11, 2010 at 1:50pm.

The Right-Wingers lay claim to Christian morality yet, according to Christian doctrine, their actions and behavior is immoral.

I have no interest at all in a discussion of Christianity in terms more inclusive that the “standards of morality” as set forth by Christianity and, whether or not those who are immoral according to Christian Doctrine, such as the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Christian Fascists, should be allowed to lead Christianity in the name of Christian morality?

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 11, 2010 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 11 at 4:45 am — edenseeker, June 11 at 12:17 pm —and elisalouisa, June 11 at 11:42 am,

Christian morality was expressed and defined by Jesus Christ and can be found in the Bible.

Can an Evangelical Christian, a Dominionist Christian, or any other Christian claim action that is moral that is contrary to Christian morality, as set forth as a MORAL STANDARD by Jesus Christ?

The moral question for all of Christianity and the Conservative Right-Wing Christian EXTREMIST Movement is whether or not Christianity should allow Christianity to be led by immoral Right-Wingers or anyone else who does not respect and follow the Christian “standards of morality” as set forth by Jesus Christ?

To me, Conservative Right-Wingers and all others leading Christianity immorally in the name of Christian morality that are immoral as defined by the “moral standards” of Jesus Christ are morally unfit to be leaders of Christianity, and should be rejected by Christianity as being morally unfit for leadership of Christianity.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 11, 2010 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment

Thank you for the correction Maani. My mistake.

Bofersince72 who else puts in 5,10,13 different posts in less than 30 minutes? That is what I an others are perturbed about. Not “taking up space” where you are blind again to what you do. It is the number of postings in a short time of little significance not how long they are. That is irrelevant to the discussion if you actually read them.

Edenseeker, they have been infiltrating and turning mainline churches through a process nick named steeplejacking where they take over the leadership of churches and start shifting their theology away from whatever they have to the Dominionist premillenialism kind of theonomy. True there are at least three sub-types out there but they have been able to gather in those who may not agree with all their tenants but enough of them to want to have a theocratic gov’t in charge. Whether through the front door or the back. They are looking for where they agree to work from, the differences they will work out later after they have full control of us. Check out also http://www.talk2action.com/ for more examples where our secular gov’t is being assaulted from within and without. All it takes is 27%-35% of our culture could run things. That is the population he was speaking of. True he should have put a finer point on it but he only had so much space and he did say he was only speaking of Christian fascists. So if the jackboot fits…

Report this

By Joan, June 11, 2010 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

ThomasG,

To the best of my knowledge Christ never addressed conservative right-wing EXTREMIST Republicans nor did he found a liberal, feminist, pro gay rights, anti-racist per se,etc…movement/liberation theology.

Christ observed the Law of Moses, one of which commands ...

-thou shalt not covet thy neighbors’ goods.

This law from Yahweh Himself presupposed an inequity in nature as the natural order, as Shenonymous deftly noted previously.

In Christ we are to be gracious and loving to all, even the wealthy, etc… 

Christ also commands that we love God and love each other as he, Christ, loves us or to treat each other the way we want to be treated.

In the Sermon on the Mount he expands on his guidelines, explaining how to demonstrate this love in our daily actions toward each other.

There is nothing in Christ’s teachings that mandates any government codify his teachings. In fact when asked if it is lawful to tax, Christ defers.

“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.” Christ makes this statement quite aware of the brutality of Rome.

Christ distinguishes the two kingdoms, his Fathers’s, whose business he sees to constantly and the earthly kingdom.

Now we are free to deviate from Christ’s teachings but then we may not benefit from them or we can be faithful.

It was Christ’s business to complete his Father’s agenda, our entrance into the spiritual realm, a task with which he occuppies himself constantly.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 11, 2010 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

ofersince72, June 10 at 4:12 am,

“TomasG I understand what went on in Germany prior to WWII.  I also have watched the Christian Right for the last forty years.  I also have watched the “inverted totalitarianism” that Hedges speaks so often of.  It is no longer inverted.  We live in that state right now.  Was anything that Hitler did any worse than what has been going on the last ten years in Iraq or Afghan?  or the institutional racism and prison population that is present right now.  I am not any more afraid of the Christian Right than I am of our present government and don’t have any reason to be.  I still believe this is nothing but a diversion rant by Hedges.”—ofersince72 June 10 at 4:12 am

To compare individual actions of Chris Hedges to the actions of National Fascism that involved the National Fascist Activities of the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and required World War II and a World Alliance of Nations to resolve and with the National actions of a Right-Wing Fascist Movement here in the United States is a false comparison, and I am reasonably certain that you know you are using a false comparison.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 11, 2010 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

Joan, June 11 at 12:49 pm,

Jesus set the STANDARD of behavior for mankind; Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans want to lay claim to exercising the power and the glory of God’s Divine Will, as their own, but they totally reject the STANDARD of behavior of Christianity as put forth by Jesus.

