Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Peace of Chaco Canyon
This week Pax Christi New Mexico friends and I will mark the anniversary of the U.S.'s obscene bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And to commemorate the victims, as we've done for years now, hundreds of us, plus two Nobel Peace prize winners, Mairead Maguire and Jody Williams, will converge on Los Alamos, where the atomic bomb was made. There we'll sit in sackcloth and ashes and pray to see nuclear weapons banished from the earth.
I've been busy organizing, making phone calls and distributing fliers, but the task requires more than planning details. One must stop and listen so as to prime the imagination of peace, to prepare the spirit and the mind. So the other day I made a solo journey to Chaco Canyon, the monumental ruins of a long-lost peaceable culture in the badlands of the high desert, about three hours northwest of Albuquerque.
In that barren canyon, hemmed in by mammoth sandstone cliffs, ancient people a thousand years ago built quite the sophisticated cultural center with roads, kivas, storage rooms, ceremonial centers, and buildings of surprising height. Some two thousand lived there and thousands more converged each year for trading and religious ceremonies. They lived simply, peacefully, humanly, nonviolently. They learned here how to pray and share. It brings us up short. In this they fulfilled Christian scriptures-and without benefit of having ever heard the Gospel of Jesus.
I pestered the park ranger. "Did they keep armies?" "Were they warlike?" "Did they kill others?" "No. No. No," he answered. "They were a peaceful people."
Surely, the bitter winters and blazing summers tested their spirits. It was over 100 degrees the afternoon I visited. Still, from the 800s to the late 1200s, a just and happy society thrived. Their culture was light years ahead of ours. Some refer to the place as a cultural oasis in a harsh desert; others call it a kind of Mecca, a religious destination.
Religious destination-the comparison is fitting. Ponderous silence lays claim to the place; the pungency of sagebrush fills the air. I hiked along the bases of the soaring cliffs, and then tromped through the ruins and ambled along the trails. The silence bore the weight of their spirit of peace and I breathed it in. I imagined the ruggedness and their lives of hardship. But I smiled inwardly at the thought of their simplicity and freedom. Here, under blazing noons, must have blossomed deep peace and joy.
A fine reverie, these thoughts of mine, but it wasn't destined to last. The all too familiar contrast flooded my mind-the morally wretched land, not so far off, of Los Alamos. Los Alamos bears nothing of ancient grandeur; it reflects the opposite of a culture of peace. It's the land of omnicide. And it's our own creation.
In Los Alamos our "best and brightest" are forever busy developing new ways to "defend" ourselves. (More PhDs per capita live there than anywhere else on earth.) Who are these people, the "best and brightest"? There is something about the phrase-something of elitism and haughtiness. It's a jingle of little content, yet it manages to bear sinister purposes. It's calibrated to hurl back the lay person-the meek, the hungry, the peacenik-who dares raise questions.
After the recent death of former Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, historian Howard Zinn commented how Kennedy, Johnson, and much of the country, regarded McNamara as among the "best and the brightest," if not the very apex.
Yet this prominent Democrat, in conducting World War II and the Vietnam War, came to characterize himself "a war criminal." He unleashed the horrors of Vietnam, he said, then realized the disaster he had made-and did nothing to end it. Zinn agrees: McNamara possessed a formidable mind. Yet he had little concept of humanity, spirituality, morality, or the things that make for peace. His was a case of retardation-morally and spiritually.
The question stabs at the heart. How can one be so smart, sophisticated, intelligent? And on the other hand be completely disconnected from peace, love, humanity and God? The question eludes an easy answer. But in our culture there's ample evidence of the disjunction between mind and soul. Just look around. We're all like McNamara.
And nowhere is this disjunction more conspicuous than at Los Alamos. There the smartest hatch plans for the destruction of the planet. Thousands of scientists design ever more sinister ways to kill, as if that were a decent way to spend one's life. No doubt, many are adept at sociability and at exhibiting charm, like, say, Adolf Eichmann, but their work betrays a void of morality, spirituality, humanity.
As for the Chaco people-including the Hopi, the Anasazi, the Navajo, and all the ancient pueblo peoples who created this humble culture of peace-most of us dismiss them as primitive and unsophisticated. They showed no ambition to conquer the world. Thus our books reference their cultures as quaint artifacts, as footnotes.
And yet, and yet. In the ways that count they surpass us: in their economic equity, their egalitarianism, their rich cultural life, the spiritual dedication, their intense relationship with creation. They were much more human than we are. And in fact, if we'll humble ourselves, they'll show us what true intelligence is. More, they'll show us-dare I say it-how to be Christian. I can easily imagine Jesus rejoicing over them, celebrating God for revealing such peace "not to the wise and learned, but to the childlike."
The sun by now had passed its zenith and my energy began to flag. As I turned back, I recited under my breath Psalm 37. "The meek shall possess the earth. They shall delight in abounding peace... There is a future for the peaceful." But then the psalmist adds a contrary word: "The wicked draw a sword. They bend their bow to bring down the afflicted and the poor, to slaughter those whose path is right. But their swords shall pierce their own hearts and their bows shall be broken."
People of war are a futureless people, our predicament precisely. By continuing to build weapons of mass destruction, by waging war, squandering the earth's resources, slaughtering the world's poor, we not only lose any sense of peace, morality, or spirituality. The stakes are much higher-we lose our future.
Chaco Canyon and Los Alamos-these are the extremes of our world. One, a culture of peace rooted in the earth, in sharing, in reverencing life and creation and God. The other, a culture of war, of greed, of contempt for the earth, a culture that itself claims to be God.
This week, when we converge on Los Alamos, we will name this Robert McNamara-culture of war as bankrupt. We'll expose it as immoral, inhuman, idolatrous, atheistic, and doomed to fail. We'll take responsibility for our part in this doomed culture of death. More, we will pray for a miracle, using the spiritual practice of another ancient culture, the people of Nineveh's method of sackcloth and ashes. We'll pray that all might renounce violence, learn from our ancestors, and create a new culture of peace based on simplicity, sharing, nonviolence and prayer.
The silent voices of Chaco Canyon bolstered my hope. Our holy ancestors have shown us that a peaceful culture is possible. If we learn from them, perhaps we might secure a future worthy of the name.
30 Comments so far
Show AllA beautiful piece . . . or should I say "a beautiful peace".
I'm sorry Mr Dear, but this is factually challenged. The Anasazi built those beautiful, technically brilliant buildings on shelves up off the desert floor or just over the edge of cliffs as defensive measures. They were frequently at war and it's believed that their culture was victim of a genocide (there is no good explanation why they left these fortifications and disapperaed leaving no traceable decendents).
Chaco Canyon NOW is a very serene, peaceful place, but it was not so in the days when the Cliff Dwellings were built.
I'm glad it gives you peace and I salute your work for peace in the modern world. Keep up the good work, but don't believe that guide.
CV
Although admitting "no good explanation" you propose to know the truth and dispute another's opinion.
I'm interested in your source of information? There are many educated AND intuitive folks who
do not buy traditional academic opinions exposed by "professionals." You missed the point of this article although you do show some respect for John Dear's life work. Don't believe yourself.
I think that the most we can say about the Ancestral Puebloan (the preferred term; Anasazi is viewed as derogatory) is that we don't know about the extent of warfare and violence. At best, Mr. Dear's view is romanticized. Although there is little evidence of the artifacts of warfare, there is clear evidence that certain communities met violent ends. Whether this was at the hands of other Puebloan people or outside marauders is not known, and probably never will be known. Then there is the unexplained disappearance of an entire culture over a few decades. One thing that is certain is that the Mystery of the Anasazi provides fertile ground onto which we may project our fantasies.
Chaco was also thought to be a trading crossroads with evidence of items from central america such as bird feathers and sea shells. One thing that certainly had an effect was drought and the expanding deforestation as the area grew. Native Americans, in particular the eastern native cultures, burned forest to create open areas. The SW pueblo indians needed structural timber. BTW, I've been to Chaco many times.
As far as the mission of LANL, yes, they do nuclear bomb work among other things. The genie is out of the bottle and we can't put it back. As insane as the logic sounds nuclear deterrence has bought us some time. The lab is a premier science research institute that does a lot of good work like the human genome project, the HIV database, super-conducting sensors for diagnosing and mapping the brain and global environmental monitoring for development of climate models (ARM/TWP).
I thought I read somewhere that cannibalism was evident on some of the bones found at the site. That does not sound like peace for all to me.
Peace can be subjective.
Perhaps it sounds like the peace that you thought you read about somewhere.
q
My full blood Cheyenne friend (age 70) and his mother (age 88) laugh when I ask if the Natives were peaceful people.
With all due respect to John Dear, I think he's bought into a myth we would all like to believe, if only so we can say "how come THEY could be peaceful and we're not (and pass the pipe)?"
Thanks John, nice article. I grew up near the canyon and when I need to connect to my ancestors, I return for a vision quest... keep the fires burning my friend, I am also a graduate of the GTU in Berkeley... I respect and admire your work and life long crusade for social justice on behalf of the Anawim.
The question of indigenous violence reminds me of the history of the Bill of Rights in this country - the Iraquoi Great Law of Peace - a shame not all was adopted. I took over a century for women to achieve voting status etc... For free download: Forgotten Founders by Johansen. Worth the read.
Benjamin Franklin for a number of years published summaries of the meetings with indigenous groups in the Pennsylvania area. He noted among other things how the various nations had reached accords of coexistence yet settlers referred to them as 'savages' while being unable to adopt the simple codes of respect and coexistence.
A beautiful article, but as some have already pointed out the myth of the peaceful natives has been more than exposed.
I salute his aspirations and pursuit of peace. But historically these claims are simply not factual. Contemporary history agrees that the myth of "peace" among the natives was just, that a myth.
They were simply people like everyone else.
Ole TommyMore just keeps on with his kneejerk bullshit about the violent natives--in a foolish and absolutely futile attempt to justify the genocide he so gleefully supports.
The eyes of Texas are upon you, bullshitter--and they ain't friendly ones.
In this instance, these people very peaceful. No humans have been discovered with war inflicted wounds, no individual was offered to the gods as a sacrifice, there is little indication that the society was very stratified (i.e., no palaces, large temples, no extravagant housing, etc.
Anthropogists continually search ancient cultures to find indications of social stratification, standing armies, unequal trade and intra-communal violence. No indicators have been found of these within the Chaco culture. No weapons have been found and no glorifying myths of violence and domination have been collected.
They were people who -because of their environmental context- had to be peaceful, sharing and mutually concerned with each other's well being.
Face it. With the right context, most people will act as the Chaco Canyon people did.
If I had not read the transcripts of the Oppenheimer Hearings I would have ended up like the other whiz kids of the post-Sputnik era, living in retreaded military barracks in Los Alamos and trying to design a better bomb.
Being a poet beats being a murderer any day.
"The question stabs at the heart. How can one be so smart, sophisticated, intelligent? And on the other hand be completely disconnected from peace, love, humanity and God? "
I have the same question about people who are intelligent, but still believe in God.
Well, maybe you'll some day graduate to a higher level of intelligence and then be able to see why people who truly believe in God do. Maybe? There's perhaps some hope for you, anyway.
Even renowned scientists and brilliant atheists have said that there's more than only the temporal, material world, and some of these scientists said God must exist, unless they were atheist, in which case some of them use "supreme being", one who is not of the physical, material, temporal world. And some of the most renowned scientists were Christian; f.e., Copernicus. Hospitals exist, in the West anyway, because of nuns, Christian nuns. If it hadn't been for the order of RCC nuns who started hospitals, then we wouldn't have the hospitals we do have today. Their hospitals were hopefully not run for-profit like those in the U.S. are, but they started these facilities; based on what I read about that, anyway.
Many Americans who say they're atheist claim to not believe in God or the Supreme Being at all, and of course these people are absolutely without spirituality. It's their right to not believe, but it's comical for them to pretend that they can preach to people who do believe in God that they're mistaken. There's more proof, even if it is through reasoning that we see the proof, instead of it being tangible; there's more proof for God's existence than there is for the contrary.
Some atheists believe in the Big Bang theory and say this is the origin, but it logically can't be, for this then doesn't answer where the HUGE mass that exploded originated, and that is the journey to getting closer to the very beginning of [everything].
Perhaps you're confused because religious populations have long committed grave crimes against humanity, this being a common criticism among the critics of religion or religious belief. There are some problems of logic with such views though. For one thing, they neglect that atheists have also committed extreme crimes against humanity. Secondly, it's to bogusly stereotype people and religious people don't fall into a stereotype of each other.
Or maybe it's just because some religious people obviously believe in myths that are easy to discern to be myths. Hindus, f.e., have multiple gods and one, a female, who gave birth to all of the other gods of Hinduism. That doesn't mean that demythologised Hinduism is invalid though. Similarly, the RCC negligently permits its lay members who believe in the mistaken teaching of "Mother of God" to continue believing in this Person, and there is no such Person in true Christian religion or beliefs. It's a myth, for true Christians who are educated in their faith or religious beliefs. Clergy know this, but irresponsibly allow members of their parishes to continue to believe in religious myths, instead of [educating] these believers. That does not make the true Christian religion invalid, though.
Some people criticise all Christians because of the wrongs of instituted Christian churches and this is a false or half-false criticism, for not all Christians who are members of these churches blindly listen and obey the ministers of the churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
Etcetera.
It's better to seek true knowledge, instead of persisting to live in falsehoods.
Mike Corbeil,
If I invent a claim for which I can supply no evidence, such as the whole universe was created by a time-traveling Donald Trump, is their really an equivalence between believing and disbelieving the claim?
The person who disbelieves the claim can simply point out that their is no evidence or logical reason to believe the claim in the first place. They might acknowledge that anything is possible. But nothing is accepted purely on the basis that it is "possible". After all, it is possible that if you stopped breathing you won't die. Care to try it?
The claim I've invented about a time-traveling Donald Trump could just as easily be about any version of mono- or polytheism.
"Even renowned scientists and brilliant atheists have said that there's more than only the temporal, material world, and some of these scientists said God must exist"
To say there is more to life than we understand is entirely logical. To begin to describe what we don't understand as God is intrinsically hypocritical. We imagine God, we do not know God.
"Hospitals exist, in the West anyway, because of nuns, Christian nuns."
BS.
"It's their right to not believe, but it's comical for them to pretend that they can preach to people who do believe in God that they're mistaken."
Again, atheists are not introducing a claim. They are rejecting a claim made by theists who made it without evidence or rationality. Would you reject my claim about the time traveling Donald Trump? On what basis? How is it different to reject the claim of god?
"Some atheists believe in the Big Bang theory and say this is the origin, but it logically can't be"
I agree that to be a die hard supporter of the Big Bang approaches religion because of how little is know about what happened, and because of the logical problems of what existed before the big band, and what space it existed in. However, to merely entertain the theory of the big bang, with skepticism, and to be persuaded by new evidence, while realizing that science is always a "best guess" based on observation and the universal repetition of results - I have no problem with that.
"Perhaps you're confused because religious populations have long committed grave crimes against humanity"
Not at all. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality or immorality. It just claims to be the ultimate arbitrator of such subjects. I am taking issue with the logical dissonance it requires to believe in religion.
"Or maybe it's just because some religious people obviously believe in myths that are easy to discern to be myths."
Yes, rational people should understand that there are no talking snakes, eight-armed people, or levitating Buddas. Or Gremlins, dragons, or vampires. Or Santa. Jesus and Lazarus didn't really roam the land eating raw brains etc...
"That doesn't mean that demythologised Hinduism is invalid though. "
Not exactly sure what you mean here. But any religion that renounces superstition and admits that it just a philosophy told through stories and metaphors is fine with me. I have no qualms with Greek mythology.
"for not all Christians who are members of these churches blindly listen and obey the ministers of the churches."
There have been plenty of religious people who have made wonderful contributions to humanity - MLK and Gandhi come to mind - but there is no reason their efforts could not have been done by secular humanists. Each religion and religious sect will have difference. Religions vary wildly in the degree of spiritual autonomy they offer their followers. Maybe you can disagree with your minister by not your Bible, or maybe you disagree with your priest but not the Pope, or maybe you can disagree with you Mullah but not your Imam. What's the point of any of this? I support complete freedom of thought, skepticism, and rationality without any religious interference.
"It's better to seek true knowledge, instead of persisting to live in falsehoods."
That is an EXTREMELY bizarre statement to make in favor of religion. It is an argument for the exact opposite. The "true knowledge" you refer to is completely unprovable and unknowable. To say that you know this because you "feel" God, is shall we say, at best, unconvincing? And certainly, if you claim to see angels or demons, or you think God has impregnated you, or come across a man walking on water - you have no more proof of this than, say, a schizophrenic who is convinced they have been implanted with alien technology.
If the door to a dark room is opened, the light floods in - the darkness does not flood out. Sort of the way I think of "God"
Xenu?
That was an awesome article, John Dear. Beautiful. Thank-you.
Peace be with you, and us all.
Well, I agree with John Dear in one respect about Chaco Canyon - there is a certain "sense" or feeling about the place. To live there, in the middle of an unsparing desert, would require survival skills and knowledge of the environment beyond what most people know today.
I am not a religious person, but it's clear once you're at Chaco Canyon that the city was built because of that sense of place and that feeling. It wasn't built to tap into the local resources. Try spotting any water there. I was told by a park ranger that you can find water if you dig in the ground. Who knew?
Those who lived there abandoned the place sometime around 1250 A.D. Archaeologists have speculations, but no one truly knows why they left. By convention, the people of that time are referred to as the "Anasazi," which means "the ancient ones" or "enemy ancestors," depending on your perspective.
The modern-day Pueblo tribe in New Mexico is supposed to be the descendants of the Anasazi. The Apache tribe later occupied lands near Chaco Canyon that the Pueblo consider ancestral. So, there has been some tension there today because of that.
If you read Native American mythology, such as Hopi myths, you'll find that this so-called "spirituality" was just a deep connection to nature. There are many spiritual characters in the myths, but they mostly serve to explain something about life and the ultimate connection of humans to mother earth.
In the Hopi cosmology, this present world is known as the Fourth World. Humans ascended to the Fourth World as ant-like creatures, following the sun out of darkness.
I have to vehemently disagree with John Dear for trying to inject Christianity into all of this. In the late 1600s, the land that's now called New Mexico had The Pueblo Revolt. In part, the Pueblo tribe's revolt was against the Spanish missionaries who had defiled their kivas (circular ceremonial places).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Revolt
Many Native Americans have since adopted Christianity, but it came to the New World in Columbus' imperial formulation - the sword and the cross. Christianity has a bad track record of having been the cause for killing a whole lot of people. And it continues today, helping U.S. soldiers with their barbaric "missions" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, the Native American mythology that we know today is far clearer about life and man's place on earth than Christianity. The Bible presents a "father knows best" tale that's led to zealotry, bigotry and violence against the others (or heathens).
As far as Native American violence is concerned, I recall one Hopi myth in which a city was destroyed because the people there had become corrupt, turned to gambling, etc. However, the story is told as a story of shame that the violence happened. The Bible, on the other hand, has exuberant tales of massacres. Try reading the Book of Joshua - it's a tale about righteous genocide in which the Israelites slaughter their neighbors, for no apparent reason.
Finally, as others have noted, archeologists have spotted ancient trails via airplane photography of the adjoining desert lands near Chaco Canyon. These trails apparently extended a trading route down to Mexico and likely beyond. For instance, macaw feathers have been found in a dwelling in Chaco Canyon, suggesting trade into Meso America or South America.
-TIA
Who is John Dear referring to when he says "our ancestors", the peaceful ones? That's not particularly fitting with colonialist USA and he's evidently white or caucasion, according to the photo. of him in the Wikipedia page on him.
I don't consider U.S. history peaceful, and I don't consider European history peaceful. What about the Roman Empire, Napoleon, ..., the RCC's inquisitions, persecutions, etcetera, the European invasions, extremely brutal, genocidal invasions in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, African countries, and (?) possibly other places? These are "our ancestors" and we're too much like them, haven't really changed; only became more technologically powerful with our means of killing and of destroying.
According to Wade Frazier's essay, "American Empire", or maybe another of his essays at his website, www.ahealedplanet.net, when the Puritans came to what has since become continental USA, they lived in peace and friendship with the indigenous people here; but once the Pilgrims arrived, then it became a history of genocidal murder, slaughter, invasion, conquest, domination.
That doesn't sound particularly peaceful to me.
Other than for this question, the article is appreciable. I certainly appreciate learning of the indigenous people he describes.
Reading articles such as this one are needless reminders of how absolutely asinine so many americans can be.
The 'people' of 'Chaco' and the other "pueblo dwellers', were no more or less peaceful or war like than any others.
They were simply human being; aka "Talking Chimpanzees".
Human beings have been fighting each other in much the same manner as their closest relatives Chimpanzees have for millions of years. It is just in the past one thousand years that the 'weapons' they use against each other have been developed to the level to where they are 'uncontrollable' and to use them results in far too much damage to the users.
The words of a "Jesuit Priest" heavily influenced by his own faulty doctrine should be left to the 'pulpit' and not the public unless there are others who are willing to state---in no uncertain terms---that the fantasy world/universe/cosmos that the Christian Doctrine espouses is and has been one of the most destructive forces ever known. This article if nothing else will bear that out. Instead of admitting that Humanity needs very serious rehabilitation, and that the methods currently in use have been a failure, people will keep 'digging up' their 'dead gods' and claiming that 'we forgot the teachings of _________(you fill in the blank), 'the one true God' and 'if we do not return to those teachings humanity will perish'. Or try to use a culture that has long been dead, as an example. If the "Chaco Culture" has been 'so great'---how could it have died?
And it IS dead.
Anthropologists are still reviewing the information about the 'ancients' of the Chaco Region, and the very few clues that they left behind.
One thing is for certain. The ancient Americans were some bloody, dangerous people. They were very clever and intelligent in many ways, but they were still--simply--'talking chimpanzees' ---no less than the rest of humanity.
They collectively discovered the use of 120 food plants---many which feed the world today, Corn for example is the only true 'domestic plant' known--ANYWHERE-it cannot grow 'wild', but needs human hands--it is fully domesticated.
They developed architecture, art, music and some very impressive civilizations. Some science, some astrology, and many other fantastic human talents.
They developed the 'long bow' (approx 2-3 thousand years ago) as well as other human 'inventions' independently, they also are well known for having developed "Democracy" most likely long before the "Greeks" but allowed 'religion' as with the Aztecs and others---to over ride democracy, which lead to their downfall. Which should be a lesson to the current Americans---but not likely one that will be heeded.
The many problems of humanity have not nor will they ever be solved with fantasy reconstructions of past cultures. Study the facts of history so as to prevent the repetition of the mistakes of history; and do so with no preconceived concepts.
And, there is no God coming back to save humanity from humanity, and humanity has very little time left to save itself from itself. The planet has begun to react to the behavior of the humans who believe that they will be saved from themselves by some 'God'---and they have made a complete garbage heap of the soil, the air and the water.
It would be such a refreshing change to read some intelligent opinions of ancient America and its inhabitants; but those are so few and so seldom published; I might be more successful waiting for "Jesus" to come back---
If a 'Jesuit Priest' writes anything about anything one should take into consideration the source; before deriving any 'message from the messenger'. This should be applied to anyone who claims to be a 'person of God'. In America they usually get elected to high office, or their own TV show---and the wealth that either or both bring with it.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
Jesus is coming; look busy!
Look busy? How. I can be washing my laundry or dishes, or writing this post, and I then look busy. Is this what he meant when he said to look after the poor, the (wrongly or unjustly) imprisoned, ...? Well, if you're communicating in defence of human rights, then I guess this passes, but washing laundry or dishes, cooking, going to your paying job for employers what pollute, corrupt politics and therefore government, ...; now this is not what he had in mind for being busy. And when he said it, he didn't mean to [look] busy; he meant to truly be busy, with seeing to the needs of the poor, working on defending and promoting real peace and justice, living constructively, beneficially with our neighbours, regardless of what their religious beliefs are, etcetera.
You evidently may as well just relax.
Well, alrighty then.
"The 'people' of 'Chaco' and the other "pueblo dwellers', were no more or less peaceful or war like than any others."
PROVIDE resource links for that. Otherwise it's just your words.
"Human beings have been fighting each other in much the same manner as their closest relatives Chimpanzees have for millions of years."
That's an example of over-generalisation. We can look at Palestinians of today. Many or by far most are pacifist.
"The words of a "Jesuit Priest" heavily influenced by his own faulty doctrine ..."
That it's faulty is only your [opinion]; nothing factual. After all, John Dear evidently is not of the imperialist human-instituted doctrine that distracts from the teachings and ways of Jesus of Nazareth. See what Christian anarchists are about and like. There's a Wikipedia link in an earlier post of mine in this CD page.
"the fantasy world/universe/cosmos that the Christian Doctrine espouses is and has been one of the most destructive forces ever known"
False and for the same reason. You over-generalise, stereotype. Also, it wasn't necessarily the church leaders in Rome who commanded the Spaniards to commit their extremely violent invasion in the Americas. It wasn't those church leaders who commanded the British to commit their extremely violent invasions in the Americas, Australia, Africa, etc. The religion was sometimes or often falsely used by the state leaders and their soldiers, but it wasn't the church in Rome that commanded or directed these crimes. That there were [false] members of the church who "blessed" these extremely violent invasions of colonialist and imperialist conquest and domination is certainly true of the past as it is today, but these people do not represent the Christian religion; they're false.
No one can competently prove that the Christian religion at its core is wrong or bad, because this core is found in Jesus of Nazareth, who is not guilty of your accusations, and no one can [prove] that he was mistaken about God.
That parents baptise children before they have a clue about life does not make the children Christian later in life; not truly. The baptism will only be valid if the person(s) choose to be and this is obviously later in life, when matured enough to be able to reason, for ourselves, whether or not we wish to be Christian. Once they choose to be, it must be based on the true teachings and not false ones. Many of such people in the West clearly made a false choice later in life, because they're hardly Christian at all; they're very anti-Christian and in diabolical, instead of innocent or benign, "anti" terms or ways.
John Dear is evidently very aware of the true teachings, but you evidently refuse to accept this because he includes, which he shouldn't, romantic references to Christian teachings of the true religion.
"This article if nothing else will bear that out."
NOT REALLY.
"Instead of admitting that Humanity needs very serious rehabilitation, and that the methods currently in use have been a failure, people will keep 'digging up' their 'dead gods' and claiming that 'we forgot the teachings of _________(you fill in the blank), 'the one true God' and 'if we do not return to those teachings humanity will perish'."
SOME people behave that way, but not everyone and certainly not every Christian, whether they be of the laity or Cardinals. John Dear should try to not romantically include Christian references as he does in his articles submitted to the general public. I agree! But this doesn't mean that staging demonstrations against the nuclear ... madness at Los Alamos is wrong. It's probably no more wrong than the SOAW demonstrations against the SoA, WHINSEC, are and they're definitely not wrong; they've at least been useful in bringing the very important subject to greater public attention.
If I'm not mistaken, then both priests, the two leading these two activist movements or demonstrations, and they're both Jesuits, btw, well, they don't communicate identically. John Dear always or regularly includes Christian romanticism, while Father Roy Bourgeois doesn't; I think he doesn't, anyway. If he does, then he also should stop doing this. Just because the US is superficially called a Christian country does not make it true; it's an extremely un-Christian and false-Christian country. So there's no point in including romantic references to the teachings of Jesus.
Christians have no need to include Christian-specific references when communicating to and/or in the general public about general needs and state wrongs, etcetera. There's no need to do that and it should not be done. But some people are romantically weak. They can't bring themselves to live without romanticism.
"Or try to use a culture that has long been dead, as an example. If the "Chaco Culture" has been 'so great'---how could it have died?"
NOW that's a pretty dumb question. Have you no clue of history?
Try relevant essays at, f.e., Wade Frazier's website, www.ahealedplanet.net. I believe that perhaps the most fitting essay there is "American Empire", but he also has other relevant essays; I believe some of the others providing history that "American Empire" doesn't. F.e., there's an essay titled, "The Lies I Grew Up With", or something like that for title.
Your question illustrates that your criticism is of junior level consideration. Clean it up, get it right, and then it may be worth reading, or sharing, or maybe you'll decide to "chuck it".
I will make this as simple as possible for you---since that is what seems to be your 'forte'---- 'simplicity'.
I have offered this challenge to many "Christians" such as yourself, none have taken it, but I am sure that there is a least "one of you"---who might have the 'spirit'
I will offer a One Million US Dollar (better hurry that currency is loosing ground daily--you know---'in God we Trust' and all of that.) To ANYONE who can prove in any court of any nation---with the only exception of Saudi Arabia, Iran and any other Islamic nation **----that Jesus of Nazareth*, ever existed.
You obviously are a 'follower' of the 'Christian Doctrine' and from your writing skill (well developed actually) you have what many would consider an 'education'.
You may hire your own council, or you may represent your self, i.e. pro Se. You may bring as many others to support you as you can afford, (ask the Pope he might fit you in if you pay for the 'trip')
1.** These distinctions are made in the light of the fact that the 'hear say' rule of evidence is not recognized.
2.* If you are such a strong 'believer', you may simply wish to represent yourself ---since you will not find a lawyer that could take your case, since you do not have a case, because there is no judge---anywhere on the planet---that would give you standing in any court he/she presides over---anywhere on the planet.
The only evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed is in the four 'texts' known as the "Gospels" (Greek for Truth)----which were introduced 1) Mathew at least 75 years after the proposition of the 'story' (which is a rather old one to begin with---and smacks very heavily of ancient Egyptian and Hindu influence as well as 'who knows what else'). None of the 'Gospels' are concurrent on facts, and have been subject to manipulation through translations---most of which were clandestine in nature, and often performed by novices.
The fact that 1.4 (+/-) billion people believe in the 'Culture Hero known as Jesus of Nazareth', has absolutely no bearing on reality, and would if the story were presented to anyone other than Children/or Adults with a low intelligence/or low education level---- be a matter for entertainment.
Now that does not mean that the 'Adults with an education' are somehow defective if they believe in "Jesus". Personally I think that many people with very solid educations profess to believe in Jesus---simply because of the simple doubt that 'just in case they are wrong about ---'doubting'---they'll go to heaven anyway' if they "profess"---anyway "Jesus" says 'dad will forgive you if you ask' or---- 'words to that effect'.
That however does not preclude ME--on a personal level--from ridiculing any and all of you who do believe in such a ridiculous story.
Which is why I offer the money with the knowledge that it is safe (I deposit my savings in foreign accounts---they are safe that way) and drawing interest.
As for a rebuttal on the rest of your post---if you are so lacking in factual information, ----'truth? you can't handle the truth'------(ha ha ha) you would be unequipped, even with your high intellect---to cope with a logical discussion about much else other than the simplest of matters.
I must admit though as far as "talking Chimpanzees" go---you're pretty good there--- "Bonzo"
Good Luck Mike Corbeil you really really need it.
Good one! That's tellin' 'em, brother!
It's amazing to me how many people believe in some Santie Clause god when the earth and the sky and all of life on this Great Mother Earth are all kept alive by the benevolent power of Grand Father Sun.
You don't need a book to tell you that. Just go outside and feel the love that makes life thrive, that sets the waters into motion, that creates the clouds that brings the rain and drives the wind which scatter the seeds, giving us air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat.
It's not some cardboard, cookie-cutter, ginger bread, story book, hanging on a crucifix, make-believe god that's "going to save us". We don't need salvation, we need to wake up. We need to go outside and greet the Sun as He rises above the eastern horizon, paying homage, giving thanks for the life we know and enjoy.
We need to offer up our prayers and begin to live authentic lives in service of the happiness of our Mother Earth who gave us life and who feeds us from hear loving breasts daily, and to all Her children, and those yet to come. Aho.
We didn't inherit the land from our parents, we borrow it from our children. We need to leave it a little better than the way we found it.
Don't worry, be Hopi :)
"In Los Alamos our "best and brightest" are forever busy developing new ways to "defend" ourselves. Who are these people, the "best and brightest"?"
If they're anything like the alleged "best and brightest" on Wall Street who deliberately misused their knowledge and harmed others, it will be difficult to imagine that these people will use their knowledge in more responsible ways to benefit mankind and planet earth.
People who understand power as something external will always use their "so-called" intellect to create weapons of destruction; and they'll do it without any consideration of the negative impact/effects they will have upon life and the environment.
In short, they are people addicted to power, operating with a "Luciferic" energy that preys upon the powerless and the weak. Their goal is to "control" humanity - not advance it!
Thank you, John Dear. You are a bright light in an era of deception and darkness.