Im a Racist

[Hemodoc]

Amazing how a treatise to love your enemies by Jesus brings out so much hatred in you folks. But after all, the is the Alinsky method in action.

Choose your sides, I have chosen mine.

[Gerald Lively]

Ones religion is very personal.  If you keep shoving it in our faces, someone will eventually respond and there is no where to go but down into chaos.  This is not "hate" as you characterize, these are personal beliefs.  I have only asked that you refrain from posting relious dogma unless you can offer emperical evidence that God or Jesus ever existed.  So, please stop, now.

gerald

[Hemodoc]

Ones religion is very personal.  If you keep shoving it in our faces, someone will eventually respond and there is no where to go but down into chaos.  This is not "hate" as you characterize, these are personal beliefs.  I have only asked that you refrain from posting relious dogma unless you can offer emperical evidence that God or Jesus ever existed.  So, please stop, now.

gerald

Israel

[willowtreewren]

Amazing how a treatise to love your enemies by Jesus brings out so much hatred in you folks. But after all, the is the Alinsky method in action.

Choose your sides, I have chosen mine.

I have not seen very much hatred in the posts. I have seen a long-standing lack of respectful mode of communication. As I counsel my students, when one is asked civilly to cease and desist a practice and continues to do that very thing, it displays a lack of respect.

That speaks more to the character of those displaying lack of respect than those toward whom that lack is directed. It might cause observers of the parley to doubt one's adherence to a doctrine of loving one's enemies.

Aleta

[Hemodoc]

Dear Cariad,

I would counter that the Alinsky approach only fosters more hatred and strife instead of bringing people together. It is the lack of love for the fellow man that is at the heart of discord whether by geography, color of the skin, creed, religion or simple greed. I believe God has already given us a much better way in the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:38     ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39     But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40     And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41     And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42     Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43     ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44     But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45     That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46     For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47     And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

When Paul the apostle went to the executioner, tradition records that several of his guards that kept him locked with chains willingly declared Jesus their savior as well and went to their deaths beside him. That is the love of God that men are willing to live and love their enemies as is Paul's testimony. Alinsky truly teaches the opposite.

Hemodoc, I have no idea why you seem to want to talk to me about religion as I have run out of ways to explain that I am an atheist/humanist/rationalist. However, since you brought up the Sermon on the Mount, I will look to others that I trust to express my feelings to you. First, Bill Maher. Same warnings about strong language and spoofing conservatives. This clip details how Jesus would fare as a Republican presidential candidate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7KgYI8T1yg

Second, and much more intellectually, let's let Kurt Vonnegut with his military experience and degrees in chemistry and anthropology have his say:

How do Humanists feel about Jesus? I say of Jesus, as all Humanists do, "If what he said is good, and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not?"

But if Christ hadn't delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn't want to be a human being.

I'd just as soon be a rattlesnake.
-K. Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country, pp. 80-81

Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. A lot of people think Jesus said that, because it is so much the sort of thing Jesus liked to say. But it was actually said by Confucious, a Chinese philosopher, five hundred years before there was that greatest and most humane of human beings, named Jesus Christ.

The Chinese also gave us, via Marco Polo, pasta and the formula for gunpowder. The Chinese were so dumb they only used gunpowder for fireworks. And everybody was so dumb back then that nobody in either hemisphere even knew that there was another one.

We've sure come a long way since then. Sometimes I wish we hadn't. I hate H-bombs and the Jerry Springer Show.

But back to people like Confucious and Jesus and my son the doctor, Mark, each of whom have said in their own way how we can behave more humanely and maybe make the world a less painful place. One of my favorite humans is Eugene Debs, from Terre Haute in my native state of Indiana.

Get a load of this. Eugene Debs, who died back in 1926, when I was not yet 4, ran five times as the Socialist Party candidate for president, winning 900,000 votes, almost 6 percent of the popular vote, in 1912, if you can imagine such a ballot. He had this to say while campaigning:

As long as there is a lower class, I am in it.
As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it.
As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools, or health insurance for all?

When you get out of bed each morning, with the roosters crowing, wouldn't you like to say "As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

How about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes?

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

And so on.

Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld stuff.

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

"Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon? Give me a break!
-Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country, pp. 95-98

Satire. Sarcasm. And without doubt as lyrical and as peaceful a writing as anything I've ever read or could hope to read.

If you want to discuss religion with me further, place your bait in a more appropriate place. I come here to discuss racism in all its forms in this country.

Dear Cariad, yes you are right, it is time for me to move on and take care of other issues. I joined this "discussion" a little over two weeks ago because of false allegations that Tea Party motivations are racist. I reopened a thread started in 2009 complaining about the same thing after that intial discussion. That is the OP of this thread. Today, I have been accused of, well, read it just because I disagreed with Alinsky rule #11 and instead believed a better philosophy was that of the Sermon of the Mount to love your enemy instead which I readily confess is difficult to practice in the face of insults and false accusations. But nevertheless, it is what we are commanded.

You state you are here to discuss racism and for me to take my religion elsewhere which I am sure you will all be glad to hear I will with this last post. I would point out that the 1964 civil rights act considers religious Discrimination part of the "racism" it covers. You folks have openly castigated and ridiculed me and my religion while at the same time adhering to a so called racial harmony.

[Workplace discrimination on the basis of religious belief is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"There is a general increase in the secularization of society, and a correspondingly broadening acceptance of the misguided concept that religion is something that should be kept behind closed doors. Many believe that one's religious beliefs should not affect the workplace at all," said Theriot in an interview with The Christian Post.

Theriot also noted that oftentimes employers do not accommodate individuals who believe their faith should influence the whole of their lives, including work.

"We receive many calls from evangelicals and devout Catholics whose employers either require them not to mention their faith at work at all, or insist that they perform work tasks that conflict with their faith such as affirm homosexual behavior or participate in abortions," said Theriot.

I have learned much in the last two weeks and America is much further down a frightful path than I understood. Thank you Carrie for all of the videos and other material which I must frankly admit I never watch by choice. I seriously doubt that there is any virtue that is not ridiculed in todays world. I have learned more about Alinsky than I frankly wanted to as well. I would leave you with the message that religious discrimination is part and parcel of the racism that you wish to discuss.

In any case, I will bid all a fond goodbye from this thread and you can freely go back to castigating the Tea Party and people of faith like me as you were doing prior to my first post countering the false allegations.

I have no doubt that soon you will silence the religious right here in America. It is much further along than I had imagined. I readily understand that is going to soon be the will of the majority of people here in America. I also understand that we have been expecting this day to come for the last 2000 years from the teachings of the Bible. It is sad to see the day upon us already, but ultimately that is the will of God to turn this world over to people in the fullest exercise of free will. Be careful what you choose my friends.

[Willis]

From page 121 of my electronic copy of the book:

Let us take one of the negative stereotypes that so many whites have of blacks: that blacks like to sit around eating watermelon. Suppose that 3,000 blacks suddenly descended into downtown sections of any city, each armed with and munching a huge piece of watermelon. This spectacle would be so far outside the experience of whites that they would be unnerved and disorganized. In alarm over what the blacks were up to, the establishment would probably react to the advantage of the blacks. Furthermore, the whites would recognize at last the absurdity of their stereotype of black habits. Whites would squirm in embarrassment, knowing that they were being ridiculed. That would be the end of the black watermelon stereotype. I think that this tactic would bring the administration to contact black leadership and ask what their demands were even if no demands had been made.

Cariad,

I really don't want to get into the Alinsky controversy, but this particular scenario which I assume was written in the late 60s was just fantasy. I suspect if this watermelon eating "mob" marched in the streets of 2012 it would gather a lot of white support and maybe even make the point Alinsky assumed the action would make. It would just be humorous to most--white and non-white alike.

However, I personally spent time in southern Mississippi in 1970 working with John Perkins (a contemporary of MLK) at a school he had founded in a small town named Mendenhall, Mississippi. John Perkins was once beat up so bad that he was hospitalized for months and almost died. He returned to the school but ultimately his efforts among the poor blacks of Mendenhall failed and he moved to the capital (Jackson) for the safety of his family.  Because Jackson was a major city it was easier to do his civil rights work without the constant threat of death. Even so, he eventually moved to Southern California when his health and courage finally gave out. http://www.lionshare.org/FathersoftheFaith/TheFathers/JohnPerkins.aspx

While I was in Mendenhall it was just a given that crossing the tracks into the white part of town was a very dangerous thing to do. It was especially dangerous for people like me who the locals considered to be agitators. Over many years up until the 1990s, the local authorities murdered several dozen blacks INSIDE THE JAIL and covered the murders up as suicides. These murders were eventually ended only when the FBI finally got involved (after 20 years of foot-dragging). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n7_v58/ai_15533722/pg_3/ Or just google his name--there have been books written about him.

I bring these experiences up because I believe, based on personal experience, that if a group of blacks in Mendenhall or likely anywhere else in Mississippi or Alabama during the 60s and 70s had tried Alinsky's suggested watermelon "gag" the results would have been catastrophic. It's likely that much blood would have been shed immediately, but if not (due to the size of the opposition) the seething hatred by many whites in those times would have found a way to retaliate against other innocent blacks. It didn't take much to instigate a lynching and white law enforcement turned its back. And, as evidenced by the article above, when public lynchings became impossible, grotesque murders disguised as something else took their place. Mendenhall just happened to be one of the most heinous examples, but this was happening all over the American South as recently as the 1990s.

In those years even many white people were against Jim Crow and segregation but to speak out only invited social chastisement at least or more likely serious physical harm. My own family lived in Arkansas in the 1950s and to her credit my mother forced my father to move our family to California because she didn't want us exposed to the Jim Crow culture. I think the tide has finally turned even in the deepest parts of the Deep South and at least the bigotry is now mostly social. Perhaps in another generation such bigotry will be a thing of the past.

 

[amanda100wilson]

Finally something on this thread that was interesting, although I've had a fair amount of amusement  'browsing, not reading' the mounting rants, but on another level, somwhat alarming, particularly as I envisage the spittle-covered computer as the author of the post gets ever more frenzied.

[RichardMEL]

Aleta - your comments about respect are spot on I think.

I try to not comment on religious issues. Much like Cariad(I think anyway) I have no real religious views - I personally object to most organised religions for the very nature that they tend to push *their* version of things, or their beliefs, onto others and proclaim every other view is "wrong" because it doesn't fit with theirs - yet amusingly just about every religion seems to have its own version of "love thy neighbour" yet somehow don't manage to practice what they preach - at least fundamentalist members/believers rather than more moderates which most people of faith, in my view, seem to be. That's just my view/opinion. If God/Buddha/Allah/whoever appears and provides proof of existance then sure, I'll go with that flow.. until then I want to keep an open mind. Again, that's just an opinion and isn't any more right or wrong than anyone else's - whatever they may be.

I think most people object in some way or other to being beaten about the head with any extreme message, or having it shoved  in their faces without request endlessly - whatever that view be - a racial one, political, religious or even sexual. For me I see it like my view of smokers/smoking. I don't like smoking, and I think it is a pretty foul habit, and I avoid smokers wherever I can - BUT I don't have an issue with those that do smoke (their choice) or look down on them somehow. However if someone wants to take me to task for not smoking for some reason, then I would object. I'm not telling smokers to not smoke (though were I to consider dating one, I perhaps would make my preference known, and also concerns for health related issues from smoking-because I care- but I wouldn't tell her to NOT smoke or tell her OFF for smoking-her choice... just as my choice would probably end up being to not really want to date someone who stunk of cigarette smoke all day-but that's MY choice). Anyway if someone was to give me grief over that choice/opinion I would object - just like the smoker would have every right to be annoyed if I was to berate them for smoking. So, that example can be then extended to cover other things - like religious or political views.

In the context of this, and other, threads on IHD(or anywhere) I personally feel that if someone wants to share their religious/political/cultural viewpoint that's fine. I do, however, draw the line at such views being used as part of an argument - eg: "You're wrong because you support/believe in ...." or whatever. These things can be appropriately linked in other ways, for example "My opinion on this issue is such-and-such because of my beliefs in ...."

All of our opinions are just that - opinions. Not really right or wrong - because again any "definition" of what is right or wrong is, yep, an opinion and very subjective.

Oh and Galvo yep, gearing up for the footy but I can't discuss that here lest I be accused of being racist towards Collingwood!!!! 

[cariad]

Cariad,

I really don't want to get into the Alinsky controversy, but this particular scenario which I assume was written in the late 60s was just fantasy.

Definitely just fantasy. Also, it was published in 1971, no idea how long it took him to write, but it's a short book.

I suspect if this watermelon eating "mob" marched in the streets of 2012 it would gather a lot of white support and maybe even make the point Alinsky assumed the action would make. It would just be humorous to most--white and non-white alike.

However, I personally spent time in southern Mississippi in 1970 working with John Perkins (a contemporary of MLK) at a school he had founded in a small town named Mendenhall, Mississippi. John Perkins was once beat up so bad that he was hospitalized for months and almost died. He returned to the school but ultimately his efforts among the poor blacks of Mendenhall failed and he moved to the capital (Jackson) for the safety of his family.  Because Jackson was a major city it was easier to do his civil rights work without the constant threat of death. Even so, he eventually moved to Southern California when his health and courage finally gave out. http://www.lionshare.org/FathersoftheFaith/TheFathers/JohnPerkins.aspx

While I was in Mendenhall it was just a given that crossing the tracks into the white part of town was a very dangerous thing to do. It was especially dangerous for people like me who the locals considered to be agitators. Over many years up until the 1990s, the local authorities murdered several dozen blacks INSIDE THE JAIL and covered the murders up as suicides. These murders were eventually ended only when the FBI finally got involved (after 20 years of foot-dragging). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n7_v58/ai_15533722/pg_3/ Or just google his name--there have been books written about him.

I bring these experiences up because I believe, based on personal experience, that if a group of blacks in Mendenhall or likely anywhere else in Mississippi or Alabama during the 60s and 70s had tried Alinsky's suggested watermelon "gag" the results would have been catastrophic. It's likely that much blood would have been shed immediately, but if not (due to the size of the opposition) the seething hatred by many whites in those times would have found a way to retaliate against other innocent blacks. It didn't take much to instigate a lynching and white law enforcement turned its back. And, as evidenced by the article above, when public lynchings became impossible, grotesque murders disguised as something else took their place. Mendenhall just happened to be one of the most heinous examples, but this was happening all over the American South as recently as the 1990s.

In those years even many white people were against Jim Crow and segregation but to speak out only invited social chastisement at least or more likely serious physical harm. My own family lived in Arkansas in the 1950s and to her credit my mother forced my father to move our family to California because she didn't want us exposed to the Jim Crow culture. I think the tide has finally turned even in the deepest parts of the Deep South and at least the bigotry is now mostly social. Perhaps in another generation such bigotry will be a thing of the past.

 

Interesting, thanks for the insight, Willis. Perhaps it would have been catastrophic, although I have to say that if you read this book he gives many examples of his work as an organizer and he had tremendous intuition. He was giving broad examples of how things do or could unfold. Alinsky spent time in prison for his actions and he was trained by the organizer of the great GM sit-in of the 1930s. Unfortunately he died before he could expand his work to helping the middle class.

Alinsky proudly wore the label agitator and would have encouraged you to do the same, although I don't remember if he received death threats or not. He had his own bigotry with which to contend - he mentions anti-semitism being so prevalent in Chicago that he stopped noticing it. Perhaps not on the same level of danger as Southern racism towards blacks, but then his was the generation that saw what wide-scale anti-semitism could bring. I know it pales in comparison to what blacks in the south endured, but my own father was punched in the stomach by a music teacher when he was 7 for refusing to sing a Christmas carol. This happened in front of the entire class at an expensive private school, so you can well imagine what the working class Jewish kids were facing.

I don't blame you for not wanting to involve yourself in this controversy, though I think it is a tragedy that there is a controversy. We should not fear different ideas. I do find it offensive, and perhaps you could give me your perspective on this, but to me the suggestion to any oppressed group should not be 'turn the other cheek, martyr yourself' it should be 'stand up for yourself, work together and demand your rights.' That is what I got out of the Sermon on the Mount speech. As a female living in sexist America, I have no desire to be a martyr. I will stand up for women's rights or I would feel that I had become part of the problem. The time to martyr yourself is when that is your only option - and that is Saul Alinsky's method right there. Use whatever you have available to safely and non-violently win what you know is right.

Anyhow, I do so appreciate you sharing your views, Willis. You make such good points, and so calmly, that I should probably consider you as dangerous as some consider Alinsky. What if I wake up tomorrow to discover I've turned conservative? You'll be hearing from me if that happens, my friend.

[galvo]

Cariad, I must admit that my knowledge of Arabic vowels is about as strong as my knowledge of the mating habits of the giant aardvark. I am, however, in your debt for introducing me to Bill Maher.

Richard, ho! ho! ho! (rest assured my American friends, I am not encouraging the lad to indulge in depravity, any more than he does now).

Hemodoc, Mongolia!

بركة, مقدس

[cariad]

Cariad, I must admit that my knowledge of Arabic vowels is about as strong as my knowledge of the mating habits of the giant aardvark. I am, however, in your debt for introducing me to Bill Maher.

Aw, so glad you enjoyed, galvo. Least I could offer to a citizen of the land that gave us Tim Minchin.

A little ditty of his called Prejudice (with a language caution):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw&feature=related

[Hober Mallow]

In any case, I will bid all a fond goodbye from this thread and you can freely go back to castigating the Tea Party and people of faith like me as you were doing prior to my first post countering the false allegations.

I have no doubt that soon you will silence the religious right here in America.

As far as the Tea Party, you can understand, can't you, why there would be some question about the tea party's motives when everything they say they are against was going on during the Bush administration? We aquired record debt during the Bush administration, yet the tea party didn't exist until Barack Obama was elected.

As for Christianity, and speaking as a Christian myself, the problem isn't anyone trying to silence Christians, it's that so many Christians are marginalizing themselves by insisting upon a staunch literalism, turning religion into history, the sacred into secular, and God--a transcendent concept--into an old man who lives in the clouds; religion reduced to history isn't religion. God reduced to a literal old man is tantamount to our creating God in *our* image instead of the other way around. As we continue to advance our scientific understanding of the universe, Christianity will die out if it can't finally accept the science of the day. The earth is more than six thousand years old. There was not a literal Garden of Eden. As someone who finds spiritual value in Christianity, which has undoubtedly shaped the modern Western world, I would consider its death a sad thing.

But as Joseph Campbell once said, there is no conflict whatsoever between science and religion; the conflict is between the science of 2000 AD and the science of 2000 BC.The problem with Christianity, why we're unable to recognize the signs and symbols for what they are--metaphors for that which transcends all words and ability for human beings to think about--is that we've inherited a tradition which was cultivated halfway around the world from another culture in another time. The symbols don't click with us in our culture because we don't recognize them as symbols. It's like Christ's parables; if you take them literally, you miss the point of them entirely.

It's helped me to read the sacred texts of other religions, which use the same symbols again and again, but interpreted in very different ways.  In Greek myth, you have the story of Persephone and Demeter. Demeter is harvesting grain while her daughter Persephone goes off to play around in the grass. She spies a serpent. Just then, out of a hole in the ground, Hades rides his chariot, charges at Persephone, snatches her up, and returns to the underworld. Demeter goes to Zeus and begs him to make Hades return her daughter. Zeus tells her if she has eated the pomegranite, he can do nothing. She will be trapped. In the end, Persephone is allowed to return part of the year, which accounts for the change in seasons: the summer is Demeter's time of happiness being reunited with her daughter; the winter is her sorrow as she pines for her lost child. In other words, the field of time has been initiated, whereas before all was bliss.

Some scholars suspect that the serpent's appearance just before Hades emerges from a hole in the ground may be a clue that in an earlier version of the story, it was actually a giant serpent who came out of the ground and snatched the goddess away. If that's the case, the story can be summed up as follows: the goddess, at the behest of the serpent, eats a forbidden fruit which initiates all life in the field of time.

It's the same story as Genesis.

The problem is we've forgotten how to read the symbols. Throughout the world in myths from all cultures, the serpent has represented the same power as that of the goddess--the eternal taking form in the field of time.  The goddess's power is the same as that of all women, to create and and sustain new life. She is also a destoyer of life and forms, however. That's the dual nature of the field of time: forms are created and forms are destroyed. The serpent also represents the power of the moon of being able to throw off death and be reborn, as the serpent throws off its old skin (and the moon throws off its shadow; many early Christian images show a crescent moon hanging above Christ on the cross).

So the idea of the Genesis story is that the eternal has broken forth into forms within the field of time. And God tells Adam that this means he'll have to till the ground, that he will die and have to have children, all the things that come with being a form in the field of time.

Now when forms break into the field of time, they break into pairs of opposites. Light, dark, male, female, good, evil. Indeed the tree from which man was instructed not to eat was called the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Adam was split into pairs of opposites, male and female. Breaking forth into the field of time means, just as God said in the story, death. But whereas in the Greek story the only promise for the future is for alternating periods of delight and sorrow (which is what life is, after all), there is in the Christian tradition a way past the pairs of opposites back to the eternal bliss from which we've exiled ourselves.

Remember there was another tree in the garden, the tree of immortal life. In the Christian tradition, that tree is the cross, and Christ is the fruit of that tree. And so when you partake of the Holy Communion, you're eating of the fruit of that tree. And if you meditate on what you're doing, that you are participating in the ritual to identify not with your ego and with your form which is limited to a certain short lifepan, but with that which is truly eternal, then for you there is eternal life.

Most world religions are religions of identity, which see all forms as manifestations of the divine, God in all things. Christianity, by most people who call themselves Christians, is a religion of relationship, where God is something seperate from his creation. The world is not God, the world is corrupt, and the focus is on history and ethics--particularly ethics, in which one must place himself on one side or the other of an ethical dividing line. Most religions aren't like that. However, since the same symbols are used in Christianity that are used in every other religion in the world, Christianity can be read the other way as well, can be experienced as a religion of identity. Unfortunately, most people cut themselves off from that experience.

I would, again, as a Christian, be saddened by its demise. But I fear unless modern Christians give up a history and cosmology that's been outdated for centuries and focus on the actual religion, which doesn't depend on having a pig-headed belief in a six-thousand year old earth, Christianity is going to go the way of the Flat-Earth Society.

Sorry, folks, didn't mean to go off a tangent for so long.

[Gerald Lively]

Symbolism is a part of ideology which is the basis for religion.  It is far easier to have someone tell you what is what than to thinking it through for yourself.  In the place of a specific prophet, lecturer or philosopher, we have ideology.  In time, the static thinking of the ideological will takes a toll; which is the price taken for standing against the progress of time.

Joseph Campbell may be correct but I stand against all dogma, I challenge all authority, and I rail against rules; for they are the burden of the anti-intellectual.

Today, in the America where I live, we see the result of ideology.  Please consider the top half of the front page of the news:

1.     Politics continue to be more important than the fate of the American people.  This guy lied and that guy broke all of his promises, and millions are out of work, waiting for so mething to happen.  Perhaps that “happening” will be bread-lines.
2.     It looks like J.P. Morgan misinformed Congress about its latest losses by about $4 billion.  What’s a buck or two here and there?
3.     There is t alk about “food inflation” due to the super hot summer.  Soon we will all be eating Top Ramen.
4.     The Occupy movement and the LA police are at it again.  Thump the protesters and ignore the message. Say, is anyone listening? 
5.     And state governments are arguing same-sex marriages.  Is that important?
6.     A glacier in Alaska let go, causing a historic landslide five miles long.  Experts say it is due to warming weather in recent years. Does anyone care what caused this landslide?
7.     Hey, Jennifer Lopez quit American Idol. Headlines! 
8.     China’s economic growth has slowed, perhaps they can’t continue to buy up oil interests in the middle east and Venezuala.  Or are they just joining the rest of the World in their economic troubles.
9.     Syria has produced another of their daily massacres and the peace-keepers are busy with politics.
10. China and the Philippines are farting around about who owns what stretch of water in the ocean.
11. Hillary says we can invest in Burma now.   I wonder if the sell derivatives?
12. Penn State reminds me of a shotgun blast into a tree that was, moments ago, filled with birds. What ever happened to the Golden Rule?
13. Some people are trying to keep other people from voting, or, do we really need a national ID?
14. And Scientology is not a cult, according to Scientology.
15. And nobody gets my password because it is safe with Yahoo.
 
If ideology was a substrata of daily life, held as a personal belief, perhaps none of these news items would esist.
gerald the curdmugeon

[Hober Mallow]

Symbolism is a part of ideology which is the basis for religion.  It is far easier to have someone tell you what is what than to thinking it through for yourself.  In the place of a specific prophet, lecturer or philosopher, we have ideology.  In time, the static thinking of the ideological will takes a toll; which is the price taken for standing against the progress of time.

Joseph Campbell may be correct but I stand against all dogma, I challenge all authority, and I rail against rules; for they are the burden of the anti-intellectual.

Symbolism has nothing to do with ideology or dogma. It's the basis for all human thought and language. Mythology is a symbolic language, just as is mathematics, without which there is no science. The problem in our time isn't religion, the problem is that most people today mistake their religion for history. Religion as history or science isn't religion, and if one's spiritual life is dependent on believing one's scripture is history, one has no real spiritual life. Religious ideology then is when one fails to recognize the symbolic language of their local myth.

All myths are true in the sense that they refer to that which transcends thought, that which cannot be expressed in words. It's when we put myths into words and say they are literally true that we have not myth, but ideology. When we point to the Bible and say that there is nothing beyond those words, God is literally what it says -- what you see it what you get -- then we have, in essence, created God in our own image instead of the other way around and we're worshiping an idol.

We've forgotten how to read myths and experience religion. As I said, in order for a religion to be working and meaningful in our modern world is that it absolutely must accept today's science.

If ideology was a substrata of daily life, held as a personal belief, perhaps none of these news items would esist.
gerald the curdmugeon

But that's just the thing. Myth isn't supposed to be ideology. I put to you just the opposite: our lack of myth/religion is the reason for much of the world's turmoil. Those who think they're religious really aren't. A culture with a properly functioning myth is a culture without any such problems.

[Gerald Lively]

Dogma, simply put, is religious ideology.  Ideology is for those who are lazy thinkers.

[Hober Mallow]

Dogma, simply put, is religious ideology.  Ideology is for those who are lazy thinkers.

I agree. Howver, a living religion requires neither dogma nor ideology.

Or let's put it this way: the purpose of organized religion is keep people from having a religious experience.

[Simon Dog]

Racism persists in subtle forms - and there are even socially accepted forms of racism that presently exist.

A black person who says he is voting for Obama because he is black, and will therefore be assumed to best represent the interests of a black voter is not looked upon with scorn, disrespect, or even considered racist - but woe to the white person who says they are voting for the white candidate simply because of his race.

Anything that judges an action of someone of one race by a different standard than an individual of another race is, simply put, racist.

[MooseMom]

A black person who says he is voting for Obama because he is black, and will therefore be assumed to best represent the interests of a black voter is not looked upon with scorn, disrespect, or even considered racist - but woe to the white person who says they are voting for the white candidate simply because of his race.

This argument sounds logical upon first glance, but black people who voted for Mr. Obama solely because he is black did so for symbolic reasons based in history that simply can't be so easily dismissed.  Anyone who has an ounce of understanding of the issues of slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation and how those disgraceful episodes in American history have undermined the whole of our society instinctively appreciate that a black person voting for Obama solely because of his race is NOT the same thing as a white person voting for a white candidate solely because of HIS race.  Pretending otherwise shows purposeful blindness.

[Simon Dog]

If "racism" is simply judging someone based on race rather than any other factors (content of character and all that), then the previous post argues that the disgraceful history of the US in the area of racial laws creates a license for racist behavior by a subset of the population.

This brings to mind another question - if I vote for Romney not because he is white, but because he is less likely to give out "Romney Phones" and other transfer payments to those who cannot afford them, does the fact that this disparately impacts certain socioeconomic segments of the population make me a racist?  I think not, but others may disagree.

[MooseMom]

I don't think that any definition of "racism" is simple, and I don't think that the mechanisms by which each of us judge people are simple, either.  Perhaps we should just refrain from judging anyone in the first place.

Creating a "license for racist behavior" doesn't mean that anyone should give in to that particular temptation.

There is a difference between "racist" and "racial".

If you were to vote for Romney because he is less likely to give out "Romney Phones" to those who cannot afford them, and if that fact negatively impacts certain socioeconomic segments of the population, that does not make you a racist unless you are using the term "certain socioeconomic segments of the population" as code for "non-white."  That would mean that you are not in fact talking about socioeconomics at all but that you were actually talking about race.  It would also indicate that you have a very good idea of who else is speaking in the same "code".

[jbeany]

The fun'll come out tomorrow
Bet your last tax dollar that tomorrow there'll be fun
Just thinkin' about tomorrow
Clears away the congress and the sorrow till there's none

When I'm stuck with a day of mud slinging, I just stick out my chin and grin and say
The fun'll come out tomorrow
So you got to hang on till tomorrow, came what may!
 
Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love you, tomorrow You're always a day away
I just stick out my chin and grin and say
The fun'll come out tomorrow
So you got to hang on till tomorrow, came what may!



Don't forget to vote!   

[WishIKnew]

cute jbeany - and just for the record, yes, I sang it lout loud!   

[Bajanne]

I love it, jbeany!

[cariad]

If "racism" is simply judging someone based on race rather than any other factors (content of character and all that), then the previous post argues that the disgraceful history of the US in the area of racial laws creates a license for racist behavior by a subset of the population.

This brings to mind another question - if I vote for Romney not because he is white, but because he is less likely to give out "Romney Phones" and other transfer payments to those who cannot afford them, does the fact that this disparately impacts certain socioeconomic segments of the population make me a racist?  I think not, but others may disagree.

I had to look up Romney Phones, then figured this must be the opposite of something stupid called Obama Phones and found an article, in Forbes no less (not exactly known for their liberal bent) saying the whole rumor is totally false. When did Americans become so gullible? http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/

I think I understand what MM is saying and not surprisingly, I agree with her. I think it is analogous to the women's contraception circus in Congress. They treated women like mentally incompetent children, having a panel of only men testifying. You know what? If you have never had any of these health issues and never faced sexism from health care providers, you are not in a great place to speak about what is really needed for women. Similarly, if you have never been a victim of racism yourself, you are not going to be as effective tackling these difficult problems that continue to plague our country. I find it hard to believe that many black individuals are picking their politicians based solely on race, but maybe looking at over 200 years of history, one could come to the conclusion that white males are, on balance, rather hopeless at bringing equality to the US. When I had to pick between Hillary and Barack Obama, her experiences as a mother of a daughter were a factor in my choice because I trusted that she would make equality (not superiority) of women a high priority, and that it was about damn time someone did. It turns out Barack Obama has done a great job in going to the mat for women, but lacking the time to learn everything about every politician, the fact that Hillary was female (and that I was familiar with her stance on many issues) was a consideration, but certainly not why I was supporting her. Once Barack Obama got the nomination, I did not do anything ridiculous like cast a symbolic write-in vote for her, and her speech at the convention saying "it's never been about me" was one of the most gracious I've ever heard. In the end, the Dems got both Hillary and Barack Obama, so I see it as the best possible outcome.

White people who cast a vote for a white man because of his race cannot say that they hope this will lead to improvements in equality. They fear equality, which makes them racist.

When John Sununu said that Colin Powell was endorsing Obama because they were both the same race, that was insulting and led republican Lawrence Wilkerson to state "my party is full of racists". No, that doesn't mean that all republicans are racist, though when a criticism like that comes from a high member of one's own party, it should give Republicans pause. Maybe it's time to condemn the racists even at the risk of losing some political support.

And a bit of levity to close. Chris Rock's Special Message for White People: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NgXj9SM9VA (there is an advert that can be skipped after 5 seconds).

[Simon Dog]

Similarly, if you have never been a victim of racism yourself, you are not going to be as effective tackling these difficult problems that continue to plague our country.

My only direct experience with racism is a phone call from a fortune 500 company VP who I knew from a previous job who called to say "I got your resume, but I will not waste your time or mine since I could never get a white male hire approved.   I just wanted to make sure you understood it was not a reflection on your skills when you see some of your co-workers (from a company that just folded) receive job offers from my department.

White people who cast a vote for a white man because of his race cannot say that they hope this will lead to improvements in equality. They fear equality, which makes them racist.

I never cast a vote for a white because of his race but, in the only presidential race where the was a racial divide, the candidate that happened to more closely represent my views happened to be white.   I support rather than fear equality.