Well, if you are a Christian, in the biblical sense, then like Evangelicalbunny, you believe that everyone who does not believe in Jesus and does not repent or go to church is going to
H-E-double-hockeystick. So, honestly, I'm cool with it, because in a weird, if not creepy, sort of way, he is showing that he cares.
As far as I'm concerned religion and the Bible is a man-made concept based on truth. I enjoy going to church, when in need of spiritual guidance, but why do I need to go in order to express my faith? According to Jesus's teachings, as far as I'm concerned, there is a church, a sanctuary inside everyone's heart, so why is it a sin if I don't attend Sunday Mass?
Then again, I've been baptized as an Orthodox and Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, and the Orthodox Church does not believe in original sin...so I guess I've been raised to have a completely different outlook to begin with...
My point? Don't be aggressive in your religion, no matter what your faith. If you chastize people for not attending church or going to confession, etc., you'll only piss them off, and quite frankly, lose their respect.
When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women’s' rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto's broke
No, they're lazy, George, I say we don't
Just give 'em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That's what God recommends
When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God
When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?
i'm constantly amazed by those who equate criticism of our administration's aggression and cronyism to sympathy for terrorism. as ricky would say: 'eet's jus' so reedeek-yu-lus'.
i'd take you more seriously if you were more objective and criticized other world leaders and/or countries who are serious violators of human rights...
A mortal nation too
June 2005 | 111 » Reviews » A mortal nation too
An inability to listen to others is common to the nationalism of small countries with troubled histories—like Israel. So why is it also true of the US?
Linda Colley
Linda Colley is professor of history at Princeton University
America Right or Wrong by Anatol Lieven
(HarperCollins, £18.99)
In recent years the publishers' lists have been crowded with books on George W Bush, American empire, Iraq, 9/11 and the purported neocon revolution in US foreign policy, most of them shallow and relentlessly present-minded. Anatol Lieven's contribution is very different and far more significant. A British-born senior associate at Washington's Carnegie Endowment, he roots his discussion of these matters firmly in American history. Among many other things, America Right or Wrong is a challenge to those US historians who still incline towards exceptionalism and parochialism.
With some distinguished exceptions, like Wilbur Zelinsky, Seymour Lipset and Rogers Smith, American scholars have been reluctant to acknowledge and dissect their polity's brand of nationalism, while Americans at large still tend to view nationalism as a characteristic only of "the other." Foreign—and especially fading European—countries may have espoused lethal nationalisms in the past, but Americans, it is widely believed, only embrace patriotism, a more positive and generous emotion. Yet, as Lieven makes clear, most Americans take for granted a very powerful and distinctive national ideology that has been forged over the centuries.
More even than most of its rivals, this nationalism is a composite of many different, sometimes contradictory influences. From the British the American colonists inherited a strong Protestant tradition, a conviction of superior liberties, a commitment to the rule of law, and a belief that they were the citizens of a new Israel. Victory in 1776 was seen as confirmation that Americans—and no longer Britons—were God's chosen people, the true city on the hill. At one level, this belief in America's uniqueness fostered introversion and isolationism, as in some respects it still does. At another level, however, this same conviction nourished an aggressive, missionary zeal towards the rest of the world. As Woodrow Wilson put it: "every nation of the world needs to be drawn into the tutelage of America"; or in Madeleine Albright's better known version: "We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future."
Of course, other world powers—Victorian Britain, Napoleonic France and Soviet Russia—have also viewed themselves as the agents of God or history or both. But because the US is such a vast, rich and successful country, possessed of many real virtues, such ideas there have proved especially durable and broad-based. As Lieven says: "Many Americans genuinely see their country's national interests and ambitions as coterminous with goodness, civilisation, progress and the interests of all humanity."
At its best, this conviction that America is a particularistic community of universal significance can lead to acts of great international generosity like the Marshall plan. At its worse, it fosters arrogance, an inability to cope with criticism from abroad and a kind of autism in regard to the sensitivities and aspirations of other, different, peoples—not least, Lieven argues, because America's nationalist cocktail has acquired some volatile ingredients over the centuries. The US has given shelter to many formerly marginalised, persecuted and embattled groupings: Scots-Irish, Catholic Irish, Russian Jews, Poles, anti-communist Cubans and more. Once ensconced in the land of the free, Lieven suggests, such folk and their descendants have shown "a certain tendency to compensate for past humiliations and suffering by glorying in American national power."
America's racialist past also continues to have an impact on its nationalism. The country was forged by wars and aggressive settlement at the expense not just of the old European empires, but of native Americans, African slaves and Mexicans. Official America is now pointedly colour-blind and even positively discriminatory. Bush's enthusiasm for advancing black men and women and Chicanos to high office has been impressive. But this strenuous political correctness on the domestic front does not mean, Lieven argues, that American nationalism has been stripped of all its ethnic components. Suppressed and glossed over at home, nativist hostility to those perceived as culturally different has found vent instead in aspects of US policy abroad.
