To clarify a journalistic mistake. I was reporting on Sunday, June 26th- apparently Hillary Clinton was on stage on the previous day. So there were some female speakers... As if her voting record wasn't unsettling already...

=v= There's been this general hubbub that Graham "mellowed" after the Nixon years. This shows a different way of looking at it: with Bush, as with Nixon, right wingers in power tend to embolden Graham to show his true colors.

the band Salvador performed on Friday, and sang in Spanish. By choosing Flushing Meadows over Central Park, Rev. Billy was able to attract more minorities by preaching in their backyard. For that, he should be commended.
In his youth, he refused to give sermons at segregated Southern churches.

yeah, ok, billy graham, he's a real hero for racial equality.

If last year's anti-Bush protesters had used Prospect Park or Flushing Meadows instead of Central Park, they could have attracted more supporters who do not live in Manhattan. Instead, they insisted that only Central Park will do.

What the left-wingers ignored, Billy Graham noticed. He preached in a large park surrounded by working-class residential immigrant communities. Any comments, does anyone agree, disagree?

Real Progressive wrote: If last year's anti-Bush protesters had used Prospect Park or Flushing Meadows instead of Central Park, they could have attracted more supporters who do not live in Manhattan. Instead, they insisted that only Central Park will do.

What the left-wingers ignored, Billy Graham noticed. He preached in a large park surrounded by working-class residential immigrant communities.

I agree with you; that's a sensible criticism.

Christina Z wrote: Social justice activists need to tap into religious people's genuine desire to help out humanity without turning them off with overtly derogatory stances towards religion.

I completely disagree. Christian fascism is the real face of Christianity itself.

It's Christianity without cosmetics.

I find it continually astonishing that the left does not recognize that all forms of superstition are our implacable enemies.

A famous old socialist newspaper was called Appeal to Reason -- reflecting what the appeal for a radical and conscious transformation of human society has always been based on.

Organized superstitions are and have always been an enemy of human reason. The "gods" have ordained a world of human pain and suffering...and to oppose that is to oppose the "gods" themselves.

Very well, let's do that!

The Christian fascists are firmly convinced that the rise of the American Empire is their last "big chance" for Christianity to "conquer the world".

Opposing the empire also means opposing its superstitious "justification".

Christianity, like the Empire, must be destroyed.

 http://www.redstar2000papers.com

 http://www.RevolutionaryLeft.com/

'Any comments, does anyone agree, disagree?'

Yes, there's a lesson. To reach out to people, you first have to care about them...

You no doubt are so involved in the world you do not have time to observe all that is going on in this sick world!!!!!!!!!!!
The time is short and I pray that somehow you will wake up it is too late.
Eternity is for real,it is quote:"where the worm dyeth not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Where do you plan to spend eternity,smokin" or non-smokin?!!!!!!!!!!!!
may God continue to have mercy on you,He allready has...............

So Mr. Redstar would you agree that Islam too "must be destroyed"?

I'm just curious since most people who critisize Christianity as anti-woman, anti-gay fascism them turn around and kiss Islam's butt as if it didn't do the same exact shit, usually worse...

So Redstar, you keep using the term "Christian fascism," sounds like you're an admirer of Bob Avakian. Isn't there a form of Christianity that isn't fascist? I'm sure there is.
When you label things fascist, it just shows that you're a hater. Relax.

Somebody is really working the HTML. Fun with tags...wheee.

No more Billy. Good!

"When you label things fascist, it just shows that you're a hater"

Is that *always* the case, "real progressive"? What about when something actually IS fascist? Why do I have a sneaky suspicion that you're not REALLY a "real progressive"?

What a total ignorant, intolerant and close-minded piece of bs.

I actually grew up in NYC and went through public schooling all my life and I currently live in West Queens and work in Manhattan.

And I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated Graham having his last crusade in NYC. NEVER BEFORE have I EVER seen 80,000 New Yorkers of ALL colors and cultures get together in such good-will!!!

This was one of the most POSITIVE things that has happened to NYC in a long while!

What kind of obtuse, narrowmindedness perspective do you have that you reflexively catagorize Bill Graham as being an anti-liberal "Christian leader" while being obviously ignorant of Christianity diversity in NYC? Do you even know the theological diversity that exists within Christianity??? THe 80,000 that gathered at the park for Graham were probably a lot more liberal than conservative. THe conservative a la fallwell, christian right were probably an almost unregisterable minority.

In fact, the fundamentalist freaks actually were picketing Bill Graham as being pro-gay at the park.

THe irony of the ignorance, narrowmindedness and intolerant negativity of this article just floors me. Give me a break.

You think a man is justifying is hatred with religion? Thats sick, you might never understand that our world has made it OK to do things that are of sick and perverted manner. You dont understand that Billy was never hating them, he wanted to see them live under Gods rules not there own. He would love to see them turn from there ways, but I can tell you with a sound mind that he does not hate them, you made that up. He loves them, and thats why he brings it up cause, cause that life style is self destructing and he doesnt want to see people lose or waste time. He doesnt hate or justify is hate with religion.

actually, graham incorporated applied for central park first, as does any group that wants a maximum turnoout, since it is large and centrally located
he too was refused by the government officials
so his preaching in queens was not a conscious or desired choice for whatever reasons you attribute to him

Everyone wants to be loved and accepted in life, and every one wants the things that are promised in the Kingdom of God. (Love, Peace, Joy.)
The problem simply lies with mankind, we want to take our baggage in with us. God is asking us to surrender this baggage what ever it may be.
The Gay agenda stands before a Holy God, and tells Him that He must accept them when His Word has stated the life style is wrong!
No it is not hate, but love that embraces you in spite of sin, you are welcome in the Kingdom too!
Yet you must be responsible, and obedient to the King!

Whether Graham's location of Flushing Meadows in Queens was an accident or not, it was certainly a success. Last year, the park had a rally for registering undocumented immigrants, that also drew a sizable crowd.
Clearly the message to ANSWER and UPFJ is that there's more to NYC than just Manhattan. In fact, the most populous borough is Brooklyn; and the largest in size is Queens.
Besides, in comparison to Fred Phelps, Billy Graham is a liberal.

Send in the trolls...

Apollo wrote: Where do you plan to spend eternity,smokin' or non-smokin'?

Smoking, please.

Hypocrit check wrote: So Mr. Redstar would you agree that Islam too "must be destroyed"?

Of course. Note however at the present time that Islamic fascism is a minor threat outside of the Muslim world itself.

Most people in the "west" are not Muslims and will never convert to Islam...possibly because Islam is not as clever in disguising its reactionary nature as Christianity often is.

The Christians really believe that America is God's Chosen Master of the World.

That qualifies them for being "first on the list".

Real Progressive wrote: So Redstar, you keep using the term "Christian fascism," sounds like you're an admirer of Bob Avakian.

Quite the contrary. I find Avakian's thinking pedestrian, his writings almost unendurably prolix and occasionally incoherent, and the RCP's personality cult around him to be ludicrous.

But even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.

Christian fascism is an objective phenomenon that can be demonstrated from both its writings and its deeds...without regard to the disputed merits of Bob Avakian.

Try the Harper's Magazine site -- hardly a front for the RCP -- for several excellent articles on the reality of Christian fascism.

Real Progressive wrote: Isn't there a form of Christianity that isn't fascist? I'm sure there is.

There are "mainstream" Christian denominations that have not yet endorsed the clerical fascist option.

If and when it looks like the Christian fascists are about to win, I expect them to "defect to the side of the Lord".

Real Progressive wrote: When you label things fascist, it just shows that you're a hater.

Yes, I am a "hater"...of fascism, of the American Empire, and of everything it stands for.

Deal with it.

Bite me wrote: What kind of obtuse, narrowmindedness perspective do you have that you reflexively categorize Bill Graham as being an anti-liberal "Christian leader" while being obviously ignorant of Christianity diversity in NYC?

Graham's "godly support" of U.S. imperialism in Vietnam is a matter of public record.

Go bite yourself.

Bishop wrote: Yet you must be responsible, and obedient to the King!

Wrong. In the circles I travel in, removal of the King's head is just the beginning.

I think believing in an afterlife is superstition, but if I was going to spend eternity somewhere, there'd better be some good reefer around!

Redstar say: 'Christian fascism is the real face of Christianity itself...It's Christianity without cosmetics.'

Don't you think this is a bit reductionist, Redstar? Even the old mole himself, quoted below, was more nuanced than you.

Besides, 'Good Christian' is what we call an 'essentially contested concept,' ie, it has no reduced common meaning even to all Christians.

Take the Ebionite Christians, who uphold the teachings of Jesus himself, along with Matthew's gospel, but denounce everything by St Paul wrote as pagan heresy, while for the actual Christian fascists, it's usually the other way around. They especially love the worst of Paul, as well as the Revelations of St John the Divine, which barely made it into the new testament, and is larely ignored by many nonfascist Christians.