Proving that the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans follow the STANDARD of Jesus the Christ would be just as impossible to prove as for Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans to prove that Privatized Capitalism does not cyclically die and is not brought back to life by Socialized Capital.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 11, 2010 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

Joan, June 11 at 12:49 pm,

Jesus set the STANDARD of behavior for mankind; Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans want to lay claim to exercising the power and the glory of God’s Divine Will, as their own, but they totally reject the STANDARD of behavior of Christianity as put forth by Jesus.

Proving that the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans follow the STANDARD of Jesus the Christ would be just as impossible to prove as for Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans to prove that Privatized Capitalism does not cyclically die and be brought back to life by Socialized Capital.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 11, 2010 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

Chris you are such a marvel, the greatest writer of all time, your humility is mind numbing, well in my case, my mind is always numb anyway.

Nobody has ever poked a stick with such integrity and profoundness then Chris Hedges into a barrel full of monkeys and every week the barrel seems filled to the brim with even more monkeys.

Thank you Mr. Hedges, such enlightenment has never been seen anywhere, anytime or anyplace except here and now.

Dingus Faltus UnPH Deed hear sayer!

PS: If only we could hear them; monkeys I mean; they can make quite a racket.

Report this

By Joan, June 11, 2010 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

Perhaps there is only type of Christian, a follower of Christ.

Christ’s thematic message was about spiritual deliverance, passage to the kingdom of his Father, not temporal deliverance, making earth some facsimile of heaven.

Report this

By levinpsy, June 11, 2010 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

Chris Hedges is the finest writer we have, speaking the truth, plainly, consistently, and bravely.

Only the truth will set us free, and here it is, every Monday.

Thank you Mr. Hedges.

Daniel Levin, Ph.D.
St. Louis

Report this

By edenseeker, June 11, 2010 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

It is abundantly clear to me that this author has
decided to unfairly lump the vast majority of
Evangelicals (of which I am one) into group with a
very hardened and set list of established values and
has picked a string of information to assert this
conclusion that does not add up.

The theology he means to cite is called Dominion
Theology,and it is practiced by a small (yet well
connected and sometimes influential) subset of
Evangelical Christianity.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.biblicist.org/bible/dominion.shtml

This does not represent the vast majority.

Many other things the author states as universally
accepted are not either. These include “young earth
Creationism” which most outside these circles simply
refer to as creationism, Views on the death penalty,
gun control, Sex Education, Abortion are trumpeted
from the pulpits but not universally accepted by the
followers.

While I am not going to pretend that this makes other
aspects of evangelical Christianity more appealing, I
offer this as an evangelical Christian from an
evangelical perspective. I’ll admit I am not the type
of Christian Glen Beck endorses (I am a Social
Justice Christian) I still fee I can offer that there
is more hope for dialog than the author believes.

Report this

By elisalouisa, June 11, 2010 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

much of the common populace could be
so stupid as to think they are Republicans
while they are losing their homes and livelihoods.

                                     
Martha:
  Telling the common populace they are the middle class seems to work well for control, but it doesn’t pay to trust a scorpion not to sting you, because they sting really hard, and conservative Republicans to the common populace are like scorpions that have to be controlled to keep them from stinging,
otherwise they will destroy everything that has anything to do with the common populace.So there must still be 40% of the populace that are stupid enough to still think they are Republicans, or the election results are flipped.  It isunbelievable that 40% of the common populace could be that stupid while they are losing their and livelihoods, as the only help they could possibly get would be on the Democratic side.

Within Christianity there are subdivisions that make the accuracy of statistics questionable. Equitable distribution of wealth, a necessary component of peace and justice, is lacking in many Christian leaders’ list of important moral issues. Such leaders emphasize the riches of the next life, at least for their congregations who gobble it up,  while ignoring the sad economic plight much of their congregation is in.  The scorpion, who has further tipped the economic scale to favor those who have, has been turned into a Prince in their homilies. Therefore much of the common populace could be so stupid as to think they are Republicans while they are losing their homes and livelihoods.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 11, 2010 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

John Ellis, June 10 at 5:59 pm #

THE RICH — FAITH ONLY IN WEALTH

Inherit The Wind
“John Ellis: ‘All nations in the northern hemisphere
have always been ruled by rich atheists.”...
The only GENUINE Atheists ever to rule in Europe
were Nicolai Lenin and Leon Trotsky…. Stalin actually
thought himself semi-divine, a gift from God.”

LIGHT
Actually Stalin was not the slightest religious as this
quote was typical of his faith only in deadly force,
“Religion is the opium of the people.”

But I do stand corrected by you, as none of the rich have ever had faith in the atheist religion, or any religion requiring such blind faith.  They being the most intelligent and knowing the most good, sure they have no problem enriching themselves upon or misery by some super-complex pretense of good.

**********************************************

It would really help if you actually read what I wrote.

**********************************************
WORLD RECORD

MarthaA
“ God, but…  God knew… Jesus the… Son of God… God’s sacrifice… God I…  Jesus, but… Jesus paid… Jesus purchased… Christ I… God I… God wants… Christ… Jesus… Christ… Jesus’ sacrifice… God via… Jesus lives… God is… with God… of God… God? ... of God… of God… God without… God forbid… be… God what… God unrighteous… God forbid… God judge… God hath… after God.”