Lieven's insistence on American nationalism's historic roots has implications for the present. His book is a warning to those who believe the more controversial aspects of current US policy will fade once the neocons and Bush himself leave the stage. On the contrary, Bush's political success is due in large part to the fact that he gives such effective voice to ideas and imaginings that have existed in parts of the US population for a very long time.
This said, there are also new ingredients in the US nationalist brew. The most obvious is 9/11, and the fear that there will be further outrages on American soil. A sense of America being under siege has sharpened hostility against foreigners, and in some quarters against those on the home front who appear deviant in some way. It is alarming to hear people like Newt Gingrich claim that universities, liberals, feminists and others are perverting the nation—this at a time when Republicans control both houses of congress and a growing portion of America's media. Such accusations are part paranoia, part political calculation. As Lieven argues, many of the Republicans' blue-collar supporters are under pressure not simply from fear of terrorism, but also from the state of the US economy—the falling dollar, cheap imports, rising healthcare costs and a tax system that increasingly favours the rich. It is arguable therefore—and has been argued by Thomas Frank in What's the Matter with America?—that whipping up populist nationalism and fostering resentment against east coast and west coast elites supplies the US administration with a kind of opiate for its masses, a means to distract "unfashionable, poor, small town whites" from some of the real causes of their troubles.
This strategy has been particularly successful in the American south. There is a sense in which southerners resemble Scottish Highlanders after the Battle of Culloden in 1746. Defeated and despoiled, Highland Scots compensated for their humiliation by becoming the shock troops of the British empire. In rather the same way, southerners have reacted to the successive blows of civil war defeat, northern contempt, poverty and the imposition of civil rights by becoming a disproportionate part of America's armed forces, and a disproportionate part of the Republican right's grassroots support. Whatever he did or did not do during the Vietnam war, Bush's swaggering masculinity and chauvinistic rhetoric are balm and solace to many genuine southerners who still kick against folk memories of defeat.
Of equal importance has been Bush's born-again Protestantism. For Lieven, religious fundamentalism is the most potentially toxic ingredient of present-day radical American nationalism. To begin with, he insists, it fosters irrationality and further reinforces American exceptionalism. The US fundamentalist churches are intensely national institutions, quite different from worldwide denominations like Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism that have congregations in every continent, and so necessarily have to make some concessions to cultural relativism. In addition, Lieven argues—perhaps to excess—fundamentalism feeds into America's insufficiently critical commitment to Israel. Even among Americans who are not on the Christian right, Jerry Falwell's claim can still strike a chord: "To stand against Israel is to stand against God"—so much so, that criticism of Israel is often dismissed as antisemitism. This largely unconditional support for Israel, in Lieven's view, damages US foreign policy concerns in the middle east, and contaminates its own nationalism: "The Israeli-Palestine conflict… contributes to wider tendencies to US national autism, an inability either to listen to others or to understand their reactions to US behaviour…This is a strange feeling to encounter in a country as powerful, wealthy and open as America. It is, however, characteristic of small and embattled nations, especially when their populations have in the past been subjected to ferocious massacre and persecution—as in the case of Israel. The aggrieved and embattled sentiments of Israel have spread back to the US and strengthened already existing tendencies to paranoia, resentment and chauvinism."
Reactions to the book in the US have predictably been mixed. Yet Lieven is in no way anti-American, or even anti-American dominance. He accepts that "a relatively benign version of American hegemony is by no means unacceptable to many people around the world." His point is that instead of consolidating the status quo and buttressing its hegemony, America's hyperactivity and nationalism threaten to disrupt them. To this extent, he likens the US now to Britain and Germany before the first world war. Back then, both of these European empires felt unconfident in their power, under threat and aggrieved. As a result, they overcompensated in ways that proved destructive to themselves and to others.
Accordingly, he urges Americans to step outside their national myths "and look at [their]… nation with detachment, not as an exceptional city on a hill, but as a mortal nation among other nations." But if Lieven's most important target is American opinion, his book deserves a much wider audience, not least in Britain. The journalist Philip Stephens has recently supplied an acute analysis of why Tony Blair took the foreign policy road he did in the wake of 9/11: "Soon after the attacks I heard him remark that the first task for the rest of the world was to 'keep the US in the international system.' The danger he perceived even then was that the US administration would throw off all constraints in the unilateral pursuit of its enemies. His role, as he saw it, was to get up close enough to Bush to bind the US into the multilateral system."
This was a fine aspiration. But if this book demonstrates anything, it is that such a policy, on the part of Britain or any other moderate power, may not always prove feasible. As Lieven recognises, America's rulers may revert in time to a "more tolerant, pluralist equilibrium," but what if they do not? What if America, with all its power and centuries-old but newly radicalised nationalism, behaves in the future not just in an exceptionalist fashion but also in an unwelcome and disruptive one? Like the rest of western Europe, Britain has sheltered under America's umbrella for so long it has no answer to the question. The anger over Iraq on display during the British election is one answer but it does not amount to a proper national strategy. If Americans need to step outside their myths and look at matters with a proper detachment, the same is true for us.
and i'm baffled how my single comment makes you so certain that i don't criticize other world leaders/countries wrongdoing. abuses are abuses, whether enacted by china, korea, iraq, or the u.s. we're not the only ones, but we're not unblemished.
nah personally i could really care less in what you believe in. i don't think quarreling would move an inch in convincing each other who's right and who's wrong.
how about let's just settle down, have some cake, and talk architecture. .