Religion is not simply 'superstition.' It offers answers, guidelines or even just hopeful affirmations to questions about 'that which concerns us ultimately' (Paul Tilich) that science either can't answer, because of its nature, or has yet to answer. It also takes a while to do this, like centuries.

As someone once said, if appearence was the same as essence, there would be no need for science, but that's hardly the case, is it?

Some religions, such as Buddhism, even say if science has the better answer, then accept the scientific answer. (The Dalai Lama)

Against this protracted process, we have an immediate task of defeating the relatively small number of the most dangerous enemies. To do so, we will have to build alliances with large numbers of believers, who are, after all, the large majority of Americans --left, center and right. You don't do so by insulting their faith for starters.

If you want, you can check out my piece on theocratic fascism, and the slide show that goes with it, at www.carldavidson.blogspot.com

Anyway, here Marx's 'Opium of the People' rap in its actual context:

'The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man's self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found 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 encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it 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.

'Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

'It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics. '

[Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right by Karl Marx]

NICE COMMENT, I LIVE IN JACSON HEIGHTS ON 82ND ST AND 37TH AVE. WHO CARES? WHY DON'T YOU READ THE BOOK, "THY WILL BE DONE" BY GERRAD COLBY. SEE WHAT BILLY BOY HAS DONE ALL OVER LATIN AMERICA. OH YES, ITALY PLAYED VS ECUADOR 2 WEEKS AGO AT GIANTS STADIUM. LOOK AT THAT!!!! OVER 40,000 ITALIANS AND ECUADORIANS TOGETHER FOR A FUN DAY OF SOCCER. YOU DO NOT NEED RELIGION TO BRING PEOPLE OF "ALL RACES" TOGETHER. READ THE BOOK!

Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon : Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil
by Gerard Colby, Charlotte Dennett


Amazon.com
This extraordinary saga moves from the Oval Office to the Amazon rain forests to show how Cold War intrigue linked a powerful American family, the U.S. government, and a missionary organization in a forty-year campaign to conquer the Amazon. At the heart of this story are two intensely ambitious men: Nelson Rockefeller, scion of the liberal and immensely wealthy Standard Oil family, and William Cameron Townsend, founder of the ultraconservative Wycliffe Bible Translators. Although leaders of opposing camps, they found common cause in the struggle against fascism and then communism, with the result that hundreds of thousands of Amazonian tribespeople died or were displaced. The systematic campaign of colonization fathered by Rockefeller and Townsend was a chilling foreshadowing of American intervention in the Third World to secure valuable natural resources in the name of democracy.

From Publishers Weekly
Nelson Rockefeller, who died in 1979, owned vast Latin American real estate and cattle ranching, mining, industrial and financial interests centered in Brazil. To protect his empire and secure Third World assets for exploitation by U.S. capitalism, Rockefeller-a top Latin American adviser to presidents from FDR to Nixon, and Ford's vice-president-played a dominant role in shaping the U.S.'s interventionist policy in Latin America, according to this blistering expose based on 18 years of research. Rockefeller, as President Eisenhower's special assistant for Cold War strategy, oversaw the CIA's covert operations abroad and was privy to assassination plots and mind-control experiments, the authors maintain. Colby (DuPont: Behind the Nylon Curtain) and his wife, Dennett, a freelance journalist, charge that Rockefeller, his banks and their allies, working with the CIA, bolstered repressive regimes in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay. Forcible dislocation of native peoples, hunger, disease, genocide and the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rain forest are the legacy of these policies, in the authors' analysis. Another key player in this massive narrative is ultraconservative William Cameron Townsend (1896-1982), founder of the Protestant missionary organization Wycliffe Bible Translators, which worked in concert with Rockefeller and which the authors accuse of destroying indigenous peoples' cultural values to abet penetration by U.S. businesses. Illustrations not seen by PW.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.


"the truth is out there" lol is that from x-files?

just to show you how totally out of touch and idiotic this man is....he claims the end of days is coming because of the girl lost/killed in aruba and the three children found in the trunk of a car..

what he dosen't say is that thousands of children are dissapeared everyday...thousands of people..millions?..are killed everyday...but this idiot takes two topical news stories and considers it to be a signal that the world is coming to an end...and what...80,0000 people buy this drivel...what a farce

"Most people in the "west" are not Muslims and will never convert to Islam...possibly because Islam is not as clever in disguising its reactionary nature as Christianity often is."

Islam is the fastest growing religion while Christianity is shrinking...

"The Christians really believe that America is God's Chosen Master of the World."

You don't know very much about Christianity do you?

Lol wrote: Islam is the fastest growing religion while Christianity is shrinking...

That's obviously because Muslims have among the highest birth-rates in the world. As more Muslim women become educated, the birth-rate will decline...and so will the growth of Islam.

Lol wrote: You don't know very much about Christianity, do you?

Quite a bit more than most Christians, actually.

Know your enemy, etc.

Carl wrote: Don't you think this is a bit reductionist, Redstar?

More than a bit...it's "reductionist" as hell.

But you see I am not Marx or even a philosopher. I just "notice things" and "see patterns" and "draw conclusions".

We have roughly 17 centuries of experience with many varieties of the Christian religion. It's my contention that 99.999% of that experience has been pure shit!

Thus my proposition: the Christian religion reduces to pure shit.

Of course, people object. They'll pound away on behalf of that .001% of Christians that "did good". They'll even claim that "only" that tiny minority are "real Christians" and "all the rest" are "agents of the Devil".

That does not seem to me to be credible in the least.

Carl wrote: Besides, 'Good Christian' is what we call an 'essentially contested concept,' i.e., it has no reduced common meaning even to all Christians.

Pretty close though. The New Testament is not an ambiguous document -- though it certainly contradicts itself on many of the minor details.

If someone adheres to Christianity, they know the sorts of things they are supposed to do -- if they're serious about it.

Most of those things are stupid, cruel, and fundamentally reactionary.

Of course that doesn't necessarily apply to "social Christians"...people indoctrinated from childhood with a few scraps and tatters of Christian mythology and who remain attached to it out of intellectual inertia. There are still many such "Christians"...they behave not that differently from atheists.

Real Christians are contemptuous of this...and seek diligently to "win them over" to real Christianity.

And not without success.

Carl wrote: Religion is not simply 'superstition.' It offers answers, guidelines or even just hopeful affirmations to questions about 'that which concerns us ultimately' (Paul Tillich) that science either can't answer, because of its nature, or has yet to answer.

It's my view that those "questions" about "things which concern us ultimately" are fake. They are raised by people who have a clear material interest in raising them and in getting people to pay attention to them.

It is all a con, a game of "spiritual" three-card-monte in which the believer always loses.

Beginning with your self-respect ("you worthless sinner!") but quickly moving on to the transfer of funds.

And, if frequent news reports are to be believed, kiddie-nookie if available.

Carl wrote: Some religions, such as Buddhism, even say if science has the better answer, then accept the scientific answer. (The Dalai Lama)

That old fraud! He is utterly shameless in his effrontery even by the very low standards set for "holy men".

He'll say anything for money!

I expect to see him in an American Express commercial any day now.

Karl Marx wrote: all that nuanced stuff.

I would contend, in the light of 20th century experience, that Marx and most of his followers consistently underestimated the reactionary impact of religion on the consciousness of the working class...and how stubbornly and tenaciously the seriously religious would fight to preserve their racket.

In Marx's time, the most advanced of the rising bourgeoisie were quite hostile to religious dogma...and he probably expected that to continue until religion lost all intellectual credibility.

Well, it did lose all intellectual credibility...but who anticipated that religion would counter-attack and do so effectively by attacking the power of human reason across the board?

The Christian fascists are not simply interested in "reforming" our "decadent morality"...they say plainly that they expect us to renounce all of science that conflicts with "holy scripture" -- meaning pretty much all of science, period.

Moreover, who anticipated that the biggest of the bourgeoisie would decide that promoting religion among the masses was imperative if the rise of communism was to be halted and then reversed?

You would be astonished -- and appalled -- to learn of the really big bucks flowing into religion these days.

Here's an example from my site...

A Glimpse into the Godracket

 http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114361146&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&

The "choice" that is being offered to us begins to look like "a whole lot of wretched godbabble" or "a clerical fascist theocracy".

Carl wrote: Against this protracted process, we have an immediate task of defeating the relatively small number of the most dangerous enemies. To do so, we will have to build alliances with large numbers of believers, who are, after all, the large majority of Americans --left, center and right. You don't do so by insulting their faith for starters.

