the spirit cant be scene

Banksy in Boston: F̶O̶L̶L̶O̶W̶ ̶Y̶O̶U̶R̶ ̶D̶R̶E̶A̶M̶S̶ CANCELLED, Essex St, Chinatown, Boston

in hegel we encounter a new way to see . to cut directly through the previews, ultimately, for hegel, the holy spirit [as part of the triune ] is embodied in community [in this case: humanity]. humanity at its best. for cultural theorist zizek, the occupy wall street is one such place where the holy spirit emerges. a moment where the human community emerges as they were meant to be – as revolutionaries.

so, what of the nature of this thing called spirit? what do we when we refer to spirit?

is not spirit something ‘out there’, undefinable. something that transcends itself . it is unseen. my [our] freedom is something untouched when pure. when i sustain my [our] freedom is that not unseen from the bourgeois? is that not untouchable, when in a revolutionary moment i attack or undermine that which entraps me [us]. the holy spirit is then that which is the fighting spirit within the human community that imposes a new of way seeing the whole of the world. the nature itself is restless until it finds the world/ as it was meant to be. and so when we speak of the nature of the holy spirit it is that which inhabits a revolutionary spirit. a spirit that overtakes a moment when all is lost and proclaims [and i mean this quite literally] a new world can be made and can emerge.

it proclaims that neither the bourgeois nor the proletariate merit the right to own the world, but rather, in the dissolution of these grotesque identities will sustain the illusion of something to fight for.

the spirit is that which cannot be taken from us. that which cannot be seen. that which calls to fight against the capitalistic evils posing as reality.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

‘i’m sorry’, but i just (don’t) mean it

LA  CARNADA DEL REAPROVECHAMIENTO (06)

forgiveness cannot be universal. as altruistic as the concept might be and however romanticized the idea of assuming responsibility for the ‘sins of the father’ simply leave the one promising some sort of pseudo-reparation thereby implying an ‘all is well’ between the two parties. this is not forgiveness, rather it is a violent gesture of over-approximation.

we have assumed our place in someone else’s narrative. we stand in a gap, where the chasm is too large. and so in this instance, we assume an identity that is not our own. we embrace the ‘i’ that is not ‘i’, we are merely then puppets of our own making attempting to act on stage that wasn’t ours in the first place, thereby creating more where there should be less. universal forgiveness or asking forgiveness on behalf of others is perverse because it does not allow a natural progression of healing, it attempts to repair something that needs more time.

it denies that process in its entirety by assuming one’s role is to seek forgiveness of ghosts (those who initially perpetuated the act) and in doing so plays the part of ‘father’ (in the catholic sense) to absolve history and the present of ‘their’ sins. so in a sense, this absolution has nothing to do with the people involved, but rather two alive yet inanimate objects called the past and present. these inorganic substances then stand-in for the people seeking the repair and in essence negate the people involved and in essence negate the whole scenario of forgiveness in its entirety.

the symbolic self or ideal ego (the person i think i need/must be) is then encouraged to continue in this role and fulfill its role as mediator and confidant (is this not the theological claim of christ according to the of hebrews?). if the of hebrews is correct then jesus never progressed as a person and rather only fulfilled the social order by advocating forgiveness to be something that ‘we’ (as humanity) we were forever incapable of either handling or doing. jesus couldnt have sought forgiveness for the whole of humanity, because created us with the ability to forgive/love one another. this small is why the general notion of forgiveness as universal cannot stand because it rests on the idea that we are incapable of contextualized reparation.

Blessed Are Those Who Mourn (Beatitudes #2)

like when tiger woods apologizes to the general public for cheating on his wife and some of the general public believe him and others condemn him even more, this is a great example of the issues involved with over-generalized forgiveness, in that: (1) he decontextualized himself out of his own story and assumed his place was in everyone’s else’s (i.e., making his apology public) and thereby negating any need for an actual apology to his wife.(2) he subordinated himself to the general public for acquittal when the act itself was committed toward his wife, hence also replacing his wife for the general public, so there was no room for his wife to be able to choose reparation; any chance on her part would be sublated by the rest of the general public.

forgiveness must be contextual. it has to be bound to a story, a narrative, it cannot rest in a metanarrative (i.e., general public), in fact, if it does, it loses its own identity and get lost in some romantic notion of false-healing. forgiveness that rests on context is a true form of forgiveness…

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

narrow gate, wide gate: a story about letting go.