LIGHT
Such a post, most certainly not a true Christian,
most likely not even a self-deceived Christian.

For most always does such confusion come from
an atheist paid-actor fascist Christian,  for the rich
keep their excessive wealth only so long as not
one in ten thousand is a caring and giving Christian.

********************************************

So now the self-proclaimed profit decides who is and isn’t a Christian, like a pre-filter to St.Peter at the Gate of Heaven!

I’d trust in MarthaA’s “Christian Mercy”, decency and humanity long before I’d ever trust in yours.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 11, 2010 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

What could possibly be important in what percentages describe
putative classes. It is the height of self-deceit.  Even the names
assigned to a division of a population, the classes, are provisional,
arbitrary, and change from one ideologue to another.  Using
percentages are only functional and do not describe reality.  They
are only relatively useful but they do not plead the truth.  Perhaps
at birth a tattoo could be branded on each infant that places them
in a “class.”  Wouldn’t that be an easy way to separate people.  It is
Brave New World come true. Brave New World has come to
serve as the false symbol for any regime of universal happiness. 
I recommend a reading of this small novel if only for good bathroom
reading if nothing else.  Five visits to the bathroom should do it.
I am sure there are at least two generations that never heard of
Aldus Huxley or his terrifying story of the insidiousness that defines
the “ideal” society.

Larger generalizations would work equally well and often better since
no absolute number is involved and is thereby more encompassing.  A
mixed socioeconomic population is a dodging target in motion and
firing a missile for change is highly likely to miss.  I could say it would
miss 85% of the time.  Not good odds.  But the 85% is just an arbitrary
number as are 40/40/10/10 and 70/20/10. 

Among all societies, human and otherwise, a hierarchical structure
develops.  Communism is antithetical to natural structures. 
Egalitarianism is a forced organization and therefore is subject to
corruption.  It is an idea only.  An idea that feeds on the “higher” idea
of equality of the members.  So the question that needs to be
examined if any reasonable course is seen is to see the essence of the
idea of equality.  Give sound reasons for a socialism to work better for
a population.  For competition among members and between societies
will always exist and upset the very possibility of homogenous peace.

What is more important then?  Distilling the arguments to manageable
ideas.  Keeping the discussion respectful and open to the definition of
every idea put on the table.  Making the picture more reflective of
reality.  Using reason instead of emotion to work through each and
every problem.  Call on the intelligence that nature provided human
beings.

Opponent ofersince72, I bid you adieu with no residual acrimony. 
Argument is good for the soul that is troubled by uncertainty.  Aren’t
we all uncertain in some way or another?  If I promised to keep my
comments to no larger than this medium sized one, would you stick
around?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2010 at 2:36 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 11 at 4:45 am,

” then shouldn’t that dictate that we ought to infuse more fairness and do no harm into the conservative mentality?”—Shenonymous June 11 at 4:45 am

If somehow it could be done, it would be great; maybe in the next world, but in this world, I’m fairly certain the 70% common populace, even though 40% appear to be cuckolds for the Republicans, are stuck with the conservative Right EXTREME always trying to make laws to take advantage of the common populace and destroy the common populace’s social network in whatever ways they think they can get away with, just like they always have done, as their spots don’t change.  Telling the common populace they are the middle class seems to work well for control, but it doesn’t pay to trust a scorpion not to sting you, because they sting really hard, and conservative Republicans to the common populace are like scorpions that have to be controlled to keep them from stinging, otherwise they will destroy everything that has anything to do with the common populace.

John Ellis accepts the vote to be 50/50, but it is unacceptable to think that the liberal populace of which there is 90%, when you count the Professional Middle Class Populace and the Common Populace together, would lose 40% to the Corporate Capitalist GOP Republican Elites that are destroying them; but, for the voting figures to always come out nearly 50/50 would have to mean nearly 40% of the common populace is voting conservative Republican,  unless the vote is being messed with.  I have a hard time believing 40% of the common populace are stupid enough to always vote autocratic conservative Republican against the best interest of the common populace, with only 20% voting with the Democrats, which is what would have to be for the vote to always come out 50/50 every time.  It appears to me that something is extremely wrong with this picture, as there are only 10% of the population that the Republicans actually represent, the aristocracy; the 20% professional middle class Democrats would never vote against themselves, which makes the 70% majority common populace always has 57% of their constituency voting Republican or not voting for there to be a 50/50 ratio.  These are good ratios,  so there must still be 40% of the populace that are stupid enough to still think they are Republicans, or the election results are flipped.  It is unbelievable that 40% of the common populace could be that stupid while they are losing their homes and livelihoods, as the only help they could possibly get would be on the Democratic side.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 11, 2010 at 1:55 am Link to this comment

Martha , It is not my intention to try to prove anything.

You believe in elites , I don’t.
I have no idea how you measure, especially Soros.

