Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • I’m not trying to end to our conversation with people in these categories.  I’m trying to clarify the position of progressives by comparison with competing voices in the “progressive” movement.  I put progressive in quotation marks because there are non-progressive participants in this movement. In fact, there are categories of participants that we may not be aware of. I’m thinking of socially conservative Marxists, progressive Trump supporters, and the Greeks. Everyone who differs with us is important for purposes of comparison if nothing else. But who are the progressives’ friends?

    We can learn from our exchanges with them if we have the courage to ask hard questions and disagree when necessary.  But if we keep silent about our differences the conversation can’t help but be empty and purposeless, and it will become vulnerable to special interests.  The consequences of capitulation on our part will no doubt be very unpleasant.

    Aside from enriching our debates, many of these ‘voices’ have served our causes.  One individual in particular has worked hard to advance our agenda for the environment.  We could not have accomplished the things Pope Francis has accomplished in such a short time and I plan to remember what he has done and honor him for his service to us.  However, I think the time has come to identify what is American in the progressive conversation and for that matter, what is progressive about it.

    Occupy Wall Street and Marxism

    Since Occupy Wall Street burst on the scene we’ve seen a lot of Marxist rhetoric from the alternative media.  Most people who subscribe to these channels don’t know anything about Marxism except that it claims to be a solution to our present troubles.  Likewise, they don’t know anything about Occupy Wall Street.

    Unfortunately, it is likely that the agenda some of our allies are espousing will keep everything the same.  For example Caleb Maupin, a “Marxist” on YouTube, has been insisting that Marxism has always been socially conservative.  This is a direct challenge to progressive support for Roe v Wade. Similar to right-wing pundits, he resorts to a litany of Margaret Sanger’s racism and Malthusianism to justify his position and to ‘prove’ that Roe v Wade was a misguided piece of legislation from the beginning.

    It is also important for progressives to speak frankly about Roe v Wade and how it constrains our conversation.  The right for a woman to obtain an abortion–which is a medical procedure and not technically a political issue–is a very low bar as far as women’s rights are concerned. It is sad that we are forced to continually fight for it.  Unfortunately, the fight for Roe v Wade, which is already the law of the land, is as progressive as we are allowed to be in this political climate.  I regret this situation while I acknowledge the fight as necessary.  I also regret the way we are forced to be cheerleaders for abortion in response to conservatives’ obsession with it.

    Was Occupy Wall Street Socially Conservative?

    I believe Maupin was associated with Occupy Wall Street, which also claimed to have a Marxist foundation. Was OWS proposing socially conservative policies too?  This possible association is pretty enlightening, given that OWS temporarily took over our conversation in its early days. Were they proposing their own agenda for the conversation?

    This leads me to wonder whether the mutual admiration expressed between OWS and Vatican II Catholics indicates a deeper alliance than we realize.  Again, this is not a rejection of their ideas.  It is a request for clarification.

    For progressives, social conservatism usually implies control of women. This is not a progressive position.

    Reproductive Rights Are Not Faith-based

    Some will say that women have always dealt with social control and the country has more important things to worry about at this time.  That may be true, but what if the problems we are facing are a result of our culture’s control of women?   I’ve written about this in the past and I will write more in the future.

    Marxism on Population Control

    Another Marxist, Loren Goldner, claims that humans don’t have population limits like other species do because humans continually interact with the environment to create new environments.

    The universalism of Marx rests on a notion of humanity as a species distinct from other species in its capacity to periodically revolutionize its means of extracting wealth from nature, and therefore is free from the relatively fixed laws of population which nature imposes on other species.1

    This is clearly a matter of faith and I completely disagree with it.  I also believe it is contrary to the progressive agenda which advocates slowing population growth as much as possible and finding ways to care for the population we do have.  It is my understanding that this is the reason we fight for better management of the environment.

    Marx and Engels Use Class Analysis for Male-Female Relations

    Goldner’s praise of Marx and Engels on the importance of quality relations between men and women falls into this discussion about how humanity creates its own environment.  Basically Marxists deal with this issue under the heading of class.  This of course, diminishes the standing of women. On the contrary, I would argue that male-female relations are in a class of their own.

    Male-female relations should be decided by customs within the extended family, not by Marxist theory or work arrangements. However, Marxists don’t want to talk about this any more than capitalists do.  They would prefer to discuss same-sex marriage and gender rights. That way, they don’t have to make any changes to the fundamental position of women.

    Same-Sex Marriage and Trans Rights

    I agree that discrimination against gays and trans-people must be illegal, but the interesting thing in this development is the lack of attention to the position of women.  Why do we see this convergence of the left and right on women?

    It is clear to me that right-wing talking points, regardless of whether they come from the right or the left, cannot refute the current progressive movement.  Our agenda is the only sensible response being offered at this time to the realities of human existence.  But if the “Marxists” are successful in winning over the progressive movement, nothing will change because their policy proposals are identical to the Right and the Democratic establishment in the only ways that really matter. They negatively influence our relationship with nature and the way our culture deals with women.

    Loren Goldner on Marx and Civil Society

    Goldner envisions the following options given our current predicament:

    The fundamental question before the international left today is whether or not Marx was (as this writer believes) right to think that civil society could be abolished…on a higher level (which preserves and deepens the positive historical achievements of civil, that is, bourgeois society) and not on a lower level, as happened in Soviet-type societies. The second question, which follows hard on the first, is: if Marx was wrong about the critique of civil society, and was in fact a protototalitarian, what, if anything remains valid in his critique of political economy and its programmatic implications?…

    I haven’t yet said anything under the heading of progressive Trump supporters.  It seems to me this category overlaps with the people who supported Jill Stein in 2016 and those who are now arguing that Trump is better on foreign policy than Biden.  It also overlaps with those who have been refuting the DNC’s claim of Russian interference.

    I agree that the DNC is an embarrassment in many ways, but their opponents’ arguments verge on support for Putin, who is seen by many Christians as a champion for Christianity.  I would argue that there is one good reason to vote for Joe Biden and it can’t be rationalized in order to drum up support for Trump.

    Trump’s Covid Response

    During the covid19 pandemic Donald Trump has actually carried out policies that he knew would kill more people in blue states, and especially people of color.  In other words, he has not only admitted to homicidal tendencies, he has acted on this impulse.  Any progressive who argues that we should consider Trump as a candidate should not be trusted.  We don’t know if Joe Biden will be better, but at least he has not admitted to being homicidal!

    Unfortunately, the DNC is replaying Hillary’s 2016 choice of a vice presidential running mate.  Biden’s new running mate, Kamala Harris, is like a clone of Tim Kaine in her unpopularity with progressives.  Therefore I think it is possible that the Democrats don’t want to win in 2020 and that they didn’t want to win in 2016.  The only choice left to us is to turn out in such large numbers that Joe Biden wins in spite of himself.

  • We tried to defend the property rights of American Indians but the establishment made a point of laughing in our face.  We raised the money and the votes to put our candidate in the White House but they ran their stable of corporate stooges against us.  Now they want us to vote for their candidate even though he’s given us nothing.  We asked Joe Biden to promise to undo welfare reform and we got him spouting Rhaum Emmanuel’s talking points on income tax caps.  We refused to fall for their tricks when they tried to turn the races against each other, but they’ve killed George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and many others, and we’ve seen the videos.   What would you call a system like that?  Certainly not democracy.  

    We’ve tried it their way.  We did everything by the rules because this is our country and we care what happens to it.  But we flattered them by working within their system.   They didn’t deserve such a compliment.  They should be laughed at, scorned, held up to our children as an example of evil, and then ignored.  And if the mobs burn everything down, we’ll tell our children that’s what happens to people who love injustice.  

    A word to the wise for our fearless leaders.  You deserve this.  I would recommend that you don’t retaliate with more injustice.

