Politics & Society

2008-04-09

What is happening in Tibet (2)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Related post now added at Tibet protests . . . hope for Diego Garcians. . .?

Update from my previous post on this topic. See also Human Rights in China.

Update 1: The ugly reality (Ahmed Quraishi)

Pakistani foreign affairs commentator Ahmed Quraishi has argues that the Tibetan issue has been orchestrated by Washington to isolate China, especially in respect to Iran and oil-rich African nations. An article of his in Global Politician, Pakistan Beware, They Are Cornering China, makes some observations worth further exploration and debate. They partly support my own interpretations of what I have observed in news film footage over the last several weeks, that the evidence points to the real issue being racial conflict and the manipulation of this by external and/or sectional political interests:

. . . the ugly reality of what . . . . separatists have done during the Tibet riots. They burned five young waitresses alive in a restaurant. They snatched a young Chinese boy from his father, put him on the ground and then stomped on his chest and abdomen. An ethnic Tibetan doctor who tried to save the Chinese boy’s life was beaten by Dalai Lama’s insurgents. The Tibetan doctor is hospitalized in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital. The kid couldn’t make it. How about the infant who was burned alive in her parents’ apartment set on fire by the separatists? . . . .

And please don’t believe the U.S. propaganda depicting the riots as some kind of a Tibetan backlash against Chinese oppression. Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, is far ahead in modernization than India’s biggest northern cities across the border. This is the place where China spent a staggering U.S. $ 4.1 billion just to build the world’s highest rail track, a luxury service stretching 1,142km from Beijing to Lhasa. It’s part of an elaborate Chinese vision to ‘open up’ the country’s sparsely populated western regions and make them key to China’s growth in the 21st century.

The western focus now is to push the Chinese government to make one wrong move so that Washington and other ‘allied’ governments could drag Beijing into a costly confrontation. . . .

Update 2: Mythical images (Michael Parenti)

A lengthy article by Michael Parenti, Friendly Feudalism: — The Tibet Myth, examines the various political strains of Buddhism throughout Asia, pointing out that contrary to popular western images, not all Buddhists currently are or have been peaceful. Robert Pape’s Dying to Win documents Buddhists among other non-Islamic individuals being among the earliest and more numerous incidents of horrific violence among some sections of Buddhists.

Update 3: Democrats or feudal slave-owners? (Gary Wilson)

Gary Wilson looks at the history of the 1959 Tibetan uprising in Tibet and the March 10 commemoration of the CIA’s 1959 ‘uprising’. He argues that far from being a popular uprising it was more comparable to the Bay of Pigs fiasco where outside powers attempted to restore feudal rulers and slave owners who would back the right side in the Cold War.

Update 4: The financial and political backers of The International Campaign for Tibet (Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich)

Iranian-American Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich in The Tibet Card writes that the International Campaign for Tibet

receives grants from the National Endowment for Democracy – a State Department operation which engages non-suspecting NGOs to openly do what the CIA did/does.

Soraya adds

Neoconservative queen, Jean Kilpatrick was pushing The Committee of 100 for Tibet with artists such as Richard Gere as unsuspecting fronts.

and not to completely overlook a few other little goodies on the side . . .

Tibet has the world’s largest reserve of uranium, and in addition to gold and copper, large quantities of oil and gas were discovered in Qiangtang Basin in western China’s remote Tibet area. A friendly Dalai Lama would help reimburse the CIA subsidies, and much more.

Soraya’s main argument, however, is that the funding and political support for these protests are aimed at isolating China in particular from Iran.

With names like the National Endowment for Democracy and Jean Kilpatrick associated with the current protests over Tibet, anyone with any nous should surely think twice and ask for hard evidence of any claims and assertions being made by all sides before leaping in to the fray.

Yes the Chinese government is responsible for some of the most egregious human rights abuses that ought to be challenged. But we are not helping that cause by siding with the programs backed by the National Endowment for Democracy.

More on National Endowment for Democracy:

Trojan Horse (Blum)

Loose cannon (Conry/Cato)

Paying to make enemies (Paul)

Wikipedia

2008-03-30

What is happening in Tibet, and in the reporting of what is happening?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Related post now added at Tibet protests . . . hope for Diego Garcians. . .?