In any , good luck and well wishes, that is my intentions
for every one.
I am leaving Truth Dig, you will not see a post from
OFER again, I have many other neccessary things to do
right now.  There are many brilliant posters on TD, even
though it is my belief that most are not well aware of
their sorroundings or of the present state of the world
in which we live. There is very little sense of humor on
these threads which has implications that I wish not to go
into.  There are many challenges coming to our country,
I wish a peaceful end to all of them, this is essense of
my posts while I was a poster on Truth Dig.
Once again, to you and everyone ,..well wishes and
good luck…..

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 11, 2010 at 12:45 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, June 11 at 2:42 am
Once again MarthaA’s perspective show insight into the nuances
of the respective political divisions.  I appreciated your elucidation.
I don’t know if it is accurate but it seems so to me, particularly the
last paragraph. 

The Alternet story about moral values is the soup of the season topic. 
Morality.  Morality is being talked about on at least four forums on TD
and in the MSM editorial news shows and now on other political
editorial blogsites.  And so does the NYT January 13, 2008 article that
spawned the recent June 10 Alternet article.  It seems science in the
guise of research is the subject of an entire article on the mental
qualitative judgment of human behavior towards one another known as
morality.  Steven Pinker, author of the great book, The Blank Slate,
wrote the NYT article titled The Moral Instinct. 

What is interesting is some of us on another forum have been
discussing whether morals are subjective and therefore relative, or
objective and hence universal. This article seems to say there are some
hardwired morals in all people such that they would be universal,
specifying such values as fairness, avoidance of harm, loyalty, authority
(this one I find specious), and purity (whatever purity could mean as it
sound a bit too much like racism which I would find hard pressed to
include as a moral).  They suggest liberty and honesty to be included in
the core system as well but those two are still under investigation
A question arises: While all morals are values, are all values moral? 

The force of the AlterNet articles is to show that the research has been
applied to political perspectives and that liberals and conservatives rank
morals differently, grouping them in ways contrary to each other. 
Liberals lean towards fairness and do no harm as core values, while
conservatives set authority (of course), loyalty, and purity (I’ve already
commented on that one).

The author of the article wanted to see more than this.  She wanted to
see if these axiomatic morals are rankable amongst the set.  But she
goes into universalizing some and relativizing others which I think
overshoots the data from the research.  If the set of morals that
research shows is in all humans, then the set is universal and does not
depend on any society’s unique view which might be different from
another society’s. 

I think the author has an interesting theory though and seems to treat
both liberals and conservatives ‘fairly’ which is unusual. 

Thank you MarthaA.

If the article logic holds, then we cannot judge liberals or conservatives
with the same pair of moral glasses. If we can’t do that, then shouldn’t
that dictate that we ought to infuse more fairness and do no harm into
the conservative mentality? And infuse more…uh… well here is where it
falls down for me.  For some obstinate reason I cannot see my liberal
self increasing authority as a moral I would try to cultivate, nor purity. 
Loyalty, yes, but only under certain circumstances does loyalty seem
virtuous.  Blind loyalty just doesn’t ring right.  It was a good try. I’m
comfortable my liberal values are defined by fairness and do no harm.

A medium-long sized comment by The Often, Though Not Always
Intentionally Annoying She.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2010 at 12:43 am Link to this comment

ofersince72, June 11 at 4:15 am,

There is no such thing as a “liberal elite””—ofersince72, June 11 at 3:00 am

George Soros is a liberal elite, he definitely isn’t a conservative elite.

You can rest your case, but you haven’t proved anything.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 11, 2010 at 12:15 am Link to this comment

MarthaA   June 11 3:37AM

I rest my case

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 10, 2010 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment

ofersince72, June 11 at 3:00 am,

You are a well trained believer in the 50/50 rule of your buddy John Ellis, but you are the one that is deceived.

Republicans are the conservative elite capitalists and have used downright lies, sophism and propaganda to sway 20% of the common liberal populace into the conservative Republican Party against their best interest because Republicans do not represent the liberal populace in the populace’s best interest.

You are correct that there are no liberal elite in the conservative Republican Party, but there are liberal elite, liberal elite favor democracy instead of conservative autocracy.  Liberal elite are in the Democratic Party.  George Soros is the most liberal elite I’m aware of and he isn’t a Republican.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 11:00 pm Link to this comment

Satyagraha

On second reading I find your post just a lengthy
rationalization of the lesser than evil doctrine that
has been proven time and time again not to exist.
I will just use one example, institutionalized racism
and imprisonment carried out by both parties.

There is no such thing as a “liberal elite”, only in
ones mind.

