Bernie Sanders speaks to 12,000 students, faculty and administrators at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., a stronghold of political and religious conservatism:.
Comments | 13
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search iBrattleboro
Local Advertisements
Log In
Tags
2020
agenda
arts
bctv
bike
Brattleboro
Brooks Memorial Library
budget
candidate
climate
COVID-19
CPCC
downtown
DPW
election
EMS
energy
Finance
fire
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
Gibson-Aiken
Hinsdale bridge
housing
Main Street
music
Next Stage
parking
police
Putney
RTM
sbmn
schedule
Selectboard
skatepark
tree
Trump
vermont
Vermont AFL-CIO
VFW
WSESD
WSESU
good speech
I thought he gave a good speech. I’d bet that most in the audience had never heard anything quite like it before. It may have had the effect of jamming the signals from their known universe – somewhat limited and right-wing Christian- and possibly provoking some discussion afterward. He did give them some things to chew on:
….
“I am not a theologian or an expert on the Bible or a Catholic. I am just a U.S. senator from the small state of Vermont. But I agree with Pope Francis when he says: “The current financial crisis… originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose.”
He also states: “There is a need for financial reform along ethical lines that would produce in its turn an economic reform to benefit everyone. Money has to serve, not to rule.”
In his view, and I agree with him, we are living in a nation and in a world which worships the acquisition of money and great wealth, but which turns its back on those in need. And that must end. We need to move toward an economy which works for all, and not just the few.”
Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” (New International Version)
Nothing new
As a skeptic all I see in Sanders is straightforward, party-line rhetoric as often seen from the party left.
Does anyone know how many times over forty-seven years of my voting age life that I’ve heard the same things, almost word-for-word, as is stated here? How many times since Kennedy have I heard a call to “We need to move toward an economy which works for all, and not just the few.”? And always but always never is a new economic paradigm defined, much less enacted. And never does the numbers of poor people change. I don’t know why you all even bother. Of yeah, it’s really just popular rhetoric.
How many times over those forty-seven years have I’ve seen a gullible public fall for it time and again? The answer is ‘every time.”
But the worse thing of all is when the candidates, elected officials and the public mix God/religion and public secular politics designed for all people. It is an exclusionary tactic where god become a litmus test each candidate must pass. And, “god forbid” that a nonbeliever should try to run for “public” office.
it might be different
I dunno. I’ve seen evidence of Sanders doing the things he talks about. When we first moved here, he was chartering busses to take seniors to Canada to buy cheaper prescriptions. He’s gotten regional health care clinics started and funded, and has helped vets. I know people who have talked to him personally, and his office has helped them.
I can’t say that about Leahy. I’ve heard Leahy say great things, then fail to back up the rhetoric with votes. Or worse, introduce awful legislation.
I do agree that we’ve heard this sort of talk before, and nothing has changed, but that’s often because the electorate decides to vote for the “safe” option that they are told is the only one who can win. Bernie can win, which is a bit different.
I didn’t see this speech as Sanders passing any litmus test. It was more along the lines of knowing enough about religion to quote it back at people who live by it. Knowing about religion and basing one’s policy on it are two different things. Atheists have to “know” religion enough to reject it.
The intent of the founding members of this nation
I agree about Leahy. I don’t think he is on Sander’s level, as you describe him.
Personally, I refrain from predicting who will or who can win. Only Nov 8th will reveal that.
There is no way Sanders will pander to the Atheist, Nonbeliever groups like I see him doing with religion groups in this speech.. Even though Atheists, Nonbelievers make up roughly about 25 million Americans I don’t think they are on Sanders political radar.
I can’t speak directly for Atheists because I’m not an Atheist. As a nonbeliever I do not need to know enough about the entire myriad of religions extant in modern times. In fact, I wouldn’t waste my time and it would be an impossible or certainly a futile task.
In fact, this very discussion has no place in secular politics as I understand the intent of the founding members of this nation to be.
Pandering?
I don’t see him pandering to anyone. Talking to people others might avoid, but not pandering.
Pandering would be saying that he goes along with what they are taught at Liberty, with no challenge to them. Vote for me because we think alike…
In this speech he started by saying that they would disagree. Then he laid out items of disagreement. His only mention of religion was to use it as a tool to try to break through to young people who are used to a single message and a single book. His big “religious” statement was that we should treat others as we’d expect to be treated ourselves. And that he agreed with the Pope that people are worshipping money.
Those seem to be values he holds that he was able to translate into terms the crowd might understand.
In general, I don’t recall Sanders ever invoking religious beliefs as a reason for any decision here in Vermont. Compared to the GOP, he’s practically silent on religion (for good reason, as you point out, that it isn’t part of our government.) I’m not sure I could accurately name his religion, if he has one, and don’t really care what it is in the first place.
Hard right commentators laughed at his attempt at Liberty, called him a socialist Jew (i.e., Christ), or a commie atheist. Not sure they are sure. The main, odd, comment I saw after was a picture of him at the event, with the phrase “Does anyone see the irony?” being batted about and retweeted. Uh, no. I don’t.
An evangelical response
This popped up. Quite interesting. The full version can be linked but this excerpt is brief and, well, not stunning but accurate and notable.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421659/-An-Evangelical-responds-to-Sanders-speech-at-Liberty-U
The religious left?
Seems to have won this person over, (for being like John the Baptist and a bit like Jesus.)
Chris Hedges views on Bernie - September 20, 2015
(Hint: He’s not a fan)
You cannot be a socialist and an imperialist. You cannot, as Bernie Sanders has done, support the Obama administration’s wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen and be a socialist. You cannot, as Sanders has done, vote for every military appropriations bill, including every bill and resolution that empowers and sanctions Israel to carry out its slow-motion genocide of the Palestinian people, and be a socialist. And you cannot laud, as Sanders has done, military contractors because they bring jobs to your state. Sanders may have the rhetoric of inequality down, but he is a full-fledged member of the Democratic Caucus, which kneels before the war industry and their lobbyists. And no genuine grass-roots movement will ever be born within the bowels of the Democratic Party establishment, which is currently attempting to shut down Sanders to make sure its anointed candidate is the nominee. No elected official dares to challenge any weapons system, no matter how costly or redundant. And Sanders, who votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time, steers clear of confronting the master of war.
Sanders, of course, like all elected officials, profits from this Faustian pact. The Vermont Democratic Party leadership, in return for his deference, has not supported any candidate to run against Sanders since 1990. Sanders endorses Democratic candidates, no matter how much they push neoliberalism down our throats, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. And Sanders, carrying water for the Democrats, is the primary obstacle to the building of a third party in Vermont.
There is a reason no establishment politician, including Sanders, dares say a word against the war industry. If you do, you end up like Ralph Nader, tossed into the political wilderness. Nader was not afraid to speak this truth. And it is in the wilderness, I am afraid, that real socialists must for the moment reside. Socialists understand that if we do not dismantle the war industry, nothing, absolutely nothing, will change; indeed, things will only get worse.
War is a business. Imperial wars seize natural resources on behalf of corporations and ensure the profits of the arms industry. This is as true in Iraq as it was in our campaigns of genocide against Native Americans. And, as A. Philip Randolph said, it is only when it is impossible to profit from war that wars will be dramatically curtailed, if not stopped. No one sitting in the boardroom of General Dynamics is hoping peace breaks out in the Middle East. No one in the Pentagon, especially the generals who build their careers by fighting and managing wars, prays for a cessation of conflict.
War, wrapped in the cant of nationalism and the euphoria that comes with the giddy celebration of power and violence, is used by ruling elites to thwart and destroy the aspirations of workingmen and -women and distract us from our disempowerment.
“Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. … And that is war, in a nutshell,” the [five-time] socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs said during World War I. “The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.”
The "gullible public falls for it time and again."
Chris Hedges: “Socialists understand that if we do not dismantle the war industry, nothing, absolutely nothing, will change; indeed, things will only get worse.”
Chris Hedges: “And Sanders, who votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time, steers clear of confronting the master of war.”
Anyone who falls for any candidate that works so closely with the Incumbency Party (Democrats & Republicans) as Hedges points out about Sanders, is at the least trusting, and worse a perpetuator of war and intentional poverty, and, as Hedges says, are: “wrapped in the cant of nationalism and the euphoria that comes with the giddy celebration of power and violence, is used by ruling elites to thwart and destroy the aspirations of workingmen and -women and distract us from our disempowerment.”
I repeat, “How many times over (these) forty-seven years have I’ve seen a gullible public fall for it time and again? The answer is ‘every time.” The Sanders, “euphoria” notwithstanding, here we go again.
I’m in line with Hedges. We need about 307 million more of him.
I’m glad tomaidh posted this. (I would have liked to see a link of this Hedges quote, but it’s solid without it.)
So I assume Chris Hedges
So I assume Chris Hedges isn’t including the Russian socialists in his definition. Or for that matter the Chinese. Seems like wish-ful thinking on his part to define socialists as always against war. I wish he would have been a bit more explanatory about what countries or cultures he believes are true socialists that fit within his definition. A few examples please, Mr. Hedges. As for Ralph Nader, again, a bit simplistic, Nader is much more complex than Hedges description of him to my mind.
By strict definition you can very easily be a socialist and still an imperialist. I guess it depends on what your definitions are but it seems to me that you could very easily have a nation or society where corporate interests are owned by the government as opposed to individuals and still have same nation/society attempting to extend their beliefs in their system to other countries through war-like actions. Seems like it’s happened a few times in the history of mankind.
What It Means to Be a Socialist - By Chris Hedges Sep 20
Chris Hedges gave this speech Sunday, Sept. 20, at a Santa Ana, Calif., event sponsored by the Green Party of Orange County.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_it_means_to_be_a_socialist_20150920/
Omy'God it's true. Jay Janson
Omy’God it’s true. Jay Janson has morphed into Chris Hedges. So sad. “First and foremost, all socialists are unequivocal anti-militarists and anti-imperialists.” So Simplistic. And so historically inaccurate.