This post has an updated link at What is happening in Tibet, 2:

Firstly, I deplore the human rights situation in China, and was dismayed that it was chosen to host the Olympics in the first place. But having had some contacts with a few Tibetans, and watching the way some of the Tibetan protests are portrayed in the news here, I cannot help but seek answers to a few questions before jumping on board the free Tibet movement. Certainly I would support an increase in human rights in Tibet, as anywhere in China, but independence or even quasi-independence protests are another matter.

Questions that keep coming to mind:

Are the monk-dominated images I see on TV footage representative of the identity of the main body of protesters in Tibet? If so, what is the role of the population who are not monks in the clashes with Chinese authorities?

When TV footage comes with a voice over saying that it is showing monks coming between Chinese troops and other protesters, then why am I unable to see much evidence of the other protesters, and even see some monks throwing rocks and bars at the troops?

When a leader of the protesters was interviewed on a BBC film clip recently, was he translated correctly when he appeared to say: “That’s why we (the monks) have ordered (sic) these demonstrations”?

Why do so many commentators seem to trace Tibetan history in their commentaries back no farther than the 1950’s? At best, I have read of the time Tibet was prised away from China during the time when nineteenth century foreign imperial powers were intent on weakening and breaking up China. Is there any significance in the 1950’s time-frame of historical recollection in the news media coinciding with early Cold War attempts by the U.S. to attempt to undermine the new government of China?

What is the actual evidence that the bulk of the lay population of Tibet is strongly opposed to being part of China? To what extent are the Tibetans at the “free Tibet” booths and stalls one often sees at festivals, fairs, etc, in the West truly representative of the average Tibetans “back home”?

How can one be sure that by supporting Tibetan independence one is not playing into the hands of a well funded attempt by the U.S. in their games with China?

This post has an updated link at What is happening in Tibet, 2

2008-03-11

A slightly revised parable of the pounds for modern times

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Traveling through Thailand one cannot avoid the national focus on the Thai king as benefactor of the poor, the good shepherd of all his people. (Sound familiar to any of us raised in company of a religious tradition with Mid-Eastern roots?) So on a long drive back to Bangkok from a beach resort this evening I could not help but compare the wealth of royalty, multinationals, religious institutions (hidden in real estate and treasure troves of sacred trinkets and ornate architecture and statuary) and a relatively few locals with the mass of ordinary citizens eking out what seems to this new outsider to be surely very little more than subsistence wages.

I found it hard to relate to the arguments that (1) the multinational intruders sincerely believe that their operations are doing much more than tokenism in raising living standards, or that (2) the royal and its subsidiary establishments are moving mountains as fast as they possibly can. I still have a hard time swallowing the Dalai Lama’s giggling suggestion that a village without even public sanitation should raise funds for a Buddha statue or temple on some rationalization that made Jesus’ “you have the poor with you always” quip sound banal.

So what does my Western Christian tradition have to offer as an alternative?

A thought experiment started working itself out on my drive back to the home of my hosts. . . . .

The New Testament is not alien to the thought of a central government or any rich company or person instituting a plan to assist in money creation. We all know the parables of the talents and pounds in Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27. But those had to do with the rich man’s money and methods by which he utilized his employees or staff to make him even richer. And the poor timid bugger who did his best not to take any risks with losing someone else’s money got sent off to suffer death by torture.

But maybe with a little tweaking perhaps this antiquated Christian parable can still inspire some virtue.

My slightly tweaked parable for modern times:

What if the king in the parable, instead of distributing his money to his servants to see how much they could increase the royal coffers in his absence, opted rather to distribute a small portion to each and every citizen who had an idea how he/she could use the money to establish some enterprise that would make a better living for themselves and their friends and kin.

Then when the king returned he had his servants check how each recipient had done. Those who had done well with the money on behalf of themselves and their loved ones were offered reasonable terms by which they could repay the loan without interest. Those who had managed to improve their lot a little were offered more appropriate repayment terms. Those who had not managed to succeed with their hoped-for enterprises were offered consolations and best wishes that some time still not too distant they might still make good. Till that day, the topic of repayment was not even raised.

So the king would lose a few bucks in the short term. But balance that against the mushrooming prosperity and living standards within his kingdom, and the wealth that would inevitably still find its way to the royal coffers.

A morality parable for an alternative to a mercantilist / capitalist system that current Christianity appears to favour?

2008-03-07

temples, cathedrals, mosques …… everywhere!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

I’m a latecomer to Thailand, but my first week is enough to remind me that I’ve seen enough Buddhist and Hindu temples, mosques and cathedrals, and all their distinctive architecture and murals, and relics and iconic symbols, and statues in all except synagogues, mosques and fundamentalist reactions to the cathedrals, to remind me that the place of religion in societies is pretty much the same the world over.

Everyone with an inkling to proclaim the exclusivity of their faith, especially those fundamentalists among the Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions who insist on the exclusive righteousness of their respective causes, should be compelled to apply for a licence first. Qualification for said licence should be a comprehension of how their religious (including sectarian) faction sits in relation to counterparts world-wide.

And thinking of exclusive righteousness, can’t help reflecting on those “demonic” atheistic societies (like Sweden today, and others in recent history too) that outlaw prostitution and all-round exploitation of women, and that virtually enforce gender equality in all areas of life, with the common lot of women, including the quasi-legal / or illegal but let’s-keep-quiet-about-it status of prostitution, among the most outwardly religious of societies.

2008-03-01

An Invention called “the Jewish People”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

My heading, “an invention called the Jewish people” is taken from an article recently published in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper. It’s about a book by Professor Zand of the Tel Aviv University. The article concludes with:

His book, “When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?” (published by Resling in Hebrew), is intended to promote the idea that Israel should be a “state of all its citizens” – Jews, Arabs and others – in contrast to its declared identity as a “Jewish and democratic” state. Personal stories, a prolonged theoretical discussion and abundant sarcastic quips do not help the book, but its historical chapters are well-written and cite numerous facts and insights that many Israelis will be astonished to read for the first time.

Some of those facts:

“There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion”, and the exile of 70 c.e. also never happened. At the most, tens of thousands were exiled. Most were permitted, and most did, stay in the land. It follows, if exile is a myth, that the idea that Jews since the twentieth century are “returning” to “their land” is a myth.
When the Arabs conquered the land, many of the Jews converted to Islam and were assimilated among the conquerors. It follows that many Palestinian Arabs today are descendants of the original Jews.

Tom Segev, author of this article, writes:

Zand did not invent this thesis; 30 years before the Declaration of Independence, it was espoused by David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and others. . . . . Zand quotes from many existing studies, some of which were written in Israel but shunted out of the central discourse.

So how did the Jewish Diaspora originate?

From Tom Segev’s article on Prof. Zand’s book in the Haaretz:

emigration of their own accord
many Jews in Babylon had simply remained of their own will
members of other faiths were forced to become Jews (c.f. the Book of Esther which says narrates just such an event — many converting because of fear of the Jews.)

Specific case-studies discussed by Zand:

the Jewish kingdom of Himyar in the southern Arabian Peninsula
the Jewish Berbers in North Africa
the Jews in Spain — these originated from Arabs who became Jews and who arrived with the forces that captured Spain from the Christians; these mingled with European individuals who had become Jews.
the first Jews of Ashkenaz (Germany) . . . became Jews in the Khazar Kingdom in the Caucasus.

Segev notes:

We find, then, that the members of a variety of peoples and races, blond and black, brown and yellow, became Jews in large numbers. According to Zand, the Zionist need to devise for them a shared ethnicity and historical continuity produced a long series of inventions and fictions, along with an invocation of racist theses. Some were concocted in the minds of those who conceived the Zionist movement, while others were offered as the findings of genetic studies conducted in Israel.

The original Haaretz article is worth the full read, not least for the same page’s other interesting news of the sort that does not normally see light of day in the English speaking Western media.

The story will not be news to those who already appreciate the fictional nature of the Bible’s Exodus and genocidal Conquest narratives. Nor to those familiar with some of the racist fictions that were concocted in the latter nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries. Focus on Nazi racist myths has obscured from much public memory the fact that such racist ideologies and cults of physical ideals inflicted many races, nations and peoples then, many Jews included.

One day the world will look back on the current myths underpinning Zionism as with no more factual foundation than their nineteenth century and early twentieth century counterparts — and that were likewise used to rationalize ethnic cleansing and expansion of “living space”.

2008-02-28

for the sake of peace, think of ourselves as animals

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Australian Customs ship, Oceanic Viking, has just returned with film footage of recent Japanese whaling for government ministers to study.

Campaigners against cruelty to animals know how to get their message across. Graphic footage works. It is even said to have helped turn public support against the Vietnam war. Nothing worse than eating dinner and being confronted with footage of clubbing seals that look so damnably cute, mulesing sheep which still have that damnable iconic image of innocence, spearing and shooting whales until they eventually stop struggling against their fate, screaming naked children fleeing napalmed villages.

I can’t quite fathom the ethics that prohibit the publication of graphic pictures of humans being dismembered at times when governments call on publics to back their next war.

Why don’t we campaign for community standards that will favour the contempt of media for failing to show — “show”, that is, graphically — both sides of a story?

Anti-war campaigns rightly need to be salted with comedy, funny masks and silly costumes. But we anti-war campaigners could also take a leaf from the campaigners against cruelty to animals. Sure it upsets people. But that’s good. It should.

2008-01-12

The Assyrian genocide in Iraq

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

The Assyrian Christian population of the Middle East – Antiochian, Catholic and Orthodox – is now a fraction of what it once was, and the story of the genocide practised upon them remains largely untold. — blurb from repeat broadcast on Australia’s ABC Radio National’s Religion Report

Check the link to the podcast and / or the transcript now available.

Also check April DeConick’s Forbidden Gospels blog. I know April has taken a special interest in the fate of the Assyrians and posted more extensively on their plight.

I posted an alert to this same broadcast when first aired back in May last year, along with a fuller treatment of the meaning of the word genocide. The same program at that time discussed Christian minorities more generally throughout the Middle East, also linked on that earlier post. The podcast for this other interview is no longer available but the transcript is. For the earlier program and the additional discussion and links to Christian minorities in the Mid East see the post titled Unknown Genocide and Christians in Iraq.

2007-12-24

Why religious arguments do not belong in public debate

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Philosophers and political theorists holding a wide variety of philosophical views use the terms ‘public reason’ and ‘public justification’ to describe a broad framework for a discussion in which everyone in a community can take part. Supporters of the idea of public justification see democratic politics not so much as a battle for power, settled by elections, but rather as a kind of public conversation about issues of common concern, with a decision-procedure for reaching temporary closure on these issues when the time for action has come. When we take part in this conversation, we seek to justify our views to others, and in so doing we should acknowledge the fact of political and religious pluralism. Continue reading “Why religious arguments do not belong in public debate”

2007-12-17

3 problems with recognizing the state of Israel’s “right to exist”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Historical Palestinian refusal to recognize the state of Israel has generally been portrayed in the western mainstream media as a sign of an Arab anti-Jewish hatred and wish to drive Israel “into the sea”. What is not often conveyed by western leaders and media are the reasons Palestinian and other Arab peoples have often refused to recognized Israel, and the fact that on several occasions they have conditionally offered to recognize Israel.

Israel is a Jewish state, meaning it is a racial state, and this means that other racial or religious minorities do not in practice have equal citizenship rights. The world has come to deplore other states such as apartheid South Africa and nazi Germany using race in preference to truly democratic principles as the essential rationale for their existence.
Recognizing Israel as a new state would mean accepting Israel’s refusal of the right of return for the refugees and their descendants who were expelled from territories Israel now controls from past wars. In other words, ethnic cleansing will be accepted as a legitimate fait accompli.
To recognize Israel carte blanche means accepting their occupation and control over much of the West Bank, and ongoing “bantustan-ization” of Palestinians. Both Palestinian and Arab leaders have publicly agreed recognize Israel in her pre-1967 war borders. But Israel refuses to recognize any such borders as final, arguing it has both security and biblical-historical justifications to expand its “living space” (cf. lebensraum).

This is not to deny that there is a widespread anti-Jewish sentiment among many Arabs. But anti-Arab racism on the part of many Jews is just as tangible. Western media works against peace in the Middle East as long as they simplify Arab reasons for unconditionally accepting Israel’s right to exist (i.e. with present borders, a race-based state, ethnically cleansed) as a matter of irrational hate against Jews. Western media also works against peace while it refuses to openly criticize the real wrongs (and racism) of Israel. The above stumbling blocks to Arab recognition of Israel are discussed more openly and constructively in Israel than they are in the black-and-white simplistic reporting of mainstream English-language media.

2007-12-06

Australians believe in Space Aliens, Americans believe in God

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

I am glad I live in Australia rather than America.

Many of us here have cancelled plans to emigrate to New Zealand or Nepal since our erstwhile reactionary Prime Minister John Howard lost his seat at the recent election.

But even more happily invigorating is the latest HarrisInteractive poll on American beliefs, giving us the opportunity to compare the intellectual climate and health of the two countries.

82% of Americans believe in God, a statistic that makes me think of black overcast skies and Cromwell’s dreary England. Compare Australians. It is a statistical fact that “more Australians believe in space aliens than believe in God, despite the fact that more Australians have been to church than have been abducted by UFOs.” (Dale, 100 Things Everyone Needs to Know about Australia.) To be fair, space aliens in the original source refers strictly to the possibility of intelligent life out there and not necessarily to those little green creatures that abduct people in their sleep. But who’s splitting hairs?

See, Australians have checked out church and found it only has a ceiling or arch or stained glass up top. But no-one can justly accuse them of being incorrigible sceptics simply for the sake of scepticism. Australian’s can’t deny space aliens.

And the best part is that space aliens don’t make any claims on how people should vote or run the country or what films should be censored or what sexual leanings should be the basis of legal rights.

And they make much more interesting discussion topics than God when there are a few beers to get things going. I’m also sure they can offer much more fertile material for pick-up lines than God. One only has to compare “Have you had a close encounter lately?” with “Have you prayed today?”

And space aliens are much sexier than God. God positively frowns on sex. He will only reproduce by remote control through genetic-spirit implant into a virgin, — and he only ever went that far once in all eternity! Space aliens do much more interesting things while still working in mysterious ways with their abductees, as we all know.

Why Space Aliens are a more positive Belief Object than God

Space Aliens don’t divide people morally over whether people believe in them or not
Space Aliens don’t threaten to send you to hell if you don’t believe in them
Space Aliens do not justify any wars
Space Aliens do not make rules that mess up people’s sexual health
Space Aliens expect you to believe in advanced technology but not in miracles
Space Aliens do not command earthlings to keep impossible or silly rules
Space Aliens do not censor the arts or any creative activity of earthlings
Space Aliens do not want your money or your soul. (Some do want your body but only for a moment of experimentation after which it is returned without discernible after-effects.)
When earthling attempts to communicate with Space Aliens are reciprocated it will be a scientifically verifiable event
Space Aliens do not make any promises they can be accused of failing to keep
Space Aliens do not take offence or get angry, — ever (even if you make graven images of them or have a laugh at their expense)
Having a personal relationship with a Space Alien is entirely optional
If you do decide to have a personal relationship with a Space Alien you are not required to go from door-to-door telling others about it.

2007-12-02

post election thoughts (Australia, 2007)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

What a shift? Or should that be, What shift?

Of more interest to me than the Rudd Labor win (that was a huge emotional relief) were:

1. the demise of the religious right Family First Party (but dammit, they have 1 Senator who could make a lot of noise if he finds himself in a balance of power decider position), and

2. voices of true “liberalism” — J.S. Mill type stuff — being heard to squeak out here and there now that reactionary-squatter type “conservative” Howard has been given the boot. Liberal member Malcolm Turnbull actually said the Liberals should support a government apology to the aboriginals, some even said that the popular will rejecting their dismantling of the industrial system should be respected, and they all agreed to go along with the consensus of international opinion in respect to Kyoto.

But then the party darn gone went and chose Lord Brendon Nelson as its leader who promptly stifled some of those voices of philosophical liberalism. So it looks like Labor will continue to be the main bulwark of “liberal” politics for the immediate future.

And that leaves the Greens as the next in line to fill the gap of working for the bottom line issues of real worker and pensioner security, end of involvement with war ventures, and environment. Whether that will happen will depend largely on events. Environment change and sellout policies by the major parties has increased their vote over recent years. I’d hate to think it will take more casualties in wars and real suffering on the part of workers and others losing their entitlements to bring about to further advance them to major-party status. Trouble is, those sorts of conditions can also become perfect tinder for extremists on the right to whip up fear and lead people to vote against their own interests.

Lots of work ahead for us Green supporters. We couldn’t have a more perfect candidate in the local area, Pauline Collins, to galvanize supporters into action as early as February next year to prepare for the next election.

Looking back on last weekend:It’s a bit strange how our extended personal identities can be so bound up with our nation in such a way that the leadership of the nation can directly affect our feelings of self-worth. So many decisions by the exiting government leader made me cringe with embarrassment and so often I told others I wanted to emigrate and find a new homeland. I hated having to admit to being an Australian when overseas. Our nation’s international image was so completely at odds with my personal values and understanding of the issues our PM appeared to be deliberately lying about.

But last Saturday I knew something new was on the move. I stood in the rain, wearing a poncho over my Green Party t-shirt and ready to hand out “how to vote” flyers at 8 am as voters came in their droves. In the pouring rain. As early as the very minute the polling opened. I had expected a trickle at that hour and in that weather, but not the crowds walking up the pathways to the booths. Surely most would wait for the rain to clear before bothering to come. But no, it was clear people were in a mood to deliver a message — I could not help but suspect they were finally wanting change, having seen through the sham and callousness and outright lies of a conservative nineteenth century squatter-values government.

It had been a depressing campaign between the two major parties. Nothing about our sons and brothers being killed and killing others in Afghanistan and Iraq, or our concentration camps for refugees via the wrong mode of transport (evoking atavistic images of being swamped by coloured races from overseas), or our desertion of fellow-citizens to the injustice and barbarity of torture and imprisonment without trial overseas — and their ongoing demonization once finally returned, or the widening gulf between the rich and poor, or the horrifying gap between white and indigenous conditions, or the gap our government had entrenched with our East Timorese and Pacific neighbours through shocking bullying and paternalism, certainly not a word about the clamping down on freedom of information and gagging of debate in Parliament and through PR spin-doctors working on behalf of government agencies. Those issues, it seems, were minor non-issues reserved for the “chattering classes”.

Bring on the real debate: Who would keep interest rates lower for home-buyers? Who would offer the best tax breaks?

To be fair, there was also much talk about WorkChoices and even Kyoto. But even there the differences between the parties were muted enough and it was rarely clear exactly how or to what extent Labor would do things differently.

But Howard, who wanted to take Australia back to the rule of the squatter where those who owned the money claimed absolute right to set all conditions of their workers, and who was a master of fear-mongering and stifling information and debate, has lost his seat. I will have to examine myself — I am one of the few who cannot bring himself to feel sorry for one responsible for so many ruined lives, and responsible for abandoning Australia’s infrastructure and educational future.

2007-11-26

Israel’s purging of Palestinian Christians — article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

A January in-depth article by Jonathan Cook — on Electronic Intifada

2007-11-24

Gaza (the reality behind myth of “God’s will” for modern Israel)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

5 minute video: Gaza’s Reality: The living conditions of Palestinian refugees living in Gaza. A short clip from the award-winning film ‘Occupation 101: Voices of the Silenced Majority.”

Independent article: UN official discusses impact of the siege of Gaza

2007-11-22

A “Where the Parties Stand” Chart and 48 hour election toolkit

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Chart showing where the parties stand on the following issues:

Ratifying Kyoto
Strong short term targets to cut greenhouse pollution
Repeal of Workchoices
Dental cover in Medicare
Significant increase in public education
Broadband to rural Australia
Indigenous life expectancy
Troop withdrawal from Iraq

48 hour election toolkit [Link is now dead. If anyone has an image please let me know: Neil Godfrey, 20th July, 2019. ]

"For an excellent example of generally high-quality scholarship by someone who isn’t a biblical studies professor, see Neil Godfrey’s work posted on the website vridar.org."

— Tom Dykstra, – JOCABS 2015
"Note that I do not use the term ‘amateur’ pejoratively. . . . In fact, Godfrey is extremely well read and his librarian skills have brought many important academic works to my attention."

Raphael Lataster - August 2019
"Thanks for your very elaborate review! I realized that I hadn’t added your blog to our blogroll. This oversight has been corrected. Looking forward to more segments."

— Anthony Le Donne, – September 2009
"I always enjoy reading Neil’s blog because I think that he is careful, thorough, intellectually fair, and honest."

— April DeConick, – November 2007
"Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job."

— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014
It is worth saying another word of appreciation here for Neil Godfrey's effort to make Bruno Bauer accessible in English.

-- Peter Kirby, - May 2023
"Thanks for this detailed interaction! I’ll try to offer something more substantial than 'Thank you' in response at some point, but I didn’t want to wait . . . to express appreciation for your detailed interaction with what I’ve written!"

— James McGrath, – June 2009
"I want to say here that this site is so resourceful and highly on top of the most modern scholarship in the areas discussed here. . . I know of no other site which offers a wide range of topics related to careful critical analysis of historically and scripturally related issues."

-- Martin Lewadny, - March 2009
"Neil Godfrey and Tim Widowfield, who both write at Vridar . . . happen to be some of the most astute and well-read amateurs you can read on the internet on the subject of biblical historicity. I call them amateurs only for the reason that they don’t have, so far as I know, advanced degrees in the subject. But I have often been impressed with their grasp of logic and analysis of scholarship. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their work."

— Richard Carrier, – March 2014
"Very good. This post is going straight to the March 2016 Biblical Studies Carnival."

—N.T. Wrong, – March 2016
"Fantastic. I’m so glad you’re helping to spread these ideas!"

Nancy Fraser - June 2019 (personal email)
"I’ve even been cited by atheists with approval (which I really don’t know how to take, so thanks, I think, but I’m not sure, Vrider (even though I feel like I need to take a shower now))."

-- Jim West, – September 2010
"Thanks much for this book review. I think it expands, and contributes to, the effort in honouring Thomas that we with Lukasz originally had in mind with this volume. Best, Emanuel"

-- Emanuel Pfoh - August 2020
"Vridar is consistently thought-provoking, well-informed, and asking the right questions. There are intelligent, thoughtful comments and commenters regularly offering productive discussion. Books and publications are covered with a range of perspectives with attempts at fair and accurate representation of others’ arguments and content (where there are occasional and inevitable missteps on that I notice Neil making corrections and apologies where warranted, which wins points with me). Please carry on."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
"Here I give an admittedly subjective short list, in random order, of useful, high level and regularly updated weblogs on the study of the Old Testament . . . ‘Vridar: Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science’ (http://vridar.org/) by Neil Godfrey"

-- Klaas Spronk, - Bibliotheca Orientalis LXXI, 3/4 (2014)
"Neil, in my mature judgement (I am now an old man), this fine 4-part study is a brilliant reworking, an instructive restatement of Hayden White’s Metahistory (and his subsequent writings). Your critique of certain historiographic representations as imbedded in the case study of the “scientistic”, “empirical” Richard Carrier provides a solid starting point for the more honest “fictive” reading of the New Testament that you encourage. Your last paragraph is a very intelligent call to sensitive readers of these texts. I suspect a whole generation of biblical students has been educated without the insights provided by the incomparable White. Bravo!"

-- Timothy Bagley, - November 2024
"By the way, my thanks to Neil for an ongoing superb job of exposing Jim’s review for what it is: a farcical and none too effective exercise in mythicism assassination, nothing to do with rational, let alone unbiased, scholarship. I’m also happy to see even Jim giving Neil credit where credit is due."

— Earl Doherty, June 2011
"I think you have a high quality blog that provides a positive public service by discussing academic topics within a wider audience."

— Russell Gmirkin, – October 2016
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=145080#p145080
Neil made a good synthesis of the work without being an “expert” of the field.