Well, that's just another version of our basic disagreement, isn't it? I'm in favor of attacking the proven enemy as sharply as possible. And you favor an entirely different strategy -- an alliance with "less dangerous enemies" in order to defeat the "most dangerous enemy".

If people think that sucking up to superstition "will work" to defeat Christian fascism, then there's probably not much I can say to stop you from doing that.

In my own view, such a strategy is equivalent to trying to defeat the Nazis by proposing a "kinder & gentler" anti-semitism. People who are serious about Christianity but are not yet Christian fascists are, in my opinion, already half-way there.

They may not yet be ready to burn a witch or stone a disobedient child, but...

Look, the whole basis of Christianity is that we are born dirty. So dirty, in fact, that we face an eternity in the "pits of hell." Christianity is unique among world religions in believing, for no justifiable reason whatsoever, that everyone who doesn't "accept Christ as their personal savior" will BURN IN HELL.

I don't hate life or fear. Knowing there is no god, no eternal reward or damnation, is exactly what makes me try to live a right life now. I dont have to be good for god. I need to be good for my friends, fam, and the people of the world. Since there is no afterlife, this is all that matters. Maybe Christians are so dirty inside they need God to keep them on track, but in that case... they should keep their self-hatred to themselves and in their tarnished temples.

Carl Davidson was good to quote Marx's nuanced take on Christianity. It speaks the truth, while not condemning Christians for their weakness of mind and spirit.

Billy Grahm is an Ayatolla. He is the "chaplain of state" and has spent his entire career on the business of Christianity and establishment politics. If anyone deserves the label of Pharisee today, it is he. In bed with Mammon, unabashadly pro-capitalist and a supporter of every war this country has waged, he uses the gospel to convince people to DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD. I have no respect for him and his "prosperity gospel."

Sure, people of all colors can celebrate their own fears together. They can lament their lot in life and hold up the pie in the sky. But it isn't coming. And meantime, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are attempting to force their medieval visions on the rest of us. I won't accept it, tolerate or beat around the bush about the central fact:

THERE IS NO GOD and even if there was, I wouldn't care. I am not a slave and wouldn't waste my time worshiping some all powerful deity just to placate its infitie ego. Imagine an all-powerful god that demanded adoration from its own creations? What a petty bitch of a god that would be!

Am I damned? Well, I'll join every person I've ever loved who has died in hell. My grandmother and mother, and friends along the way who all got along fine without freebasing Jesus. Good people who Grahm would see tortured for eternity by his "loving God." Better to rule in hell...

The bible taken literally is a horror. Read Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Read Kings. Read Revelations. (Hell, read the Koran, too, if it doesn't bore you to death...) And notice, as Mark Twain did, that while Christianity promises "salvation," it's the only religion in the world that sees a NEED for salvation... because they hate the body. They hate women. They hate freedom.

I don't wish Christians any harm. But Christianity is backwards superstition that celebrates ignorance, fear of the unknown, and supression of pleasure. It is a slave mentality.

'Burningman' says

'Look, the whole basis of Christianity is that we are born dirty.'

Some folks take it that way, burningman. Others says that we are born self-demanding, and as we acquire a self, at first it's rather selfish, but in time develops its social nature, hopefully, and an ensuing empathy with others close to it. Some might even say that the core teaching of Jesus was to extend that empathy to all humanity, until there was no 'other.'

But that's just to show there's another way to see the same thing, not just in the worst light.

What I particularly don't care for in the three 'religions of the book,' is not original sin, but the story of Abraham and God's order to him to murder his son. The core value here is one of SUBMISSION, even to the point of fanaticism and murder in the name of God, but we're supposed to take it as a wondrous example of faith, a point shared by many Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

Not my cup of tea. That's why I study Zen, where the core value is to 'wake up.'

Carl: well, people can say whatever they want but Jesus is very clear: "None shall enter the kingdom of heaven except through me." "I am your lord and savior" and so on ad nauseum.

Christianity is based on the UNIQUE idea of original sin and the need for "redemption" and "salvation." Fuck them. Fuck that bible. It preaches hatred of the body, hatred of women, hatred of freedom and a philosophy of fear.

RedStar is right on about this stuf, even if he overestimates how full of shit most Christians are. There are tens of millions of them and their personal delusions aren't a major threat. Their preachers are however. I've met the nice Christians. Kathy Kelly is a hero of mine who taught me what "Direct Action" can do and something of the power of love. But there's a reason she's not the pope.

I believe in freedom of conscience... but the Church in all its forms has had the run of things for centuries. When they ran everything in Europe, it was called "The Dark Ages." Not for nothing, either.

Right now, Christian fascists are on the march. You want to fight for the flag? Tell it to Custer. You want to fight for the cross? Why don't you leave that to the fools who actually believe it.

Okay Redstar and Burningman, I can see you're not exactly God-lovers. Just explain to me how the heck we got here. Explain how something came out of nothing. Don't say "big bang". Explain to me how it came about without an external force. Oh yeah, while you're at it, don't forget those laws of physics!! I'm waiting.

Ah, 'burningman,' look a little deeper.

You are confusing Jesus, the Zen master with a twinkle in his eye, throwing out zingers like 'let he who is without sin throw the first stone' to those who would trash a woman, with the misogynist homophobe St Paul, who never even met Jesus, but snuck all that neoPlatonism you quote in through the back door.

Entering the kingdom? Here's another take:

'So the last will be first, and the first last...

'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is hear.

'What I say to you is TRUTH: a rich man will hardly enter the kingdom of heaven.

'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

'Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

'Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

'For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.'

Mind you, I'm not even a Christian these days, and I find something powerful here...

Yes, the church in Europe in the middle ages, the book-burning fanatics, tried to wipe out classical civilization. Luckily Patrick's monks in Ireland were far from Rome, preserved all the Greek & Roman 'satanic' classics, and built libraries everywhere they could. Old St Pat, himself a former slave, in the 4th Century, penned one of the first proclamations ever demanding the abolition of slavery.

Maybe I'm just getting my Irish dander up, but the point is there's a reason why the oppressed as well as the oppressors made use of the Gospels, which are chock full of contradictions, enough to keep folks arguing about them, and finding positive and negative lessons, for another 2000 years...

To make revolution, 'burningman,' you're going to have to find ways to establish common ground with believers, separating the wheat from the chaff, to build a new society where the last now are first, and the first now are last.

Might as well study up a bit more all-sidedly if you really want to take apart the theocratic fascists.

You know, I don't care if people believe in nonsense. Okay, I do. But it's not the main point. If you want to get your "Irish" up, then tell us a little about all the good things the Church has done for Ireland. Those good holy brothers raping boys and the Magdelena Sisters and the fucking waste of it all.

There is no kingdom of heaven. That's the fucking point. I'm interested in "Reality-based" thinking and telling the poor to be humble and meek is exactly why slavemasters and emperors from Constantine to Bush PROMOTE Christianity.

That's the message: eat shit, suffer and you'll be rewarded in the afterlife. It's hardly a surprise that the same squishy take you promote on the Democrats matches your wishy-washy religion.

I'd rather not pretend to believe in fairy tales. I think we should tell the truth as best we know it.

To the guy who wants to know where the world comes from: Beats me. Not Jesus. Who said it had to come from anywhere? Just because we are born and die, that's no reason to assume matter has a genesis. Wrap your head around that one.

Next?

'Just because we are born and die, that's no reason to assume matter has a genesis. Wrap your head around that one...Next?'

Well, burningman, you're getting yourself in a philosophical mess here.

'We' have a genesis, but 'matter' (whatever that means) doesn't? Actually even stars and galaxies have a birth, middle age and death, not to mention the evolution of heavier elements from lighter, atomic from subatomic, organic from inorganic, and so on. For something not to have a genesis means it has being outside of time.

But then, you're into 'Reality-based thinking.' But if Reality exists outside of time, 'under the aspect of eternity,' as St Thomas and Aristotle put it, perhaps that's why you, inadvertently or not, spellled it with a capital 'R'.

Do I sense a bit of a deity sneaking in the back door here, even if it's of the Ben Franklin Deist 'passive watchmaker' variety?

Yes, at least our personal bodies come into being and pass away. Eventually our Sun and solar system will too.

Most folks are upset about the fact of death, at least of themselves and those close to them. The biological explanation doesn't help much. People ask questions about the meaning of it all, and if the Sun is going to turn into a Red Giant someday, what's even the purpose of communism in the end?

Now some religions offer a reward in a 'Kingdom of God' that's an afterlife. Others tell you 'the Kingdom of God', or the Buddha-nature, is within you or all around you, and try to help you awaken to live a good and authentic life, culminatating in a gracious and peaceful death.

I prefer the later, nontheistic path, but that's my choosing.

The sciences don't help much here; they're designed to push back the boundaries of ignorance and solve more practical problems.

Now 'Reality-based' thinking might help, if your capital 'R' signifies something beyond notions of time and space, like the Tao, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.

