Amaxing how this has become a thread about religion when Hedges only uses it as a means to analyse his society. There's another aopproach to understanding America: Joe Bageant www.coldtype.net/joe.html Missing or Bad links? Letters ... Joe Bageant www.coldtype.net/joe.html Missing or Bad links? Letters ...
Gee Gaian you should look at the posting history of "George Victor" he started a number of threads about Joe. You would likely agree with everything he has written on the subject.
@ SJ #50
Wow. Looks like superstitious religious people aren't the only ones who can hear a door creak and turn it into a big monster story.
In the first place, your spin aside, does Hedges look like he is just sitting around waiting for something to happen? Near as I can see he is one of the people who is working overtime to convince fence-sitters that they should get behind the occupy movement.
In fact, when I think of the political equivalent of apocalypse and millenium fantasies its not progressive religious people who come to mind, but rather certain utopian idealists who seem to be waiting for just such an event to happen to us and bring about The Revolution™ or its evil twin, the end of civilization. Some even argue we should ignore dealing directly with some of the world's problems and devote our efforts to bringing about that millenial paradise instead.
If you look at history, many revolutionary changes resulted from exactly the sort of awakening that you seem to see as a vial of opium - from the revolt against church supremacy and absolutism to class, the rights of women and human rights generally. It happened in the 1300s, the 1500s, the 1700s, 1848, 1870, 1918, and in the 1960s.
Of course those changes were the result of people working to make them happen, but the fact is that there was a point at which they reached critical mass and caused a sea change in society.
And really, all the spray paint and bricks in the world are not going to change anything if nothing changes between the ears.
....
In fact, when I think of the political equivalent of apocalypse and millenium fantasies its not progressive religious people who come to mind, but rather certain utopian idealists who seem to be waiting for just such an event to happen to us and bring about The Revolution™ or its evil twin, the end of civilization. Some even argue we should ignore dealing directly with some of the world's problems and devote our efforts to bringing about that millenial paradise instead....
Well said. Both John Gray and Hedges make much of this theme.
ETA. But more than those sitting around and waiting for the re-made world, is the damage done by those ideologues of the left and right who have pushed for their vision of a perfected world through a sea of bodies.
@ SJ #50 Wow. Looks like superstitious religious people aren't the only ones who can hear a door creak and turn it into a big monster story.
It's to do with this recurring theme that continues to crop up regarding atheists looking to pick a fight with anything containing references to the spirit world - on the apparent basis that it merely turns our crank to poke a stick at religion - which deserves as complete a response as the faculties will allow for. Now whether or not the response is clear enough is another story...but I would really spare any protest I might have for being accused of not having made an effort at all.
In the first place, your spin aside, does Hedges look like he is just sitting around waiting for something to happen? Near as I can see he is one of the people who is working overtime to convince fence-sitters that they should get behind the occupy movement. In fact, when I think of the political equivalent of apocalypse and millenium fantasies its not progressive religious people who come to mind, but rather certain utopian idealists who seem to be waiting for just such an event to happen to us and bring about The RevolutionTM or its evil twin, the end of civilization. Some even argue we should ignore dealing directly with some of the world's problems and devote our efforts to bringing about that millenial paradise instead. If you look at history, many revolutionary changes resulted from exactly the sort of awakening that you seem to see as a vial of opium - from the revolt against church supremacy and absolutism to class, the rights of women and human rights generally. It happened in the 1300s, the 1500s, the 1700s, 1848, 1870, 1918, and in the 1960s.
Well, what you just described is precisely why the inquiries should be made in the first place. Various interconnected societies in the western context have seemingly managed transformational adjustments over the course of history. In the context of the British Empire, we removed ourselves from religious based rule and replaced it with an apparently more benign representation of religious rule, where they finally came to understand that the succession of the crown for instance is not necessarily made by right of divine injunction. As the society progressed under the gaze of enlightenment and reason, or because of these, we allowed ourselves instead to be placed under a seemingly more democratic system of government which still retained out of sheer tradition and habitual function, the trappings of a system little changed in appearance since the earliest days of absolute rule. Over time far less emphasis was given to the notion of divinely inspired Earthly guidance from any sector of rule having an inordinate say over our affairs through human leaders. The last ten or so years, [one might say since the creation of the state of Israel where a muted form of Christian fundamentalism began to slowly gain political credence] we've witnessed the return of similar religious inspired falsehoods and representations trading in clashes between civilizations as part of the contemporary political justification, as it once was. It frankly needs to be sniffed out wherever it rears its head and tested for rancidity, so that it might ultimately dawn on us as to why we're continually led into replacing one absurdity with another. It might occur to us that we've been listening all this time to the wrong ideologies and to the wrong people, so that we may learn to identify certain characteristics on sight and eventually come to know the error of our ways.
Now certainly the exigencies of society created specific instances in which allowances were provided by the ruling class, which by and large coincided with their long term goal of retaining power on the one hand, and leveraging the positive developments for their own purposes on the other. The movement toward universal suffrage for example couldn't be put back into the bottle once it was revealed that women could work in the war factories just as well as the growing numbers of absent, mutilated or dead men once did, and that once everyone dedicated to the tasks assigned to them by power were paying an equal portion of their salary to the maintenance of the system through taxes, it was becoming more difficult to justify a two tiered level of civic responsibility. So what we end up with instead is a 100% participation rate in the maintenance processes which guarantee the existing structures. A pretty good trade off overall. At any rate, if one could quell dissent by using an easier and demonstrably more benevolent method with the introduction of a few reforms, a stage managed zeitgeist in essence, while retaining the final say regardless of any given situation through state violence where necessary, while still maintaining a level of day to day control and direction that has changed very little over time...it seems to me to be an evolutionary survival adaptation, similar to an organism but applied to an entire system of our making. It is at the point where regression to earlier forms of control such as religion, spirituality, transcendence, call it what you will; starts making inroads into our consciousness as being in vogue once again through popular demand, like saying the insulating value of asbestos was really given short shrift because its toxicity was overstated by certain interest groups...such as those scientists who are always up to something...that the whole thing begins to crack wide open for everyone who is willing to see it for what it is.
@ Slumberjack
Well maybe if you stopped insulting people based on their personal beliefs (your reference at #5) maybe I wouldn't feel compelled to step in and say something about it, because as I see it it is nothing but a crank, as well as being irrelevant to the point, and an insult to allies.
And since you mention the fight against absolutism, if you are familiar with the history you probably also know that many of those who fought against absolute rule, and for the freedom to publish did so because they were actually more hard-line in their religious beliefs that the Roman Catholic Church, which had been largely compromised by political power and corruption.
In short, it is not simply a case of moving from religious persecution to non-religious freedom. Much of the resistance movement was and continues to be informed by faith.
Any resistance that is informed by faith in the supernatural must eventually be resisted itself, because as good as it makes people feel about certain things, historically they've only been able to convince people that what they say about their faith is true by using the very same methods they resist. Any child can tell you even today, they resist being indoctrinated within the faith of their parents at their own peril, which is where it is first allowed to be perpetuated. More often than not, religion has been found in league with very systems deserving of resistance. This is the point of #5. Frankly, any proposition that hasn't been able to prove itself for many centuries, except for the methods of violent coersion, genocide, planetary scale mass delusion, Jim Jones syndrome, you name it...has been given far too much respect. I've been fairly reserved in my own responses. Its not my fault that religion has never adapted very well, or very socially when it comes to criticism.
Amaxing how this has become a thread about religion when Hedges only uses it as a means to analyse his society. There's another aopproach to understanding America: Joe Bageant www.coldtype.net/joe.html Missing or Bad links? Letters ... Joe Bageant www.coldtype.net/joe.html Missing or Bad links? Letters ...Gee Gaian you should look at the posting history of "George Victor" he started a number of threads about Joe. You would likely agree with everything he has written on the subject.
Your vindictive, juvenile little GOTCHA was expected. Fits you to a " T ". :)
But not disappointing I have to say...because there was no other expectation given the recent discourse.
You fellows must be products of divinity schools. Hedges was Harvard until, as he explains to his audiences, the new, corrupted Jesus Christ of the Market looked like nothing he had learned about as a kid.
If you must go on about religion, please understand that Hedges brought it forward because of its new, selfish form. THE point is changed form of the past half-century of "Christian" belief in the United States of America. NOWHERE ELSE.
@ SJ #56
Really? What religion are you talking about? You talk about faith and religion as if it is one thing Slumberjack.
In that, you have no idea what you are talking about. And for someone who claims to speak for a more rational philosophy I think it shows a stunning ignorance in how people really think and feel.There isn't too much more I can say about it that I haven't said upthread.
If you must go on about religion, please understand that Hedges brought it forward because of its new, selfish form.
You have to wonder what they teach in divinity schools these days. The history of the victor...[no pun intended] to be sure.
But not disappointing I have to say...because there was no other expectation given the recent discourse.
I try not to disappoint, Sj. Even when in my cups. :)
Don't be coy Gaian. You're in like a dirty shirt too.
And selfish religion has always been around, everywhere, from explaining why it is good to keep slaves, or kill witches, or suffer for your heavenly reward, or die for the cause.
The Americans are just a little bit more american about it.
Don't be coy Gaian. You're in like a dirty shirt too.
And selfish religion has always been around, everywhere, from explaining why it is good to keep slaves, or kill witches, or suffer for your heavenly reward, or die for the cause.
The Americans are just a little bit more american about it.
What is relevant here is the American form and the period of its transition. I'm sure divinity schools reach back somewhat in history. And I'm not being "coy" 6079, just trying to stay on subject, not be so bloody subjective. A good rule for history....and most other areas of study.
@ SJ #56Really? What religion are you talking about? You talk about faith and religion as if it is one thing Slumberjack. In that, you have no idea what you are talking about. And for someone who claims to speak for a more rational philosophy I think it shows a stunning ignorance in how people really think and feel.There isn't too much more I can say about it that I haven't said upthread.
If you would care to elaborate on another form of faith apart from supernatural spirituality in all of its traditional variations, and from what it seems these days its disguises, then by all means please illuminate us as to your findings.
You fellows must be products of divinity schools.
If you must know I went to public school for three years then catholic school till grade 11 and then finished in the public system again. I did spend two years in a catholic boarding school designed to stream bright catholic boys into the University of Windsor's seminary program. I got by trades training at a community college in BC and my university degrees from the U of S.
The closest thing to a divinity school would be the boarding school that I went to in grade 10 and 11 before they threw me out for smoking cigarettes. Peoples life experiences do matter as to world view. My world is definitely framed from the traumatic events in my adolescence that made me wary of any authority because in my experience they just want to screw you. But I did not lay down and play dead and I still don't.
Have a nice day and please try to play nice in our sandbox.
Come on, SJ -
"any proposition that hasn't been able to prove itself for many centuries, except for the methods of violent coersion, genocide, planetary scale mass delusion, Jim Jones syndrome".
In the first place we are not talking about one proposition. Secondly, I have seen zealots on TV, but don't think I know one religious person in my community who fits your description.
Nor does it accurately describe Kairos, the Mennonite Central Committee, Sojourners, nor even people who are in the most powerful and dogmatic churches, but are nevertheless committed to social justice.
And its "disguises"? What... do you think those nice old ladies behind the counter at the fall supper are just waiting to spike your pumpkin pie and haul you down the basement to the inquisitors? Sounds like something inspired by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
This might be anecdotal, but there was an interview on The Current last night with three people who hold title to land currently occupied by protesters. They all ranged from fairly centrist to right, but guess which one recognized why the people were actually there, and made a point of speaking out about it.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/10/26/evicting-the-occupiers/
I don't care if you think belief in a god is delusional or make whatever arguments you want to on that issue. But to use that point against people and judge them by the actions of others is no different than any other kind of racism.
It is especially galling to see it levelled against people who hold the same values and are fighting the same fight as many of us, and who fought the battles that we now enjoy the benefits of.
And I also simply disagree with you, because I believe myself that progressive spiritual communities are a positive force and can only help us.
And Gaian, Sorry if you see this as a hijack or a diversion, but I think this is quite relevant - on a number of levels - to the idea of social progress. If we can't find mutual respect and cooperation on something basic like this, how can we ever hope to find it on far more challenging issues?
In the American context the Puritans began the "religious" problem. They were thrown out of England for being assholes who wanted to deny everyone else their rights. Some of the Xian's who followed were more respectful but most were determined to save the FN's from themselves by converting them. Some Xian's did not believe in conversion by force but lets face it our residential schools were specifically designed to eradicate native culture in the name of Christian values and they were run by the mainstream churches of Canada both protestant and catholic. So while I admire the work done by the Mennonite Central committee to name one Xian institution I doubt if it has offset the harm of other Xian do gooders.
And in my experience those little old ladies at the church socials will not drag you downstairs to the inquisition but there is a good chance they will buttonhole you to sign a petition to restrict abortion rights or reverse same sex marriage.
Depends on the church, NS. And more importantly, it depends on the person.
http://www.united-church.ca/communications/news/releases/041006
(You know, I assumed people were aware of this information.)
And your proposition in the second-last paragraph to put things on the scales is still a case of holding one person responsible for the actions of another. Not all religious people and not all religions hold the same set of values, or promote the same things.
And "do-gooders"? I guess they can't do anything right, eh?
Though I wouldn't underestimate the place of religion in reform; it wasn't just minority sects like the Mennonites and Quakers.. I think I mentioned it already upthread.
6078
You seem to have missed my central point. Many good spiritual people belong to and are involved in religions. However despite this on balance the institutions of those religions are a net negative influence on the world.
You know the reference to the United Church is sort of bizarre when you add in the idea that I might be ignoring such things. I have mentioned Bill Siksay as my version of a great politician whose deeply held beliefs were framed in the Xian faith. What don't you get about that part of my view? By the way before he went to work for Svend he was trained as a minister and was very involved in the movement to have openly gay ministers in the mainstream protestant churches. His life partner Brian is a United Church minister and so your snide chippy comment about being aware of this information was uncalled for. Actually I do know the information and guess what I still have the same believe that on balance religion has caused more harm than good.
Do gooders all believe in the R2P.
@ NS
How can you not see how discriminatory it is to throw all religious people in one pot and judge every one of them based on how you think these billions of people balance each other out?
If it weren't so absurd I would probably be far more creeped out by what is actually being implied.
In the first place we are not talking about one proposition. Secondly, I have seen zealots on TV, but don't think I know one religious person in my community who fits your description. Nor does it accurately describe Kairos, the Mennonite Central Committee, Sojourners, nor even people who are in the most powerful and dogmatic churches, but are nevertheless committed to social justice.
So we are talking about the same thing after all. And I was so sure you had earlier mentioned that we weren't. Never mind with answering my question at #65 then. As to the disguises, I believe you know enough to barely recognize at least, based on my observation of your facile but purposeful attempt to equate what I have said with anti-Semitism as a discrediting technique, the ongoing sleight of hand that presents itself for intelligent discourse when it talks around the subject of religion and god.
We find today that it is never quite the same discussion as it used to be, with the exception certainly of the kind of things we usually hear from those pulpit and door to door peddlers, quoting verse as they've always done. Instead we're treated in part to something innate that must come from somewhere other than from within our own devising and faculties for reason, because where we find reason among an almost universally unreasonable species, it apparently must have been implanted as a seed, or as a light from somewhere beyond our current ability to understand or perceive, which is no longer specifically named, but it is nonetheless that which is apparently called into play when describing people who do good deeds as part of a conscious decision on their part to exercise this foreign characteristic.
What you are doing is transposing the concept of a spiritually implanted will to community level self-preservation, or to wider humanitarian initiatives as the case may be, when the instinct which determines that we are better off to care for one another is older than religion. The local dart league can raise funds for one community related charitable event or another. It doesn't mean there is something about throwing darts that leads one to doing good deeds, and that we should therefore kneel before them. All it means is that people within their respective groups, and this applies from the dawn of time to all species that operate within groups, have identified that it is more beneficial and effective to work together in accomplishing a goal. In relation to this topic it says more about the human instinct for collective survival, despite everything thrown at it, than it does about anything conjured up.
@ NS How can you not see how discriminatory it is to throw all religious people in one pot and judge every one of them based on how you think these billions of people balance each other out? If it weren't so absurd I would probably be far more creeped out by what is actually being implied.
Religion and spirituality is being thrown into the pot as far as I can tell...not people.
@ NS How can you not see how discriminatory it is to throw all religious people in one pot and judge every one of them based on how you think these billions of people balance each other out? If it weren't so absurd I would probably be far more creeped out by what is actually being implied.Religion and spirituality is being thrown into the pot as far as I can tell...not people.
Um.... no. I am talking about a person - Chris Hedges - being discredited and looked down upon because of his beliefs. I think I have made enough comments upthread that it should be clear I believe that many religions are a force of great destruction and oppression in the world.
I am talking about discrimination.
Not anti-semitism specifically, SJ. I could have just as easily used the masonic plot to control the world, or the belief that any identifiable group is somehow plotting against you behind a smiling face.
I don't know about plots against me personally, which has little to do with this conversation, but you can be sure there are people plotting against some of the things you apparently believe in, for which they shouldn't be faulted for in my estimation.
...Chris Hedges - being discredited and looked down upon because of his beliefs.
I think nearly everyone here agreed with Hedges overall assessment of the situation to one degree or another. It's just that for some, a few of his prescriptions have been found wanting. Must everything be accepted in order to avoid tantrums of this nature?
Not anti-semitism specifically, SJ. I could have just as easily used the masonic plot to control the world, or the belief that any identifiable group is somehow plotting against you behind a smiling face.
@ NS
How can you not see how discriminatory it is to throw all religious people in one pot and judge every one of them based on how you think these billions of people balance each other out?
If it weren't so absurd I would probably be far more creeped out by what is actually being implied.
How can you not see that is not what I have argued. Putting meaning into my posts that is not there in the words and then saying it creeps you out is really just a nasty little personal insult.
Try being respectful okay. I have not attacked you I have merely posted my beliefs.
I never said you attacked me, NS.
But I do think it is discriminatory to pass judgment on all religious belief based on the assumption that one group or people should be expected to offset the actions of another.
There you go again. I did not say that you said I said that. Although you are still trying to put words into my posts that I don't agree with at least this post you left out the "your views are creepy" comment.
I never said you attacked me, NS.
But I do think it is discriminatory to pass judgment on all religious belief based on the assumption that one group or people should be expected to offset the actions of another.
and @ SJ
Right. I should calm down and stop being so unreasonable.
@ NS
Just trying to reach a common ground, not backpedal (and after all, my words are still there to be read).
I do find this passing judgment on people, and guilt by presumed association creepy, and threatening. I am pointing it out in the hopes that people might think about it for what it is - discrimination.
After all, why should mennonites, who were kicked out of numerous countries repeatedly because of their pacifist beliefs, be expected to offset the crimes of people who forced the expulsion in the first place?
And if the answer is that we would have been better if neither culture existed, guess what... we are talking about the real world, and real people. Not some imaginary utopia.
I do find this passing judgment on people, and guilt by presumed association creepy, and threatening. I am pointing it out in the hopes that people might think about it for what it is - discrimination.
I got that you find that creepy. Please would you now acknowledge that my posts do not say that.
You keep repeating the same thing and you do it in reference to me and it has nothing to do with my views. Please stop misrepresenting what I have said and drawing negatived conclusions based on your interpretation. What ever you thought you read into my posts I have now told you three times is not my intent so again please stop attacking me based on something I don't even believe. How many times to I have to tell you the same thing before you stop putting concepts in my words that I do not mean.
Post your views all you want in relation to what creeps you out just stop trying to tie it to my posts.
You fellows must be products of divinity schools. Hedges was Harvard until, as he explains to his audiences, the new, corrupted Jesus Christ of the Market looked like nothing he had learned about as a kid.
If you must go on about religion, please understand that Hedges brought it forward because of its new, selfish form. THE point is changed form of the past half-century of "Christian" belief in the United States of America. NOWHERE ELSE.
The first sentence was an awkward attempt at humour...certainly not meant as a slur. I should have reckoned on really, really serious people.
The following sentences were an attempt to keep this thread on an objective plane.
I clearly failed on all fronts. :)
I got that you find that creepy. Please would you now acknowledge that my posts do not say that.
I don't want to leave you hanging, and I can't presume to know your intent. I can only speak to how it feels when I read it.
I think I understand, and agree with much of what you have said here. If we have reached an impasse I think the best we can do is to recognize that, and be aware of the points which each of us consider to be over the line.
The first sentence was an awkward attempt at humour...
I think different people appreciate different styles of humour. For me it was captivating for awhile to witness nonsense being defended by more nonsense, followed by more tricks of the trade involving forgeries and ventriloquism. With all of that in play you expect to bring the house down with a one liner?
We live in hope, Sj...and I hope that I can come to understand your last missive.
In the first place, your spin aside, does Hedges look like he is just sitting around waiting for something to happen? Near as I can see he is one of the people who is working overtime to convince fence-sitters that they should get behind the occupy movement.
Or to put a religious twist on this, when Moses asked God why God allowed the Israelites to suffer as slaves in Egypt, God's response was to tell Moses to free them. I've always taken that to mean that God wants us to play a role in our own liberation and not wait around for things to happen.
We live in hope, Sj...and I hope that I can come to understand your last missive.
For that you would have to do a little back reading in this thread.
I'm forward reading into Hedges work. Maybe later.
Thanks very much for that link, kn. Yep, that's the Chris Hedges I'm learning about in his The World As It Is, and Amy Goodman is no slouch either, eh? Was it she who said that Obama has needed that kind of support on the streets for some time, votes for the squeamish Democrats in Congress..and Republican. And you caught good old Michael Moore laying it out for that CNN audience. He says the Tea Party is history, that the Occupy movement is only going to grow.
Wish it was all beginning in May...
I'm quite certain at this point that Obama and his merry gang of hand picked Wall Street and Goldman Sachs executives would indeed appreciate that kind of support in the streets. Americans should instead be asking themselves what role if any did people like Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and the rest of what presents itself as leftist commentary in that country play in maintaining and building upon the mass euphoria that was the Obama election campaign.
You exist in an extraparliamentary world, free of the need to grab the minds on mainstreet. Unfortunately, Hedges, like yourself, has no answers for them, which seems sort of unfair ...to those folks camping on mainstreet.
I'm not running for such a position. If we're talking about unfairness to the campers and to everyone else however; the ones who are in the running, or who are already in a position to make off with people's minds, have this peculiar habit of arriving at answers that go nowhere towards addressing anything. Meanwhile everyone else who bothers to dwell upon such matters understands well enough that the price for maintaining things at full steam ahead isn't seen as being anywhere near high enough yet to override the price to be paid for bringing it all to a full stop. Which is why every attempt at providing real answers to the collective problem is always first met by center leftist politics and the union bureaucracies if need be, followed up in short order the police.
The answer then, Sj,would seem to lie in those who do NOT fall into the category "center leftist" no longer hiding their light under a bushel and telling those jobless and marginalized what to do about their situation that won't get them arrested.Maybe something about how to bring out even more numbers? Some foggy idea of the legal processes within the existing electoral system might also aid in firming up of goals. The "union bureaucracies" seem happy to join in the unrest this time around, whereas they sure and shucks shrank from it in the 60s, eh, necessity being the mother of invention and social change?
It seems to me that you don't quite apprehend, even in today's circumstances with the brutality of the system revealed to all who bother to look, the importance of individual subtlety when it comes to describing certain solutions. The phrase 'Que Se Vayan Todos' doesn't only appeal to Argentineans. Any real campaign against corporatism would do well to suggest to anyone who will listen a wholesale rejection of the apparatus, along with all of its attachments, appendages and dependencies which lend it the appearance of popular legitimacy. One might start with an idea making its rounds at the various 'occupy' locations that all of it is rotten to the core and progress from there by no longer appealing to the rot for change...to the corporations, their politicians, their corporate media, their police; the entire facade of power to be precise about it. The one demand that people should be repeating to one another, and not to 'them,' is that they all must go. We need to convince ourselves. The idea that there is no 'them' except for what we invest in 'them' should be a concept shared as broadly as possible, even to the ones wielding the batons. Starting from that position and frame of mind seems a more promising deal than inviting everyone to thrash about in the quicksand as usual.
Quote: "The one demand that people should be repeating to one another, and not to 'them,' is that they all must go."
This is fully understood by all. However, the black cloud of doubt as to how life carries on while something apparently too intricate to describe is put in its place, seems to overide that understanding.
With the boys and their squirrel rifles waiting to fill the vacuum, out in the wings. :)
How life carries on indeed. It's as if life only occurs under a particular brand of guidance, or under some franchising arrangement. Who will conduct policing services when the institutions of the police are driven from the streets? What possible code of justice could one devise to replace the multi-tiered one employed now. There are blueprints laying around everywhere, under dust, heel and beneath Capitalism's wreckage. Certainly no one model could apply everywhere, nor should it because of the varying circumstances and need, but locally as the conditions warrant.
My favourite politician over the last decade is a man of faith. He walked the walk and one of his heroes was J.S.
I also think religion is on balance a negative force in the world. It divides people while "spirituality" to me is the manifestation of our hard wired human empathy. Community is the result of empathy. Keeping religion out of politics and public institutions is a good thing for democracy.
But what if democracy itself is flawed?
What if it is a terrible lie that 19 "pious Muslims" perpetrated 9/11 in order to expedite a clash of civilizations?
What if our so-called elected politicians have been lying to us constantly?
What if rich people invested in war industries would lobby the government to wage illegal attacks on sovereign nations based purely on conjecture and heresay?
The situation is not much different today than when nations fought a war to end all wars in the last century. Our corrupt politicians need are in the pockets of many of the same families of warfiteers and financiers who profited by an ensuing world war as a result of the assassination of a third rate monarch in a second rate European city in 1914.
Just as it was before, fascism is the most significant threat to world peace and prosperity today not religion.
Thou shalt not torture or construct military inquisitions.
Thou shalt not perpetrate false flag terrorism along the way o committing mass murder for fun and profit.
Well, certainly any father not concerned about the welfare of his kids to that degree should have had a vasectomy before even considering the dad role. Oh I know a lot don't, but enough do to be able to count on some sort of ongoing social life, a bit removed from the cro-magnon
neanderthal social structure. You know, the totally local perspective.