The Narrow Gate

words and meanings to keep in mind.

sha`ar – gate; opening, city/town,
halak – through; walk; torah
enter- be invited into

In Jewish philosophy there seems to be this trend. A trend marked out by two choices. One of and one of . We see this throughout the Old Testament. Jeremiah is some of the inspiration for the words of in Matthew amongst other non-biblical sources, including the Sirach and the Dead Sea Scrolls to name a few.

Jeremiah 21:8 (New International Version)

8 “Furthermore, tell the people, ‘This is what the LORD says: See, I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death.

Jesus is playing on the idea of choice. That on a daily basis we have to make a decision to follow the crowd(wide is the gate) or to be art of the minority. In , Jesus is talking about teaching. Since the verses surrounding it speak of false teachers. These verses then become about how people use Torah. Jesus deals with false prophets in this . False prophets think they are doing what wants them to do. But they too are given a choice. They can either unlearn what they have been taught (narrow gate) or maintain their practices and travel into the wide gate.

Into Jerusalem there were many gates. Some of them were narrow. Jesus alludes to this same gate when he talks about the camel coming through the eye of a needle, which is a direct reference to one of the gates which happened to be called ‘eye of the needle’. Jesus was referring then to what he could also be referring to now. To enter through the narrow gate you had to unpack everything. Unload all that you came with. Everything you knew you had to leave behind to get through. All your theology. All of your answers. To get through the gate you had to let go of everything.

But, the wide gate was easy.

You could everything with you. You could all of the things you learned and keep them close like a blanket. You could accrue even more as you went along and still had room for more. You could keep consuming as much as you wanted because the wide road had room for that. The wide gate invited you in. It gave you the feeling of having arrived. The feeling of arrival makes you feel safe and secure because you have the answers.

The wide gate is safety.

Couched in context, Jesus is giving the Jewish scholars a choice. Either they unlearn everything that have come to know and experience (a metaphor for a perfect ) or keep all that they had mentally amassed and end up living their life as it was not meant to be lived ().

Later on in verse 22, Jesus starts talking about a day when people might use flash terminology to get in God’s good books. In context, the person speaking to God already knows the words. Knows how to address god as ‘Lord,Lord’. Remember, Jesus is talking about people who aren’t using the Torah correctly and false prophets here. So he is saying that there are some religious people who think its about saying the right things. Its about scripting God. Or that by simply having information one can experience the divine. And its as if Jesus says God will get amnesia. God will forget. God will turn his back on those who live their life on stage. These are terms of Judgement, I might add that they are a warning not what is going to happen, but what might happen if these ‘know-it-all’s’ keeping walking through the wide gate. I also don’t think the point of this short story is whether God is angry enough to deny people access to Him. Again, heaven is a metaphor for a perfect state of experience. Jesus is saying that there are behaviours that can impede our experience of the Divine. That by excluding others, depending upon our own answers (theology), and denying ourselves the willingness to let it all go will keep us in the wide gate.

Jesus is giving us the choice, daily. To give it all up and unlearn what we think we know. To be a blank slate toward the day(s) ahead. To be open to receive. To be an open vessel. To hold what we know lightly. When we do this, when we choose to not take ourselves so seriously, we get to enjoy life as it was meant to be. Jesus wasn’t

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

climate talks and entitlement

IMG_6112.jpg

it seems that entitlement is having the iron fist in this decision on talks as you can see from the article below.

something obviously needs to and fast. what are your . (This was sent by the Jubilee Debt Campaign)

We’re in the closing stages of the and I’m afraid the options are bleak: a terrible deal or nothing at all.

For a fortnight these talks have been hampered by a simple fact: rich countries are not prepared to make an offer – on emissions cuts or finance – that would begin to repay their climate debt.

Developing countries have been ignored or marginalised. Campaign groups have been excluded from the conference. Protestors have been faced with a police crack-down outside the summit centre.

All that is left in the remaining hours is for rich countries to try and bully their way to a face-saving deal – any deal.

We are extremely concerned that a fair deal on emissions cuts and climate finance will not be reached – and that developing countries will be blamed by politicians from rich countries. But we’re even more concerned that a bad deal will be pushed through by rich countries in the last few hours, locking in the wrong framework until 2020. The World Development Movement has a produced a dossier on the aggressive way in which rich countries are trying to secure such a bad deal.

On climate finance, which is Jubilee Debt Campaign’s focus in what have been described as the most complex negotiations of all time, the offers that are being made fall unbelievably far short of what’s required.

At the start of the fortnight, rich countries were offering $10 billion a in climate finance from 2010-2012 – the same amount the United States alone spends on subsidies to fossil fuel companies every . This would mostly be in the form of loans, and is all from pre-existing aid commitments, so is not new money. “Ten billion dollars will not buy developing countries’ citizens enough coffins”, said Lumumba Di-Aping, the leader of the delegation of developing countries. The UN says at least $500 billion a is needed for developing countries to to climate change and their economies in a way. The G77 has been calling for $400 billion.

In the last few days, a proposal has been pushed by Gordon Brown and others for a $100 billion climate finance fund by 2020. But just like the $1 trillion headline figure at April’s G20 meeting, this number is not what it seems. Half or more would be financed by carbon trading and developing countries themselves. The fund would be administered by the dreaded World Bank. See WDM’s facts behind the climate figures briefing for more on this.

This summit has been a colossal failure of political leadership from the countries that have caused the problem of climate change. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, “it is better to have no deal than to have a bad deal”. Naomi Klein argues in the Guardian today, the only offer now on the table will condemn the developing world to poverty and suffering in perpetuity.

We don’t want this summit to fail. But no deal will give global movements 6 to 12 months to push for something better.

Thank you so much for your support.

Best wishes,

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

is the future of atonement theology waning….

i get these weekly questions and answers from jack spong and thought this was a good one that deal with the future of and the eucharist…

Bishop Spong’s Q&A

Tom Weller of Panama City, Florida, writes: In your recent response about Darwin (in which you suggested the atonement theology will no longer be an adequate way to interpret the story) you said, “The traditional meaning of the Eucharist will have to be revised.” Looking at the Eucharistic prayers of various denominations, including the United Church of Christ, I find them all focused on sacrificial and atonement, all including the “words of institution.” Is there a Eucharistic prayer that is not so focused that you are aware of or that you like? Or, perhaps, have you drafted a proposal of your own that we could see?

Dear Tom,

I have run into many Eucharistic prayers that are almost a denial of sacrificial thinking; the Church is certainly moving in that direction. I have never tried to write one, since liturgy has never been my talent. I do believe that Darwin’s thinking will finally force the Christian Church to alter the way it talks about , Jesus, salvation and human . When that insight finally dawns on the Christian consciousness, the result will be a reformation so total that it will put the Reformation of the 16th into the category of an afternoon tea party.

We will have to recognize first that we cannot define God; we can only experience the sense of transcendence, wonder and awe. When we talk about God, we are not talking about an external being, we are talking about a human perception and, as such, God is ever changing. When we talk about human life, we are not talking about a fallen sinner, but about an incompletely evolved creature that cracked the boundary into self-consciousness and needs to be empowered to become whole, something more than a survival-oriented creature. When we talk about Jesus, we are not talking about an external savior who came to rescue us, but a life in whom and through whom transcendence has broken into history. Jesus does not save us from a fall that never happened or restore us to a status that we have never had. He empowers us to be more deeply and fully human and to enter higher and higher levels of consciousness where we finally discover that we live in God and God lives in us. The Eucharist then becomes a celebration of who we are and a call to walk more deeply into the meaning of humanity.

It was my work trying to understand life after death that drew me in this direction. I think we are headed for the most exciting century in Christian history. I anticipate that most of what we call religion today will die in the century. Rigor mortis has already set in. Out of that death, however, will come a new beginning. I am glad that I have lived to see the birth pangs. Hard labor is ahead but a new creation is being born and in that new creation God will be newly experienced and newly discovered — not as a Being who lives above the sky, but as the presence that is revealed in the heart of the human.

Take these thoughts to your next Eucharist…

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

get busy living or get busy dying…

we have our own versions of what institutionalize us. worldviews, jobs, families, religions and etc. and we have a choice to make like ‘red’ from shawshank redemption. which is one of the best quotes out there: get busy living or get busy dying…

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

evangelism needs to change.

The Time of the Preacheri think we might need a new word. the word mission has this stodgy military feel to it. as if to say, “i have a mission for you: go out and make people believe this is true”. although, this may not be the intention, since Luther the has adopted the idea that ‘missions’ is solely about colonializing whoever it comes into contact with. i think we need to revise our narratives. and we need to understand that christianity is part of a meta-narrative that has been going on before its own discovery. and when i use the term meta-narrative, i don’t to suggest the meta-narratives of the past which were directly connected with the bigger and stronger beating the smaller and weaker. i think that is a part of the narrative that needs to be scrapped. i would suggest that this new approach to narratives and rewriting them include rewriting the terminology we have been using. one reason being that the language has become a bit outdated and archaic in light of the generational gaps that are easily apparent by walking down the street, i would say that this new narrative has to be relevant to the world which it lives. i would also add that another reason why we need to how we see the world, christianity, evangelism and many other things within the faith is because it simply just doesn’t work anymore. think about this in terms of buying a car (a simple and crude example, i know, bear with me). if a car’s tires are becoming bald, we can buy new ones and it would be fine. but if a car’s engine begins to fail, which tends to most likely lead to smaller problems along with it (e.g., the fuse box breaks, a light goes out, the heating is on the fritz, and etc.) then the better thing to do is buy a new car, not rebuild the old one. this is what Luther was attempting to do, rebuild and reframe the old car. let me explain a bit more. i am not saying we need a new religion. i am saying we need a new perspective on what we believe and why we believe it. and some of this new perspective might need some spring cleaning, we might need to leave some things at the wayside and pick some others up and maybe even reintegrate some ancient ones. i think this is also what might need to happen with missions. i think we need a new car. we need a reframing of it all.

some scholars argue that may have never said the words recorded in matthew 28:20, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost….” now for the sake of this conversation, it is important to understand the and all the possibilities of what might have and have not been said including this set of verses. A good resource on this, would be the Seminar.

When Jesus told the to go and ‘teach’ all nations…at the root verb of teach (whether in hebrew or greek) is also the same word ‘to learn’. so maybe being evangelists is also about being evangelised. not merely ‘teaching’ people but also learning from them as well. too often many camps within the christian tradition get slated as arrogant know-it-alls because many people come from a place of so much assurance, it almost seems they helped write the bible. (as you will see from other posts, i think confidence/certainty can, at times, come off as arrogance when at the root of it all is a fear that if the confident one is wrong than all that they believe falls apart). i know that this is not the intention of those from the conservative camps, but unfortunately it tends to be received this way. peter rollins up in ireland has this creative group called Ikon and they have conversations with people and invite those who are from different faith traditions to join the conversation, why? to be evangelised. i think this is an important part to understanding what it means to go into all the world. also in the greek, the word for teach is the same word we might also use for didactic. which is a two-way conversation. for years and years evangelism was defined as a one-way shopping spree where we try to get as many customers to buy our product. maybe we need to be willing to embrace the reality that we might need to evangelised as well.

the word baptism doesn’t show up in aramaic or hebrew. i just talked with a jewish scholard who said that there is no languge of baptism in their belief system. the word baptism was added by the authors of the gospels to make sense of a jewish practice called mikvah. mikvah was a ritual purification before going into the temple. in the realm of disciples and rabbi’s it was also a public declaration of who you were following. this is why john responds with surprise when jesus asks him to baptise him. but also it is important to keep in mind as one website asserts, “Yeshua uses ‘interactive methodology’ to teach. Communion (from Pesach) uses symbolic foods, Mikvah uses a symbolic act of immersing oneself into water as a dynamic symbol. The symbol becomes meaningless if the act becomes more important that the meaning. Nonetheless the act has importance.” too many groups get into fights over whether people should or should not be baptised, when in the culture of jesus’ day it was more about the symbolism. baptism/mikvah was more about the change of identity in that person, and we see that the divine comes down in the form of a dove (doves were representative of the goddesses; but also used as an item to be sold by those in abject poverty)…these words in the gospel were essentially saying that Jesus was divine and was also equating himself with poverty, or maybe an advocate for them. symbols not befitting a revolutionary who was supposed to be overthrowing the Roman government. i think at the end of the day, baptism is a way of , not how wet you get. it is more about immersing yourself in grace, peace, love, redemption and restorative thinking and living that transforms the contexts within which we live. once we start defining mikvah/baptism as a who’s in and who’s out we become part of the very system we are supposed to be against.

i think we need to reframe our thinking and revise our approaches on evangelism.

maybe more as a two-sided conversation rather than a tyrranical conversion process. maybe as a conversation that we too can walk away from changed and transformed, not just as teachers but learners too. jesus said these words to his followers after he resurrected. after he came back to life and gave them hope. before this all happened, most of them were defeated and distraught, and then he visits some of them and tells them that he believes they have what it takes to go and change the world. that the way you do it is by living out what you believe. and by resurrecting hope into lifeless situations. and to immerse each one you meet with love, grace, and redemption. and since he gave them hope, we too pass this hope on. this is evangelism; which i think a better word might be conversation or paradigm shift that happens through our lives. and its not something that needs to happen. the word ‘go’ tends to be something that gets mangled in the translation. in the greek it has many different meanings, in one place it has to do with a departing from this life, in another it is about transferance, and another one is to pursue the journey one has entered. or maybe ‘reality’ might be a better word. essentially what jesus is saying is keep participating in this reality you have become a part of and treat people as if they already a part of this reality. maybe when jesus invites us to baptise them, maybe what he is essentially saying is live such a symbolic life of grace, peace, forgiveness, healing and hope that it immerses those you come into contact with.

there is so much more than can be said here, so much more. but this is a work in progress. but i have come to the conclusion that we need something different. something for the now.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

the pharisees cussed when the would see jesus…

I found this great article on a about , mixed in with some expletives, so it is not for the faint at heart. Just copying from another blog, which can be seen here.

i thought the asked some good . thoughts?

I think everyone who knows me will say that I’m not usually one to promote a book. Odds are the reason why is because in all likelihood I haven’t even read it. But this book seemed to good to pass up, so I’m going to suggest it for a topic of discussion even though it’s still in press. I actually stumbled across this book on the Facebook page of an individual I know from undergrad. She had joined the group started by the author. Naturally I was intrigued by the title and after reading the excerpt from the book jacket of OH ! IT’S JESUS: the relevance of Jesus without all the religious crap by I decided I would share.

“Evolution, Bible thumpers, and Christian hypocrites. What do they have to do with Jesus? Jesus was a peasant day-laborer. His teachings and his miraculous deeds were revolutionary. When religious leaders saw Jesus walking up, out of frustration they would say “Oh shit! It’s Jesus!” Jesus was trouble. He taught that was more concerned about social justice and the loving restoration of individuals, rather than blind allegiance to an oppressive and irrelevant religious system. When Jesus would walk along the shore of a fishing village, a hardened fisherman would see Jesus and joyfully shout out “Oh shit! It’s Jesus!” After a hard day of labor, fishermen, women from the fields, and children would sit in the evening sun and listen to Jesus teach about the love and mercy desires for everyone. The and message of Jesus’ life are amazing. You may see organized religion and the as a negative option for your spiritual life, but I encourage you to look at the actual life of Jesus as a positive choice for your spirituality.”

Chapter titles are as follows:

I Know other Christians but You’re Different

Street Preachers, Jesus Freaks, Bible Thumpers, & Other Annoying People

I Don’t Want to Be a Christian

There’s Nothing Holy about This Book, the Bible

What the !

Dark Matter, Dinosaurs, Darwin, & Dark Chocolate

The Church Sucks

Jesus, Liberator of Women & Social Revolutionary

Las Vegas, Outer Space, Jesus, & You

Steve’s Resume (I could be fired for writing this book).

I want to pose some questions.

1.Do you think this book qualifies as radical and extreme in relation to the present day church?

2. Does it border on heresy, blasphemy, or is it even minutely irreverent toward the divinity of Christ?

3. Do you think the Title was selected as a marketing ploy to increase sales?

4. Do you think books and others like help or hurt the cause of Christ?

5. Based on the excerpt and chapter titles, do you think you would purchase and/or read the book?

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

what ‘the sea inside’ can teach us about euthanasia or are the church losing customers?

i am just watching the movie “The ” about a quadraplegic who would prefer to die rather than live.

i always struggle with this notion of and choice. because is so beautiful and itriguing to live and be a part of and the idea of shortening that beauty seems to reduce the experience of to nothing more than . but then i come to this place where if the quality of life is fractured and fragmented than is that life at all. and i think it comes down to how one defines what life is. because life isn’t always the roses we see that grow in springtime. it is a beautiful sea, but it can also be a raging one. and so maybe life is about how well we live whatever experience we are handed, how well we choose to participate in the life we live i think helps determine not only how well we live but also what we contribute while we are alive. i am in a quandry with all of this…

below is a portion of the script from the movie the sea inside and is a conversation between a and the paraplegic character (Ramon) wanting to die. and Ramon makes a comment about how the christian church has used the idea of death as a tool to get ‘customers’, which i think when you think about, especially in light of the reality that the word ‘hell’ was used as rhetoric by the Pharisees to attempt to convert people. but it was more a way of life people could live, not so much a place of destruction and death that those who didn’t say a prayer would go to. i think it is important to understand words like hell, , satan and other parts of the scripture within their first- and what they meant then and how they have come to mean what they mean now…

Go upstairs and tell Ramon

…and since we are inside eternity.
Life doesn’t belong to us…

and we to ridiculous extremes the
bourgeois definition of private property

You are killing me

But if Church was the first one in
secularizing the private property

- I can’t tell him that
- How come?

Should I tell him that?

Freedom to choose my beliefs…no,
his beliefs and decide over his life

Ok, now you tell him

Why does the Church keep that posture
of terror of death with such passion?

Because it knows that it would lose
a great amount of its customers

if people lose their fear to the Great Beyond

He reminds you that according to the polls,
% of the Spanish are in favor of euthanasia

Very well, very well. Now you tell him that
moral issues are not resolved through polls

Because most of the German
people were also in favor of Hitler

Now he is going to compare
me to Hitler. That is very rude

No, not that

Ask him what Hitler has to do with all this

No wait… Padre Francisco, do you hear me?

Yes. Ramon I can hear you

Why do you mix pears with apples?

I hope you didn’t come here to do demagoguery.

Because you Jesuits know a lot about that.

No, no. Of course not.

But since you bring up
demagoguery, my dear Ramon.

Don’t you think that what’s really
demagogic, is to say “Death with dignity”

Why don’t you leave the euphemisms aside
and call things by its name, with all its rawness

“l take my life” and that’s it…

Your interest in me keeps surprising me,
while the institution that you represent

accepts the death penalty and condemned
those who didn’t think the right way,
to the bonfire for centuries

Now you are the one doing demagoguery

Yes of course, but leaving the euphemisms
aside, as you say that’s what you
would have done with me, right?

Burn me alive

Burn me for defending my freedom

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

another day.

another day you wait…is another day whatever you want to happen isn’t happening…

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share