Sorry I had to post this! I stole the topic from the "progressive ears forum".

read this:

http://www.geocities.com/evilprogressive/listeners.html - http://www.geocities.com/evilprogressive/listeners.html

And here is the sourcelink:
http://www.geocities.com/evilprogressive/ - http://www.geocities.com/evilprogressive/

Any comments?

All:

As a Christian minister, I find the man's views naive, unsound, and without merit - to say nothing of totally without basis in Scripture.  In this regard, I am  concerned that he is doing more harm than good vis-a-vis Christianity - which (just so there is no confusion) does not "condemn" any form of music.  Yes, we try to be careful where blatant satanic "worship" etc. is concerned, and I would steer people away from that.  However, this man clearly has little or no true understanding of Scripture, or how to apply it.

As a minister, I can assure you that prog-rock is not "evil," and that, unless one is incredibly impressionable to begin with, neither the music, lyrics, nor album covers of any prog-rock band is going to cause good Christians (or even good atheists) to "turn to the devil."

Peace.

Let me see if I fit in the description:

1.- Never used long hair in my life (except when I was a kid and before I listened Prog RocK.

2.- I'm more politically oriented towards the right, I fought against c0ommunist infiltration in the University, I have always voted for a democratic candidate.

3.- I am a lawyer and never in my life used colful clothes, as all of my prog friends who are also respected profesionals.

4.- I don't use any drug.

5.- I'm a Catholic (and for that reason a Christian, even if some groups don't believe so), I don't believe in New Age culture or esotheric things. 90% of my prog' friends are Catholics and the rest Jewishs.

6.- I have other interests than prog' music (even when prog' is an important part of my life).

7.- I stay with the older bands rather than be urged to find new ones.

I'm the opposite of the description this guy gave, so there are two chances.

a) I'm not a prog' fan (Which is obviously false)

b) Jeremiah Paul Oaks. born in Arkansas City, Arkansas in 1943 IS A MORON AND/OR A REDNECK FULL OF PREJUDICES.

I vote for option b

Iván

What a jerk!

richardh wrote: F**k religion!

You could but it's not gonna go away.

I think however that there is some truth in some of his observations. Lots of big names in progrock had songs with demonic references or with anti-religious lyrics.

But I think he's wrong about the use of drugs. This applies to all genres of music.

I didn't read it either, but I've probably done everything - am I evil? Yes I am!

This is the life-less Fascist son of a b**ch who wrote that ballyhoo screed!

No matter how much respect the rest of the people deserve, what he did has no name. Scribbling s**t without a serious, coherent foundation is a disrespectful act that responds to the name of DEFAMATION. Altough I found myself not resentful with this person, I am offended though. I tried to overshadow the fact believing such person deserves no importance at all, but it suits us all prog rock listeners. So f**k him, and his beliefs regarding prog rock. He acted cowardly with a judgemental, religious prejudice.

So, whenever in Marion, Arkansas, hunt this dog down and hurl some tomates and rotten eggs in his direction accompanied of severe "flip offs" all the way!  

Peace,

Land

HA HA HA HA HA HA   

You've got to be kidding me... this Jeremiah guy actually spent some of his useless time to make a prog rock hating website... get a life for crying out loud!  

landberkdoten wrote: HA HA HA HA HA HA    You've got to be kidding me... this Jeremiah guy actually spent some of his useless time to make a prog rock hating website... get a life for crying out loud!

If he hates prog so much, why has he come up with such an excellent sleeve design for a prog compilation album?

.....And then did God banish Satan, saying unto him, "Get thee hence oh Dark Lord, and take yer bloody mellotron with you!!" 

emdiar wrote: If he hates prog so much, why has he come up with such an excellent sleeve design for a prog compilation album?

Hmmm... good question

...and why does he know that much about Jethro Tull, King Crimson and Pink Floyd? Maybe he's a repentant prok rocker with a serious drug abuse history behind that blamed it all on prog rock! Mmmm yeah, that explains the whole thing...  

[QUOTE=richard

I think however that there is some truth in some of his observations. Lots of big names in progrock had songs with demonic references or with anti-religious lyrics.

That the subject matter of a piece of music contains demonic references, or is anti-religious in its lyrical content, would no more persuade me to sacrifice a virgin next full moon, than a passing Salvation Army band would convince me that the universe was created within a week, and dinosaur fossils are Gods way of testing our faith in Genesis. (The book rather than the band. "Duke" tested my faith in them. To breaking point!!) 

Well then you'll love this... over at  atheistmusic.com.. ELP hold a very special place of honor....

http://www.telemark.net/atheistmusic/artist.dbm?artistid=54 - http://www.telemark.net/atheistmusic/artist.dbm?artistid=54

threefates wrote: I think thats only true about Pink Floyd fans...

Hey! Watch your mouth young lady! A true Floydian fan here!

For a moment I thought you were trying to incarnate this Jeremiah clown  

BTW, the article regarding ELP is hilarious as well...

Peace,

Land

Landberkdoten:

"Maybe he's a repentant prok rocker with a serious drug abuse history behind that blamed it all on prog rock! Mmmm yeah, that explains the whole thing."

You may be closer to the truth than any of us know...

Peace.

Hey guys, I have nothing against religion, as a matter of facts I'm a religious person who accepts all believes and disbeliefs, everybody has the right to believe in the God they want or not believe in any God at all.

I've prayed in a Sinagogue and showed the most of respects in a Mosque because God is supposed to be tolerant, this guys who pretend they know what GTod wants and believes are the worst enemy of Religion, because they create a reaction in most of the inteligent and tolerant people.

What I hate most is FANATISM, it's stupid to believe in a God who is the supreme form of love and write panflets like this one that spread hate among the people.

When I played drums in a prog' cover (and mediocre ) band, there were groups of fanatics who said the same things about metal fans, but some of my best friends played in metal bands, they used long hair, weared leather, chains, some of them were atheist but none of them was a Satanist or ever showed disrespect for my beliefs, fundamentalism and sectarism are the worst enemies of mankind.

Maybe he's a repentant prok rocker with a serious drug abuse history behind that blamed it all on prog rock! Mmmm yeah, that explains the whole thing."

Probably Maani, inthe drug abuse centers they try to create strong religious beliefs in the patients, because they need something strong enough to belief and have faith in to leave drugs, but sometimes they create monsters who use false religion against the people who doesn't think as them.

Iván

So no one is really impressed by this article because of the way the author presents his points of view.

The part about fans feeling the urge to find new progalbums and to spend lots of money is true however.

