Dope, Lies and Videotape

October 2006
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Sep		Nov »
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Weed causes forgetfulness… Yep, an entire generation forgot they smoked the stuff!

It may seem a little extreme to say that I’m embarrassed to be a member of the baby boomer generation. After all, we’re the biggest and most successful generation since that small bunch of ex-Englishfolk baled on the Not-So-Great British tax structure and declared that this was the future home of hippies and millionaires. But alas, I must admit it – I can’t stand shoulder to shoulder with my gen-mates and hold my head up next to a bunch of people who smoked enough marijuana to stone the current population of India, whilst they start pounding their sagging middle-aged chests and spouting off about how kids today shouldn’t even think of experimenting with drugs.

Let’s get this announcement straight: Who the hell are they kidding? What a bunch of dime-store hyocritical bastards. “Just say No????” - like any one of us ever even considered that option when we were riding that six story waterslide called puberty into our early twenties. We grabbed for all the gusto we could handle, and occasionally reaped the fruits of overindulgence, which more than likely resulted in waking up on some lawn wondering why the comfy, green bed came complete with the occasional dandelion.

I might be willing to tolerate the Partnership for a Drug Free America if they were as anxious to stop the people popping unnecessary – but legally prescribed – drugs as they are to put an end to the only thing the first twenty-five years of human life are good for – Pushing the envelope to the fullest while one is still young and resilient. I might also be more tolerant of the drug war if we actually napalmed the hell out of poppy and coca fields that were doing the supplying. But we don’t – we pay their governments to stop their farmer from doing the only thing that makes them money – and SURPRISE, it doesn’t work.

Take the ‘kids in the basement’ commercial. There they are, safe at home, engaged in nothing more notorious than playing video games, when one of the throng implores his friend to ‘break out some of that weed.” Our friend cracks open his wooden stash box only to find a note that says “We need to talk – Mom”. Let’s assume that the conversation isn’t going to be about Mom having pinched little Marvin’s stash so she could get high. This is about her child’s descent into the writhing hell of – mary-ju-wanna. Yipe. Call the Cops or The National Guard or maybe even President Bush, who, it has been reported, was into the nose candy, back in the day. Jeez, ma, the kids could be drinking and driving…

But, hey, let’s run screaming to make commercials against smoking dope.

If mere rhetoric isn’t enough, try the following simple list of annual causes of death in the United Statesï¿½

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 400,000
Alcohol 85,000 / 101,653
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 43,000 / 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,3084
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Yep. That’s right. Despite the valiant efforts of tokers from Baja to Bangor, NOBODY in the western hemisphere has gotten stoned to death since long before Shirley Jackson wrote “The Lottery” in 1948.

For the record, I am not a dope smoker – I did it when I was younger and it made me paranoid, an experience I don’t especially like, so I stopped. But that doesn’t mean that I am somehow now required to disavow the fact that often I had a very good time while high. Truth is, I am embarassed when anyone around my age starts blathering on about the ‘dangers’ of drugsï¿½. After all, 100% of the people who tell you they did drugs (and you shouldn’t), managed to survive long enough to become hypocrites.

Date: October 20, 2006

Author: RoadPoet

Categories: ethics, fun, general, personal

Tags:

(571 votes, average: 3.19 out of 5)

Loading ...

Comments RSS TrackBack 31 comments

jclifford

in October 20th, 2006 @ 14:17

‘cept for the lung cancer, of course, which can also be caused by breathing exhaust fumes from a motorcycle.
Jim

in October 20th, 2006 @ 21:33

I agree with you, RoadPoet. Come on, will someone big and important just come out and admit it? Part of the deal with drugs is that they are fun! That doesn’t negate the addiction, or the cancer, or the paranoia, or the stupid things people do when they are intoxicated, but yes, they are fun, and like sledding down a really steep slope drugs will not necessarily kill you.

And you’re right: there’s nothing more annoying than someone who spent twenty years getting high standing up on stage and telling a bunch of kids who never tried drugs in their lives that by gum, they should never pick up the stuff! Annoying as all getout.
Alan

in October 20th, 2006 @ 22:44

As long as you guys didn’t inhale.

Remember this title? A Child’s Garden of Grass, based on some stuff some guy who was a head told the authors. Too bad it’s out of print. The readers’ comments bring back memories of reading this out loud as well as some memorable goofy stoners. (Whatever happened to them?)
http://www.amazon.com/Childs-Garden-Grass-Jack-Margolis/dp/0345304969/sr=1-1/qid=1161401253/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6309980-0474355?ie=UTF8&s=books

I don’t think people would mind drug use as much if the users were the only ones to pay the price. Roadpoet says he quit, but what happened to the people he knew that didn’t quit? Was it broken marriages, broken dreams, broken lives?

As an old neighbor who belonged to AA used to tell me, “The problem with alcohol is not that it doesn’t work, the problem is that is does work, and it works every time.”
RoadPoet

in October 21st, 2006 @ 09:00

For your neighbor to say that is a sign that he NEEDS to be in AA. Why is having a beer or a joint to relax notoriously worse than taking a vallium, a Xanax or a chocolate bar? If we are not denial-based life forms, we are responsible for whatever we do – therefore it is not your place, nor your neighbors, nor the governments, to determine which self-medication regimen I follow, as long as I respect the rights of others (as in not driving drunk/stoned and such like).

The anti-dope/alcohol lobby imply that all use is misuse and all partaking is the gateway to death and destruction… There is NO evidence to support that. What this country needs is to end the useless ‘war on drugs’ and spend the billions of dollars wasted thereupon to give treatment to any and all drug/alcohol users who want to quit. Help those who choose to accept help – and possibly extend that help to those who violate the law while under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Alan

in October 21st, 2006 @ 12:00

Valium and Xanax are prescription medications; they are not considered to be “self-medication” since they are used under a physician’s care. Chocolate contains a substance that is a neurotransmitter precurser; milk contains triptophan which all good daddies and mommies know can cause drowsiness before bedtime. Can you imagine a sadder disgrace than a man in the gutter with chocolate milk on his face?

As a former caseworker I have indeed seen the carnage left in other people’s lives, particularly children, by drug use and can tell you first hand that many, many, many users do not “respect the rights of others.” Users frequently claim they have lost their food stamp cards and come in to claim a new one. In reality, they have sold their old card for drugs, and the drug man is waiting outside the building for them to come out with a new card. You can bet those government benefits will not go into the mouths of their children.

Users are often in denial, do not view drugs as the cause of their problems, and do not wish treatment. Because of this, the few treatment programs I could refer people to were hard to get into, required an unfortunate waiting period, and were staffed with frazzled people who were burned out on keeping up with the constant games addicts play to keep their addictions. The staff kept doing it because they themselves had overcome addictions, knew firsthand how to describe and get past the endless games, and believed in the value of staying off drugs.

I don’t know of any evidence that treatment is a more effective public policy than prevention.

I don’t think minors (the target audience for “just say no” campaigns against peer pressure) should experiment with non-prescription drugs.

I don’t know of ANYONE who uses “recreational” illicit drugs and still is able to maintain a normal life.
Ralph

in October 21st, 2006 @ 12:21

How about putting a five hundred pound man up on stage telling kids to NEVER TOUCH a twinkie?

Why do Americans have a right to destroy themselves with junk food but not with drugs?
Alan

in October 21st, 2006 @ 16:08

Like slavery, illicit drug use seems to have many defenders, but no defense.

No one seems to want to address the issue of how drug users destroy the lives of those around them. Go visit an NA meeting, Ralph, or better yet, a Families Anonymous meeting, find out how the children, wives, and yes, husbands live every day. Then come back and tell us how users only damage themselves.
Chad

in October 22nd, 2006 @ 09:06

It seems that the conversation has changed from a discussion of marajuana to that of all illicit drugs, which seems quite common when someone is anti-pot. No one is suggesting a legalization of all illicit drugs, simply pot. Therefore one need not speak of the evils of other drugs, which are numerous and far reaching, as are the evils of racism, however neither are on topic.

Alan I have no doubt of what you’ve said, but those who are claiming that they’ve lost their food stamps are running to the drug man to score some meth or crack or the like, not pot. Someone who smokes pot sure as hell isn’t going to give up food stamps. How would they get the Cheetos and Reese’s they need when they get the munchies?

I am in the age group that RoadPoet described as “pushing the envelope to the fullest while one is still young and resilient” so perhaps I have a different perspective. I recently graduated from college and frequently enjoyed pot, as do a large percentage of college kids. If it were such a pervasive drug shouldn’t we have failed miserably? Shouldn’t we all be junkies, like the propaganda from Partnership for a Drug Free America suggests? Or are we already because pot and herion are equally evil, as they say?

I certainly wouldn’t want someone behind the wheel when they’re high, anymore than I want someone on Darvoset or Percodan (both of which are highly addictive, where as pot is not) behind it. Just because one is prescribed to you doesn’t mean it isn’t going to be misused. If one is opposed simply because a doctor didn’t prescribe pot, then let them! We know of the benefits of pot, and states (like mine, California) have legalized it for medical use, however the Federal Government feels that we don’t have the right to vote to change such laws. Gosh, that sounds like democracy, doesn’t it?

http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htMedicalMarijuana2003.html

Alan, I’d like to directly comment on a couple of things that you said:

I donâ€™t think minors (the target audience for â€œjust say noâ€ campaigns against peer pressure) should experiment with non-prescription drugs.

I don’t believe that anyone does. I don’t want them experimenting with prescription drugs either. Nor would anyone want them to smoke or drink until they’re of age, but they do. So where are the “Just say no to Marlboro or Budweiser” campaigns? Did lobbyists decide such things wouldn’t be good for business and pay, er, advise the government that they’re not necessary? Let’s try to spend that money more efficiently.

I donâ€™t know of ANYONE who uses â€œrecreationalâ€ illicit drugs and still is able to maintain a normal life.

Seeing as this topic is pot, I’ll use that as the illict drug. Philanthropist Peter Lewis the former CEO of Progressive Insurance, is a billionaire daily pot smoker who is quite successful. More personally, my best friend’s father is a daily pot smoker and has been a successful MD for over 30 years.

We can keep the War on Drugs going, just take pot off the bad guy list. It’s a slippery slope to speak of pot as if it were heroin.
Alan

in October 22nd, 2006 @ 12:29

I was sitting in one of those classrooms that holds upwards of 150 students, with most of the seats pretty much occupied, when the instructor said, “How many of you believe that a experimenting with drugs is a normal part of growing up?” and several students rasied their hands. Then she said “How many of you think experimenting with drugs is a completely deviant behavior?” and about the same number of students raised their hands, but they were the students no one wanted to mess with. Then the professor commented, “Why were there so many students who did not raise their hands?” Yeah, I was in that group.

That said, I will make the following observations:

You can test positive for drugs if you have a roomate who smokes pot on the other side of the room. Just this month I took a surprise drug test the same day as part of an employment interview. I was very glad I have no friends who smoke pot.

Doctors and other medical personnel are more likely to have addiction problems than the general population.

Addiction problems don’t become evident right away–the job loss/divorce/hospitalization/death problems start to emerge some ten years after the behavior starts.

There are many who have drug/alcohol problems who publicly seem to be able to hold down a job or make a living, but often their families have secretly miserable, fearful lives. Years later, after they grow up, the children will talk with deep pain about how a parent was always withholding love, withholding approval, and the emotioanl devastation it caused them.

I have seen medical marijuana used a hospital setting–on an oncology ward under a manufacturer’s trade name. The THC, which is the chemical that causes the ‘high,’ is removed.

When I visit doctors, I do so hope they are not still spacey from smoking pot the night before. Sorry, but I have personally seen too many “space cadets” who act goofy or hostile or paranoid but think they are normal because they “only smoke pot”. Why do they need to alter their mental state in the first place? What is unbearable about their lives?
Laurie O

in October 22nd, 2006 @ 13:52

My ex husband “only smoked” pot. He also drank. He went from being a good guy I married to a hostile man. Let’s just say the day I left him with my 18mos old son, I walked thru 4 airports w/ 2 carry ons, my son, 4 busted ribs, fractured cheek bone, busted nose and lip, and a very bruised hand that had been slammed in the car door 4 times.

So people don’t die of marijuana use. They just aren’t responsible for their actions that’s all. Besides the so called “happy” years you talk of, there was no such thing as date rape, spousal abuse and things were never discussed like depression or anxiety or impotence.

So no, pot does not kill, it may maim, but never kills.
Chad

in October 22nd, 2006 @ 17:26

The phrasing of the question the professor asked was quite vague. I would imagine vastly different results if the questions were specifically about marijuana. The students could have interpreted the word â€œdrugsâ€ as anything from pot, to Viagra, to heroin. Further, I would be shocked if more than a small number thought medically prescribed marijuana was deviant behavior.

Again, we cannot attribute addiction problems to marijuana. Itâ€™s begging the question, as marijuana has never been proven to have addictive properties. One can compulsively smoke pot, but he isnâ€™t addicted.

I have no doubt that there have been occurrences where a pot smoker has detrimentally changed the family dynamic. But, I would imagine that in the vast majority of households pot is used as a scapegoat for other issues.

Iâ€™ve heard of drug companies (Americaâ€™s Cartels) synthesizing such things. That is a great option for one who wants the results but doesnâ€™t want the high. However if citizens vote to allow for medical use of pot, let it be, there can be both available. Much akin to non-alcoholic beer, for the beer drinker whoâ€™s the designated driver, you get the taste without being drunk.

I donâ€™t want my doctor high when Iâ€™m in his office anymore than I want him drunk while I’m there. Legalizing pot isnâ€™t going to mean that everyoneâ€™s going to be high all the time, although Hostess would love that! Because I enjoy a gin and tonic to relax with doesnâ€™t mean Iâ€™m going to work smelling like the Tanqueray factory.

According to a UK government report that was published this summer using marijuana is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms and physical harm.

Laurie, my heart goes out to you and your children. My mother and I left my father under a strikingly similar situation. He was far too friendly with Jack Daniels, and like him, it is far more likely that the alcohol was the cause, as the only behavioral effect attributed to marijuana is varying degrees of euphoria and feelings of well-being, quite the opposite of his behavior.

What I would like is for the government to respect its citizens request, and allow for medical use. We’ll work on decriminalizing it completely once America realizes our government gave us propaganda not factual information about pot.
Alan

in October 22nd, 2006 @ 21:34

Chad, I remember that one of my weekend warrior classmates left for Desert Storm, so Viagra wasn’t invented yet, heroin wasn’t around the suburbs, crack babies were just starting to show up in the inner city hospitals, and Xstacy was unknown. That would pretty much leave marijuana as the illegal drug in the instructor’s question, although it seems to me if someone would try one drug, they would try several.

The social dynamic of pot is a little different from alcohol. You can go to a bar to drink, but you can also have a glass in your hand at a social function and no one gets tipsy but you. On the other hand marijuana is usually smoked, and if someone whips out a joint, if you don’t want to get high you have to leave. That kind of person doesn’t usually ask if everyone wants to get high either, or invite people to another location, they just light up and start passing it around without asking. If you don’t want to get high yourself, you can’t have this type of person as even a social acquaintance. You’re not going to eat anything they cook either, if they’re together enough to cook, because they will forget to tell you what they put in their brownies. This leads to dopers being in their own social circle that is composed mainly of losers.

I notice no one is answering the question about why is it necessary to alter the mental state. Is life so painful everyone has to have something to make them insensible? Don’t they know how to solve their personal problems? What are they trying to forget? And what does their family have to give up for them to afford it?

Wait a minute…did you say viagra?….how does that work out?
Jim

in October 23rd, 2006 @ 09:15

Alan, do you go to movies ever? Or read a book? Or smile? Or drink tea? Or get a back rub? These experiences alter the mental state. Why is it necessary to alter the mental state? Is life you painful everyone has to have something to make them insensible?

I am not a habitual drug user, except that I drink about four cups of coffee a day, and maybe three or four drinks of alcohol spread over a given week. I haven’t smoked or ingested any psychoactive drug other than caffeine or alcohol since I took a few hits of salvia for podcasting purposes back in June. So to pre-empt that line of talk, no, I’m not saying this as a “user” in “denial” or anything like that.
Alan/laurie O

in October 23rd, 2006 @ 14:34

Laurie O posted this on a different (Taliban) thread at Oct 22 11:35 pm–I’m moving a copy to this thread where I think she meant to post it:

Amazingly enough Chad – the pot came first then the alchohol – the abuse was always there.

I understand your thinking, I really do, but drugs are bad, illicit, illegal, wrongly used. Someone always sacrifices something.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say, Jim, but I can tell you that much coffee will make your hair too curly. I have experienced ‘runner’s high’ (which comes from endorphins produced naturally by the body); and my favorite mood-enhancing experience is receiving money, especially paychecks. Obviously I didn’t exercise or go to work for the sole purpose of imposing a chemically good mood on a biologically poor one or blotting out the memory of a miserable existence, but they were both “natural highs” that happened as a side effect.
Laurie O

in October 23rd, 2006 @ 15:36

thanks alan
Ralph

in October 23rd, 2006 @ 18:32

Isn’t it useful to make a distinction between drugs and addiction?

Not to make light of the damage done by drug addiction, but people’s lives, marriages and families have also been destroyed by addictions to sex, gambling, and junk food, etc. Let’s not make light of the victims of non-drug addictions either.

People with addictions or compulsions often have underlying physical or psychological problems that have gone untreated. Admittedly, some substances are more addictive than others. But when somebody suffers from an addiction, is it the fault of the substance, or the failure of preventive medicine? A bit of both, certainly.
Laurie O

in October 23rd, 2006 @ 19:51

Bingo! Give that man a ribbon! Instead of spending money on stupid false advertisement maybe they could actually spend money on proactive mental health. Oh sorry, this is the government we are talking about.
Alan

in October 23rd, 2006 @ 20:06

It has been estmated that 30% of a land-based casino`s revenue comes from problem gamblers; the increase in an area`s bankrupcies when a casino opens is also well documented. Inspite of this, and in spite of the 800 number for problem gambling that the casino ads always give, those who call the number and sign up as problem gamblers continue to receive casino solicitations detailing every new sale and special offer. Clearly this isn`t working. Those who take advantage of someone with a self-identified addiction have no sense of ethics and no incentive to stop.

What does seem to work for many who consider themselves addicted is to `admit their lives have become out of control and they have become powerless over the problem` and `humbly ask god to remove their faults and take control of their lives`. I know some will zero in on the religion part, but think for a minute about the control part. This can also create tension between religion and those who benefit from addictions.

This is from the point of view of the abuser. The point of view from outside the abuser`s brain is that their judgment has become impaired or they have undergone personality changes, sometimes becoming hostile or wound-up or constantly confrontational, or sometimes just emotionally unavailable. The abuser is miserable, and blames the people around and not the drug for the misery. The surrounding people slowly filter away to more rewarding relationships, while the abuser finds his new circle of friends includes only those capable of obtaining the addiction substance and who he is careful not to alienate–the bartender, the smiling dealer–and losers like himself. The substance was originally supposed to be fun and creative and expand life`s possibilities, but now it has become destructive and is not used for joy, but to get some temporary distraction from the mess it has created.

They say you can get addicted to internet….
Ralph

in October 24th, 2006 @ 11:23

I wonder how many people are addicted to religion.

I can think of people whose religious life is exactly as you describe–”it was supposed to be fun and expand life’s possibilities, but now it has become destructive and is not used for joy, but to get some temporary distraction from the mess it has created.”

You’re absolutely right to emphasize “the control part” in the context of religion.

When you admit you have no control over your own life and give control of your life over to God (and the people who speak for God, naturally), aren’t you just replacing one addiction with another?
Alan

in October 24th, 2006 @ 15:01

Well, Ralph, you have put your finger on the one thing that bothers me about twelve-step programs. But the addiction is not to religion, it is to the meetings. The people doing twelve-step work that I have met don’t really have a clue about religion, but eventually try to find some sort of spiritual platitude to give their life meaning. Their thing is the meetings, every day and every day instead of going to the bar or going to get high, they redirect their steps to the meeting. In the meeting they will recite together, “keep coming back, it works,” and there will be some anecdote about so-and-so who stopped going to meetings and started drinking or using again, and now he is in hospital, or divorced, or…(fill in the affliction). But the people who go to these meetings seem to be genuinely in pain or antsy and desperate for something. I think the cure rate for AA is comething like 30%, the highest in the business, although numbers for that kind of thing are impossible to get. So if I have any academic reservations about the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, well, they don’t care because they are living in hell, and they will take whatever relief they can get right now. These are genuine grassroots movements, created by people with apparently insurmountable problems by themselves, for themselves, and you have to respect it for that.

I have never heard of anyone whose religion has caused them to have memory blackouts, break up their marriages, neglect their children, lose their jobs, sell their food stamps to go to church, turn their eyeballs yellow from liver failure …
Ralph

in October 24th, 2006 @ 16:10

I’ve heard of plenty of people say they’ve been led astray and become obsessed by religion, and that it destroyed their lives and the lives of everyone around them. I’ve heard of lots of people whose addiction to religion caused them to neglect their families, abandon their jobs, blow themselves up in crowded markets, crash planes into buildings…
Alan

in October 24th, 2006 @ 23:38

I had the idea, Ralph, that those kind of people were pretty much lone wolves without a reality check, or at the very least, desperately unemployed, and willing to follow anyone who could provide economic security, but not particularly devout. Has anyone done any research on the subject? Personality profiles or something like that?

In other words, like the Hare Krishnas, these people are scooping up people without ties and connections and giving them a “family” to belong to that just happens to have religion-based rhetoric and political agenda.

When it comes to something like Palestine, religion has little to do with it, the children are raised to want to be political martyrs, and apparently the parents either don’t love their children and want them to die, or they are even more afraid of the PLA than they are of their children dying.

You seem to be saying that the desire for drugs (like marijuana)is actually a search for religious meaning rather than a mechanism for concealing the failure or abandonment of a search for meaning.

Jim, don’t forget to mention that salvia is a legal substance. And no, I don’t agree that coffee, alcohol, smiling, and movies are psychoactive. You can’t get flashbacks from them either.
Ralph

in October 26th, 2006 @ 00:31

Did I say that the desire for drugs is actually a search for religious meaning?

I’m not sure.

Are some people are looking for God in a bottle or a joint? Maybe.

Or could it be that some people look to God for a cheap high, but they get hooked on religion and their lives spin out of control?

It’s an interesting suggestion that Palestinian suicide bombers have nothing to do with religion. I’m not sure I entirely agree.
Alan

in October 28th, 2006 @ 09:18

The idea of religion as the opiate of the people is relatively new. Historically religion has been linked with government–’tithing’ originally covered both your taxes and your contribution to the church–the idea of separation of church and state is pretty recent. The church was part of what greased the wheels and made families and economic life possible. At times in history, religion also functioned as the only social force powerful enough to stand against a despot. No wonder religious movements like the Waldensians and beguines sometimes found themselves opposed by the prevailing government order.

I’m trying to say that religion is associated with control, not with loss of control. Or with that old trick of getting rid of what you don’t want controlling you-an addiction or a despot–by transferring your alliegiance to something–like a support group–you have more influence over or like a religion–that has semi-clear rules or philosophies you can agree with.

That’s religion as a social force. Then there’s the personal side of religion. If you’ve been awake, you will have noticed all the mega-churches sprouting up–as they do in every century–around dynamic leaders or speakers that can resonate with a particular generation or social group. To me, this is just the top of Maslow’s hierarchy,with people searching for meaning and looking to religion as the traditional place to find it, but you also have groups like Jim Jones and the space ship suicide group.

I would argue those groups have little to do with religion and everything to do with creating artificial families. You will notice both of these groups had taken over the living arrangements of individuals and I think were even getting their social security benefits signed over to them–so the people followed not becasue of relgious belief, but becasue they had no economic independence.

One Christmas season in the Middle East I watched with concern a fantasy musical video in which Palestinian children threw slow-motion rocks intifada-style, while Santa Claus–yes, Santa!–cavorted around in his red suit egging them on. I suppose they can’t show the Prophet doing it. The mood in the bar–from Christians and a few lapsed Muslims–was overwhelming approval, not shock that a symbol of generosity was being used as war propaganda. Yup, everybody at the bar was one big happy family watching that stuff.

There is an old saying about drinking: “Man drinks wine, wine drinks wine, wine drinks man” that is supposed to symbolize the various phases of enchantment with “pushing the envelope to the fullest while one is still young and resilient.”
Ralph

in October 28th, 2006 @ 12:15

Are you saying religion is about gaining control of your own life, or about surrendering control to God? How do you gain control by surrendering control to God? Can you control God any more than you can control marijuana or crack?

How do you define religion such that Jim Jones and pro-intifada Palestinians are not religious but megachurches are? How do you draw the line between religion and people exploiting religion? And how is it that people can exploit religion without having anything to do with religion?
Alan

in October 28th, 2006 @ 13:17

Well, Ralph, it’s really very simple. You just go shopping. You want up? Shop for speed or cocaine. You want down? Whiskey or quaaludes. You want cash from Republicans? Gimme that old time religion. Save the earth? Neo-paganism. You want a strong authority figure to tell you what to do? Baptist. You want a bunch of people who really don’t have a clue but we’ll read the Bible together and then we still won’t have a clue? Methodist.

That said, most people in the world are the same religion as their parents. Which brings us back to a cultural, rather than a personal definition of religion.

Defining religion, hmmm. If you read any of Hybels’ stuff (Willow Creek)(and this is a new movement, not one that people follow because their parents did), he doesn’t talk about god so much as he talks about life, how to make relationships work, stuff like that. The problem with religion is that it ossifies and becomes institutionalized over time, then isn’t useful or meaningful for the next generation. Hybels (and outdoor mega-speaker Wesley in his time) make religion relate to the culture.

It has been pointed out that those who win wars write the history books. Maybe religion is also defined by success. Jim Jones didn’t make it as a religion; arsenic in the koolaid just hasn’t caught on. Neither did that space ship suicide group in California with the terminally ill guru. Early Islam survived becasue it managed to kill or convert everyone who didn’t accept the religion. If the Middle East ends up glowing in the dark from Korean bombs, will that be a sign from Allah that the Moslems didn’t adapt enough to multi-culturalism? If London subway system ends up glowing in the dark, will the Brits then turn to Allah and start wearing headscarves?
Alan

in October 30th, 2006 @ 02:23

Ralph says:
Itâ€™s an interesting suggestion that Palestinian suicide bombers have nothing to do with religion. Iâ€™m not sure I entirely agree.

My observation about Moslems in that area is that they aren’t particularly religious and don’t even know the Fatiha, the equivalent of a Christian not knowing the Lord’s Prayer. If they have some religious question there is usually someone in the family they can call on for interpretation. By western standards this sounds pretty secular. Also most Christians live in the Palestinian rather than the Jewish area and have a deepseated sympathy for their fellow-Arabs, although I’m not sure the sentiment is returned. Somehow I get the impression, Ralph, that you personally know people from that part of the world. How do you read the secular/religious background to the intifada? Isn’t it just tribalism/nationalism?
Ralph

in October 30th, 2006 @ 12:53

Interesting that you put that slash between tribalism/nationalism. I won’t disagree with you though, wrapping yourself in the flag and spouting jingoistic slogans has an aspect to it that you could call tribal.

The settler movement and the intifada are without question pawns in nationalistic struggles. They are also quite deeply religious. That’s not to say that they are experts on doctrine, or accomplished hermeneuts. Not all zealots actually know that much about the intellectual tradition of their religion (How many Christian extremists in America could name all Ten Commandments, let alone tell you about the basis of their adherence to sola scriptura in the polemics of the Protestant Reformation?).

I don’t think of religion as a pure thing that by its very nature is detached from extremism, politics, nationalism and violence. I think it’s wrapped up in issues of ethnic and national identity and violence–or are passages of, say, the Old Testament that demonstrate otherwise not actually of a religious nature?
Alan

in October 30th, 2006 @ 18:29

Oh, I meant real tribes, like Bene Hassan, Bene Sakr, B’dul, Howentat, Areesh,.. maybe Palestine doesn’t have them. They usually control a large area and are an extended family group, much older than nations, which the British carved out of the middle east in the last century. They are a bit of a law unto themselves, and a pain in the butt for govenments.

For instance say the government wants to prevent the extinction of gazelles. The bedouins like to eat gazelles, and there are plenty who like to shoot something just for shooting it. Just like they fire weapons into the air when they want to demonstrate happiness. So if the government wants to send in a game warden to enforce hunting seasons, the bedouins say they will just kill the game warden. Still, I would rather hang with the bedouins any day instead of the fellaheen, townspeople who don’t seem to claim tribal membership or ancestry.

Religion and government seem to be all mixed up in the Middle East as well as the Old Testament. Where I lived, there’s no civil marriage, no provision for going to City Hall for a marriage license, you get married according to your religion, and according to the marriage contract drawn up between the families.

Religion as identity, yes. Even though I had not been inside a church for years, I had no problem identifying myself as Christian–religion is clearly much more than a belief system.

Violence ties in with religion? This is so far from my own religious tradition, I have absolutely no frame of reference for it. I have never been able to understand the Hindu malevolent gods (Kali, Shiva). Much is said about islam’s 79 virgins, but mostly by westerners. From a letter to the editor I read in a Jerusalem Post I picked up in Jerusalem, writer said the land belongs to Jews and ‘we will not give it back becasue we paid for it with our blood’ by winning the war. The intifada demonstrations I have seen also had that peculiar chant which I think has the word ‘blood’ in it.

Is that a step towards solving conflict then, to compartmentalize “extremism, politics, nationalism and violence” and develop an alternative national and ethnic identity?
brian

in November 15th, 2006 @ 18:51

if you ask me pot should be leagelized and cigs and alchol should illeagle
http://www.links-group.net/online-prescription-tramadol.htm

in December 19th, 2006 @ 19:42

… tramadol[url=http://www.links-group.net/drug-information-keyword-p-tramadol.htm]tramadol[/url]

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Irregular Times Main Page

Start A Diary or Log In

Recent Comments

Tshirts

Recent Posts

Political Buttons

Tags

Bumper Stickers

Dope, Lies and Videotape

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 31 comments

jclifford

Jim

Alan

RoadPoet

Alan

Ralph

Alan

Chad

Alan

Laurie O

Chad

Alan

Jim

Alan/laurie O

Laurie O

Ralph

Laurie O

Alan

Ralph

Alan

Ralph

Alan

Ralph

Alan

Ralph

Alan

Alan

Ralph

Alan

brian

http://www.links-group.net/online-prescription-tramadol.htm