[FairfieldLife] Re: The Family on Fresh Air
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@... wrote: Regardless of whether you heard the program, you might enjoy reading a short excerpt from a book about The Family at the Fresh Air website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324 We elect our leaders, he said. Jesus elects his. I'm a bit suspicious of this account because it's written in such a novelistic style, from such a subjective perspective. I'd rather not have quite so much interpretation--e.g., He stared back, holding Raf's gaze like it was a pretty thing he'd found on the ground. Well, maybe that *is* how he held Raf's gaze. Or maybe that description is a function of the writer's intention to portray the guy as negatively and scarily as he can. Are the quotations from the guy's spiel verbatim, or was the writer paraphrasing, with the same intention? It wouldn't surprise me that these people are genuinely scary. I wouldn't mind if the writer said explicitly that *he* found them scary. But I'd rather not be *programmed* by the writer to think they're scary. That excerpt just feels manipulative to me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: Did anyone listen to Fresh Air today? The first interview talks about a Christian group that believes people in power have been granted their power by God, and hence those people need to be cultivated to use their power responsibly. It's been described as trickle-down fundamentalism. I mention it here because the belief parallels what we used to hear from Maharishi. What does responsibly mean here? The fundie guy supposedly excuses the brutal excesses--including murder and gross sadism--of King David and Ghengis Khan on the basis that they were presumably God's toys, following a higher purpose. I have trouble seeing that as a parallel with MMY.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Family on Fresh Air
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: Regardless of whether you heard the program, you might enjoy reading a short excerpt from a book about The Family at the Fresh Air website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324 We elect our leaders, he said. Jesus elects his. I'm a bit suspicious of this account because it's written in such a novelistic style, from such a subjective perspective. I'd rather not have quite so much interpretation--e.g., He stared back, holding Raf's gaze like it was a pretty thing he'd found on the ground. Well, maybe that *is* how he held Raf's gaze. Or maybe that description is a function of the writer's intention to portray the guy as negatively and scarily as he can. Are the quotations from the guy's spiel verbatim, or was the writer paraphrasing, with the same intention? It wouldn't surprise me that these people are genuinely scary. I wouldn't mind if the writer said explicitly that *he* found them scary. But I'd rather not be *programmed* by the writer to think they're scary. That excerpt just feels manipulative to me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: Did anyone listen to Fresh Air today? The first interview talks about a Christian group that believes people in power have been granted their power by God, and hence those people need to be cultivated to use their power responsibly. It's been described as trickle-down fundamentalism. I mention it here because the belief parallels what we used to hear from Maharishi. What does responsibly mean here? The fundie guy supposedly excuses the brutal excesses--including murder and gross sadism--of King David and Ghengis Khan on the basis that they were presumably God's toys, following a higher purpose. I have trouble seeing that as a parallel with MMY. I don't believe the fundie guy is excusing the excesses of King David and Ghengis Khan. He's saying God selects who's in charge, and if we want to change things for ordinary people, we need to work on those people whom God has placed in power, even if they're not nice people. Such was Maharishi's practice, as it has been the practice of foreign policy pragmatists throughout history. (I'm thinking of American leaders who shook hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.) In a related story, there's this op-ed from Roger Cohen in yesterday's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02iht-edcohen.html From the column: 'Moussavi was supported by people who have lost faith,' [the conservative cleric] said. 'We [the Iranian power structure] believe legitimacy comes from God. They believe legitimacy comes from the people, from votes.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Family on Fresh Air
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam wrote: Regardless of whether you heard the program, you might enjoy reading a short excerpt from a book about The Family at the Fresh Air website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324 We elect our leaders, he said. Jesus elects his. I'm a bit suspicious of this account because it's written in such a novelistic style, from such a subjective perspective. I'd rather not have quite so much interpretation--e.g., He stared back, holding Raf's gaze like it was a pretty thing he'd found on the ground. Agreed. But such is New Journalism. By the way, the author is Jeff Sharlet, who founded the Killing the Buddha website: http://killingthebuddha.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Family on Fresh Air
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: snip Did anyone listen to Fresh Air today? The first interview talks about a Christian group that believes people in power have been granted their power by God, and hence those people need to be cultivated to use their power responsibly. It's been described as trickle-down fundamentalism. I mention it here because the belief parallels what we used to hear from Maharishi. What does responsibly mean here? The fundie guy supposedly excuses the brutal excesses--including murder and gross sadism--of King David and Ghengis Khan on the basis that they were presumably God's toys, following a higher purpose. I have trouble seeing that as a parallel with MMY. I don't believe the fundie guy is excusing the excesses of King David and Ghengis Khan. He's saying God selects who's in charge, and if we want to change things for ordinary people, we need to work on those people whom God has placed in power, even if they're not nice people. I didn't get that he was saying the people (or rather, devout Christians) to make the leaders behave better, but I'll take your word for it. Such was Maharishi's practice, as it has been the practice of foreign policy pragmatists throughout history. (I'm thinking of American leaders who shook hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.) In a related story, there's this op-ed from Roger Cohen in yesterday's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02iht-edcohen.html From the column: 'Moussavi was supported by people who have lost faith,' [the conservative cleric] said. 'We [the Iranian power structure] believe legitimacy comes from God. They believe legitimacy comes from the people, from votes.' See, here's where I get stuck. MMY always said leaders reflect the level of consciousness of the people, which doesn't seem to me compatible with the notion that leaders are chosen by God regardless of what the people want.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Family on Fresh Air
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: snip Did anyone listen to Fresh Air today? The first interview talks about a Christian group that believes people in power have been granted their power by God, and hence those people need to be cultivated to use their power responsibly. It's been described as trickle-down fundamentalism. I mention it here because the belief parallels what we used to hear from Maharishi. What does responsibly mean here? The fundie guy supposedly excuses the brutal excesses--including murder and gross sadism--of King David and Ghengis Khan on the basis that they were presumably God's toys, following a higher purpose. I have trouble seeing that as a parallel with MMY. I don't believe the fundie guy is excusing the excesses of King David and Ghengis Khan. He's saying God selects who's in charge, and if we want to change things for ordinary people, we need to work on those people whom God has placed in power, even if they're not nice people. I didn't get that he was saying the people (or rather, devout Christians) to make the leaders behave better, but I'll take your word for it. Such was Maharishi's practice, as it has been the practice of foreign policy pragmatists throughout history. (I'm thinking of American leaders who shook hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.) In a related story, there's this op-ed from Roger Cohen in yesterday's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02iht-edcohen.html From the column: 'Moussavi was supported by people who have lost faith,' [the conservative cleric] said. 'We [the Iranian power structure] believe legitimacy comes from God. They believe legitimacy comes from the people, from votes.' See, here's where I get stuck. MMY always said leaders reflect the level of consciousness of the people, which doesn't seem to me compatible with the notion that leaders are chosen by God regardless of what the people want. I see what you mean. I've been conflating chosen by God with power gained by any unseen force, such as karma or collective consciousness. Still, I can't drop the notion that there are parallels between the articles above and Maharishi's policies. For one, he disdained the legitimacy of democracy (although that attitude probably arose out of impatience more than anything). And he praised leaders to the heavens in hopes of persuading them to do good by their people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Family on Fresh Air
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam wrote: snip I don't believe the fundie guy is excusing the excesses of King David and Ghengis Khan. He's saying God selects who's in charge, and if we want to change things for ordinary people, we need to work on those people whom God has placed in power, even if they're not nice people. I didn't get that he was saying the people (or rather, devout Christians) to make the leaders behave better, but I'll take your word for it. Such was Maharishi's practice, as it has been the practice of foreign policy pragmatists throughout history. (I'm thinking of American leaders who shook hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.) In a related story, there's this op-ed from Roger Cohen in yesterday's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02iht-edcohen.html From the column: 'Moussavi was supported by people who have lost faith,' [the conservative cleric] said. 'We [the Iranian power structure] believe legitimacy comes from God. They believe legitimacy comes from the people, from votes.' See, here's where I get stuck. MMY always said leaders reflect the level of consciousness of the people, which doesn't seem to me compatible with the notion that leaders are chosen by God regardless of what the people want. I see what you mean. I've been conflating chosen by God with power gained by any unseen force, such as karma or collective consciousness. Still, I can't drop the notion that there are parallels between the articles above and Maharishi's policies. For one, he disdained the legitimacy of democracy (although that attitude probably arose out of impatience more than anything). And he praised leaders to the heavens in hopes of persuading them to do good by their people. I think it may be kinda hard to tell without knowing more about the way the fundy types envision working on the leaders. Would they have praised Bill Clinton to the skies, or would they have told him he was going to crash and burn if he didn't repent and turn to Jesus? I have the sense MMY was a lot more pragmatic about the whole thing; I doubt there was much theology behind it. Just get 'em all meditating, and then Nature would take over and everything would run like clockwork. Somehow I don't think that's what the fundies have in mind; they want a David or a Ghengis Khan to lead them into battle and bring about the End Times. From MMY's perspective, it was to his advantage to deal with a dictator rather than a democracy, because the dictator didn't have to have the people's approval to spend money to institute mass TM programs. On the other hand, I suspect the fundies are vastly more politically sophisticated than MMY was (not hard!). I should probably read the whole book.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Family on Fresh Air
Regardless of whether you heard the program, you might enjoy reading a short excerpt from a book about The Family at the Fresh Air website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324 We elect our leaders, he said. Jesus elects his. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@... wrote: Did anyone listen to Fresh Air today? The first interview talks about a Christian group that believes people in power have been granted their power by God, and hence those people need to be cultivated to use their power responsibly. It's been described as trickle-down fundamentalism. I mention it here because the belief parallels what we used to hear from Maharishi. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324 Fresh Air from WHYY, July 1, 2009 ยท In the book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, author Jeff Sharlet examines the power wielded by the secret Christian group known as The Family or The Fellowship. Founded in 1935 in opposition to FDR's New Deal, the right-wing fundamentalist religious group organizes prayer meetings for Congressmen, as well as the annual National Prayer Breakfast. The group also has an alleged connection to a house in Washington, D.C. known as C Street, which serves as a prayer house and residence for politicians like Governor Mark Sanford, Senator John Ensign and Senator Tom Coburn. A religion expert and a journalist, Sharlet is a contributing editor for Harper's and Rolling Stone. He is editor of The Revealer, a review of religion and the press.
