CY:

What concerns me is your impatience - indeed, visceral hatred - for all believers, which shows in this particular case in your assumption that I (i) deliberately took your comment “out of context,” and (ii) was “lying,” when neither was the case.  It also shows in your continual - and completely unnecessary - sarcasm ("sorry I led you astray,” “take this down your rabbit hole").

You are entitled to your opinions and your passions, but please control your hatred for all things faith-based, and stop with the accusations, sarcasm and ad hominem attack.

Thanks.

Peace.

CY:

“No my ORIGINAL comment the paragraph BEFORE your selected out-of-context quote above is: Like religious oligarchies only difference is the religions have removed the middle man and steal directly from the worker. So I guess you “religious” folk can lie just like us atheists?”

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Yes, you ALSO said “Like religious oligarchies, etc.” However, it was clear that my RESPONSE was to your other comment.  This is NOT “out-of-context” since the quote I responded to had its OWN context: the copnnection between “money” and “forigiveness.”

As for “lying,” I leave it to others to decide whether what did comes even CLOSE to “lying.”

Peace.

CY:

Let me show you what occurred, chronologically.

Your original comment:

“Call it pablum or opiate it is nothing but a scheme to part people from their money in return for a promise that they can be “forgiven” anything.”

This comment is prima facie about the connection between “money” and “forgiveness.” It is NOT about “formalized religions steal[ing] from workers using fear and their ‘special rights’ granted by the government documents UNDER which we all live.”

My response to the issue of a connection between money and forgiveness was:

“The days of televangelists ripping off believers - much less the days of paying for “indulgences” - is long past. Sure, there are still a handful of unscrupulous groups and individuals who continue to prey on believers.  But they are few and far between...Neither the Catholic nor Protestant churches (not even the Pentacostals and other charismatic fundamentalists) REQUIRE either tithing or collections, and there is certainly no “quid pro quo” between such tithes and collections on the one hand and either “forgiveness” or “salvation” on the other.”

Thus, I specifically addressed your original comment.

Your response to MY comment was:

“The Catholic Church is the third largest property holder in the city of New York...No single entity owns more slums (tax free ) and collects rent from more people.  Many religious entities...have their own “hedge funds” (also tax free).  If the Church owned “Father Flanagan’s Boy’s Town’ were listed on fortune 500, it would fall somewhere in the 380’s…
[There are] Many ways of stealing.”

Thus, you COMPLETELY CHANGED the subject, from a connection between money and forgiveness to “many ways of stealing.”

As noted, if you wish to discuss the “many ways of stealing,” that is fine.  But it was not me who “danced” from one subject to another.

Peace.

Cyrena:

You do bring up a good, solid example of a remaining type of “pay-off” to the Catholic Church.  Shame on them.

I also agree (obviously...LOL) that credit must be given for the fact that Christianity (mostly Catholic, but some Protestant as well) has provided - sometimes solely - much-needed services where urgently needed: after all, both the Red Cross and the Salvation Army are “Christian” organizations, and they provide the lion’s share of GLOBAL relief services during wars, natural disasters, etc. - regardless of gender, ethnicity, or religious or sexual orientation.  As well, it should not be forgotten that the Protestant church in the U.S. either founded or was integral in all the major social movements: abolition, child labor, suffrage, civil rights, etc.

Still, I also agree that there remains far too much hypocrisy in the church in general (which is why I eschew organized, mainstream, heirarchical religion), and in some denominations in particular (which is why I eschew the Religious Right).

Peace.

I get your point Maani. I don’t know of any religion that ‘requires’ their congregation to tithe.

As for the ‘services’ though..let’s consider marriage annulments. Thinking of the Catholic Church’s position on divorce and remarriage; they still don’t ‘approve’ and will not recognize subsequent marriages unless the former spouse is dead. So, if a Catholic divorces a spouse, and then remarries, the church does not recognize the new marriage, (though the civil law does) and they are effectively excommunicated. (or at least they cannot receive the sacraments).