Progressive rock (as a genre) has a lot of different themes (including many extremely christian ones !), and about as many bad bands as any genre, give or take a few.

Christian Rock (as a genre), on the other hand, has a single theme, and has completely failed to supply the world with a single artist worthy of respect.

It's really pretty hard to find religiously Satanic music; with almost no artistic traditions and a miniscule number of adherents, Satanism is a pretty puny force. You can find a lot of musical imagery and references to Satan and demons- most of it in the best judeo-christian tradition. Even evil old Ozzy was a pretty straight arrow in the christian spectrum- check out Black Sabbath's "After Forever", about as missionary a song as anything I've ever heard. What would this 'author' say about Dante, or Goethe, or even the Book of Revelations?

Ah, well. Good thing he's so ridiculous- makes it easy to spot them before they cause any real trouble :)

richardh wrote: Until people learn to think for themselves then the world will remain the terrible mess it is.Religion is one of the worse things on the planet in stopping the flow of induvidual thought.Pink Floyd got it right with 'Sheep' as did Genesis with 'Carpet Crawlers' and ELP with 'The Only Way'.These are my scriptures and prog rock is my religion.

! Heard the latest from the vatican (as reported by the BBC's Panarama and World service)?. Apparently condoms have holes in them and actually contribute to the spread of aids. The scientific community are up in arms about it, and the poor man whose research has been held up as "proof" of this claim has had to come foreward to explain that he has been taken grossly out of context by a group whose only motive is the promotion of their own archaic dogma. If I want advice on my sex life, the last person I would turn to is a pensioner who claims to have lead a life of celibacy (if you discount all those choir boys that is.) One African catholic woman interviewed for Panorama exclaimed that if she caught aids and died, at least she wouldn't go to hell for using a condom! Her european priest had told her this!! Religion is nothing more than the politics of superstition and free thinkers should disregard it, as they (Capernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, etc.) have always had to do. 

ps. Please don't attack me for this view, I realise a lot of good humanitarian work is the direct result of strongly (albeit  wrongly) held religious convictions. If you need a club as a vehicle for your desire to do good, then far be it from me to stop you joining one.

I hadn't realised progressive rock was evil, I will stop litening to it immediately. What a fool I've been all these years. Why didn't anyone tell me before?

I still have my long hair too... It's in a box under my bed.

BTW I wonder if Neal Morse would agree with the views?

James Lee wrote: Christian Rock (as a genre), on the other hand, has a single theme, and has completely failed to supply the world with a single artist worthy of respect.

How about Cliff Richard?

/ducks and runs away...

Oh, Cliff
Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if
You really are a Cliff
When fascists keep trying to push you over it
Are they the lemmings?
Or are you Cliff?
Or are you, Cliff?

- Rick (The Young Ones)

Aquarius wrote: The part about fans feeling the urge to find new progalbums and to spend lots of money is true however.

Yes, it's true.

Please guys; I took this with anger until I saw his front page with the magnificent drawing about King Crimson, Gentle Giant and Pink Floyd:

http://www.geocities.com/evilprogressive/ - http://www.geocities.com/evilprogressive/

Holy God, the guy is a moron with an IQ probably inferior to 20. I know 4-year kids who can do a better drawing than this thing.

Then I saw his USA flag and message about "GOD BLESS THE USA!!!" and knew that he was worst, seems like a moronic redneck that tries to convince people with his false patriotism.

And at last I read his bio, he reads Christian literature and fishes as hobby, his life must be exiting.

The only thing I worry about is that this guy affirms is a youth counselor, if this is true, we may be seeing some Davidian groups and Wacko shootings very soon.

But don't take him seriously, the guy is such a jerk that doesn't have the intelligence to convince anybody, his arguments are so lame that nobody can take him seriously.

Just as a precaution, keep your children far from Marion Arkansas, this city may be in CNN very soon.

Iván

richardh wrote: Until people learn to think for themselves then the world will remain the terrible mess it is. Religion is one of the worse things on the planet in stopping the flow of induvidual thought.

of course not . religion improve the individual thinking, in fact religion help putting human thoughts on the right track. And you can never prove that a religious person could have had a better life or better thoughts if he were an anti religion one.

i wont argue more than that, we dont need another fight in this forum because of misunderstandings, we dont want to lose another one like peter rideout

I think this thread should be closed

Other than that, i think as Land said, this guy is just blaming drugs on progressive rock, he is a jerk, musc is music, you always have the chiose to do whatever you want, music just doesnt tell you "do drugs", you make the decisions yourself.

That Jeremiah needs professional help

Let's not forget that a set of lyrics can be anti-clerical without being anti-religious or anti-Christian. JC himself bore an esentially anti-clerical attitude during his Mission on Earth, and He incarnated the Word of God in his own human self!!

On the other hand, I might as a songcraftsman write a set of lyrics with Satanic lines just for the fun of it, just like an actor can play Hitler or any other evil tyrant on stage or in a movie role. Mostly, this Pro-Christian prog-critic (I'm sorry, I forgot his name) confuses a lot of things (different levels of intentionality in song writing), regarding some stuff that he doesn't know about. Could Satanism be just a source of morbid inspiration for effective lyrics, and that's all? Does any writer need to be a Satanic "priest" in order to portray an obscure destructive message? I'm not a woman, but I could write lyrics about gender abuse from a female's point of view... Could someone write Satanic lyrics as a metaphor for their grievance at the world's moral/political disaster? For instance, there's lots of Apocalypiptical images in Blake's wonderful poems, yet he wasn't Satanic or a "terrorist"... though maybe a little deranged... but that's another subject.

Regards.

DoomHammer wrote: richardh wrote: Until people learn to think for themselves then the world will remain the terrible mess it is. Religion is one of the worse things on the planet in stopping the flow of induvidual thought. of course not . religion improve the individual thinking, in fact religion help putting human thoughts on the right track. And you can never prove that a religious person could have had a better life or better thoughts if he were an anti religion one. i wont argue more than that, we dont need another fight in this forum because of misunderstandings, we dont want to lose another one like peter rideout I think this thread should be closed

Even though my thinking line is the same of Richard and Emdiar, I remember my former father-in-law words: "You'll never agree about religion, politics and football; avoid these topics". However, Doom, we can talk about these points respectfully (as I said in another thread) and everybody can learn to know more. In the other hand, this is a music forum, and it's better to fight about music and musicians . 

In my opinion he is just another religious fanatic and I have no time to spare for this "species".

What DOES bother me though is that this yo-yo is "working as a youth tutor".

Now that is scary!

Regards to all,

NucDoc

All:

First, James' comment that "Christian Rock (as a genre), on the other hand, has ...completely failed to supply the world with a single artist worthy of respect' is borne of an obviously complete lack of knowledge of the genre.  I don't say this with denigration or judgment, simply as observation.  Since James' views (which he is entitled to) prevent him from having much (if anything) to do with the genre of Christian music, it is hard to see how he can argue such a point.

In fact, Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) has given us - i.e., those who listen to it and know something about it as a genre - quite a few artists worthy of respect (to say nothing of great music).  I will name only Amy Grant, DC Talk, Richard Mullins, Keith Green and Carolyn Arends for now, but there are many, many others.

One of the problems is that those who do not know any better simply lump all Christians into a little box that includes the Christian Right (which, like the Moral Majority before it, is neither...) and conservative Christians who monopolize the "public eye" (i.e., the media "voice" of "Christianity).

This would be offensive if it were not borne of ignorance.  Not every Christian is a conservative Christian, a fundamentalist, or a member of the so-called Christian Right.  It might surprise you to know that the "Christian Right" actually represents a minority (and arguably a small one) of the Christian population of the U.S.  Many, if not most, "Christians" consider the "Christian Right" narrow, unloving, unforgiving, and ultimately "un-Christian."

Thus, before you simply lump every Christian into a neat little box, consider that doing so is just as bad as stereotyping any race, creed, religion, etc.

Re progrock, someone was bright enough to point out that Neal Morse is a devout Christian.  Need I add that Rick Wakeman is as well?  And that there are, in fact, quite a few devout Christians (and Jews and Muslims, etc.) in prog-rock?  Just because they may not "wear it on their sleeves" - i.e., just because you are not aware of it - does not mean they are not out there.  Does that mean you will stop listening to them - because they believe in God and Christ and the Scriptures?  Does their faith "lower" them in your eyes - make you think less of them or have less respect and admiration for what they have contributed to music?  In this regard, I cannot help but be shocked at the level of ignorance - and even outright hatred or disdain - so many of you have.

A number of you have suggested to me by PM that this thread be closed because it has clearly devolved into an anti-religious (and specifically anti-Christian) screed.  And I am strongly tempted to do so: not because I myself am a Christian, but because there is no place for "personal invective" - or even invective against a particular group - in any thread.

You may remember, after our long discussion on civility, that I asked that if threads like this (i.e., clearly controversial ones) were going to be open, that you contact me and allow me to add a "warning" at the beginning so that everyone would know in advance what they were getting into.  I am happy that, until now, there has been no reason to do so on any thread.

However, if this thread is going to continue on its current path, I will move it to another location and post an" introduction" with a warning that participants "enter at their own risk."  Either that, or the level of discourse here can be raised beyond where it currently stands.

Please give this some thought.

Peace.

I'm going to put a large note on my computer saying ''DO NOT RESPOND TO MESSAGES ABOUT RELIGION AT THE END OF A HARD WORKING WEEK'.

I would appreciate if others would not post such topics until at least Saturday Night when I've had the chance to chill out a bit. The article is actually very funny in a Pythonesque sort of way.I recommend people to have a few 'bevvies' before reading it though!

BTW I promise not to be ''Jerk'' from now on.

As the man said...

PEACE

landberkdoten wrote: threefates wrote: I think thats only true about Pink Floyd fans... Hey! Watch your mouth young lady! A true Floydian fan here!

No problem Land, pretty big Floyd fan here too... just to prove it , I recently flew over to London from NYC just to hear Dave Gilmour play 2 songs (not even Floyd)  at that Jools Holland & Friends show at RAH... I'm thinking of doing that again when Dave plays at the Fender 50th Anniv. bash at Wembley in Sept. 

Marcelo wrote: Even though my thinking line is the same of Richard and Emdiar, I remember my former father-in-law words: "You'll never agree about religion, politics and football; avoid these topics". However, Doom, we can talk about these points respectfully (as I said in another thread) and everybody can learn to know more. In the other hand, this is a music forum, and it's better to fight about music and musicians .

of cource marcelo you are free to think whatever you want  and yes we can talk respectfully. I love talking in this forum about music, it's none of my business if someone hates religion but just don't attack people who are religious

sorry for seeming hostile richardh, i didnt mean it

Peace all

I cheerfully retract my blanket statement- there may in fact be talented Christian Rock artists that I know nothing about (Amy Grant and Keith Green are not going to change my opinion, however, nor are the recent entries of POD and Creed into the mainstream). And many (many many) geniuses throughout the ages have been quite religious- and many poor works of art have come from atheists or agnostics. It's simply that bad religion (not the band, the inspiration) is a continuing and prolific source of bad art and social commentary.

Want to hear something scary and see another crazy-christian website?

http://www.av1611.org/hell.html - http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

I would like to praise all contributers to this thread, for managing to keep such a contentious subject within the realms of civil debate and not resorting to a "my god's better than your god" slanging match.

Maani: Thanks for not closing this thread. We don't really want a site in which all controversial subjects are taboo, as a strict diet of "the weather and your health" (traditional British small talk) would cause more members to leave from boredom than currently storm off in high dudgeon upon discovering that not all progfans think exactly as they do. Oh, btw, thankyou for your "review" of my post regarding reviewers. Praise indeed.

Well, I'm bad to the bone. I smell of brimstone and crack. I eat bats and play my Yes records backwords everyday while praying to the desolate one. I believe Mike Rutherford is the Antichrist. You've only got to look at him

Mind you, I dont have long hair so I'm not all bad..

I don't trust any religion that condemns non-believers. Atheistic religions seem far more comforting.

I saw some anti-religious answers in this thread, that of course have some negative effect on a religious person like myself, but I have to admit that fanatics as the one we're talking about are resposible for this kind of reactions.

I don't trust any religion that condemns non-believers.

Neither do I Goose, this kind of fanatism only leads to violence, the funny thing is that this fundamentalists dare to criticize other religions like Catholicism, Judaism or Islam accusing them of being fanatics.

God save all of us from those who believe they have the right to talk in God's name and even worst to decide who is right and who is wrong.

The worst problem is that they are infecting young people with their poison, creating a generation that's afraid of evey secular discipline.

Do they want another Oscurantism? I believe so, because ignorant kids who are afraid of everything are an easy target for manipulation. Just read this site:

http://www.av1611.org/crock/crockids.html - http://www.av1611.org/crock/crockids.html

It's sad to read about young people being afraid of something as basic in human life as music.

Iván

threefates wrote: landberkdoten wrote: threefates wrote: I think thats only true about Pink Floyd fans... Hey! Watch your mouth young lady! A true Floydian fan here! No problem Land, pretty big Floyd fan here too... just to prove it , I recently flew over to London from NYC just to hear Dave Gilmour play 2 songs (not even Floyd)  at that Jools Holland & Friends show at RAH... I'm thinking of doing that again when Dave plays at the Fender 50th Anniv. bash at Wembley in Sept.

Good thinking!

Wish I could be there too

This person is a straight up idiot.

I wonder what Rick Wakeman would think?

Gaston wrote: This person is a straight up idiot. I wonder what Rick Wakeman would think?

He'd write a 3 disc concept album about how evil this person is, and then adapt it into a movie, play, video game, and dance routine.

Aquarius wrote: Lots of big names in progrock had songs with demonic references or with anti-religious lyrics.

Yes, but there are also many great religious prog groups (Yes, Jethro Tull)

In my opinion Yes lyrics are more about Spirituality than about Religion.There is a difference in my book.

This type of thing has always been rife in the US, especially in the deep south. I remember reading about the ritual burnings of Led Zepplin, Kiss (Knights in Satans service according to one mad bar steward) albums in the 70's. Rush were deemed to be satanic after the release of 2112, and Neil Peat wrote a response to the preacher in question - Its on the Web somewhere but I cant find his letter. It pretty much sums up why such reactions are stupid.

The fact is, and I am in no way generalising about the US south, these types seek to scapegoat all the time. They look for things to hang blame on for all the worlds ills, rather than examining the hipocrysies within their own camp. The young and the music they listern to are easy targets. I have nothing against any specific religion, but all to often it is religion or extremists interpretation of it, that leads to conflict and killing and a basic betrayal of the core beliefs of that religion.

richardh wrote: In my opinion Yes lyrics are more about Spirituality than about Religion.There is a difference in my book.

The Revealing Science Of GOD.

Reiligious enough for me...

Blacksword wrote: This type of thing has always been rife in the US, especially in the deep south.

Well I was born and raised a southern baptist in the Southern US.. and I can safely say that it wasn't that way in my church.

However, I did have 5 very religious aunts.. that when I ran away at 17 with ELP, they thought ELP was some type of a cult and that my Dad should have me kidnapped back and my mind de-programed...

Joren wrote: richardh wrote: In my opinion Yes lyrics are more about Spirituality than about Religion.There is a difference in my book. The Revealing Science Of GOD. Reiligious enough for me...

Not for me....

richardh wrote: Joren wrote: richardh wrote: In my opinion Yes lyrics are more about Spirituality than about Religion.There is a difference in my book. The Revealing Science Of GOD. Reiligious enough for me... Not for me....

GOD?

for me God = religion

Am I wrong?

Joren wrote: richardh wrote: Joren wrote: richardh wrote: In my opinion Yes lyrics are more about Spirituality than about Religion.There is a difference in my book. The Revealing Science Of GOD. Reiligious enough for me... Not for me.... GOD? for me God = religion Am I wrong?

Hi Joren, strictly speaking, you're not entirely right. Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe". These often, though not always, require the practice of worship of God or gods, though these gods are the object of worship and not worship itself......or am I just a pedantic git?

maani wrote: All: As a Christian minister, I find the man's views naive, unsound, and without merit - to say nothing of totally without basis in Scripture.  In this regard, I am  concerned that he is doing more harm than good vis-a-vis Christianity - which (just so there is no confusion) does not "condemn" any form of music.  Yes, we try to be careful where blatant satanic "worship" etc. is concerned, and I would steer people away from that.  However, this man clearly has little or no true understanding of Scripture, or how to apply it. As a minister, I can assure you that prog-rock is not "evil," and that, unless one is incredibly impressionable to begin with, neither the music, lyrics, nor album covers of any prog-rock band is going to cause good Christians (or even good atheists) to "turn to the devil." Peace.

Cheers.

Vibrationbaby wrote: Wish I could be there too!

Isn't it sad?  

All:

Blacksword said, "...all too often it is religion or extremists interpretation of it that leads to conflict and killing and a basic betrayal of that religion."  This is an exceptionally correct and important statement.   Whether it is the "Christian Right" or radical Islamic fundamentalists, it is "extremist" interpretations that led to the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11, etc.  After all, do you really think Jesus would have supported the Crusades?  Or that Mohammed would have supported the actions of 9/11?  They would have been mortified to see what was being done in their names.

It has been said that "religion is about laws, regulations and behavior; faith is about a relationship with God" (and, if you are Christian, with Christ).  One of the main problems with "religion" (as represented by the mainstream Catholic and Protestant churches) is that they focus far too much on the former, often at the expense of the latter.  (This is also true in much of the Islamic world, where fundamentalist imams focus on laws and behavior rather than faith.) As a minister, I can tell you that someone with "faith" is more likely to understand, accept and abide by whatever "laws, regulations and behavior" are expected of them, while a person who "follows the rules" but has no faith will have an enormously hard time building faith.

The focus on "laws and behavior" at the expense of "faith" is also why it is so easy for "extremist interpretations" to take hold among "the masses"; if more "religious" people (whether Jews, Christians or Muslims) had real "faith" - and actually read and knew what their own Scriptures said, rather than blindly following the narrow interpretations of "extremist" leaders - then extremist leaders would not be nearly as successful as they are.

James Lee states that, "The US was founded by criminals and zealots so objectionable to the rest of the world that they were banished here."  Unless his tongue is planted firmly in his cheek, this is revisionist history of the most dangerous type.  Our country was founded by people who rejected the "divine right of kings" to rule over them, yet not be subject to their own laws.  Although those people were (for the most part) what we would today call "conservative Christians," this was in fact a radical departure from orthodoxy.  Hardly "criminals and zealots," these people were (as the cliche goes) fighting for religious (and other) freedom.  Contrary to being "objectionable to the rest of the world," much of the free world at that time refused to support the British in the war against the "colonies."  Indeed, the French famously sided with the colonies against the British.  As for being "banished," this is the opposite of what actually occurred.

However, James adds that "Religion is not the problem.  It's Puritanism.  Witch-burning is alive and well and assuming insidious socially acceptable forms."  To this I can only say, "how (sadly) true."  As noted in a previous post, the so-called "Christian Right" takes Scripture out of context to support narrow, unloving, unforgiving, and ultimately un-Christian views.  They are, in many ways, the Christian equivalent of the radical fundamental extremists in Islam.  They do not represent most Christians; they simply dominate the "media voice" of Christianity because of the power they wield.

As for Islam (and my Islamic friends here can back me up), the Qu'ran is not a book of violence, as many pundits and right-wingers tried to assert after 9/11.  In fact, about 75%-80% of the text deals with love, peace, brotherhood, community, forgiveness - essentially the same values as "true" Christianity.  Yes, there are passages of violence, and references to "death to infidels."  However, not only are these only occasional, but there is actually as much (if not more) violence and "death to infidels" (i.e., non-Jews) talk and action in the Old Testament than there is in the Qu'ran.  Yet no one would call the Old Testament a "book of violence."

Similarly, the Arabic word "jihad" as used in the Qu'ran actually has three meanings.  Its primary meaning - i.e., about 80% of the time - is "internal struggle"; i.e., similar to the internal spiritual/worldly struggle that Jews and Christians undergo.  Its secondary meaning is "holy war."  Yet even here, that meaning is not the broad one espoused by fundamentalist imams against all infidels (non-Muslims), especially the Jews; rather, the term is actually more "narrowly" defined.  The tertiary meaning of "jihad" is somewhat "obscure" to "the West," and has no bearing on this particular discussion.

Joren says: "For me, God = religion.  Am I wrong?"

I think I addressed that at the top.  Religion is about laws, regulations and behavior; faith is about a relationship with God.  If there is an equation here, it is "God=love."  (As a minister I would go even further and remind my fellow Christians that leading a "Christ-like" life is not only about love - which, of course, is primary - but also about forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, peace, charity, selflessness, and service.)

As some of you have inferred, "Christianity" has often been its own worst enemy.  Part of my calling as a minister is to remind Christians (and others) what Christanity was originally meant to be: i.e., the "true essence" of Jesus' life and ministry - not what Christianity became.  Most Christians forget that not only was Jesus a Jew, but He did not come to start a "new religion"; He came to teach the Jews how to be better Jews, i.e., to expose the Temple Leaders and Sanhedrin as the corrupt, self-serving leaders they had become, and to lead the Jews back to the truths in their own Scripture - to teach the "spirit" of the law ("faith") rather than the "letter" of the law ("religion").

Sorry for the treatise.  However, I thought it might be informative to some of you who may be forming opinions based on the words and/or actions of a few, or of a non-representative group.  In this regard, it has not been my intention to offend anyone, and if anything said herein is offensive, you have my most sincere apology.

Peace.

Whoops- it's so hard to write something that communicates the humor/ emotive content. I was indeed stretching the truth quite a bit (actually, I was sorta paraphrasing Bill Murray from Stripes: "Our ancestors got kicked out of every decent country in the world") but on the personal front, one of my grandfathers was actually given the choice of prison or exile to the US- I won't say for what reason, but it wasn't very romantic.

I try not to confuse religion with faith- the former is social, or even political, and based on doctrine, whereas the latter is personal and based on one's own understanding (of god, or simply of our existence). And I rarely even like to use the term "spiritual", as it can encompass anything from Orthodox Judaism to UFO death cults to a belief in ghosts.

Despite what may be implied from some things I have written, one of my life's main concerns is faith; ever since my Franciscan undergraduate days, when the seminary was a real possibility for me, I have dedicated much of my thought and time towards the problems of philosophy and theology- eventually earning a few degrees in the subject. I am not an enemy of Christianity; my personal heroes include Jesus, St. Francis, St. Anselm, C.S. Lewis, and many others. I do think that elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition have been responsible for a considerable amount of our current, and often secular social problems (for instance, an emphasis on shame, missionary colonialism, and a requirement for personal submission), but addressing those directly would be getting even farther from our already tangential discussion. 

I have nothing but the deepest respect, and even envy, for people of faith and intelligence. If I seem to come down hard on religion (or society in general), it's only a defensive response to the common, overwhelming hypocrisy and lack of comprehensive understanding that usually accompanies people or organizations who (borrowing maani's turn of phrase) 'wear their faith on their sleeves'. From my own experience, I cannot stress enough that knee-jerk anti-religious attitudes are every bit as dangerous as any other kind of thoughtless zealotry.

Vibrationbaby wrote: Blacksword wrote: Well, I'm bad to the bone. I smell of brimstone and crack. I eat bats and play my Yes records backwords everyday while praying to the desolate one. I believe Mike Rutherford is the Antichrist. You've only got to look at him Mind you, I dont have long hair so I'm not all bad.. I've played a few Black Sabbath records backwards but never any Yes records I'm going to have to give it a try. I'm going to start with Tales From Topographic Oceans.Maybe It will cauuse me to commit suicide! Bob Fripp is the real antichrist.

LOL!

Joren wrote: Vibrationbaby wrote: Blacksword wrote: Well, I'm bad to the bone. I smell of brimstone and crack. I eat bats and play my Yes records backwords everyday while praying to the desolate one. I believe Mike Rutherford is the Antichrist. You've only got to look at him Mind you, I dont have long hair so I'm not all bad.. I've played a few Black Sabbath records backwards but never any Yes records I'm going to have to give it a try. I'm going to start with Tales From Topographic Oceans.Maybe It will cauuse me to commit suicide! Bob Fripp is the real antichrist. LOL!

It may not be a laughing matter really, but when I was 13 or so, I attempted to play an Iron Maiden song backward. There's a song on their awful 'Piece of mind' album with a backward message. Cant remember what it said, but as I turned the platter the wrong way, the lights went out in my bedroom (by coincidence I hope ) I was with some schoolfriends at the time. We all freaked out. Two of them never spoke to me again, and another wouldn't come round my house for a year..he was a bit younger. Must admit, I changed the bulb and slept with the lght on that night.

If heavy metal was such a satanic influence, why didn't the numbers of Satanists boom in the 80s? There was a noticeable increase, but nowhere near as much as Scientology, which (depending on whose numbers you believe) has more than tripled its base since 1980!

Hmm, maybe we should be analyzing Billy Sheehan's body of work instead of the more demonic metal musicians...

Pollution
All around
Sometimes up
And sometimes down
But always around.
Pollution, are you coming to my town?
Or am I coming to yours?
We're on different buses, pollution
But we're both using petrol.

Blacksword wrote: Joren wrote: Vibrationbaby wrote: Blacksword wrote: Well, I'm bad to the bone. I smell of brimstone and crack. I eat bats and play my Yes records backwords everyday while praying to the desolate one. I believe Mike Rutherford is the Antichrist. You've only got to look at him Mind you, I dont have long hair so I'm not all bad.. I've played a few Black Sabbath records backwards but never any Yes records I'm going to have to give it a try. I'm going to start with Tales From Topographic Oceans.Maybe It will cauuse me to commit suicide! Bob Fripp is the real antichrist. LOL! It may not be a laughing matter really, but when I was 13 or so, I attempted to play an Iron Maiden song backward. There's a song on their awful 'Piece of mind' album with a backward message. Cant remember what it said, but as I turned the platter the wrong way, the lights went out in my bedroom (by coincidence I hope ) I was with some schoolfriends at the time. We all freaked out. Two of them never spoke to me again, and another wouldn't come round my house for a year..he was a bit younger. Must admit, I changed the bulb and slept with the lght on that night.

On this website you can find what you mean:

http://www.reversespeech.com/music_reversals.htm - http://www.reversespeech.com/music_reversals.htm

there also is a soundclip of the Iron Maiden song, played forwards and backwards, available for downloading.

Joren, thanks so much... that is one of the funniest sites I've been to in a long time!

Everyone must check out the Captain and Tennile and Mary Poppins samples.

ROFL

Joren wrote: What a jerk!

Idiots like him have existed since the Dark Ages when they used to burn people at the stake.

Possessed wrote: Joren wrote: What a jerk! Idiots like him have existed since the Dark Ages when they used to burn people at the stake.

And who was it that did the burning? Not the likes of me that's for sure.

Vibrationbaby wrote: Blacksword wrote: Well, I'm bad to the bone. I smell of brimstone and crack. I eat bats and play my Yes records backwords everyday while praying to the desolate one. I believe Mike Rutherford is the Antichrist. You've only got to look at him Mind you, I dont have long hair so I'm not all bad.. I've played a few Black Sabbath records backwards but never any Yes records I'm going to have to give it a try. I'm going to start with Tales From Topographic Oceans.Maybe It will cauuse me to commit suicide! Bob Fripp is the real antichrist.

For Yes inspired suicide, try 90125 forwards.

Guys, this man is completely "gone..."

Howewer, it's real, I spent 90% of my budget for prog discs!!!!!

- yeah, I'm a liberal in Bertrand Russell's way but I think that Marx when he said that "Religion is opium for the Masses" said the truth; the results are these and Osama and witchburning and more and more and more...

- Also if you listen to groups like Dr.Z, Comus, Coven, Jacula, Antonius Rex satanic reflections are more or less clear anyway...remember that Indian Summer's first song is "God is the Dog"... but I think they were not Satanists..

- Anybody knows black metal? Maybe this guy confused the genres or maybe in Marion those discs are not for sale... Re-Exhuming McCarthy?

 "Space is the place" 

What a strange world this is...

..in one corner we have the hysterical, the tinderbox people ready to spring to action (anything from mass violence to just babbling incoherently on a steetcorner) for any rousing cause, no matter how pointless and insane the reasoning behind it...

...and to oppose and permit them, we have the humanistic, status quo worldview that tells us that every opinion is equal and every belief and behavior valid, all integral threads in a tapestry...

...and behind and above and below it all, the smug and superior timeless beast of commerce and progress, watching and condescending to the two sides as they indulge their extremes...

richardh wrote: Possessed wrote: Joren wrote: What a jerk! Idiots like him have existed since the Dark Ages when they used to burn people at the stake.   And who was it that did the burning? Not the likes of me that's for sure.

I should hope not! Perhaps your ancestors? Just kidding!

emdiar wrote: "Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It wasn't reasoned in to him and cannot be reasoned out of him." -Sydney Smith.

Great quote! There's a name I haven't heard since grad school  

progchain wrote: Guys, this man is completely "gone..." Howewer, it's real, I spent 90% of my budget for prog discs!!!!! - yeah, I'm a liberal in Bertrand Russell's way but I think that Marx when he said that "Religion is opium for the Masses" said the truth; the results are these and Osama and witchburning and more and more and more... - Also if you listen to groups like Dr.Z, Comus, Coven, Jacula, Antonius Rex satanic reflections are more or less clear anyway...remember that Indian Summer's first song is "God is the Dog"... but I think they were not Satanists.. - Anybody knows black metal? Maybe this guy confused the genres or maybe in Marion those discs are not for sale... Re-Exhuming McCarthy?  "Space is the place"

I think that Marx said "Religion is opium for the Masses" because, in his thinking line, he considered religions like a sort of "brain washing": people wouldn't fight against the opression accepting any unfairness because, after all, everybody will live in paradise. 

Possessed wrote: richardh wrote: Possessed wrote: Joren wrote: What a jerk! Idiots like him have existed since the Dark Ages when they used to burn people at the stake.   And who was it that did the burning? Not the likes of me that's for sure.         I should hope not! Perhaps your ancestors? Just kidding!

Glad we cleared that up then

Marcelo wrote: progchain wrote: - yeah, I'm a liberal in Bertrand Russell's way but I think that Marx when he said that "Religion is opium for the Masses" said the truth; the results are these and Osama and witchburning and more and more and more... I think that Marx said "Religion is opium for the Masses" because, in his thinking line, he considered religions like a sort of "brain washing": people wouldn't fight against the opression accepting any unfairness because, after all, everybody will live in paradise.

It's even more complex than that- in his view, religion wasn't simply brain washing but also a personal choice for escapism (just like taking a drug...or watching TV, or listening to progressive rock ). He definitely believed that religion was encouraged by those in power, as it justified the status quo and removed the desire to improve one's station in this world. Like Nietsche, he regarded the abandonment of religion as a necessary step to liberate oneself from servitude, but Marx also believed that religion was an expression and symbol of suffering- the common man empathizing with the suffering of Jesus, for example. This aspect of his views on religion actually coincide with the beliefs of some religiously oriented agents for social change (the Berrigan brothers, for example). In many ways, Marxism shares many of the populist tendencies of Christianity- or Democracy, for that matter. Ultimately, however, Marx was against the social hierarchy that the prominent religious organizations established and supported.

Ironically, Marxist beliefs have been thoroughly and insidiously adapted into our current belief system, and have now become as fundamentally escapist as he believed religion to be. This is apparent in academic critique and more commonly in 'political correctness'- social hierarchy relative to cultural elements, viewed from an oppressor/ oppressed dynamic. Once an inspiration for revolutionary change, now Marxist thought is most often used to criticize and denigrate anything that seems to hold a position of cultural ascendancy (masculinity, western history and artistic traditions, being caucasian, etc.) and therefore provide an illusory empowerment to those who feel like victims.

James et al:

According to Marx and Engels, the two basic economic principles of "true socialism" (i.e., communism) were "common property" and "from each according to his ability to produce; to each according to his need."  In this regard, consider the following passage:

"Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common...Nor was there anyone who lacked, for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, and they distributed to each as anyone had need." [Acts 4:32-35]

Thus, Marx and Engels actually stole the idea of communism from the early Christians!  And then they have the unmitigated gall to turn around and call Christianity (because that was, after all, the prevailing religion in Russia) "the opium of the masses?"

Methinks there is some hypocrisy afoot here...

Peace.

maani wrote: James et al: According to Marx and Engels, the two basic economic principles of "true socialism" (i.e., communism) were "common property" and "from each according to his ability to produce; to each according to his need."  In this regard, consider the following passage: "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common...Nor was there anyone who lacked, for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, and they distributed to each as anyone had need." [Acts 4:32-35] Thus, Marx and Engels actually stole the idea of communism from the early Christians!  And then they have the unmitigated gall to turn around and call Christianity (because that was, after all, the prevailing religion in Russia) "the opium of the masses?" Methinks there is some hypocrisy afoot here... Peace.

Interesting. I have always considered communism to be fundamentally flawed as it makes no allowance for man's desire to compete. One-up-manship is the driving force behind progress, and the supression of internal competiveness was the undoing of the Soviet dream. Marxism as an idealism looks great on paper, but, rather like the Bible, has often been used to futher the goals of people with less than idealistic motives.

Opium is a naturally occuring plant derivative, the use of which has been invaluable throughout the centuries as a means of relief from pain and suffering, and without which modern medicine would be in a sorry state.

Opium was used (by the Brits) to subjugate the Chinese in the 19th century, and in its purified form (heroine) was, untill the advent of "crack",  the preferred "drug of control" of pimps worldwide.

Religion, (yes, even christianity) has  been used throughout history to subjugate nations, or to supress free thought through dogmatic adherence to particular credos.

In this respect Marx was absolutely correct. An invaluably good thing will always be (mis)used by unscrupulous minds to futher their own selfish ends. Where Marx slipped up however, (and this is a trait of an idealist) is he failed to see that his own, well meant credo was every bit as open to misinterpretation as those he so criticised.

The word "Communism" in most parts of the world is simply the name of a particular political point of view, and many democratic countries have communist politicial candidates who are no more feared or mistrusted than their capitalist counterparts. In America, where it was so demonised during the MaCathy reign of terror, that people were scared to express any left wing sympathy for fear of being branded criminally "UnAmerican", (whatever that means?) one gets the impression to this day that communism is seen not so much a  political movement as a satanic death cult. Even you, Maani, who have often spoken up on the subject of tollerance and respect for opposing points of view within this forum, seem to find it acceptable to use words such as "hypocrisy" when it's communism you're critisising. The same word directed at the Bush administration would, I'm sure, cause a huge row in which members would storm off vowing never to return. Think on...

(EDIT: James, sorry mate, I didn't read your previous post and have somewhat reworded some of the views you expressed, but when you're right......)

Any honest and thoughtful human being has to eventually admit to the charge of hypocrisy; we're all so complicated and self- contradictory that anything we profess to believe always has exceptions.

Someone mentioned Bertrand Russell- a great philosopher who is famous for holding completely opposite beliefs during the course of his life

Emdiar:

Thank you for your response.  I certainly agree with your linking of opium and "religion" vis-a-vis their ability to be used to subjugate masses.  I would only add that they do not necessarily do so per se: it takes a "corrupt" leader or leaders to consciously use it in such a way.

Re my use of the term hypocrisy, I was only calling it hypocritical for Marx/Engels to denigrate an entire belief system (Christianity), yet, with the other hand, claim one of the central tenets of that belief system as their own.  Were Christians (as a whole) actually able and willing to truly follow the "essence" of Jesus' ministry - i.e., to actually live the passage I cited - Marx and Engels would have been out of a job...or at very least been forced to recognize that some (if not many) of the principles of Jesus' ministry and that of the apostles and disciples - what is often called "true" or "primitive" Christianity - were not only in keeping with their own, but that "true Christianity" (as practiced by the early Christians spoken of in that passage) was, in fact, a model of "true communism."

Peace.

Maani:

Hi. I agree entirely with your point that it takes a corrupt leader. Unfortunately such beings are two-a-penny, and those that don't have their own state to tiranize can always round up a significant number of no-hope sheep to do their bidding, Wacko style.

Sorry I sounded a bit tetchy towards the end of my post, it was early in the morning, and I hadn't had my cuppa tea! I have often thought of Jesus as a true revolutionary, Communist rebel, and all round exceptional guy, but the dreadfull truth is this: Human nature will allways pollute the purest of intentions.

 Early Christians may have invented marxist communism, but it took the Soviets to proove it doesn't work. People are greedy, period. In Western capitalist countries we call it ambition, a virtue to be admired. The cold war is over and we won. Why? Because human nature (greed) will allways win over idealism when exposed to the allure of capitalism.

emdiar's real name is Gordon Gekko!

Frank Zappa said "communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff"

greed and ambition aren't necessarily natural human traits- possesiveness and competitiveness are just some of the many things we share with our animal cousins...

Just an hour or so ago I had to separate my bulldogs because Brutus kept growling at Hamlet every time he came near the little squeaking rubber hamburger. No matter how many toys the little one has, he wants the one the big dog is playing with (or more often, sleeping on)...he doesn't want it to have it, he just wants it because the other one seems to be enjoying it.

A communist would argue that we are above these sort of things (believing falsely like most people that we have something that animals lack), and the typical pragmatist would say they are just human nature...

I suspect that the truth is a little more complex, that property is neither theft nor a necessary evil but that our definitions of personal ownership place way more value on material things than they deserve...does anyone honestly think that a corporation is really entitled to the same rights as a human being?

The worst thing that communism is guilty of isn't that it allows opportunistic fascists to spout Marxist rhetoric as they oppress their citizenry; it's the failure of communism that presented so many people such a clear example of the failure of idealism and therefore impeding the true progress of the human spirit. Between the jaded baby-boomers and their kitsch-obsessed progeny (myself included), we could really use something that appeals to the potential, rather than the 'nature' of humanity...

maani, am I wrong or has Christianity become noticeably more popular, among young people especially, in recent years?

James: Gordon Gekko, . I suppose my post makes me sound like a right Tory (Republican) bread head, but this could not be futher from the truth. A working class lad, me, with strong socialist sympathies, from a mining village, laid waste by the evils of Thatcherism, who despises corporate greed, and the world-wide suffering it causes, and who, were it not for a propensity for unnecessarily polysyllabic articulation, would never have been able to bullsh*t my way out!

No, my critique of communism is born of cynical pragmatism, rather than my quiet leftwing ideals, which I harbour with  affection and not a little melancholia.

JrKASperov;" I did not 'learn' my exceptional standings on morals during my life, I always had 'em".   So morals are genetically inherited eh? If this were true it would save us parents a whole bunch of hard work!

I always though that Jesus was the first true communist, trying to teach about love, peace, equality, justice, etc... Sadly, modern human history only shows two real examples of true communist life system (if I'm not wrong): The Israelian "kibbutz" and some communities in Spain before the Franco's tirany. Marxism attemps in the former Soviet Union failed because there was a political party that understood communism as another way to get all the power, forgetting idealism and freedom, the basic human right.

BTW, in our capitalist societies -where ambition and greed are accepted as competition ways and politicians fill their mouthes with the word "freedom"- communism (just a political position, after all) is still demonized. I. e., each time I travel to USA I must complete a visa form that includes some questions like "are you a weapons dealer, are you a drugs dealer, did you participate in an US citizen kidnapping, etc" and... "do you belong to a communist party?" (!!!).

I'm not religious, but I'm sure that there's no any religion principle talking about some kind of thoughs discrimination. So, which is the message from our "Western and Christian world"? 

emdiar wrote: JrKASperov;" I did not 'learn' my exceptional standings on morals during my life, I always had 'em".   So morals are genetically inherited eh? If this were true it would save us parents a whole bunch of hard work!

Why, explain to me then how I remember watching all kinds of kids in kindergarten getting bullied and me having a bad feeling about all that?

JrKASperov wrote: emdiar wrote: JrKASperov;" I did not 'learn' my exceptional standings on morals during my life, I always had 'em".   So morals are genetically inherited eh? If this were true it would save us parents a whole bunch of hard work! Why, explain to me then how I remember watching all kinds of kids in kindergarten getting bullied and me having a bad feeling about all that?

Maybe because, at that age, you had already learned how it felt to be bullied yourself, so you felt sorry for them?

Marcelo wrote: I always though that Jesus was the first true communist, trying to teach about love, peace, equality, justice, etc... Sadly, modern human history only shows two real examples of true communist life system (if I'm not wrong): The Israelian "kibbutz" and some communities in Spain before the Franco's tirany. Marxism attemps in the former Soviet Union failed because there was a political party that understood communism as another way to get all the power, forgetting idealism and freedom, the basic human right. BTW, in our capitalist societies -where ambition and greed are accepted as competition ways and politicians fill their mouthes with the word "freedom"- communism (just a political position, after all) is still demonized. I. e., each time I travel to USA I must complete a visa form that includes some questions like "are you a weapons dealer, are you a drugs dealer, did you participate in an US citizen kidnapping, etc" and... "do you belong to a communist party?" (!!!). I'm not religious, but I'm sure that there's no any religion principle talking about some kind of thoughs discrimination. So, which is the message from our "Western and Christian world"?

On behalf of the (many) US citizens who aren't paranoid, and who don't share our government's right wing closed-mindedness, I apologize...we Americans profess a belief in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" but it doesn't automatically come with reason, honor, and tolerance. Despite our country's reputed embracing of 'multiculturalism', we're still very much an isolationist, puritanical people, likely to be frightened into shameful actions when we perceive a threat from an ideological force we don't understand.

The views of communism have changed a little since the 1950s, when the average American was indoctrinated with Eugene McCarthy's witchburning program and drive-in movies like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Now most Americans follow some variant of the theme "it's a nice theory, but human nature makes it impossible". Still flawed reasoning, but it's some kind of progress, I guess...

I was mainly talking about the conclusions people have drawn from the failure of most communist-based revolutions, and the views Marx had concerning religion. I'm not one of those who say that Communism can't work; in fact, I think it is the purest form of democracy (another idealistic theory derided by many throughout history), and clearly better for the human spirit than the degrading and homogenizing brand of capitalism that is currently practiced. I just wish communism had given us more examples like the kibbutz, and fewer like the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etcetera, which (as you pointed out) briefly if ever practiced anything resembling true communism.

People who (with good reason) believe political debate has no place in this forum are cordially invited to ignore this post. (Let's face it, you should have done so about 3 pages ago.)

James; I can tell you are a truely free thinker, like all of my many American friends who have had the benefit of perspective, ( expats', the onlooker sees most of the game after all) and are horrified at the tide of antiAmerican sentiment that is engulfing the rest of the world.

There are definite parallels to be drawn between McCathy and Bush. Just as with McCathy, Bush has used the propaganda machine to spread a dangerous myth, which goes something like this: "If you're anti-me, then you're unAmerican." Quote: "If you're not with us you're against us!". I'll decide who I'm with or against thank you very much, and I won't base my decision on some misguided sense of flag waving patriotic zeal.

Although I am one of those who has claimed  that communism is unworkable due to the inherent greed of man, I would like to point out that I did include the proviso "when exposed to the allure of capitalism". Capitalist powers have made good and sure that such exposure is universal, whilst deliberatly scuppering communist states. The USSR did have one very important function, which was this: It created a balance of power in the world. Uncle Sam had to watch his Ps and Qs during the cold war. That counterbalance has been taken away and America has (at least in the eyes of the rest of the World) become just a little too big for its boots as a consequence.

Oh yeah, one Moore thing (get it ?),...... IMHO!

Love to all on both sides of the Atlantic,

M.D.R.

All:

I want to congratulate all of you on maintaining a reasoned, mature approach to this increasingly potentially "difficult" discussion.  Let's make sure that we all  remain in that mode, and not "personalize" the discussion.

As an aside, this particular group has shown itself to be among the most truly knowledgeable, socio-politically (and in many cases "spiritually") savvy group to engage in a discussion of this type.  (This is not a denigration of anyone else on the site.)  It is also wonderful that all of you seem willing to learn from each other, to re-state ambiguous or misinterpreted positions, and to be thoughtful and gracious in accepting when you are "off the mark" or not entirely correct.

Bravo to all of you.

Peace.

Maani,

I echo your comments on the civilised nature of the debate in this thread.

What I would say though is that while I appreciate that this thread began as discussion about whether "listeners of progressive rock are evil", it soon digressed into a theological and political discussion, far removed from music. I have no problem with such discussion, but would prefer that it be confined to the "Not related to music" section. The "Main discussions" section should be about the core subject of the forum, i.e progressive rock.

I mean no disrespect to those who have carried out the discussion here, and I have no wish to attempt to stifle debate, but everything in its place...?

I agree- let's dump this thread before I say something I'll regret later

I've been noticing that I'll write a review criticizing bands about being pretentious and then go and fire off pedantic and verbose forum posts about politics and theology...I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone!