Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Gary MacLennan writes: > It's my birthday today -68- and I can believe it! so I thought I would > indulge myself a little on the list, if comrades will excuse that. This > piece from the Guardian caught my attention. It was a report on a book by a > Jesuit, Gerald O'Collins, criticising the author Philip Pullman's book on > Jesus and him having a bad twin etc. I haven't read the book and do not > intend to. Though my admiration for it was increased by seeing that it > irritated the Catholic Church, so it can't be all bad. Bad twin, hell, have you seen his *friends*?! Many happy returns. :) -- In Solidarity, Billy O'Connor Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == True, I didn't make it though all 583 comments, but I certainly wouldn't buy yours. For one thing, it entails the kind of dualistic logic (complex/simple) Christianity discarded in about 208. Arguments that if God is one thing, he necessarily cannot be another, generally miss the point of what God is, hypothetically or not, by definition. And it seems to me to attack science as much as theology; certainly there could be few things less complex than the contents of the universe immediately prior to the Big Bang. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Shane Mage wrote: You evidently didn't read far enough, because my comment posted in > that thread completely refutes the author's criticism of Dawkins: > > "You are wrong to dispute Dawkins argument about complexity. The > creator of a complex system, to create it, must initially have that > complexity in its consciousness (otherwise there would be something in > that complex system which was not the work of that creator, and > therefore the system *as a whole* was not the work of that creator). > So the complexity of creation must also be complexity within the > creator. Therefore either: the creator having something existent about > it that is over and above the complexity of the creation is to that > extent more complex than the creation; or: there is nothing about the > creator that is not present in the creation (pantheism) and therefore > a separate creator is otiose." > -- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] petition for the immediate release of Jake Hess
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Email margaree.lit...@gmail.com to add your name to a petition calling for the immediate release of Jake Hess. Info: http://cpj.org/2010/08/cpj-calls-on-turkey-to-release-american-journalist.php Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Socialism and Religion
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == In anticipation of some criticism, I concede the point in posting the following by Lenin that preached tolerance for religious views: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == evidence that God exists or existed as creator or otherwise? On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > The trendy disproofs of God (e.g. from Ditchkins, as Terry Eagleton would > have > it) are in fact warnings - of which Thomas Aquinas would have approved - > against > idolatry in his technical sense, viz. treating God as a thing in the > universe > rather than creator. They so often hinge on fallacies arising from the > inadequacy of language. (It's about things, and God is not a thing; God and > the > universe do not add up to two [two what?]). So, (as a correspondent > recently put > it) an argument "God cannot exist" becomes "this kind of God-as-creature is > not > worthy, has no worth-ship", i.e., "you shall not worship other Gods." > > On 8/13/10 2:05 PM, midhurs...@aol.com wrote: > > The actor who played a Doctor Who -Tom ? had a similar experience to > > you and now hates Catholicism Any way religion is based on a > > lie-that there is a god George Anthony > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == just curious, you claim to be a marxist? On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > The trendy disproofs of God (e.g. from Ditchkins, as Terry Eagleton would > have > it) are in fact warnings - of which Thomas Aquinas would have approved - > against > idolatry in his technical sense, viz. treating God as a thing in the > universe > rather than creator. They so often hinge on fallacies arising from the > inadequacy of language. (It's about things, and God is not a thing; God and > the > universe do not add up to two [two what?]). So, (as a correspondent > recently put > it) an argument "God cannot exist" becomes "this kind of God-as-creature is > not > worthy, has no worth-ship", i.e., "you shall not worship other Gods." > > On 8/13/10 2:05 PM, midhurs...@aol.com wrote: > > The actor who played a Doctor Who -Tom ? had a similar experience to > > you and now hates Catholicism Any way religion is based on a > > lie-that there is a god George Anthony > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == How about this one from Bakunin's "God and the State": "If God actually existed, it would be necessary to abolish him" which amplifies God as an idol: of class society, an idea as I recall that Marx touched on. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/index.htm My copy of this work has as its epigram, Herzen's evaluation of Bakunin: "this man was not born under any ordinary star, but a comet" and then Aquinas obviously was an apologist for feudalist society run by land Lords; I mean when was it ever said "Jesus is Serf"? On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > The Times ran an interesting online essay along these lines Wednesday, > which > has caused me to partially rethink my own approach to Dawkins and his ilk: > > "Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as Dawkins of > being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and > evidential rigor that aren’t appropriate in matters of faith. My criticism > is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of rationality > that a topic as important as religion requires." > > http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook >wrote: > > The trendy disproofs of God (e.g. from Ditchkins, as Terry Eagleton would > > have > > it) are in fact warnings - of which Thomas Aquinas would have approved - > > against > > idolatry in his technical sense, viz. treating God as a thing in the > > universe > > rather than creator. They so often hinge on fallacies arising from the > > inadequacy of language. (It's about things, and God is not a thing; God > and > > the > > universe do not add up to two [two what?]). So, (as a correspondent > > recently put > > it) an argument "God cannot exist" becomes "this kind of God-as-creature > is > > not > > worthy, has no worth-ship", i.e., "you shall not worship other Gods." > > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:24 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > That sort of god - a Zeus, or demiurge - is rather far from the > Judeo-Christian notion (as elaborated in the West by Augustine and > Aquinas). > A Zeus and a Demiurge are two essentially different concepts. A "Demiurge" is an artisan, the shaper of an ordered world out of chaos, the lawgiver to a lawfully unfolding cosmos. That is the "God" of Genesis. "Zeus," (especially as Jupiter) is impersonal energy, symbolized as the thunderbolt (the planetary connection is here particularly à propos) and participating in the life process in the "do ut des" fashion--invoked through ritual sacrifices. That is the "God" of popular religion--Allah, Jesus, Adonai. For the philosophers, though, the impersonality of the cosmic energy flow is what counts: "It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus"(Herakleitos). > Christians were prosecuted (correctly) during the Roman principate > for atheism - > for not believing in any such god. Not so. Their *belief* was never at issue, and every sort of *belief* was current and tolerated in the Republic, Principate, and Dominate until the Christians, progressively from Constantine to Theodosius, outlawed and persecuted every form of belief (including dissident Christian) that deviated from their orthodoxy. What was prosecuted in Roman law was seditious conduct--that of a secret society systematically subverting the *do ut des* cosmic relationship of the Republic with the "gods" it invoked through public sacrificial ceremonies. (Pliny the Younger's letters express that distinction very well). Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == That sort of god - a Zeus, or demiurge - is rather far from the Judeo-Christian notion (as elaborated in the West by Augustine and Aquinas). Christians were prosecuted (correctly) during the Roman principate for atheism - for not believing in any such god. On 8/13/10 9:05 PM, Jim Farmelant wrote: > Also note that the traditional theistic God is ususally conceived of > as a being who interacts with His creation. He passes judgments on > the actions of his creatures, hears their prayers, and is said to > even respond to these pleas. He is also posited as a being who > intervenes in the workings of nature and history. Such a being would > have to be enormously complex, capable of processing vast amounts of > information. The existence of such a being seems to be highly > improbable. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:08:51 -0400 Shane Mage writes: > > > On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: > > > > == > > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a > message. > > > == > > > > > > The Times ran an interesting online essay along these lines > > Wednesday, which > > has caused me to partially rethink my own approach to Dawkins and > > > his ilk: > > > > "Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as > > > Dawkins of > > being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical > and > > evidential rigor that arent appropriate in matters of faith. My > > > criticism > > is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of > > rationality > > that a topic as important as religion requires." > > You evidently didn't read far enough, because my comment posted in > > that thread completely refutes the author's criticism of Dawkins: > > "You are wrong to dispute Dawkins argument about complexity. The > creator of a complex system, to create it, must initially have that > > complexity in its consciousness (otherwise there would be something > in > that complex system which was not the work of that creator, and > therefore the system *as a whole* was not the work of that creator). > > So the complexity of creation must also be complexity within the > creator. Therefore either: the creator having something existent > about > it that is over and above the complexity of the creation is to that > > extent more complex than the creation; or: there is nothing about the > > creator that is not present in the creation (pantheism) and > therefore > a separate creator is otiose." Also note that the traditional theistic God is ususally conceived of as a being who interacts with His creation. He passes judgments on the actions of his creatures, hears their prayers, and is said to even respond to these pleas. He is also posited as a being who intervenes in the workings of nature and history. Such a being would have to be enormously complex, capable of processing vast amounts of information. The existence of such a being seems to be highly improbable. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant > > > Shane Mage > > "L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce > qu'on a apporté." > > Bardo Thodol > > > > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/farmelantj%40juno.com > > Penny Stock Jumping 2000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c65fa187357810f76em03vuc Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] From Derek Seidman
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == My dear friend Jake Hess has been arrested by the Turkish police. He is being detained without charges and not being allowed to see his lawyer. jake has being doing human rights work in Southeastern Turkey for about 1.5 years. He is a journalist for Interpress Service and a former Brown MA student in History. He is a wonderful, decent person who does important work. This is very serious. Thank you. --Derek Please re-post, send out, put on facebook, etc., spread the word. http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=38149 Reporters without Borders release: http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/us-journalist-jake-hess-detained-in-turkey/19592727 Below are some suggestions for State Dept numbers. Here's the Turkish Embassy in DC: ... +1 202 612 67 00 +1 202 612 67 01 And the US Embassy in Ankara: (90-312) 455- Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > The Times ran an interesting online essay along these lines > Wednesday, which > has caused me to partially rethink my own approach to Dawkins and > his ilk: > > "Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as > Dawkins of > being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and > evidential rigor that aren’t appropriate in matters of faith. My > criticism > is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of > rationality > that a topic as important as religion requires." You evidently didn't read far enough, because my comment posted in that thread completely refutes the author's criticism of Dawkins: "You are wrong to dispute Dawkins argument about complexity. The creator of a complex system, to create it, must initially have that complexity in its consciousness (otherwise there would be something in that complex system which was not the work of that creator, and therefore the system *as a whole* was not the work of that creator). So the complexity of creation must also be complexity within the creator. Therefore either: the creator having something existent about it that is over and above the complexity of the creation is to that extent more complex than the creation; or: there is nothing about the creator that is not present in the creation (pantheism) and therefore a separate creator is otiose." Shane Mage "L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce qu'on a apporté." Bardo Thodol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The Times ran an interesting online essay along these lines Wednesday, which has caused me to partially rethink my own approach to Dawkins and his ilk: "Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as Dawkins of being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and evidential rigor that aren’t appropriate in matters of faith. My criticism is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of rationality that a topic as important as religion requires." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: The trendy disproofs of God (e.g. from Ditchkins, as Terry Eagleton would > have > it) are in fact warnings - of which Thomas Aquinas would have approved - > against > idolatry in his technical sense, viz. treating God as a thing in the > universe > rather than creator. They so often hinge on fallacies arising from the > inadequacy of language. (It's about things, and God is not a thing; God and > the > universe do not add up to two [two what?]). So, (as a correspondent > recently put > it) an argument "God cannot exist" becomes "this kind of God-as-creature is > not > worthy, has no worth-ship", i.e., "you shall not worship other Gods." > -- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Don Draper is the central character in "Mad Men" (played by Jon Hamm) when I was of the age of the children depicted therein, having started first grade in 1959. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:05 PM, wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > The actor who played a Doctor Who -Tom ? had a similar experience to you > and now hates Catholicism > Any way religion is based on a lie-that there is a god > George Anthony > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Churchill's Empire
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Right, and he was the guy most responsible for the disaster at Gallipoli in 1916 and later sent troops to aid the White armies during the Russian Civil War, all while being in the ranks of the Liberals, hardly a departure from "Reaction" in that context as opposed to Cold War anti-communism, which "Cold War Liberals" enthusiastically promoted and covered for and for whom Fulton is part of their mythology. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:38 AM, wrote: > > > He was anti-working class from the off and organised against the General > Strike in 1926 > Only came onside against Hitler when he saw a threat to the empire, hence > the war in the western desert as a threat to the Suez Canal > He rejoined the ranks of reaction at Fulton at the behest of Truman > George Anthony > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Kucinich won't challenge Obama in 2012 primaries
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/08/obama-wont-face-dem-primary-challenge-from-kucinich/1 Aug 12, 2010 Obama won't face Dem primary challenge from Kucinich White House spokesman Robert Gibbs may have criticized attacks from what he called the "professional left," but presumed member-in-good-standing Rep. Dennis Kucinich said today he won't challenge President Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries. "What we have to do is focus on coming together for the purposes of getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan," Kucinich of Ohio told our old pal George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. Kucinich, who has run for president twice, joined many liberal colleagues in criticizing Gibbs' comments in an interview withThe Hill. The Obama spokesman said liberals who compare his boss to predecessor George W. Bush "ought to be drug tested," and added that they "wouldn't be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president." "I think that Mr. Gibbs and the White House need to realize that liberals support the president, but the criticism is really a measure of hopes that have not been realized," Kucinich said. He also said: "To try to paint as out of the mainstream people who want a full employment economy, people who want peace, people who want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is the mistake that Mr. Gibbs made." (Posted by David Jackson) Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Churchill's Empire
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Superb stuff, the collective spirit reigned supreme and had to be rolled back by Fulton and McCarthyism George Anthony Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Churchill's Empire
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Unfortunately it's subscriber only, but if you can get it it's worth reading the review in LRB of the book below for differing class responses to BBC broadcasts trying to inspire Brits to fight harder in World War II. The punchline is that government agents assigned to listen to citizen reaction to such broadcasts found uniformly that workers resented patronizing upper-class appeals, and said "we're ready to fight, get off your blooming arses and organize us, even discipline us, into a force to fight the fascists!" July 8, 2010 issue, Bernard Porter, * Listening to Britain: Home Intelligence Reports on Britain’s Finest Hour May-September 1940 edited by Paul Addison and Jeremy Crang Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Churchill's Empire
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Yes but his prime motivation was preserving the Empire He refused to give up India until Montgomery told him it could only be held down by a million troops Incidentally Indian liberation was triggered by the mutiny of the Indian navy George Anthony Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Grim Voter Mood Turns Grimmer
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:59:57 +0100 Sebastian Clare writes: > == > > > > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423674269169684 .html > > > > The sour national mood appears all-encompassing and is dragging > down > > ratings for the GOP too, suggesting voters above all are > disenchanted > > with the political establishment in Washington. Just 24% express > > positive feelings about the Republican Party, a new low in the > 21-year > > history of the Journal's survey. Democrats are only slightly more > > popular, but also near an all-time low. > > > Seems like any sort of third party would reap a prosperous harvest > from > these numbers, representing as they do a disdain amongst the > electorate for > both the main parties... > > But then, that's First Past The Post for you - almost always leads > to a > choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. Exactly! Friedrich Engels noted that in a letter that he wrote 120 years in which he explored some of the reasons why the US did not have a mass socialist party. And in that respect, little has changed since then. And we shouldn't forget that most states have laws that make it very difficult for third parties to get and retain ballot status. The US electoral system is very much rigged against challengers to the two-party duopoly. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant > > > Solidarity, > Seb > Penny Stock Jumping 2000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c6535f9aca5810b973m03vuc Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Gary-- O'Collins (who's even older than you are) has spent too much time in an obsequious academic culture (and the academy - especially in Europe - is far worse in that regard than the church). He's offended by Pullman's literary attack (which in fact is curiously and obviously double-minded), so instead of taking the occasion to preach the gospel, as the much more literary Abp. Rowan Williams did (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/03/good-jesus-christ-philip-pullman), he simply fulminates (which, BTW, is the very opposite of being "Jesuitical"). O'Collins misses the fundamental point Williams starts with: "This is not a speculation about the beginnings of Christianity ... It is a fable through which Philip Pullman reflects on Jesus, on the tensions and contradictions of organised religion -- and indeed on the nature of storytelling..." "A very bold and deliberately outrageous fable, then, rehearsing Pullman's familiar and passionate fury at corrupt religious systems of control -- but also introducing something quite different, a voice of genuine spiritual authority." The whole review deserves to be read, because Williams is doing exactly what a bishop (episcopus) is supposed to do - announce the good news to the world at large (or in this case, that part that reads the Guardian); from words like his, some "have seen through the surface froth of religion and heard the voice Pullman himself obviously finds so compelling." O'Collins OTOH is just an academic. A belated happy birthday, CGE On 8/12/10 5:46 PM, Gary MacLennan wrote: > It's my birthday today -68- and I can believe it! so I thought I > would indulge myself a little on the list, if comrades will excuse > that. This piece from the Guardian caught my attention. It was a > report on a book by a Jesuit, Gerald O'Collins, criticising the > author Philip Pullman's book on Jesus and him having a bad twin etc. > I haven't read the book and do not intend to. Though my admiration > for it was increased by seeing that it irritated the Catholic Church, > so it can't be all bad... > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