Money if Funny….great post…

Night-Gaunt..  then you have no problem if I make long
well thought out posts and post them all day long and
into the night, taking up most of space on the thread,
even if they have not a damn thing to do with the topic.
Martha, it is only in your mind that you represent
70% of America,
She ,  you are always entertaining though annoying at times, but who am I to complain about annoying.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 10, 2010 at 10:42 pm Link to this comment

Satyagraha, June 10 at 11:39 pm,

The Conservative Movement tried to destroy Liberal and make liberal be thought of as Conservative, and unify Liberal totally out of the picture.  Their ingenious plan was to make liberal a trope and everything liberal be Conservative and Conservative Conservative by deleting Liberal and making both Liberal and Conservative NEW (Neo).  Neo-Liberals are Conservatives incognito, Neo-Cons are EXTREME Conservatives, so that there is no Liberal and all is ONE.  In actuality, there will always be two, one is either a Liberal or a Conservative, there is no lukewarm.  Representatives and Senators either represent the elite, corporations, and capitalists as their constituents or they represent the populace as their constituents, there is no other way, or the populace doesn’t get represented.  Conservative/Moderate Republicans and Democrats represent corporations and capitalists and Liberal/Progressive Democrats must represent the populace, but it is hard to find many who want to represent the populace, which is 70% of the population regardless of what John Ellis says.  His 50/50 is wrong because there are at least 20% of the populace deceived into being in the Conservative Republican capitalist camp even though they don’t have any capital and more than likely don’t even know what capital actually is.

Here is another way of looking at Liberal that I found on Alternet named “Get a Brain, Morons, Why Being Liberal is Really Better Than Being Conservative”:  http://www.alternet.org/story/146930/get_a_brain,_morons:_why_being_liberal_really_is_better_than_being_conservative?page=entire

Actually the reason one is liberal is because one is a member of the populace who doesn’t have a large revenue stream (capital), and the reason one is conservative is because one does have a large revenue stream (capital) to conserve.  Liberals need help with jobs, etc. from the government, while conservatives have the wherewithal to make jobs and if the populace is represented properly with capital there is balance.  What has been happening after the Conservative Movement, was that the populace decided they were all conservative Republicans because it sounded good or something and got busy throwing away democracy.

Middle Class is an Aristocracy/Professional Middle Class divide and conquer trope strategy, because there are actually only 20% of the 90% populace that is actually the Academic Middle Class, the 70% balance of the populace are the Non-Academic, Trades and Retired Populace, the Common population, and the Aristocratic Corporate Capitalist Class is the uppermost 10% which includes all their relatives.

Report this
Money is funny's avatar

By Money is funny, June 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

There is no evidence that GOD exists. If people want to believe in that fine with me until it is used as a tool to elect manipulative power hungry criminals who are not held accountable for their actions unlike the rest (more) of us.

I do not have the resources to sort them out because I do not have access to those country clubs.

There is a small minority of people in this country who have accumulated a disproportionate amount of power and influence in our government and we will never really be free until they are removed, by force if necessary I’d say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkb3r9filcM

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 10, 2010 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

Aw Maani, are youse just pickin on me cause I’m an atheist who
gets your goat too often?  Check the forum and youse see that
outta 10 or so posts, I only had bout two sort of medium long ones
mebbe three.  You coulda used John Ellis, MarthaA (she’s really cut
down lately) or nemesis2010, or how bout Tennessee-Socialist, and
remember the other communist, can’t member his name but you chose
to stick it to moi. 

Youse is a good crischun.  Yeah sometimes I do wax long, but I mix
and match them with some short ones. LOL.  Maybe itsa a good idea to
do like ofersince72 does and post every sentence?  Specially those
longish ones.  That could be fun.  Gee how many could that be? 
Maybe a hunnert?

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment

Satyagraha

I am so glad that someone took the bait that I have
been throwing. I will have to read again and think
somewhat for a response, I believe you hit the essense
of what Hedges has been expounding for several months.

Will have to think about the urine over crap, not so sure
that I agree with your analysis or conclusion.

Report this

By Maani, June 10, 2010 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

N-G:

Sorry, but it is you who are incorrect about the Marx quote.  The word he used was “opium,” not “opiate.”  And it comes from the original German.  Here is the full quote:

“Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

Just like “Let them eat cake” (she actually said rolls (“brioche”); cake is “gateau”), “Money is the root of all evil” (nope: “LOVE of money is…”), and other oft-misquoted lines, Marx’s is similarly oft-misquoted.

Martha:

Your rejoinder to John was apt.  And for those who are accusing you of nefarious intent, I know you long enough here to know that those accusations are just so much fluff and flutter.

Ofer:

It is not about how much space you use: it is true that ten of your posts equal one of She’s or some other posters.  It is the fact that each of your posts generates an email to each of us.  Thus, in using the same amount of space, I get one email when She posts, but 10 emails when you post.  And it is annoying as all get-out.  Show some courtesy and stop filling everyone’s email box.

Peace.

Report this

By Eric, June 10, 2010 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So what are we to do?  I regularly risk being VERY unpopular among my FB “friends” (almost all right-wingers - go figure) by challenging the bullshit they try to pass off as an argument. And you’re right - they’re impervious to logic, but I try anyway if only for the benefit of anybody else who might read it. I write letters to the local paper challenging some of the inane right-wing comments I read. And I chastise and even heckle some long-time friends about the increasingly insular quality of their Christian media. But if that ain’t enough, then what?  Organize another political party? (sigh) Start a new religion? (ugh) or promote the benefits of good science? - All this reminds me that the Vedas predicted a war between the Asuras (technology lovers) and Devas (religion lovers) some 2000 years ago. Anyway….what do we DO about this?