All people thrive better with three things in life -- meaning, structure and community. Gangs, Parties, Churches --all are examples of this, and some do it rather well and others are rather dysfunctional.

I believe anti-clericalism has its place, and a long future. You've only touched the surface of outrages committed --past, present and future -- in the name of God. But you haven't spoken to the staying power, the 'meaning, structure and community' people find, the 'heart of the heartless world, the soul of souless conditions.'

You'd make a much better organizer if you got into in a bit more...

to Redstar2000-
Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you call them a troll? You don't own this site.
Islamic fascism is a threat outside the muslim world. Remember 9-11?
Whether you recognize it or not, the majority of people continue to be religious. You don't have to be an atheist to be progressive. Not all religious people are fascists; and most fascists also hate religion. It bothers their evil consciences!

Curious wrote: Just explain to me how the heck we got here.

What difference would the answer to that question make to your life and the way you intend to live it?

You still have to decide to be a "good guy" or an asshole. To treat other people decently or to shit on everyone you can. To struggle to liberate yourself and others from despotism or to submit to it and praise those who dominate you.

Suppose the world "really was" created by some harsh and demanding deity with a sadistic taste for human pain and suffering, would you submit to and worship such an entity? Would that make it "ok" to be the biggest asshole you could make of yourself...in reverent imitation of the DIVINE ASSHOLE in the sky?

Or suppose the contrary -- the world "really was" created by a "kind and loving god" who just happens to be totally helpless in the face of human pain and suffering? Is there any point to worshiping such a "weak god"...since the decision to add to or subtract from human pain and suffering is still yours?

You see where these so-called "ultimate questions" lead...into endless and futile pseudo-discussions as to "the nature of god" or "what god really wants us to do" or "what rewards and punishments does god have in store for us".

Crap was, is, and ever shall be...crap!

Carl wrote: You are confusing Jesus, the Zen master with a twinkle in his eye, throwing out zingers like 'let he who is without sin throw the first stone' to those who would trash a woman, with the misogynist homophobe St Paul, who never even met Jesus, but snuck all that neoPlatonism you quote in through the back door.

Sure, Saulos of Tarsus was the prince of bastards in the [i]New Testament[/i].

But before we conclude that Christianity was "his fault", let us note that "the twinkling Zen master" was the one who came up with the idea of eternal punishment for sin.

And in the celebrated incident to which you refer, a couple of points. "Jesus" had nothing to say about the mysterious absence of the woman's partner in "adultery". He didn't think it important to ask, "hey, where's the guy?".

And secondly, he said nothing explicitly against the Mosaic code itself...even when he was expressly invited to do so. Like he could have said, "if you stone that woman to death, she'll go to Heaven and you fuckers will burn in Hell".

Which is simply to point out that "Jesus" was a Jew and not a Christian. He accepted the basic outlook of first century Judaism...but wished to "reform" it in the celebrated tradition of Jewish prophesy.

He was something of a "theological reactionary"...although he did break new ground with his doctrine of "Hell".

Carl wrote: Yes, the church in Europe in the middle ages, the book-burning fanatics, tried to wipe out classical civilization. Luckily Patrick's monks in Ireland were far from Rome, preserved all the Greek & Roman 'satanic' classics, and built libraries everywhere they could. Old St Pat, himself a former slave, in the 4th Century, penned one of the first proclamations ever demanding the abolition of slavery.

Christianity's atrocities are not limited to the "Middle Ages". When they first emerge into recorded history (c.300CE), they demonstrate a marked hostility to "Greek and Roman classics" and an insatiable appetite for violence against each other. As their strength grew, persecution of non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.) became their principle attribute...a trail of blood that today leads to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Or do you dispute George W. Bush's claim that he's "doing God's will"?

Carl wrote: To make revolution, 'burningman,' you're going to have to find ways to establish common ground with believers, separating the wheat from the chaff, to build a new society where the last now are first, and the first now are last.

In the case of serious Christians, it's all chaff.

Carl wrote: Most folks are upset about the fact of death, at least of themselves and those close to them.

Indeed...and a fairy-story about the "after-life" is no doubt comforting to the ignorant and the gullible.

That does not confer a license to steal...much less persecute.

Carl wrote: All people thrive better with three things in life -- meaning, structure and community.

No doubt...but are we to use the power of human reason to establish those things or submit our fate to a bunch of con-men and nutballs?

We've seen quite clearly where the latter choice leads.

Carl wrote: But you haven't spoken to the staying power...

Up until the last couple of centuries, it was practically impossible to throw off the chains of one superstition without immediately falling into another superstition...there were simply no reasonable alternatives available.

Now that we've begun to learn about the universe as it really is, the "staying power" of superstition is diminishing at a marked rate...even here in "god's country".

In a sense, the Christian fascists are quite right in their preoccupation with "last days"...these are the last days for superstition as a serious force in the world unless the Christian fascists can force us back into the Middle Ages at gunpoint.

To them, the battle against "secularism" (of all kinds) is literally a "life & death" struggle.

Real Progressive wrote: Islamic fascism is a threat outside the Muslim world. Remember 9-11?

Statements like this one are "trollish". Do you really believe that Muhammad's Armies will someday storm the beaches of Long Island and carry the victorious banners of Allah into the fleshpots of Manhattan?

Get real.

don't worry about redstar, he is still a believer in a system that proved to be more than just a failure in the 20th century. He cannot think out of the box. All that he can do is hock his che t-shirts on his pathetic little website.

Instead of making any points himself, he will pull a string out of someone else's point and then deconstruct (more often than no by mischaraterzing). Whis is perfect - he is incapable of thinking constructively, only deconstructively. That is why he hocks che t-shirts and believes that stalin, pol pot, castro, the great leader and the dear leader are heros.
Disregard everything he says because it is stupid hateful nonsense.

Burningman on the other hand is usually wrong, but does make some interesting points - he is a commie worth listening to (even though he wont accept that mao was a murdering son of a bitch).

to Redstar2000-
It would be silly to think that Islamic fascists would invade America in a conventional way. They prefer car bombings hijackings, etc. to get their bloody message across.
As for Che Guevara- he's the Mickey Mouse of communist t-shirts. Why aren't there any Lenin shirts?

Okay. I figured so.

You guys talk like you know everything. And yet...you can't answer one simple question: "How did we get here?"

Without any external force, the only intelligent, satisfactory conclusion is that we've been here...always. And we all know that that cannot possibly be the truth...since science, NOT religion, says that the universe is winding down, implying that it, and we, did have a beginning!!!

So, Redstar (thanks for the reply, though conveniently not answering the question!!), it does matter how I live my life if someone or something external is indeed out there. The status of my existence in this life, and perhaps after, could very well depend on my proper response to this force.

Yea, like you're doing, you can stick your head in the sand and commit intellectual suicide by drowning everyone...and yourself... in a sea of impressive, albeit grossly empty, words...but ultimately, you're missing the point.

You're missing the point.

First...find out the facts. Then...spout and spew. But not before.

Doing so just highlights your ignorance.

So... let me ask it again: This time, without insulting my intellect (telling me, "it's all crap"), take your head out of the sand and explain to me how the intricate, complex something of who we are come from nothing? And if you don't know, then let those reading your rhetoric hear you say it: "I don't know". However, as you say it, recognize that all your philosophizing is, at best, ignorant crap. And, like someone once said,:
"Crap was, is, and ever shall be...crap!"

Once again, I'm waiting...and waiting...and waiting...

Curious I will admit I do not know how we got here, well I know how babies are born, LOL, but as far as the earth and the universe I DO NOT KNOW. So fucking what, what is YOUR point because we can't explain something means that there is a dog (god spelled bacwards). I mean I can't explain 99.9% of this world, so! In all honesty brother you need to EXPLAIN how NOT being able to explain how the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the universe and so forth were formed PROVES that there is some omnipotent being who watches over everything (watching over is a very human quality I might add). Curious, atheists and agnostics have nothing to disprove, the BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE TO US NON-BELIEVERS that because we cannot explain how the galaxies and universe were formed, proves that there is a god!! My friend I think you are brainwashed, please get better soon. What is this world coming too, its either jesus freaks or followers of bob avakian, LMFAO!!!!

Thanks Matt for commenting.

I can't understand how you can't see my point. All of you are adamant that there is no God...to the point that you even degrade the potential of His being by actually calling Him a "dog". (with that comment, for your sake, let's hope and, er, pray, you're right!!) And all of this based NOT on any shred of scientific or intellectual knowledge...but simply because you'd rather choose to not deal with the issue.
If you had cancer, would that argument suffice? "Don't deal with it, and everything will be all right"?

Get real!! You'd be doing everything in your power to deal with it!!

I'll state the point again. If you can't explain how this universe...and we...got here, don't be so narrow-minded as to throw the supernatural element out of the picture. That's my problem with all your comments!! You arrogantly talk as if you've been outside the box...and seen all there is to see. And yet, Matt, you yourself said that you can't "explain 99.9% of this world". Listen...you had better come to grips with these "ultimate questions", as Redstar calls them, 'cause I shudder at your foundational philosophy: 'IGNORANCE IS BLISS'

Maybe, just maybe...it isn't.

Thank God (that's 'knahT doG' for you, Matt) you're not a cancer patient. With that thinking, you'd be six feet under in no time. Smiling... but nonetheless, six feet under.

Still waiting...

Curious wrote:
"but simply because you'd rather choose to not deal with the issue."
What issue, lol? You have the imagination of a 3 year old who smoked weed. Scratch that, I think you dropped acid.

Curious wrote:
"Listen...you had better come to grips with these "ultimate questions", as Redstar calls them, 'cause I shudder at your foundational philosophy: 'IGNORANCE IS BLISS'"
I am about to come to grips with my telephone so I can call a therapist up for you.

Curious wrote:
"If you had cancer, would that argument suffice? "Don't deal with it, and everything will be all right"?"
First of all you quoted me and I never said that. Everyone in the world has a cancer and its called capitalism, many people are working on the cure. The thing you do not want to deal with is that you make no sense, your nonsensical at best completely brainwashed at worst.

I hope you dont hunt me down in the upcoming fundementalist ( all religions and doctrines apply) inquisition. I really want to help you with your sickness.

Also I am an agnostic, I do not believe or disbelieve that there is a god or a dog, I just would like some evidence. I agree that there are unexplainable occurences and thats fine, I'll let scientists figure that out. Me I'll stick to activism, I think we will effect more neccessary change in the world.

Looks like the Christian Taliban has infiltrated IMC, LOL. For lack of a better term, Jesus Christ!

Christians respond to their critics...

stupid, hateful, nonsense, ignorance, lack of reason, HATE, INTOLERANCE, IGNORANCE, idiocy, ignorant, etc.

See why I call them godsuckers?

Here's something for you Christians to chew on: you've been "sowing the wind" for 20 centuries with your shit...now contemplate the shit-storm that you will reap.

Bring back the lions!

 http://www.redstar2000papers.com

 http://www.RevolutionaryLeft.com/

Redstar complains about the Christians here summarizing his and other anti-clerical, atheistic posts on the topic:

'stupid, hateful, nonsense, ignorance, lack of reason, HATE, INTOLERANCE, IGNORANCE, idiocy, ignorant, etc.'

Seems to me they're fairly accurate here, Redstar, and you as much say so. And I'm not even a Christian who thinks them need defending.

I'd also venture to say that any Christian or even non-Christian but spiritually awake person who's thought these things through a bit would mop the floor with you guys in any real debate, ie, something other than hurling juvenile half-truths and invective.

Most of the comments from the atheists here don't even have a strong understanding of what science is about, let alone philosophy or religion. To put it most politely, they have opinions, just like another orifice that everyone has, one that you seem fond of indirectly referring to in your pitiful 'refutations' and summaries of history.

Bring back the lions! Ah, yes, human sacrifice as a step forward for secularism. That'll show'em.

There's plenty to be criticized, deconstructed and set aside or rejected in the religious realm, and in the realm of all ideologies that use the heavy hand of the dead past to crush the living. But you guys don't even know where the ball park is, let alone how to get to first base.

No wonder fundamentalism is on the rise. Those who should be among it's better critics carry on like six-year-olds shouting nasty words at the playground. But then, maybe that's too harsh on six-year-olds...

Carl Davidson wrote: I'd also venture to say that any Christian or even non-Christian but spiritually awake person who's thought these things through a bit would mop the floor with you guys in any real debate, i.e., something other than hurling juvenile half-truths and invective.

Well, you can't deny that they had their opportunity here...and "juvenile invective" seems to sum up what they had to say for themselves.

By the way, how do you objectively distinguish a "spiritually awake person" from one that's "spiritually asleep"? *laughs*

Do they send out special "rays" that only other "spiritually awake" people can detect...with their spirit-ray detectors?

Is Billy Graham "spiritually awake"? How about Tom DeLay? Or the new pope?

Or even (gasp! choke!) Osama bin-Laden?

I'm always glad (or at least grudgingly willing) to discuss serious topics with people who disagree with me...provided they bring serious and thoughtful arguments to the table.

But I confess that I have just about zero patience with spiritualist babble and supernatural ranting.

And tell me just exactly why it would be "wrong" for me to "send to the lions" those who, if they thought they could get away with it, would send me to the stake!

Mop the floor with me Carl, huh, lol. Curious never answered the question of how you prove that god exists because we can't explain the formation of the universe. Can you explain?
Sorry Redstar I can't back you up on the lions remark.

Well, Redstar, sending lions after those with stakes and a torch just shows you've reached the level of Old Testament morality: 'An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth...'

Sounds tough and blustery, but not very wise. I'll go with Lao Tze, who claimed that if we knew ourselves well and our enemies well, we could win every battle, often without unsheathing our swords.

And, no, spiritually awake persons don't send out any special rays you're going to catch with an electronic instrument. But if you've hardened your empathy to the point that you can't recognize the presence of one --whether it's Malcolm X, ML King, Mandela or Thich Nhat Hanh or even Chicago's Kathy Kelly, not to mention many everyday folks -- then that's your weakness, and not the weakness of a good many people in this world who are able to respond to people of spiritual depth and learn something from them.

I learned a lesson in spiritual depth from an old lady at my first AA meeting 20 years ago. I had just sat down, and when she heard I was a newcomer, she asked if I believed in God, and I replied, no. Then she asked if I believed there was any power greater than me? Sure, I said, plenty of them. Name one, she said. Human solidarity, I replied, that has more power than me alone. Good, she said, now when you hear people here talking about their 'higher power', then you just think of that one as yours, and you'll do just fine...

God and the creation of the universe? Not too hard, if you spend a little time on it. I remember at the age of six, the sisters asked us, 'who made us,' and everyone said 'God made us!' But I stuck my hand up and asked, 'Who made God?" The sister beamed, since she was hoping one of us would ask, and she replied 'God always was, is now, and always shall be!'

I thought even then that was a bit tricky, but about ten years later, after reading Walt Whitman, carrying on in 'Leaves of Grass' about how a 'mouse was miracle enoungh to confound sextillions of infidels,' that it was just as easy to say that the Universe itself 'always was, is now, and always shall be,' and that if you really looked into it, the Universe itself was far more wondrous, awesome and mysterious than any notion of God that man has created in man's own image.

What I didn't know then was that I had thus just discovered 'Ocham's Razor,' the medieval quasi-heretic monk, William of Ocham, who argued that if two explanations solved a problem equally well, then the simpler one was more true and to be preferred.

Another medieval Irish monk I liked, whose mystical heresy got him slain by his own students, John Scotus Erigina, also came up with a decent definition of both God and the Universe, which he saw as one and the same: 'God is all that is and all that is not.'

But suppose you don't like the nonrational side of things, only the rational.

Well, you could look at the opening of John's Gospel, 'En Arche ein a Logos...' 'In the beginning was The Word, and the Word was God' -- 'Word' translated from the Greek, 'Logos,' meaning the rational order of all things, or the dharma and karma, that we discover, or awaken to, as science and comtemplation reveal more and more of the laws of the universe and push back the boundaries of ignorance.

The Logos, or the Tao, is there all along, RedStar, we've just be too preoccupied with 'stuff' that we haven't been able to see it all yet. That's why it's important to find the present moment, stop clinging to 'past-ing' and 'future-ing,' and 'wake up.'

Now the really cool question is, which came first, what you called 'matter' or 'substance' as opposed to 'Value' Ponder that one for a while, especially when trying to figure out what makes some things right and some things wrong, not just for you, but for everyone....

Carl wrote: Well, Redstar, sending lions after those with stakes and a torch just shows you've reached the level of Old Testament morality: 'An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth...'

Credit where credit is due. The old Babylonians and the old Hittites and the Jews who borrowed their ideas were on the right track even if their specifics were completely fucked up.

They understood "right" and "wrong" as balance...and not in some preposterous "after-life" but right now and right here on this planet among living humans.

"An eye for an eye" contains the kernel of the idea that people are fundamentally equal...one person's eye is just as important as another's.

That is a rational conclusion...for if it were otherwise, then whose eye would be safe?

In spite of all the efforts of bourgeois ideologues over the last two centuries, modern humans grasp -- perhaps more than ever -- the idea that for a few to have much and most to have little is unjust...rejecting the proposition that some eyes "really are" more valuable than others.

The very unspiritual Mark Twain got it right: "people speak much of the four years of terror that the French people inflicted on the old aristocrats; they are silent about the thousand years of terror inflicted by the aristocracy on the French people."

And Lincoln, America's greatest bourgeois revolutionary, had a similar insight: "that every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be repaid on the battlefield...is just and righteous."

The "spiritually advanced" would no doubt condemn these views as "primitive"...but they make very good sense to me.

Carl wrote: But if you've hardened your empathy to the point that you can't recognize the presence of one --whether it's Malcolm X, M.L. King, Mandela or Thich Nhat Hanh or even Chicago's Kathy Kelly, not to mention many everyday folks -- then that's your weakness, and not the weakness of a good many people in this world who are able to respond to people of spiritual depth and learn something from them.

No, it's their weakness, not mine. For if there really was such a thing as a "person of spiritual depth", then the things that they had to say on the subject would make sense...and they don't!

In fact, such babbling never has made any sense. All we ever get from people who "talk spirituality" is a Noatic flood of empty assertions...most of which lack any real-world referents at all. The semantic content is so close to zero as makes no difference.

Recall my question in my last post: how would you objectively tell the difference between someone who is "spiritually awake" and someone who is "spiritually asleep"?

And your answer is, in so many words, that "spiritually awake" people yap about spirituality...a lot!

Carl wrote: But suppose you don't like the nonrational side of things, only the rational.

Yep.

Carl wrote: Well, you could look at the opening of John's Gospel, 'En Arche ein a Logos...' 'In the beginning was The Word, and the Word was God' -- 'Word' translated from the Greek, 'Logos,' meaning the rational order of all things, or the dharma and karma, that we discover, or awaken to, as science and contemplation reveal more and more of the laws of the universe and push back the boundaries of ignorance.

"John" was guilty of the old "bait and switch"...as his "gospel" was the most mystical and the least rational of the four. (And also contained the most outright fabrications of "historical" detail.)

If you want to assert that "God" "is" the "rational order of all things", that's an untestable hypothesis...and therefore a semantically meaningless assertion.

1. There is a god.

2. What's it like?

3. It's everything there is.

Further, even if that were a true statement, so what? If "everything" is "God", then it would make no difference in the real universe that we observe...and certainly no difference in our practical behavior.

And finally, the universe is not observably sentient...this either means that "god" is not sentient or else that there is no god at all.

The simplest conclusion is correct: there's no god.

Carl wrote: Now the really cool question is, which came first, what you called 'matter' or 'substance' as opposed to 'Value'...

As far as we know, "matter" came first and "values" are inventions of a specific organization of matter that we call "humans".

The good values are those that are rational -- that reduce the net total of human pain and suffering. The bad values are those that do the opposite -- "in the name of god, country, and the next quarterly financial report".

To be sure, if you're a preacher, a politician, or a businessman, those irrational values are, subjectively, very "rational" indeed.

But since I'm not a member of any of those three parasitic minorities, I don't care what they think.

I just care about getting rid of them...permanently.

Transforming them into cat food seems reasonable to me. *laughs*

"Christians respond to their critics...

stupid, hateful, nonsense, ignorance, lack of reason, HATE, INTOLERANCE, IGNORANCE, idiocy, ignorant, etc.

See why I call them godsuckers?

Here's something for you Christians to chew on: you've been "sowing the wind" for 20 centuries with your shit...now contemplate the shit-storm that you will reap.

Bring back the lions!"

REDSTAR - YOU ACTUALLY PROVE THEIR POINT!

Redstar says:

'Recall my question in my last post: how would you objectively tell the difference between someone who is "spiritually awake" and someone who is "spiritually asleep"?'

How about the degree of compassion they express in deeds towards their fellow human beings?

Take Thich Nhat Hanh. In addition to opposing the war with other Buddhists in Vietnam, he organized his fellow monks to gather up bodies, body parts, and severely injured in the city of Hue after the bombings, so as to help those still alive, or provide some degree of help to their families going through their grief. They did so at some risk, given delayed cluster bombs, strafings and new raids.

But through it all and to this day, he manifests a smile and lovingkindness that leaves no one -- well, maybe not you -- untouched.

Call it 'babble' if you want, but the world needs more people like this. Certainly not less. The Vietnamese officials today don't care for him because of his postwar compassion for the 'boat people,' but I know for a fact that he's widely and highly regarded nonetheless among the ordinarly people of Vietnam.

I think you've painted yourself into a very tight corner on this matter, Redstar, where you have only a choir of your own to preach to, and a small one at that.

Carl wrote: How about the degree of compassion they express in deeds towards their fellow human beings?

We would both agree, at least abstractly, that compassion is a rational value -- we extend it to others who suffer because it's pretty damn certain that the time will come when we will suffer and depend on the compassion of others.

But is or should compassion be universal and unqualified? The "spiritually awakened" often argue that it should. In fact, giving at least the appearance of unlimited universal compassion is one of their big "selling points" and can, with the right kind of marketing, even give the impression of "holiness".

Cynic that I "am", I personally doubt very much if those "holy guys" were as universally compassionate as they claim -- if the truth were known, I'll bet you they "turned some people down" for reasons that we might find less than admirable.

But let's say that a few of them "lived up to their rhetoric" and really did help "anyone who asked" or even "anyone who appeared to need help".

Is that the "best way" or even "a good way" to practice the rational value of compassion?

Consider how the Catholic Church put compassion into practice in the first few years after the end of World War II. It's well documented now that the Church smuggled Nazi refugees, including some that were wanted by the Allies for major war crimes and crimes against humanity, to various Latin American countries. The only requirement for Church assistance was that the Nazi had to have been, at least at one time, a Catholic.

Hitler would have qualified for "compassionate assistance".

Needless to say, I don't consider universal compassion to be rational. In terms of radical politics, compassion towards our class enemies has almost always been a grievous error. Though this is not the place for them, I think arguments could be made that misplaced compassion has directly contributed to the defeat of some revolutionary insurrections and to the unnecessary weakening of many others.

In a more significant sense, the doctrine of "universal compassion" ends up in de facto support for whatever social order exists at the moment...it's inherently incapable of supporting any revolutionary alternatives.

To be revolutionary is to "choose the side of the oppressed and exploited" -- and would mean renunciation of compassion for the oppressors and the exploiters.

The "spiritually awakened" can't do that...and thus end up supporting reaction.

Always!

Carl wrote: I think you've painted yourself into a very tight corner on this matter, Redstar, where you have only a choir of your own to preach to, and a small one at that.

Is that an argument?

If so, here's my response. To be a revolutionary is to tell people the fucking truth as best you can...without regard for one's "instant popularity".

I would naturally hope that someday my ideas will prove to be popular -- not because they're "mine" but because they are true.

your venom and bile and thirst for blood have really been revealed on this thread.

So your idea of 'rational' compassion only applies to people of certain classes, Redstar?

That's an odd notion, since I thought we wanted to replace one political and economic system with another. We're not into purging the people of a certain class from the earth, but establishing and growing a new order that does away with all classes, exploiter and exploited, so that 'the free development of each becomes the necessary condition for the free development of all' and 'from each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs,' so that a truly human history emerges on the planet for the first time.

And how strict about 'class' do you want to be be? The guy who owns the Deli next door has ten workers. He's a capitalist. Am I a traitor if I take compassion and seek to extend a hand if his mother dies?

Well, he's just a small capitalist, you might say. But ethically, how big does a capitalist have to get before he crosses a line of being exempt from your 'rational' compassion? You get yourself into a philosophical mess here, Redstar, and your 'rationality' becomes rather subjective and arbitrary.

When workers overthrow capitalists, Redstar, two men die, so to speak. What's left is one dead system and two free men.

Also, don't be to quick to cut off someone's head, since, as Mao once noted, history shows it's hard to put it back on. He also pointed out -- with a bit of compassion, I guess -- that all people can change, but the practical side of him noted that some of them die first.

If you don't care for Mao, take Nelson Mandela. He even took a compassionate view toward his jailers on Robbin Island, to the point that he eventually won most of them over.

Of course, there was some violence in that struggle, but not nearly as much as there might have been with a leadership with a more shallow vision of what they were fighting for.

Don't get me wrong, Redstar. I'm not an absolute pacifist; force is often required in defense of innocent life, and the truly compassioate may sacrifice their own lives in the process. But most folks I know who are into blood-curdling rhetoric have rarely met violence up close and personal.

Yes, I would say seeking compassion towards all human beings, starting with the poor and oppressed, but also even for the personal redemption of our enemies from their evil ways, is a worthy goal, but a difficult task.

Like Mandela, however, we are not weakened by such values, but become even stronger and more steadfast as we work at them. In addition to seeing the harsh realities of class and racial oppression, it's one of the reasons I became a communist in the first place.

I wasn't noting the truth or falsity of your position by noting the small niche you'd carved for yourself. But I think communists should be organizers as well as truth seekers and debaters, and you weren't doing too well as an organizer with the supposed 'rational' dogmas you're clinging too.

People are complicated creatures, Redstar, with both rational and nonrational dimensions, just like the universe itself. That's what makes us human, and capable of both good and evil deeds. How does the saying go? 'the heart has its reasons that reason doth not know...'

Carl wrote: ...take Nelson Mandela. He even took a compassionate view toward his jailers on Robbin Island, to the point that he eventually won most of them over.

Of course, there was some violence in that struggle, but not nearly as much as there might have been with a leadership with a more shallow vision of what they were fighting for...

Yes, I would say seeking compassion towards all human beings, starting with the poor and oppressed, but also even for the personal redemption of our enemies from their evil ways, is a worthy goal, but a difficult task.

Like Mandela, however, we are not weakened by such values, but become even stronger and more steadfast as we work at them. In addition to seeing the harsh realities of class and racial oppression, it's one of the reasons I became a communist in the first place.

I think this example that you've chosen -- Nelson Mandela -- is actually a useful illustration of my argument against "universal compassion".

Thanks to Mandela and his co-thinkers, formal apartheid came to an end in South Africa and the African National Congress now holds all the significant political posts in that country.

And yet...how little has changed! For all the babble of "truth and reconciliation", the "truth" is that South Africa's wealth remains in the hands of the white minority and the black majority is still supposed to be "reconciled" to misery.

The violence that would have accompanied a genuine revolution was avoided...at the price of the violence of daily life inflicted on the poor.

Nor have I noticed any "redemption from their evil ways" on the part of the white-owned corporations in South Africa...one of them, if I'm not mistaken, just signed a big deal with the Angolan government to begin exploiting a whole fresh bunch of black workers.

It is rather like the outcome of America's civil war. Formal slavery came to an end...but black people suffered another century of serf-like exploitation, misery and racist violence.

How would things have been different had the civil war concluded with the liquidation of the slave-owner class?

The price in human suffering of "universal compassion" is a lot higher than you realize.

And the payments last a lot longer.

Carl wrote: But I think communists should be organizers as well as truth seekers and debaters, and you weren't doing too well as an organizer with the supposed 'rational' dogmas you're clinging too.

After 2-1/2 years on the internet, one of my "secret pleasures" is to read a post that starts out "Damn, I never thought I'd agree with redstar, but...". It doesn't happen as much as I would like...but it does happen now and then.

Progress is being made. :)

Carl wrote: How does the saying go? 'the heart has its reasons that reason doth not know...'

Pascal gets the blame, if memory serves me.

I think it's just a poetic way of throwing one's hands in the air and exclaiming "don't ask me to justify my position -- I'm right and that's all there is to it."

Even small children can usually do better than that.

Well, Redstar, I suppose the CP/ANC could have killed a third of the whites, subdued another third, and chased the rest out of the country.

I suppose they could have put, say, a million, or maybe just several hundred thousand, Black 'collaborators' to the wall, too.

Then what?

You'd still have a country with most people poor, lacking in education and health care, suffering more from the lack of capital than its presence. That's what unemployment means, Redstar, and to deal with it, someone faces the task of growing businesses -- state-owned, or coops, or whatever -- to put people to work creating wealth.

Just dividing up the spoils of the rich in a festival of the oppressed doesn't get you very far; a new economy has to be built. The miners still have to sell their diamonds to the neoliberals, as will other workers with their goods in export sectors.

Then I suppose they could try autarchy, and have nothing to do with the world market. That'd show 'em. But the Albanians and Koreans tried that route, and didn't do too well, did they?

I suppose they could also wipe out all entreprenuerial 'parasites' too, and abolish the market at home. The remaining people could exhort each other at mass meetings every day or so, to do manual labor for each other for barter, with only tools made locally, since we wouldn't want to collaborate, ie, buy and sell stuff, with foreign capitalists.

Then I suppose you could argue like the Sparts, and call on all those who did all the killing, to organize themselves into an all-African revolutionary army, and start marching into other countries, which would supposedly have workers everywhere flocking to their banners and we'd have world communism, lickety-split.

But somehow, with all that blood on their hands, don't you think they might not get all that much enthusiasm abroad? Remember, someone else is telling the story elsewhere.

But even if they wanted to do business abroad, in this kind of situation, how easy would it be? Businessmen like to know they'll at least get paid for their goods, which implies a bit of trust. But how much of that will there be with all those dead bodies everywhere, and all those millions of refugees telling horror stories about 'liquidation of entire classes' of people?

And if some local people get tired of meetings an no economic growth to speak of, well, I suppose they could be tried and shot as 'saboteurs and wreckers,' like Stalin did when he tried armed collectivization in the countryside and the 'liquidation of the kulaks as a class.' (The Russian people still have yet to recover from that ultraleft disaster).

Then how much further down this voluntarist armed utopian road is the Pol Pot residence?

You play a mean and bloody game of checkers, Red Star, when you need to learn to play chess and think five or six moves deep.

You think it doesn't cost to concede the moral high ground to your adversaries in the court of world opinion and just chop off heads, put some workers in charge of ruins, and call it communism?

Your bloody anti-ANC, anti-Mandela bluster would just be amusing if so much wasn't at stake there. Thanks, but no thanks.

Carl wrote:
"But ethically, how big does a capitalist have to get before he crosses a line of being exempt from your 'rational' compassion?"

I see now why you work with UFPJ to lobby Republic Rats, because you believe that capitalists have ethics. I'm not even calling you a capitalist, just realizing how warped your perception is. In my opinion, ethically all a capitalist has to do to be exempt from 'rational' compassion is exploit and oppress people. Once a capitalist has oppressed or exploited 1 or many he has crossed the line. Does Bill Gates deserve compassion from a movement for social justice? Do the CEO's, and buisness people of Bechtel, Haliburton, and Lockheed Martin, that salavate at the suggestion of a war that won't end in our lifetimes deserve compassion? Do the Bushes and the Saudi Royal family deserve compassion? Call me whatever you want, these people are not deserving of my compassion. Implicit in your comments are that only good people will have a 'rational' compassion for capitalist pigs who are 'hell' bent on laying waste to not only the human race, who they show the utmost disdain for, but also the entire Earth in an enviromental
'apocalypse'. I believe that at the forefront of a movement people should have compassion, love, and trust for their brothers and sisters, but SURVIVAL is also a neccessity!

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
Jesus , Luke 22 :36

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men"
St. Augustine (354-430)

Carl wrote: You think it doesn't cost to concede the moral high ground to your adversaries in the court of world opinion and just chop off heads, put some workers in charge of ruins, and call it communism?

Your bloody anti-ANC, anti-Mandela bluster would just be amusing if so much wasn't at stake there. Thanks, but no thanks.

Your tone suggests that I "farted in church". Your content suggests that the black working people in South Africa would have just "made a mess of everything"...and that, in "fact", working people will "always" just "make a mess of everything".

In your view, whenever the workers take over, the consequence is "ruins"...better to leave the capitalists in charge. They know how to "grow businesses" and "create wealth".

Well, at least you're honest about your preferences. You prefer the "moral high ground" to fundamental change.

That's where "religious leftism" usually ends up.

Redstar says:

'Your content suggests that the black working people in South Africa would have just "made a mess of everything'...and that, in 'fact', working people will "always" just "make a mess of everything"...In your view, whenever the workers take over, the consequence is "ruins"...better to leave the capitalists in charge. They know how to 'grow businesses' and 'create wealth'.

No, Redstar, I have a great deal of respect for how COSATU and the workers of South Africa are approaching difficult and complex problems. I've talked with some of their folks on the ups and downs of setting up community technolgy centers so young kids don't have to sell chicklets to tourists to make a future.

I don't think they're making a mess at all; it's your notions of mass killings of people 'as a class' that would make 'the ruins' and a mess of things. Workers defend themselves and their gains, with arms and otherwise, Redstar, when it's a matter of survival and necessity, but mass slaughter to make the transition and the new order run better, especially when it's someone else you're urging to be the bloodletters and the victims?

You're right, a big 'fart in church' is not a bad metaphor.

Give the proper tools and conditions, workers usually do a better job of creating wealth and building businesses than almost any capitalist.

I even argue that the workers start doing it now, even under capitalism, as in the Mondragon worker coops in Spain, as a way to grow their power to make a transition to a better system.

You need the moral high ground to make fundamental change, Redstar, it's not a choice between one or the other. Without it, you usually don't get very many folks participating, But with a just cause, you can win abundant support, even if you start off small.

Again, this is all ABC.

TheBurningMan wrote "Look, the whole basis of Christianity is that we are born dirty. So dirty, in fact, that we face an eternity in the "pits of hell." Christianity is unique among world religions in believing, for no justifiable reason whatsoever, that everyone who doesn't "accept Christ as their personal savior" will BURN IN HELL. "

The basis of Christianity is not just that we are all born with sin, but that Jesus died to save us all from it. To you, going to hell may be completely "unjustifiable", but to me and many other Christians, it is what we deserve, plus some. The great thing is that Jesus did die to save us all from it. All we have to do is repent and confess that we are sinners and that we make mistakes on a daily basis... He already forgave us for EVERTHING on that cross all those years ago. I am not saying that just because Jesus forgave us, and we confess that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, that we become perfect and honest and moral and never sin again... because that is completely untrue. The difference is that when we sin, we repent, and we turn from things that we shouldn't do. There are plenty of Christians who sin probably more than people who aren't Christians, but that doesn't make it right. Too many people see Christians as these fascist crazy people who are just out to get the whole world to turn to God, and that is what makes it so hard for people like me (who aren't like that) to get some people to even listen after they hear we are Christians. I am not really commenting on the whole Billy Graham thing because I wasn't there to listen to what he said, but as I sat here and read all these comments about fascist Christians who "hate" gays, lesbians, woman, etc etc... it seems like the hatred is actually coming from someone else: them. And they will be the last people to admit that.

There is a comment somewhere on here (I can't remember the name, sorry) about the burden of proving that there is a God being on the shoulders of believers, rather than proving how everything came into being without God being on the shoulders of unbelievers.

You told the person who commented on your comment that it is up to Christians to prove to you that there is a God, but it is in no way up to agnostics and aethiests to prove why there isn't a God. How does that work?? Is it because we actually have someone that we believe in and someone that we KNOW made the world and all of the universe, and you have yet to come up with something, other than that it wasn't God?? Maybe I am wrong, but I just don't see how that works out... Christians aren't out there to "prove" anything. We rely completely on faith, and for many people, that is something that is out of their realm of understanding and is something they choose not to participate in. But at least we have an answer. You, my friend, are just sitting there waiting for us to prove something... when you really have nothing to believe in.

TheBurningMan wrote: "Christianity is based on the UNIQUE idea of original sin and the need for "redemption" and "salvation." Fuck them. Fuck that bible. It preaches hatred of the body, hatred of women, hatred of freedom and a philosophy of fear."

I was just curious where in the Bible that you found hatred of body, women, and freedom. Because I read the Bible and I have never found any of this... if you do happen to find the passages, please let me know.

Burning Man: I have on question- you don't believe in God, that is completely and totally evident in every ignorant and self-serving word that comes out of your mouth. But why do you feel the need to come on here and bash every person that dares to disagree with you? I in no way comment on here to bring the world to God. I am a Christian, yes, but I am not naive enough to believe that by coming on this site and telling everyone about God, that I will bring all of you to Christ. You don't know how the world came to be, good. But that doesn't mean that just because there are people out there who believe that God was the one who created it are wrong. You hate all those Christians who try to tell you what to do and how to live, but what gives you the power to curse and demean every single person that believes differently than you?? Just wondering...

To Redstar 2000: All they did was ask a simple question and you, with all your superfluos sentences and curse words only proved one thing: that you have NO idea how to answer that question. All you did was ask more questions... and that just proved, to me at least, that you aren't in the slightest inclined to answer or to back up what you believe. You just throw it back in their face and hope they come up with something better.

"If so, here's my response. To be a revolutionary is to tell people the fucking truth as best you can...without regard for one's "instant popularity".

I would naturally hope that someday my ideas will prove to be popular -- not because they're "mine" but because they are true. "

Who do you think you are, Redstar, god or something? Oh yeah, that's right, you don't believe in that, sorry! You sit there are hope that people will one day believe in what you say because it's true... but hope that one day people will stop believing in Christianity becuase it's untrue?? Who makes you the judge of truth and untruth? You have the right to believe whatever you want, but you also have the right to be wrong...

Blah blah blah... Redstar... blah blah. That's all that comes of your mouth. It is much simpler to believe there is no God than to actually have faith that there is something else, eh? You sit there and write enormous posts criticizing other people, when that time would be better spend trying to figure out what it is that you actually believe in. There is no God in your mind, I get it. So what is it that made the world? What is it that keeps you breathing every day? Because you don't need another breath, and neither do I. It is by God's grace alone that we live to see the next day, and for you to be able to come on here and put down every person that says anything about you. I am probably one of the only Christians on here who actually has faith in the Bible and everything it says. I won't categorize myself as liberal or conservative because that is another way to for you to put me down. Being a Christian is bad enough in your book. I don't really care what you think about me or what I post, because what I believe and how I live won't change. I wish I could say the same for you... that you didn't care what other people say.

Redstar wrote: "Carl wrote: How does the saying go? 'the heart has its reasons that reason doth not know...'

Pascal gets the blame, if memory serves me.

I think it's just a poetic way of throwing one's hands in the air and exclaiming "don't ask me to justify my position -- I'm right and that's all there is to it."

Even small children can usually do better than that. "

So are you condemning Carl for "saying he is right and that's all there is to it"?? Because it seems to me that you do that in EVERY single post. Any person who tries to question you or oppose your beliefs is met with curse words and complete ignorance on your part. You sit there and babble on and on, criticizing them for how they are wrong, but with this one underlying tone: "I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG, THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT!" Am I the only one who feels this way?

Concerned wrote: ...but as I sat here and read all these comments about fascist Christians who "hate" gays, lesbians, woman, etc etc... it seems like the hatred is actually coming from someone else: them. And they will be the last people to admit that.

Maybe some, but not me. I freely admit that I despise Christianity (and all other superstitions) and everything it stands for.

But as for Christian hatred, one need not look far to find it...

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. -- Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, a Christian hate group

 http://www.angelfire.com/de/planetnewark/christianquotes.html

How does that work wrote: You told the person who commented on your comment that it is up to Christians to prove to you that there is a God, but it is in no way up to agnostics and atheists to prove why there isn't a God. How does that work??

It has long been customary in scientific thinking to put the burden of proof on anyone who makes a positive statement about the universe. If you assert that there is such a thing as a "supernatural realm" and that it is "inhabited", and, etc., etc., then the burden of proof is on you.

Why? Because proving negatives is extraordinarily difficult (some consider it impossible). For example, if I assert that "unicorns don't exist" and my evidence is the complete failure to turn up any living unicorns, the person who "believes" in unicorns can simply say, "unicorns exist...but they're invisible".

We now have two or three centuries of careful scientific investigation of reality "under our belts"...without so much as a shred of decent evidence for the existence of the "supernatural", much less one that is inhabited.

The obviously reasonable explanation for this is that there ain't no such thing.

How does that work wrote: But at least we have an answer.

Your "answer" is crap!

Where? wrote: I was just curious where in the Bible that you found hatred of body...

"Matthew" wrote: 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/5.html#29

This site --  http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html -- is excellent for revealing all the "nasty parts" of the "Bible"...and they also have the "Koran" and the "Book of Mormon" as well.

But a strong stomach is highly recommended.

Just Wondering wrote: You hate all those Christians who try to tell you what to do and how to live, but what gives you the power to curse and demean every single person that believes differently than you?? Just wondering...

No one "gives" us the power to reject superstitious tyranny...we take it!

We call upon our power of reason...and the godsuckers call the cops!

Just Wondering wrote: To Redstar: ...You just throw it back in their face and hope they come up with something better.

No, I throw their crap back in their faces because I know damned well that they can't come up with "anything better".

Let's be clear about this. Serious Christians want to conquer the world "for Christ" (meaning yourselves, of course)...at gunpoint if required.

You want to make us flop on our bellies before your fucking idol.

Non servium!

Feeding the trolls...

Who do you think you are, Redstar, god or something?

I am obviously more qualified for the position than the sadistic piece of shit that you worship.

Who makes you the judge of truth and untruth?

I appointed myself to that position. You are always free to dispute that appointment...but that would require argument and evidence -- tools with which you are obviously unfamiliar.

Blah blah blah... Redstar... blah blah.

An excellent illustration of Christian "reasoning". I am "perfectly refuted". *laughs*

Any person who tries to question you or oppose your beliefs is met with curse words and complete ignorance on your part. You sit there and babble on and on, criticizing them for how they are wrong...

You obviously attended Christian schools, didn't you? Whenever someone presents a rational argument supported by evidence, it just sounds like "babble" to your ignorant ears.

Barbarian!

Please don't be a jerk to other people. Argue your points and don't flame people. Righteousness is encouraged, self-righteousness is unhelpful to anyone, including the writer.

Comments which are essentially insults, or cariactures, can be rated down by users and hidden by site moderation

redstar, you are such a douchebag.