Perspective 1: A Critique of Compassion

Despite the obvious light that cuts through the darkness of a post-apocalyptic world in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, one should not assume goodness on the basis of appearance. Fire, the light of humanity, is often construed as the good, simply because of humanity’s pride, the unwillingness to let anything tarnish the greatness that is man. But, so obvious, before our eyes, yet hidden beneath the clamor of our ethos, is the danger of fire; its ability to burn. McCarthy’s The Road is an affront on the modern societal drive towards compassion and the appeasement of suffering, held in such high esteem by the remnant of humanity, and society as it is.

First and foremost, it is prudent to dispel any murmur of infinity. Society will not last forever, nor will humanity. McCarthy realizes this, as most do, and demonstrates his knowledge. “The End” are much more than just words to McCarthy, and perhaps why he does not include this finalizing phrase upon completion of his novel. McCarthy acknowledges that, despite the “end” of a tale, the end has already come – at least in his fiction. However, this fictional concept transcends the role of a pleasing novel, and comes to mean much more, tangibly. Despite the brief image of a world in flames, there is no depiction of the world as it is today (in reality) in his fictional world. McCarthy demonstrates that there will be no infinite reign supreme of the human race, and that, despite the lasting effect of our ego, our supremacy as humans, “Rome will fall.”

Having accepted that society will collapse at some point, some time, McCarthy moves on to examine what will happen to society itself at this time of rapture. However, before deciding what can happen to society, McCarthy must force us to understand what this “society” is. Society is not a collection of people, nor is it a culture of people. No, indeed, it is much more than that. As much as one can give it a definition, society is a mentality, a construct of what it means to be human. McCarthy cannot simply state this, though, as to do so would be to end the persuasive element of his work. Through the child in the story, the lasting “hope” of humanity, McCarthy embodies what it means to be human by idolizing the child: kind, compassionate, helpful. In short, weak.

However, when left with a society that is just that, existent in only one, is it still justifiable to name that society? McCarthy argues yes. However, with only one embodiment of the ideal human, it becomes less persuasive; the drive to idolize that one becomes less and less desirable. Society is split: the good, and the bad. In the father’s statement, “maybe,” maybe there are others like them, McCarthy shows the assumption of good, of humanity. In Armageddon, the construct of “good” that McCarthy shows to be nothing more than an impulsive drive to be more like the rest of one’s peers, is shattered.

Left with shreds of what it once meant to be human, McCarthy shows his hand, displaying the negative aspects of what was once thought to be so ideal: compassion. The boy reaches out to help fellow humans, to save them from, say, a slaughter house, a trapdoor in a house, and he is chased into the woods. He reaches out to help an old man on the street, and he is threatened. He runs to his fellow man in search of aid, and, though they have abundant supply of resources on a truck, he is nearly killed with a bullet to the brain. He reaches out to give or take compassion, he reaches toward the spark, the kindling of what it meant to be human, and he is scorched.

But what, then, is it to be human, to be “good”? Why must this drive to help, the drive to be kind, the drive to be moral, why does it hurt so? Indeed, McCarthy leaves us on the edges of our seats with these questions, we, the readers, begging to have our visions shattered once more. McCarthy’s answer is simple: it is nothing. The concept of “human,” of “good,” means nothing to an enlightened scholar like McCarthy, as he realizes that this compassion, this “humanity,” is nothing more than what we are taught when we are young. In youth, demonstrated by the boy, what we know comes from who we trust. Though there is nearly no compassion in the father, no spark, the boy lived in a time where there were once “humans,” those billions of compassionate persons, not seeing what evil they bred amongst themselves. The boy is taught to be a “good person,” while those raised in this literal “hell” on earth are taught to survive. And in the end, is that not what humanity is: survival.

Thus, as the concept of “good” is originated from humanity, what happens when humanity disappears? For that is McCarthy’s true apocalypse: the end of humanity, and with it, the death of “good.” “Humans are dead, and we have killed them.”; this might be the battle-cry of the bloodcults, those half-human manifestations of the boy’s “evil.” However, this phrase is more than that – it is the realization that man is not what we are, but what we think we are. “Man,” the benevolent, compassionate, chivalrous hero of our youth, is not who we are. We are no more than molecules, bound by mysterious forces, infused with this energy we hold so precious: “life.” And our lives are similar: they are a collective struggle to retain our own consciousness, our own life – survival. But other than that, McCarthy shows, we are what we make ourselves.

However – as McCarthy clearly incites rebellion against the conception of what it is to be “human” – no good can come of a true struggle. Not only does the boy in the story symbolize the last spark of humanity, but he also symbolizes the persistence of man, the last ember that cannot be stamped, blown, or waited out. The boy remains “good,” in spite of the bad around him; he remains light, in spite of the darkness around him; he remains human, in spite of the inhumanity around him. Nothing can be done. And this spark grows to an ember, this ember to flame, and the flame to a blaze – the infection spreads. For what has happened in the story: the boy is alone in a world of hate, he is blown on by an “uncle,” and the fire spreads to that man, he is kindled by a family, and the fire spreads to them – a slippery slope. Despite the evil, despite the wickedness, despite the problem of compassion, what can be done? McCarthy’s answer: nothing.

–Anonymous

Perspective 2: Of Wakeful Fire

In 1906, Upton Sinclair published The Jungle. The story of a broken and abused Lithuanian man brought about great reforms in meat packing regulation, such as the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act. (Foner) But Sinclair famously decried his apparent success saying:  ”I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.” (King) Hoping to critique capitalism and corporate corruption of the fading Gilded Age, the tale of Jurgis instead simply disgusted Americans who wanted higher quality beef from Chicago and couldn’t care less about the ideological message. The Road, by Cormac McCarthy, has met a similar fate. Its audience has deceived itself into thinking that the tale of a man and his son is either just another made-for-screen drama or a nihilistic ‘God-is-Dead’ downer. On the contrary, The Road is an allegory to affirm Sigmund Freud’s thesis in his book, The Interpretation of Dreams.

Freud is most famous for his psychoanalysis concept; namely, that man has a three-part mind: a combination of the Id, Ego, and Superego. According to Freud, the Id contains the most base proclivities and unchecked desires. The Ego is the rational counterweight that allows man to make moral decisions and construct social structures like government. Most importantly, the Superego is itself the very definition of a human: it is the mechanism that enables the Ego to override the Id: the rational to override the irrational, the dispassionate to supersede the passionate.

Contrary to its misleading title, The Interpretation of Dreams is not a psychic manifesto but rather an extension of this three-part theory. Freud’s thesis is that dreams are the distillation of the Id. They are the stories and images of our most intense desires and drives: those instincts that are subdued by the Superego upon wakefulness. Benjamin Franklin, who coined the term “ego,” believed that such submission was good. He wrote “keep the mind fit and the ego in check.” (Ryan) In The Road, McCarthy agrees that the Superego ought to be elevated; arguing through the illustration of the conflict between a man who seeks to suppress his own dreams and those around him already living in a nightmare.

First, McCarthy reinforces Freud’s notion that the Superego is a natural aspect of the mind by demonstrating that it has been preserved in the Man and Son, despite the breakdown of government, infrastructure, stability, and peace. Even though society has been destroyed, the triumph of principle over raw instinct indicates the author believes the Superego does not require community construction. McCarthy directly ties into Freud’s book because the triumph of the Superego is accomplished mainly by suppressing dreams of comfort. The suppressing of dreams is necessary for the protagonists because only by sacrificing morality can they attain certain material, animal desires. That is, if the man and boy wanted to be consistently well-fed and comfortable, they would need to compromise their Ego by eating other people or ruthlessly taking from those left living. Instead, the man proclaims that the “good guys” have the “fire”: this dominance of the Superego that allows the temptations of comfort to be superseded by the value of moral dignity. He says to the boy, “You have to carry the fire… Where is it? I don’t know where it is. Yes you do. It’s inside of you.” (279) The fire is the Superego. It is the force of humanity that allows the “good” to face starvation of their bodies rather than starvation of their souls.

Another problem with dreams is that, even if they don’t highlight goals that require the compromise of morality, they reinforce the pursuit of impossible ends. Dreams highlight the inability of dreamers to satisfy desires and can be therefore detrimental to realistic hope: the will to live spiritually. McCarthy illustrates this when the he writes of the main character dreaming of his wife who killed herself at the fall of the world.

“He mistrusted all of that… the right dreams for a man in peril were dreams of peril and all else was call for languor and death… He dreamt of walking in a flowering wood where birds flew… he and the child and the sky… aching blue, but he was learning how to wake himself from such siren worlds. Lying awake in the dark with the uncanny taste of a peach from some phantom orchard fading in his mouth.” (18)

He continues, “when your dreams are of some world that never was or some world that never will be… then you’ll have given up. Do you understand? And you can’t give up”. (189)

Although the Superego is natural and dreams can be subdued by individual will, the author still laments the deconstruction of society. Of the main character, he writes, “He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw… the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun… running. The Crushing black vacuum of the universe. And… two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover.” (130) The loss of society is not so much the loss of material things as rather the harm to the Superego. Namely, the characters are referred to as “hunted animals… like ground foxes.” They are in a limbo between the Id and the Ego and their very humanity is pushed to the brink. This brink is created by two factors. First, the rift between dreams and acceptable reality is narrowing. While this may seem to be a good thing, it is actually negative because it makes dreams more difficult to resist. Its one thing to forgo a yacht or sports car for moral reasons, its considerably more difficult to forgo life itself for principle and therefore fewer people do. Second, society provides certain institutions that create incentive for the Superego to override the Id. Laws that would prohibit things like cannibalism and murder ingeniously tap the Id’s material orientation to check itself. Although one may dream of getting extremely wealthy by robbing a bank, the threat of jail time can override this desire even though both are material. On the other hand, without a government to protect rights and the material wealth that allows men to uphold such institutions, the State of Nature is exhibited. Frederick Nietzsche applauds such. He wrote, “I too speak of a ‘return to nature’ although it is not really a going-back but a going-up — up into a high, free, even frightful nature and naturalness.” By offering a dystopic vision of such a “going-up,” that includes deceit, abandon, rape, and, of course, cannibalism, McCarthy demonstrates that social structures are actually good because they institutionalize the Superego.

Whether McCarthy meant to advocate the Superego to protect us from each other or from ourselves, he, Freud, and Franklin have an effective case in The Road. In a world where “Nobody wants to be here and nobody wants to leave”, (169) the Superego is dealt the ultimate crucible. If a conscience can survive in a State of Nature, it is not something constructed by society but instead ought to be revered in a society. Regardless of the unfortunate state of nature that resides within all of us in our darkest and most wonderful dreams, the Superego is what makes us human and serves as a survival mechanism as well as the moral nature that gives us the ultimate dignity and fire.

-Jim Donns

Works Cited…

Freud, Sigmund, and James Strachey. The Interpretation of Dreams. Vol. 4. Plain Label, 1954. Print. Pelican Freud Library.

Goldin, Mark. “Book Review (of) The Road by Cormac McCarthy.” The New Review. Laura Hird. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. <http://www.laurahird.com/newreview/road.html>.

Hsieh, Diana M. “Instinct and Habit Connections between Nietzschean and Aristotelian Acquired Dispositions.” Enlightenment. Washington University in St-Louis, 16 Dec. 1996. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. <http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/dianamertzhsieh/dispositions.html>

King, Steve. “Sinclair’s Jungle.” Barnes and Noble Review. Barnes and Noble Llc, 25 Feb. 2010. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. <http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Daybook/Sinclair-s-Jungle/ba-p/2232>.

McCarthy, Cormac. The Road. 1st ed. New York: Vintage International, 2006. Print.

Nietzche, Friederich W., R. J. Hollingdale, and Michael Tanner. Twilight of the Idols; And, The Anti-Christ. 2nd ed. Penguin Classics, 1990. Print. Reprint.

Ryan, Rey. “Sigmeund Freud: Psychoanalytic Stage.” Nursingbuzz. Mapiles.com, 11 Feb. 2010. Web. 5 Mar. 2010. <http://nursingbuzz.com/sigmeund-freud-psychoanalytic-stage/>.

“Sigmund Freud.” Dream Moods. Dreammoods.com, 5 May 2009. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. <http://www.dreammoods.com/dreaminformation/dreamtheory/freud.htm>.

Web. “Pure Food and Drug Act.” The Reader’s Companion to American History, Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, Editors, published by. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991. Answers.com 05 Mar. 2010. <http://www.answers.com/topic/pure-food-and-drug-act>.

Perspective 3: Society’s Fall and the Social Contract

“With nothing to counter his wickedness,  the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Thomas Hobbes is famous for saying this in his work Leviathan, The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil, commonly called Leviathan (1651). The book concerns the structure of society and the structure of a legitimate government, proposing the ’social contract’ political theory. Cormac McCarthy’s novel The Road firmly supports the Hobbesian political theory by envisioning a world in dire need for order as man reverts to his natural state.

Hobbes’ theory takes root in the idea that man is inherently wicked. He makes the claim that man, in his state of nature, resorts to chaos and civil war. Stemming from that premise, Hobbes’ social contract theory claims that without a strong central government, man devolves into bellum omnium contra omnes (the war of all against all). The world presented in McCarthy’s post-apocalyptic work of fiction The Road is an obvious example of this idea. The picture McCarthy paints shows a world where  man must fight against his fellow man everyday in order to survive.

In the novel, society has crumbled. Where there was once government and order – the powerful, idealistic Democracies of the West – there is only Anarchy left. Armageddon  has wiped these notions of the face of the Earth. In one passage, McCarthy writes of his main character “he saw the absolute truth of the world. Darkness implacable… The crushing black vacuum of  the universe. And… two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover.” The man —McCarthy’s main character—believes this of the wasteland him and his son inhabit. The two animals being hunted are himself and his son. Hobbes worst fears have been realized. Man hunts man; cannibalism has become the norm. Fighting for survival, man wages war against all of his fellow men. Man’s state of nature is no longer philosophical discourse, but has become a most terrifying reality. Man, answering to no one, is free to kill and destroy as he pleases.

Goodness cannot survive in this environment. Cormac illustrates this through the character of the boy. He is referred to, throughout the book, as the last remnant of goodness left in the world. He is referred to as “carrying the fire”. The boy is created as a foil to the idea of man’s intrinsic wickedness. However, pouring a glass of tap-water into the ocean does not purify it of its salt. Similarly, an outlier to man’s wickedness, i.e the boy, does not redeem man from struggle, war, and cannibalism.

Therefore, McCarthy’s novel argues persuasively in favor of powerful government to achieve order. He outlines the treachery man is capable of when unbridled from civil laws and personal property. Thus, one is meant to realize that humanity’s survival and an individual’s safety depends on the rule of a strong, central government. When this system is eliminated, man is in constant danger from his fellow man. Any redeemable qualities of man are suffocated by the overwhelming force of the evil that is at his core.

Being the case, only a strong central government, led by an all-powerful sovereign  can restore order in McCarthy’s envisioned nightmare. In a lawless world, with no authority, rape, cannibalism, theft, and murder become justifiable; there is nothing to counter them. Without authority, without consequences,  man devolves and becomes bold – as Hobbes says Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei (there is no power on Earth that can compare to him). His ability for evil and destruction is unsurpassed; thus, a world where man is not subservient to a powerful is a world of bitter chaos and nasty.

–Dan McCarthy

Works Cited…

McCarthy, Cormac. The Road. Vintage Books: New York. 2007.

The definition of genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. There are currently two kinds of genocide in the world. First, there is the genocide that occurs in war, it is illegal, prohibited by law, and prohibited by the United Nations. It occurs against the conscience of the world. Then, there is genocide that occurs in peace, it is legal in most countries, and is encouraged by the UN. This type of genocide is abortion.
Since its arrival to our country in 1973, abortion is responsible for the deaths of 49,551,703 babies. All major American War’s from The American Revolution to the War in Iraq have accounted for 1.3 million deaths. Let’s do the math. The total number of aborted babies (in a span of 36 years) is 37.8 times more than the total number of deaths in every American war since 1775 (234 years).
The targets of American genocide are disproportionately found among children from poor families, handicap children, and African American children. In fact, ninety percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. The ability to decide the fate of someone in the womb based of real or perceived life challenges or parental preferences is a scary thought. In China, this has lead to gender selective abortions that are at epidemic proportions. In black communities: for every baby born three are aborted, that is over double the abortion rates of white babies. “The abortion industry plants their [abortion clinics] in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope. The greatest irony is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.” Alveda King (Niece of Rev. Martin Luther King)
The scourge of abortion is caused from a lack of love and hope. The lack of love is the selfless love exhibited by Jesus Christ on the cross. This love, which calls us to sacrifice our self, our time, and our money, is the only antidote to abortion that will win in the long run. Not until we value people regardless of what their health prospects are, their poverty level, or above our own convenience, will we be able to overcome this American Genocide. As Mother Theresa said: “It is poverty to DECIDE that a child must die so that you can live as you wish”.
Finally, we must be vigilant against the “Culture of Death” identified by Pope John Paul II. This Culture of Death is a political, social, and economic thought process that wants to control our culture by maintaining access to abortion, supporting Euthanasia, and preventing mentally, physically, or economically challenged babies from seeing the light of day. We must protest against this stain on America’s culture and PRAY to end abortion!

–Michael Costello

Irish bishop is first to quit over child sex abuse scandal

An Irish bishop flew to Rome yesterday to hand in his resignation after days of angry and intense pressure over his handling of cases of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.

Donal Murray, Bishop of Limerick (pictured), gave every sign of acting with great reluctance, after spending some days apparently playing for time in the hope of keeping his post. But the wave of shock and horror which followed publication of a damning report, which revealed a systematic high-level church cover-up of the abuse of children by priests, is in effect sweeping him from office.

The report revealed that archbishops of Dublin had over a quarter of a century ensured that the activities of paedophile priests were kept secret. The result was that in many cases priests were left free to continue their abuse. The report concluded, and the Irish public has accepted, with dismay and sustained rage, that the church routinely placed its own image ahead of the protection of vulnerable children. In the case of Bishop Murray, pictured, the report concluded that he had acted “inexcusably” in one case, and that he had handled other complaints and suspicions badly.

One attempt at mitigation, pleading that he was a relatively inexperienced bishop, has been undermined by the fact that he was a professor of moral theology with a particular expertise in ethics.

The sense of outrage against the church is so strong that although he is the first clerical casualty of the affair he may not be the last. The report concluded that various other churchmen were also guilty of acts of both omission and commission.

Most unusually, criticism has not been confined to the Irish church but is also being made of the Vatican itself.

Rome did not respond to repeated letters from the commission which produced the report, and since it appeared has refrained from offering any detailed response beyond generalised expressions of sorrow.

This has not been enough for the Irish government, with Foreign Minister Micheal Martin expressing “deep disappointment” at Rome’s response. He complained: “The Pope has not responded yet to the appalling revelations of the Murphy inquiry.”

The papal nuncio, who is in effect the Vatican’s ambassador to Ireland, has been summoned to the Irish foreign office to give an explanation. Mr Martin said: “We will be pointing out that we need a substantive response.”

–David McKittrick, Ireland Correspondent, The Independent

Dear Church Leaders of Today,

I come to you with a very serious problem: corruption in our church. All over, there are stories of sexual assault and molestation, scandals and cover-ups, political campaigns, and more.  Since when did our church’s mission be to gain power, to abuse authority, and to make money?  Is this truly what God wants?

I come to you answering a call from God Himself.  He, in all of His infinite and divine wisdom, wishes me to beg you to repent and to reconsider your devious acts of malice.   Remember, it is never too late to be liberated from your sins, for God is a loving and forgiving God.

The Roman Catholic Church has had corruption and struggles since its conception.   From the time of King Henry II and Pope Gregory I, the Roman Catholic Church has been caught in scandalous situations, conning its followers.  Whenever Church and state intermix, detrimental effects ensue.  So why must the church become a political campaign?  Although God wants us to spread His message, I’m sure it is not His intention to have us brainwash people into agreeing with His ‘infallible’ Church on all subjects. The truth of the matter is, the Church is not omniscient.

Everyday it seems you hear a new story of a priest sexually abusing a parishioner; oftentimes a child.  These stories are sickening to read, and too vulgar to comprehend.  Furthermore one is assailed by stories of rampaging bishops persecuting the gay community.  Bishops use their power to further their careers, wealth, and personal objectives.  You even hear about priests caught up in scandals including drugs, money, and adultery.  Practically all of God’s commandments are being shattered.  If one cannot even look to priests for a  standard of moral conduct, then whom CAN we look to?

We need to change our ways.  I am not saying it will be easy, for I am aware that it will not be.  A solution may be to make it more difficult to become a priest as to thwart off any potential candidates that may be unscrupulous.

I do not think that Bishops, Archbishops, and the Pope should have as much power and control as they do.  Power makes man go mad, no matter how levelheaded he may be.  I also think that women should be able to enter the priesthood, or at least some equivalent to it.  Who are we to say that women are not equal to men? What is the theological basis for this assumption? It is  proven that women have an exponentially lower tendency to commit sexual abuse along with a more common tendency to be more tender and docile than their male counterparts.

If we do not make these vital changes, the Church will continue to fall, be overcome with nefarious activity, and lose followers daily.  If changes are implemented, this transformation will bring  honor and respect back to the Catholic Church. We  then may begin the mission of spreading the great word of God.  For remember, there is no time like the present.

Sincerely,

Concerned Catholic

There are 100,000,000 Americans suffering with diseases that could possibly be cured with stem cells.  It is the fault of closed minded, ill-informed Americans that President Obama is not getting full support on the issue of governmental funding for this invaluable research about embryonic stem cells and their uses.  Don’t let yourselves be one of those individuals standing directly in the path of cures to diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, and paralyzation.  The possibilities of cures to the diseases that plague society today using stem cells are enumerable, and everyone should support President Obama in his decision to initiate governmental funding of stem cell research.

What are stem cells?  Well, stem cells are a base cell of sorts, that have the possibility to grow and develop into almost any type of cell in the human body; even the cells we as humans can’t grow back naturally.  Stem cells can be collected from bone marrow, embryos, and umbilical cord blood.  How is this helpful?  Well, say you were in a bad car accident, and now you are a paraplegic; you can’t move your legs.  Using stem cell therapy, there is a possibility that your damaged nerve cells can be replenished, gaining back your full mobility and use of your once marred legs.

Many people are ill informed when it comes to embryonic stem cells.  Some people are misled to believe that aborted fetuses are used for this research, but this is not the case.  Scientists use egg cells donated by willing women and then fertilize them in the lab.  Once the artificial embryo is about a week old, scientists do research on these newly formed cells.  The fact is that these cells have no brain, no organ systems, and are laboratory generated.  How is that morally wrong?

You may be wondering, “If stem cells are so useful, why are people opposed to the funding of such research?”  The controversy is whether or not it’s morally correct to use embryonic stem cells, or cells from embryos.  Many staunch pro-life advocates say that using these seven-day-old embryos is wrong and degrades the value of life, but think about this:  Would you find it morally wrong to test on a week old cluster of cells to help save say a 40 year old woman dying of breast cancer?  Or how about to help an old sick grandfather with Parkinson’s disease who can’t stop shaking?   These are all things to consider before you yourself come up with your stance on stem cell research.

In summation, the benefits of stem cell research go beyond anything that we can imagine.   There is a possibility that the deadly diseases we face today will be obsolete to the new generation.  All we can do is support these scientists who are working tirelessly to find the cure to the afflictions that affect our loved ones everyday.

–Anonymous

These days, a lot of people seem to think of Thanksgiving is nothing but a warm-up for Christmas.  The commercials for all the new gift ideas have started already, and one local radio station is even playing Christmas music round the clock.  Don’t get me wrong, Christmas is great; but Thanksgiving is a different holiday.

The stories we have of the first Thanksgiving are largely exaggerated, but we do know that at some point, the Pilgrims and their Pokanoket allies gathered and had a feast to celebrate their new alliance.  This was a difficult time for both of them, as the Pokanokets had just been ravaged by a plague and the Pilgrims had lost most of their friends and shipmates during the hellish ordeal of reaching America and surviving their first year here.  Still, they found something to celebrate.

Abraham Lincoln made Thanksgiving a national holiday while the Civil War was raging.  It was a hard time for all Americans, but Lincoln realized that the only way we could survive was by remembering the good things we still had.  During the toughest of times, our forefathers always found something for which to give thanks.

So why, on a day set aside for giving thanks, do we think only about eating and about the presents we will receive in a month’s time?  Don’t we have enough material possessions already?  This Thanksgiving, let’s all try to remember the real meaning of the holiday.  Lets savor the time we spend with our families and, rather than just gorging ourselves, let’s savor each bite of Thanksgiving dinner and remember the hard work that went into making it.  Once we realize how much we really have to give thanks for, we will be able to enter into the next holiday season with joyful hearts, ready to give rather than just receive.

–Kevin Jones

Protesting parishioners agree to leave St. John the Baptist Church in Akron

AKRON, Ohio — For the first time since the Cleveland Catholic Diocese began closing churches this year as part of a major restructuring, parishioners and protesters tried Saturday to prevent one from being shuttered.

A small group of people — many from other parishes slated for closing — gathered after the final Mass at St. John the Baptist Church on Saturday and announced they were holding a vigil.

Barbara Piurkowsky, a member of the parish, said the decision to merge St. John with another Akron church was shortsighted and illogical.

About a dozen people sat for nearly two hours before a cadre of Akron police officers told them they would be arrested if they stayed. The group complied. The diocese, after getting wind of the vigil plans, got a temporary restraining order signed by a Summit County magistrate ordering that the church be vacated.

In March, Bishop Richard Lennon unveiled a plan to downsize the eight-county diocese by 50 parishes. So far, about a dozen parishes have closed or merged with others. In his final words to the St. John congregation, Lennon said, “You are greater than any temple, church or cathedral that can be built by human hands.”

Some in the protest group — including Nancy McGrath of Endangered Catholics, a local coalition fighting the closing of churches — said they would find another way to further the fight.

Before they were escorted out, Lennon approached the group sitting in pews and asked them to “kindly leave the church.”

That request instigated a heated exchange as the protesters accused Lennon of trading “souls for cash” and of not including parishioners in the consolidation decision.

“We have the responsibility to the many people who never were heard,” McGrath said.

“The people are the church, and we’re taking the church back.”

Lennon shot back that the group did not represent the people of the church. Hundreds attended the final Mass, but only a few stayed to support the vigil.

“You have claimed this on your own,” he said.

Lennon, who was a bishop in the Boston archdiocese before coming to Cleveland, began closing Boston churches in the summer of 2004. Currently, six churches in Massachusetts are under occupation by parishioners. Five are in Boston and one in Springfield.

Attempts to occupy a church in New York and two churches in New Orleans were quashed as parishioners were arrested and removed from the sanctuaries.

Lennon made it clear in his conversation with the protesters that the situation in Boston would not be repeated.

St. John the Baptist is set to merge with Annunciation a few miles away and form a new parish next week called Visitation of Mary. The etched bronze front doors, made by a parish member, and the communion chalice, used for more than 100 years, will follow the church to the new location.

Monica Fanady was born two blocks away from St. John and attended for 75 years. She was baptized and married in the church, and her children attended the now-closed school.

Fanady, who came early to hang bows on the pews of the 102-year-old church, said that the closing was bittersweet but that she thought the protest was uncalled for.

“We could see that we were slowly slipping away,” she said. “There were more funerals than baptisms.”

She said many of the faithful had migrated away, leaving only 250 families, though the church was financially sound. “It was not about how much money we have. That means nothing without people.”

–Rachel Dissell, The Plain Dealer

The Cleveland Catholic Diocese is currently experiencing what many people see as a crisis.  Due to a shortage of both funds and parishioners, many Catholic parishes are being forced to combine or close.  This has raised concerns about what will become of the beautiful architecture and valuable artwork that adorns many of the closing churches.  In addition, many churchgoers feel sentimental about their parishes and are unwilling to move to a new church.  However, Catholics often forget that the beautiful buildings that we must now say goodbye to be only bonuses, and that the Church is about more than the temples it builds.

Beautiful temples are important to almost every major religion.  They help set the mood for worship and express the devotion of the congregation.  However, it wasn’t always that way.  Look at just about any religion, and you will find a time when they were persecuted.  The Jews were enslaved in Egypt.  Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was driven from his home because of his beliefs. Jesus of Nazareth and many of his early followers were murdered by the Romans.  During these troubled times, believers did not dare to build anything more elaborate than a simple chapel or a secret room to worship in.  And yet today these are three of the largest religious groups ever.  How is this possible?  Because the true believers realized that a basement, a tent, or even a stretch of open ground was all they needed to worship.  As long as there were believers, there was a church.  If modern Catholics could remember the struggles that their forefathers went through, maybe they wouldn’t be so concerned about the fate of the closing churches.

Losing the beautiful artwork in Cleveland’s churches would indeed be tragic, but it would not be the end of the Church.  Temples can be rebuilt, and new works of art are made every day.  But people can’t be recreated.  The solidarity of Catholics around the world is more important than buildings that will eventually crumble anyway.

–Kevin Jones

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

–Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

If there was only one injustice in the world that you could eliminate, what would it be and why?

–Nathan Peereboom

“Injustice can be eliminated, but human conflicts and natural limitations cannot be removed. The conflicts of social life and the limitations of nature cannot be controlled or transcended. They can, however, be endured and survived. It is possible for there to be a dance with life, a creative response to its intrinsic limits and challenges … [A Feminist Ethic of Risk]”

–Dr. Sharon Welch, Associate Professor of Theology and Applied Theology, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Author of Communities of Resistance and Solidarity.

RE:

If I could only eliminate one injustice it would be the flawed egocentric structure of the mind. The Greek philosopher Protagoras, (praised by Plato as a ‘teacher of virtue’) famously exclaimed that “Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not”. That is, man is the standard of all things, even of man himself. One measures another man in relation to another. Because of this, life must exploit itself in order to continue. The tall man is so in relation to the short man. The rich man is so in relation to the poor man. This causes the best consolation of your fellow man to be the reality of those in a plight far worse. ‘Oh, you don’t have X? Well at least you aren’t a starving African living in the Republic of Liberia.’

This applies anywhere from Wall Street to the jungle. A panther must kill just as a man must exploit his own kind. The former case is propelled by a means for survival, and the latter, by unfettered greed and insatiable ambition as a means of alleviating the boredom of life. I would not eliminate life itself, as such a wish is an endeavor of folly, but I would eliminate the design of it, being an injustice unto itself.

–Blake Thomas

Republican Plot to Make Obama Look Like a Socialist: (blogs.law.harvard.edu/)

Yesterday’s New York Times: “the government is the nation’s biggest lender, insurer, automaker and guarantor against risk for investors large and small. … government spending accounts for a bigger share of the nation’s economy — 26 percent — than at any time since World War II. The government is financing 9 out of 10 new mortgages in the United States. … To Mr. Obama’s critics, thousands of whom took to the streets of Washington this weekend to protest a new era of big government, all these efforts are part of a plan to dismantle free-market capitalism.”

Who decided to print trillions of dollars and give them to banks? The Bush Administration. Who decided to print hundreds of billions of dollars and give them to AIG? The Bush Administration. Who decided not to tell General Motors and Chrysler to work out their problems in bankruptcy court like any other company not smart enough to recognize the implications of pension and health care guarantees (see While America Aged)? The Bush Administration started with the Detroit bailout.

A theory consistent with the facts is that King Bush II knew that the next president would be a Democrat, due to the endless depressing Iraq/Afghanistan war. He therefore intentionally wrecked the economy and then took over much of it in order to make the next administration look like socialists.

Going by the numbers and facts, an economic historian would have little choice but to classify the U.S. circa 2009 as a socialist nation. Government at all levels spends a greater percentage of GDP than does China’s (source), for example, and the government either directly owns or assumes financial risks for a lot of our largest enterprises. How did we get here? It was a Republican plot to make Obama look like a socialist, by the clever strategy of converting the U.S. into a fully socialist economy prior to January 20, 2009.

–Philip Greenspun (philg@mit.edu)

I believe our country is becoming too Socialistic. Of course there is some socialistic aspects of our government but is it being taken to far? For those struggling to understand the definition of socialism I found this definition which sums it up pretty well: “Socialism is any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.”

Now, is this not beginning to sound more and more like our country’s new government? The government has enough power. The government’s taking over industry means that we the people will not be able to flourish on our own. Do you like coco puffs? Eat them while you can because if socialism takes anymore steps forward in overcoming our government. You will not have a choice in which cereal you buy: we will all be eating cheerios (or some type of regulated sugar free cereal).

The government should not be allowed to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own hard earned money. If I want to buy a gas guzzling hummer instead of a Prius then that’s my choice, not the government’s.

What do you think? I want everyone who read this to give their opinion.

–Wes Weber

Most people are both right and wrong in their assumptions about truth being relative. They’re right in the essence of their questioning whether the statement “Truth is Subjective” includes itself. They’re wrong because they fail to comprehend the true nature of a relative universe. The idea of a relative universe is based on a relative understanding of truth.

Without this understanding, we cannot truly view a relative universe at its barest form, that is, as relative. We must subscribe to the true knowledge (note, knowledge, not belief, for in a relative universe, one must know, not believe) that the universe is inherently relative. Once one does this, it is feasible that the statement “All truth is relative” is simply obsolete. Because, with a relative understanding of truth, one sees that whatever one knows to be true is true. Therefore, if one knows there is an objective reality that our reality is modeled after and subscribes to completely, then that person’s reality becomes an objective reality. You see that, if one knows that the statement “All truth is relative” is absolute, then it becomes absolute.

However, one does not need to know that the universe is relative. In fact, they can honestly know that the universe is objective, and it will be. That is the essence of relative truth. You see, their logic is flawed on the most basic presumption that a relative truth denies absolutes. In fact, it does just the opposite. It confirms absolutes. However, these absolutes are not absolutes in the objective sense of the term, but subjective absolutes, meaning that whatever one truly and completely knows becomes their absolute. So, indeed, all truth could be relative, and we would not even have to believe that it is.

Cam Colella