LenaV: you're absolutely right. the same can be said about any one who uses god and religion to justify their actions.
"i'd take you more seriously if you were more objective and criticized other world leaders and/or countries who are serious violators of human rights..."
the US is the only superpower in the world so i think it's normal that people are bit more critical with the US than these other countries, regardless of how terrible these other countries may be.
The "terrorists" can kill a few thousand people at most. while bush has the power to kill millions.
Just checking in, but I have to admit that I very pleased with the transformation that I am noticing here at Archinect! The discussion on this thread is truly blessed in the spirit of Christ. Moreover, I would like to point our another wonderfully fulfiiling thread that Jesus himself would approve of: the "Archinect's Robots" is a delightful example of good clean pure and soul cleansing fun involving both architecture, the houses of our Lord, and a celebration of his most wonderful creation, the two version of the human body. Although this business about robots seems a bit silly to me, I can understand that you kids tend to like the techno stuff and if that brings you closer to Jesus then it makes me smile and feel good in a whole bunch of my nerves too!
I'd like to share a little story with you: I was at the laund-O-mat this morning talking with some of my friends and i was telling them about the work that i have recently engaged in, that is, my attempts to bring Christ to the internet including Archinect. Well, they all though that I was saint for these efforts and though I appreciated the compliment I had to point out that it is all of you who are doing the real work of changing the hedonistic sinful methodologies of your lives into something more sustaining in a way that is both eternal in shape and loving in direction. Then one of them compared my efforts to that of Johnny Appleseed. You know, trying to improve things one step at a time by doing a little here and then a little more there. But I protested because my name isn't Johnny and I don't plant apple trees. But they are welcome to call me Bunny Jesus-seed! (ha ha, see I have a sense of humor too).
In retrospect, what I really learned about was the pervasive existence of modern oblivion. Not just the obliviousness to the sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art, but the overall condition of modern oblivion that most of humanity (especially most "Christians") don't even know that they exist in.
[It's ironic how Rumsfeld says that part of the fight against terrorism includes the fight against religious extremism. Yet, at the same time, religious extremism in the USA no doubt believes that Rumsfeld is right. That's modern oblivion for you.]
cvoogt - don't assume not all Archinecters are Christian.
What are we assuming?
Christianity is quite conservative in many respects although I don’t think bringing politics into this thread will be of any benefit.
The use of language, however coarse, is an expression of our diversity in communicating (even Per’s dubious English has relevance – sometimes ;-)
There is no depth to a peaceful and loving celebration of humanity and spirituality and architecture. You need the disagreement and friction by the bawdy, amusing and boring to stimulate the debate. To live by a doctrine is commendable and shows great faith. Good discussion.
God loves homosexuals so much he burns them in the pits of hell. that's love for ya.
hey, can we stop talking about religion? my catholic upbringing takes me back to memories of unforgiveable sins, memento mori and being fondled with by a priest (well, the last one did not actually happen).
Yes I know what post you were referencing. I'm still trying to figure out what youre trying to teach the impressionable, young Justin Hui about homosexuality.
ah a funny story since the darth got posted. as i said earlier in this post i work with some real bible thumpers. anyway.
i was telling this story about how i was playing imaginary light sabers with my three year old nephew.
"what color is your light saber uncle vado?
mine is pink i replied.
"light sabers arent pink thats a girl color"
well i got it from my girlfriend.
"mine's blue" my nephew responded. " i got it from my boyfriend"
now the person i was telling this to laughed and said something about him growing up to be gay etc.
and mr. saved christian said
"gay. now that is going over to the dark side."
what a jerkoff.
javier: ah, nothing, i was entertaining myself with the difference in the interpretation of God between born again christians and yer old, italian born hard core catholics.
i NEVER try to teach anything to anybody, i'm still learning it all myself...
As this thread fades into senescence, I am compelled to admit that I am not a real bunny. Moreover, I am not very "evangelical." In fact, I probably couldn't even spell evangelical until this week. In short, I have been posting under false pretenses this week in order to get a rise out of you. My little "jesus thesis" holds that most of us have a nearly viscereal reaction to the subject of religion in today's culture and that simply hearing the word is likely to elicit a perfunctory response from most.
First Prize is awarded to driftwood for being the first to call out that this thread was a hoax. "Am I the only one not taking this seriously?" 05/24/05 21:57 I suppose amongst the rest of us, a few should take a chill pill, (to borrow an old phrase that still makes me cringe). Speaking of which, my rant on that thread was a straight quote from a blink-182 song that I felt would serve as a clue to my lack of integrity.
The Grand Prize remains unrewarded. I had hoped that somebody would make the connection to an article in last sunday's ny times that highlighted recent efforts by evangelicals to bring christ to the ivy league. In fact, I thought this link was so obvious that I nearly skipped posting this thread at all.
I felt the article was a bit absurd, but it nonetheless inspired me to "bring Christ to Archinect." Unfortunately, driftwood, I can not award you anything as wonderfully uplifting as salvation for your soul and an eternity of jesus love, but rest assured that the clarity of your vision in assessing the bs of this thread will serve you well in the mortal world. For the rest of us, I am sure there is a lesson in here somewhere, find it where you will.
Personally, I have to admit that although I began by making fun of a segment of our people, I soon realized that I was becoming that which I was satiring and hence my big revelation. But man, for the record, I was laughing my ass off during my first few posts! I could hardly finish typing them i was shaking so hard. Sadly, that feeling proved fleeting.
Because someone, whose race was probably plundered by half of mideval Spain and Portugul — or perhaps some inbred decendant of Gangis Khan, feels the impulse to spread their stank on websites commonly used for spreading USEFUL INFORMATION.
Three words: GET A JOB.
You've already thrown your education out the window, perhaps you should throw yourself out the window and go join your robotic lemming forefathers.
Since I don't want to be unkind to those looking for facts on this website, here are some that you should know.
Did you know that Jesus had a COCK?
Did you know that hanging on the cross until he died meant that all the blood filled his penis making it ENGORGED?
Did you know that humans are not born with any instrinsic knowledge of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Tom Cruise, King Arthur — or — your pithy god.
Go back to North Korea and tell your relatives to stop eating each other, because that's nasty.
Because someone, whose race was probably plundered by half of mideval Spain and Portugul — or perhaps some inbred decendant of Gangis Khan, feels the impulse to spread their stank on websites commonly used for spreading USEFUL INFORMATION.
Three words: GET A JOB.
You've already thrown your education out the window, perhaps you should throw yourself out the window and go join your robotic lemming forefathers.
Since I don't want to be unkind to those looking for facts on this website, here are some that you should know.
Did you know that Jesus had a COCK?
Did you know that hanging on the cross until he died meant that all the blood filled his penis making it ENGORGED?
Did you know that humans are not born with any instrinsic knowledge of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Tom Cruise, King Arthur — or — your pithy god.
Go back to North Korea and tell your relatives to stop eating each other, because that's nasty.
"...that most of us have a nearly viscereal reaction to the subject of religion in today's culture and that simply hearing the word is likely to elicit a perfunctory response from most"
-eb
Well stated. Or more specifically (other than religion in general) is it the name?
Example, what name below instills the most initial sense of personal uncomfort?
1. Allah
2. Osama
3. Buddha
4. Satan
5. Jesus Christ
John the Evangelist gave Jesus a hand-job while the latter was on the cross - his hands being otherwise engaged - and caught the wine, before it fell to the ground, in the Holy Grail: "Take this all of you, and eat it..."
It is finished. (tetelestai)
of course what is supposed to be 'john' in leonardo's 'the last supper' is what 'da vinci code' proposes may be mary magdalene, so maybe that changes the dynamic a little bit.
BOTS - LOL, when I wrote " don't assume not all Archinecters are Christian." I meant of course "don't assume all Archinecters are Christian" directed at the original poster. That's what I get for writing posts distractedly at work.
everything that has been said so far notwithstanding, I think there is still an air of authenticity to the four gospel accounts: something that will outlast all our blasphemies.
something else that rings of authenticity (to my ears, at least) in a similar way is a famous ghost story at the Petit Trianon at Versailles in 1901: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/versailles.html
from our Savior...with love!
100 = automatic salvation for any thread. praise bee.
Well, if you are a Christian, in the biblical sense, then like Evangelicalbunny, you believe that everyone who does not believe in Jesus and does not repent or go to church is going to
H-E-double-hockeystick. So, honestly, I'm cool with it, because in a weird, if not creepy, sort of way, he is showing that he cares.
As far as I'm concerned religion and the Bible is a man-made concept based on truth. I enjoy going to church, when in need of spiritual guidance, but why do I need to go in order to express my faith? According to Jesus's teachings, as far as I'm concerned, there is a church, a sanctuary inside everyone's heart, so why is it a sin if I don't attend Sunday Mass?
Then again, I've been baptized as an Orthodox and Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, and the Orthodox Church does not believe in original sin...so I guess I've been raised to have a completely different outlook to begin with...
My point? Don't be aggressive in your religion, no matter what your faith. If you chastize people for not attending church or going to confession, etc., you'll only piss them off, and quite frankly, lose their respect.
hey all you fancy graphic jesus lovers.
When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women’s' rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto's broke
No, they're lazy, George, I say we don't
Just give 'em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That's what God recommends
When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God
When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?
I doubt it
I doubt it
--Bright Eyes
good one, cloutier.
but were you looking for this thread?
Abuse resistant GWB vs. regular GWB
i thought the bunny might enjoy
Real deep words, cloutier, but what about when a terrorist talks to God?
Oh, wait, no, that's a touchy subject, I don't want to offend anyone.
i'm constantly amazed by those who equate criticism of our administration's aggression and cronyism to sympathy for terrorism. as ricky would say: 'eet's jus' so reedeek-yu-lus'.
i'd take you more seriously if you were more objective and criticized other world leaders and/or countries who are serious violators of human rights...
Steven, in reference:
A mortal nation too
June 2005 | 111 » Reviews » A mortal nation too
An inability to listen to others is common to the nationalism of small countries with troubled histories—like Israel. So why is it also true of the US?
Linda Colley
Linda Colley is professor of history at Princeton University
America Right or Wrong by Anatol Lieven
(HarperCollins, £18.99)
In recent years the publishers' lists have been crowded with books on George W Bush, American empire, Iraq, 9/11 and the purported neocon revolution in US foreign policy, most of them shallow and relentlessly present-minded. Anatol Lieven's contribution is very different and far more significant. A British-born senior associate at Washington's Carnegie Endowment, he roots his discussion of these matters firmly in American history. Among many other things, America Right or Wrong is a challenge to those US historians who still incline towards exceptionalism and parochialism.
With some distinguished exceptions, like Wilbur Zelinsky, Seymour Lipset and Rogers Smith, American scholars have been reluctant to acknowledge and dissect their polity's brand of nationalism, while Americans at large still tend to view nationalism as a characteristic only of "the other." Foreign—and especially fading European—countries may have espoused lethal nationalisms in the past, but Americans, it is widely believed, only embrace patriotism, a more positive and generous emotion. Yet, as Lieven makes clear, most Americans take for granted a very powerful and distinctive national ideology that has been forged over the centuries.
More even than most of its rivals, this nationalism is a composite of many different, sometimes contradictory influences. From the British the American colonists inherited a strong Protestant tradition, a conviction of superior liberties, a commitment to the rule of law, and a belief that they were the citizens of a new Israel. Victory in 1776 was seen as confirmation that Americans—and no longer Britons—were God's chosen people, the true city on the hill. At one level, this belief in America's uniqueness fostered introversion and isolationism, as in some respects it still does. At another level, however, this same conviction nourished an aggressive, missionary zeal towards the rest of the world. As Woodrow Wilson put it: "every nation of the world needs to be drawn into the tutelage of America"; or in Madeleine Albright's better known version: "We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future."
Of course, other world powers—Victorian Britain, Napoleonic France and Soviet Russia—have also viewed themselves as the agents of God or history or both. But because the US is such a vast, rich and successful country, possessed of many real virtues, such ideas there have proved especially durable and broad-based. As Lieven says: "Many Americans genuinely see their country's national interests and ambitions as coterminous with goodness, civilisation, progress and the interests of all humanity."
At its best, this conviction that America is a particularistic community of universal significance can lead to acts of great international generosity like the Marshall plan. At its worse, it fosters arrogance, an inability to cope with criticism from abroad and a kind of autism in regard to the sensitivities and aspirations of other, different, peoples—not least, Lieven argues, because America's nationalist cocktail has acquired some volatile ingredients over the centuries. The US has given shelter to many formerly marginalised, persecuted and embattled groupings: Scots-Irish, Catholic Irish, Russian Jews, Poles, anti-communist Cubans and more. Once ensconced in the land of the free, Lieven suggests, such folk and their descendants have shown "a certain tendency to compensate for past humiliations and suffering by glorying in American national power."
America's racialist past also continues to have an impact on its nationalism. The country was forged by wars and aggressive settlement at the expense not just of the old European empires, but of native Americans, African slaves and Mexicans. Official America is now pointedly colour-blind and even positively discriminatory. Bush's enthusiasm for advancing black men and women and Chicanos to high office has been impressive. But this strenuous political correctness on the domestic front does not mean, Lieven argues, that American nationalism has been stripped of all its ethnic components. Suppressed and glossed over at home, nativist hostility to those perceived as culturally different has found vent instead in aspects of US policy abroad.
Lieven's insistence on American nationalism's historic roots has implications for the present. His book is a warning to those who believe the more controversial aspects of current US policy will fade once the neocons and Bush himself leave the stage. On the contrary, Bush's political success is due in large part to the fact that he gives such effective voice to ideas and imaginings that have existed in parts of the US population for a very long time.
This said, there are also new ingredients in the US nationalist brew. The most obvious is 9/11, and the fear that there will be further outrages on American soil. A sense of America being under siege has sharpened hostility against foreigners, and in some quarters against those on the home front who appear deviant in some way. It is alarming to hear people like Newt Gingrich claim that universities, liberals, feminists and others are perverting the nation—this at a time when Republicans control both houses of congress and a growing portion of America's media. Such accusations are part paranoia, part political calculation. As Lieven argues, many of the Republicans' blue-collar supporters are under pressure not simply from fear of terrorism, but also from the state of the US economy—the falling dollar, cheap imports, rising healthcare costs and a tax system that increasingly favours the rich. It is arguable therefore—and has been argued by Thomas Frank in What's the Matter with America?—that whipping up populist nationalism and fostering resentment against east coast and west coast elites supplies the US administration with a kind of opiate for its masses, a means to distract "unfashionable, poor, small town whites" from some of the real causes of their troubles.
This strategy has been particularly successful in the American south. There is a sense in which southerners resemble Scottish Highlanders after the Battle of Culloden in 1746. Defeated and despoiled, Highland Scots compensated for their humiliation by becoming the shock troops of the British empire. In rather the same way, southerners have reacted to the successive blows of civil war defeat, northern contempt, poverty and the imposition of civil rights by becoming a disproportionate part of America's armed forces, and a disproportionate part of the Republican right's grassroots support. Whatever he did or did not do during the Vietnam war, Bush's swaggering masculinity and chauvinistic rhetoric are balm and solace to many genuine southerners who still kick against folk memories of defeat.
Of equal importance has been Bush's born-again Protestantism. For Lieven, religious fundamentalism is the most potentially toxic ingredient of present-day radical American nationalism. To begin with, he insists, it fosters irrationality and further reinforces American exceptionalism. The US fundamentalist churches are intensely national institutions, quite different from worldwide denominations like Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism that have congregations in every continent, and so necessarily have to make some concessions to cultural relativism. In addition, Lieven argues—perhaps to excess—fundamentalism feeds into America's insufficiently critical commitment to Israel. Even among Americans who are not on the Christian right, Jerry Falwell's claim can still strike a chord: "To stand against Israel is to stand against God"—so much so, that criticism of Israel is often dismissed as antisemitism. This largely unconditional support for Israel, in Lieven's view, damages US foreign policy concerns in the middle east, and contaminates its own nationalism: "The Israeli-Palestine conflict… contributes to wider tendencies to US national autism, an inability either to listen to others or to understand their reactions to US behaviour…This is a strange feeling to encounter in a country as powerful, wealthy and open as America. It is, however, characteristic of small and embattled nations, especially when their populations have in the past been subjected to ferocious massacre and persecution—as in the case of Israel. The aggrieved and embattled sentiments of Israel have spread back to the US and strengthened already existing tendencies to paranoia, resentment and chauvinism."
Reactions to the book in the US have predictably been mixed. Yet Lieven is in no way anti-American, or even anti-American dominance. He accepts that "a relatively benign version of American hegemony is by no means unacceptable to many people around the world." His point is that instead of consolidating the status quo and buttressing its hegemony, America's hyperactivity and nationalism threaten to disrupt them. To this extent, he likens the US now to Britain and Germany before the first world war. Back then, both of these European empires felt unconfident in their power, under threat and aggrieved. As a result, they overcompensated in ways that proved destructive to themselves and to others.
Accordingly, he urges Americans to step outside their national myths "and look at [their]… nation with detachment, not as an exceptional city on a hill, but as a mortal nation among other nations." But if Lieven's most important target is American opinion, his book deserves a much wider audience, not least in Britain. The journalist Philip Stephens has recently supplied an acute analysis of why Tony Blair took the foreign policy road he did in the wake of 9/11: "Soon after the attacks I heard him remark that the first task for the rest of the world was to 'keep the US in the international system.' The danger he perceived even then was that the US administration would throw off all constraints in the unilateral pursuit of its enemies. His role, as he saw it, was to get up close enough to Bush to bind the US into the multilateral system."
This was a fine aspiration. But if this book demonstrates anything, it is that such a policy, on the part of Britain or any other moderate power, may not always prove feasible. As Lieven recognises, America's rulers may revert in time to a "more tolerant, pluralist equilibrium," but what if they do not? What if America, with all its power and centuries-old but newly radicalised nationalism, behaves in the future not just in an exceptionalist fashion but also in an unwelcome and disruptive one? Like the rest of western Europe, Britain has sheltered under America's umbrella for so long it has no answer to the question. The anger over Iraq on display during the British election is one answer but it does not amount to a proper national strategy. If Americans need to step outside their myths and look at matters with a proper detachment, the same is true for us.
Source
NONE of us are objective about politics. please.
and i'm baffled how my single comment makes you so certain that i don't criticize other world leaders/countries wrongdoing. abuses are abuses, whether enacted by china, korea, iraq, or the u.s. we're not the only ones, but we're not unblemished.
And I was just questioning why there isn't a song entitled 'When a terrorist talks to God'
nah personally i could really care less in what you believe in. i don't think quarreling would move an inch in convincing each other who's right and who's wrong.
how about let's just settle down, have some cake, and talk architecture. .
that's why we're all here in the first place
speaking of cake, i'm eating brownies and making eye candy at work.
sucks to be me.
