The proposal has been around since modern revival of the Games started in 1896 about team sports should be eliminated. The rational being is that it is tantamount to simulated war games. Is this the Olympic Ideal in extremis?
By: Vanessa Uy
The proposed idea of banning team sports from the Olympic Games has perennially manifested in and out of discussion whenever we reexamine if our current Games are “keeping the faith” of the original Olympic Ideal. Compared to the amateurism versus professionalism debates of the past, which inevitably resulted in the creation of the American “Dream Team” wrecking havoc in the 1992 Barcelona Olympic basketball competition, the rational behind banning team sports from the Olympic events is by no means just a mere political demagoguery and anti-war rhetoric. After all, the two World Wars of the previous century have resulted in the cancellation of the continuity of the Modern Olympiad three times, as opposed in ancient Greece where it was on going wars and conflicts – not the Olympic Games – that gets suspended. Plus the recent widespread global criticisms on the Beijing Government’s questionable Foreign Policy decision to sell arms and provide technical support to the incumbent Sudanese government that’s responsible for the on going conflict in Darfur is a case in point. War is indeed seen by all as the worst anathema to the Olympic Ideal.
But if both team spirit and cooperation an (supposed?) integral part of the Olympic Ideal; wouldn’t it be bunkum to criticize on this? After all Mikhail Bakunin – famed anarchist and student of the “Human Condition” – have cited that humanity is very cooperative and creative when it comes to destroying his or her fellow human beings. Not to mention that the Olympic Games might become a tad bit boring if soccer / European football and basketball were removed because these “interesting” sports are for all intents and purposes signify simulated war games.
Has our argument now devolving into some philosophical “crepuscular zone” reminiscent of the former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Potter Stewart’s inability to define obscenity? Will commercial sponsors now be fleeing in droves because the Olympic Games had become boring and people lost interest in it because the probably two main crowd-drawers of the Olympics - namely European football / soccer and basketball are banned just because they "vaguely" resemble simulated war games to the powers-that-be. Thus creating a situation that compromises the Games’ ability to “pay its way”?
The good news is that team sports will still be an integral part of the Olympic Games for the foreseeable future – maybe for thousands of years hence. So for now, those in favor of banning team sports from the Olympic Games may just as well sit back, relax, and enjoy the Games. After all, many of us are still busy formulating “politically correct” ways to show our disdain against the Beijing Government’s stance on Tibet (or is “unlawful annexation of a sovereign territory” even defined as war anymore), His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Darfur without burdening the ordinary working class Chinese. I’m welcome to any suggestions.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Should There Be A Permanent Site For The Olympic Games?
With growing global concerns over the Beijing Government’s less-than-stellar Human Rights and Foreign Policy track record, is it high time for the International Olympic Committee to consider a permanent site for the Olympic Games?
By: Vanessa Uy
During the dawn of Western Civilization, the Olympic Games were originally part and parcel of ancient Greece’s theology and belief system. The games were held in honor of Zeus for nearly 12 centuries with almost no intrusion by politics. Back then, the Olympic Games were more than a display showcase of athletic prowess. Contests of dance and choral poetry are held together with the games on the plain of Olympia. The Olympic Celebration was of paramount importance to the ancient Greeks, even wars were interrupted to assure that the quadrennial (every four years) celebrations would take place.
But isn’t it high time for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to consider a permanent site or venue for the Olympic Games – preferably in Olympia, Greece. After all, the Olympics have been cancelled three times since the Games’ modern revival in 1896 because of the two World Wars. Never mind the constant plague of nationalistic political rivalries, plus the newer threats of “commercialism” that had turned the beloved “Hallowed Ground” of the Olympics into just another backdrop for advertising. Plus the constant threat of boycott every time the nation who won the coveted IOC bid still needs a lot of progress. Especially when it comes to Human Rights, the right to habeas corpus, or just the plain basic ethics that we in the “Enlightened Christian West” seems to take for granted on an alarmingly daily basis that this inevitably created “Gitmo” and Abu Ghraib.
Under our current agreement, the IOC chooses sites for the summer and winter Games several years in advance. Once the host countries are selected, it is the responsibility of the governments – and their respective local business entities - of these selected countries to provide all the facilities and the bulk of the financing for the Games. But these requirements have shown a track record of constantly reverting to excessive displays of nationalism by the host countries. Not to mention the construction of extremely expensive facilities which are seldom utilized after the said country’s duration to host the Olympic Games ends.
A permanent site for both summer and winter Olympic Games would be helpful in turning our present Olympics into a much stronger institution. Currently, the Olympics are seen as nothing more than a short-lived spectacle that’s vulnerable to political and commercial exploitation by their temporary host’s country. Given that the proposal for a permanent Greek site has a rational that the region is relatively stable politically both at present and in the foreseeable future. Plus, there could be an added bonus that the Games could acquire an identity of their own just like the celebrations of old.
In addition of a permanent site for the Olympics, it could also be a big help if the duration of the Games were extended from two weeks to, maybe, two to three months. In my opinion, this would allow the Olympic participants / athletes an opportunity to better know one another and also allows them to share experiences that are generally impossible in our current politically-charged competitive setting.
During my research: I’ve found out that thirty years ago the government of Greece had suggested proposals on some ways to proceed in establishing a permanent site for the Olympic Games. Especially when it comes to on how the financial burden shall be born. The Greek proposal suggests the formation of a politically neutral and militarily inviolable “Olympic State” in the area of the original site at Olympia. If this Greek proposal does go underway, the “Olympic State” would fall under IOC jurisdiction, although sovereign territorial rights would remain with Greece. The IOC would install and own the facilities at the site, plus the Olympic Committee would also be permitted to administer the Olympic area and granted powers to govern it. This enables the IOC to determine the terms of and conditions for entry. Greek law would apply within the area, but Greek military forces are forbidden to enter under any circumstances.
For all intents and purposes it was a good proposal. But many IOC member countries failed reaching a consensus especially when it comes to how the financial burden should be borne. And also of on how to equitably appropriate the financial benefits of the games among IOC member nations. Faced with this difficulty, the Greek proposal for a permanent site for the Olympic Games became more or less shelved indefinitely. But given the “perennial” problem of countries with less-than-stellar Human Rights and Foreign Policy records managing to win the much coveted International Olympic Committee bids to host the Olympic Games, isn’t it high time to reconsider the Greek proposal for a permanent site / venue for the Games?
By: Vanessa Uy
During the dawn of Western Civilization, the Olympic Games were originally part and parcel of ancient Greece’s theology and belief system. The games were held in honor of Zeus for nearly 12 centuries with almost no intrusion by politics. Back then, the Olympic Games were more than a display showcase of athletic prowess. Contests of dance and choral poetry are held together with the games on the plain of Olympia. The Olympic Celebration was of paramount importance to the ancient Greeks, even wars were interrupted to assure that the quadrennial (every four years) celebrations would take place.
But isn’t it high time for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to consider a permanent site or venue for the Olympic Games – preferably in Olympia, Greece. After all, the Olympics have been cancelled three times since the Games’ modern revival in 1896 because of the two World Wars. Never mind the constant plague of nationalistic political rivalries, plus the newer threats of “commercialism” that had turned the beloved “Hallowed Ground” of the Olympics into just another backdrop for advertising. Plus the constant threat of boycott every time the nation who won the coveted IOC bid still needs a lot of progress. Especially when it comes to Human Rights, the right to habeas corpus, or just the plain basic ethics that we in the “Enlightened Christian West” seems to take for granted on an alarmingly daily basis that this inevitably created “Gitmo” and Abu Ghraib.
Under our current agreement, the IOC chooses sites for the summer and winter Games several years in advance. Once the host countries are selected, it is the responsibility of the governments – and their respective local business entities - of these selected countries to provide all the facilities and the bulk of the financing for the Games. But these requirements have shown a track record of constantly reverting to excessive displays of nationalism by the host countries. Not to mention the construction of extremely expensive facilities which are seldom utilized after the said country’s duration to host the Olympic Games ends.
A permanent site for both summer and winter Olympic Games would be helpful in turning our present Olympics into a much stronger institution. Currently, the Olympics are seen as nothing more than a short-lived spectacle that’s vulnerable to political and commercial exploitation by their temporary host’s country. Given that the proposal for a permanent Greek site has a rational that the region is relatively stable politically both at present and in the foreseeable future. Plus, there could be an added bonus that the Games could acquire an identity of their own just like the celebrations of old.
In addition of a permanent site for the Olympics, it could also be a big help if the duration of the Games were extended from two weeks to, maybe, two to three months. In my opinion, this would allow the Olympic participants / athletes an opportunity to better know one another and also allows them to share experiences that are generally impossible in our current politically-charged competitive setting.
During my research: I’ve found out that thirty years ago the government of Greece had suggested proposals on some ways to proceed in establishing a permanent site for the Olympic Games. Especially when it comes to on how the financial burden shall be born. The Greek proposal suggests the formation of a politically neutral and militarily inviolable “Olympic State” in the area of the original site at Olympia. If this Greek proposal does go underway, the “Olympic State” would fall under IOC jurisdiction, although sovereign territorial rights would remain with Greece. The IOC would install and own the facilities at the site, plus the Olympic Committee would also be permitted to administer the Olympic area and granted powers to govern it. This enables the IOC to determine the terms of and conditions for entry. Greek law would apply within the area, but Greek military forces are forbidden to enter under any circumstances.
For all intents and purposes it was a good proposal. But many IOC member countries failed reaching a consensus especially when it comes to how the financial burden should be borne. And also of on how to equitably appropriate the financial benefits of the games among IOC member nations. Faced with this difficulty, the Greek proposal for a permanent site for the Olympic Games became more or less shelved indefinitely. But given the “perennial” problem of countries with less-than-stellar Human Rights and Foreign Policy records managing to win the much coveted International Olympic Committee bids to host the Olympic Games, isn’t it high time to reconsider the Greek proposal for a permanent site / venue for the Games?
Child Pornography: Do We Really Know It when We See It?
From Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland author Lewis Carroll’s portrait photography of Victorian children to Annie Leibovitz’s Vanity Fair photos of Miley Cyrus. When it comes to child pornography, do we really know it when we see it?
By: Vanessa Uy
If it’s hard to draw a timeline that shows how often free speech is co-opted by despotic political leaders, let alone made impossible to sort it out from genuine out and out obscenity due to the influence of “Aspirational Paedophilia” posing as free speech / artistic expression. Was this “threat” to Western Civilization started in 1998 when Hustler magazine CEO Larry Flynt started the Barely Legal franchise - thus making paedophilia aspirational – back in 1998? Or was it when the Russian teen Lesbian duo Tatu and accused punk poser Avril Lavigne battled for fame in 2003? Though many anti- Avril Lavigne websites still accuse Avril Lavigne of glamorizing the “Dickensian Dinginess” aspects of child pornography, by citing the way Avril Lavigne’s on-stage butt-crack exposure which became sexist humor fodder on the Joe Rogan Dough Stanhope era “The Man Show” is similar to the way Fiona Apple and Sheryl Crow glamorized the "Heroin Chic” in the late 1990’s. This despite the fact that Avril Lavigne will probably be turning 24 this year, thus proving the 21st Century adage that the blogosphere is indeed a fierce and fickle mistress, especially as an art critic. Add to that the recent row over the Miley Cyrus a.k.a. Hannah Montana “controversial” Vanity Fair portraiture by Anne Leibovitz and the Australian child pornography row over artist Bill Henson’s photo exhibition in a Sydney gallery depicting nude pre-pubescent kids that even “Lord of the Rings” and “Elizabeth” star Cate Blanchett managed herself to get embroiled. But the question remains; do we really know child pornography when we see it? Or is child pornography just a manifestation when the most cherished of our sociological constructs like Human Rights and Civil Liberties get trampled upon every time Halliburton and KBR exercises their “right to be greedy”?
When it comes to defining pornography and / or obscenity, the rational among us – which I hope constitutes the majority – always point out the immortal words of the former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. The famous quote of former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart goes as: “I know it when I see it.” Some say this highlights his failure to define obscenity during the Jacobellis v. Ohio case back in 1964 which later became a landmark US Supreme Court decision. But to some people – including myself – believes that what US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart meant about his famous quote “I know it when I see it” is that cases of pornography and / or obscenity should be examined on a case to case basis. Especially when it comes to Bill Henderson’s controversial photo exhibitions that the current Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has deemed obscene even though thousands of others have deemed it as mere artistic expression.
Sadly the wisdom of this landmark US Supreme Court decision went on unheeded – even viewed as just a mere US Supreme Court docket - when then President Ronald Reagan spent millions of American taxpayers’ money on a dubious pro-conservative biased study on pornography. Reagan asked then Attorney General Edwin Meese III to head this “commission on pornography”. This culminated into the 1,960 page report titled “Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography Final Report” dated July 1986. Unfortunately, the Reagan – Meese definition of “pornography” is next to useless when used as a benchmark to find out whether the “staged” antics of Avril Lavigne, Miley Cyrus and their ilk are guilty of glamorizing child pornography and / or promoting aspirational paedophilia.
