The Healthcare Debate

I know a couple of people that are in medical crisis right now as we speak that don't have coverage. Guess who's paying for it at absorbent rates... US. They get care alright, but, its given grudgingly and minimally and at often sub standards- but still very expensive rates are charged-  and its paid for by our taxes and in higher insurance premiums. As I understand it, the way to go is a single payer system. That did come up, but was also shot down by the (R)'s aka, the "Obama is a Nazi" crowd. Therein lies part of the problem We now have one party that is totally committed and deeply invested in the failure of our President and the failure of healthcare reform because they have broadcasted to everyone that the President is and evil tyrant bent on the destruction of America and all that is holy. You see, they simply can't afford for anything good to happen on his watch now- since they have set it up in such a way that all Obama has to do now to accentuate their desperation and clownishness is NOT be Hitler. Smooth, dang those boys are smooth.

Anyhow, because of this dynamic from the "right", there is almost no bipartisan teamwork, consensus or effort to find a way to alleviate the problems within our healthcare system. You have one side tossing about trying to find something that will simply clear the house whether it is a good, long term solution or not and another side that thinks that even having this conversation is somehow subversive and evil. I am not optimistic about anything good coming out of this mix.

I did some research on the definition of the single payer system as prompted by the article above. It is defined as:

"Single-payer health care: A system of health care characterized by universal and comprehensive coverage. Single-payer health care is similar to the health services provided by Medicare in the US. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.
Single-payer health care is distinct and different from socialized medicine in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government."

Ok, interesting. It is clearly defined and distinct from socialized or govt. run medicine. So, I played dumb, asking some of my so called conservative colleagues there what single- payer healthcare was all about.
The first thing out of every single one of their mouths was... it's "government run healthcare".

I know it may seem that I am harsh and picking on the talk show and Fox news set- but this is a prime example of why. If a person uses those sources for their sole reservoir of information they will become imbued with a certain false certitude about everything, a Manichean worldview and become essentially locked into a monolithic ignorance or worse- become self defeatingly stupid. Practically every time I have a discussion on any issue with these colleagues the are apt to parrot what they have heard on some talk radio show. You see, I listen to those shows quite a bit myself in an effort to understand all facets of a given question. I recognize when someone is simply parroting ideas they have heard from one of their intellectual surrogates.

One of the most destructive forces that has undue influence on these matters today in our society is what has been described as "The permanent war economy". This is also part of what is called the military industrial complex or defense industry- and what is passing for conservative thought today is eaten up with it. Unfortunately, no one in either of the two major political parties is even talking about any of this. Figures like Ron Paul have made some reference to ideas in this ballpark when they speak of statism and interventionism.
Here are some useful thoughts on the matter found written elsewhere by Chris Hedges:

“In "Pentagon Capitalism" Seymour Mellman described the defense industry as viral. Defense and military industries in permanent war, he wrote, trash economies. They are able to upend priorities. They redirect government expenditures towards their huge military projects and starve domestic investment in the name of national security. We produce sophisticated fighter jets, while Boeing is unable to finish its new commercial plane on schedule and our automotive industry goes bankrupt. We sink money into research and development of weapons systems and neglect renewable energy technologies. Universities are flooded with defense-related cash and grants, and struggle to find money for environmental studies. This is the disease of permanent war.
Massive military spending in this country, climbing to nearly $le1 trillion a year and consuming half of all discretionary spending, has a profound social cost. Bridges and levees collapse. Schools decay. Domestic manufacturing declines. Trillions in debts threaten the viability of the currency and the economy. The poor, the mentally ill, the sick and the unemployed are abandoned. Human suffering, including our own, is the price for victory.

Citizens in a state of permanent war are bombarded with the insidious militarized language of power, fear and strength that mask an increasingly brittle reality. The corporations behind the doctrine of permanent war-who have corrupted the doctrine of permanent revolution-must keep us afraid. Fear stops us from objecting to government spending on a bloated military. Fear means we will not ask unpleasant questions of those in power. Fear means that we will be willing to give up our rights and liberties for security. Fear keeps us penned in like domesticated animals.

Mellman, who coined the term permanent war economy to characterize the American economy, wrote that since the end of the Second World War, the federal government has spent more than half its tax dollars on past, current, and future military operations. It is the largest single sustaining activity of the government. The military industrial establishment is a very lucrative business. It is gilded corporate welfare. It comes with guaranteed profits. Defense systems are sold before they are produced. Military industries are permitted to charge the federal government for huge cost overruns. Massive profits are always guaranteed.”

Literally three days after the first big bailout package passed- the one that was tried to pass with no oversight at all- the one that happened on Bush's watch about two weeks after Republican  presidential candidate McCain bloviated that the economy was fundamentally sound and that all this talk about economic imbalance was a construct of the "liberal media" to make Bush look bad and scare the people into voting for democrats- another big spending package was passed. It also put out a 7 to 8 hundred billion dollar payoff. What was it for? It was for the sustenance of the 750 plus military bases we have around the world and all the big military projects and defense contracts (by the way, there are 195 countries- so we have over three times more military bases than there are countries which begs the question what on earth are we doing and why???). This package passed the house without any discussion, without any cost- benefit analysis, without any conception of the blowback of all this military only interface we have with much of the world and without hardly any public awareness. It is comical to watch all the so called conservatives rail about out of control government spending and cry about the bailouts and then fall into lockstep whenever anything military is on the table. "You can't cut defense spending", they'll say, "it will eliminate jobs and decrease national security- we have to keep pumping in money or the economy will tank". Its just funny how that concept supposedly works if you are building weapons but not if you are building bridges or infrastructure.
I will go out on a limb and say unless we deal with this "permanent war economy" problem and the attending militaristic mindset, value system and the blowback and socio- economic suffocation under it we ARE doomed as a nation.

I offer this as part of the answer to the question about the fairness of the present healthcare system and the question of whether its our right to have universal healthcare. I am not of the opinion that we are owed anything from the world, so its hard to think in terms of fairness… but, I will say that the way things are make little sense. I am likewise not of the opinion that these matters are questions of rights- but rather of sustainable dynamics within a society. It makes little sense to me to have a society that is consumed by militarism and living in fear of foreign enemies and willing to spend trillions on “national security” to the detriment of many other aspects of the system. It makes no sense to be consumed with fear of other geopolitical systems that are perceived as threats or of terrorist acts and then essentially unconcerned about whether or not our neighbors right here at home are able to protect themselves from health risks or financial ruin in the case of medical crisis. It makes no sense to be willing to invest that much in weaponry for protection from “enemies” but then wax all pious and individualist when it comes to protection from disease or bankruptcy to the machinery of big corporate medicine.... especially when our government spends 29 or greater times more on weapons and "defense" than all of the nations we consider rogue states combined.

Many times I have heard people defending our present medical system by pointing out how the best care is available here and that people come from all over the world to get treatments here. That argument is pretty well moot. Only the most affluent can get here to receive that care and the best care, this care that is allegedly the envy of the world, is simply not available to vast sections of our own population. A recent study shows that people without coverage are twice as likely to die of their complications because there are constantly brushed aside and given the minimum attention required by law. This “best care, treatments and medicine in the world” is then, not part of the equation for people without coverage.

There are more theological and moral implications to these topics that would require much more attention. I have just touched on some of the moral calculus on this, but, there is much more to be said of course. The theological implications are deeper than I care to go on this fine, chilly, football Saturday morning. But, since this dilemma has inspired me to reflect deeper and articulate my thoughts, I will address this more very soon.

America Is in Need of a Moral Bailout

Posted on Mar 23, 2009

By Chris Hedges

In decaying societies, politics become theater. The elite, who have hollowed out the democratic system to serve the corporate state, rule through image and presentation. They express indignation at AIG bonuses and empathy with a working class they have spent the last few decades disenfranchising, and make promises to desperate families that they know will never be fulfilled. Once the spotlights go on they read their lines with appropriate emotion. Once the lights go off, they make sure Goldman Sachs and a host of other large corporations have the hundreds of billions of dollars in losses they incurred playing casino capitalism repaid with taxpayer money.
We live in an age of moral nihilism. We have trashed our universities, turning them into vocational factories that produce corporate drones and chase after defense-related grants and funding. The humanities, the discipline that forces us to stand back and ask the broad moral questions of meaning and purpose, that challenges the validity of structures, that trains us to be self-reflective and critical of all cultural assumptions, have withered. Our press, which should promote such intellectual and moral questioning, confuses bread and circus with news and refuses to give a voice to critics who challenge not this bonus payment or that bailout but the pernicious superstructure of the corporate state itself. We kneel before a cult of the self, elaborately constructed by the architects of our consumer society, which dismisses compassion, sacrifice for the less fortunate, and honesty. The methods used to attain what we want, we are told by reality television programs, business schools and self-help gurus, are irrelevant. Success, always defined in terms of money and power, is its own justification. The capacity for manipulation is what is most highly prized. And our moral collapse is as terrifying, and as dangerous, as our economic collapse.

Theodor Adorno in 1967 wrote an essay called “Education After Auschwitz.” He argued that the moral corruption that made the Holocaust possible remained “largely unchanged.” He wrote that “the mechanisms that render people capable of such deeds” must be made visible. Schools had to teach more than skills. They had to teach values. If they did not, another Auschwitz was always possible.

“All political instruction finally should be centered upon the idea that Auschwitz should never happen again,” he wrote. “This would be possible only when it devotes itself openly, without fear of offending any authorities, to this most important of problems. To do this, education must transform itself into sociology, that is, it must teach about the societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms.”

Our elites are imploding. Their fraud and corruption are slowly being exposed as the disparity between their words and our reality becomes wider and more apparent. The rage that is bubbling up across the country will have to be countered by the elite with less subtle forms of control. But unless we grasp the “societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms” we will be cursed with a more ruthless form of corporate power, one that does away with artifice and the seduction of a consumer society and instead wields power through naked repression.

I had lunch a few days ago in Toronto with Henry Giroux, professor of English and cultural studies at McMaster University in Canada and who for many years was the Waterbury Chair Professor at Penn State. Giroux, who has been one of the most prescient and vocal critics of the corporate state and the systematic destruction of American education, was driven to the margins of academia because he kept asking the uncomfortable questions Adorno knew should be asked by university professors. He left the United States in 2004 for Canada.

“The emergence of what Eisenhower had called the military-industrial-academic complex had secured a grip on higher education that may have exceeded even what he had anticipated and most feared,” Giroux, who wrote “The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex,” told me. “Universities, in general, especially following the events of 9/11, were under assault by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives and market fundamentalists for allegedly representing the weak link in the war on terrorism. Right-wing students were encouraged to spy on the classes of progressive professors, the corporate grip on the university was tightening as made clear not only in the emergence of business models of governance, but also in the money being pumped into research and programs that blatantly favored corporate interests. And at Penn State, where I was located at the time, the university had joined itself at the hip with corporate and military power. Put differently, corporate and Pentagon money was now funding research projects and increasingly knowledge was being militarized in the service of developing weapons of destruction, surveillance and death. Couple this assault with the fact that faculty were becoming irrelevant as an oppositional force. Many disappeared into discourses that threatened no one, some simply were too scared to raise critical issues in their classrooms for fear of being fired, and many simply no longer had the conviction to uphold the university as a democratic public sphere.”

Frank Donoghue, the author of “The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities,” details how liberal arts education has been dismantled. Any form of learning that is not strictly vocational has at best been marginalized and in many schools has been abolished. Students are steered away from asking the broad, disturbing questions that challenge the assumptions of the power elite or an economic system that serves the corporate state. This has led many bright graduates into the arms of corporate entities they do not examine morally or ethically. They accept the assumptions of corporate culture because they have never been taught to think.

Only 8 percent of U.S. college graduates now receive degrees in the humanities, about 110,000 students. Between 1970 and 2001, bachelor’s degrees in English declined from 7.6 percent to 4 percent, as did degrees in foreign languages (2.4 percent to 1 percent), mathematics (3 percent to 1 percent), social science and history (18.4 percent to 10 percent). Bachelor’s degrees in business, which promise the accumulation of wealth, have skyrocketed. Business majors since 1970-1971 have risen from 13.6 percent of the graduation population to 21.7 percent. Business has now replaced education, which has fallen from 21 percent to 8.2 percent, as the most popular major.

The values that sustain an open society have been crushed. A university, as John Ralston Saul writes, now “actively seeks students who suffer from the appropriate imbalance and then sets out to exaggerate it. Imagination, creativity, moral balance, knowledge, common sense, a social view—all these things wither. Competitiveness, having an ever-ready answer, a talent for manipulating situations—all these things are encouraged to grow. As a result amorality also grows; as does extreme aggressivity when they are questioned by outsiders; as does a confusion between the nature of good versus having a ready answer to all questions. Above all, what is encouraged is the growth of an undisciplined form of self-interest, in which winning is what counts.”

This moral nihilism would have terrified Adorno. He knew that radical evil was possible only with the collaboration of a timid, cowed and confused population, a system of propaganda and a press that offered little more than spectacle and entertainment and an educational system that did not transmit transcendent values or nurture the capacity for individual conscience. He feared a culture that banished the anxieties and complexities of moral choice and embraced a childish hyper-masculinity, one championed by ruthless capitalists (think of the brutal backstabbing and deception cheered by TV shows like “Survivor”) and Hollywood action heroes like the governor of California.

“This educational ideal of hardness, in which many may believe without reflecting about it, is utterly wrong,” Adorno wrote. “The idea that virility consists in the maximum degree of endurance long ago became a screen-image for masochism that, as psychology has demonstrated, aligns itself all too easily with sadism.”

Sadism is as much a part of popular culture as it is of corporate culture. It dominates pornography, runs like an electric current through reality television and trash-talk programs and is at the core of the compliant, corporate collective. Corporatism is about crushing the capacity for moral choice. And it has its logical fruition in Abu Ghraib, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our lack of compassion for the homeless, our poor, the mentally ill, the unemployed and the sick.

“The political and economic forces fuelling such crimes against humanity—whether they are unlawful wars, systemic torture, practiced indifference to chronic starvation and disease or genocidal acts—are always mediated by educational forces,” Giroux said. “Resistance to such acts cannot take place without a degree of knowledge and self-reflection. We have to name these acts and transform moral outrage into concrete attempts to prevent such human violations from taking place in the first place.”

The single most important quality needed to resist evil is moral autonomy. Moral autonomy, as Immanuel Kant wrote, is possible only through reflection, self-determination and the courage not to cooperate.

Moral autonomy is what the corporate state, with all its attacks on liberal institutions and “leftist” professors, has really set out to destroy. The corporate state holds up as our ideal what Adorno called “the manipulative character.” The manipulative character has superb organizational skills and the inability to have authentic human experiences. He or she is an emotional cripple and driven by an overvalued realism. The manipulative character is a systems manager. He or she exclusively trained to sustain the corporate structure, which is why our elites are wasting mind-blowing amounts of our money on corporations like Goldman Sachs and AIG. “He makes a cult of action, activity, of so-called efficiency as such which reappears in the advertising image of the active person,” Adorno wrote of this personality type. These manipulative characters, people like Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin, Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, AIG’s Edward Liddy and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, along with most of our ruling class, have used corporate money and power to determine the narrow parameters of the debate in our classrooms, on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress while they looted the country.

“It is especially difficult to fight against it,” warned Adorno, “because those manipulative people, who actually are incapable of true experience, for that very reason manifest an unresponsiveness that associates them with certain mentally ill or psychotic characters, namely schizoids.”

Pelosi, Cheney and Hypocrisy on Waterboarding and Torture

For all the "conservatives" and pundits that are full on attacking the integrity of Nancy Pelosi, whom I don't particularly care for either, over her perceived improprieties and "story changing" in the "waterboardgate" scandal.... I wonder if the irony or hypocrisy inherent in the juxtaposition of these two stories below even register on their consciences or if its just a matter of who you like and don't like or agree with and don't agree with... I just can't believe that A. they think this tactic of displacing blame will work and B. that it is apparently working on a lot of people...WOW!!!:

Read and consider these two articles:

White House denies Cheney endorsed 'water boarding'

Cheney was key in clearing CIA interrogation tactics

If one wants to go after Pelosi for mangling the truth- how can they not take issue with Cheney?

I have often been lectured about moral relativism in discussions with those aligned with Cheney's worldview... Here's the definition of moral relativism:
"In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, ... Read More historical or personal circumstances. "
Doesn't Cheney's position and/or the lack of consistent standards between these two characters by Cheney's allies and advocates reflect moral relativism?

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. A number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War. On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial front-page photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang. The article described the practice as "fairly common". The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army. Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene, referred to as "water torture" in the caption, is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City.

If one wants to go after Pelosi- how can they not see the duplicity in the former members of the Bush administration on this issue- denying and lying on this issue on TV and in press conferences in an all too obvious way and then give them a pass? That's partisan blindness, no matter what you think of the issue at hand and is one of the kinds of things that has put their party in their current political predicament. I have called it "selective truth engineering". I know a few people that claim as one of their pet peeves when people mangle the truth to make political points. I share that peeve.

Sarah Palin Refuses To Answer Whether Or Not Abortion Clinic Bombers Are Terrorists

In her interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said that Bill Ayers is “no question” a terrorist because he sought to destroy the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. Palin, however, refused to apply the same label to abortion clinic bombers:

Q: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor?
PALIN: (Sigh). There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there.

The FBI and other government security institutions may differ with Ms. Palin on this one. It is just about intellectually impossible to back a candidate with this kind of logic problems... at least for me. -SS


Abortion clinic bombers not terrorists?

2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has accused Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists," has refused to call people who bomb abortion clinics by the same name.When asked Thursday night by NBC television presenter Brian Williams whether an abortion clinic bomber was a terrorist, Palin heaved a sigh and, at first, circumvented the question.
"There's no question that Bill Ayers by his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our US Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist," Palin said, referring to a 1960s leftist who founded a radical violent gang dubbed the "Weathermen" -- and who years later supported Obama's first run for public office in the state of Illinois.
"Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that it would be unacceptable to... I don't know if you're gonna use the word 'terrorist' there," the ardently pro-life running mate of John McCain said.
Early this month, after the New York Times ran an article highlighting the ties between Obama and Ayers, Palin told a campaign rally in Colorado that Obama "sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
Eric Rudolph, the extreme right winger who planted a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, which killed one person, was sentenced three years ago to two life terms in jail for an abortion clinic bombing in Alabama in which a policeman was killed.

I am wondering what is so difficult about the question. How could a person not just say, "Of course they are, anytime a person or political interest group resorts to planting bombs to inflict violence and/or damage and intimidation to promote any political agenda they are essentially operating with the same philosophy of jihadists like Osama bin Laden."

I can tell you why she didn't say that. Its because she is not morally grounded or intelligent enough to figure that out.

When she didn't say something like that she implied as much- that she was either ignorant and/or morally stunted or that she condoned the practice. It was she that put those words in her own mouth as implied by her lack of willingness to state what should be obvious. It is my personal belief that she probably thinks of abortion clinic bombers as noble warriors of God or at least that she has some kind of sympathy for such TERRORIST acts. Then again I suppose such a definition would raise several valid questions about American foreign and domestic policy...
like what makes an atomic bomb moral and a carbomb immoral?

Now, check this out: McCain’s Terror Connection: G. Gordon Liddy

How Low? by Jose Gonzalez

I love the guitar work in this music as well as the lyrics.

How Low Lyrics:

How low
are you willing to go
before you reach all
your selfish goals.
Punch line after punch line
leaving us sore,
leaving us sore.

Absorbed
in your ill hustling
you're feeding a monster,
just feeding a monster.

Invasion
after invasion,
this means war,
this means war.

Someday you'll be up to your knees
in the $%&^ you seed.
All the gullible
that you mislead
won't be up or it.

Where to
will you relocate
now that it's war.
Now that it's war

The Misuse of "Radah" (dominion)

source

'Radah'

In Gen 1:26-28, God uses the word 'radah', a Hebrew word that is often translated as 'have dominion over'? But we Western Christians (and Jews?) have misunderstood its meaning. It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean 'dominate over' just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of 'radah' shows that this is NOT the type of 'dominion' that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, 'radah' is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of 'radah'. The use of 'radah' there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

"Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally." (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our 'radah' of the creation.

Our 'radah', of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our 'radah' is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we 'radah' creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.

The Creation Matters to God

In Genesis 1:26-28, God gives humankind 'dominion' over his Creation. Many have seemed to assume this justifies our 'domination' of Creation. The 'domination' we have exercised has had the following characteristics:

• We have treated the Creation as though it were ours for the taking and use.
• In particular, we have treated is as mere raw materials to satisfy our desires, and our economic-technical systems.
• This has often - in all cultures - led to cruelty in our dealing with animals.
• Even when we have not been brutal, we have usually treated the natural Creation as a mere backdrop to the human drama, of salvation (if Christians) or of progress (if materialists).
• Thus we have not usually allowed that Creation has any meaning in its own right.
• The above points have been exacerbated in some Christians who have assumed that the physical Creation is under a curse and will be done away with, so it does not much matter, in eternal terms.

Here is an exposition of passages of Scripture that show that the Creation is important to God, and should also be important to us. Ecological damage is an evil in God's eyes. And the creation will be redeemed just as humanity will be. A similar message, though in a different style, can be found in a wider discussion of why Christians in particular should be 'green'.

Gen 1:26-28, Gen 2:15: The purpose, role of humanity

The purpose, role of humanity: to cultivate, guard, steward, manage - for the sake of God and of the creation itself. See next.

(NB. Westminster confession: Chief end of Man: to glorify God and enjoy him forever: no: to steward the Creation.) (Link also with: we are God's representatives, ambassadors, sons, trusted servants: to show him forth, be like him, have his attitudes. Also God is Love)

Gen 1:26-28, 'Radah'

What is 'radah', the Hebrew word used in Gen 1:26,28 that is often translated as 'have dominion over'? It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean 'dominate over' just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of 'radah' shows that this is NOT the type of 'dominion' that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, 'radah' is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of 'radah'. The use of 'radah' there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

"Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally." (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our 'radah' of the creation.

Our 'radah', of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our 'radah' is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we 'radah' creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.

Psa 97:1, Psa 98:7-8, Psa 96:10-13. Creation delights in God.

Various psalms like those mentioned expect various parts of creation to delight in God and in his justice. The seas are to roar, trees to clap their hands, etc.

While these passages are picturesque, they do express a truth: that creation rejoices in God and God's ways. Each thing 'rejoices' in the way appropriate to it; e.g. a tree would 'rejoice' in the way that a tree can, and so on. Each thing rejoices because God's ways bring health, bounty, true prosperity, shalom.

All creation, including human and non-human together, find that God's ways are good, and to be shouted about.

Romans 8:19. Creation and God's 'Sons'

Romans 8:19 says that all creation waits with eager longing, groans, until God reveals his sons.

The Greek word for 'sons' is not that used for 'children' or 'make offspring', but is 'hios': those who are like the father in attitude, will, decision-making tendencies, etc. The father of those times would, when he reckoned his male child had come to this state of maturity, take his son to the public place and announce "This is my son". Meaning "I trust him to choose, behave, decide like me, and will stand all his promises he makes."

God has sons, those who come to the maturity in Christ in such a way that we have the attitude, will, decision-making tendencies that God himself has. God is Love; his sons will be love, rather than selfishness. This links with the type of 'radah' that we should display.

Now, this makes sense of Romans 8:19. As we saw above, God's creation 'rejoices' in God's ways, when it is treated as God would. So, in this period in which creation suffers the harm caused by selfish humanity who exercise wrong type of 'radah' over it, it is eagerly longing for those human beings who will truly be God's sons (hios) and behave towards it like God would.

So, when God's sons are revealed (or appear on the scene), the creation rejoices. Because they are like God, and will treat it like God does. Or like God would. (This links too with our role and purpose, and the idea of being God's ambassadors and representatives.)

'Tsedeq'

Now, what is this way in which God would treat the creation? The clearest understanding of it is the Hebrew word 'tsedeq', which is translated both justice and righteousness. Paul Marshall has defined 'tsedeq' as 'Maintaining right relationships among all things in the created order.' (For fuller discussion of this, see tsedeq.html.)

Note that it is relational rather than individualistic or state-centred in meaning. Note also that it goes beyond legal frameworks. Note that, though translated 'righteousness', 'tsedeq' is not goodness; though translated 'justice' it is not legal judgement or retribution. Both are tsedeq. The meanings we normally apply to 'justice' and 'righteousness' are distortions, arising from what happens when we start with the presupposition that the Creation is of no value. If it is with all creation, then all creation is important. Let's see if that is so.

Jer 12:4. Ecological results of our sin.

This verse clearly shows that ecological harm comes from sin and evil in human society. It links ecology with righteousness. We tend to think that God is only interested in righteousness, and does not want us to be too concerned about ecology. But in fact they are closely intertwined.

The Lord's care specifically for non-human creation

But does God really love and value his creation? All we have above so far is a deduction that he does; are there any scriptures that show clearly that he does love and value his creation?

• Jonah 4:11 The Lord can concern specifically for animals
• Psa 145:9 The Lord has compassion on all he made
• Psa 36:6 Men and animals are in your care
• Lev 25:7 God has care for wild as well as domestic animals
• Lev 26:34 The land itself enjoys rest
• Lev 26:43 .. even without people
• Prov 12:10 We are to look after animals

Job 38. God has purposes beyond humanity.

But maybe God only values his creation because it provides food and resources for humanity? And, without humanity, it has no meaning? While it is certainly true that humanity is the pinnacle of God's creation and that without humanity creation was only 'good' and not 'very good', God's words in Job 38 and 39 show that God has purposes in his creation that do not centre on humanity. These two chapters are saying, in effect: "There are wild things, Job, that are important to me, even though they are not useful to humankind and even a threat to humankind."

Rev 11:18. "Destroy those who destroy the earth."

In Rev 11:18 we find an interesting plea by the angels to God in his role as final judge. They say "the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth."

And who is destroying the earth today? We are, those of us for whom manufacturers used to create refrigerators filled with CFCs, those of us for whom electric power is created that brings global warming, those of us who use our cars without thinking and when we could walk or cycle, and thus produce greenhouse gases, those of us who demand cheap food from all over the world and thus indirectly the destruction of rainforests and local communities, those of us who demand low taxes so that Government does not properly clean our waste, and the seas become polluted, those of us who ... are, by our expectations, habits, demands, are forcing others to destroy the earth.

Heb 1:1-3, John 3:16, Eph 1:10, Col 1:20. Salvation goes beyond humanity.

We tend to think that the end state is concerned with Christ and humanity (e.g. Christ and his Bride, the mass of saved humanity). But Hebrews 1:1-3 says that Christ will inherit 'all things', not just humanity. Note also the integration of these 'all things' with humanity and forgiveness in these verses.

(So, if we mess up the creation, with pollution or by driving species to extinction, as we do, then we are damaging Christ's inheritance. We claim to love him; do we? Or are we carelessly letting his inheritance be less than it would otherwise be?)

Notice also that that famous verse John 3:16, tells us that God so loved the world; that is, the creation, not just humanity. It specifically does not say "God so loved humankind that he gave his Son...".

In Col 1:20 and Eph 1:10 we find similar sentiments: The whole universe is to be reconciled with God, summed up in Christ, not just humanity.

Rom 8: Creation will one day be set free from its bondage to decay.

But is not the creation to be burned up at Christ's second coming? Not if Romans 8 is true. Rather, it will be set free from the tendency to decay. It will share the glorious freedom of the sons of God.

Notice Matt 24:37-41. When Christ comes again, "One will be taken and the other left." Who will be left? We assume that the righeous ones will be taken from this earth, to escape it, and the wicked ones will be left, and destroyed. But look a few verses back; Jesus very explicitly compared the future division of humanity with that in the days of Noah. There it was the wicked who were taken away; the righteous were the ones who were left.

The problem is that for centuries we have assumed that the creation is unimportant to God, and will be destroyed; that idea has more to do with pagan Greek thinking than with what is revealed in Scripture. In fact, the earth will survive (though renewed and resurrected just as we will be).

This post is a continuation of:

The Meaning of Life, All of Creation and Worship

Proverbs 16- Words To Live By

Proverbs 16

1THE PLANS of the mind and orderly thinking belong to man, but from the Lord comes the [wise] answer of the tongue.

2All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirits (the thoughts and intents of the heart).^(A)

3Roll your works upon the Lord [commit and trust them wholly to Him; He will cause your thoughts to become agreeable to His will, and] so shall your plans be established and succeed.

4The Lord has made everything [to accommodate itself and contribute] to its own end and His own purpose--even the wicked [are fitted for their role] for the day of calamity and evil.

5Everyone proud and arrogant in heart is disgusting, hateful, and exceedingly offensive to the Lord; be assured [I pledge it] they will not go unpunished.^(B)

6By mercy and love, truth and fidelity [to God and man--not by sacrificial offerings], iniquity is purged out of the heart, and by the reverent, worshipful fear of the Lord men depart from and avoid evil.

7When a man's ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.

8Better is a little with righteousness (uprightness in every area and relation and right standing with God) than great revenues with injustice.^(C)

9A man's mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps and makes them sure.^(D)

10Divinely directed decisions are on the lips of the king; his mouth should not transgress in judgment.

11A just balance and scales are the Lord's; all the weights of the bag are His work [established on His eternal principles].

12It is an abomination [to God and men] for kings to commit wickedness, for a throne is established and made secure by righteousness (moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation).

13Right and just lips are the delight of a king, and he loves him who speaks what is right.

14The wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise man will pacify it.

15In the light of the king's countenance is life, and his favor is as a cloud bringing the spring rain.

16How much better it is to get skillful and godly Wisdom than gold! And to get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.^(E)

17The highway of the upright turns aside from evil; he who guards his way preserves his life.

18Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

19Better it is to be of a humble spirit with the meek and poor than to divide the spoil with the proud.

20He who deals wisely and heeds [God's] word and counsel shall find good, and whoever leans on, trusts in, and is confident in the Lord--happy, blessed, and fortunate is he.

21The wise in heart are called prudent, understanding, and knowing, and winsome speech increases learning [in both speaker and listener].

22Understanding is a wellspring of life to those who have it, but to give instruction to fools is folly.

23The mind of the wise instructs his mouth, and adds learning and persuasiveness to his lips.

24Pleasant words are as a honeycomb, sweet to the mind and healing to the body.

25There is a way that seems right to a man and appears straight before him, but at the end of it is the way of death.

26The appetite of the laborer works for him, for [the need of] his mouth urges him on.

27A worthless man devises and digs up mischief, and in his lips there is as a scorching fire.

28A perverse man sows strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.^(F)

29The exceedingly grasping, covetous, and violent man entices his neighbor, leading him in a way that is not good.

30He who shuts his eyes to devise perverse things and who compresses his lips [as if in concealment] brings evil to pass.

31The hoary head is a crown of beauty and glory if it is found in the way of righteousness (moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation).^(G)

32He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, he who rules his [own] spirit than he who takes a city.

33The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly of the Lord [even the events that seem accidental are really ordered by Him].

Cross references:

1. Proverbs 16:2 : I Sam 16:7; Heb 4:12
2. Proverbs 16:5 : Prov 8:13; 11:20-21
3. Proverbs 16:8 : Ps 37:16; Prov 15:16
4. Proverbs 16:9 : Ps 37:23; Prov 20:24; Jer 10:23
5. Proverbs 16:16 : Prov 8:10, 19
6. Proverbs 16:28 : Prov 17:9
7. Proverbs 16:31 : Prov 20:29

The Torture Question Part 2

The torture issue is back in the news over the last few days. Once again, the mendacity of our government leadership is at issue.

Its simple really. True disciples of Christ cannot endorse or sign off on torture and/or deception (AKA as lying). Not long ago I saw an interview with a former CIA interrogator from the Vietnam era. He said that back then enemy combatants would go out of their way to surrender to the US because they pretty much knew that they would be treated well. He went on to say that what is going on today is not only a disgrace, but it gets our soldiers killed because when opposing combatants assume they will be torutred they will fight to the death. He added that information derived from torure is generally worthless. - S.S.

Now.... here is what the Bible says about dealing with enemies and conflict (pay special attention to the bold verses):

Romans 12
1I APPEAL to you therefore, brethren, and beg of you in view of [all] the mercies of God, to make a decisive dedication of your bodies [presenting all your members and faculties] as a living sacrifice, holy (devoted, consecrated) and well pleasing to God, which is your reasonable (rational, intelligent) service and spiritual worship.

2Do not be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external, superficial customs], but be transformed (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideals and its new attitude], so that you may prove [for yourselves] what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, even the thing which is good and acceptable and perfect [in His sight for you].

3For by the grace (unmerited favor of God) given to me I warn everyone among you not to estimate and think of himself more highly than he ought [not to have an exaggerated opinion of his own importance], but to rate his ability with sober judgment, each according to the degree of faith apportioned by God to him.

4For as in one physical body we have many parts (organs, members) and all of these parts do not have the same function or use,

5So we, numerous as we are, are one body in Christ (the Messiah) and individually we are parts one of another [mutually dependent on one another].

6Having gifts (faculties, talents, qualities) that differ according to the grace given us, let us use them: [He whose gift is] prophecy, [let him prophesy] according to the proportion of his faith;

7[He whose gift is] practical service, let him give himself to serving; he who teaches, to his teaching;

8He who exhorts (encourages), to his exhortation; he who contributes, let him do it in simplicity and liberality; he who gives aid and superintends, with zeal and singleness of mind; he who does acts of mercy, with genuine cheerfulness and joyful eagerness.

9[Let your] love be sincere (a real thing); hate what is evil [loathe all ungodliness, turn in horror from wickedness], but hold fast to that which is good.

10Love one another with brotherly affection [as members of one family], giving precedence and showing honor to one another.

11Never lag in zeal and in earnest endeavor; be aglow and burning with the Spirit, serving the Lord.

12Rejoice and exult in hope; be steadfast and patient in suffering and tribulation; be constant in prayer.

13Contribute to the needs of God's people [sharing in the necessities of the saints]; pursue the practice of hospitality.

14Bless those who persecute you [who are cruel in their attitude toward you]; bless and do not curse them.

15Rejoice with those who rejoice [sharing others' joy], and weep with those who weep [sharing others' grief].

16Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty (snobbish, high-minded, exclusive), but readily adjust yourself to [people, things] and give yourselves to humble tasks. Never overestimate yourself or be wise in your own conceits.(A)

17Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is honest and proper and noble [aiming to be above reproach] in the sight of everyone.(B)

18If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave the way open for [God's] wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay (requite), says the Lord.(C)

20But if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.(D)

21Do not let yourself be overcome by evil, but overcome (master) evil with good.



Cross references:

1. Romans 12:16 : Prov 3:7
2. Romans 12:17 : Prov 20:22
3. Romans 12:19 : Deut 32:35
4. Romans 12:20 : Prov 25:21,22

The Torture Question

Yesterday, Bush said the program, which has sparked criticism over interrogation methods, was to ´better protect´ Americans.

See the PBS program HERE.

The torture issue is back in the news over the last few days. Once again, the mendacity of our government leadership is at issue.

Its simple really. True disciples of Christ cannot endorse or sign off on torture and/or deception (AKA as lying).

Not long ago I saw an interview with a former CIA interrogator from the Vietnam era. He said that back then enemy combatants would go out of their way to surrender to the US because they pretty much knew that they would be treated well. He went on to say that what is going on today is not only a disgrace, but it gets our soldiers killed because when opposing combatants assume they will be torutred they will fight to the death. He added that information derived from torure is generally worthless. - S.S.

Torture Still In Force in US


WASHINGTON, Oct 5--Former US attorney general Alberto Gonzales issued a secret document in 2005 authorizing use of painful interrogation techniques, a new report says.

The New York Times, citing unnamed officials, said the legal Justice Department document was circulated in 2005 -- when Congress adopted a law banning cruel inhumane and degrading treatment.

At the same time, the Justice Department publicly had declared torture "abhorrent" and the Bush administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.

The legal document, approved by Gonzales, remains in effect, despite efforts by Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the government in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Gonzales resigned last month under withering criticism from congressional Democrats.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino did not deny the existence of the document, but did not offer details.

However, White House Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend later said the program involved a team of fewer than 100 highly trained interrogators.

"We start with the least harsh measures first," Townsend told CNN television. "It stops ... if someone becomes cooperative."

She said the White House was "baffled" by suggestions that if the US government didn't use harsh interrogation tactics, Al-Qaeda would treat captured Americans better.

And she suggested the harsh interrogation techniques had support and understanding of the American public.

The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier, secret Justice document, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death.

But that controversial document was withdrawn in June 2004.

In a statement Thursday, the Center for Constitutional Rights urged attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey to end the policy if elected.

"Torture is illegal, immoral, and it doesn't work. Detainee torture policies that produce faulty intelligence and exaggerated confessions result in innocent men being locked up," the CCR said.

Now.... here is what the Bible says about dealing with enemies and conflict (pay special attention to the bold verses):

Romans 12
1I APPEAL to you therefore, brethren, and beg of you in view of [all] the mercies of God, to make a decisive dedication of your bodies [presenting all your members and faculties] as a living sacrifice, holy (devoted, consecrated) and well pleasing to God, which is your reasonable (rational, intelligent) service and spiritual worship.

2Do not be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external, superficial customs], but be transformed (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideals and its new attitude], so that you may prove [for yourselves] what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, even the thing which is good and acceptable and perfect [in His sight for you].

3For by the grace (unmerited favor of God) given to me I warn everyone among you not to estimate and think of himself more highly than he ought [not to have an exaggerated opinion of his own importance], but to rate his ability with sober judgment, each according to the degree of faith apportioned by God to him.

4For as in one physical body we have many parts (organs, members) and all of these parts do not have the same function or use,

5So we, numerous as we are, are one body in Christ (the Messiah) and individually we are parts one of another [mutually dependent on one another].

6Having gifts (faculties, talents, qualities) that differ according to the grace given us, let us use them: [He whose gift is] prophecy, [let him prophesy] according to the proportion of his faith;

7[He whose gift is] practical service, let him give himself to serving; he who teaches, to his teaching;

8He who exhorts (encourages), to his exhortation; he who contributes, let him do it in simplicity and liberality; he who gives aid and superintends, with zeal and singleness of mind; he who does acts of mercy, with genuine cheerfulness and joyful eagerness.

9[Let your] love be sincere (a real thing); hate what is evil [loathe all ungodliness, turn in horror from wickedness], but hold fast to that which is good.

10Love one another with brotherly affection [as members of one family], giving precedence and showing honor to one another.

11Never lag in zeal and in earnest endeavor; be aglow and burning with the Spirit, serving the Lord.

12Rejoice and exult in hope; be steadfast and patient in suffering and tribulation; be constant in prayer.

13Contribute to the needs of God's people [sharing in the necessities of the saints]; pursue the practice of hospitality.

14Bless those who persecute you [who are cruel in their attitude toward you]; bless and do not curse them.

15Rejoice with those who rejoice [sharing others' joy], and weep with those who weep [sharing others' grief].

16Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty (snobbish, high-minded, exclusive), but readily adjust yourself to [people, things] and give yourselves to humble tasks. Never overestimate yourself or be wise in your own conceits.(A)

17Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is honest and proper and noble [aiming to be above reproach] in the sight of everyone.(B)

18If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave the way open for [God's] wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay (requite), says the Lord.(C)

20But if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.(D)

21Do not let yourself be overcome by evil, but overcome (master) evil with good.



Cross references:

1. Romans 12:16 : Prov 3:7
2. Romans 12:17 : Prov 20:22
3. Romans 12:19 : Deut 32:35
4. Romans 12:20 : Prov 25:21,22

The Man's Too Strong- Dire Straits

I'm just an aging drummer boy
And in the wars I used to play
And I've called the tune
To many a torture session
Now they say I am a war criminal
And I'm fading away
Father please hear my confession

I have legalised robbery
Called it belief
I have run with the money
I have hid like a thief
I have re-written history
With my armies and my crooks
Invented memories
And I did burn all the books
And I can still hear his laughter
And I can still hear his song
The man's too big
The man's too strong

Well I have tried to be meek
And I have tried to be mild
But I spat like a woman
And I sulked like a child
I have lived behind walls
That have made me alone
Striven for peace of mind
Which I never have known
And I can still hear his laughter
And I can still hear his song
The man's too big
The man's too strong

Well the sun rose on the courtyard
And they all did hear him say
You always was a Judas
But I got you anyway
You may have got your silver
But I swear upon my life
Your sister gave me diamonds
And I gave them to your wife '
Oh Father please help me
For I have done wrong
The man's too big
The man's too strong

Heaven and Hell

My school mates and I used to jam to this rusty old tune back in the day. In my 43rd year this song makes more sense than ever.

Heaven and Hell- Black Sabbath
________________________

Sing me a song, youre a singer
Do me no wrong, youre a bringer of evil
The devil is never a maker
The less that you give, youre a taker
So its on and on and on, its heaven and hell

The lover of life's not a sinner
The ending is just a beginning
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you'll know that youre dreaming
So its on and on and on, oh its on and on and on
It goes on and on and on, heaven and hell
I can tell, fool, fool!

Well if it seems to be real, its illusion
For every moment of truth, theres confusion and lies
Love can be seen as the answer, but nobody bleeds for the dancer
And its on and on, on and on and on....

They say that life's a carousel
Spinning fast, youve got to ride it well
The world is full of kings and queens
Who blind your eyes and steal your dreams
Its heaven and hell
And they'll tell you black is really white
The moon is just the sun at night
And when you walk in golden halls
You get to keep the gold that falls
Its heaven and hell, oh no!
Fool, fool!
Youve got to bleed for the dancer!
Fool, fool!
Look for the answer!
Fool, fool, fool!
___________________
I'll look for a vid or audio file to post here with the lyrics later.

Mark Driscoll on American Idolatry

The Desiderata- And The End Of The Rainbow (Bonus- the Deteriorata)

Desiderata
-- written by Max Ehrmann

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit.

If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter,
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs,
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love,
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

________________________________________________________

And now its cynical spoof:

The Deteriorata:

From the CD: National Lampoon Radio Dinner Album
A Parody of the poem Desiderata

Go placidly amid the noise and waste,
And remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons unless you are in need of sleep.
Rotate your tires.

Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself,
And heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss and when.
Consider that two wrongs never make a right,
But that three lefts do.

Wherever possible put people on "HOLD".
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment,
And despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer maintenance.
Remember the Pueblo.

Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate.
Know yourself. If you need help, call the FBI.
Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you;
That lemon on your left for instance.

Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls,
Would scarcely get your feet wet.
Fall not in love therefore; it will stick to your face.

Carefully surrender the things of youth: birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan,
And let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
For a good time, call 606-4311.

Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog
Is finally getting enough cheese;
And reflect that whatever fortunes may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Sioux City.

You are a fluke of the Universe.
You have no right to be here, and whether you can hear it or not,
The Universe is laughing behind your back.

Therefore make peace with your God whatever you conceive him to be,
Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin.

With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
The world continues to deteriorate.
Give up.
_________________________________________________________

Well.... the Deteriorata was pretty humorous... good for a hyuk hyuk. But, I reckon I'll take the original Desiderada to heart. If I've got the freewill choice to choose my path trough this world I'd say the best bet is the path of light and hope. If I turn out to be mistaken and there is no heavenly reward at the end of the rainbow then I don't reckon that it will matter much anyhow. I will have lost nothing. On the other hand... the power of light and goodness and God and a life beyond time and space... well now that is probably worth holding out for even if at times it seems hard or even foolish. To die chasing light and rainbows- only "fools" are brave enough to do that.

Burke Lecture: Stanley Martin Hauerwas: Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Truth & Politics

Watch the Lecture HERE.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is well known for his heroic opposition to the Nazis. Dr. Hauerwas' lecture examines Bonhoeffer's understanding of lying and why it's approporiate to hold politics to a higher standard of truthful speech. This relationship between truth and politics is a particular challenge for democratic regimes. Series: Burke Lectureship on Religion & Society.

Stanley Hauerwas is one of the men that really connect with as a writer. He has sort of replaced Hunter s. Thompson in my pantheon of heroes. I would put him at the top of my list of favorite theologians supplanting even george E. Tinker, a Native American/Christian theologian with my utmost respect and admiration. The thing is that Stan is funny. He is a funny dude. There is something about a stinging wit and sense of humor that alongside true wisdom is the epitome of Godliness. In my imagination I imagine God's personality as a perfect blend of elements of Stanley Hauerwas, Kurt Vonnegut, Sitting Bull, Sun Tzu, Joseph Campbell, Joan of Arc, Maya Angelou, Winona LaDuke, William Butler Yeats and Noam Chomsky. Of course there is no beard...no head actually... because afterall God is invisible, eternal and niether man nor woman.
I am reminded of the National Lampoon parody of the Desiderada known as the Deteriorata which says;
"... Therefore make peace with your God whatever you conceive him to be,
Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin...."

I keep wanting to picture God as a living fractal as opposed to a hairy, thronesitting hurler of thunderbolts... but then I have to try and picture an INVISIBLE, living fractal that is transcendent of the time- space continuum. It gets to be mindbending

Anyhow one of my favorite Stanley Hauerwas statements is that he is a pacifist in hopes that others we keep him from killing someone (with whom he strongly disagrees about the nature of Christianity). I can relate my man. I can relate.

Watch the Lecture HERE.

Bonus:
General in a small army: Hauerwas battles for pacifism
___By Jason White
___Religion News Service
___WASHINGTON (RNS)--Less than two years after Time magazine named him America's best theologian, Stanley Hauerwas may well be the nation's loneliest.
___Hauerwas is a pacifist, a rare breed in today's world. He believes the only proper Christian response to aggression, even terrorism, is a non-violent one.
___In a season of renewed threats of war and orange alerts, that is no small cla

Stanley Hauerwas

im. For where Hauerwas' pacifism once was considered quirky or even quaint, it is now, in a post-9/11 world, thought by some to be dangerous. A few even call it immoral.
___So why persist?
___"I am a pacifist because I cannot imagine being anything other than a pacifist in light of the gospel of Christ," said Hauerwas, a professor of theology at Duke University.
___Hauerwas draws his pacifism from Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount is one resource. Another is the example Jesus set on the cross, where he chose to undermine evil by giving up his life.
___All Christians, as followers of Jesus, must live this way too, Hauerwas said. Christians, in other words, should be more ready to die than to kill.
___The fact most Christians think this claim is crazy, that most would rather kill than be killed, is for Hauerwas a sign they may not take following Jesus seriously enough.
___"I fear that one of the reasons non-violence isn't given the time of day is because so many American Christians think they can have a relationship with Jesus that doesn't have immediate implications for their lives," he said.
___For a nation threatened by a shadowy network of terrorists, these are fighting words. In some cases, they've served to marginalize Hauerwas, even imperiling old friendships.
___One such strained friendship is with Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest and editor of First Things, a journal of religion and public life. Until recently, Hauerwas was a member of the journal's editorial board. But when First Things took an increasingly hard-line stance in the war on terrorism, Hauerwas felt his beliefs were no longer respected. So he resigned.
___"I admire much of what they stand for, but I found their position about the war so antithetical to anything that I could even begin to identify with, I just finally thought I should resign," Hauerwas said.
___Neuhaus said he wished Hauerwas had stayed on.
___"It was his decision, not mine," Neuhaus said. "Stanley's a good friend, and we've argued these things for many, many years."
___As a just-war theorist, Neuhaus disagrees with Hauerwas over whether Christians should ever fight in a war. Neuhaus thinks they can, and that in the case of the U.S. war on terrorism, they should.
___Neuhaus said he does, however, respect Hauerwas' pacifist stance for its toughness. Unlike the humanistic pacifism that informs the anti-war statements of the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church and even the secular peace movement, he said, Hauerwas' non-violence is grounded in a realistic and skeptical view of human nature.
___"Stanley's not a utopian. He's not a sentimentalist. He doesn't believe that going over and hugging Saddam Hussein is going to resolve this crisis. Whereas many others seem to believe that if only we'd be nice to the Saddam Husseins of the world, they'd love us back and we'd all get along peachy."
___Raised the son of a bricklayer in Pleasant Grove, Hauerwas is as feisty and combative as intellectuals come. This bald and bearded professor has the mind-set of an NFL cornerback, with ever-alert eyes and hard-hitting tackles. He sometimes curses like a sailor--even in the classroom. Little about him suggests the meekness or gentleness so often associated with pacifism.
___William Cavanaugh, a friend and fellow theologian, has this to say about Hauerwas' tough nature: "Indeed, of all the great Christian pacifists over the centuries--Hippolytus, Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King--Stanley Hauerwas is the one I would want on my side in a bar fight."
___Hauerwas himself says one reason he so loudly proclaims his non-violent ethic is that others might keep him from killing someone.
___Despite an obvious passion for debating these issues, Hauerwas is a reluctant activist. At heart, he's an intellectual, more comfortable discussing the finer points of St. Augustine's "The City of God" than President Bush's foreign policy. Yet an activist is exactly what Hauerwas has become.
___"A lot of people don't think worshipping Jesus requires non-violence," he said. "I understand that, and that's the reason why I recognize that this is a long-haul business. ...
___"I've sort of become the pacifist voice. And I think of myself as so inadequate to do that. Yet I have to do it. I can't suddenly decide to get academic about this, because too much is at stake."

Get printer-friendly version of this story


Send this story to a friend

WORDS OF FIRE,DEEDS OF BLOOD- Robbie Robertson

The Native American Ten Commandments

Click the arrrow in the corner of the screen to stay with this blog while watching or listening.

Winona LaDuke: One would do well to live in accordance with natural law.

Winona LaDuke speaks on Genetic Engineering, Biodiversity and Decentralization: A view from the Native American perspective.

Watch HERE

Chomsky Speaks About Human Destiny

Click the arrrow in the corner of the screen to stay with this blog while watching or listening.

QUESTION: When we talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured?

CHOMSKY: To start with, there are two different groups, we can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there's two targets for propaganda. One is what's sometimes called the political class. There's maybe twenty percent of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate, plays some kind of role in decision-making. They're supposed to sort of participate in social life -- either as managers, or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They're supposed to vote, they're supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that's one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then there's maybe eighty percent of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything -- and they're the ones who usually pay the costs.

This is a repost.

Hit the Chomsky tag at the bottom of this post for more on Chomsky including:

How Noam Chomsky Helped Save My Spiritual Life