"Free Market Martyrdom," is an interesting article, but I think the religious aspects of the phenomena described may be superficial.

"Fans" of the international capitalist conspiracy may well believe religiously in the Invisible Hand and the End of History, but I'm pretty sure most of the actual major operators are simply greedy, ambitious men who are gettin' while the gettin' is good. Such people have always found that a church, a body of believers led by a priesthood, is a good thing to have around, and they make appropriate provisions and donations.

So they've got one. Their antagonists, in the streets and elsewhere, are too variegated to be characterized as simply members of a religious movement. Some are; others are just cranks who don't want to take orders from some elite -- any elite -- and yet others are rebels for the hell of it.

This is not to say that [that] style could not lead to holy war.

-- Gordon Fitch

No Respect

Thank you for "Free Market Martyrdom," which raised a few thoughts; firstly on the very word globalization, with its root "globe." A globe is an artificial representation of our planet, not the Earth but a model of it. This leads me to seeing globalization, then, as a construct, and certainly not something inevitable.

Also as regards the proprietary attitude of globalists towards the future: The future is not a commodity, not something to be bought, sold, nor owned. I feel we need a little more respect -- maybe even awe - for the world around us and for those living on it. At least as much respect as is currently shown for money and commerce.…

-- Helen Stellner

A Whole New World

Howdy.

Just read that article/interview on Radical Orthodoxy and John Milbank and it got me feeling like the world's a different place. Thanks, incidentally, for the very timely piece on Genoa. You've got a culturally crucial operation going.

Rock on,
David Dark

Sounds like a Bargain to Us

Your commentary on the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper (etc.) was most interesting and informative.

About three years ago I started expressing some doubts to my pastor (of St. Michael's Lutheran Church in Prague, Czech Republic) about communion. He is highly liturgically oriented (a more commendable orientation than some), and he offers communion every Sunday because he ardently believes it conveys the "gracious forgiveness of all your sins." I have my doubts, and after about 3-4 exchanges of views on the subject, he suggested that maybe I should stop taking communion. But my doubts continued.

If Christ died on the cross once for all and for all sins for all time, then why do we have to trot up to the altar Sunday by Sunday to receive the "gracious forgiveness of all your sins"? Furthermore, I wondered, how can we be so certain that it was Christ's intention that that very intimate Last Supper He had with His disciples was to be replicated for all time if not for all eternity? I don't see any evidence whatsoever that He conferred upon this simple last meal with His closest followers a "sacrament" which would supplement or even supersede what He was to do the following day, namely, die in naked physical agony on the cross for the forgiveness of the sins of all humankind for time. It may be my misperception, but there is the impression that taking communion is more important than what happened on Golgotha's Hill.

To be sure, Paul writes about the practice but mostly negatively. Only the weakest case could be made that Jesus intended that Christendom should be "crashing the party" ad infinitum. In the way the practice of this rite developed over the centuries, as your commentary points out, it would seem the only leg this rite has to stand on is tradition, not Scripture.

It seems to me (and you'll see below that I am no theologian, biblical scholar or anything remotely related thereunto) that anything, including the Eucharist, which deflects the attention of anyone from what is the central message of the Gospel, namely, the necessity of genuine repentance and confession of sins and a sincere desire to not only be forgiven but to permanently turn 180 degrees from those sins (which is what repentance really means) is missing the mark and even the point of it all.

It also seems to me that most people going up to the altar or receiving in the pews are only getting what Bonhoeffer (in another context) called "cheap grace." That is, they believe the words of their pastor/priest that by the mere reception of the elements their sins are, ipso facto, presto! puff, forgiven, and they can go into the week following doing whatever they damn well please knowing (because their pastor told them "for the gracious forgiveness of all your sins") that their slates will be wiped clean again the following Sunday and they will be good little boys and girls again in the eyes of God -- in other words, having their cake and eating it, too. Is that a good deal, or what?

John Novotney
English Language Editor
Czech Academy of Sciences

Dead Gods Tell No Tales

Re: "God for the Godless"

It occurs to me to wonder whether or not there is absolution or salvation for the modern non-believer.

Do you have to believe to have faith? I think I have faith, I'm trying hard to lately, but I'm quite certain that I don't believe.

If I got to talk to god, what would he/she/it say of my moral ambiguities? And, since the god (buddha, whatever) we meet is the one we kill (as I would assuredly do), then perhaps we wouldn't hear it anyway.

-- Jessica Christensen

Keep Carving, Christian

I'm down with your site in general, but wonder about this one bit from your Manifesto: "Why kill the Buddha? Because the Buddha you meet is not the true Buddha, but an expression of your longing. If this Buddha is not killed he will only stand in your way."

Does this mean that all enlightenment is false? That there is no real hope for a goal to our quests? Seems like you're setting yourself up for the fall... I mean, I'd hope to carve my way to some real truth. This seems like another form of nihilism.

Let me know. And thanks for an interesting site!

-- Christian Stadler

If It's So Freaking Obvious, Why Don't You Write It Yourself?

More on religion and singers please. Some obvious choices might be Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Bob Dylan, Mel Lyman, Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, Doc Watson. You get the picture. Enjoyed the Sam Cooke article.

-- Joe C.

Your Concepts, Maybe; Ours Are Just Fine

I stumbled upon your E-zine through Arts & Letters Daily. From reading a few selections I will probably be back. I am a student of the spirit and admire your forum, for it is our concepts that get in the way of the Truth. God knows in this day and age, concepts are given God-like status. Religion, especially in the political arena, seldom has much to do with true spirituality.

Thanks for being there.

-- S. Dominique

You're welcome. We'd quibble with you over the notion that religion seldom has much to do with true spirituality, though. Sometimes there's real belief and meaning hiding even in church. (At least that's what we've heard….)

We're Gonna Get You, Sarah Stockton

I just read "Resisting the Invitation," by Sarah Stockton. WOW. Can she write! Thank you, and please get her again!

-- Sister Nancy Corcoran, C.S.J.

Tell it to the sisters, Sister. Stockton was expelled by the nuns who ran her spiritual director program after her article about it appeared on Killing the Buddha.

Maybe Yours, Qa'Im-maqami

Is god hard-wired into our brains?

-- Hood Qa'Im-maqami

At Home on the Ganges

A richness of atmosphere in "Rain from the Ganges" makes one feel not only there but at home being there. It has an underlying current conveying the same perception of India and Indians which is expressed by the Raj Quartet, the several books made into a movie called The Jewel in the Crown. I would like to see more like this, and more by Josh Valle.

J. Leigh Cooper

Josh is at work on a new piece right now.

Who Surely Must Appear Laughable?

In "The Hazards of Holocaust Theology," the statement is made that "the Holocaust has changed humanity's relationship with God."

Why is this presumption made? Does the author mean that the killing of the Jews had an effect on the God-humanity relationship (assuming that there is a God) that other examples of mass-killing did not? If so, why?

Does the author assume that Jews have a special place in God's consciousness that other humans do not? In fact, why should we think that humanity as a whole is more important to God than any other life-form? Perhaps God regards the partial extinction of one very small part of humanity as less important than the total extinction of the dinosaurs.

In another part of the article, it is stated that it is incumbent upon Christians to look on the Holocaust and see Calvary. Perhaps that is indeed so, but does the author mean to say that to the Christian the killing of the Jews is a closer analogy to the killing of Christ than any other instance of mass-killing in human history. The majority of the World's Christians who live in Latin America might well find examples of their own history a more meaningful analogy to the theology of the Crucifixion than what happened to Jews in Europe.

All in all, this article is yet another example of the Jewish self-obsession that may be understandable to a European Christian, but surely must appear laughable to the majority of the World's population that is neither European nor Christian.

-- Michael Mills

Speaking of presumption, why do you assume a guy with a goyishe name like Peter Manseau is Jewish just because he writes about Jews? We don't assume you're an anti-Semite, Mike, though you sure do write like one.

But Jesus Does, So It's OK

Not a bad site. But 1 thing, it is so annoying and infuriating you do not allow the back button to work. Therefore I hate your site. How annoying. how self-centered. Buddha would not approve.

People have to start their searches over and start from scratch.

-- Amit Sutaria

We have not intentionally made the back button inoperable, and I'm not sure it is. If indeed it is, though, I think the Buddha would certainly approve. What's past is past, you can't get it back. There is a sad and fearless wisdom in all of this and we thank you for pointing it out, for stating it almost as a universal truth: "People have to start their searches over and start from scratch." Preach it, Brother. The back button is a lie, an illusion of recovery. We're always only starting over. There's always only scratch. Impermanence ain't our fault, so don't hate us - 'kay?

Uptight Buddhist

I was originally attracted to your site because of the title. How ironic that you would appropriate a Buddhist koan for what is clearly a Christian forum.

You attempt to explain "killing the Buddha" and then go on to discuss God throughout your site. Buddhism is not atheistic, but it is certainly non-theistic and for a very good reason. In the Diamond Sutra the Buddha says, "...the religion given by the Buddha is not Buddha religion." The phrase, "killing the Buddha," is a call to action, to a letting go of preconceptions and labels. It is about practice, not theology.

At least you could be honest about it and give your Christian site a Christian name.

Brian Smith

"How ironic" that one advocating "letting go of preconceptions" should be so troubled that a website's title did not deliver what he'd hoped to find....