The good news is that level headed folks everywhere now see the 1,960 page “Commission on Pornography Final Report” as nothing more than the Reagan Administration’s attempt at co opting every freedom loving American’s Right to Free Speech back in the 1980’s. Which makes the then President Ronald Reagan’s remarks on the signing of the Child Protection Act of 1984 rather somewhat bunkum. Hell, Avril Lavigne could have uttered those same remarks on Saturday Night Live and everybody would think that it’s one of those retro 1980’s stand up comedy routine.
The bad news is that the legacy of the Reagan – Meese pornography commission fiasco means that every “devout” Anglo-Saxon Protestants around the world now harbor an “eternal suspicion” every time they see those beautiful Victorian era Art Nouveau-like child portrait photography of Lewis Carroll – a.k.a. Oxford mathematician Charles Dodgson. And interpret these as “child pornography”. Just like the current fiasco pertaining to Annie Leibovitz’s “Homage to Lewis Carroll” Vanity Fair photos of Miley Cyrus. Although the one where Miley Cyrus’ perky pubescence showing through her diaphanous sports bra might inspire every Vladimir Nabokov wannabes to invent lepidopteral / entomological labels for pubescent teen-age girls.
Despite of the political demagoguery that has become part and parcel on our attempts of defining what constitutes pornography and / or obscenity, to me, we may be misleading ourselves. Let along completely missing the point every time we examine the problem from the very narrow and somewhat limiting perspective of Abrahamic Theology / Judeo-Christian Morality. And everyone can now freely hate me as I say Darwin and Nietzsche could be right on the mark.
After reading the main article of the February 2000 issue of Discover Magazine about how Mother Nature utilized beauty as a survival trait. It began to dawn on me that as a society Western Civilization has yet to sort out what falls under “Slave Morality” and what falls under “Master Morality” in order to accept the true nature of ourselves. Babies, young kids, even pubescent teen-aged girls are genetically designed to be beautiful because it has a better chance of survival every time grown-ups with means (i.e. money, food, power, WMD s etc.) feel obliged to take care of them. We should be thankful to Mother Nature for delaying the manifestation of the "ugly gene” (usually this gets full-blown when one reaches 18) in each and every one of us for as long as humanly possible.
Though some might label my Darwinian embrace of aesthetic beauty as mere demagoguery, well, that’s their loss. Although in a perfect world, scantily clad perky pubescent teens do make great superheroes. Bad guys and everyone’s “Uncle Phil” would be “too distracted” to be evil. Someone should send a memo to Marvel Comics’ Stan Lee about this. But in the end who would you trust as the final arbiter when it comes to what constitute pornography and / or obscenity, yourself or an “organization” who thinks that the decision for one of their founders to burn alive 3,000 Jews is a good thing?
By: Vanessa Uy
If it’s hard to draw a timeline that shows how often free speech is co-opted by despotic political leaders, let alone made impossible to sort it out from genuine out and out obscenity due to the influence of “Aspirational Paedophilia” posing as free speech / artistic expression. Was this “threat” to Western Civilization started in 1998 when Hustler magazine CEO Larry Flynt started the Barely Legal franchise - thus making paedophilia aspirational – back in 1998? Or was it when the Russian teen Lesbian duo Tatu and accused punk poser Avril Lavigne battled for fame in 2003? Though many anti- Avril Lavigne websites still accuse Avril Lavigne of glamorizing the “Dickensian Dinginess” aspects of child pornography, by citing the way Avril Lavigne’s on-stage butt-crack exposure which became sexist humor fodder on the Joe Rogan Dough Stanhope era “The Man Show” is similar to the way Fiona Apple and Sheryl Crow glamorized the "Heroin Chic” in the late 1990’s. This despite the fact that Avril Lavigne will probably be turning 24 this year, thus proving the 21st Century adage that the blogosphere is indeed a fierce and fickle mistress, especially as an art critic. Add to that the recent row over the Miley Cyrus a.k.a. Hannah Montana “controversial” Vanity Fair portraiture by Anne Leibovitz and the Australian child pornography row over artist Bill Henson’s photo exhibition in a Sydney gallery depicting nude pre-pubescent kids that even “Lord of the Rings” and “Elizabeth” star Cate Blanchett managed herself to get embroiled. But the question remains; do we really know child pornography when we see it? Or is child pornography just a manifestation when the most cherished of our sociological constructs like Human Rights and Civil Liberties get trampled upon every time Halliburton and KBR exercises their “right to be greedy”?
When it comes to defining pornography and / or obscenity, the rational among us – which I hope constitutes the majority – always point out the immortal words of the former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. The famous quote of former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart goes as: “I know it when I see it.” Some say this highlights his failure to define obscenity during the Jacobellis v. Ohio case back in 1964 which later became a landmark US Supreme Court decision. But to some people – including myself – believes that what US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart meant about his famous quote “I know it when I see it” is that cases of pornography and / or obscenity should be examined on a case to case basis. Especially when it comes to Bill Henderson’s controversial photo exhibitions that the current Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has deemed obscene even though thousands of others have deemed it as mere artistic expression.
Sadly the wisdom of this landmark US Supreme Court decision went on unheeded – even viewed as just a mere US Supreme Court docket - when then President Ronald Reagan spent millions of American taxpayers’ money on a dubious pro-conservative biased study on pornography. Reagan asked then Attorney General Edwin Meese III to head this “commission on pornography”. This culminated into the 1,960 page report titled “Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography Final Report” dated July 1986. Unfortunately, the Reagan – Meese definition of “pornography” is next to useless when used as a benchmark to find out whether the “staged” antics of Avril Lavigne, Miley Cyrus and their ilk are guilty of glamorizing child pornography and / or promoting aspirational paedophilia.
The good news is that level headed folks everywhere now see the 1,960 page “Commission on Pornography Final Report” as nothing more than the Reagan Administration’s attempt at co opting every freedom loving American’s Right to Free Speech back in the 1980’s. Which makes the then President Ronald Reagan’s remarks on the signing of the Child Protection Act of 1984 rather somewhat bunkum. Hell, Avril Lavigne could have uttered those same remarks on Saturday Night Live and everybody would think that it’s one of those retro 1980’s stand up comedy routine.
The bad news is that the legacy of the Reagan – Meese pornography commission fiasco means that every “devout” Anglo-Saxon Protestants around the world now harbor an “eternal suspicion” every time they see those beautiful Victorian era Art Nouveau-like child portrait photography of Lewis Carroll – a.k.a. Oxford mathematician Charles Dodgson. And interpret these as “child pornography”. Just like the current fiasco pertaining to Annie Leibovitz’s “Homage to Lewis Carroll” Vanity Fair photos of Miley Cyrus. Although the one where Miley Cyrus’ perky pubescence showing through her diaphanous sports bra might inspire every Vladimir Nabokov wannabes to invent lepidopteral / entomological labels for pubescent teen-age girls.
Despite of the political demagoguery that has become part and parcel on our attempts of defining what constitutes pornography and / or obscenity, to me, we may be misleading ourselves. Let along completely missing the point every time we examine the problem from the very narrow and somewhat limiting perspective of Abrahamic Theology / Judeo-Christian Morality. And everyone can now freely hate me as I say Darwin and Nietzsche could be right on the mark.
After reading the main article of the February 2000 issue of Discover Magazine about how Mother Nature utilized beauty as a survival trait. It began to dawn on me that as a society Western Civilization has yet to sort out what falls under “Slave Morality” and what falls under “Master Morality” in order to accept the true nature of ourselves. Babies, young kids, even pubescent teen-aged girls are genetically designed to be beautiful because it has a better chance of survival every time grown-ups with means (i.e. money, food, power, WMD s etc.) feel obliged to take care of them. We should be thankful to Mother Nature for delaying the manifestation of the "ugly gene” (usually this gets full-blown when one reaches 18) in each and every one of us for as long as humanly possible.
Though some might label my Darwinian embrace of aesthetic beauty as mere demagoguery, well, that’s their loss. Although in a perfect world, scantily clad perky pubescent teens do make great superheroes. Bad guys and everyone’s “Uncle Phil” would be “too distracted” to be evil. Someone should send a memo to Marvel Comics’ Stan Lee about this. But in the end who would you trust as the final arbiter when it comes to what constitute pornography and / or obscenity, yourself or an “organization” who thinks that the decision for one of their founders to burn alive 3,000 Jews is a good thing?
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Anti-Semitism of John Hagee
Prominent spiritual advisers with controversial views seems to be de rigueur in presidential election season America, even the paragons of mainstream conservatism – the GOP – had joined in the bandwagon. Will this end the separation of Church and state?
By: Vanessa Uy
If you think Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s brand of Black Liberation Theology is too “out there” then Pastor John Hagee’s Israel Lobbyist’s acceptable-form-of-anti-Semitism must be something that belongs in a parallel universe. Though only known by the Senator John McCain’s supporters as his major endorser, Pastor John Hagee became famous almost overnight when his anti-Semitic views about the Holocaust were being broadcast by major news channels like NBC for example. Not only that, Pastor John Hagee is also found to be anti-Catholic. Kind of odd considering he supports Adolph Hitler’s “action” on European Jews during World War II - F.Y.I. Hitler is Catholic by the way.
Pastor Hagee’s latest controversy started when one of his sermons about his view that God (the Protestant Anglo-Saxon kind) was right in allowing Adolph Hitler to exterminate all of Europe’s Jews. According to the Pastor, Adolph Hitler was a “hunter” sent by God who was tasked with expediting “God’s Will” of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel. Because of this, many in the United States now view that Senator John McCain’s presidential bid is now in peril due to his endorsement by this controversial pastor. Anti-Semitism by Evangelical Christian pastors is by no means a new phenomena, back in the late 1960’s Billy Graham once spoke against the Jewish community’s stranglehold on the American nation during his stint as then President Richard Nixon’s spiritual advisor. A pastor that harbors views that is no longer welcome to a majority of people who are already accustomed to the open egalitarianism of 21st Century America.
As a spiritual leader and pillar of his community, to me, Pastor John Hagee is a walking contradiction. This is so because Hagee help found the Christians United for Israel – an Evangelical Christian pro Zionist organization. I’m a bit suspicious of pro Zionist Evangelical Christians and their ilk like the pro Israel lobbyists because they often denigrate Jews who chose to remain in American soil – especially those living in Brooklyn. And another proof of Hagee being a walking contradiction is that the San Antonio B’nai B’rith Council awarded him with its “Humanitarian of the Year” award. By then it was the first time this award was given to a gentile.
To me, people like John Hagee and their ilk i.e. the somewhat hypocritical Israel support lobby that’s currently active in Capitol Hill, is the major reason why détente between Israelis and Palestinians was never achieved – let alone a viable diplomatic solution to this somewhat intransigent problem. And what about those pro Zionist / pro Israel Evangelical Christians who have a low opinion on Jews living in America, especially in Brooklyn. Would somebody explain this to me in an erudite manner without resorting to the sci-fi / fantasy section of the Holy Bible. Or should I resign my fate that this is the only explanation the rest of humanity will ever get.
By: Vanessa Uy
If you think Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s brand of Black Liberation Theology is too “out there” then Pastor John Hagee’s Israel Lobbyist’s acceptable-form-of-anti-Semitism must be something that belongs in a parallel universe. Though only known by the Senator John McCain’s supporters as his major endorser, Pastor John Hagee became famous almost overnight when his anti-Semitic views about the Holocaust were being broadcast by major news channels like NBC for example. Not only that, Pastor John Hagee is also found to be anti-Catholic. Kind of odd considering he supports Adolph Hitler’s “action” on European Jews during World War II - F.Y.I. Hitler is Catholic by the way.
Pastor Hagee’s latest controversy started when one of his sermons about his view that God (the Protestant Anglo-Saxon kind) was right in allowing Adolph Hitler to exterminate all of Europe’s Jews. According to the Pastor, Adolph Hitler was a “hunter” sent by God who was tasked with expediting “God’s Will” of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel. Because of this, many in the United States now view that Senator John McCain’s presidential bid is now in peril due to his endorsement by this controversial pastor. Anti-Semitism by Evangelical Christian pastors is by no means a new phenomena, back in the late 1960’s Billy Graham once spoke against the Jewish community’s stranglehold on the American nation during his stint as then President Richard Nixon’s spiritual advisor. A pastor that harbors views that is no longer welcome to a majority of people who are already accustomed to the open egalitarianism of 21st Century America.
As a spiritual leader and pillar of his community, to me, Pastor John Hagee is a walking contradiction. This is so because Hagee help found the Christians United for Israel – an Evangelical Christian pro Zionist organization. I’m a bit suspicious of pro Zionist Evangelical Christians and their ilk like the pro Israel lobbyists because they often denigrate Jews who chose to remain in American soil – especially those living in Brooklyn. And another proof of Hagee being a walking contradiction is that the San Antonio B’nai B’rith Council awarded him with its “Humanitarian of the Year” award. By then it was the first time this award was given to a gentile.
To me, people like John Hagee and their ilk i.e. the somewhat hypocritical Israel support lobby that’s currently active in Capitol Hill, is the major reason why détente between Israelis and Palestinians was never achieved – let alone a viable diplomatic solution to this somewhat intransigent problem. And what about those pro Zionist / pro Israel Evangelical Christians who have a low opinion on Jews living in America, especially in Brooklyn. Would somebody explain this to me in an erudite manner without resorting to the sci-fi / fantasy section of the Holy Bible. Or should I resign my fate that this is the only explanation the rest of humanity will ever get.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Of Reverend Wright and the American Dream
A growing number of Americans viewed him as the one who jeopardized Senator Barack Obama’s bid for the 2008 presidency, but should the American voters damn Reverend Wright for speaking out what he had on his mind?
By: Vanessa Uy
Carole Simpson – one of Senator Hillary Clinton’s supporters – said on a Larry King Live interview that Baptist preachers, in general, have very big egos. Though somewhat an unfair generalization, I do agree with Carole Simpson’s view on Baptist preachers. In my view, one does need a very big ego when preaching something that is inexorably will someday go out of fashion like institutionalized / mainstream Christian doctrine. Even the subatomic particles have adopted Buddhism’s “Eightfold Way” a few moments after the Big Bang. Sadly, how subatomic particles chose their way of life – or my Friedrich Nietzsche like critique on Christian slave morality - is the least of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s problems in the face of the US election season demagoguery.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright gained worldwide fame – or notoriety depending on your point of view – when his polemic critique on the Bush Administration’s despotic Foreign Policy that lead to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers was aired all over US national TV and the Internet. Though many before Reverend Wright had expressed more damning polemics on the shortcomings of the American society and of the powers-that-be on Capitol Hill from John Steinbeck’s “The Grape of Wrath” to Exene Cervenka and Lydia Lunch (remember “Rude Hieroglyphics” back in 1995). Reverend Wright’s uniqueness in comparison to the previous reactionaries his relatively close connection to the 2008 presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama. By being senator Obama’s pastor Reverend Wright was inadvertently thrust into the scrutiny of the “Stuffy as a Box” conservative values of White House power politics. Obama’s political opponents are now using Reverend Wright’s views against his bid for the presidency. But how sincere are the concerns of Senator Obama’s political rivals? Are they playing the ugliest variant of the “race card” by reserving the role of Tom Joad only to white male Americans?
As of late, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been known for a lot of things. A self-made man, an enlightened patriot – but a 21st Century American mass media-manufactured-caricature of an African-American he is not. Before becoming a pastor on the Trinity United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright lived an overachieving life that’s more a product of Gene Roddenberry’s writings than Death Row Records. Wright served six years in the US Navy and was part of the medical team that treated former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s gall bladder back in the 1960’s. In short, Reverend Wright really did pay his dues when it comes to patriotism.
Like the late Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador who was an outspoken critic of government repression, Reverend Jeremiah Wright has also adopted Liberation Theology to criticize the shortcomings of the Bush Administration. Not just on Foreign Policy, but pretty much on everything from the economy to promoting the arcane demagoguery and racist ideology of Anglo-Saxon Creationism / Intelligent Design. By adopting James Hal Cone’s Black Liberation Theology, Reverend Wright has very much upset the White American status quo. Especially since James Hal Cone’s Black Liberation Theology – to me - sounds like a mixture of Friedrich Nietzsche’s views on power politics and Socialist-leaning Latin American Liberation Theology. When Black Liberation Theology espouses the idea that the task of Black Theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community does carry a shameful implication. But does this implication meant that the Calvinism and Protestant Work Ethic that made America the last true geopolitical “Superpower” has been denying the African-American community from benefiting the bounty of this American Dream?
By: Vanessa Uy
Carole Simpson – one of Senator Hillary Clinton’s supporters – said on a Larry King Live interview that Baptist preachers, in general, have very big egos. Though somewhat an unfair generalization, I do agree with Carole Simpson’s view on Baptist preachers. In my view, one does need a very big ego when preaching something that is inexorably will someday go out of fashion like institutionalized / mainstream Christian doctrine. Even the subatomic particles have adopted Buddhism’s “Eightfold Way” a few moments after the Big Bang. Sadly, how subatomic particles chose their way of life – or my Friedrich Nietzsche like critique on Christian slave morality - is the least of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s problems in the face of the US election season demagoguery.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright gained worldwide fame – or notoriety depending on your point of view – when his polemic critique on the Bush Administration’s despotic Foreign Policy that lead to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers was aired all over US national TV and the Internet. Though many before Reverend Wright had expressed more damning polemics on the shortcomings of the American society and of the powers-that-be on Capitol Hill from John Steinbeck’s “The Grape of Wrath” to Exene Cervenka and Lydia Lunch (remember “Rude Hieroglyphics” back in 1995). Reverend Wright’s uniqueness in comparison to the previous reactionaries his relatively close connection to the 2008 presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama. By being senator Obama’s pastor Reverend Wright was inadvertently thrust into the scrutiny of the “Stuffy as a Box” conservative values of White House power politics. Obama’s political opponents are now using Reverend Wright’s views against his bid for the presidency. But how sincere are the concerns of Senator Obama’s political rivals? Are they playing the ugliest variant of the “race card” by reserving the role of Tom Joad only to white male Americans?
As of late, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been known for a lot of things. A self-made man, an enlightened patriot – but a 21st Century American mass media-manufactured-caricature of an African-American he is not. Before becoming a pastor on the Trinity United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright lived an overachieving life that’s more a product of Gene Roddenberry’s writings than Death Row Records. Wright served six years in the US Navy and was part of the medical team that treated former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s gall bladder back in the 1960’s. In short, Reverend Wright really did pay his dues when it comes to patriotism.
Like the late Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador who was an outspoken critic of government repression, Reverend Jeremiah Wright has also adopted Liberation Theology to criticize the shortcomings of the Bush Administration. Not just on Foreign Policy, but pretty much on everything from the economy to promoting the arcane demagoguery and racist ideology of Anglo-Saxon Creationism / Intelligent Design. By adopting James Hal Cone’s Black Liberation Theology, Reverend Wright has very much upset the White American status quo. Especially since James Hal Cone’s Black Liberation Theology – to me - sounds like a mixture of Friedrich Nietzsche’s views on power politics and Socialist-leaning Latin American Liberation Theology. When Black Liberation Theology espouses the idea that the task of Black Theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community does carry a shameful implication. But does this implication meant that the Calvinism and Protestant Work Ethic that made America the last true geopolitical “Superpower” has been denying the African-American community from benefiting the bounty of this American Dream?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Olympic Games: Politics As Usual?
Ever since the modern revival of the Olympic Games back in 1896 in Athens, Greece, the Olympics had since been plagued by nationalistic political rivalries – even cancelled three times - due to world wars. Will a once sacred institution ever gain independence from fractious politics?
By: Vanessa Uy
The Olympic Games have even earlier roots than our current modern equivalent that started back in 1896. The first Olympics were held in 776 BC at Olympia, Greece. Back then, nothing was of more importance to the Greeks than the quadrennial (that’s every four years) festival of sporting events and religious rites. Olympia was even considered a sacred ground. Wars were suspended, and a solemn peace – Ekecheiria – lasted for the duration of each and every Olympics.
Then came the intrusion of fractious politics of one form or another, which now threaten the upcoming 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics with widespread boycotts. The rationale behind this boycott range from Beijing’s unlawful annexation of Tibet to the Beijing Government’s complicity in the ongoing genocide in the Darfur Region of Sudan due to its lax regulation of armaments exports. Not to mention the spotty Human Rights record when it comes to handling its own political dissidents. Sadly the genocide and crackdown of political dissidents issue also applies to Tibet and to the country’s exiled spiritual leader His Holiness The Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet.
The political turbulence plaguing our modern era Olympic Games have occurred several times before of varying degrees of controversy. Even during the 1896 Athens Olympics, a row over who’s following the Gregorian or Julian calendars was a point of contention. But controversy became big-time during the 1936 Berlin Olympics, which also started the tradition of the Olympic Torch Relay. Our current Beijing Olympic Torch Relay lately became a target of anyone expressing his or her political sentiments over the Beijing Government’s “Shameful Policies”.
After reading a book by Richard Mandrell titled “The Nazi Olympics”, which is about how the author saw the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. I finally gained a clearer understanding about the rationale of anyone using the Olympic Games as a platform to express political views. Though the books salient theme is about how athletes are increasingly regarded as national assets. Comparable to the procurement of World War II era “prestige necessities” like fighter planes, submarines and synthetic rubber manufacturing plants. Add to that the triumph of African-American track and field athlete Jesse Owens, which shattered Adolph Hitler’s belief in the “Aryan Myth”. This finally made maintaining a “stable” of athletes a necessity if a country wants to maintain her national standing.
And who can ever forget on how John Carlos, the US gold-medal sprinter in the 1968 Mexico City Games who bowed his head and raised a black-gloved fist during the playing of his national anthem as a critique of the Civil Rights situation in America. He later said: “The Olympics is nothing but a full political scene – everything in the world athletics is. It’s country against country, ideology against ideology. The people you run for – the officials – overshadow you with their political ambitions, with the face they want you to put for your country.”
Then came the shocking assassination of 11 Israelis at the 1972 Munich Games by Palestinian militants is by far politics at its bloodiest. The “political debacle” that spurred on this terrible incident remains unresolved till this day. And might get even worse before it gets better.
The 1976 Montreal Olympics was more popularly known for leaving the host-city with a billion-dollar debt. Yet the political overtones were very much alive when 17 African nations refused to compete in the Montreal Games due to the exclusion from Olympic membership of South Africa and Taiwan by the International Olympic Committee.
The 1980 Moscow Olympics was popularly known for being synonymous with the word boycott. The US led boycott of the games which Canada, Japan and the then West Germany were among the nations that later followed suit has called into question whether this is the beginning of the end of the Olympic Ideal. Though many then viewed that the boycott was justified primarily because the Civilized World’s protest over the then Soviet Union’s unlawful invasion of Afghanistan just to quell a suspected threat of Islamic Fundamentalism is very much justified. The planned boycott of a growing number of Western nations over the upcoming Beijing Olympics is partly bolstered by the relative success and the political ideals behind the US led boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games.
The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was boycotted in a tit for tat response by the then Soviet Union and other Warsaw-Pact countries / allies. The Los Angeles Games was more famous for its blatant commercialism despite it’s the first time that a host-city finally earned a profit from the games.
The “minor quip” of the 1988 Seoul Olympics was the press finally finding out about the scandal over the use of illegal performance enhancing substances like anabolic steroids which later plague the athletes who used them with chronic health problems several years later. Luckily, no one used then President Chun Doo Hwan’s brutal crackdown of student protests as an excuse for boycotting the games.
The 1992 Barcelona Olympics was more of a PR issue for the city when the spectators were greeted with a high incidence of petty crimes like purse snatching and pick pocketing. Though no one threatened to boycott the games using Tomàs de Torquemada, the Spanish Inquisition, the Colonialism / Imperialism issue, complicity on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the unsolved disappearances / murders during the Franco dictatorship as an excuse.
The 1996 Atlanta Olympics was a controversial one because the proposed venue of the centennial of the modern Olympics was supposed to be Athens, Greece. But the city of Atlanta outbid Athens. No one threatened to boycott over this. The threat of domestic terrorism by now largely forgotten Christian Fundamentalist / extremist who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City back in April 20, 1995 is the only big issue surrounding the games. Though a prankster was charged with disturbing the peace by blowing up a somewhat large firecracker during the opening ceremonies.
While the 2000 Sydney Olympics was largely incident free. The planned protest by Native Australians or Aborigines about the “Stolen Generation” issue was kept out of the media’s gaze probably due to the efforts of then Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s “Secret Police Apparatus”. Though the Aborigines later got their apology when Kevin Rudd became the current Prime Minister of Australia.
The controversy surrounding the 2004 Athens Olympics were mostly pertaining to the politics of money and bureaucratic red tape which dangerously delayed the finishing of the facilities to be used during the games. The issue over the partition of Cyprus never came up though.
The upcoming 2008 Beijing Olympics is probably the most controversial Olympics to date not just because of the “political overtones” surrounding the event but also the levels of air pollution in Beijing which could pose as a health hazard to the athletes. Will the Beijing Government stop the wheels of their industry just to keep the air quality acceptable during the games? Though the International Olympic Committee’s decision for Beijing to host this year’s Olympic Games was decided over three years ago. The long list of “rationales” for boycotting it did not gain widespread discussion until near the end of 2007. Back then the row over YAHOO! CEO Jerry Yang giving the Beijing Government vital information that allowed them to arrest journalist Shi Tao as a political dissident seems like an excerpt from a bad episode of the TV series 24, was the only popularly known rationale for boycotting the games. The banality of evil for those who don’t witness it first hand notwithstanding, yet it was when the Beijing Government’s heavy handed crackdown over the unrest in Tibet got the badly needed media exposure did everybody became convinced that boycotting the games is a moral imperative. Adding to that the spotty Human Rights record, not to mention the AN YUE JIANG and her shipload of weapons bound for the ailing “Mugabe Regime” in landlocked Zimbabwe being uncovered in the port of Durban in South Africa only strengthens the case for a boycott. But the question is should we?
The Beijing Government has been accusing the Western media for their somewhat biased reporting in regards to the upcoming Summer Olympics. But the BBC’s extensive news coverage regarding the plight of the working class Chinese eking out a living. What about the athletes who probably spent years – even decades - honing their skills? Should these people just voluntarily penalize themselves over the International Community’s failure to deal with Beijing’s heavy handedness diplomatically? This has got me thinking whether there is a better way other than an all out boycott in showing our disapproval over how the powers-that-be ran China. When the US government staged a trade embargo against the then “Apartheid Government” of South Africa, they choose only goods that are of use to the Apartheid Regime. While necessities are still available to the average black South African. Top level dignitaries like the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says he will not attend the opening ceremonies of the upcoming Beijing Olympics citing scheduling conflicts of his junket. Maybe the participating athletes – as a sign of protest – will do what John Carlos did during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, a symbolic show of defiance.
By: Vanessa Uy
The Olympic Games have even earlier roots than our current modern equivalent that started back in 1896. The first Olympics were held in 776 BC at Olympia, Greece. Back then, nothing was of more importance to the Greeks than the quadrennial (that’s every four years) festival of sporting events and religious rites. Olympia was even considered a sacred ground. Wars were suspended, and a solemn peace – Ekecheiria – lasted for the duration of each and every Olympics.
Then came the intrusion of fractious politics of one form or another, which now threaten the upcoming 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics with widespread boycotts. The rationale behind this boycott range from Beijing’s unlawful annexation of Tibet to the Beijing Government’s complicity in the ongoing genocide in the Darfur Region of Sudan due to its lax regulation of armaments exports. Not to mention the spotty Human Rights record when it comes to handling its own political dissidents. Sadly the genocide and crackdown of political dissidents issue also applies to Tibet and to the country’s exiled spiritual leader His Holiness The Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet.
The political turbulence plaguing our modern era Olympic Games have occurred several times before of varying degrees of controversy. Even during the 1896 Athens Olympics, a row over who’s following the Gregorian or Julian calendars was a point of contention. But controversy became big-time during the 1936 Berlin Olympics, which also started the tradition of the Olympic Torch Relay. Our current Beijing Olympic Torch Relay lately became a target of anyone expressing his or her political sentiments over the Beijing Government’s “Shameful Policies”.
After reading a book by Richard Mandrell titled “The Nazi Olympics”, which is about how the author saw the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. I finally gained a clearer understanding about the rationale of anyone using the Olympic Games as a platform to express political views. Though the books salient theme is about how athletes are increasingly regarded as national assets. Comparable to the procurement of World War II era “prestige necessities” like fighter planes, submarines and synthetic rubber manufacturing plants. Add to that the triumph of African-American track and field athlete Jesse Owens, which shattered Adolph Hitler’s belief in the “Aryan Myth”. This finally made maintaining a “stable” of athletes a necessity if a country wants to maintain her national standing.
And who can ever forget on how John Carlos, the US gold-medal sprinter in the 1968 Mexico City Games who bowed his head and raised a black-gloved fist during the playing of his national anthem as a critique of the Civil Rights situation in America. He later said: “The Olympics is nothing but a full political scene – everything in the world athletics is. It’s country against country, ideology against ideology. The people you run for – the officials – overshadow you with their political ambitions, with the face they want you to put for your country.”
Then came the shocking assassination of 11 Israelis at the 1972 Munich Games by Palestinian militants is by far politics at its bloodiest. The “political debacle” that spurred on this terrible incident remains unresolved till this day. And might get even worse before it gets better.
The 1976 Montreal Olympics was more popularly known for leaving the host-city with a billion-dollar debt. Yet the political overtones were very much alive when 17 African nations refused to compete in the Montreal Games due to the exclusion from Olympic membership of South Africa and Taiwan by the International Olympic Committee.
The 1980 Moscow Olympics was popularly known for being synonymous with the word boycott. The US led boycott of the games which Canada, Japan and the then West Germany were among the nations that later followed suit has called into question whether this is the beginning of the end of the Olympic Ideal. Though many then viewed that the boycott was justified primarily because the Civilized World’s protest over the then Soviet Union’s unlawful invasion of Afghanistan just to quell a suspected threat of Islamic Fundamentalism is very much justified. The planned boycott of a growing number of Western nations over the upcoming Beijing Olympics is partly bolstered by the relative success and the political ideals behind the US led boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games.
The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was boycotted in a tit for tat response by the then Soviet Union and other Warsaw-Pact countries / allies. The Los Angeles Games was more famous for its blatant commercialism despite it’s the first time that a host-city finally earned a profit from the games.
The “minor quip” of the 1988 Seoul Olympics was the press finally finding out about the scandal over the use of illegal performance enhancing substances like anabolic steroids which later plague the athletes who used them with chronic health problems several years later. Luckily, no one used then President Chun Doo Hwan’s brutal crackdown of student protests as an excuse for boycotting the games.
The 1992 Barcelona Olympics was more of a PR issue for the city when the spectators were greeted with a high incidence of petty crimes like purse snatching and pick pocketing. Though no one threatened to boycott the games using Tomàs de Torquemada, the Spanish Inquisition, the Colonialism / Imperialism issue, complicity on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the unsolved disappearances / murders during the Franco dictatorship as an excuse.
The 1996 Atlanta Olympics was a controversial one because the proposed venue of the centennial of the modern Olympics was supposed to be Athens, Greece. But the city of Atlanta outbid Athens. No one threatened to boycott over this. The threat of domestic terrorism by now largely forgotten Christian Fundamentalist / extremist who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City back in April 20, 1995 is the only big issue surrounding the games. Though a prankster was charged with disturbing the peace by blowing up a somewhat large firecracker during the opening ceremonies.
While the 2000 Sydney Olympics was largely incident free. The planned protest by Native Australians or Aborigines about the “Stolen Generation” issue was kept out of the media’s gaze probably due to the efforts of then Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s “Secret Police Apparatus”. Though the Aborigines later got their apology when Kevin Rudd became the current Prime Minister of Australia.
The controversy surrounding the 2004 Athens Olympics were mostly pertaining to the politics of money and bureaucratic red tape which dangerously delayed the finishing of the facilities to be used during the games. The issue over the partition of Cyprus never came up though.
The upcoming 2008 Beijing Olympics is probably the most controversial Olympics to date not just because of the “political overtones” surrounding the event but also the levels of air pollution in Beijing which could pose as a health hazard to the athletes. Will the Beijing Government stop the wheels of their industry just to keep the air quality acceptable during the games? Though the International Olympic Committee’s decision for Beijing to host this year’s Olympic Games was decided over three years ago. The long list of “rationales” for boycotting it did not gain widespread discussion until near the end of 2007. Back then the row over YAHOO! CEO Jerry Yang giving the Beijing Government vital information that allowed them to arrest journalist Shi Tao as a political dissident seems like an excerpt from a bad episode of the TV series 24, was the only popularly known rationale for boycotting the games. The banality of evil for those who don’t witness it first hand notwithstanding, yet it was when the Beijing Government’s heavy handed crackdown over the unrest in Tibet got the badly needed media exposure did everybody became convinced that boycotting the games is a moral imperative. Adding to that the spotty Human Rights record, not to mention the AN YUE JIANG and her shipload of weapons bound for the ailing “Mugabe Regime” in landlocked Zimbabwe being uncovered in the port of Durban in South Africa only strengthens the case for a boycott. But the question is should we?
The Beijing Government has been accusing the Western media for their somewhat biased reporting in regards to the upcoming Summer Olympics. But the BBC’s extensive news coverage regarding the plight of the working class Chinese eking out a living. What about the athletes who probably spent years – even decades - honing their skills? Should these people just voluntarily penalize themselves over the International Community’s failure to deal with Beijing’s heavy handedness diplomatically? This has got me thinking whether there is a better way other than an all out boycott in showing our disapproval over how the powers-that-be ran China. When the US government staged a trade embargo against the then “Apartheid Government” of South Africa, they choose only goods that are of use to the Apartheid Regime. While necessities are still available to the average black South African. Top level dignitaries like the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says he will not attend the opening ceremonies of the upcoming Beijing Olympics citing scheduling conflicts of his junket. Maybe the participating athletes – as a sign of protest – will do what John Carlos did during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, a symbolic show of defiance.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Islamophobia Anyone?
The term has now served as a popular description of the mindset of the people running FOX News. Is “Islamophobia” a mere byproduct of the 9 / 11 attacks or a deeper symptom of disdain by the West over non-Christians?
By: Vanessa Uy
As time went on, the Patriot Act has more or less devolved into the reading of the Riot Act to American Citizens subscribing to the Islamic faith. Also, the Bush Administrations “War on Terror” had turned into something more that half of the world’s population always feared – a war against the non-believers of Christianity. But there’s a growing consensus that the Bush Administration / GOP definition of “non-believers” does not only apply to Muslims, but also to women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, even practitioners of so-called “rational thinking” and “reason”. Yes, rational thinking and reason: the two greatest foes of Creationism. Plus given the recent public rantings of Barack Obama's pastor - Reverend Jeremiah Wright - only serves to show that organized Christianity in America is no longer ashamed to show "political ambitions".
As America is being destroyed by the current Bush Administration in a way that most al-Qaeda operatives can only dream of, I have a nagging feeling that the root cause of all of this is the means in which the Bush Administration made “The Power of Christ” somewhat oversold. I mean has anyone seen Pat Robertson going into the refugee camps in the Darfur Region of Sudan turning stone into bread? How about doing the same miracle in areas worse hit by Hurricane Katrina? It really seems like the “Blue State” regions of America are fast becoming the last bastions of reason, literally. And it seems it's now up to them to act as the last bastion of socio-cultural tolerance.
The “brand” of “Christianity” that the Bush Administration is presently promoting – by force – around the world has been creating global resentment on an unprecedented scale. The Bush Administration’s Christendom’s core mission really is to wipe out Civil Liberties and the right to self-determination around the world. When they imprison Viktor Bout, we can kiss goodbye to our right to self-determination. Its getting very, very hard for the Bush Administration’s Christendom to realize that the world doesn’t want to be saved, only to be left alone. I just hope that the term "Islamophobia" will only apply to George "Dubya" Bush and his Neo-Conservatives.
By: Vanessa Uy
As time went on, the Patriot Act has more or less devolved into the reading of the Riot Act to American Citizens subscribing to the Islamic faith. Also, the Bush Administrations “War on Terror” had turned into something more that half of the world’s population always feared – a war against the non-believers of Christianity. But there’s a growing consensus that the Bush Administration / GOP definition of “non-believers” does not only apply to Muslims, but also to women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, even practitioners of so-called “rational thinking” and “reason”. Yes, rational thinking and reason: the two greatest foes of Creationism. Plus given the recent public rantings of Barack Obama's pastor - Reverend Jeremiah Wright - only serves to show that organized Christianity in America is no longer ashamed to show "political ambitions".
As America is being destroyed by the current Bush Administration in a way that most al-Qaeda operatives can only dream of, I have a nagging feeling that the root cause of all of this is the means in which the Bush Administration made “The Power of Christ” somewhat oversold. I mean has anyone seen Pat Robertson going into the refugee camps in the Darfur Region of Sudan turning stone into bread? How about doing the same miracle in areas worse hit by Hurricane Katrina? It really seems like the “Blue State” regions of America are fast becoming the last bastions of reason, literally. And it seems it's now up to them to act as the last bastion of socio-cultural tolerance.
The “brand” of “Christianity” that the Bush Administration is presently promoting – by force – around the world has been creating global resentment on an unprecedented scale. The Bush Administration’s Christendom’s core mission really is to wipe out Civil Liberties and the right to self-determination around the world. When they imprison Viktor Bout, we can kiss goodbye to our right to self-determination. Its getting very, very hard for the Bush Administration’s Christendom to realize that the world doesn’t want to be saved, only to be left alone. I just hope that the term "Islamophobia" will only apply to George "Dubya" Bush and his Neo-Conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