-- Enrico Tuccinardi, - October 2022
"These reviews of yours are so bloody weird!"

— James Crossley, – April 2010
"Neil, for what it is worth it is obvious to me that if you had earlier in life tracked into a graduate program at one of the world’s leading research universities you would be one of the world’s formidable ones. You are doing essentially the same quality now (apart from the philology and languages) except mostly sticking to commenting on others’ work as informed comment/discussion."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
Congratulations, Vridar, . . . I declare, Vridar, your own hard work translating Bruno Bauer will make a major difference in future studies of Bruno Bauer and the evolution of Hegel’s philosophy of religion.

-- Paul Trejo, - April 2023
"Neil, You’ve done a clean job in your posting on ‘Jesus the Healer’. It reflects well on you. Best, John"

— John Moles, September 2011 (personal email)
"Many thanks for this post, and for the quality of your blog."

— Philippe Wajdenbaum, – November 2018
This is superb work, Neil, and reminds me of Albert Schweitzer’s work from a century ago. . . . .

I commend you for being the first to even TRY to translate Bruno Bauer’s brilliant Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs, which is now more than 150 years old.

. . . . .Thank you for your historic effort.

-- Paul Trejo, M.A., - November 2022
Editor, An English Edition of Bruno Bauer’s 1843 Christianity Exposed
"I’d like to thank you for this very nice representation of what I was trying to show in the book. It’s always gratifying when a reader zeroes in on exactly those aspects I thought were most interesting and most central to my argument. Thank you for this careful and engaged reading of my work – much appreciated!"

— Eva Mroczek, – June 2017
"I still wonder at all the material you turn out for Vridar. The more I read your stuff (and I still do, of course), the more I realize how much we all owe you. Your voice is unique."

— Earl Doherty, November 2013 (personal email)
"I have found your website really valuable as an interpretive filter for Biblical scholarship, especially the origins of Christianity and historicity of Jesus issue. Your clarity of expression, fair comments and personal insights are much valued. I refer to your site frequently as yet more names and publications pop up requiring an academic critique and helpful recommendations for book purchases. So, please continue to delve deeply and share this intellectual sustenance with your grateful readers."

— Mary Booker, – February 2020 (personal email)
"I find your blog most interesting and appreciate your ongoing effort to keep to the evidence for the issues discussed!"

-- Thomas L. Thompson, - April 2020

Neil Godfrey on Review of R. G. Price’s book on the Christ Myth theory — and a review of Richard Carrier’s to come: “If you are persuaded by the kind of evidence cited then you might also be interested in a major city…” Dec 22, 23:57
Henry Cobb on Review of R. G. Price’s book on the Christ Myth theory — and a review of Richard Carrier’s to come: ““Mark’s Geography and the origin of Mark’s Gospel with Professor Richard Bauckham” shows that parts of Mark is based on…” Dec 22, 21:58
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “A troll is someone who ignores what is being said and continues their own agenda without engaging with the logic…” Dec 21, 03:26
Petr Jancar on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I am still once more responding, so that you do not think that I am impolite or that I am…” Dec 20, 07:22
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I re-read my earlier reply and can see how you took it as “emotional” — but I can assure you…” Dec 18, 02:43
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I simply asked you to tell me what it is that you think I misunderstand or what, specifically, I am…” Dec 17, 20:26
Petr Jancar on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “Neil, I have no interest to engage in an emotional discussion. I felt indebted to you, since I read many…” Dec 17, 19:21
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “Why do you ask? What are you trying to argue? I agree and acknowledge that Bayes theorem is a valid…” Dec 16, 09:22
Petr Jancar on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “My sentence “I voice several assumptions, testing if we all agree on them:” was meant as a yes/no question; let…” Dec 16, 08:57

Update 1: The ugly reality (Ahmed Quraishi)

Update 2: Mythical images (Michael Parenti)

Update 3: Democrats or feudal slave-owners? (Gary Wilson)

Update 4: The financial and political backers of The International Campaign for Tibet (Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich)

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

My slightly tweaked parable for modern times:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

So how did the Jewish Diaspora originate?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Why Space Aliens are a more positive Belief Object than God

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: