alright, who's the wise guy or gal that gave babu the vedabase?

Prabhupada, who else?

when will they do the needful and take out the controvesial parts?

Then why did so many women from India get together and post in a series of blog entries about their outrage over sexual harassment on the street?

Yes infatuation with movie stars is universal, it seems, but that doesn't mean that women like to be raped (ie penetrated against their will).

What is this? More war waged by trance-sin-mental Cod luggers on little kids?

Looks like the GBC (elevate the abusers to saviors) have something in common with other Cod blearing devotees.




Published on Thursday, June 8 2006 by the Guardian/UK
Suffer Little Children
US evangelists are twisting the Bible to say that beating the young is a Christian doctrine
by Giles Fraser


Pretty much all I remember from my prep school are the beatings: that lonely wait outside the headmaster's study; the cane, the slipper, the table tennis bat. I remember my underpants filled with blood. I remember seething with frustration when they beat my brother. My mother had asked me to look after him. But there was nothing I could do as he was led towards the study in his little tartan dressing gown.

That was 30 years ago, but in time measured out by the psyche it was yesterday. Thank God such things are now illegal. But there remain those determined to turn back the clock. "We are told that in England it is a crime to spank children," writes Debbi Pearl from No Greater Joy Ministries, following a row that has erupted over the distribution of their literature in the UK. "Therefore Christians are not able to openly obey God in regard to biblical chastisement. They are in danger of having the state steal their children."

The Pearls are evangelical Christians who believe corporal punishment is "doing it God's way". With a mailing list of tens of thousands of parents, the Pearls say that the justification for their approach is in scripture: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24).

Chastening begins early. "For the under-one-year-old, a little, 10- to 12-inch long, willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch diameter is sufficient," writes Michael Pearl. With older children he advises: "After a short explanation about bad attitudes and the need to love, patiently and calmly apply the rod to his backside. Somehow, after eight or 10 licks, the poison is transformed into gushing love and contentment. The world becomes a beautiful place. A brand-new child emerges. It makes an adult stare at the rod in wonder, trying to see what magic is contained therein."

It's incredible to me that books such as this are readily available on Amazon; it is little short of incitement to child abuse. What makes the whole thing doubly sick is that it's done in the name of God. Apparently, the "proper application of the rod is essential to the Christian world-view". Note "essential". Perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise. For, as evangelicals, the Pearls believe that salvation only comes through punishment and pain. God punishes his Son with crucifixion so that humanity might not have to face the Father's anger. This image of God the father, for whom violence is an expression of tough love, is lodged deep in the evangelical imagination. And it twists a religion of forgiveness and compassion into something dark and cruel.

It's terrifying how deep this teaching penetrates into a philosophy of child rearing. Just as divine anger is deemed to be provoked by the original sin of human disobedience, the beating of children is seen as punishment for rebellion. According to Ted Tripp, in his monstrous bestseller Shepherding a Child's Heart, even babies who struggle while having their nappy changed are deemed to be rebellious and need punishment.

Last month Lynn Paddock of North Carolina was charged with the murder of her four-year-old son, Sean. She had apparently beaten him with a length of quarter-inch plumbing line - plastic tubing. Like many in her church, Paddock had turned to the Pearls' resources on Biblical parenting. The Pearls say chastisement with plumbing line is "a real attention getter". Sean Paddock's autopsy describes layers of bruises stretching from his bottom to his shoulder.

What Jesus said about those who would harm children comes inevitably to mind: "It would be better for them if a millstone was hanged about their neck, and that they were drowned in the depth of the sea."

amara dasa has been helping me

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/ODiscMay17_03.html

Satsvarupa: Prabhupada, in editing, there are two different policies about using capitals. One is to use as few capitals as possible or to use many capitals, in grammar capitalized, or to use few. So sometimes your Nectar of Devotion has got very few capitals. When Balarama is referred to as "he," there is no capital. But the other policy is to always put... Krsna's Hands, capital H, Krsna's Feet, capital F, Krsna Who, capital W. Which is...

Prabhupada: No, no, no. Don't follow that policy. That will not be very... Then...

Satsvarupa: The less capitals, the better?

Prabhupada: Yes. I think. What do you think?

Hayagriva: Well, I think, when referring to Krsna, we should always have a capital "H."

Prabhupada: Especially. Yes. Especially for Krsna, you can.

Hayagriva: And if we want to, for Radha, capital "S."

Prabhupada: But Balarama is not different from Krsna.

Satsvarupa: So He is capital "H."

Hayagriva: So He is capital "H." But then here we go. (laughter)

Prabhupada: No, no. You limit to these three. That will do.

Hayagriva: Limit to those three.

Prabhupada: Or Visnu. Yes. Visnu.

Hayagriva: What about avataras, in reference to Christ or Buddha?

Prabhupada: Buddha is capital used. Jesus Christ is capital used.

Satsvarupa: Yes. But he... Like "He." He means Buddha, "Who."

Hayagriva: No, "He."

Prabhupada: No. That you can use...

Satsvarupa: Small.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Satsvarupa: Then words like Krsna's "pastimes," "entourage," His "will."

Prabhupada: No, small.

Satsvarupa: Small.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Hayagriva: The possessions of Krsna, small.

Prabhupada: Small.

Satsvarupa: His hands and feet, small.

Brahmananda: Lotus feet?

Prabhupada: Yes.

Satsvarupa: Lotus flower?

Prabhupada: Yes. All small. Simply name. Stick to name.

Hayagriva: The pronoun, Krsna, "who." The pronoun "who," that's not...

Prabhupada: No, no. Use small.

Hayagriva: Thank you. There's so many... That causes a headache for everyone.

Prabhupada: No. It is better to make everything sound but slow. We want to create this position of Back to Godhead as very authorized representation of the science of God. In future people may refer to it, so we should very cautiously and very nicely do it. It is very important thing, Back to Godhead. If our movement is going to be recognized as scientific, God consciousness movement, then this Back to Godhead will be referred as authorized scripture. So therefore we have to prepare in such a way, nothing non-conclusive can be introduced in this. That should be our policy. And actually it is the position of Back to Godhead.

actually, none. these texts are quite clear. you or I may not agree with them, but that is another thing.

Yes, SP generalised too much and his language and views show him to be quite opinionated on social issues, but for the most part there is some validity even in the above referenced statements. He very rarely tempered his speach with political correctness, especially on social issues. You can even find a few statements gloryfiying Hitler to his mostly Jewish followers now, THAT was interesting! but perhaps he noticed how poorly they responded (some complained in pretty strong terms to him) and later he rarely brought up these issues again.

and if you think Prabhupada was that much wrong about blacks, look at Africa. Just one case: Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). It used to be (under whites) one of the richest countries in Africa. Look at them now - after "independence" blacks destroyed that country and now they cant even feed themselves anymore. THAT is a fact.

the whites invaded their country and destroyed their tribal culture, kept them in a pressure cooker for a few hundred years and then when the whites leave, things go haywire... not a very good example

look around u.s. at what the white culture did to a most beautiful land... that's the fact

of course though, its not about race, its about ideas that destroy our world

Colonial chickens coming home to roost, my white friend.

True colors shining through....

that is a load of BS. they were like that before and after the whites. they took over a fabulously prosperous country and run it into the ground... it happened everywhere in Africa after whites were kicked out. Tribal wars and corruption are the bane of Africa - this IS their tribal culture.

I live in US where I can get a real good look at blacks in all kinds of settings and in general I have a pretty low opinion about them too - as a group. Individually they have some outstanding people as well, but socially speaking they have real problems that they create themselves. Mostly, it is the issue of prevailing and perpetuated culture, not race, that causes it. But it is undeniably there. Whites here dont like to live close to blacks not because they are racist, but because black neigbours are usually obnoxious, untidy, laud and often involved in criminal activities. it is not because they are poor - I live in a very poor rural county that is probably 90% white and we dont have these problems.

Ever hear of the word SLAVERY? Oh, somebody tell them uppity niggers to quit bein so derned onery and act more white!

I bet they don't have none of them there queers, nigger lovers', or Hairy Krishners down in the white part 'o town neither, Eh Jethro?

is that an excuse that's good for 108 generations, or is it permanent?

What were your descendants doing 100 years ago?

The white Nazi groups here in Australia use the same argument without understanding what it is to have a culture crushed.

Why are you trying to be an Aryan when they died out - how many generations ago?

It is so sad when racists are exposed, such a disappointment. And so useful - sort of informs the listener about the tunnel vision and bigotry.

No wonder you could not reply.

By the way, Jethro, I was born and raised in the US too.

I take it you are asking about my ancestors 100 years ago. FYI they were farmers, soldiers and professionals in Poland.

it is easy to call someone a racist to discredit their views. but it does not change facts on the ground. people are not the same and if you dare to look at statistics, trends WILL emerge. whether you like it or not. are statistical trends racist? only to a moron.

That explains it.

Moron to Jethro, come in Jethro:

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

it is easy to reply.

1. It demonstrates the prevailing opinion of people of his time and place.
2. read again what I read from his statement
3. you lost me\
4. I have no clue
5. what is face value to you is not the same to me. I translated his books for years
6. yes, it is a relative. and thats what his statement says.
7. see #5

You are easily satisfied. And easily self-deluded.

Be happy in your little world.

I was born in and have lived most of my life in the southern US, and have to agree with KP on many points. Generalizations are never %100 accurate, but there is some truth in them. To blame everything on white rascism is such a cliched response, which is in vogue since the '60s, just like rascism was in 19th and early 20th centuries. We can generalize about blacks, and we can generalize about whites' opinions about blacks, and vice versa. Its just as naive to call everyone who has anybody critical to say about anyone else as a bigot etc., as calling all people of a certain race a certain way, and I dont think thats what KP was saying. He has his observations, I have mine.
The newsflash may be: most blacks that I know prefer to live and associate amongst themselves. Most have steroetypes about whites some of which are accurate, some aren't. Most of both races here -even the whites Homer would likely label as bigots- get along with and do business etc. with each other just fine. Its called -human nature, which most of us are blessed/cursed to have.

I don't buy into this collective guilt all whites are supposed to have about everything from the holocaust to slavery to country music, which I agree sucks. My ancestors were mostly peasants from Italy that came early last century anyway, so I can say what I want.

There are evil people in every race, how bout Idi Amin for a upstanding negro Hitler? How bout the fact that the former British colony, India, is the one of the fastest growing economies on the planet. Instead of sitting around bitching about how the Brits screwed them for 200+ years, they are working hard and getting the result. I have seen it change alot even in the 14 years since I first started going. Rich and educated blacks often chide other blacks, esp. in the south, for laziness, waiting for handouts, gangsta rap music, black on black crime (which is far exceeds black to white or white to black) etc. I guess they are bigots too.

Bottom line is: I just don't feel like I have to buy some party line about how I'm supposed to see and interpret the world I live in, whether it be from a religion or some self-described modern 'humanistic' dogma.

For me the idea that ANY group can be demonized is repulsive. I believe the reason there are so many socio-economic difficulties among enslaved peoples is because of the breakdown of the very thing that defines them as a race.

Slavery in a foreign land is not equal to occupation.

To compare the Indian race with most African tribal societies is a red herring. The Indians have dealt with foreign conquerers for many generations. The African situation was more tribe-to-tribe warfare and they therefore were more susceptible to cultural destruction.

The Indians were not shipped to America in vast numbers as were the Africans.

I think some Indians may take offence at this. At any rate to bring this to a more general level, human, well hell, all life on th eplanet is marked by change and adaptation. Shitty things happen, good things happen. People adapt and make the best of what situation they have found themselves in, whether by fate or some asshole pointing a gun at them. That's the unfortunate reality of the human situation, whether white, black, brown, or yellow.

I think slavery is quite far from the minds of most contemporary blacks in the south, and I think its kind of silly to call them an enslaved people, if that's what you meant. Even the most radical don't say this here. I think you need to come here and meet some real-live southern black americans Homer. Most are pretty happy. One way tickets to Ghana aren't selling very rapidly.

btw, generalization doesn't equal demonization -thats a red herring too...

White people can be as much corrupted as blacks. Whites are caucacian race, aren't they? The countries in Caucasus like Georgia, Azerbaijan or Armenia are all war ravaged, very poor and extremely corrupted. South Africa or Mexico is heaven comparing with these regions. Skin color or genetics does not have anything to do with it. It is the cultural bondage that brings the worst out of human beings. And one can never know when the demise of the USA will happen but it is inevitable as for any other empire.

When I came to the USA I was very fascinated about native americans. Just think about it, two groups of humans were developing their civilizations independently without any contact for, I don't know, for 20 thousand years. And when they finally meet it could be romantic reunion, like two brothers who got separated at birth and later rejoined at old age. There could be sharing o so many things even if one group was marginally more advanced. Instead the European group acted as real savages and destroying everything, including all their writings and culture.

Being from The South must be a very different thing to being from California, as I am.

My friends and acquaintances have been from many races. The impression I get from Southerners is that they are far more insular. This probably stems from the fact that the South is where the cotton plantations and the slaves were found. And the violence.

My childhood neighborhood was, however, 100% white. There was one black maid down the street though. I did see the inner city black areas, which frightened me because of the obvious degradation. I attributed this to the absolute lack of 99% of these poor souls to ever aspire to be able to escape.

We did not witness lynchings and good 'ol boys dragging niggers by ropes behind pick up trucks. We did not have signs on toilets that barred blacks. We did not have KKK cross burnings.

How do you believe I have offended Indians by implying they are more resilient to cultural corrosion?

please don't misinterpret what i say as being a white/european apologist, that was not my point at all, my point is freedom of thought and speech.

I wish my thinking was as free as my speech.

I think I understand what you mean.

Believe it or not Homer I have never seen a cotton plantation, burning cross, niggers being dragged behind trucks, or 'no blacks' signs. But it does make for a poignant post does it not! Nothing like a little emotional manipulation to make a point!

I didn't say I believe you have offended indians, i said "I think some Indians may take offence at this."

Now, speaking about American Indians (I hate that term) brings up a whole other dimension to cultural obliteration.

Nearly absolute.

Just me, being me.

Let's get back to demanding justice for the little guys on the ISKCON totem pole.

Well we can be pedantic about definitions of rape until the cows come home, but at the end of the day it's pretty clear what Prabhupada was saying and it was not what you (and others) think he is saying. There is such a thing as being over-literal.

Aside from that, an intimate knowledge of Indian culture is necesary to understand such statements. For Westerners, read Kamasutra.

An intimate knowledge of Indian culture is necessary before attempting to interpret remarks in a Western context. By the way I'd like to see that blog if you still have it.

On a recent trip to India, I came across a newspaper story of how a girl got raped on a bus by the bus driver. To the best of my memory it went like this: The bus reached a stop and all or most of the passengers got off. It looks like that may have been the end of the route, but the bus driver was friendly towards a girl who was the last to get off and offered to take her to her exact destination which was perhaps not more than 5 mins away. As she agreed to let the driver take her, he raped her.

When I was discussing this story with some people, their attitude was blasé: "She was asking for it. How can she travel alone like that? She must have had sex and then cry rape later. Either way she was asking for it." The story was also a subject of further newspaper editorials, some supprotive of the girl whereas others were scornful. I don't know what shocked me more; the incident itself or the public discussions/reactions to it. Different people in India have different attitudes to rape.

One of my female friends joked that I intended to rape a girl who I was chatting to once. For some reason both of them found it funny as well as a few other friends who were in our surroundings. I didn't. I don't think there is anything remotely funny about rape and I was very offended by that "joke". Perhaps I had a stricter attitude towards rape than these women. The main point is that different people have different views on the matter, and they similarly mean different things by them. This is fact backed up by both empiricism and psychological studies.

Anyway that's my 5 cents. I'd be interested to see that blog if you still have it.

Edit: Oops! Just realised that everyone wants to get back on topic. Mods, pleas split this if you deem it necessary. Sorry.

Statistical trends only speak of effect, not cause. Yes slavery is over and lynchings are (mostly) a thing of the past. (I say mostly while thinking of the man in Texas who was dragged to his death behind a truck by some white racists.) My mother remembered the separate rest rooms, fountains etc and told me all about them while describing her time in the women's army core down south. I grew up with the news reports of integration and the assasination of Martin Luther King. It really hasn't been that long.

My schools, fortunately for me, were integrated and I grew up knowing many black people, enough to see that there was the same variety of character and behavior as among my white acquaintances. But we did not have ghettos in our town and their lives were not very different from ours.

I've watched documentaries about how different the schools are for urban black children and seen them talking about their lack of confidence in their intelligence as compared to whites. It does something to you if you grow up actually believing the cultural stereotypes about you as being less intelligent, etc., and I can understand why young black men think that their only access to money is through crime or becoming a sports star or rapper. I think that middle class black people need to make more of an effort to mentor poor black children and certainly we all bear some responsibility to fund inner city schools properly.

Notice also how often black people are portrayed in tv programs as junkies, prostitutes, gang members, etc., in relation to how often they appear as doctors, lawyers, business owners and the like. You would think there were hardly any black professionals to watch American tv. (Grey's Anatomy was ground breaking for having such an integrated cast, in large part to being created by a black writer/producer.)

One of my friends recently quit her job because a manager was making blatantly racist comments, completely ignoring the effect it might have on her to hear them. This is in politically correct California, not the deep South.

How would you like to be pulled over by police more frequently just because of your skin color? How would you like to go to every job interview wondering if your color was going to be a strike against you, or if you would be given the job only to fill some quota and be resented for it?

Life is still very different for black people in America and while I believe the black community can try to address these problems more effectively, I don't believe that white people as a group are off the hook just yet. I don't believe we should sit around feeling guilty. I believe we should all take responsibility for eliminating discrimination and leveling the playing field.

The topic containing the link is here.

and how often do you read about hate crimes perpetrated by blacks on whites? and yes, they DO happen and can be quite gruesome too. I lived as an immigrant Polack in Chicago, and can tell you a bit about discrimination and prejudice as well. So what? I did not sit on my ass complaining. I was working hard to prove myself to such people. I had 96 points out of a 100 on a state engineering valuation exam - best overall score. I did not get a job because they gave it to black guy without a degree, with minimal experience and less than 70 points to his name - affirmative action. Leveling the playing field? It felt pretty slanted THEIR way.

I'm a manager now. I hire and fire people strictly on their merit, not their looks. You can find a lot of causes to statistical trends, but what really matters is what people DO to change these trends. sitting on your ass complaining does not change the trend - it only reinforces it. denying that trends exist does not help either. present day blacks are not held back by lingering effects of slavery. they are held back by their current attitudes.

blacks do get pulled over more often than whites because cops know crime statistics. but when cops broadcast an urgent alert when looking for a criminal - they will describe everything BUT the race of that person! how the hell can this be helpful in catching a riminal? and you can thank people like yourself for that "sensitivity"...

Upbringing has the biggest impact on personality. It is difficult to change if you grew up in some ghetto dominated by crime and drugs and your parents weren't looking after you well. Maybe some are strong enough to escape the bad environment afterwards but most will only perpetuate their misery.

Positive reinforcement in very large amount is needed to change the situation somehow. That's the whole point of ISKCON gurukula tragedy. The help is not provided after being traumatized whole childhood.

However, I don't think that Prabhupada was analyzing trends. Nor he thought about black people in particular because there are not many Africans in India. He was simply being supportive of the Indian caste system. Even though he denied the birthright for it, he was a great supporter of caste system due to idealization of ancient Indian tradition.

It may sound completely logical and rational as there are different occupations and people with different inclinations, intelligence etc. But in reality it is solely a social construct, even if practiced as described in the Bhagavad-gita. And by modern standards it is racism in its pure form. See, sudras are supposed to serve others and should not be given too much education. Why do we need to classify people like that? Imagine what would happen in our society if we were to enforce such things. Instead of blacks or latinos, we would just have another category – sudras who would be living in slums, they would be characterized as violent, bad mannered, uneducted. Their children would naturaly become sudras too, thus recreating birthright caste system in no time.

yes, Prabhupada idealized the vedic system and overly simplified current social mechanisms. but that does not mean that there is no validity whatsoever in the vedic model or the mechanisms identified by SP do not exist.

when you look at the american society you can see a lot of less-than-ideal trends as well, starting with money=power which leads to a lot of social stratification and other more serious social consequences. SP mad an attempt to put social mechanisms in some sort of vedic perspective and I find it quite helpful while I certainly see some drawbacks as well. indiscriminate application of vedic models can be dangerous but there is very little chance Iskcon will try to do that as it's leaders have much more pressing problems on their hands.

You know, there are many different reasons people use to justify their fears, and prejudices. You were discriminated against because of your Polish heritage. Did you think it was fair that you were picked on because of the land your forefathers hailed from? As a kid, did you wonder why people could be so cruel and heartless because of the language your grandfather spoke? Or because of the food you ate? Maybe because of the church your family went to?

No. It is not fair to judge someone due to these designations, is it?

Here in Australia the convict history is a very brutal one. Oddly enough, the worst treatment the convicts received was from former convicts who were freed and made jail keepers. It seems as though they would take out their own pain on anyone less powerful then themselves. Their targets were those poor fellows who were in the same position that they were only a short time ago.

The thing that bothers me is when people use religion to validate their prejudices and hate.

I am unsure whether hateful people that need to use religion to back up their jaded views seek out a dogma that agrees with their hateful views or perhaps they are influenced by twisted racial/bodily/tribal designations they are taught and become judgmental.

What about the vaisnava teachings in the Gita? I don't feel like beginning a quotation war, but what about how the humble sage sees with equal vision, the dog, the dog eater, etc.? What about how we are not the body and we are spirit soul? What about how we are all equal before God?

These teachings are what attracted me to vaisnava life.

And then there is the Caste system. And the racial mutterings of the gurus. And the statements about women, animals, other faiths, and on and on.

These prejudices based on the body are important reasons why I reject 99% of what passes as the highest teachings on the planet.

This mechanism of judging according to what body a spirit soul is clothed in is the cause of so much of the misery in the world. And, I believe, the misery within the poor souls that cling to such cowardly and stupid teachings. They are split within themselves.

I notice you repeatedly remind us of your position of being in charge of a laboratory. That's great. However, you seem to need the prestige you believe it gives you. Is this how you identify with yourself?

I couldn't care less if you are a multimillionaire or a penniless beggar.

Have a read of this:

"If Ann Coulter's a Christian, I'll Be Damned
by Tony Norman
Now that its original meaning has been hopelessly distorted by hatred and bad vibes, the term "Christian" really should be banished to the hall of linguistic abominations where it belongs.
Say "Christian" in mixed company and the image of a bejeweled evangelist hawking a right-wing social agenda will come immediately to mind.
Very few think of Christians as the same folks who embraced lepers and other social outcasts even before faith-based tax credits kicked in to provide "incentives" for doing the Lord's work.
Once upon a time, being called a Christian was an invitation to participate in one's own beheading. When Christians weren't worshipping in catacombs or refusing to bend a knee to the emperor, they were turning up their noses at every form of social control.
Christians were once anarchists who believed in a kingdom that transcended the petty ambitions of politicians and assorted antichrists.
A mere three centuries after the Galilean Jew who got the ball rolling was strapped to a gurney and executed, Emperor Constantine "legitimized" the wild-eyed cult of peace by turning it into the mascot of imperial power it has remained ever since.
Over the centuries, the term "Christian" has become identified with piety and economic striving for its own sake. Lost in the scramble for respectability is a sense of indignation at the machinations of empire.
Never mind the example set by the itinerant rabbi Christians claim to follow. Not too many of them seem to notice the religious wars, pogroms, inquisitions and rationales for chattel slavery that occur whenever hands clasped firmly in prayer also clutch the reins of temporal power.
In a country that flatters itself with the sobriquet "Christian nation," the majority of American "Christians" support the death penalty without experiencing a second of cognitive dissonance.
A disturbing number of Christians can't get past the book of Leviticus without gathering rocks to stone every stray "sodomite" crossing their path.
Alas, the Jesus that reigns over America takes delight in schemes to expel illegal aliens from the land.
Because her blond mane and feral eyes give her an uncanny resemblance to all four horses of the Apocalypse, the American Jesus has a soft spot for Ann Coulter, despite her hateful shtick.
In her latest best-selling tirade "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," Ms. Coulter demonstrates why she's a "Christian" and her political opponents are the spawn of Satan.
In "Godless," a book that proves there is often truth in advertising as far as titles are concerned, Ms. Coulter proves her love for humanity by questioning the motives of the widows who successfully lobbied for the creation of the 9/11 Commission.
When she's through with her shoddy hit-piece that includes speculation about whether the widows' husbands were planning to divorce them before al-Qaida spared them a visit to divorce court, you can't help but feel you're in the presence of something supernaturally despicable.
No one slings mud imported straight from the Stygian depths quite like Ms. Coulter, a McCarthyite-smear artist who loves generating revulsion across the political spectrum every time she has a book to flog.
Her exaggerations, hackery, lies and bad faith are dutifully pointed out by critics every time she hits the book circuit, but the insincerity of her Christian profession is rarely commented upon. This has always bothered me.
Recently, I realized that Ann Coulter's gall in calling herself a "Christian" isn't any of my business. The problem is my own stupidity in identifying myself as a "Christian" when the word is devoid of its original meaning and has even come to stand for its metaphysical opposite.
I continue to believe in the things I've always believed about the faith, but I can't be a Christian in a world where Ann Coulter can call herself a Christian without fear of contradiction.
I'm open to suggestions about a new spiritual handle since I've already removed "Christian" from my lexicon of spiritual name-dropping.
I wouldn't mind being called a Jew of some sort, but I don't think those good people will have me. Since they're only 3 percent of the population, you'd think a brother could catch a break. Alas, I bring too much baggage to the table."

I think we should take note and learn.

in this case I wanted to show that I actually have first hand experience with hiring people based on their merit and how it works well in real life. you should also note that there is a huge difference between racial discrimination and having views that include race as a statistical indicator of social trends. I do not pretend to be a humble sage who sees all in the same way (whatever you think that verse really means). I dont believe I owe anybody preferential status. that is my equal vision. do you think the humble sage sees no distinction whatsoever between cows and dogs? if so, is he milking dogs to get a meal?

it is not fair to discriminate AGAINST blacks, but it is also fundamentally unfair to discriminate FOR blacks. do you think that one cancells another? that is at least debatable. the same goes for all the other "underappreciated" lot, including Polacks in Chicago who dont get favors from anybody... (in Chicago some call blacks smoked Polacks, but do we Polacks get affirmative action? NO! )

life is not always fair. deal with it... preferably without whining too much

I always thought Polack jokes were not as funny as Irish and Jew jokes. Here's a good Italian joke: A plane is about to crash and a woman goes hysterical saying, "I'm going to die never knowing a man's love!!!". A dark masculine Italian man slowly approaches from the rear of the plane, unbuttoning his shirt. He takes off his shirt and throws it at the woman saying, "wash and iron this, then make me something to eat".

I like that guy´s attitude.

amen. In the present hypersensitive world, we are manipulated to take sides on everthing, are you libereal or conservative, racist or civilized, religious or an atheist, good or bad, a success or a failure?, ...the real world and real people aren't like that. Thats why I have started the International society for people who don't stand for anything (ISPDSA). Because we don't stand for anything, I am the only person in the group currently, because the other people thought that joining the society would mean they stood for not standing for anything, which is against the group's charter statement.

Kula-pavana, that occasion when a less qualified black man was hired instead of you wasn't just for you. But from a broader perspective it could be most beneficial for all involved. You found another job, right? So, for you it all ended well. But who knows, for that black man it could be the only chance to prove his worth and avoid becoming another drug dealer on the street. It may not seem the most eficient if we think only in the terms of imediate profit. But if we really want to protest to the American social structure that is based only on profit and money then we must be ready to make some sacrifices too.

It is interesting to note that recent protests in India are very much about the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_anti-r...rotests%2C_2006 Should be quotas reserved for lower castes, untouchables and women in schools, governmental institutions and private companies, even if those hired from these groups are less qualified? I would say yes, but only for a limited period, let's say during next 30 years or so. The reform should last no loger than a generation otherwise the system will become too much abused.

that depends. here is a good one:

Two Pollacks who just came to Chicago from the old country are looking for something to eat after a long day of hard work. They don't have much money and dont know much English either... They see this sign: "Hot dogs - 99 cents". They are resigned to go for it as this is the cheapest thing they can find. After getting their hotdogs one opens his bun and gasps in horror: "Oh shit! What part of the dog did you get?!"

I like this 'poetic prose' observation by Kahlil Gibran, written around 1926:

"Once every hundred years Jesus of Nazareth meets Jesus of the Christian in a garden among the hills of Lebanon. And they talk long; and each time Jesus of Nazareth goes away saying to Jesus of the Christian, 'My friend, I fear we shall never, never agree.'"

Makes you think...

Homer: I have a very difficult time putting the words "Christian" and "Ann Coulter" in the same sentence.

The New Testament speaks of "anti-Christ" (anti = in the place of). The Ann Coulter phenomenon is a perfect example of this: one who claims to be in the name of Christ, but, in fact, is the exact opposite. AC's hatred is enough to place her in this category as she twists Christ's unlimited love into hatred, revenge and cruelty. The New Testament also warns that many "Christians" will be swayed by such people.

For myself, I am very embarassed by AC and her "Christian" groupies. I don't consider them Christian at all. If you ever wanted a program to defame the real Jesus Christ, the neocons have the technique honed to a tee.

Yes Preyo, these pseudo-Christians are the antithesis to the very meaning of what being a follower of Christ entails.

This is the point of my posting the Ann Coulter article, to draw the parallel between pseudo-Christians who mouth Biblical verses to support their hate-speak and the pseudo-vaisnavas who do exactly the same. They seek validation for their hate.

These types seem to be very insecure within themselves. Many of these religionists need to be able to point to racial groups, fallen individuals, followers of bogus religions, inhabitants of Middle Eastern countries, etc. to bolster their own self-deluded perception of being superior.

I am embarrassed to be associated with such so-called vaisnavas. I struggle to suppress my disgust.

I try not to fall into the same trap and hate them.

Like I was saying....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060612/us_nm/aviance_dc

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Gay performance artist Kevin Aviance was released from the hospital on Monday after suffering a beating that rights advocates said was a reminder of the hate crimes gays still face, even in New York City.
"Kevin is in a lot of pain, mentally and physically. He faces a long road to recovery," his lawyer, Jay Sanchez, said after Aviance was wheeled out of the hospital, his jaw wired shut and his leg in a brace.
"We all know it's happening out there all the time," Sanchez said of violence against gays.

maybe this explains some of iskcon troubles due to krishna's swarthy complexion, he can have no leadership or high-standing position within the institution