A few comments.

First, one poster said that Marxism always becomes communism. Well, Marxism basically is communism. However, what was called communism in the 20th century has little resemblance to communism, as delineated by Karl Marx.

The former Soviet Union had what I (and Troksky) would call "state capitalism." That means that the state (the government) itself became the capitalist.

Communism, or socialism, on the other hand, requires some form of either collective ownership or collective control. There may be some private ownership (under some systems), but the collectivization would make, for instance, an Arthur Anderson, an Enron, or a WorldCom a virtual impossibility.

To another comment, personally, I do think that cooperation is possible. However, the culture would need to change. Right now, American (for instance) culture is so individualistic that communism or socialism (to any great extent) would not be tolerated by the ruling classes.

There would need to be a revolution of some type (which is what Marx predicted) - either a war or a radical change in consciousness by some other means. In other words, the power elites must be forced, by circumstances beyond their control, to give up the reigns of power.

posted at 05:53:29 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

>>IMO, Andrea Yates was mentally ill at the time she killed her children, and as such, should not be in prison, but under medical treatment. Her doctors failed her, the system failed her, and her family failed her. As to why there was no "massive revolution", my only hypothesis is that the American public was "brainwashed" by the talking heads appearing on every news program, talk show, etc., each with their own agenda to advance.<<

I also think it is a result of the extreme individualism and volitionism which dominate American society.

Surveys show that most Americans believe that individuals should always be held responsible for their own actions, a viewpoint which is problematic at best. If you couple that attitude with the lack of understanding most Americans have of mental illness, it becomes a recipe for disaster.

If anything is evidence of the lack of human rights and criminal justice in the U.S., it is the fact that the government was even permitted to prosecute Andrea Yates.

posted at 11:38:06 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

>>Native americans are immigrants too.<<

Of course, it depends on how far back you want to go. I was speaking in the context of European colonialism.

Now, since humanity started in Central Africa, I suppose one could argue that anyone who is not indigenous to Central Africa is an immigrant. However, in that case, the term really has little meaning.

posted at 11:36:07 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

>>Me say a nuke war is most likely in the middle east, since Israel has nukes.<<

Well, if you are basing it on who has nukes, both Pakistan and India have them, too. For that matter, so does the U.S.

The U.S. government has not even disavowed a first use of nuclear weapons, so why is no one talking about attacking the U.S.? Oh, yeah, al-Qá'ída. Is there a difference?

>>I wasn't implying that it was a concern associated with or restricted to the United States. My concern is with whoever or whatever the decision maker is, how are all interests, concerns, problems, etc. evaluated and prioritized. Personally, I would not want to be in the decision making position. Dealing with my own small group is frustrating enough, and this group is relatively homogeneous, and has the advantage of having a common goal.<<

Do you mean the group of programmers, or a group of people who are working for social change?

>>I think you have to define who or what you mean by the United States and what defines a "good" country.<<

I am talking about official U.S. global policies, and that most Americans accept them (based on survey research) at more or less face value. It is neoconservatism itself, which appears to me to be guiding U.S. foreign policy, that I find objectionable. IMO, the U.S. sees itself as the leader of the world, as do most Americans. That, in my view, is the problem.

When other countries, such as those in Europe and Asia, criticize American politicies, a common reaction is, "Well, who bails them out when they have their problems? What right do they have to criticize America?" In other words, Americans (Amuricans), as ethnocentric as they (suppose I should say "we," but I can't bring myself to do it) are, appear to me to, by and large, have an inability to take criticism seriously.

>>By the United States, do you mean the elected officials?<<

Elected officials generally reflect American culture.

>>In that case, I'd have to disagree that I believe the United States is a "good country". I don't trust politicians at all. Just that they seek public office is suspicious in my mind. I think that they all have agendas that are not in the best interests of the people who voted them into office.<<

I don't see any U.S. officials criticizing the U.S. "war on terror." Whether any of them are suspicious of it, they know that, if they criticize it, they will not likely be re-elected. In other words, both Republicans and Democrats are "the Right." The Left has virtually no voice in American politics.

Actually, one of the biggest lies told by so-called conservatives and Republicans is that the media is controlled by the Left. Liberals are, IMO, as much a part of the Right as are conservatives. The Left (Marxists, socialists, anarchists, etc.) is virtually invisible.

>>Apathy and ignorance tend to elect most officials. I don't have the statistics on the latest elections, but the majority of people don't take the time to vote. They don't take the time to educate themselves as to the issues.<<

Yes, I have the distinction of never having voted for a Democrat or a Republican. Those who say I am "throwing my vote away" have, IMO, bought into the idea that something is to be gained by continuing the status quo. Protest votes are, I think, much more meaningful.

>>I have voted in every single election since I was old enough to vote. One of my current issues is the public school system, which I consider to be a failure and a joke. They graduate kids who are basically functionally illiterate. I would home school my son, if I didn't work 60 hours/week. I taught college briefly, and one of the courses that I taught was basic math. I had college students struggling with concepts that I had learned when I was 11 or 12.<<

I know. However, I have found that the reading and writing ability of students has improved a bit in the last few years. My guess is that it has something to do with the Internet.

>>As far as a "good" country, I'm sure that my definition and yours would differ. I'm sure that my definition and my neighbor's would differ. I'm even sure that my definition and my sister's would differ. No country, including the United States, should ignore, condone, or accept human rights violations within their borders.<<

Why did the conviction of Andrea Yates, who is, IMO, a political prisoner, not result in a massive revolution against the criminal so-called "justice" system?

>>The United States made huge mistakes dealing with the native Americans during the expansion into the West and again, with the Japanese population during World War II, to cite only two examples. However, as the descendant of immigrants, I would not even be here if my great-grandparents had not come to the United States. The main reason that they immigrated is that they were not permitted to marry in Germany.<<

Well, all Americans, except for the first nations peoples (native Americans) are, of course, immigrants. I am an immigrant from Germany, Austria, and Russia.

posted at 11:29:42 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

>>And I do participate in groups and activities with that goal.<<

Good. I am old enough to have been a 1960s radical (46 years old), although I was kind of young (12 and 13). I was active in the Students Democratic Coalition (which no longer exists). Now, there are several organizations I participate with.

>>I don't disagree with putting the world's interests ahead of the United States', in theory. The problem that I see with putting that into practice is that with such a diversity of ethnicities, religions, race, etc. is defining what exactly is in the world's best interests.<<

I don't think that is something for the U.S. to worry about. The United Nations, or some similar body, needs to be responsible for those decisions. The U.S. is one of only three countries that have not ratified the new world court for war crimes. Why? Because it wants to be able to act with impunity and unilaterally.

>>Hypothetically, if a given policy is good for South America, but horrible for Asia, what is the "right" thing to do?<<

Again, the UN needs to weigh these considerations, and, aside from adding its voice to those of all other nations, the U.S. should stay out of it

>>The group has a common goal (a successful software project), but trying to come up with the standard practices and procedures that will achieve that goal and still satisfy all parties is an excruciating task.<<

Sure, global problem solving is even more difficult.

>>True, but it is a double-edged sword. As you say, supporting Israel is good for the United States in that respect, but in other respects, it has cost the United States with other Mid-East nations.<<

Yes, but the U.S. has little to worry about. What would happen if, for instance, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations decided to cut off oil? Well, if the U.S. couldn't get other nations (such as Russia) to pick up the slack, it would bomb them, and I am sure the heads of state of OPEC nations know that.

>>Actually, I'm not a big fan of programs that only pass out money, whether it be domestic or foreign for the very reason that it does breed dependence. As the saying goes, if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he can feed himself every day.<<

I agree.

>>Can you please define what you mean by class contradictions? I'm an engineer; I have to have all the terms defined before I can evaluate.<<

"Class contradictions" was used by Karl Marx to refer to the oppression of the proletariat (working class) and lumpenproletariat (underclass) by the bourgeoisie (capitalist class). These days, the term is frequently used more broadly to refer to the oppression of other classes by the capitalists, as well (such as the new middle class and the professional class). It can also refer to the manner in which the U.S. and its allies attempt to bully the world into complicity with its wishes (such as by Bush's references to "good vs. evil").

>>I don't disagree with having a strong United Nations. However, in my opinion, I have yet to see it, and, personally, I'm not smart enough to figure out how to get there from here.<<

The problem with the UN, IMO, is that it is controlled, largely, by U.S. global interests. In other words, the United Nations supports capitalist globalization. The United States needs to be made, by some means, to keep its hands off.

>>Interesting paper.<<

Thanks.

>>Some points I agreed with, others I did not.<<

Yep. Well, that's the way most thinking people will respond to anything.

>>Can you please define what "assumptions" and "definitions" I'm accepting?

I meant that you appear to me to have accepted the assumption that the United States is a basically "good" country. For instance, you wrote in your previous message:

>>>>Should the US (or any country for that matter) ignore human rights violations, ethnic cleansing, female circumcision, etc.?<<<<

You referred to human rights violations in other places, but you did not mention those which occur in the U.S. - such as the ones I wrote about in my paper on terrorism.

posted at 01:34:31 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Two types of theonomists:

There are moderate postmillennialists (Christian reconstructionists) and extreme postmillennialists (Christian Identity).

---

>>Then, by your definition, I don't live in America or Amurica. I am neither a Marxist revolutionist nor a knee-jerk nationalist. I love my country, but that does not make me blind to its faults.<<

IMO, it isn't enough to be aware of the U.S.'s faults. One needs to do something about it - to change the system.

>>I follow the credo that I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it. The United States has made its fair share of mistakes and I could start listing a whole set of government laws and regulations (both in the past and in the present) with which I personally disagree.<<

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The U.S. used to be an underdog nation. Now, it is the most powerful country in the world and, with the end of the Cold War, is on the verge of spreading its vision of political economy, under the guise of the "war on terror," to parts of the world (such as Iraq) which have rejected it.

Since I believe the above statement, and there is ample evidence to support it, I don't see how I can remain silent.

>>However, why would a person, organization, country, etc. not work to achieve what is perceived to be in their best interests?<<

Yes, but the U.S., as the most powerful country in the world, has a responsibility to put the world ahead of herself. Everytime I hear American leaders speak of "American interests," it makes me hope that the American empire is about to fall.

>>Would it not be better for the US to abandon its support of Israel in order to improve relations with the oil producing countries in the Mideast?<<

Supporting Israel is good for the U.S. Having Israel in the Middle East is like having an American surrogate there.

>>Would it not be better for the US to reduce the amount of money that it spends on foreign aid and use that money domestically?<<

When you give people money, it makes them dependent on you, which, in turn, allows you to more easily manipulate them.

>>True, countries have had their rise, decline, and fall. However, what comes after the fall is not necessarily "better".<<

That is true. Whether what comes after the U.S. is better or worse is a separate issue from whether the U.S. is about to fall due to its class contradictions.

>>For example, after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe suffered through the Dark Ages where vast amounts of learning were lost. Was that a change for the better?<<

Well, the term "dark ages" is no longer used by most historians. However, as I said, the decline of a civilization is no guarantee that what follows will necessarly be superior.

>>Should the United States return to the isolationism of the early 1900's and let the rest of the world "duke it out"?<<

I think that the U.N., not the U.S., should prevent the world from "duking it out." If the U.N. is weak, it needs to be made more powerful. No one country, such as the U.S., should have that much power.

>>Would terrorism stop if only the United States didn't "interfere" and didn't try to "protect its national interests"?<<

The problem in my view is that the term "terrorism" is defined in a way which suits U.S. interests. Read my paper on terrorism:

http://terrorism.religionsnet.com

>>Should the US (or any country for that matter) ignore human rights violations, ethnic cleansing, female circumcision, etc.?<<

You mean including the rampant human rights violations in the U.S.?

>>If I see my neighbor's house on fire, do I call the fire department because I see that as a chance to have my neighbor dependent on me and that will give me more power or do I do it because I perceive it as the "right" thing to do?<<

Well, you appear to me to have accepted the assumptions of most Americans. You see things through the lens of American definitions.

posted at 02:39:45 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

The U.S. government (i.e., the neoconservative hawks) needs to be more humble and beg the world for forgiveness. IMO, America is the real axis of evil in the world, not Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

>>Beg the world for forgiveness for what? True, the United States has made mistakes in the past (e.g., the Japanese concentration camps during WWII), but time after time, the United States has come to the aid of other countries, without hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.<<

The U.S. comes to the aid of other countries when doing so is perceived as being in U.S. national interests. If you make someone dependent on you, it gives you a great deal of power. It works similarly in international relations.

The objective of the U.S. government is to establish a new economic and political order on the U.S. model. Terrorism is opposed primarily because it is an obstacle to the American vision of capitalist globalization. Smaller countries are willing to buy into it, because, with the end of the Cold War, the U.S. is now seen as the only game in town.

All countries have, historically, had their rise, decline, and fall. I hope that the U.S. "falls" before the entire world is captivated by its corruption.

The U.S. is two countries in one: America and Amurica. (It is sometimes conceptualized as a culture war.) America is the land of those who work for a the new American revolution - a Marxist revolution. Amurica, on the other hand, is the land of knee-jerk nationalists, of "America, love it or leave it," of "America is the best country in the world," and similar forms of delusional thinking. In other words, Amurica is George W. Bush's country.

---

>>According to that if I define myself as the ruler of the universe then you would define me as the ruler of the universe. If I defined myself as African-American then you would define me as that. Regardless of what evidence there is the contrary.<<

Whether a religious claim is ontologically, or metaphysically, valid, is a different issue. I am speaking as a sociologist of religion, not as a proponent of particular belief systems.

My only point is that I accept that people have a right to call themselves whatever they want, and that I, as a researcher, have no basis for disagreeing with these self-definitions. It is not up to me, as a sociologist, to decide whether a religion, or a branch of that religion, is "true."

>>If one is going to define themself there should be proof as such, not just their word.<<

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that evangelical Christians are not really Christians. Evangelical Christians, generally speaking, hold to the same negative view of the Jehovah's Witnesses. How can I, as a sociologist, determine which camp is "right"? In other words, questions of this sort are appropriate for a theologian (or a philosopher or religion, perhaps), not for a sociologist of religion.

>>There is no scriputal basis for the beliefs of the KKK. And they hold several beliefs that are contrary to the Bible. By that I do not define them as Christians.<<

Personally, I agree with you that bigotry is not biblical. Similarly, I do not believe that most of the doctrines of evangelical Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, etc. are biblical. However, as a sociologist (in other words, speaking as Dr. Mark Foster, not as Mark Foster), I do not have the right to make such judgments.

---

>>In your mind, yes. But what you don't know is that your in your lack of knowledge about what i said you have proved yourself wrong.<<

Sorry, I don't think I know what that means. How can I prove myself wrong because of my lack of knowledge of what you said? That is illogical.

You merely appear to be saying that I do not accept your premises. If so, yes. However, all that demonstrates (proves, if you like) is, well, that I don't accept your premises (or assumptions). Nothing more.

>>If you read up on the original Christian texts, in Revelation the churches that derive from the 7th century creeds, what i said is true. The religion has now been corrupted in many ways.<<

The original biblical manuscripts no longer exist. That is common knowledge.

Now, are you asserting a connection between the decrees of the Councils of Nicea and what is in the Bible? If so, what is your evidence?

After the death of Christ, there were three different Christianities:

1. Pauline

2. Jamesian (Hebrew Christianity)

3. Gnostic

Eventually, Pauline Christianity won out, i.e., the others were condemned by the people in power and eventually all but died out. However, all that demonstrates is that the Paulines had power, not that their views were necessarily the correct ones.

---

Tuesday,June 18,2002

I am trying to come to grips with the attack (verbal abuse) I was subjected to at the hands of a certain Korean Unification Church minister - pressuring me repeatedly to marry this Japanese woman, after I made clear to him that I did not wish to do so - before I ever met her.

Originally, I said that I did not want to even meet her. I did not want to give her the wrong impression. However, after being subjected to pressure by this Korean "reverend," I said that I would meet her, so long as everyone concerned understood that I did not wish to get married. He assured me that he understood.

Despite that, I was subjected to repeated harassment, including claims from the "reverend" that he had a vision that this Japanese woman was a gift sent by God for me. He asked me if that mattered, and I said that I would take it into consideration if the vision came to me, not to him. He then stopped for a few minutes, only to begin again. This time, I told him to stop. I said that he was rude. He stopped.

The next day, the woman called me three times - and left one message on my answering machine. I called back and spoke with one of the local Unification Church ministers. I explained the situation to her. Her response was only that Koreans are very aggressive in their personalities, but that his intentions were good.

I disagreed and said that I thought it was nothing but ego. This fellow was like a door-to-door salesman, trying to win some points - either in his own mind or with God.

It has been almost a week and, thankfully, I have not heard from any of these "people" since that time.

I used to have a very positive view of the Unificationists. However, the way I was treated resonated with how I know members of the group have treated others. I will need to think about it for a time. Perhaps I just need to process what happened.

---

From MSNBC.com today:

Israeli government spokesman Daniel Seaman described as "stupid" remarks by CNN founder Ted Turner to a British newspaper in which he said Israel was engaged in terrorism against the Palestinians that could be compared to the suicide bomber attacks on Israelis. "Right now, aren’t the Israelis and the Palestinians both terrorizing each other?" the vice chairman of AOL Time Warner Inc. told The Guardian in an interview published on Tuesday.

"The rich and the powerful, they don’t need to resort to terrorism," Turner said, according to the newpaper. “The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers - that’s all they have. The Israelis...they’ve got one of the most powerful military machines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing. So who are the terrorists? I would make the case that both sides are involved in terrorism."

Now, that became the basis of the "Question of the Day" on MSNBC. Here is my response:

As a neo-Marxist, I generally agree with Ted Turner's views on social issues, and his recent statement on Israeli and Palestinian terrorism is no exception.

The problem: Israel simply does not belong in Palestine. The Jews certainly deserved their own country, but it should have been taken out of post-World War II Germany. The Germans were a people in dire need of redemption. The Palestinians were not.

The real terrorism is the occupation of Palestinian lands by the Israeli government. (By the way, I come from a Jewish background.)

Flash! As I expected, Turner, under pressure from AOL Time Warner, backed down from his statements. Too bad, but that's what capitalism can do for you - especially if you are one yourself!

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.

---

Curtis Sliwa referred to Islám in prision as Prislam, Cute.

---

At this point, I think it is unlikely that there will be a nuclear war between Pakistan and India.

The problem is: How long will Musharraf be around? If al-Qá'ída (literally, the base) or the Taliban (literally, students) are able to overthrow the Pakistani president and put one of their own (or a puppet regime) in his place, that is when the real danger will exist.

posted at 12:03:04 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Monday,June 17,2002

Is it any accident that, given the close relationship between Rev. Moon and the Bush family, that G.W. Bush chose to include Korea, the original basis for the "divine principle" (Can vs. Abel), in the "axis of evil"?

See the following essay from the AirBeagle webzine:

---

Iran Is Honored By The Boy King's Remarks

They're also honored to do business with Halliburton as well. Especially since it's technically illegal for Halliburton to operate that office in Teheran. But I digress. The Boy King's State of the Union address called Iran, Iraq and North Korea an Axis of Terror, deliberately invoking World War II imagery. And the three new Axis nations are positively thrilled. "Iran is honored to be the target of attack by the United States, which Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said today is 'the most hated Satan in the world.' 'There are some satans in the world, but America indeed is the great Satan,' Khamenei said, speaking at his residence to participants who had concluded a conference in support of the Palestinian uprising a day earlier. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran is honored to be the target of wrath and anger of the most hated Satan in the world,' state television quoted him saying. 'The president of the United States is talking like a person who is thirsty for blood, he threatens the countries and nations of the world.'" Meanwhile, the Boy King's remarks have been applauded in Baghdad, and given North Korea an itchy trigger finger. "In its first public reaction to being called part of an 'axis of evil,' North Korea on Friday said President Bush's pronouncement was little short of a declaration or war. 'The option to 'strike' impudently advocated by the U.S. is not its monopoly,' a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said. North Korea, it said, 'will never tolerate the U.S. reckless attempt to stifle the (North) by force of arms but mercilessly wipe out the aggressors.'" So let's really get down to brass tacks. Anyone wonder by the Boy King has picked these three particular countries? Simple! Iran needs to get more friendly so more oil can flow unimpeded down from the central Asia fields and American oil companies can do more business. Iraq is about finishing Poppy's business - and the oil again, stupid. And North Korea is about uniting the two under South Korean "democracy" - ultimate payback for the debt owed by the Bush Crime Family to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. It ain't all that complicated.

posted at 06:53:55 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Is it any accident that, given the close relationship between Rev. Moon and the Bush family, that G.W. Bush chose to include Korea, the original basis for the "divine principle" (Can vs. Abel), in the "axis of evil"?

See the following essay from the AirBeagle webzine:

----------

Iran Is Honored By The Boy King's Remarks

They're also honored to do business with Halliburton as well. Especially since it's technically illegal for Halliburton to operate that office in Teheran. But I digress. The Boy King's State of the Union address called Iran, Iraq and North Korea an Axis of Terror, deliberately invoking World War II imagery. And the three new Axis nations are positively thrilled. "Iran is honored to be the target of attack by the United States, which Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said today is 'the most hated Satan in the world.' 'There are some satans in the world, but America indeed is the great Satan,' Khamenei said, speaking at his residence to participants who had concluded a conference in support of the Palestinian uprising a day earlier. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran is honored to be the target of wrath and anger of the most hated Satan in the world,' state television quoted him saying. 'The president of the United States is talking like a person who is thirsty for blood, he threatens the countries and nations of the world.'" Meanwhile, the Boy King's remarks have been applauded in Baghdad, and given North Korea an itchy trigger finger. "In its first public reaction to being called part of an 'axis of evil,' North Korea on Friday said President Bush's pronouncement was little short of a declaration or war. 'The option to 'strike' impudently advocated by the U.S. is not its monopoly,' a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said. North Korea, it said, 'will never tolerate the U.S. reckless attempt to stifle the (North) by force of arms but mercilessly wipe out the aggressors.'" So let's really get down to brass tacks. Anyone wonder by the Boy King has picked these three particular countries? Simple! Iran needs to get more friendly so more oil can flow unimpeded down from the central Asia fields and American oil companies can do more business. Iraq is about finishing Poppy's business - and the oil again, stupid. And North Korea is about uniting the two under South Korean "democracy" - ultimate payback for the debt owed by the Bush Crime Family to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. It ain't all that complicated.

----------

posted at 10:02:37 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Unificationism is a child-like, right-wing ideology originally developed to theologically justify the battle against North Korean communism. These days, it has been used by Moon and his followers to rationalize other right-wing causes.

Its basis is conceptualizing the world as consisting of Cain (satanic) types and Abel (godly) types.

It appears to me as though folks whose views tend, at least in certain areas, to be on the far Right have a problem with gray areas. Everything is either black or white.

In other words, those on the far Right (so-called conservatives) are, emotionally, children (as witnessed by the all-too-common "fascist smirk"). On the other hand, the moderate Right (so-called liberals) can sometimes process information beyond that elementary level.

posted at 08:04:56 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Again, the best thing to do is to come up with a product or service which will appeal to a particular (niche) segment of the population. It would even be better if that product or service can keep people coming back (to get replacements, updates, additional information).

If you have something to sell, try this free service:

http://www.cafepress.com/

There are very few people, and companies, making a lot of money on the Internet these days. The recent spade of dot com failures is a witness to that fact. Everyone knew that these e-stocks were overinflated, and that it was just a matter of time before the market responded.

---

Bush's political Manichaeism, bifurcating the world into good and evil, reminds me of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's unificationism. In Moon's child-like view, the world is divided into Abel (good or godly) and Cain (evil or satanic). Since Moon publishes what is perhaps the most powerful conservative daily in the U.S., the Washington Times, and he has made extensive inroads into the Washington political establishment, it would not be inconceivable that he may have had an influence on King George, or the king's royal court, too.

---

The following was published in the UK newspaper, The Guardian, today (Friday, June 14, 2002):

---

We won't deny our consciences

Prominent Americans have issued this statement on the war on terror

Guardian

Friday June 14, 2002

Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression. The signers of this statement call on the people of the US to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11 and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world.

We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers. We believe that all persons detained or prosecuted by the US government should have the same rights of due process. We believe that questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. We understand that such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for.

We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do - we must first of all oppose the injustice that is done in our own name. Thus we call on all Americans to resist the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world.

We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage - even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City and, a generation ago, Vietnam. We too joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.

But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of "good v evil" that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home.

In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine. The government now openly prepares to wage all-out war on Iraq - a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11. What kind of world will this become if the US government has a blank cheque to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?

In our name the government has created two classes of people within the US: those to whom the basic rights of the US legal system are at least promised, and those who now seem to have no rights at all. The government rounded up more than 1,000 immigrants and detained them in secret and indefinitely. Hundreds have been deported and hundreds of others still languish today in prison. For the first time in decades, immigration procedures single out certain nationalities for unequal treatment.

In our name, the government has brought down a pall of repression over society. The president's spokesperson warns people to "watch what they say". Dissident artists, intellectuals, and professors find their views distorted, attacked, and suppressed. The so-called Patriot Act - along with a host of similar measures on the state level - gives police sweeping new powers of search and seizure, supervised, if at all, by secret proceedings before secret courts.

In our name, the executive has steadily usurped the roles and functions of the other branches of government. Military tribunals with lax rules of evidence and no right to appeal to the regular courts are put in place by executive order. Groups are declared "terrorist" at the stroke of a presidential pen.

We must take the highest officers of the land seriously when they talk of a war that will last a generation and when they speak of a new domestic order. We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights.

There is a deadly trajectory to the events of the past months that must be seen for what it is and resisted. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist. President Bush has declared: "You're either with us or against us." Here is our answer: We refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. We will not give up our right to question. We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety. We say not in our name. We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will show our solidarity in word and deed.

We who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together to rise to this challenge. We applaud and support the questioning and protest now going on, even as we recognise the need for much, much more to actually stop this juggernaut. We draw inspiration from the Israeli reservists who, at great personal risk, declare "there is a limit" and refuse to serve in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

We draw on the many examples of resistance and conscience from the past of the US: from those who fought slavery with rebellions and the underground railroad, to those who defied the Vietnam war by refusing orders, resisting the draft, and standing in solidarity with resisters. Let us not allow the watching world to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.

From:

Michael Albert

Laurie Anderson

Edward Asner, actor

Russell Banks, writer

Rosalyn Baxandall, historian

Jessica Blank, actor/playwright

Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange

William Blum, author

Theresa Bonpane, executive director, Office of the Americas

Blase Bonpane, director, Office of the Americas

Fr Bob Bossie, SCJ

Leslie Cagan

Henry Chalfant,author/filmmaker

Bell Chevigny, writer

Paul Chevigny, professor of law, NYU

Noam Chomsky

Stephanie Coontz, historian, Evergreen State College

Kia Corthron, playwright

Kevin Danaher, Global Exchange

Ossie Davis

Mos Def

Carol Downer, board of directors, Chico (CA) Feminist Women's Health Centre

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, professor, California State University, Hayward

Eve Ensler

Leo Estrada, UCLA professor, Urban Planning

John Gillis, writer, professor of history, Rutgers

Jeremy Matthew Glick, editor of Another World Is Possible

Suheir Hammad, writer

David Harvey, distinguished professor of anthropology, CUNY Graduate Centre

Rakaa Iriscience, hip hop artist

Erik Jensen, actor/playwright

Casey Kasem

Robin DG Kelly

Martin Luther King III, president, Southern Christian Leadership Conference

Barbara Kingsolver

C Clark Kissinger, Refuse & Resist!

Jodie Kliman, psychologist

Yuri Kochiyama, activist

Annisette & Thomas Koppel, singers/composers

Tony Kushner

James Lafferty, executive director, National Lawyers Guild/LA

Ray Laforest, Haiti Support Network

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, Tikkun magazine

Barbara Lubin, Middle East Childrens Alliance

Staughton Lynd

Anuradha Mittal, co-director, Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First

Malaquias Montoya, visual artist

Robert Nichols, writer

Rev E Randall Osburn, executive vice president, Southern Christian Leadership Conference

Grace Paley

Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter

Jerry Quickley, poet

Juan Gumez Quiones, historian, UCLA

Michael Ratner, president, Centre for Constitutional Rights

David Riker, filmmaker

Boots Riley, hip hop artist, The Coup

Edward Said

John J Simon, writer, editor

Starhawk

Michael Steven Smith, National Lawyers Guild/NY

Bob Stein, publisher

Gloria Steinem

Alice Walker

Naomi Wallace, playwright

Rev George Webber, president emeritus, NY Theological Seminary

Leonard Weinglass, attorney

John Edgar Wideman

Saul Williams, spoken word artist

Howard Zinn, historian

---

This article appeared in the same edition of that paper:

US artists damn 'war without limit'

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles

Guardian

Friday June 14, 2002

A group of leading American writers, actors and academics have signed a statement strongly criticising their government's policies since September 11. It is an indication of a growing feeling that the administration is promoting its own agenda on the back of the attacks.

In a statement called Not In Our Name, the signatories say the government has "declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression". They also criticise the media for failing to challenge the direction the government has taken.

They include the musicians Laurie Anderson and Mos Def, the actors Ossie Davis and Ed Asner, the writers Alice Walker, Russell Banks, Barbara Kingsolver and Grace Paley, and the playwrights Eve Ensler and Tony Kushner.

Martin Luther King III, Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and Rabbi Michael Lerner have added their names, making this the widest ranging group of opponents of government policy since September 11.

Jeremy Pikser, one of the organisers of the statement, said yesterday that he had been concerned that the rest of the world was under the impression that there was no dissent in the US to the bombing of Afghanistan and the plans for a war against Iraq.

Pikser, a screenwriter who wrote Bulworth, a satire on American politics in which Warren Beatty played a politician who finally decided to speak his mind, said some people had been reluctant to add their names. "A lot of people haven't signed it, although they agree with it, because they think it might jeopardise other things they're involved in."

Clark Kissinger, another of the organisers, said they had been heartened by the number of people wanting to sign.

Mr Kissinger, one of the organisers of the first anti-Vietnam war marches on Washington in 1965, said he was receiving about 60 emails a day from people who wanted to add their name to the list.

"It's a shame that there's not a voice of opposition coming out of the United States."

The statement, which the signatories hope will be published by the American media, ssays: "We must take the highest officers of the land seriously when they talk of a war that will last a generation and when they speak of a new domestic order.

"We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights."

Support for the president's policies remains high, however, and those who appear critical of them have been accused of lacking patriotism.

It was announced last week that Bill Maher, host of the television show Politically Incorrect, has not had his contract renewed by ABC.

Maher was criticised for an exchange six days after September 11 in which he and a guest agreed that whatever else the hijackers were, they were not "cowardly."

posted at 01:25:49 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

>>There is no such thing as Christian fanatacism. If a "Christian" is being fanatic, they aren't Christians. the KKK organization believes false things about the original Christian writings, the Nicene and Apostles creed was corrupted by many people who today call themselves Christians.<<

That is called the fallacy of naming. You have simply defined a Christian in a way that suits your beliefs. In other words, you did not make an argument. You merely provided this forum with your preferred definition of "Christian."

However, as a sociologist of religion, I define people according to how they choose to define themselves - not how I define them. From that standpoint, the KKK groups are Christian, and al-Qa'ída is Islámic.

By the way, many Muslims say the same thing about Islám as you did about Christianity, i.e., the 9/11 suicide hijackers were, by definition, not real Muslims.

---

There has been a virtual demise in the profitability of banner advertising.

The key to making money on a site is not advertising for others, but coming up with a niche product or service - something that a segment of the population is (hopefully) interested in - and then marketing the site (banner exchanges, targeted advertising, webrings, a good use of meta tags, etc.) to that audience.

In other words, demographics is everything.

---

>>It frustrates me that Muslims will consistently say that Islam is a religion of peace. I have not seen or heard any references to specific texts that say to be peaceful.<<

The Arabic word Islám itself is a form of salám (a cognate of the Hebrew, shalom), which means peace (or, in some contexts, a peaceful surrender, i.e., to God).

The problem is that the Western media, which is mostly operated and staffed by Christians and Jews, tends to have a very poor understanding of Islam. In addition, because it makes for good press (and television), journalists frequently point to radical, as opposed to moderate, Islamic viewpoints.

In any event, rather than my commenting further on this part of your message, I would suggest that you read the Qur'an. In English, the Arberry translation is probably the best one available.

>>I've seen passages that call for Muslims to destroy their enemies wherever Muslims meet them.<<

Passages from what? In most cases, these passages are taken entirely out of content. Many of them do not even come from the Qur'an, but from certain hadith (traditions) or the sunna. Also, the same sorts of statements can be found in the Bible (also usually taken out of content), especially the Tanakh (Old Testament). That is why it is best to go directly to the book itself.

>>I look around the world and see Islam practiced all over the world. In societies where Islam is dominant I see oppression, corruption, and cruelty. Things such as female circumcision are common practices in such societies.<<

IMO, there is more oppression in the West, especially in the U.S., than there is in most countries with majority Islamic populations. However, it is a different sort of oppression, and the bulk of Americans (including the majority of my students) are entirely oblivious of it. For instance, I am confident it will eventually come out that Bush, or certain people in his adminstration, were complicit in the events of 9/11.

>>With like the KKK I have no idea where they get a basis for any of their racial beliefs. As far as I've studied the Bible there is no basis for their claims of caucasian superiority. What's ironic is they are anti-sematic and Jesus was Jewish. lol<<

Some of them deny that Jesus was Jewish. The teaching of many branches of the KKK (which, by the way, is shared by official Latter Day Saints theology, albeit unbeknownst to the "average" Mormon) is that Ham, after being ashamed of his father's (Noah's) nakedness, was cursed by God. His punishment was that all his descendents were to be born black and to suffer as slaves.

posted at 05:07:59 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Well, as I thought would happen, there was another suicide bombing in Israel today (actually, two of them).

posted at 05:27:16 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Sharon is back in the U.S. Will there be another attack by Palestinian freedom fighters in Israel to disrupt his journey?

It appears as though Sharon conducted the recent raid in Ramallah in order to forestall such a possibility.

---

>>I am sorry about misunderstanding your scripts, but keep in mind that a person who shows racism, hate or want to kill is not a christian.<<

Perhaps. However, some Muslims argue that those folks who call themselves Muslims, and advocate militant acts against civilians, are not really Muslims.

What al-Qa'ida did Sept. 11th represents a minority of Muslims. What the Christian Identity folks (KKK) did in lynching Blacks represented a minority of Christians.

In other words, there is no substantial difference on this point. In both cases, one is talking about fanaticism.

posted at 07:47:26 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

If a moderate Muslim is not going to correct the misuse of the term "jihad" by radical Islámists, then who is?

Literally, the term jihad means a struggle. Using it to refer to "holy war" is a bastardization or the word.

In Islám, the term jihad has at least two standard meanings:

1. The inner struggle for perfection, i.e., fighting a battle with one's "nafs" (lower self or ego)

2. A defensive, not offensive, military action

The idea of engaging in militant activities under the guise that a particular culture (American, for instance) represents a threat to the Muslim world, such as with the presence of American bases in Saudi Arabia (location of the two holiest cities in the Muslim world), has no basis in the Qur'án or in Islámic jurisprudence.

Getting back to the Harvard address: Asking this fellow to renounce terrorism in his speech is like asking all Christian preachers to renounce the militancies of the Christian Identity Movement (the Aryan Nation, the various Ku Klux Klans, etc.) or demanding that all Roman Catholic priests, bishops, etc. publicly state whether they are pederasts, or that they condemn the Inquisition. It is a double standard, plain and simple.

---

Of all the branches of Christianity, I am mostly fond of the Church of the Brethren, the Friends General Conference (liberal, or Hicksite, Quakers), and the United Church of Christ.

Christ's teaching contradicted, in its most basic aspects, modern fundamentalism and neo-evangelicalism. He taught a message which emphasized orthopraxy over orthodoxy, and He explicitly denied the claim made by some of the Jews that He was the incarnation of God (John 5:16-20).

---

Rethinking it a bit, it might make more sense to use the term , radical sociology of religion over critical sociology of religion. The latter term implies critical theory (the Frankfurt School).

---

The Arabic term, jihad, means struggle, not holy war. Generally speaking, Muhammad was referring to the inner spiritual struggle for individual perfection. Secondly, He meant the struggle for perfection among all Muslims collectively. Third, He had in mind defensive (not offensive) war.

All the wars fought by the Prophet Muhammad were defensive. After He died, however, some of His followers corrupted His teachings and began engaging in offensive wars against non-Muslims.

However, didn't Christians do precisely the same thing? Christ said to turn the other cheek and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Nonetheless, Christians fought the Crusades against Muslims and engaged in the Inquisition against Jews and others. More recently, Christians (Christian Identity, KKK, etc.) attacked and lynched blacks in the U.S.

In other words, you can't blame the Prophet (Muhammad or Christ) for the actions of Their followers.

posted at 05:46:38 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

The term "globalization" has, unfortunately, been abused and corrupted by corportate capitalism. It has been associated with greed, the abuse of the environment, the not-so-hidden agenda of King George II and his royal court (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.), a desire for global domination (neoconservatism) and a disdain for global justice (a rejection of the world court on war crimes), etc.

My prediction is the Bush II will go down as the most corrupt president in American history. He has used the events of Sept. 11th, with which he may have been (at least partially) complicit, as an opportunity to advance his vision of a bourgeois new world order based on dominant U.S. values.

Indeed, there are, in reality, two nations in the U.S., which constitutes that country's culture war: America and Amurica. America is the minority - both in terms of numbers and power. It is the nation that works for socialist globalization. Amurica is the knee-jerk jingoistic nation. It is the land of unilateralism, of "my country, right or wrong," and of capitalist globalization.

Both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, are, for the most part, agencies of Amurica. Both support the Amurican war on terror (the war of U.S. imperialism). Both advocate an invastion of Iraq.

On September 11, the international revolution came to the U.S. Now, hopefully, a new domestic revolution of America against Amurica can progress without any addtional violence.

posted at 08:19:05 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

It was pointed out, on a web bulletin board, that there may soon be life sentences for those who create viruses or deface websites. (I am just reporting.)

In response, I posted the following:

Although I am not a fan of illegal hacking, IMO, this most recent proposal seems to me to have the bloody fingerprints of John Ashcroft all over it.

As soon as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is established by Congress (and, mark my words, it will be, following King George's address to the Amurican nation last night), the true nature of the domestic police state will become so evident that only the most hardened fascist Republican will be able to deny it.

---

It should be mentioned that the majority of Islámists (the Saudi Wahabbis) are not militants or terrorists. A parallel might be drawn between the postmillennial Christian reconstructionists, wanting to establish Christian countries before the return of Christ, and the Islámists, i.e., the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The militant Wahabbis might be compared, with some justification, to the extreme right wing of Christian reconstructionism, i.e., the Christian Identity Movement (Aryan Nation, etc.) and its militias.

In other words, just as most Wahabbis are not militants, the majority of Christian reconstructionists are not members of the Christian Identity Movement and do not promote its extreme racism and ethnicism.

posted at 12:38:58 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Pres. Bush will give a nationwide speech tonight announcing that a new cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security will be established. Presumably, Gov. Tom Ridge, the current Homeland Security advisor, will be the appointee.

Big brother just keeps on getting bigger. Pretty soon, no one will be able to deny that the U.S. has become a police state.

Sadly, both of the major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, do not see (or do not care about) the onward march of American society toward fascism.

Will jaywalking be the next terrorist act?

There are two countries in the U.S. - America (the nation of anti-establishment Leftists) and Amurica (now, Pres. Bush's country). The real culture war is not between so-called liberals (modern liberals) and conservatives (classical liberals) but between both of these Right-Wing political perspectives (Amurica) and the Left (America). Both liberals and conservatives have united around Pres. Bush on the so-called war on terror. The American dissidents are the Leftists, who may soon have the status of dissidents in other authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, such as the former Soviet Union.

The revolution, however, is progressing. It will, hopefully, continue on its own (without any encouragement from the intelligentsia)

posted at 02:03:33 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

If there is a "true" Judaism, it is comes closer to Jewish Renewal (the continuation of the 1960s havurah/havurot movement), Reform, Reconstructionism, or Conservatism.

Orthodox Judaism, especially the ultra-orthodox - as contrasted with the modern (Yeshivah University) Orthodox - contradicts the principle of contextualism, one which is inherent in the history of Judaism. It is seen, for instance, in the adaptations incorporated into the Talmuds and the Kabbalistic works.

Thus, ultra-Orthodoxy functions in a condition of historical denial and fabrication - preferring (with little justification, as best I can see) ancient and medieval interpretations to more modern ones.

posted at 01:47:36 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

The time will come when the evils of the present U.S. administration will be exposed. My prediction (based on my readings and observations, not on some imagined psychic readings!!!) is that George H.W. Bush will go down in history as the most corrupt president in American history. Enough said for now.

---

Some comments:

>>Religion is the biggest hoax that there ever has been. Yes God exists but religion is the exploitation of peoples beliefs to get them to conform with an idea or value set. There is only one thing that needs to be followed and that is to do your best to be a good person.<<

There is no such thing as "religion." In academia, we call the use of such terms "essentialisms." In other words, just because a word can be assigned to a collection of categories does not mean that they necessarily have anything (or much) in common.

It is more accurate to speak of "religions," "christianities," "buddhisms," "judaisms," "jainisms," etc.

>>There is no differentiation between God and the Devil either, they are one and the same the Host and the Excecutioner, the Healer and Death.<<

Of course, most religions do not have a concept of a devil, and the notion of a "God" is shared by relatively few religions. For instance, the Buddhisms, which constitute one of the largest collections of faith systems, are atheistic.

>>Be good go to heaven be bad go to hell it doesn't matter what religion you look at this is the only thing that is common for all. The rest of the crap that they tell you is to make money and get you down on your knees before them, its about power!<<

Not true. The vast majority of religions do not teach anything like the Protestant or Roman Catholic notions of heaven or hell. Even some brands of Christianity do not accept this soteriological (salvific or salvational) dualism.

>>These are my personal beliefs and many will say that they are wrong but then again everyone in an organised religion is at least following the last thing I said.<<

All organized religions are focused on making money? Have you studied all of them?

>>By following one religion you limit yourself to that religion and its values but if you choose to just follow your heart then no matter what happens when you die there is a good place for you to go, that is if you actually did lead a good life!<<

I agree that it is important to follow one's conscience. On the other hand, the human conscience is not necessarily a reliable guide to behavior which would be seen as "good" by the majority of people in a society. For instance, the al-Qa'ídá suicide hijackers of 9/11 followed their hearts or consciences. So did Hitler.

posted at 01:46:42 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Copyright © 2002 Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. All rights reserved.