  • I want to urge activists to use caution in the post-Bernie stage of this election cycle.  I’m a little worried about the tone the analyses have taken–not for Bernie, I’m worried for the activists.  It is crucial to the health of the movement to be able to put things in their proper perspective, especially now.  At this time the pundits are apparently just coming to terms with the fact that Bernie is out and they have to watch the smirking idiots in Washington calmly go on with their plans.  I won’t deny it is disgusting to watch–one can’t help but think they should be more afraid than they are, and yet their so-called plans lurch determinedly on.  If you think the job of government is to serve the people, it seems to go forward without rhyme or reason.

    Still, it is not time to lash out.  For one thing, it’s not over yet.  I’m not implying that our dreams still might miraculously come true, although if the world makes any kind of sense at all they should come true.  What I’m saying is that at this point we have no choice but to wait and hope.  Rather than tear everything down, we should be using this time to reconnoitre.

    We have learned some important facts during the course of these two campaigns.  For example, we’ve seen that our people in Congress have a firm grip on the mechanism of government at every level–including the press which is not even supposed to be a branch of government–and they have no fear of repercussions.

    My own analysis of Sanders’ campaign would go something like this: we could have used our time better in the interim between the two campaigns.  I would also like to suggest that some of Bernie’s million volunteers were not really Bernie supporters.  I believe that if our progressive pundits had volunteered by making calls and knocking on doors, they would have the same concern.  Who were the volunteers who sabotaged the good volunteers you ask?  Ask yourself what you would do if it was your job to keep Bernie out of the White House?  Wouldn’t you sign up to volunteer so you could sabotage the attempts by real supporters trying to do their job?  It would be so easy–you could be virtually anonymous.  Finally, I would like to ask the pundits how they thought Bernie could win by being humiliated at the polls in all of the remaining states, which I believe would certainly have happened.  If you didn’t see that coming after Iowa I’m not going to waste my time explaining it.  Anyway, I’ve already written about it here.

    To continue with my analysis, we jumped into this torrent in the middle of the river with no preparation.  It wasn’t our fault.  When I started talking about the 2016 presidential campaign, I had in mind the responsibility of citizens to pay attention to elections and to vote.  The presidential election was on the horizon and it seemed like a good idea.  The thing is, no one knew that Bernie would take the country by storm and that we would have to stand by while those devils took it from us.  All I hoped back then is that his campaign would add a little sanity to the downward spiral of our republic.

    I still think we have the responsibility to vote, but I clearly had some unrealistic expectations.  I thought we could choose our candidates based on what we understood to be the most pressing needs of the nation.  That would be our second lesson–we can’t.  The election process, at least at the presidential level, is nothing more than a long, expensive spectacle.  Oh, we still have free speech alright, but what does that do for us?  It saves us from the punishment of cement overshoes for speaking our mind, which is a good thing, but unfortunately it lasts a lot longer than cement overshoes.  At least with cement overshoes we’d be sleeping with the fishes, whereas elections never end.  And no, this is not an invitation for Bernie’s former supporters to check out.  We’re going to find a way to go on and this is how you do that–by calmly thinking it over.  Well, maybe not so calmly in every case.

    Now let’s turn our attention to these people who claim to be Democrats, but who have been treating us like poor relations at the reading of the will.  Who exactly are these people against whom we’ve been sending our own personal gladiator, Bernie Sanders, to do battle?  Where do they fit in the overall scheme of American history and world history?  Let’s look at them first in the context of American history.

    I won’t keep you in suspense.  The explanation is too long and I’m afraid you’ll forget the question by the time I get to the answer.  Our Democratic establishment is kin to the conservatives who defeated the liberal Republicans in the 1960s and 70s.  How do I know this?  Because the main issue that divided the Republican Party at that time was the New Deal.  Of course now the Conservatives are all about social issues, while back in the sixties they used anti-Communism as a rallying point for bringing the GOP together, but they kept their animosity toward the American middle class.  The liberal Republicans were in favor of the New Deal and the conservatives were against it.  The Clintons have always been on board with this conservative focus.