Report this

By Satyagraha, June 10, 2010 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

Part 1

Okay, C.H.‘s theory appears to be something along these lines: conservatives who have been screwed over economically and culturally by neoliberalism (he doesn’t use the word, but let’s call it what it is) are descending into traumatized rebellion.  They are rebelling against almost everything about liberalism.  They hate the egalitarian aspects of liberalism—racial equality, gender equality, sexual orientation equality, even and especially the minimal support liberals give these days to economic equality (trying to expand those covered by health insurance, etc).  They also hate the open-minded aspects of liberalism: pluralism, tolerance, peaceful co-existence.  Finally, they hate the reason-and-evidence oriented intellectual commitments of liberalism—respect for scientific inquiry, careful argument based on sound premises, etc.

They only thing the rising fascists don’t hate about liberalism is the actual neoliberal economic policy that brought them to their desperate and sad predicament in the first place.  Should “neoliberalism” even be called liberalism though?  Isn’t it a different animal altogether?  Actually, there is good reason to consider neoliberalism liberal, not so much for logical reasons as for empirical ones.

Since liberalism stands by equality, reason and open-mindedness, liberalism can contribute functionally to undermining traditional continuities usually maintained by hierarchy, repetition and shared displays of collective certainty.  Under the best of circumstances, these traditional continuities can be selectively undermined (leaving intact the most charming and fulfilling aspects of tradition—like music, architecture, memories of the history, etc) while the system that replaces the less charming aspects is a liberty-equality-and-inquiry-respecting welfare state of the Northern European variety.  If you can get that ideal outcome, then indeed it is possible to have liberalism without neoliberalism.

When the best is not achieved and the center does not hold, however (and throughout most of the world it does not), the “liberal” society that replaces traditional arrangements is one where superior ubermenschen individuals seek their own private advantage without regard to the needs or collective will of the inferior mass remainder.  Beautiful intelligent enlightened sexy tolerant forward-looking liberal individuals remove themselves from the ugly stupid sexless intolerant backwards-looking collective masses, and try as much as possible to ignore them (and their suffering) thereafter.  Such societies soon find themselves governed by something like the neoliberal-Washington Consensus-Chicago School ideology: a radically rigid perversion of Adam Smith’s nuanced and generally pro-social insights about the potential for a confluence of self-interest in the absence of centralized coercion of one-value-fits-all.

The rising fascists that C.H. identifies actually applaud neoliberalism with more fervor than the shrewdly rational highly-educated temperamental liberals who benefit most from this vile ideology.  This perhaps, is because the fascists instinctively see that neoliberalism is the Oedipal offspring of liberalism—an offspring that hopes to murder the father ideology that brought it into being.  If liberalism is a snake eating its own tail, then neoliberalism is its bone-crushing fangs.

Report this

By Satyagraha, June 10, 2010 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

Part 2:

Hedges’ recommendation: stop standing together with the neoliberal elites.  Stand for socialism instead.  If we can make a significant move towards socialism, then the warped and damaged fascist masses will be quelled by economic relief and a return to dignity, and so we will enjoy a short period of relative safety until the next crisis.  Perhaps we will even move steadily closer to a society where the distinction between “the elites” and “the masses” is a fluid and fuzzy one, and this will be a society worth living in, because it dignifies the whole of humanity, rather than just a small remnant of it.

If we can’t make a significant move towards socialism, however, then sooner or later we’ll elect fascists again—worse fascists than we got the last time.  The fascists have grown steadily more noxious and horrific over the generations, from Nixon fascists to Reagan fascists to Bush fascists.  Given the trajectory, we really don’t want to see Beck/Palin fascists seize power.  C.H. rightly notes that Obama has done little to dismantle the dictatorial powers amassed by the Bush/Cheney surveillance-torture state (in some key ways, he’s even made them worse).  This means that, as you read this, we are being set up for something worse than the Bush era.

Why is C.H. telling us this?  Why do we need to be told this?  Precisely because in a situation where one party is the party of the neoliberal elite (the Democratic Party) and the other party (the Republicans) are the fascists (who sound an even louder neoliberal war cry than the neoliberals), the temptation of most rational people is to stick by the neoliberals.  The neoliberals are all around more sensible than the fascists, and if it’s a choice between drinking urine and eating feces, who wouldn’t drink urine?

Hedges, however, keeps telling us—over and over—that drinking urine under these blackmail conditions is a pointlessly dead end acquiescence to humiliation.  We have been consuming urine then feces then feces then urine again for far too long, and with each successive wave of excreta consumed, the toxicity level mounts.  It is time to stop giving in to this blackmail.

Perhaps if we stop choosing between more and less noxious excreta, it means we will die quickly from the feces crammed down our throats—and the weaker among us may die regretting between choking gasps that we did not throw enough support behind urine.  So it goes with all pillars of salt.  If we don’t want to die a hasty and regretful death, we can continue to drink as much urine as we can and die slowly on our knees from increasingly toxic feces diluted occasionally with increasingly toxic urine.  There is always a chance, though, albeit a tiny one, that if we follow the lead of our conscience and our courage and stop choosing between excreta, the result will be that we actually stop eating it, and so we will live.

Hedges wants to take this chance but I, for one, am going to vote for urine even as I work for a later day when we can have ordinary food and drink.  There are some things that the slowly dying can do that the quickly dying cannot.  I thank Hedges, though, for at least freeing me from the illusion that by throwing my support behind urine I thwart the advance of feces.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 10, 2010 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment

Arabian Sinbad, June 10 at 10:36 pm,

“as it is the majority enriching itself upon the misery of some minority.”——John Ellis June 10 at 9:39 pm

Since you say you understand, could you explain just who this majority is that’s enriching themselves on the misery of a minority?  I fail to see the majority being enriched in any way at all.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 10, 2010 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

You still haven’t given me one example to where MSNBC out right lied, made up material to support the democrats the way Fox does to the Republicans.

Also “10 small posts” one after another in rapid fire sequence is the problem! How about just one or two at a time or condensing them that way? If you can compose off of something else the way Shenonymous does would help if you don’t want to write any of it down at first.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 6:49 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt ,  what I have had the curtesy to do,
even with a subject that I have passion for ,such as
the discussion going on at the Helen Tomas thread,
Is make my point, maybe a couple rebuttels then exit so
everyone else can get their opinion in. I may make three
or four short posts in a row, but then I am gone, and
don’t beat the dead horse to death.

You are very selective who you criticize about using
too much space.

Report this
Arabian Sinbad's avatar

By Arabian Sinbad, June 10, 2010 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

By John Ellis, June 10 at 9:39 pm #

FAKE MORALITY — CANNABALISTIC

“A fake morality always cannibalizes society, as it is the majority enriching itself upon the misery of some minority.  And as one helpless group gets consumed into extinction, eventually all of society has to expire in a convulsion.”
==============================
Dear John Ellis,

Despite of the fact that you and I belong to a different faith traditions, I feel that there is a spiritual affinity between you and me.

Your last post above was particularly outstanding; it summarizes most of the issues which are of great concern to me.

Thank you! But take it easy, for I am afraid that you’re exerting yourself too hard to respond to most of the posters who have problems understanding the spiritual grounds you stand on!

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment

I have watched Keith, Cris , and Rachael enough,
we will never agree to their intentions. No , I do in
no way view MSNBC as a news service.

You didn’t answer my question, I make at the most
ten small posts , all one after another then shut up
and let others post,
Do you believe the ones that make lengthy posts all
day long and into the night deserve the same reprimand
that you gave me?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 10, 2010 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 10 at 5:29 pm,

“The appearance of impropriety is reason enough to recuse oneself as a judge. So it familiarity with any of the defendants for any reasaon.  It is unconscionable that more than 50% of the judges who will adjudicate the oil-spill lawsuits pending against BP are intricately linked to either BP or the oil industry in some way.” Shenonymous June 10 at 5:29 pm

I clicked your Seattle Post Intelligencer link, but the page wasn’t found, apparently it was taken down.

These criminals have a right to a jury of their peers, but all oil related judges should have to recuse themselves or be recused. 

You know the Right-Wing EXTREME can push, and push, and push and finally the populace will wake up and do what has to be done, if the Conservative Right-Wing continues their assault against the populace, but when they do, it won’t be pretty.  History shows that the Right-Wing EXTREME will continue their destruction without constructive purpose right up to the bloody end.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 10, 2010 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

I don’t want to “run you off” just so you keep you commenting logorrhea from running away. A real pain and discourteous to us all. Be nice.

Also if you actually watch MSNBC for more than a few minutes you would find that Democrats don’t get off scott free. But then you show your ignorance by equating, falsely that Fake News and MSNBC are anything close to each other. Something which you have asserted but not proven. So put up dear boy. [Just as a side note, I am not a Democrat.]

Also most of the movers and shakers fascits are the crypto kind and very high up and very rich. They don’t advertise.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

Archives Dave got me better than anyone on Truth Dig and
he didn’t even call me a name,  he waited all day until
I stepped on myself, and BOOM, got me real good and I
well deserved it.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 10, 2010 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment

ofersince72, June 10 at 8:44 pm,

“I believe that you just may be a paid poster
along with a few others that I need not mention their
name.”
—ofersince72 June 10 at 8:44 pm

It is a thankless job trying to represent the 70% majority Common Populace Class that isn’t even represented in Congress in the making of legislated laws or the enforcement of laws that are always made in favor of a minority 20% Professional Academic Middle Class and a 10% Aristocratic Capitalist Class and most of the 70% majority Common Populace Class say, “Yeah” and have no idea what is going on, much less pay someone to try and represent them,  even if they had the money, which they don’t, but the Conservative Republican Right-Wing EXTREME, like Rupert Murdoch, collect all the social capital in one way or the other and have plenty of money to pay their toadies, of which Rupert Murdoch’s Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin receive plenty, and the rest of the FOX News Network along with Newt Gingrich and the Conservative Right-Wing Christian Fascist Movement that includes blogger populace toady traitors for pay in support of the Conservative Right-Wing Republican and Professional Middle Class duopoly.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

Truth Dig Posters,

  Mr Truth_Light, John Ellis proclaims to be the only

Truth Dig poster not to be confusing…so we all owe

Mr Truth_Light an apology for being so confusing to him.

Mr. Truth_Light,  I am so sorry that I am a confusing
            person..
every poster owes this apology!!!!!!!

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

Mr, Truth_Light,  have you figured out who the paid

posters are on Truth Dig yet,  MarthA just accused you???

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

Since you consider yourself as an “only” John Ellis,

is that just at confusion, because there are many posters

on Truth Dig that believe you to be most confusing.

Everyone one of us believe we are the TRUTH,  LIGHT.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment

That was the exact same greeting Night-Gaunt gave me
my very first day on the internet, a virgin, Truth Dig
got my cherry.
He has been very respectful since, even though we have
disagreements, mostly about Democrats and the belief
that that there is still a political proccess left in the
good ole U.S. of A.
No one has given me any good debate that there is.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment

I don’t know about you not creating confusion John,

but you are right on about the Little Kingdom,

but I will leave soon on my own accord, not because
the host of posters that have done their damndest to
run me off of here.
I probably would have been gone months ago had I not
run into so many calling me names, it got fun then.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA,, I believe that you just may be a paid poster
along with a few others that I need not mention their
name.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 10, 2010 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

John Ellis, June 10 at 5:41 pm,

You have a chip on your shoulder of unfathomable size from what life has thrown your way in the past, and you blame everyone and anyone, without any knowledge whatsoever as to who they are or what they are, just blanket coverage condemn them all to be rich destroyers, but you are deceiving yourself.  Perhaps this is why you were/are unable to hold a job, it is definitely not the people on this political blog’s fault what has happened to you.

I do not believe you are even saved, much less be a Christian that reproves Christians. 

Satan is the deceiver and the author of confusion and it appears you are his helper and the one who is obfuscating on this blog, perhaps you are being paid by the Conservative REPUBLICAN Right-Wing EXTREMISTS to destroy political dialogue with YOUR supposedly superior religiosity, which you seem to be doing quite well.

I have come to the conclusion that you need mental help from a really good psychiatrist.  Hope there is some way for you to get some mental help, but I doubt it.  If the United States had social capitalism and health care it would be possible, but without much health care and private capitalism, you probably won’t be able to get help, unless you are rich, if so, get on with it; if not, perhaps you can buy some mental self help books that may help if you will read them, but you definitely need to make an about face.

The one thing I know is that no one on these blogs are rich.  No rich person would blog.  There are paid bloggers for the rich, conservative, Right-Wing Republican EXTREMISTS,  but the bloggers themselves are not rich and are working against themselves, which is what I have concluded you are doing if you aren’t in need of psychiatric help.

You do not need to answer this post as it is not my intention to try any further dialogue with you.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 10, 2010 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

John Ellis, June 10 at 5:41 pm,

You have a chip on your shoulder of unfathomable size from what life has thrown your way in the past, and you blame everyone and anyone, without any knowledge whatsoever as to who they are or what they are, just blanket coverage condemn them all to be rich destroyers, but you are deceiving yourself.  Perhaps this is why you were/are unable to hold a job, it is definitely not the people on this political blogs fault what has happened to you.

I do not believe you are even saved, much less be a Christian that reproves Christians. 

Evil is destructive without constructive purpose and YOUR actions fit the pattern.  Satan is the deceiver and the author of confusion and it appears YOU are his helper and the one who is obfuscating on this blog, perhaps YOU are being paid by the Conservative REPUBLICAN Right-Wing EXTREMISTS to destroy political dialogue with YOUR supposedly superior religiosity.

I have come to the conclusion that YOU need mental help from a really good psychiatrist.  Hope there is some way for you to get some mental help, but I doubt it.  If the United States had social capitalism and health care it would be possible, but without much health care and private capitalism, you probably won’t be able to get help, unless you are rich, if so, get on with it; if not, perhaps you can buy some mental self help books that may help if you will read them, but you definitely need to make an attempt to make an about face.

The one thing I know is that no one on these blogs are rich.  No rich person would blog.  There are paid bloggers for the rich, conservative, Right-Wing Republican EXTREMISTS,  but the bloggers themselves are not rich and are working against themselves, which is what I have concluded YOU are doing if you aren’t in need of psychiatric help.

You do not need to answer this post as it is not my intention to try any further dialogue with you.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 10, 2010 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

Night Gaunt….will observe better practices, at least
I make my burst and get away and let others post, unlike
several on here that do lengthy posts all day long and
into the night, and say nothing, maybe you should give
them the same reprimand.

you also are way wrong about MSNBC, way wrong, you are
the crowd that they cater to , that is the only difference,  they go after Democrats with democrat spin
and Fox after Pubs with their inane spin….
Does MSNBC have a little more sophistication, yeah, but
their base line is simple,
I don’t need to watch Miss Cute and Funny Girl aopologist
for the Democrat Party to get news.

Report this

Page 2 of 6 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.