December 17, 2011

The ultimate OWS slogan: "We need more; you have more."

Spoken off-handedly by a 33-year-old protester named Amin Husain, quoted in a NYT article about how the OWS people are pressuring Trinity Church to let them set up camp on church property.
Trinity’s rector, the Rev. James H. Cooper, defended the church’s record of support for the protesters, including not only expressions of sympathy, but also meeting spaces, resting areas, pastoral services, electricity, bathrooms, even blankets and hot chocolate. But he said the church’s lot — called Duarte Square — was not an appropriate site for the protesters, noting that “there are no basic elements to sustain an encampment.”

“Trinity has probably done as much or more for the protesters than any other institution in the area,” Mr. Cooper wrote on his parish Web site. “Calling this an issue of ‘political sanctuary’ is manipulative and blind to reality. Equating the desire to seize this property with uprisings against tyranny is misguided, at best. Hyperbolic distortion drives up petition signatures, but doesn’t make it right.”
Manipulative and blind to reality... oh, really? Speaking of casually letting the truth slip out!

125 comments:

traditionalguy said...

The Manipulative and Blind to Reality Party has taken us hostage by lawless anarchy thrown in our face confident that no one ha sguts to say, "Hell No, We Wont Go" into surrender mode.

Tim said...

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

-- Karl Marx.

Shorter Marx: "We need more; you have more."

That's all anyone needs to know.

For too many, that's a feature, not a bug.

AJ Lynch said...

Amin Husain is said to have deep roots in the Palestine movement per some googling. Instigators like him [and yes I mean foreigner whiners] will further erode the remaining public support for OWS.

Sorun said...

When you're dealing with self-absorbed, child-like people such as the OWS protestors, no good deed goes unpunished.

Andy R. said...

Manipulative and blind to reality... oh, really? Speaking of casually letting the truth slip out!

Yes, that is among the nicer things I could imagine thinking about organized religion.

Well said, Althouse.

rhhardin said...

Eat the seed corn, as the saying goes suggesting that unforeseen consequences follow.

Tim said...

"...will further erode the remaining public support for OWS."

...to its base level of irreducible idiocy.

Palladian said...

I wonder if Amin Husain wears his hat crooked?

LilyBart said...

that is among the nicer things I could imagine thinking about organized religion

Manipulation, hypocrisy, etc are not what religions due to society, they are what humans do to society - in all their constructs whether church, government, family, etc. Anti-religious people see human failings in religious people and claim it is the fault of religion.

Curious George said...

Hard to fee sorry for Trinity. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

These OWSers are parasites who will suck you dry until there is noting left. What were you thinking?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
the Rev. James H. Cooper

Illustrates that one’s love of Social Justice tends to evaporate when it’s YOUR property being taken for the cause of Justice.
Also, that the Revolution eats its own…his contributions were nive, but now the Revolution needs MORE…

Lastly, Hatdood, you are pretty much a waste of hip/ironic neurons. Feel free to comment on the wonders of ORGANIZED SECULAR MOVEMENTS and extol the glories of your UNORGANIZED “spirituality”….

chuck said...

I nominate Rev. Cooper for a Darwin award, second class. He didn't get himself killed and removed from the gene pool, but he did manage to illustrate the downside of being a dope.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
“Trinity Church had a fantastic opportunity to be a Christlike presence by openings its doors to the protesters,” said the Rev. Milind Sojwal, the rector of All Angels Church, an Episcopal parish on the Upper West Side. “And I believe Trinity blew it

More examples of “Social Justice”…note how Rev Sojwal is gladly donating SOMEONE’S property to the cause, but isn’t offering his parish’s land nor is he offering his parish’s money to make the lot inhabitable either. Rev. Sojwal is the PERFECT OWS supporter, very willing to use OTHER PEOPLE’S stuff for the cause.

caplight45 said...

"Calling this an issue of ‘political sanctuary’ is manipulative and blind to reality. Equating the desire to seize this property with uprisings against tyranny is misguided, at best. Hyperbolic distortion drives up petition signatures, but doesn’t make it right."

Well, at least somebody had the courage to state the patently obvious.

Andy R. said...

LilyBart, are you implying that we should give religion a pass on being "manipulative and blind to reality" because you think that is also a general inclination that humans have?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
LilyBart, are you implying that we should give religion a pass on being "manipulative and blind to reality" because you think that is also a general inclination that humans have

That seems to be her pint, please refute it…be thorough, show all your work hatdood…please also enlighten us with examples of your unorganized spirituality inspiring and remaking the world, please….because I know you’re going to tell us that you are “very spiritual” you just don’t like Organized Religion(s).

William said...

I would have thought that the parish members of Trinity Church were not underrepresented on Wall Street. Does the parson have an obligation to serve the needs of his parish or the needs of the OWS?

Andy R. said...

That seems to be her pint, please refute it…be thorough, show all your work hatdood…please also enlighten us with examples of your unorganized spirituality inspiring and remaking the world, please….because I know you’re going to tell us that you are “very spiritual” you just don’t like Organized Religion(s).

I'm a hardcore atheist, there is nothing spiritual about me or my beliefs. I can't imagine anything that I've ever said here or anywhere else that would give the slightest indication that I would be at all supportive of unorganized spirituality.

Let's assume for a moment that reincarnation isn't real. Let's also assume that humans made up the idea of reincarnation because they were scared and confused about what would happen after they died. This concept of reincarnation was then adopted by various religions because adopting this idea, which might be "manipulative and blind to reality", served some larger purpose that the religion was trying to accomplish. I think, in the pursuit of truth and knowledge and understanding we should attempt to determine whether reincarnation is a plausible explanation for what happens after we die, and if not, convince people and religions that they should perhaps abandon this belief because propagating untrue things is inherently problematic.

This seems quite elementary and I'm confused that people would disagree with this approach to the world.

EMD said...

All Angels Church has a fantastic opportunity to be a Christlike presence by openings its doors to the protesters.


Fixed it for him.

Freeman Hunt said...

Trinity wanted to ride the tiger. Now the inevitable.

Curious George said...

"Andy R. said...
I'm a hardcore atheist, there is nothing spiritual about me or my beliefs."

I can see that. It's either that or a lifetime of "Why God, why me?

edutcher said...

Look at who was behind the Occupation and you find a welter of closet Communists and salon Socialists.

Andy R. said...

Manipulative and blind to reality... oh, really? Speaking of casually letting the truth slip out!

Yes, that is among the nicer things I could imagine thinking about organized religion.


Except that the religion to which she was referring was the worship of Karl Marx.

(he just keeps handing us the material...)

JohnJ said...

“For too many, that's a feature, not a bug.”

Really heartened to hear Romney’s description and defense of capitalism and free markets Thursday night. But now I’m reading that that perspective will “definitely be used against him in the general campaign.”

Strange times, indeed, when calls for a return to a meritocracy stir the wrath of the rabble.

Bill said...

'... Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has issued two statements on the matter: one posted on the Occupy Wall Street Web site, imploring Trinity to “find a way to help” the protesters, and a second, posted on the Trinity Web site, in which Archbishop Tutu said his comments were “not to be used to justify breaking the law.”'

Seems to me these messages should have been switched.

JohnJ said...

Wonder how that askew ball cap look would work for Romney?

Calypso Facto said...

Hyperbolic distortion drives up petition signatures, but doesn’t make it right

Especially relevant in Wisconsin right now.

Peter Hoh said...

NFL team owners are much more subtle when it comes to making their demands.

traditionalguy said...

Being a Christlike presence includes feeding and sheltering widows and orphans.

Being a Christlike presence to OWS would also include teaching them to Repent, believe the Good News, and deliver them the demons that are capturing their minds with Marxist false prophecies.

kimsch said...

Except it's not "we need more, you have more," it's more "we want more, you have more, give it to us!"

It's never enough for these people. In California, iirc, they trashed some food stands because the food stand owners stopped giving them free food.

They trashed shops and restaurants that wouldn't let them use the restrooms anymore.

wv: phiesote

chuck said...

...and deliver them the demons that are capturing their minds with Marxist false prophecies.

It's the Episcopal church. I have gotten the impression most Episcopal reverends are actually atheists who nonetheless await the second coming of Marx.

Simon said...

It has the virtue of candor, I suppose.

Palladian said...

More, more more! How do you like it? How do you like it?

caplight45 said...

"Trinity wanted to ride the tiger. Now the inevitable."

Leave it to Freeman to cut through the crap. Well said.

Pogo said...

It's always satisfying to consider one's envy as morally superior.

Vince said...

The rector just found out that if you feed a stray cat it will never leave and demand more. One might think a man of his learning would know this already.

Ralph L said...

I would have thought that the parish members of Trinity Church were not underrepresented on Wall Street
I believe they're all bussed in from the Upper East Side. Mercedes Benz buses, of course. You weren't implying they work for a living?

I wonder if the OWS leaders are the same people who rioted at the GATT? meeting in Seattle some years ago.

Andy R. said...

I wonder if the OWS leaders

What leaders?

Ralph L said...

With the Trinity spire, Mayor Wang, etc., the blog has a phallic theme today, intended or not.

WV - wifibir - New Starbucks product to relieve coffeehouse constipation.

Pogo said...

Rev. James H. Cooper “Why did you bite me, when I was doing you the kindness of giving you a ride?

Protester Amin Husain sadly replied, “It is my nature.

...from OWSop's Fables

Dr Weevil said...

Sideways Hat Guy's 1:52 post suggests that he thinks that Christians believe in reincarnation. It takes a remarkable degree of ignorance of (a) Christianity or (b) the meaning of the word 'reincarnation' or (c) both to think that.

Andy R. said...

Sideways Hat Guy's 1:52 post suggests that he thinks that Christians believe in reincarnation.

Work on your reading comprehension. You're wrong and embarrassing yourself.

Seeing Red said...

is a plausible explanation for what happens after we die, and if not, convince people and religions that they should perhaps abandon this belief because propagating untrue things is inherently problematic.



Now you understand how some of us feel about man-made global warming hysteria and socialism. The advertising used to sell these ideas are based on lies. And it both their cases, they kill people.

Dr Weevil said...

More silly remarks from Sideways Hat Guy: "What leaders?" he asked (3:21) when someone else had referred to "OWS leaders".

I think whoever stays in hotel rooms costing hundreds of dollars a night at OWS expense while their followers freeze in tents count as leaders, even if they like to pretend otherwise. Whoever knows the PIN for the $500,000 the NYC OWS has collected certainly counts as a leader, or a confidant of the leaders.

Andy R. said...

I think whoever stays in hotel rooms costing hundreds of dollars a night at OWS expense while their followers freeze in tents count as leaders,

I have seen no reports of this happening. Are you talking about individuals who spend their own money to stay in hotels costing hundreds of dollars a night?

Can you provide a link to back your claim up?

Dr Weevil said...

So how am I wrong, Hat Dude? You were trashing "organized religion" in general and then went off on the silliness of believing in Reincarnation. Care to explain the connection? Because the vast majority of organizedly religious people you'll run into on this site, including the Rev. Cooper, who was the subject of the post, think Reincarnation is a silly idea, too.

Tim said...

"I think, in the pursuit of truth and knowledge and understanding we should attempt to determine whether reincarnation is a plausible explanation for what happens after we die, and if not, convince people and religions that they should perhaps abandon this belief because propagating untrue things is inherently problematic."

This, notwithstanding a profound misunderstanding of the Christian theology of salvation, from a self-proclaimed "hardcore atheist," who offers no evidence whatsoever he's "attempt(ed) to determine whether reincarnation is a plausible explanation for what happens after we die," let alone confirmation, yet he has jumped to the conclusion, out of his own faith, that Christian theology is wrong, and his atheistic beliefs correct.

Funny religion you have there.

Dr Weevil said...

Hat Dude demonstrates his own ignorance and/or dishonesty again. I just binged "OWS 'hotel rooms' hundreds" and the first page included 8 or 9 sites reporting that OWS leaders were staying in $700/night hotel rooms near Zuccotti Park. It was widely reported just a few weeks ago.

What was most impressive was that the first result on my Bing search was my comment on this post, which had only been up for 9 minutes. How's that for service?

Note that Silly Hat Dude has no comment on the obvious fact that someone has the PIN to the $500,000 collected so far, and that someone has far more power than the chumps sleeping in the tents.

wv: baysic - the kind of research a sideways hat seems to impede.

Andy R. said...

You were trashing "organized religion" in general and then went off on the silliness of believing in Reincarnation.

We were discussing religion in general and the way it misleads people. As part of that discussion I offered an example of how it does so. There was nothing in that example that should have led you to believe that I was talking about *all* religions or Christianity in particular. In fact, I specifically made the opposite claim when I said: This concept of reincarnation was then adopted by various religions because adopting this idea, which might be "manipulative and blind to reality", served some larger purpose that the religion was trying to accomplish. [Emphasis added]

I could, of course, come up with an example of how any particular religion misleads people, I went with reincarnation as my example because I didn't think many of the people here would be emotionally invested in that idea and I have lots of experience in the way that Christians' emotional investment in the fable of Jesus makes it hard for them to realize the absurdity of those claims.

Is there anything unclear about my use of the example of reincarnation in the broader discussion of how religion is a force that misleads people as one specific instance of that phenomenon?

EDH said...

Amin Husain... pressuring Trinity Church to let them set up camp on church property.

Husain reminds me of Vushnu in famous verse of the Bhagavad-Gita Hindu scripture that R.J. Oppenheimer used to describe the first atomic explosion he helped unleash at the site codenamed "Trinity".

...the first artificial nuclear explosion near Alamogordo on... a site that Oppenheimer codenamed "Trinity" in mid-1944.

He later said this name was from one of John Donne's Holy Sonnets. According to the historian Gregg Herken, this naming could have been an allusion to Jean Tatlock, who had committed suicide a few months previously and had in the 1930s introduced Oppenheimer to Donne's work.

Oppenheimer later recalled that, while witnessing the explosion, he thought of a verse from the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita:

"I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says,

'I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'."

Tim said...

I am prepared to accept the OWS urchins have no leaders.

Who, besides Congressional Democrats, would ever want to lead a dirty rabble of alienated misfits whose talents are best suited for loitering, littering, banging drums, raping women, shitting on squad cars, shaking cans for spare change and assembling tents?

Dr Weevil said...

Hint for Hat Dude: Despite the similar spelling and etymological connection, 'incarnation' and 'reincarnation' are entirely different concepts. Christians believe in the former but not the latter.

Andy R. said...

Hat Dude demonstrates his own ignorance and/or dishonesty again. I just binged "OWS 'hotel rooms' hundreds" and the first page included 8 or 9 sites reporting that OWS leaders were staying in $700/night hotel rooms near Zuccotti Park.

The report I saw said that the people staying in fancy hotels were not using OWS money. This is the example I am familiar with.

I asked you to provide a link that shows that OWS was spending its money to put their leaders in fancy hotels and you did not do so. I'll ask again.

I'll get to your issue with the PIN numbers in a second, I would just like to resolve this question first.

Dr Weevil said...

No, Hat Dude, "we" were not "discussing religion in general and the way it misleads people". You were trying to divert the discussion from the actual subject of the post to something quite different having nothing to do with it. Classic "Look, a squirrel!" behavior.

Your claim that you picked a non-Christian example out of sensitivity to Christians and their beliefs is belied by your reference to "the fable of Jesus" in the same comment. You know what "belied" means, don't you? It means "shown to be a lie". No one here believes that you have any objection to insulting Christians, as long as you're on-line, anyway.

wv: flessent - Latin syncopated pluperfect subjunctive, "they might have wept".

Tim said...

"Is there anything unclear about my use of the example of reincarnation in the broader discussion of how religion is a force that misleads people as one specific instance of that phenomenon?"

Yes, there is.

You have not disproved your example that reincarnation is real.

So, complete it by disproving reincarnation before you assert "religion is a force that misleads people."

Take your time. You know where to find us.

Writ Small said...

I just binged "OWS 'hotel rooms' hundreds" and the first page included 8 or 9 sites reporting that OWS leaders were staying in $700/night hotel rooms near Zuccotti Park. It was widely reported just a few weeks ago.

Andy R. - Reading Animal Farm could spare you additional painful realizations as events continue to unfold. Just saying.

Andy R. said...

No, Hat Dude, "we" were not "discussing religion in general and the way it misleads people".

When I said "we", I was referring to me, Joe, and LilyBart.

Here are the comments that were exchanged back and forth between us prior to my use of the example of reincarnation.

Me: "Yes, that is among the nicer things I could imagine thinking about organized religion."

LilyBart : "Manipulation, hypocrisy, etc are not what religions due to society, they are what humans do to society - in all their constructs whether church, government, family, etc. Anti-religious people see human failings in religious people and claim it is the fault of religion."

Me: "LilyBart, are you implying that we should give religion a pass on being "manipulative and blind to reality" because you think that is also a general inclination that humans have?"

Joe: "because I know you’re going to tell us that you are “very spiritual” you just don’t like Organized Religion(s)."

No where in that conversation did any of us ever make a reference to Christianity. We were clearly talking about religion in general. I made clear in my example that I was referring to one specific belief adopted by some religions. It's obvious in the context that I'm not claiming that it's a Christian belief.

What is unclear about this to you?

Dr Weevil said...

Poor Hat Dude just can't seem to get anything right. He writes of a NYPost story, "The report I saw said that the people staying in fancy hotels were not using OWS money."

If you follow his link, you will see that it is not the Post but the big spenders who "said that they were not using OWS money". We have only their word for it, and, in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "They would say that, wouldn't they?"

Even if we believe that people with an unearned $500,000 in the bank never dipped into their funds for hotel bills, the last line of the Post story refutes Hat Dude's original claim, that the movement has no leaders: "Occupiers told The Post that they witnessed other General Assembly and group leaders stay in both the W Downtown and the Marriott Hotel — and said that key players were not present when cops stormed Zuccotti."

"General Assembly and group leaders" who stay in fancy hotels look like "leaders" to me. That's what their followers call them. If they were absent when the police arrived, they were bad leaders, but still leaders.

Andy R. said...

To be clear, you have no evidence to back up your original claim that OWS paid for their leaders to stay in nice hotels?

Do you normally make claims that you have no evidence for and comment on someone's " ignorance and/or dishonesty" when they point out that you seem to be making shit up?

I'm not even saying it's impossible that OWS did this. I have just seen no reports of it, it would surprise me if it were the case for a variety of reasons, and you seem like the type of person who would make inaccurate statements in an area where you don't actually know what is going on.

Tim said...

"Do you normally make claims that you have no evidence for and comment on someone's " ignorance and/or dishonesty" when they point out that you seem to be making shit up?"

Interesting. Seems our boy Andy is unfamiliar with a mirror - might explain his misuse of his hat.

So Andy, holding yourself to your own standard, support your claim that reincarnation is not real, and that it "was then adopted by various religions because adopting this idea, which might be "manipulative and blind to reality", served some larger purpose that the religion was trying to accomplish."

Or, are you just making shit up?

Dr Weevil said...

Oh look: Hat Dude hasn't even read the part of the story where OWS followers specifically say that saw "other General Assembly and group leaders stay in both the W Downtown and the Marriott Hotel". So even if the two (2!) rich guys quoted by the Post paid their own way - and they seem to have offered the Post only their word that they did so, not (e.g.) receipts - what about the others? Has anyone even asked them who paid their hotel bills?

Has the $500,000 collected ever been audited or accounted for in any way? Does anyone (OWS followers or the general public) know how much has been spent, and on what, or how that is decided, and by whom?

Of course, we're still waiting for Hat Dude to talk about whether the people with the PINs or the people the followers specifically refer to as "leaders" are properly called "leaders". Now that he's accused me of doing exactly what he has been doing - "making shit up" - he will no doubt use that as an excuse to refuse to continue the argument. Loser.

Andy R. said...

So Andy, holding yourself to your own standard, support your claim that reincarnation is not real

I said very clearly, "Let's assume for a moment that reincarnation isn't real."

The reason I wrote that is my own personal worldview is that we shouldn't believe things are true unless we have some evidence to support them. If we have no evidence in support of something, we should assume it isn't true.

Now I can't think of a way that I could prove that reincarnation isn't real, but science doesn't really prove things anyway, at least the logical positivism that I'm most familiar with. As it happens, everything we know about everything provides absolutely zero evidence that reincarnation is real. In my world, that means it's misleading to tell people its true.

I understand that this is largely an ontological debate and it may be impossible to resolve it, at least in Althouse's comment section, but the truthiness of reincarnation is actually not important to the point I was making.

My original point was that religions mislead people and we should fight against that. It's possible that there are people that think there is nothing misleading about any religion, that every single religion is 100% truhy, but that seems a little silly.

I happen to think that Christianity was made up by some wandering semitic nomads a couple thousand years ago, and everything we know about psychology, sociology, biology, literature, chemistry, political science, etc. provides no support for the idea that Jesus was divine and 100% support for the founding of Christianity to look exactly the way it did if it were made up by humans.

Andy R. said...

Has anyone even asked them who paid their hotel bills?

If we're going to continue this discussion it's going to have to be with the understanding that if we're going to make claims (especially about factual matters), then we have to provide the evidence to back it up.

If you're going to claim something, and then when I point out that you're probably wrong (and provide a link with information on why), you respond by saying, essentially, "it's possible, and you didn't prove otherwise!" then I'm not going to keep telling you how and why you are wrong.

If you think OWS paid for its leaders to stay in nice hotels, please provide some evidence or retract that claim. Then we can talk about the ways in which you seem confused about how the Finance Committee works and what it means to be a leader of OWS and your harping on the PIN number.

Dr Weevil said...

And Hat Dude once again looks for an excuse to quit an argument he's lost without admitting he's lost it. What about the PINs? What about the fact that the followers refer to their leaders as "leaders"? Does OWS have leaders or not? Was Hat Dude's original "What leaders?" comment moronic or not?

And what kind of moron thinks the Jews of Jesus' time were "wandering semitic nomads"? One word is correct, or would be if he had capitalized it ("Semitic"), and the other two are redundant, but the Jews of Jesus' time were certainly not nomads. A 50 would be a generous grade for this statement, counting "wandering" and "nomads" as a single error and ignoring the capitalization error, but a stricter teacher would give it a 30.

wv: exuvis - syncopated ablative plural of exuviae, 'spoils, clothing stripped from a conquered enemy'.

Andy R. said...

And Hat Dude once again looks for an excuse to quit an argument he's lost without admitting he's lost it. What about the PINs? What about the fact that the followers refer to their leaders as "leaders"? Does OWS have leaders or not? Was Hat Dude's original "What leaders?" comment moronic or not?

Like I said, admit that you were wrong about OWS paying for nice hotel rooms for their "leaders" or provide some evidence for that claim and then I'll explain what you're wrong about with the rest.

g2loq said...

The Toddler’s Rules of Possession:

1. If I like it, it’s mine.
2. If it’s in my hand, it’s mine.
3. If I can take it from you, it’s mine.
4. If I had it a little while ago, it’s mine.
5. If it’s mine, it must NEVER appear to be yours in anyway.
6. If I’m doing or building something, all the pieces are mine.
7. If it looks just like mine, it is mine.
8. If I saw it first, it’s mine.
9. If you are playing with something and you put it down, it automatically becomes mine.
10. If it’s broken, it’s yours.

g2loq said...

See second video:
The ineffable lightness of Class warfare:
http://gothamist.com/2011/11/17/video_daily_show_shows_owss_class_d.php#photo-1

Dr Weevil said...

Hat Dude finds reincarnation so implausible that he assumes as fact that it does not occur. Fair enough. I find reincarnation implausible, too.

I also find it implausible that a group of people with unsupervised access to huge sums of unearned money, who are seen spending large sums of money in ways that could be seen as improper (though not necessarily illegal), and have carefully avoided showing that their spending was in fact proper, have not done anything improper. Where are their account books? What have they spent their money on? If I were accused of similar impropriety, I would refute it by showing my receipts. The fact that OWS leaders do not do so is utterly damning.

All we know is that two of the richest leaders of the OWS movement say they paid their own hotel bills, while offering no evidence (e.g. receipts) that they did so, and with no followup to see whether they were reimbursed later. The "other General Assembly and group leaders" specifically mentioned by followers as having also stayed in hotels apparently haven't even been asked who paid their bills, and we don't know who they were, or even how many.

It is theoretically possible that everything was done "by the book", but the secretiveness of the OWS leaders (not "leaders") makes that utterly implausible, as implausible as reincarnation.

Sofa King said...

More, more more! How do you like it? How do you like it?

Give it to me! NOW!

Old Dad said...

Andy R. said:

"I happen to think that Christianity was made up by some wandering semitic nomads a couple thousand years ago, and everything we know about psychology, sociology, biology, literature, chemistry, political science, etc. provides no support for the idea that Jesus was divine and 100% support for the founding of Christianity to look exactly the way it did if it were made up by humans."

Your claim is absurd. Yeshua was a small town carpenter. Among his disciples were nary a nomad. If anyone might be accused of making up Christianity, it would be Paul of Tarsus, a cosmopolitan Roman citizen.

You might be thinking of Muhammad (pbuh), and your quibble about "knowing" isn't ontological, it's epistemological.

Andy R. said...

I also find it implausible that a group of people with unsupervised access to huge sums of unearned money, who are seen spending large sums of money in ways that could be seen as improper (though not necessarily illegal), and have carefully avoided showing that their spending was in fact proper, have not done anything improper. Where are their account books? What have they spent their money on? If I were accused of similar impropriety, I would refute it by showing my receipts. The fact that OWS leaders do not do so is utterly damning.

Start here, with the meeting information, minutes and policies of the Occupy Wall Street Finance/Accounting Committee.

Do you really think that a half million dollars was dumped in a bank account and a couple of guys were handed the PIN number without any rules or oversight? And that they have been spending the money to stay in nice hotels and no one has found any evidence of this?

Andy R. said...

All we know is that two of the richest leaders of the OWS movement say they paid their own hotel bills

Couldn't rich people afford to pay for a couple of nights in a nice hotel? You really think they would risk getting in trouble by stealing the money?

n.n said...

While they protest fraudulent exploitation, they wholeheartedly embrace involuntary exploitation (i.e. redistributive and retributive change via exploitation and perversion of the democratic process). While both are forms of involuntary exploitation, the former is an example of corruption in the exception (corrected through the rule of law), while the latter is a prominent example of fundamental corruption.

All forms of involuntary exploitation, whether through appeals to emotion or deception, must be severely constrained and corrected in order to preserve individual dignity and societal integrity.

It has been dreams of physical, material, and ego instant gratification which have enabled the progressive corruption of individuals and society, which are in stark opposition to both the natural and enlightened orders, and have predictably promoted the development of dysfunctional individuals and society.

Anyway, I suppose this latest revelation confirms their motivation to embrace the "occupy" label. Their dreams are perfectly aligned with its historical meaning.

EMD said...

I could, of course, come up with an example of how any particular religion misleads people, I went with reincarnation as my example because I didn't think many of the people here would be emotionally invested in that idea and I have lots of experience in the way that Christians' emotional investment in the fable of Jesus makes it hard for them to realize the absurdity of those claims.

One of these groups inspired by these "fables" will put out kettles this holiday season to collect aid for the less fortunate among us. The other, inspired by Mr. Marx, will do what, exactly?

Andy R. said...

One of these groups inspired by these "fables" will put out kettles this holiday season to collect aid for the less fortunate among us. The other, inspired by Mr. Marx, will do what, exactly?

Occupy Atlanta, which I'm' familiar with, is helping to provide food and shelter to the homeless, and we're doing it without the homophobia of the Salvation Army.

Synova said...

Even if they paid for their own ritzy hotel rooms because they're the 1% and can afford to, it's still way more hypocritical than most conservatives are who get accused of being hypocritical.

But the leaders and enforcers are always comfortable under communism. Always. They have heat and nice cars and beautiful houses. And somehow this makes sense to those convinced that they're for the little guy.

Synova said...

"and we're doing it without the homophobia of the Salvation Army."

And the Salvation Army started card checking at the soup line, when?

madAsHell said...

I'm wondering why ANYONE would engage HatDood in a debate. It's all so predictable.

...and why do atheists always believe that their religion is superior??

Ralph L said...

Bugger the Homeless.

Synova said...

"Bugger the Homeless."

But OWS isn't homeless is it. This is a voluntary "I've got a point to make" homelessness, the same way that a person staging a hunger strike doesn't have enough to eat.

Tent cities are so *photogenic* you know. Except that most of the time the people in them don't want to be there, didn't chose to be there, and have no other choices.

So there's this voluntary homelessness, and voluntary soup-kitchen thing... live in a tent and eat donated food... because you've got a political statement to make. It's so fake and phony. Phony, phony, phony.

And no matter how foolish some do-gooder religious "I'm a pastor because I want to dedicate my life to helping people, no reason I have to believe" person might be, these poverty volunteers are stealing resources from people who ARE hungry or ARE homeless.

Maybe the fantasy is comforting, somehow, but it's blatantly a fantasy.

Andy R. said...

And the Salvation Army started card checking at the soup line, when?

Are you denying that the Salvation Army is a homophobic organization?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Are you denying that the Salvation Army is a homophobic organization

Are you saying they have an IRRATIONAL FEAR OF HOMOSEXUALS…the definition of a “phobia.” And are they asking about the sexual orientation of the recipients of their assistance? Please enlighten us as to the Army’s “homophobia.”

Jeffrey said...

This Andy Hat Dude is one humorless ideologue. There's no doubt that, if there were a revolution, he would be the one leading the "struggle sessions" to isolate those who needed to be marched through town and beaten like those unfortunates in China's Cultural Revolution.

Beware of earnest pricks like Andy.

Mark said...

"Need" can be such a useful word.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Its nice Andy supports OWS. Communists need love too.

Synova said...

I've never heard that the Salvation Army discriminates against those they help.

If (and assuming) their official stand on homosexuality reflects biblical standards and that does not at any point impact policies on who deserves help and who doesn't, they are not *homophobic*. They simply disagree with you on a matter unrelated to their work with the needy and homeless.

And you are free not to give them your money.

Andy R. said...

Are you saying they have an IRRATIONAL FEAR OF HOMOSEXUALS…the definition of a “phobia.”

Yeah, and palestinians can't be anti-semitic because they are also a semitic people. Don't be dumb.

Please enlighten us as to the Army’s “homophobia.”
They don't believe that gay people should get married or have sex. It's straightforward bigotry. No, they don't question people before they give them food, but they have also fought to maintain the right to discriminate against homosexuals in their hiring practices, so it's not like this is a purely academic discussion.

They are a Christian organization, so it's not exactly surprising that they hate the gays. If you are fine aligning yourself with and supporting an organization that hates the gays, go right ahead.

Synova said...

Out of curiosity, considering how OWS doesn't think it needs no steenking permits for anything...

A big reason for the predominance of religious organizations providing food and shelter for the poor and homeless is that the bleeding-heart "this is for your own good" left are so busy protecting us from unsafe and unlicensed food providers and vendors that only large, established, organizations can jump through all the legal hoops and get the inspections and permits they need.

Perhaps you know, Andy, if Occupy Atlanta has bothered with obtaining any of those permits, or if they are, yet again, doing something anyone else would get arrested for.

(And for what it's worth, the food service rules that make it illegal for people to feed the poor are immoral... not that I expect big-government people to stop "being on our side" long enough to admit it.)

Synova said...

If I were conspiracy minded I'd say that it's a plot... make private charity as difficult as possible, if not outright illegal, and then claim it as proof that government charity is the only way to solve the problem.

Michael said...

The "leaders" of the NY ows are the people with the checkbook, who control the half million dollars that was once in the bank.

Occupy Atlanta is a joke group trying to find justification for their sanctimony by dismissing an organization that has been helping the poor for over a hundred years for being "homophobic.". An insult wrapped in stupidity with a bow of ignorance.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Yeah, and palestinians can't be anti-semitic because they are also a semitic people. Don't be dumb

Non Sequitur, Hatdood…If I’m Arachnophobic I have an IRRATIONAL FEAR OF SPIDERS…”homophobia” is an irrational fear of gays…please demonstrate how the Salvation Army has this “Phobia.”

What you mean is they don’t agree with you. Typically leftist, change the meaning of a word….they don’t “hate” gays, they DISAGREE with them. Only in Hatdood Land is it “bigotry” to oppose something you find distasteful and wrong…say are you “Bigoted” against Nazi’s Hatdood? And if so, how would you differentiate your bigotry from the Army’s?

Craig said...

Marx will continue to be a major force in the world until someone comes up with a more plausible interpretation of the New Testament.

Andy R. said...

It's ok to hate the Nazi's because they did something bad, it's not ok to hate the gays because they didn't do anything bad. This has been simple answers to simple questions.

Yeah, I know it makes the Christians feel better about hating the gays because they made up this imaginary sky fairy who they say hates the gays and they are just following his orders, but that doesn't make it ok.

Michael said...

AndyR. Fyi, while you are fucking around here the Salvation Army is out working.

Dr Weevil said...

Since Hat Boy can't seem to figure it out, I'll spell out the problem for him once more. According to his own link, it wasn't just two rich guys who stayed in very expensive hotels while serving as leaders of OWS NYC. Followers said that the others did, too. So, were they rich, too? No matter how you answer that question, it looks bad for OWS:

1. If all the leaders can afford to spend hundreds of dollars a night of their own money to stay in hotels while their followers freeze, we have a movement of poor and middle-class and unemployed people led by the idle rich.

2. If most of the leaders can't afford to spend hundreds of dollars of their own money to stay in hotels while their followers freeze, who paid for the ones who couldn't pay for themselves?

By the way, I don't think it would necessarily have been illegal for OWS leaders to spend contributions on themselves - gifts freely given to such an amorphous cause can hardly have effective strings attached. But it would certainly have been contemptible.

So which is it, Hat Boy? Is OWS a pseudo-popular movement entirely run by the rich? Or is it a popular movement whose leaders live like the rich on the backs of their poor freezing unemployed followers? It sure looks like one or the other.

jimspice said...

Husain. That's all you need. Buy more robots.

Scott M said...

Yeah, I know it makes the Christians feel better about hating the gays because they made up this imaginary sky fairy who they say hates the gays and they are just following his orders, but that doesn't make it ok.

All Christians hate gays, Andy? Which one's if not? Can you please be more precise in your slander?

Nosmo said...

Free Shit...The folks who are getting the free shit don't like the folks who are paying for the free shit because the folks who are paying for the free shit can no longer afford to pay for both the free shit and their own shit. The folks who are payin for the free shit want the free shit to stop and the folks who are getting the free shit want even more free shit on top of the free shit they are already getting. The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free shit have told the people who are recieving the free shit that the people who are paying for the free shit are being mean, prejudiced, and racist. So the people who are getting the free shit have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free shit by the people who are paying for the free shit by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free shit and giving them the free shit in the first place. We have let the free shit giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free shit than paying for the free shit. Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them. The United States officially became a republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free shit out numbers the people paying for the free shit. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

Dante said...

112,000,000 households
15,000,000,000,000 in debt
62,000,000,000,000 in obligations

$133,928 in debt per household
$553,571 in obligations per household

$45,000 in median income per household.

The OWSers have a point. The establishment sucks.

Michael said...

Dante. The ows people are not interested in the debt part, they want the asset part. They could care less what the debt is.

Seven Machos said...

I happen to think that Christianity was made up by some wandering semitic nomads a couple thousand years ago

What a fucking dumb ass. My God. Where to start. I guess with nomads who wrote in Greek and have a wide knowledge of Greek tragedy and biography.

Andy, you are truly a moron. Just embarrassing, dude. Sad. Disgusting. Shameful. Not even remotely educated about the world. What a fucking tool.

knockoutgirl said...

I would suggest a two comment limit per person, per topic.

Mick said...

Don't feed the bears.

hoss said...

As someone said up above, it's not that OWS needs more. It is that they want more.

Whenever arguing with a leftist about the budget or something similar they will inevitably say that conservatives don't want to help the needy.

I always say that I'm fine helping the needy, but don't want to give to the wanty. Leftism is based on conflating the 2. It's brilliance and appeal is that it is greed and envy couched in the language of compassion.

Christopher in MA said...

". . .that is among the nicer things I could imagine thinking about organized religion."

Now that's comedy gold. Somebody who can't even organize their hat spouting off on 'organized religion.'

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... They are a Christian organization, so it's not exactly surprising that they hate the gays. If you are fine aligning yourself with and supporting an organization that hates the gays, go right ahead..."

Lol!

Swede said...

"All Angels Church has a fantastic opportunity to be a Christlike presence by openings its doors to the protesters."

Because being Christlike requires that you let these people shit in your parking lot.

Tully said...

"Need" = "want."

We want. You have. We'll take it any way we can.

Andy R. said...

I happen to think that Christianity was made up by some wandering semitic nomads a couple thousand years ago

I usually have this discussion with the jews and I failed to update my learned historical analysis for the early christians. I spent a year in israel studying judaism so I'm a lot more clear on its early origins than I am on Christianity, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was still just a bunch of dudes without sky beard wizard whispering in their ears.

Andy R. said...

Since Hat Boy can't seem to figure it out, I'll spell out the problem for him once more. According to his own link, it wasn't just two rich guys who stayed in very expensive hotels while serving as leaders of OWS NYC. Followers said that the others did, too.

All the evidence I have seen says that some people who could afford it spent their own money to stay in a nice hotel. That doesn't particularly concern me. My guess is that a lot of the people staying in Zuccotti Park didn't actually have to be there, it was a choice, and they had somewhere nicer they could have been staying. It doesn't seem to be a secret that some people were staying in a nice hotel, so the people in the park could make their own decisions about whether that was a problem for them.

As far as calling some people leaders, it is a term that is thrown around colloquially, usually by members of the press, and sometimes by people involved in Occupy, and I think it's usually a misleading term.

What do you mean by "leader". Do you think those are people who are the only ones who have access to the money? Do they have more power? Do they get to tell people what to do?

Occupy NYC uses consensus decision-making, like every other Occupation I'm aware of, and that means the group gets to make decisions. In Atlanta, we are fond of saying that everyone is a leader or no one is a leader, and while that might not always work in practice, because not everyone is willing to step up, there are no rules that give some people more power over others.

This notion that there are a couple people with the PIN numbers to the bank account who can do whatever they want and spend all the money doesn't seem remotely accurate, as far as the links I provided to their Finance/Accounting group page, and the meetings that they have that are open to the public.

What do you mean by leaders? Do you mean just that there are people who are called "leaders"? Because that's true, but it doesn't really tell us much. What power do you think the leaders have?

Paco Wové said...

"Leftism is based on conflating the 2. It's brilliance and appeal is that it is greed and envy couched in the language of compassion."

And class enemies. Can't do without those!

There's an interesting comment in the Larry Kaufmann piece than Althouse linked to in the "Fallen Timbers" post:

"I also had an extended, civil discussion with the Occupy Madison representative afterwards. Among the opinions he shared with me in that conversation were: the capitalist system is based on violence and coercion; no socialist experiments have ever worked, but that's only because real "bottom up" socialism has never been tried (guess he never heard of Charles Fourier or Robert Owen, among others); and that since the wealth of the 1% represents ill-gotten gains, the 99% have the right to take it from them - by democratic means, if possible, but by force, if necessary."

Paco Wové said...

I pledge to give extra to the Salvation Army this season, in Andy R.'s honor.

Bill said...

Dr. Weevil: 1. If all the leaders can afford to spend hundreds of dollars a night of their own money to stay in hotels while their followers freeze, we have a movement of poor and middle-class and unemployed people led by the idle rich.

Isn't that the way revolutionary movements are supposed to work?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Andy R.,

I think Synova's point about the Salvation Army "not card checking at the soup line" might have been in reference to this. Cooking fancy food for protesters is all very well, but for the fraction of the 99% that actually has to sleep outdoors, as opposed to camping out for fun ...

Andy R. said...

I think Synova's point about the Salvation Army "not card checking at the soup line" might have been in reference to this.

Ah, I heard about that. I disagree with their decision. In Atlanta we have homeless people living with us at our Occupation and some occupiers have been sleeping in a homeless shelter some nights (that is a whole other long and complicated story).

We share food with them, and I think that's the way it should be at every Occupation.

ken in sc said...

Hey, Andy. I just donated $100 to the Salvation Army in your honor. Merry Christmas.

Andy R. said...

Are you folks making donations in spite of the Salvation Army's bigotry against gays or because of it?

Paco Wové said...

I don't give a flying fuck about the Salvation Army's stance -- wide or otherwise -- on homosexuality.

Scott M said...

Occupy NYC uses consensus decision-making, like every other Occupation I'm aware of, and that means the group gets to make decisions.

An insider has already debunked this fallacy. Like much on the left, it only works on paper or in the wishful dreams alongside unicorns. In reality, members of the Spokes Council, supposedly the "leaders" at the height of OWS in NY, were using the very mechanics of the "consensus" to prevent people from forwarding agenda items or criticisms they were opposed to.

If you want to know how the money was/is being handled, you need to learn everything you can about the Spokes Council. I would suggest you start with Animal Farm.

Michael said...

I stuck a hundred dollar bill in the red bucket a while ago in honor of Andy R. He insults a group dedicated for over a hundred years to helping the poor because he has been at it for a couple of months and thinks them homophobic. He thinks his dipshit hippy movement is better than the Salvation Army. He thinks his dirty comrades are better than the sharply dressed Salvation Army members proudly wearing their uniforms. I will put another hundred in tomorrow after I hit the bank.

bagoh20 said...

You gotta be careful with that being Christ-like stuff. He didn't exactly get off easy.

And are the OWS crowd really the helpless needing Christ's help, or are they more like the crowd throwing rocks and calling for crucifixion?

linds said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
linds said...

"...and deliver them the demons that are capturing their minds with Marxist false prophecies.

It's the Episcopal church. I have gotten the impression most Episcopal reverends are actually atheists who nonetheless await the second coming of Marx."

Chuck -- please don't make generalizations about things you don't understand. Thank God there are still Christian denominations out there like the Episcopalians committed to reason, tradition and scripture. It's a relief that I don't have to check my brain at the door when I go to church. It's not all tacky Bible-thumping evangelicals out there.

Speaking of evangelicals... Has anyone noticed that atheists make the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth evangelicals on the planet? Instead of beating you over the head with a Bible, they like to beat everyone over the head with their own estimation of how smart and "enlightened" they are for not believing in a higher power. They have become the evangelicals that they despise so much themselves as they charge out into the world to convert the deluded masses. It's kind of hilarious.

Back to the topic at hand, I feel bad for Trinity. They tried to be hospitable to these OWS guys as part of their Christian duty, but now they're being bullied by a bunch of ungrateful brats. It demonstrates what our country would look like if the OWS people get what they want. Scary stuff.

Freeman Hunt said...

Chuck -- please don't make generalizations about things you don't understand. Thank God there are still Christian denominations out there like the Episcopalians committed to reason, tradition and scripture. It's a relief that I don't have to check my brain at the door when I go to church. It's not all tacky Bible-thumping evangelicals out there.

That reminds me of when I left the Episcopal Church, and the priest had a meeting with me first. During that meeting he said, "You are in a very strange spot. It will be hard for you to find a place. You're very open-minded... but you're conservative."

He said it like I was the last ivory billed woodpecker or maybe a square circle.

It still makes me laugh when I remember it.

A_Nonny_Mouse said...

"We need more; you have more"
= = = = =
Dang! That comes pretty close to a quote that's stuck with me for years (from Jean Raspail's "Camp of the Saints"): "You have so much, and we are so poor".

The book touches on the notion of the poor wielding their victimhood like a moral club in order to DEMAND "charity".

In Raspail's world, it's masses of "the poor" from the Indian sub-continent: "our ships are coming with thousands of starving immigrants; and there will be more following behind. You have food; we NEED food. And we have a RIGHT to survive." (So by extension, "We have a RIGHT to anything you've got that we want".)

Squid said...

Atheists are a gift from God, put on Earth to test the faith of the faithful.

That they test the patience of the patient is just a side effect.