    We know that Hillary Clinton was a Young Republican and that she supported the great conservative hope, Barry Goldwater.  Of course now she makes a joke of it but I’ve never heard her renounce his ideas, have you?  You might be interested to know that her father used the same tactic.  He ran for a local office as a Democrat, although he was a Republican, and then switched back to being a Republican. I only wish Hillary Clinton had the decency to switch back!

    Fast forward to the Clinton administration.  Bill Clinton did battle against the middle class on several fronts, the most egregious assault being NAFTA, but also including financial deregulation with the end of the Glass Steagall Act, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Interesting isn’t it, that certain Democrats accuse others of not being Democrats when they are the ones who are not Democrats?

    You might want to read about how the conservative Republicans took over the party.  It’s explained in a book, Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP by Marry C. Brennan.  ((Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP, the University of North Carolina Press, 1995))

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • There are only two political rivals in the world today: organized crime and the state.  It is true that there are many seemingly valid state ideologies vying for attention, but they are mostly different versions of the same idea, none of which defend the state in the way it needs to be defended.  These versions include advocacy for shrinking the state, austerity, theocracy, xenophobia and zionism, neoliberalism and libertarianism.  Marxism also remains part of the conversation, but the Marxists are merely a convenient and irrelevant target for the conservative versions of the idea listed above.  I say irrelevant because the Marxists have mistaken notions about the state and these notions render them useless in the fight against organized crime.

    James Cockayne warns that a failure to understand how mafias work has led to the overlooking of a major force in global affairs.  What we are seeing today are the effects of a purposeful strategy for controlling the planet’s resources, and this strategy is a direct challenge to the authority of states.  It represents the imposition of an alternate form of governmentality—in other words, a mental framework or operating system.  The only entity capable of resisting organized crime is an efficient state. (James Cockayne, ”Hidden Power: The Strategic Logic of Organized Crime″, Oxford University Press, 2016)

    I think it’s obvious that  something similar to what happened in Italy after the World War Two is happening in the United States today.  Just like in Italy, the ruling class in the United States would rather prop up a criminal state than give any credence to the political left.  

    According to Cockayne’s book, the rise of organized crime was not inevitable.  The state’s silence, along with the media’s silence, has enabled it to gain power.  However, he doesn’t advocate direct confrontation, which most definitely would not work anyway.  He argues instead that states cannot simply disappear in this globalized world—they must learn to compete in the market for government.  A state must demonstrate that it is an effective, credible, rewarding system of government, and the people must understand this and choose to be governed by the state rather than the other options becoming available, from ISIS to the transnational gang model of the maras.  Otherwise, other forms of governmentality will continue to grow (309).

  • It’s disconcerting to talk about Christian grace in a blog like this.  You think about it later and worry about how you phrased it, or how others might take it. There is the fear that it will be misunderstood in the context of common assumptions about what is required to be successful in this life—that it will be interpreted as boasting.  

    And I realized after publishing the last post that I didn’t mention Jesus.  Or did I?  

    Grace is the love of God shown to the unlovely; the peace of God given to the restless; the unmerited favor of God…Grace is the opposite of karma, which is all about getting what you deserve.  Grace is getting what you don’t deserve, and not getting what you do deserve. [Grace] is Jesus Christ in redeeming action

    By the world’s standards grace is extraordinary, strange, and counterintuitive.  

    Christian Grace
    Merry Christmas

    A lot like if the incarnate deity, veiled in flesh, were born in a manger in Bethlehem. 

    Religion must guide the political moment.

  • Greta Thunberg and her fellow climate activists testified September 18, 2019 before the U.S. Congress. It’s painful to watch, but please watch the whole thing. There were many interesting observations but the one that stands out for me is that when the conservatives talk about the good of the economy, they mean the corporations and those who profit from them. They most certainly do not mean you and me.

  • Isaiah was encouraging in chapter 58. He addresses the same people in chapter 59, but with a marked difference.

    Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

    But your iniquites have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

    For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.

    None calleth for justice, nor any pledeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.

    They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.

    Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are words of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.

    Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.

    The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

    Therefore is judgement far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.

    We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.

    We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.

    For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;

    In transgressing and lying against the Lord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.

    And judgement is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

    Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

    And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

    For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.

    According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.

    So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him.

    And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.

    As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever. (Isaiah 59)

  • Update March 2, 2020:

    I wrote two similar articles about Marianne Williamson’s and Tulsi Gabbard’s healthcare vision. I’ve already deleted the other one because Williamson endorsed Bernie. I decided not to delete this one because I think it’s an important angle on the Medicare for All issue, but I want to be clear that I think my criticism of Williamson is now irrelevant–her decision to drop out of the race and endorse Bernie was an act of good faith.  She might have a different view than Bernie on this issue, but she is still part of the progressive movement.

    Traditional medical providers may consider alternative medicine a rival to Western medicine, but their patients have given their stamp of approval by spending $35 billion a year on alternative medical treatments, sometimes called CAM (complementary and alternative medicine).  So it’s not surprising that some of the nation’s biggest hospitals have recognized the lucrative potential of alternative medicine and are now joining forces with alternative medical providers.

    What are alternative treatments exactly?  According to an article on policymed.com

    While there is no official list of what alternative medicine actually comprises, treatments falling under the umbrella typically include acupuncture, homeopathy (the administration of a glass of water supposedly containing the undetectable remnants of various semi-toxic substances), chiropractic, herbal medicine, Reiki (“laying on of hands,” or “energy therapy”), meditation (now often called “mindfulness”), massage, aromatherapy, hypnosis, Ayurveda (a traditional medical practice originating in India), and several other treatments not normally prescribed by mainstream doctors.

    There has long been support in the U.S. Congress for alternative medicine.  This includes dietary supplements, which have been strongly supported by Orin Hatch among others.  However, you might be surprised to learn that this coalition is now a direct rival to Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All proposal, and not just philosophically speaking.  This rivalry is currently playing out in the presidential campaigns of Marianne Williamson and Tulsi Gabbard, who each have an interest in holistic medicine.  Williamson has a list of alternative medical services on her website, and A Course in Miracles is itself an alternative approach to health care.  Gabbard’s bipartisan initiative for marijuanna reform, while it is an important step toward criminal justice reform, includes alternative health care interests represented by Chanda Macias, MBA, PhD, CEO and owner of National Holistic Healing Center in DC.  Marijuanna is an important ingredient in alternative therapies.  In addition, one of the closest and oldest connections to Gabbard’s family, Chris Butler, offers alternative health services centered around yoga.   In 2002 Yoga was the 5th most commonly used CAM therapy.

    A survey released in May 2004  by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine focused on who used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), what was used, and why it was used in the United States by adults age 18 years and over during 2002.

    According to this survey, Yoga was the 5th most commonly used CAM therapy (2.8%) in the United States during 2002.

    It may be somewhat surprising to learn that holistic practitioners oppose Medicare for All.  The explanation for this begins with the fact that insurance policies don’t typically pay for alternative therapies.  Patients pay for them out-of-pocket, and that suits practitioners just fine.  If their treatments were covered by insurance they would have to abide by certain guidelines, and they prefer to treat their patients according to their own criteria.  Furthermore, if taxes were increased to pay for medical care, in other words, if people knew their health care was already paid for, and if that care was freely available, it would seriously effect the bottom line of alternative practitioners.   So alternative medical providers have a stake the status quo, like insurance companies.   Where does that leave us as far as a political strategy is concerned?

    You might be thinking that if alternative medicine is cheaper, changing the way practitioners practice might be a solution.  After all, integrative medicine, which combines traditional treatments with alternative medicine, is a growing industry and several candidates have stressed the importance of preventative medicine.  But unfortunately, chronic disease isn’t going to disappear and there is no scientific evidence that alternative therapies can address these illnesses as well as traditional medicine.

    On the other hand, there seems to be general agreement that Western medicine needs to change its focus.  Its medical infrastructure was designed to combat infectious diseases, and it works well for that purpose.  However its success with infectious agents has brought complex chronic diseases into focus, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s.  Chronic diseases now account for three fourths of our health care spending.

    In other words, preventive measures are important, but there is also the problem of whether patients are able and willing to follow those preventive measure.   At some point, the effects of low-wage jobs, unaffordable housing, and the lack of clean water and healthy food will come into the picture.  In addition, alternative and integrative medicine are not free.

    There are improvements to the current system that must be made, but they will take time.  In the meantime, Medicare for All is desparately needed.  And it’s favored by the majority of the population.  In this light, resistance from practitioners of holistic medicine seems rather self-centered.  And considering the other forces arrayed against single-payer insurance, resistance from alternative interests is the last thing this country needs.

    Many doctors are supportive of Medicare For All, but the AMA is organizing against it.

    The AMA is currently allied with other industry groups in the fight against Medicare for All as a part of a group called “Partnership for America’s Health Care Future,” which is spending millions of dollars and is backed by the American Hospital Association, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans, which includes Cigna, Anthem, Centene and other health insurance giants.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Roe v Wade has been a gift to the Republican Party. A candidate can be a war monger, a corporate puppet, and eat puppies and kittens for breakfast, but if he or she is pro-life none of that will matter to conservative voters.   Another candidate can have a great plan for the economy and a sterling political record, but if she is pro-choice a large portion of the American electorate will never vote for her.   What would the Republicans do without Roe v Wade?

    They use abortion to get votes the same way they use the bad behavior of foreign leaders to justify military intervention.  Their rhetoric implies that pro-choice voters are baby-hating monsters while it promotes suspicion of  every woman of child-bearing age.   And votes are just one part of the story.  The abortion issue allows them to co-opt the conversation with constant threats, horror stories, and authoritarian legislation.  As a result, reasonable people find themselves fighting for the rights of women they don’t know, as if abortion is some kind of prize.

    Some judges have said they will not enforce Alabama’s law, and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) is on record saying the legislation is so severe he is concerned that it won’t be effective in overturning Roe v Wade.   Maybe that is the purpose of Alabama’s extreme approach.  Republicans don’t want to reverse Roe v Wade.

     

     

     

     

     

  • I’m pretty sure that when you chose your vocation you were an idealist.  How long was it, I wonder, before you realized they had groomed you to keep their wealthy donors happy?  And that’s not even the worst of it.  They expect you to make nice with a bunch of silver-tongued dingbats who are doing the same thing you’re doing but without your scruples.  Unless I’m terribly mistaken about you, your association with one such dingbat must be excruciating.  I’m talking about the guy who refuses to say if he believes in God and then while he’s dancing around the question it gradually becomes clear that he’s congratulating himself for being more moral than people who profess their beliefs–like you.  What’s a nice guy like you doing in a place like this?

    He argues that it’s audacious to say one believes in God because one must live a perfect life in order to make such a claim.  (I would like to hear you address that claim by the way, but you’re not free to do so, are you.) He references Nietzsche and Slavoj Zizek and Jesus on the cross as justification for his prevarication and then he expounds on what it really means to believe–according to him.

    I assume you see through him; that you would like to tell him that he’s got it wrong, that humans are not supermen.  I really think you know he’s got it backwards–that part of believing is acknowledging one’s weakness.  But then it must also have occurred to you that he doesn’t necessarily mean what he says.  He just wants to keep the money rolling in.  So he frames his hollow cynicism as existential anguish and you keep your thoughts to yourself.

     

     

     

     

     

     

error: Content is protected !!