LenaV: you're absolutely right. the same can be said about any one who uses god and religion to justify their actions.
"i'd take you more seriously if you were more objective and criticized other world leaders and/or countries who are serious violators of human rights..."
the US is the only superpower in the world so i think it's normal that people are bit more critical with the US than these other countries, regardless of how terrible these other countries may be.
The "terrorists" can kill a few thousand people at most. while bush has the power to kill millions.
I don't know. I would fathom that it's because that'd be stupid.
why would that be stupid, because it would offend someone?
diabase, excellent find.
and didn't this thread used to be funny? don't we have enough threads about politics?
Nope. It's stupid because the idea of writing a song about terrorists talking to God is stupid. No other reason.
Dear Friends,
Just checking in, but I have to admit that I very pleased with the transformation that I am noticing here at Archinect! The discussion on this thread is truly blessed in the spirit of Christ. Moreover, I would like to point our another wonderfully fulfiiling thread that Jesus himself would approve of: the "Archinect's Robots" is a delightful example of good clean pure and soul cleansing fun involving both architecture, the houses of our Lord, and a celebration of his most wonderful creation, the two version of the human body. Although this business about robots seems a bit silly to me, I can understand that you kids tend to like the techno stuff and if that brings you closer to Jesus then it makes me smile and feel good in a whole bunch of my nerves too!
I'd like to share a little story with you: I was at the laund-O-mat this morning talking with some of my friends and i was telling them about the work that i have recently engaged in, that is, my attempts to bring Christ to the internet including Archinect. Well, they all though that I was saint for these efforts and though I appreciated the compliment I had to point out that it is all of you who are doing the real work of changing the hedonistic sinful methodologies of your lives into something more sustaining in a way that is both eternal in shape and loving in direction. Then one of them compared my efforts to that of Johnny Appleseed. You know, trying to improve things one step at a time by doing a little here and then a little more there. But I protested because my name isn't Johnny and I don't plant apple trees. But they are welcome to call me Bunny Jesus-seed! (ha ha, see I have a sense of humor too).
With Love!
eb
Wait a minute. There's nothing hedonistic, sinful, or methodical about my life!!
Not even Jesus boy think's my life is worth noting...
this would be funny except that i actually work with several people who actually think eb is deliverin the right message. thank god for headphones.
bitchin headphones that is.
eb, stop being a hypocrite
Now read something where you will actually learn something:
The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion
In retrospect, what I really learned about was the pervasive existence of modern oblivion. Not just the obliviousness to the sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art, but the overall condition of modern oblivion that most of humanity (especially most "Christians") don't even know that they exist in.
[It's ironic how Rumsfeld says that part of the fight against terrorism includes the fight against religious extremism. Yet, at the same time, religious extremism in the USA no doubt believes that Rumsfeld is right. That's modern oblivion for you.]
huh!?!?
incorporated.
cvoogt - don't assume not all Archinecters are Christian.
What are we assuming?
Christianity is quite conservative in many respects although I don’t think bringing politics into this thread will be of any benefit.
The use of language, however coarse, is an expression of our diversity in communicating (even Per’s dubious English has relevance – sometimes ;-)
There is no depth to a peaceful and loving celebration of humanity and spirituality and architecture. You need the disagreement and friction by the bawdy, amusing and boring to stimulate the debate. To live by a doctrine is commendable and shows great faith. Good discussion.
come to the dark side all ye sinners.
Justin Hui...
God loves homosexuals so much he burns them in the pits of hell. that's love for ya.
hey, can we stop talking about religion? my catholic upbringing takes me back to memories of unforgiveable sins, memento mori and being fondled with by a priest (well, the last one did not actually happen).
it's sunny in london today, go out!
Javier, you are enjoying this a bit too much maybe...
we need uneDITed back!
beg your pardon?
yeah, sorry, the post was relevant to your 99 post..., i did not notice we were already on the second page, sorry Javi!
Yes I know what post you were referencing. I'm still trying to figure out what youre trying to teach the impressionable, young Justin Hui about homosexuality.
ah a funny story since the darth got posted. as i said earlier in this post i work with some real bible thumpers. anyway.
i was telling this story about how i was playing imaginary light sabers with my three year old nephew.
"what color is your light saber uncle vado?
mine is pink i replied.
"light sabers arent pink thats a girl color"
well i got it from my girlfriend.
"mine's blue" my nephew responded. " i got it from my boyfriend"
now the person i was telling this to laughed and said something about him growing up to be gay etc.
and mr. saved christian said
"gay. now that is going over to the dark side."
what a jerkoff.
javier: ah, nothing, i was entertaining myself with the difference in the interpretation of God between born again christians and yer old, italian born hard core catholics.
i NEVER try to teach anything to anybody, i'm still learning it all myself...
Dear Friends,
As this thread fades into senescence, I am compelled to admit that I am not a real bunny. Moreover, I am not very "evangelical." In fact, I probably couldn't even spell evangelical until this week. In short, I have been posting under false pretenses this week in order to get a rise out of you. My little "jesus thesis" holds that most of us have a nearly viscereal reaction to the subject of religion in today's culture and that simply hearing the word is likely to elicit a perfunctory response from most.
First Prize is awarded to driftwood for being the first to call out that this thread was a hoax. "Am I the only one not taking this seriously?" 05/24/05 21:57 I suppose amongst the rest of us, a few should take a chill pill, (to borrow an old phrase that still makes me cringe). Speaking of which, my rant on that thread was a straight quote from a blink-182 song that I felt would serve as a clue to my lack of integrity.
The Grand Prize remains unrewarded. I had hoped that somebody would make the connection to an article in last sunday's ny times that highlighted recent efforts by evangelicals to bring christ to the ivy league. In fact, I thought this link was so obvious that I nearly skipped posting this thread at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/national/class/EVANGELICALS-FINAL.html
I felt the article was a bit absurd, but it nonetheless inspired me to "bring Christ to Archinect." Unfortunately, driftwood, I can not award you anything as wonderfully uplifting as salvation for your soul and an eternity of jesus love, but rest assured that the clarity of your vision in assessing the bs of this thread will serve you well in the mortal world. For the rest of us, I am sure there is a lesson in here somewhere, find it where you will.
Personally, I have to admit that although I began by making fun of a segment of our people, I soon realized that I was becoming that which I was satiring and hence my big revelation. But man, for the record, I was laughing my ass off during my first few posts! I could hardly finish typing them i was shaking so hard. Sadly, that feeling proved fleeting.
With Love!
eb
hmmm. clever bunny.
IN RESPONSE TO THIS WASTE OF TIME SUBJECT
This is why architects are paid shit.
Because someone, whose race was probably plundered by half of mideval Spain and Portugul — or perhaps some inbred decendant of Gangis Khan, feels the impulse to spread their stank on websites commonly used for spreading USEFUL INFORMATION.
Three words: GET A JOB.
You've already thrown your education out the window, perhaps you should throw yourself out the window and go join your robotic lemming forefathers.
Since I don't want to be unkind to those looking for facts on this website, here are some that you should know.
Did you know that Jesus had a COCK?
Did you know that hanging on the cross until he died meant that all the blood filled his penis making it ENGORGED?
Did you know that humans are not born with any instrinsic knowledge of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Tom Cruise, King Arthur — or — your pithy god.
Go back to North Korea and tell your relatives to stop eating each other, because that's nasty.
IN RESPONSE TO THIS WASTE OF TIME SUBJECT
This is why architects are paid shit.
Because someone, whose race was probably plundered by half of mideval Spain and Portugul — or perhaps some inbred decendant of Gangis Khan, feels the impulse to spread their stank on websites commonly used for spreading USEFUL INFORMATION.
Three words: GET A JOB.
You've already thrown your education out the window, perhaps you should throw yourself out the window and go join your robotic lemming forefathers.
Since I don't want to be unkind to those looking for facts on this website, here are some that you should know.
Did you know that Jesus had a COCK?
Did you know that hanging on the cross until he died meant that all the blood filled his penis making it ENGORGED?
Did you know that humans are not born with any instrinsic knowledge of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Tom Cruise, King Arthur — or — your pithy god.
Go back to North Korea and tell your relatives to stop eating each other, because that's nasty.
128. Liquid Graphite
John Dark wanted to pump
the Blessed Virgin Mary full
of his grease.
This had the approval of
Jesus.
In fact, He wanted to do
the same thing.
i know a secret.... shhhh
little do they know that when jesus el savior christ said "this too shall pass" he was talking about a kidney stone.....
hey, it's all gone satanist all of a sudden!
"...that most of us have a nearly viscereal reaction to the subject of religion in today's culture and that simply hearing the word is likely to elicit a perfunctory response from most"
-eb
Well stated. Or more specifically (other than religion in general) is it the name?
Example, what name below instills the most initial sense of personal uncomfort?
1. Allah
2. Osama
3. Buddha
4. Satan
5. Jesus Christ
time to end this disaster.
John the Evangelist gave Jesus a hand-job while the latter was on the cross - his hands being otherwise engaged - and caught the wine, before it fell to the ground, in the Holy Grail: "Take this all of you, and eat it..."
It is finished. (tetelestai)
of course what is supposed to be 'john' in leonardo's 'the last supper' is what 'da vinci code' proposes may be mary magdalene, so maybe that changes the dynamic a little bit.
BOTS - LOL, when I wrote " don't assume not all Archinecters are Christian." I meant of course "don't assume all Archinecters are Christian" directed at the original poster. That's what I get for writing posts distractedly at work.
everything that has been said so far notwithstanding, I think there is still an air of authenticity to the four gospel accounts: something that will outlast all our blasphemies.
something else that rings of authenticity (to my ears, at least) in a similar way is a famous ghost story at the Petit Trianon at Versailles in 1901:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/versailles.html
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.