The only ‘remedy’ to this, is an annulment of the first marriage, which has to be ‘dispensed’ via the church bureaucracy, based on a petition submitted by the…what? I’m at a loss for what to call the average Joe/Jane Catholic. Anyway, if average Joe/Jane Catholic wants to stay Catholic and receive the sacraments, (but still got divorced and married somebody else) then they can apply/petition to have the first (or however many others) marriage annulled. That is to say that it is not recognized as having been a marriage at all.

Now these ‘petitions’ are rarely honored. The Catholics believe in the “better or worse, richer or poorer’ concept. So while they might accept these permanent separation arrangements or even divorce in the cases of very abusive marriages, they don’t otherwise allow for this remarrying. Now of course if one of the union is unable to bear children, that’s immediate grounds for an annulment. They’re perfectly willing in that case, to wipe out that marriage as if it never existed, so that either party can remarry someone who WILL bear lots of kids.

However, there are EXCEPTIONS, and this is the part where money for services comes in quite handy. Let’s consider the NON-Average Catholic who’s been married for 20 plus years, has a gang of kids from the marriage, and decides, (for whatever the reasons) that he or she wants a divorce, AND they wanna marry somebody else. Well, if you’ve got the necessary clout or the funds to sort of ‘donate’ to the church, you can get the annulment, and marry whomever you want, and still be a perfectly ‘legal’ Catholic. Needless to say, this has always struck me as the biggest hypocrisy in the doctrine or rhetoric. I’ve always wondered, “Ok so..what does that make the kids of the union that now never existed?” Do they just all turn into little bastards after the annulment?

I guess it goes without saying that this mentality is totally unacceptable to me, which is (at least in part) why I ditched the faith as soon as I was old enough to figure it out. (the hypocrisy that is). But it’s not just the Catholic doctrine that I feel this way about. In reality, ALL of these organized religions are Undemocratic. STILL, I must also give due respect and acknowledgement to the fact that the Catholic Church at least, (and maybe others do as well) DOES provide a variety of charitable services, and they DON’T require that the recipients be Catholics, or that they pledge any allegiance to any God or faith.

So I do think they deserve recognition for that. In some areas of the country in fact, they are the ONLY providers of services to the needy, or even the temporary needy. Take for instance a state like TX, that doesn’t collect a state income tax. They provide next to nothing in the way of public welfare for the needy for housing, food, education, etc, etc. (although, that too depends…people with children, sometimes have more resources than others who fall on hard times). Still, Catholic Charities takes up the slack in many areas of providing services where the city/state/county/feds definitely don’t bother. That isn’t to say that some corruption doesn’t exist there, and it’s certainly not in defense of what I think is a basically hypocritical doctrine, but it should be acknowledged.

CY:

“Dance around the truth any way you wish.”

Sorry, but it is YOU who is dancing.

You are entitled to your opinions about the Catholic Church, Christianity and faith in general.  And you are entitled to your position in any debate.  What you are NOT entitled to do is change the subject in the middle of the debate.

You made a statement about Christianity and the Catholic Church. I debated that statement. However, rather than accept that you were wrong about your original statement, you offered a response to a statement THAT HAD NEVER BEEN MADE, by me or anyone else.  That is, you set up a “straw man” and tore him down - a straw man that had NOTHING to do with the original statement under debate.

This is simply poor debating skills.  Accept that you were wrong re your ORIGINAL statement, and then, if you wish to take up your ADDITIONAL - but unrelated - statement re real estate, taxes, etc., by all means do so.

Peace.

CY:

“The Catholic Church is the third largest property holder in the city of New York. Only the City itself, and Columbia University own greater shares. No single entity owns more slums (tax free) and collects rent from more people. Many religious entities (including the Church of the Latter Day Saints) have their own “hedge funds” (also tax free). If the Church owned “Father Flanagan’s Boy’s Town’ were listed on fortune 500, it would fall somewhere in the 380’s.”

All of this may well be true.  However, it does not even ADDRESS my comment - “Neither the Catholic nor Protestant churches (not even the Pentacostals and other charismatic fundamentalists) REQUIRE either tithing or collections, and there is certainly no “quid pro quo” between such tithes and collections on the one hand and either “forgiveness” or “salvation” on the other” - much less gainsay it.

