An unfortunate tale indeed. Yet I think the conclusion contains a mislaid hope : " but when someone breaks their own rules and sticks..."
Rather it would seem those are not the rules of these individuals at all - rather their behaviour suggests they have created their own rules quite apart from any inherited religious affiliation...and their revised rules allow for usury. That usury happens and shouldn't is the tragedy of an economic system that embraces what were once considered "deadly sins". Puritanical foundations long buried in the detritus of discarded dreams of those seeking the streets of gold.... My quibble was simply that neither the Judaic nor the Christian tradition "strictly" forbids usury. There have always been ever growing loopholes and exemptions - until we get to today when the loopholes are all that remain... http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/1998_usury.htm ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Ray Harrell [[email protected]] Sent: December 3, 2010 19:48 To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: [chineseinternetresearch] GT worries about Wikileaks Not being a follower of the Middle Eastern Faiths and having learned much of what I know about usury from performing music in churches and listening to thousands of sermons over the years, having graduated from a Presbyterian school that required we traditional Indian people to attend and pass their religion courses and then from listening to hundreds of sermons as I coached Rabbis in elocution over the years I do not claim expertise in these matters. I mostly rely on a little book that is gracefully written and can be found at this URL on the internet since it's out of print. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21623/21623-8.txt The Project Gutenberg EBook of Usury, by Calvin Elliott Even still, it is not my faith nor my issue. The only issue for me has been Christian and sometimes Jewish Bankers who collaborated with the Congress to get outrageous interest laws passed in the years since the Reagan Administration. (I took out no loans from Muslims nor do I know of them lobbying Congress as a part of a collective as was the case of the banks filled with the other two faiths. The Banks themselves were not religious although the managers claimed to be, which was the point.) I believe it was Elijah that got "all over" the Priests of Baal for being hypocrites and not following their faith, so my precedent is pretty good. Yes I sing Mendelssohn's Elijah, the part of Elijah. I constantly complained because these businessmen from those two Middle Eastern Faiths trashed my company along with most of the small arts companies since the Reagan Tax fiasco. It wasn't until a fellow Oklahoman, Elizabeth Warren took them all to task, that they ever acknowledged anything about what they were doing nor that it was "pure" usury against another American, since none of us are "strangers" as Americans, although I am an Indian, Goy, Gadje, Bajo etc. to certain immigrant groups. I may even be marime (unclean to the Romany) but that is irrelevant. However, we are ALL Americans. If I must consider bankers "American" then I certainly demand the return favor about not being a "stranger" in my own land. So the Usury laws should have applied to all of us. I paid back loans in some cases two and three times on my American Masters Arts Festival. It was a miserable time to be an American Artist dealing with the capitalist internal economic virus of productivity lag. As the little Elliott book makes clear, this is contrary to the economic rules of orthodox Judaism and to the Christianity that flowed from it! So who were these CREEPS? One can find a couple of passages from the Bible that may seem contrary to that, especially with the "stranger" stuff but the thrust of the whole does not support such an interpretation, according to Elliott. For someone who wrote at the height of the genocidal Dawes Commission and the banning of our religion in America (1902) it may seem strange, but I like Elliott's attitude. I would have been comfortable having him over for dinner as long as I could make sure that he sat in the proper chair and ate on the proper plates and silverware and didn't touch the kids. (just joking!) Now it's your issue, (if you are of a Middle Eastern Faith), but when someone breaks their own rules and sticks it to the artists of America, it becomes my fight and an issue of hypocrisy, in my humble opinion. Just a thought. Am I being provocative again Arthur? REH -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Markan Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:16 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: [chineseinternetresearch] GT worries about Wikileaks Sorry to quibble but usury is the Christian term and basically the Christian concept derived from the Jewish concept of ribbit. The Jewish concept (via Deuteronomy) is (in overly simple terms) that interest cannot be charged by Israelites to Israelites. The Jewish tradition does not forbid interest for non-Israelites. The Judiac tradition also allows for the gaining of profit from a loan by sharing the risk - the concept of lending that Islam embraces. So Judaic tradition does not "strictly forbid" usury. Nor does the Christian tradition. Only the Islamic tradition strictly forbids all interest on loans of money. The moral stricture on usury (and a darn good one!) is because usury creates excessive profit and gain without "labor" on the part of the lender. "Money for Nothing". Profits from usury are gained not by honest work but instead are the gains of sloth and greed (two of the deadly sins...). Thus the early Christian logic was that usury was a horrible sin punishable by excommunication. (Interesting that the Christian definition of usury was the charging of interest greater than 1% so some interest was allowed...) An interesting side-effect of the early Christian bans on usury and the Jewish allowance for the lending to non-Israelites was the rise of Jewish money-lenders. The various Christian heads-of-state encouraged and protected Jewish populations as an easy access to capital when loans were needed to finance state activities. Thus arose the stereotype of Shylock... As Christian society and Christian economies changed the ban on usury was eroded by various legal fictions - such as lending money at no interest but charging an annual "insurance fee" on the repayment of the loan... Eventually with the rise of nation-states and the separation of church and state - the moral ban on usury became so weakened as to have no force. Most Christian churches still 'forbid" usury - but now usury is defined as "unjust interest" or "excessive interest". And that apparently is a moving target is that usury is in the eye of the beholder... Anyway I digress from the original topic...usury is one of the those words that will actually get me to type a message :) ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Ray Harrell [[email protected]] Sent: December 3, 2010 08:50 To: [email protected]; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: [chineseinternetresearch] GT worries about Wikileaks Interesting that the writer doesn't mention the grandfather religion except as being behind the leaks. Usury is a term from the much older Jewish writings and the grandfather of both Islam and Christianity. The other two don't believe in taking care of their relatives. At least that's my take on it. As for Christianity, they gave up on usury with Crusades. Ever since then they've banked with a vengeance. REH -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:40 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Futurework] Re: FW: [chineseinternetresearch] GT worries about Wikileaks Mike Gurstein wrote: > A most peculiar (semi-official?) Chinese take on wikileaks. > > * http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-12/597878.html >From the article: Is there some tacit understanding between the website and the US government? It may be worth asking. And what does it mean to other countries that are on the radar screen of WikiLeaks? Over one the conspirscy newsgroup, the CIA is behind Wikileaks; Mossad is; The Israeli government is; or it's a diversion so that (some unnamed) They can do something nefarious un-noticed. At another conspiracy-minded (and perhaps less than meticulously factual) source: WIKILEAKS delivers massive blow on American usury Publication time: 2 December 2010, 13:19 According to the democratic media outlets, Assange warned that the next disclosure will deal with "a large U.S. bank". The warning caused panic in the U.S. Depositors rushed to withdraw money from the Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. Shares of these major usurious parasitic dens plummeted. Christianity and Islam strictly prohibit usury (bank interest). Earlier in 2009, Assange said in an interview that he has huge discrediting evidence on the Bank of America. http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2010/12/02/13042.shtml FWIW, -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. /V\ [email protected] /( )\ http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