Peace.

John (and all):

If you have not done so, you owe it to yourself to read “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” by Vincent Bugliosi.  As you probably know, Bugliosi was the prosecutor in the Charles Manson case, and the author of (among others) Helter Skelter, and The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President.

Peace.

CY,

I don’t think I was all that far off topic.  Its all about a lust for power and fortune for Corporation.  I personally have a problem with organized religion for a few private reasons that are not on topic.

I see money as a tool that is most often used to deprive the righteous utilized by the unrighteous.

I believe in God as far as Jesus Christ.  I believe he followed the Word of God as far as it is humanly possible.  I believe our bodies are made of earth and water. I believe our spirits are fire and air.

Christ did not seek earthly power or money.  He taught by example.  Corporations seek power and profit.  Not always profit if the CEO can rob enough for the right key players.  Less profit less taxes.  Many churches do want to raise money to help spread their word.  Personally, I believe the true church is where two or more gather in his name.  It has nothing to do with buildings, poscessions, or bank rolls.

Both Corporations and some religious leaders are artists at deception which is certainly not Holy.

Cyrena:

Thank you for your comment.  As my comment reflects, I am aware that “there’s still SOME of that going on.” However, there is increasingly less of it (is that an oxymoron? LOL).  As an aside, although it seems counterintuitive on its face, the churches that preach the so-called “prosperity gospel” (Osteen et al) actually “ask” LESS of their congregants than other churches.

Ultimately, my comment was meant to address CY’s comment, which seemed to suggest that we were still living in the age of Catholic “indulgences” and Swaggart-type rip-offs.

Peace.

““...it probably got a little off topic.” You think?”

CY...it’s supposed to be ‘YA think?”

Yeah maybe...just a tad, eh?

Meantime, I would add a slight contradiction Maani, to your suggestion about the tithes and all. There are many churches still sort of ‘demanding’ them, in a rather forceful way. Now they don’t do it at gun point, but it still exists.

And for the Catholics, the Novena’s are still a big hit, and they cost money, as far as I know. I mean, you can’t buy them at Wal-Mart, and they are obtained by way of ‘donations’ but it still amounts to buying prayers for certain purposes...usually to recover from illnesses, or mourning, or similar other things like that. Probably the most ironic of them these days are the ones that are supposed to improve one’s economic situation. Kind of like spending one’s last dollar on a lottery ticket. 

So, there’s still SOME of that going on.

CY:

“Call it pablum or opiate it is nothing but a scheme to part people from their money in return for a promise that they can be “forgiven” anything.”

Are you sure we are living in the same decade, or even the same millennium?  The days of televangelists ripping off believers - much less the days of paying for “indulgences” - is long past. Sure, there are still a handful of unscrupulous groups and individuals who continue to prey on believers.  But they are few and far between, and most believers are hip to their schemes - largely BECAUSE OF what they learned after the “take-down” of Swaggard, Bakker, et al.

Neither the Catholic nor Protestant churches (not even the Pentacostals and other charismatic fundamentalists) REQUIRE either tithing or collections, and there is certainly no “quid pro quo” between such tithes and collections on the one hand and either “forgiveness” or “salvation” on the other.

What century are you living in?  LOL.

Peace.

Well, this might take us back to what a large part of the piece focuses on…

In part, Chris is letting us know where we are…

• “The growing desperation across the United States is unleashing not simply a recession—we have been in a recession for some time now—but the possibility of a depression unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s.”

Like everything else in the language of the rabbit hole since 2000, the propaganda machine (MSM) is still telling us, (when they mention it at all) that we might be experiencing a recession coming along, sometime soon, maybe, if things don’t improve. And, we’ve been hearing that about a year or so now.

And of course we’ve been in a recession for far longer than that, and we’ve been in a depression for a while now as well. So, it’s more than a ‘possibility’ at this point. It’s already HAPPENED. But, just as there were back in the 1930’s, there are still Americans who have yet to be ‘affected’. Those are the ones who’ve still got the ‘big bucks’.

Meantime, here’s a look at a larger reality, outside of the one that folks pray on.

Rural America Takes the Biggest Hit on the Gasoline Crisis

But then, rural America and the inner cities ALWAYS take the biggest hit on EVERYTHING! For rural America though, this is even worse because of the lack of any public transportation system. I recognized this from my time in Texas, where some of the rural areas were developed into ‘upscale enclaves’ but they were STILL RURAL areas, and resistant to any forms of mass transportation. Now they can’t get to work, and it’s hard to ‘work from home’ when one is employed in the building of major weapons and other war toys.

http://www.truthout.org/article/rural-us-takes-worst-h it-gas-tops-4-average

Meantime, everybody’s grocery money, (if not being spent on gas) is still pouring though the MIC in Iraq, and continuing to create the on-going disaster and destruction there.

I wonder if the average American has gotten around to connecting these dots yet? Or understanding that they just REALLY DON’T LIKE us being over there?

http://www.truthout.org/article/us-military-is-iraqs-t op-problem-says-iranian-leader

Oh well. I guess if we just keep praying and all, God will work it all out.

Maani,
I didn’t think our discussion took over anything.  I enjoyed it and it probably got a little off topic.

“The Corporate State and the Subversion of Democracy” does tie in.  Corporations are soulless entities run by their boards who have been refining the art of milking these paper monsters since they came into being.  Democracy allows the freewill of the souls of the voters to be expressed.

The masters of these monsters have been finding ways to reduce their own liability while not only reducing any regulation but deriving as much business as they can from government.

CY:

“Another thread taken over by the fundis.”

Taken over?  Who or what is preventing you (or anyone else) from weighing in or offering your opinions or comments on the original article or anything else?

And as for “fundis,” lumping every believer together in a big box marked “fundamentalist” is not only theologically wrong, it is insulting to those of us who have been fighting for years to undo the damage of the narrow, unloving, unforgiving, homophobic, misogynist and ultimately UN-Christian views of the Religious Right.

Peace.

To Chris Hedges:

I just read your most recent article on the Iraq war.  Thank you for giving us the truth about the war over there and about war in general.  We need more reporters like you.  God bless you, and keep writing.

Sleeper:

I’d like to recommend two books to you.  The first is “Jesus Among Other Gods,” by Ravi Zacharias.  The other is “But Don’t All Religions Lead to God?,” by Michael Green.  I think you will find these both interesting.

Peace.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father but through Me.”

I aggree with this.  Yet there is a difference.  In John, It states that in the beginning there was the Word.  The Word was God.  The only path to God is through the same path in which it was created.

Jesus Christ was led by the Word of God.  Other prophets have also been led by the Word of God.  We all should listen for the Word of God for God will speak to all.

The God of Abraham made a covenent that Blessed the Blood of Abraham.  Ishmael, Isiac and their descendents are all Blessed and worship the same God.

Some would choose to deceive the masses to these Truths.

Sleeper:

“How well do you know about the teachings of Judaism?  I recently learned that many Jews do not know that within Judaism some believe in reincarnation.”

I know much (though certainly not all) of Judaic teaching.  (You have to to be ordained.) Re reincarnation, this is largely a Kabbalist teaching, not a mainstream one.

“There are many early Christian writtings that I have not read.  They were excluded from our Bible because some human in a powerful seat declared many books to be heresy and others to be the inspired word of God.”

True, the NT as we know it was as much a “political” creation as a theological one.  This does not make it without merit or significance.  I have read many of the non-NT writings (gnostics, etc.) and, to my mind, there are certainly good lessons to be gleaned from some of them.  But one needs to remember to use “discernment” (in its strictest Christian definition) in gleaning them.

“Some Christians believe that Christ taught his disiples reincarnation where the Catholic Church has stated he taught reserection.”

Jesus taught resurrection (the word used by all four of the Gospel writers); there is no statement by Him or anyone else that points to a teaching of reincarnation.

“Is it somehow less of a sin to have to convince someone else to do the killing for you.”

Not if you take seriously Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:44-48.  There is no equivocating here, no “only if” or “only when.” “Love your enemies,” “Bless them that curse you,” “Do good to them that hate you,” “Pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.” These are COMMANDS, not suggestions.

“In my Fathers House there are many Mansions, many paths to the one TRUTH.”

I disagree.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father but through Me.”

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

These do not sound to me like “many paths,” though they do seem to assume “one truth.”

Peace.

Jesus was a Jew.  How well do you know about the teachings of Judaism?  I recently learned that many Jews do not know that within Judaism some believe in reincarnation.  Some teach of a finite number of souls.

There are many early Christian writtings that I have not read.  They were excluded from our Bible because some human in a powerful seat declared many books to be heresy and others to be the inspired word of God.

Some Christians believe that Christ taught his disiples reincarnation where the Catholic Church has stated he taught reserection.  Is it somehow less of a sin to have to convince someone else to do the killing for you.  I suppoose that would be along the lines of the philosophy advanced by Dick Cheney and George Bush.  The Empire does the killing those that lie to create a situation where others will kill are not responsible?

The masses have been hearing a censored message advanced by an elite group who lusts for power and fortune.  We know Truth in our Heart, yet we try to convert others to believe the teaching that indoctrinated us.  In my Fathers House there are many Mansions, many paths to the one TRUTH.

Sleeper:

“The Temple rulers sought a death sentence because he challanged their authority.  They tried many ways to get rid of their problem and finally did with their torture and loaded questions.”

You are conflating things.  The Temple Priests were not allowed to physically torture Jesus; only the romans could do that.  Remember that when Jesus is first brought before Pilate, Pilate refuses even to address Jesus’ guilt or innocence, since the original charges were theological, and he sent Jesus back to Herod - who also refuses to take action, bounding Jesus back to Pilate a second time.  It is only when the Temple Priests convince Pilate that some of Jesus’ words and actions are POLITICALLY SUBVERSIVE against ROME that Pilate sentences Jesus to death.

Re “He taught Judaism.  His version was somewhat different then that of the ruling Jewish figures of the temple.” “Somewhat different?!” It was about as radical a departure from strict Jewish teaching as one could get!

Not only did He introduce the concept - the requirement! - of salvation through faith (rather than through works, which is what Judaism teaches), He introduced the “kingdom of heaven” to which one’s eternal soul goes after death (this is NOT taught in Judaism), He dared to “re-interpret” some of the Ten Commandments (in such as way as to expose the Temple Priests’ hypocrisy), He preached the superiority of the “spiritual” vis-a-vis the “temporal,” and He was inclusive of EVERYONE, including many shunned or disdained by the Temple Priests.  To say nothing of preaching the Beatitudes, which turned the teaching of the Temple Priests topsy-turvy: saying that it was the “poor in spirit” who would “see God,” “the meek” who would “inherit the earth” and “the merciful” who would “obtain mercy.” To the Temple Priests - rich, arrogant, acting as gatekeepers (often for money) for the people’s spiritual lives - this was tantamount to throwing down a guantlet.

Jesus’ “brand” of Judaism was nothing less than a revolution.  It was a rebuke to and repudiation of the corruption and hypocrisy of the Temple Priests, an inclusive message in a religion of exclusion, and a message of love, peace, forgiveness, humility, charity, selflessness, service and justice in a world in which these virtues seemed sorely lacking - particularly from those (the Temple Priests) whose “job” it was to help people properly grow their spiritual selves.

Peace.

Hi Maani,

I hadn’t forgotten Columbia and Ahmadinejad at all, but didn’t include that example specifically because of what you’ve already noted. We’ve been discussing this in terms of a college commencement address, (since that is the situation here) and that was of course not the case when Ahmaddinejad was invited to speak at Columbia. It was not for a commencement, but rather as a speaker invited to participate in a discussion/address at that institution.

The distinction is critical to the point of the discussion, the subversion of democracy. The circumstance with Ahmadinejad was a travesty and an embarrassment, proving yet again the arrogant hypocrisy of Americans and this subversion of democracy. They invited the guy here to speak and take part in a public forum, and then (symbolically at least) tried to undo the invite after the fact, when a bunch of people started whining, even though Columbia is a private school, and nobody was FORCED to attend, listen to him, or partake in the event.

It brings to mind an event that I attended here some weeks ago. As it so happens, that turned out to be an excellent example of this “Language of Politics” that you reference here. I wasn’t familiar with the speaker, a John Q Wilson, but the title of the lecture was on “American Exceptionalism”. My ‘interpretation’ of that turned out NOT to be what his lecture was at all. In fact, his address was the concept of American Exceptionalism as Americans and the political structure as being BETTER than all others, rather than the exceptionalism that the US (under this administration and others) has taken in ‘excepting’ itself from the rest of the established world/legal order, as well as the domestic order established by our Constitution here at home.

Suffice to say that was a surprise for me, and quite frankly, and unpleasant one. On the other hand, it DID serve a useful purpose for yet another reason that we’ve addressed recently, and that is the need to be aware of varied opinions and viewpoints. So, I chose to evaluate it (at least from a personal experience) in that light. Now I would have been pissed if I’d actually spent money to hear him, but it was a free event, since he was promoting one of his own books. And, while the event was sponsored by our campus as part of the Arts & Lectures Series, it was (as they all are) an event open to the general public.

Now in THAT case, (as with the event that involved Ahmadinejad at Columbia) it would have been very inappropriate, (in my view) for anyone to be making a big protest stink about his presence, or inclusion in the series of lectures and other presentations. People were free to attend or not attend, and that is in keeping with a democratic principle.

“To me there is no contradiction: given the horrors, the brevity and the pain, an intense joy is the only rational response; dance till they drop you, exalt while you can.”
Dale Devereux Copeland

The Temple rulers sought a death sentence because he challanged their authority.  They tried many ways to get rid of their problem and finally did with their torture and loaded questions.

His answer concerning ceasars money was to give ceaser that which belongs to him and give to the father that which is his.(The Soul) In other words money has nothing to do with what is sought by the father.

All:

Relevant to this thread and discussion, I want to HIGHLY recommmend a book: “What Orwell Didn’t Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics.”

Riffing on Orwell’s famous essay, “Politics and the English Language” (with nods also to Animal Farm and 1984), it is a collection of essays by mostly left-thinking writers, including (among others) Michael Massing, Victor Navasky, Aryeh Neier, Patricia Williams and George Soros.

Peace.

Cyrena:

Thank you for your response.  One recent example you forgot was Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University.  And this brings me to modify my statement.

You seem to be implying that graduating students only get one commencement, so they should have some control over who speaks at it.  With this I would have to agree.  Thus, with regard to the specific fact that this was a commencement speech, the students certainly had a right to say “no” to the speaker chosen by the university.

However, I maintain my position vis-a-vis other university-chosen speakers - no matter how controversial - in that I believe the more true-to-democracy response would be protesting them once they got there (in whatever manner(s) students chose to do so), rather than trying to prevent them from speaking at all.

Sleeper:

Jesus was not crucified as a result of His outburst at the Temple.  The Sanhedrin found Him guilty of blasphemy by comparing Himself directly to God.  And as you know, the neither Herod nor Pilate initially wanted to carry out a death sentence.  However, Herod was loath to go against the Sanhedrin, and agreed ONLY if “Rome” (in the person of Pilate) also agreed.  And as you also know, Pilate initially did NOT agree, preferring simply to physically punish Jesus.

What changed his mind was that the Sanhedrin convinced Pilate that Jesus was “politically subversive” by declaring Himself a “king” (which was true, to a point), and that He was suggesting that His followers not pay tribute to Caesar (which was untrue).

Thus, Jesus was put to death for “political” crimes against Rome (which He was completely innocent of), and NOT for any “crimes” against the Temple or the Temple Priests.

Peace.

At the very least Jesus was a teacher.  He taught Judaism.  His version was somewhat different then that of the ruling Jewish figures of the temple.  He offered his life in defiance of a human lust for money in the name of his religion.

There is a lesson in that, but it is up to us to interpret that lesson for ourselves.  There was an Empire then as there is a pursuit of Empire today.  It is our pursuit of Virtue that will please our creator and redemption is an initial step toward Peace and ultimately LOVE.

“There was a door to which I found no key,
There was a veil through which I could not see.
A little talk awhile of me and thee,
There was… and then no talk of thee and me.”

I have read some scripture and have read where John said, “I baptise in water yet one is coming who baptises with the spirit and fire.

I have also read,"Blessed Are the Peacemakers & also those persecuted for righteousness sake”.  I believe there are a sizable number of Blessed souls in our world.

I also think Christ was killed for his display of anger and militancy when he enterred the temple and threw over the tables of the money changers.

“Vengence is mine sayeth the lord” I am all for letting my father do his job.  I also think it is my duty to “Shout at The Devil” “The Deceiver” “The Tempter” for after all isn’t it “The Truth that shall Set Us Free”

I get your point here Maani, but in the reality of it, I’m not sure that I can agree with your conclusion.

What you’re suggesting here - if I can play the devil’s advocate just a bit further...is that these students didn’t have a right to say ‘no’ to something that was clearly in violation of their principles.

In other words, should this graduating class, (or any other for that matter) been forced to have their ceremonies addressed by say, the head of the KKK, (whomever that is now) or maybe Louis Farrakhan, just because they have a right to free speech, and maybe somebody on the staff or faculty thought it was a good idea to invite them to deliver the address?

Should Jeremiah Wright been invited to deliver the commencement address even if a majority of the graduating class didn’t want him to? Would that not have been the same thing as ‘preventing him from speaking’?

I don’t think so. I think that you would probably see it differently in those cases. From what I can tell here, this is a private college, and the ‘democratic’ thing would have been for them to agree (by a majority of those who cared) on who their commencement speaker would be.

But, as for your alternative, that HAS actually happened in other similar situations. There was an equal resistance to Condi Rice at a Standford Univ commencement back in I believe 2004..(could have been 2005..one or the other). The class didn’t want her at their commencement, but she came anyway. SHe gave the address, they booed, and that was that. (I think a few turned their backs as well).

Same thing at Boston University a few years back, and I can’t remember now who it was that they didn’t want..either Cheney or Bush. It’s a Catholic University, and they have a problem with them being mass murderers, so they didn’t want whichever one it was that had been invited. In that case, (like here at Furman) it was as much the faculty that was having a major issue with it as the students. But also as is in most cases, it’s someone at the top, (like the Chancellor or whatever) who accepts these arrangements, or maybe even solicits them.

And, that’s just a few of these that come to mind. There have actually been several in the past 5 or so years. So MY only curiosity is why they (any of them...Cheney, The Shrub, Condi, or any of their minions) have continued to do this. Seems like at least Dick and George would just settle for the military institution addresses, where the students and faculty already know they don’t have a choice for who’s gonna be ‘invited’ to deliver their address. Just by their attendance and graduation from such an institution is automatic acceptance of that. I mean, did anyone other than Hitler ever address the Nazi Military?

Now of course nobody other than Hitler ever addressed ANY of the German population during his reign, so maybe that’s what ALL of the graduation classes are now supposed to accept, eh? Apparently that’s what it’s become, but we can’t really see that as much in terms of democracy though. So yeah, I think this might have been a subversion of democracy..when the clown showed up where he wasn’t wanted, and their only choices to avoid him would have been to miss taking part in their own commencement ceremony.

Laurel700…

Thank you so very much for this reference. I’m adding it, (as well as the author and the book) to my list of sources.

The ideology, (and the double talk) is all wrapped up together. This is a bit more difficult to absorb than some of the other theory related information at a different level. But, it still comes to few of that same conclusions that have been reached by Hannah Arndt, (the Banality of Evil) and few others using similar science.

“Because thy lovingkindness is better than life, my lips shall praise thee.”

In his speech, Chris Hedges said we’re being spiritually impoverished.  This is only true for him.  Nothing in the world can make us spiritually poor.  Only we can do that to ourselves, through lack of faith in God.  The truth is, no one with faith is evil.  Only those without faith are evil.  True faith is known by deeds.  Violent, hateful deeds are not the fruits of faith.  Even if someone says he or she believes in God, if his or her deeds are unloving, he or she doesn’t believe in God; he or she has no faith.

Hedges’s speech is well intentioned, but he doesn’t write with true faith.  I say that because, at the end of his speech, he says war is sometimes necessary.  He also says we must be angry and militant.  He judges those who’ve committed sins, such as the people responsible for waging the war in Iraq.  God is the judge, and anyone who disobeys God’s law is already being punished.  The souls of sinners are dead unless they repent. 

Everyone dies in the flesh.  There’s no need to be focus on politics, which will pass away just like our bodily lives.  True life is eternal life, the life in God, which doesn’t pass away.  Chris Hedges is not a pacifist, he said in an interview.  Yet he gives speeches about the immorality of the war.  Unless we love with God’s love and love our enemies, we’re hypocrites. 

Let the money changers, the corporations, be like the man in the Gospel who hoarded wealth and then died the next day.  Hedges quotes Augustine, but Augustine also said nothing happens in the world unless God either wants it, or allows it, to happen.  We should only worry about doing the will of God, our Friend.  We can’t live with anger or militancy.  We can only live with love, for ourselves and for all of our fellow human beings.  May God help us to do that every day.

I’m glad I saw this article.  I think with me it is the subversion that irritates me the most.  When I was young I believed that we Americans were Blessed.  I believed we were somehow virtueous.  The assault described needs to be corrected.  We cannot allow it to be swept under the rug.

It is not only recent history that needs to be cleansed but all the way back to the October Surprise.  This theory has been advanced by many criminal acts.  At some point it adds up to Treason.

At the risk of playing devil’s advocate (which is truly ironic, given my vocation...LOL), and speaking to the original point, I wonder about the title of this article and how it actually applies to the movement to prevent President Bush from giving the commencement address.

If we are going to talk about “the subversion of democracy,” is it not also a subversion of democracy to prevent someone from speaking simply because we do not like them or what they have to say?  Isn’t “free speech” - INCLUDING speech we vehemently disagree with - protected by the very First Amendment that helps undergird the “democracy” we are discussing?

Bush may be a repugnant, repellent person who has engaged in many outrageous, horrible, immoral, even perhaps illegal things.  But does that give anyone the right to prevent him from speaking?

If the students at Furman truly understood and supported “democracy,” they would not have prevented Bush from speaking.  Rather, they would have allowed him to give the address, but perhaps (i) not attended, or (ii) attended and, at the point at which Bush began speaking, stand up en masse and turn their backs to the stage.  These would have been far more “legitimate” (via the First Amendment) - and powerful - messages to send then “we don’t want you to speak at all.”

To my mind, the fact that the students successfully prevented Bush from speaking is a “subversion of democracy” different from Bush’s subversions only in degree.

Peace.

Stuart,

“God is love” is from the first letter of John in the New Testament.  And I wrote God is joy after reading Matthew Fox, a priest whose outlook on life I found interesting, even if I didn’t completely agree with it (he’s sort of like the person above who left a comment about pain and suffering being a falsehood).  I’ve found joy in God in my own life, though, so it’s not just based on what I’ve read.

The other part about God living in our souls is found in many different sources, such as the Bible, the Bhagavad-gita, Tolstoy, Emerson, Meister Eckhart, and Gandhi, just to name a few.  But the only real place to find the relevance is in your own soul, in your own life.

I don’t see your point about pain and suffering being a falsehood.  I’m not really thankful for my pain and suffering, even though I said I was in my prayer.  I hate to suffer just like anyone else, but Eckhart also said God bears the suffering of those who suffer with God.  And I never claimed to understand anything.

By stuart, June 3 at 12:04
“people too lazy to investigate”

“just like those lazy slugs at popular mechanics. This speech is brilliant. Your knee jerk ad hominem attack is irrelevant and a grave dissapointment. “

Perfect example of the lazy spoon fed ignorance I alluded to.  Popular Mechanics hit piece has a demonstrable 9/11 LIE on their website right now:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_la w/1227842.html

“Intercepts Not Routine.”

“FACT [SIC]: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999.” -Popular Mechanics, Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

Government Accountability Office Report:

“Other reserve and active units are well equipped to handle what has become the defense force’s current focus--intercepting drug smugglers. (...) Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity.\3 The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.” --Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (L