It's your job, yo.

I vow to be the wind in his sails from now on. A mighty wind will I blow, directly into what I take to be his sails.

No one should be on the receiving end of a beat down for peacefully, non-violently protesting.

No one.

Here's hoping he gets a fair hearing for his complaint.

That said, much of the Occupy movement really ought to take a page from the civil disobedience playbook used by pro-life demonstrators when they were in their 1980s heyday. Goes something like this:

1. If you want to block the entrance to something, you get a whole bunch of people together and do so. You sit down and refuse to move.
2. When police order you to move, you do not.
3. When police begin arresting people, you stay put and wait to be arrested.
4. When it's your turn to be arrested, you let the police cuff you and escort you to the paddywagon. If you're a diehard, you go limp which requires multiple officers.

No muss, no fuss. Cops are just doing their jobs, and the protesters make their point, causing a little bit of inconvenience for everybody along the way. That's what makes it civil disobedience.

To my mind, the biggest mistake of the Occupy Seattle protests have morphed into "right-to-trespass" protests and a refusal by participants to allow themselves to be.

Instead, you see OS using asymmetrical tactics to avoid arrest. Next thing you know, police have to amp up their tactics and an old lady is pepper-sprayed in downtown Seattle.

allow themselves to be *arrested*.

@4 -- Did you just say 'should'? Nice.

Law EnFORCEment is just that. It comes down to punching and beating and dragging and kicking people. It's a dirty, hands on business.

And dude wasn't moving. He had to be FORCED to move.

Again, it's a dirty, nasty business; and as a clergy who inokes the rich tradition of 'liberation', is putting his fucking life on the line. Full stop.

Generally I reserve my sympathy for the many people who have been beaten up by the cops while minding their own business or attempting to comply with orders.

If you are deliberately seeking confrontation with the police, it's seems a little disingenuous to complain when the police hold up their end of the deal.

That said, sorry you were assaulted, and I wish you a speedy recovery. The internet is a mob that often reflects the worst of humanity. Don't pay it no mind.

I got beat up once (I had it coming) but it showed. I guess cops know how to punch someone repeatedly in the face leaving nary a mark. I agree, though - it's a dehumanizing experience and wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Still, you're familiar with Slog comments, right? Only a religious man would have that kind of optimism.

I feel you - it's a tough crowd here, John. While there are plenty of reasonable folks to engage with in debate/discussion, it's best to just ignore the trolls - they're contrary by design, no matter the topic.

I hope you can find justice for what's happened, and that ultimately something good comes out of your experience. I'm not a Christian, but I don't believe anyone deserves to be abused.

complaint, not 'compaint', bubbeleh.

There's a video of the police grabbing him from behind and presumably throwing him to ground (it's off camera). I don't know commenters would be criticizing him for peaceful resistance. I'd remind people that a lot of the trollers on here (like @2) are paid by the right wing and posing as individuals.

Aw, asking internet trolls to be 'nice'. Guaranteed success there mate.

It's unfortunate that the guy got hurt, but you can't just interject yourself into a volatile situation and exclaim you're a "man of peace," like that's some sort of invisible force field that should protect you from harm. It's rather naive to think that would work.

How can you have an informed opinion of life if you have never been beaten up? Consider it a bit of enlightenment.

You know that thing where you find comfort in the religious text of your choosing during dark times? Where it gives meaning to your life, renews your faith in the basic goodness of humanity, gives you the strength to go on? Yeah, reading anonymous internet comments is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Don't do it. At least until you're whole again.

More than 5,000 protestors have been arrested since the occupy movement launched, not a single person responsible for the collapse of the global economy has bee charged. Rather, companies like Goldmen Sachs are going for round two as they pillage the wealth of nation states.

(1) If you knew anything at all about SLOG, you'd know that there are a highly disproportionate number of LGBT and atheist folks here, neither of which are predisposed to be overly sympathetic to religionists.

(2) I wasn't there and I didn't see what happened. I read your side of the story. Quite frankly, I'm a bit skeptical. I know Seattle cops don't have the best reputation these days, but I'm having a hard time buying the story that the cops blithely threw down a robed minister and beat the shit out of him for no reason at all. Maybe that's what actually happened. Maybe there were some other protesters around you that were causing problems and you got caught up in the fray. Maybe you aren't quite as peaceable as you claim. I don't know. I'd like to hear the other side of this story, or any other reliable witnesses.

(3) A priest's collar is not a get-out-of-jail free card. It doesn't afford you any special privileges. If you stand at the front of a protest, and the cops start arresting people, then you should be arrested just like anyone else, collar or no collar. If they detained the other arrested protesters for 12 hours, why should you be treated any differently?

(4) I have complete sympathy and respect for peaceful protesters. Police should never use violence against truly peaceful protests. But from what I've read, the protesters at the port weren't exactly peaceful. When you start throwing rebar and flares and other harmful objects at police, it ceases being a peaceful protest and turns into a mob. Again, I wasn't there. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't throwing rebar. But when shit starts getting thrown around, it can be a bit hard for the cops to see who's throwing stuff and who's just shouting and flailing their arms around peaceably. That kind of confusion is certainly no fun when you're on the receiving end of it, but my sympathy for Occupiers goes out the window when they start throwing rebar at cops. Sorry.

Wow, apparently some people think a Christian pastor doesn't deserve support because they disagree with theology they assume he holds?

I especially enjoyed the re-branding of a Methodist pastor as an "atheist" because he does not promote the kind of hypocritical, flying spaghetti monster-esque God that so many people (both Christian and non) insist are a requirement of Christian belief. (@15, other thread.)

News-flash 99%ers: a full 76% of the population of the US are Christian. 4% are Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Pagan, etc. So, 80%. Only 1.5% are athiest or agnostic.*** To alienate supporters because they are religious is to shoot yourself and the whole movement in the groin.

**stats from 2012 US Census statistical abstract

"I understand a lot of people have been hurt by religion,..." No, I don't think you do because it's still going on. It's not past tense. And children are the most vulnerable victims of religion these days. So excuse us if your chosen profession doesn't get some respect sometimes. Maybe it shouldn't.

I wasn't there or know how it went down, but as #8 mentioned above, there's a way to do it effectively, and a way not to do it.

When not following #8's guidelines, things get messy quickly. And I don't want to hear they don't work in this calmer version....with the right numbers, they do. You think they police are going to pick up / carry / arrest 800 people sitting in the way? NOPE. There...you can win, and peacefully.

RP @20, very well put.

I am guessing that his observation is as much about the regular registered commenters as the unregistered. The Internet can bring about compassionate actions, but it lends itself to bigotry, cruelty, abusiveness, and fanaticism to the correctness of ones opinion. We regulars are not exempt. I'd also guess that in this community there is a majority of atheist and/or agnostic readership, as well as staff members, which emboldens some to refrain from having sympathy for any person who expresses having a faith. Sad, but not unexpected, to be different will always embolden others to mock.

Sorry for the unkind comments, sir. Being beaten is not pleasurable, unless it is consensual. Hopefully you think standing up for what you believe is correct is still worth the bruises and the comments upon this blog. I hope your complaints will be heard.

Most of what I'm getting from the stories of OS's conflicts with the police is that they are not fundamentally understanding that civil disobedience means being arrested and possibly beaten. The Civil Rights workers of the 60s expected it, and I don't recall many of them writing letters to the editors to complain of police brutality; at least, when they did it wasn't with this "I can't believe this is happening to me!!!" tone that's typical of the reports we're seeing here. It lends more weight to the notion that Occupy is a big case of amateur hour, despite its accomplishments.

"I just wish people could turn some of that energy and humor into something that generates love."

that's pretty ironic seeing as how the entire reason you got your ass kicked is because you were engaging in an act of hate.

You cast the first stone, and the men who protect us (the real 99%) threw it right back at you.

I would actually be much more sympathetic if he was a Catholic priest or Episcopal minister. Despite their troubles those are still respectable institutions with moral force behind them. But self-appointed "Christians" have nothing behind them except their own egotism and bogus "spirituality". I find spirituality far more offensive than organized mainstream religion. As far as I'm concerned this guy is just another Mark Driscoll, and I do not give a crap what his actual beliefs are. Being a hippie is not a defense.

I also very strongly believe that if you are a part of a mob you are responsible for the actions of that mob even if you personally didn't take part in them. So if one person in that mob threw rebar, or bricks, or paint, you all did, and police force was justified.

You know, I just can't understand why everyone seems to think it's ok that a man was beaten up by the police for protesting. Arrested, yes. But beaten up the way he described? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Let's separate the issues here. Regardless of how you feel about the port action, surely no one believes the police have the right to beat up a citizen for protesting. Surely. Right?

And why aren't we talking about that? Is that not the most salient issue?

#2: coward at the keyboard.

@20 Excellent points, although I unfortunately have no trouble believing that an overwhelmed police officer would throw anyone to the ground and start beating them in that situation.

@31, he didn't get beaten up. That's what it looks like when you get forcibly arrested. If he'd been beaten up, he'd look far, far worse.

@ 30, "I find spirituality far more offensive than organized mainstream religion." That's possibly the most bizarre opinion I've seen you express. If you mean "spirituality" to mean how one person develops his own dogma, perhaps, but real spirituality, while at times hippy dippy, is much more beneficial. Example - Kim in Portland is genuine because she's spiritual; the not so dearly departed Loveschild was merely religious.

Also, agree with @ 36 - I had a roommate who was once hit with a full 40 ouncer in the face, and his eye was swollen shut for days. It was the only blow he took, too.

I'm not saying he deserved his rough treatment, or that the police were justified, but it was only rough treatment, not a beating.

Its amzaing how Occupy Seattle has gone on this long and were still dealing with people who act shocked and surprised when the police arrest them for flagrant violations of the law.

Does the minister feel good about preventing 80 dock workers from getting a paycheck for the day? How can anyhone kick someone in the shins and say "Well that felt good, lets do it again next week".

@31 - Well said, thank you.

@37 - That line struck me as odd, too. To me, spirituality is a personal matter, and religion is something you hit people over the head with = big difference.

Of course, it's possible to combine the two, and our Kim in Portland is a fine example of that. But I don't believe that being a 'religious' person is necessarily a prerequisite for being a 'spiritual' person - or else we wouldn't see one scandal after another coming out of organized religion.

Fnarf, your ear hairs are growing longer by the day.

If you step in the thunder dome, prepare to take some licks. If you really care about the cause, you'll be out there tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day. If you want to go on a bureaucratic paper chase for a halfhearted "formal apology letter" every time a cop gives you a boo boo, it's going to be a long occupy movement for you, padre.

@ 40, many of the more spiritual people I know aren't really religious in the traditional sense of the word anyway.

This has nothing to be with being a minister and all about being part of a movement thats basically a bunch of cowards who can only protest in the city limits where they are well protected by the mayor and city council. Whenever shit turns sour for Occupy Seatttle, almost NONE OF THEM will ever accept responcibility for their actions. Its always someone elses fault.

Some 84 year old lady put herself on the front line and says cheese for the pepper spay and camera. OMG SPD ARE A BUNCH OF JERKS!

Some pregnant 19 year old gets pepper sprayed, loses her baby, only to have her story full of holes. OMG SPD ARE A BUNCH OF JERKS!

Bunch of thugs occupy a vacant warehouse and attempt to throw a rave there. Police break it up and OMG SPD ARE A BUNCH OF JERKS!!

Mere seconds after being hand cuffed, you havent even been booked or finger printed, cops wont let you speak to your lawyer and OMG SPD ARE VIOLATING MY RIGHTS!

Protesters are throwing bricks and other projectiles at the police and this minister locks arms and continues the shit storm that the protesters started, gets thrown to the ground, knee on the back, cuffed and bruised ... OMG THE HORROR, MY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED!!

Because Occupy Seattle refuses to take responcibilty for any of their actions, creates chaos and calls it a raging success, they will NEVER earn the support from the public.

I honestly urge everyone to show support for Occupy Seattle by taking a steaming #2 poo in your neighbors yard, while they watch and if they complain, blame it on the police and walk away.

from one reverend to another.. baby.. you're gonna have to get a thicker skin here on the innerwebs.. i first got my feelings hurt by somebody calling me a 'nig nog' , like two years ago,.. and then there was this 'loveschild person' whose main goal bent on saying the nastiest things cloaked in loasses dernched christianity sloogers eventually figured out that she/he/it wasn't a real person and may have been a couple of people writing under her name just to fuck with peoples heads..and all in the name of 'jesus mind you.( to date she/he/it is the onliest person i've ever told to' fuck off' .. felt good though )..sometimes it's just vitriol but sometimes , when you read between the vitriol you might learn some things mainlky. you can never over estimate the damage done in the world by people of faith in the name(s) of faith.
critics of christianity have a real solid points. once you get past the pain of it, it's well worth struggling with them and best to struggle with them on their . you have nothing to lose that isn't worth losing and everything to gain.
.. and thanks to you for being on the frontlines both here and were you are.. sorry about your pain.

@37, @40: I'm sorry if it's confusing for you. I find spirituality and spiritual values to be utterly ridiculous and, yes, offensive. But I love churches, and find both peace and delight in their architecture and also in the ritual behavior of the people in them. To me, that's a significant part of human culture, above and beyond whatever actual truth those religions profess (which is nil, of course).

Saying "I'm spiritual, but not religious" is saying that you are only interested in the stupid and patently untrue parts of religion, and not the beautiful parts. "God loves us", that sort of thing. To me that is infinitely more ridiculous than Chartres Cathedral.

A couple of days ago two million Mexicans, many of them crawling the last mile on their knees, went to the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City for her special day. This spectacle is AWE-INSPIRING, whether you believe or not -- maybe even more if you don't. The spectacle of some bearded hippie saying "peace, brother" while going down in a storm of angry young shitheads throwing stuff at the police? Not so much.

I am really not interested in hearing about your bogus spiritual feelings. Your oneness with creation or the presence of the lord or whatever the hell it is, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Ramtha, it's just gibberish to me. It's no different than hearing a reality-show nitwit attributing his victory in the latest immunity challenge to his personal relationship with Jesus. Your personal relationship to Jesus is intensely boring. Your community's historical relationship to Jesus might be pretty fascinating. But modern Christians, American Christians, at least, don't have histories. That's one of the processes by which immigrants become Americans: their religious traditions are turned into farce, to be replaced by cartoon spirituality, or not, what's the difference.

Modern American spirituality of any kind has all the cultural relevance of a sale at Walmart. The real spirituality in this country is, of course, violence. In that way, you could almost say that this boob in a fake clerical collar was receiving a sacrament when he got his head kicked in.

@43 HEART!!!

My favorite remarks on religion were made by Louis CK on reddit the other day. Many atheists take him for some sort of icon because he pokes such wonderful fun at people's behavior about god stuff. First to twit his would-be idolizers he wrote, "I'm not an athiest. I think god is there and that he is watching and he made us. I just don't give a shit." Then he followed that up with something I like just as much:

well i don't "Believe in god" i have zero idea how everythign got here. I would personally say that, if i had to make a list of possibles, god would be pretty far down. But if I were to make a list of people that know what the fuck they are talking about, I would be REALLY far down.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/n9…

@ 45, I think you're speaking of something else entirely. But your mind is made up, so I won't try to change it.

@15 and @33, it's called astroturfing fucknuts. Funny that you're not registered commenters.

What annoys me most about this is that 'the movement' here is seattle is pulling out all the the old favorites to try and whip us up to get our pitchforks and get behind them:

"Oh my god they hurt an old lady!"
"Oh my god they are beating innocent people!"
"Oh my god they kicked a baby to death!"
"Oh my god they beat up a minister!"

And when we look closely at their hysterics we see that in every case, what they say happened, did not happen that way. Old lady? Protester in the mob. baby aborted by boot? Bullshit. Innocents pummeled by merciless SPD brownshirts? hardly. Pastor bob roughed up? Not really.

What's next, our pets?

"The THEM want to kick your DOG in the FACE!"

Just stop it. Shut up, and stop it. This isn't the 60's, this isn't the 70's and..let me be clear here because you seem to not be hearing us: We don't support your bullshit rag tag ideals. 'WE' support stricter financial regulation, not whatever the fuck nebulous crap you are on about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ge…

@48, how would YOU describe it? Belief in God? Belief in a higher power? Prayer? Prayers heard and answered? "God is love"? The inner light? The divine present in the material world? Metaphysics? Global consciousness? Christ consciousness? Krishna consciousness? I don't care. None of the above. I think it is all 100% pernicious rot. It is profoundly, deeply uninteresting to me. I would rather be eaten alive by insects than think about any of these topics for a millisecond.

Religion, on the other hand, is a social construct with thousands of years of history. Since I am interested in people, I am interested in their works. Religion is fascinating, even arcana like the schisms and reunifications in the Presbyterian Church (USA), or the tree of Islamic sects from the first splitting off of the Shias through the Twelvers, Seveners, Ismailis, and so on down the line.

As such, most evangelical groups of the left or the right are interesting as far as they go, but since they're pretty much all married to the notion that established principles just get in the way of God, and every man makes up his own theology on the spot, pretty much, and the vast majority of these preachers are profoundly stupid men, and even the smart ones don't create anything lasting because when they die a stupid one takes over, there's not a whole lot to see there. Among other things, organized religion is a method for making history survive. But Americans don't have history anymore, so who cares, right? So American religion gets less interesting every day -- except for immigrants.

To me, saying "I'm spiritual but not religious" is exactly equivalent to saying "I have never had an interesting thought about anything in my entire life, nor have I ever met anyone who has".

@30 Rev. Helmiere is ordained by the United Methodist Church, the second-largest protestant denomination in the US (just behind Baptists). It is NOTHING like Mars Hill.

I thought "I'm spiritual, but not religious" was a way saying, "I'm not into organized religion because it's about power and control and not about spirituality."

@ 52, see? The answer is exactly that - spirituality is NONE of the things you listed in your first paragraph. Those things are religion, and the things you call religion are either culture or ritual.

You're deeply, profoundly wrong in your definitions here. I'm not sure how to help you correct that, to be honest.

Well, actually, I will point out one thing. That ritual you mentioned - the Mexicans visiting the shrine - was something you found moving because of its spirituality. It's impossible not to feel when masses of people engage in a ritual like that. You'd probably feel the same thing if you were permitted to see the Haaj in person.

Maybe that will help.

@55, you're going to help me out, then, because that's what I hear from all the SBNR people I've ever run across. If it's something else, then I can't imagine what. I read the Wikipedia article on "Spirituality" and can honestly say that I don't understand any of the words in it. It all references stuff that doesn't exist in the material world and thus doesn't have any meaning at all. You saying "no, no, your definitions are wrong" isn't helping. I asked before: what's your definition?

@53, oh, sure, Methodist, but therefore also evangelical and invested in "holiness", as personally revealed and practiced individually. So not really much different than Mars Hill at all, aside from the political orientation which is something different. Notice that his church, excuse me, "spiritual community", doesn't say "United Methodist" or even "church" on the door; it says "Valley And Mountain". George Bush is a United Methodist, but I doubt he'd be very comfortable there. Not that I really care. And "deep listening and creative liberation" is just the sort of spiritual silliness that drives me up the wall.

@54, power and control exist, and are interesting. Spirituality has neither of those attributes.

--57 Why should I 'sacrifice' or 'commit' to feel mystical, if I want?

That 'Mystical' feeling is... chemical.

No more, no less.

It's all different flavors of breathing hard and masturbating that get you there...

@ 57, spirituality is something you feel. Whether that's due to being able to connect with spirits, or is a complete illusion on the part of the person feeling it, is something that can't be proven. If you dismiss it and say "it doesn't exist," you've already misappropriated science and made your own conclusion, the same as any religious person would.

I respect those who are more spiritual over those who are more religious (the two are completely entwined) because they aren't dogmatic. It's the dogmatic person - the one who insists things are the way they are because that's what they were taught or that's what they read in the Bible - who is a fanatic, and possibly a dangerous loon (like Loveschild). The person who is spiritual (I again direct you to Kim) is the one who can learn and come to her own conclusions about things.

Maybe, as someone who sounds like a sociologist at heart, that's "not interesting," fine. But offensive, as you called it @ 30? No, that's not possible without a big misunderstanding (or just a desire to be offended).

@61, that's how I usually interpret it, "I'd like to say I'm religious, but I have no evidence of that to support the statement - so I'll say 'spiritual'"

@62, What you are describing is psychology. Feelings? I'm hungry, does that make me spiritual? I don't think so. Most of what you or I believe is brain chemistry.

I'm a logical positivist. If it can't be measured, it's not there. How would even begin to measure the "spirit" component of a feeling? What would it be made of? Matter? Energy? I've never met a spiritual person who understood what matter and energy actually are. By definition, a spirit is supernatural, and by definition the supernatural does not exist, because nature is all that exists.

Wondering about things that can't be measured is like talking about the possibility that there's a little green man floating in the air behind me, who always ducks when I look in a mirror, who always flutters out of reach when I try to catch him. If you cannot find any actual evidence that he exists, then it DOES NOT MATTER if he exists, and by definition things that do not matter if they exist DO NOT EXIST. That's what the word "matter" means in this context. You can't even properly speaking talk about things you can't measure. The words "does this feeling spring from a spirit?" literally doesn't contain meaning, anymore than the question "this circle has seven corners" does. YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT.

And yet spiritual people never STOP talking about it. Saying "I feel this" isn't offensive, but erecting a large imaginary structure to explain what you think is causing your feeling is. It's crazy, in my opinion. There is no man behind the curtain. Generally speaking, spiritual people can go on at length about what's causing their feelings, and all of it is bullshit. In my opinion.

I think the feelings themselves are delusional, although realistically speaking they presumably have some evolutionary survival function. Or maybe they're like dreams, random misfirings, circuit-clearing that is misinterpreted as meaningful because humans are obsessed with pattern-finding even when no patterns exist.

To me it is particularly obnoxious to say "organized religion is bad, but I feel that inside we're all one" or whatever your favorite vacuous content-free spiritual phrase is. Seriously, it grates against me like racism or something. The world is full of so many incredibly interesting things that you will never understand a hundredth of and all you want to talk about is this drivel with no referents? "Orange enunciation is salty". Whatever, dude. Actually that would be an improvement over the usual stuff that comes out of spiritual people's mouths, which is usually code for "I am sad and dumb".

I dunno, maybe I'm just missing the gene or something. I think it's really selfish and ignorant to give a shit about your spiritual feelings, whatever they are. The least attractive kind of religion is the one (held by most Americans) that they are special and God really cares about YOU as a person, your bestest friend ever. Or that other people want to hear you talk about it.

That's probably enough sermonizing for today. I'm sure I've pissed off everyone who reads this, because they genuinely feel the love coming out of the universe and yadda yadda. All I ever think about when I hear about that is guinea worms.

Merry Christmas!

@53 It's all the same.

Thanks, Fnarf. That was a real fog-lifter.

@66, that's funny, most people who are exposed to one of my philosophical meanderings describe the experience as being rather fog-enhancing, to put it politely.

I blame the fellow who taught my Philosophy of Science class at Seattle Central Community College way back in the dark ages (1981? 1982?) I wish I could remember his name. He introduced me to Charles Saunders Pierce, which was a spectacular blessing considering that I was then hanging on the cusp of a conversion to Ayn-Randism. I'd surely be dead by now if that had happened, from the shame of it.

Another funny thing: there was a guy in that class who I think was Richard Lee, of Who-shot-Cobain "fame". I remember him disrupting class once by loudly and immovably denying the principle of Conservation of Energy, insisting that a gas can with a leak in it disproved all of science. He also cornered me once and blistered my ear for an hour with, ahem, theories about the Vietnam War, only to suddenly ask "wait, is it the Russians behind the Viet Cong, or the Chinese?" Rather Will-in-Seattle of him, actually. I'm pretty sure it was Lee.

God, how I love to type! It's a sickness.

Holy shit. Peirce. I'm so ill educated I've heard only rumors of him. How wonderful.

A community college philosophy education? Really. Oh. Please tell us more!

Mostly it's the humbleness that rivets the average plebe here on Slog.

I'm a logical positivist. If it can't be measured, it's not there.

Man, 20th century physics must really drive you crazy. I mean, more than 20th century philosophy does.

@70, I don't pretend to understand physics all that well, but what those fellows chasing the Higgs Boson are doing is measuring things. And one very obvious thing is that quantum mechanics operate at the quantum level, not the human. Uncertainty, etc. has no more relevance for personal relations than relativity does. If you're navigating a boat, Newtonian physics is as far as you need to go. And 20th-century philosophy, does it exist? Philosophy in general is almost as boring than spirituality.

@69, I've also read some books. Quite a lot of them, in fact. But your ad hominem is very persuasive, I'll admit. I'm sure you've got plenty of more intelligent things to say; pity you won't say them.

And one very obvious thing is that quantum mechanics operate at the quantum level, not the human.

If I parse your tautology correctly (yes, by definition it would make sense that quantum effects take place at "the quantum level," whatever it is you mean by that) to mean that you believe quantum effects only exist at the subatomic level, you are mistaken. Quantum effects have been experimentally demonstrated at a macro scale.

@6: Yeah, that'd be fine if that was what the cops would do. Unfortunately the way it plays out today is instead of just arresting you they pepper spray you, beat you with battons or shove your face into the pavement and take you down to 610 5th Ave. It's more of a hassle for them to behave like public servants whose duty is to help citizens so it's easier to act like asshole bullies. The mayor needs to fire Diaz.

@72

It's going to take a bit more than yelling "Quantum Mechanics!" to undo the Scientific Method, and the various philosophical frameworks that draw from it.

Fnarf isn't stating it very well, but he's basically saying he's a Materialist. And at this late date there's quite a pile of variants on Naive Materialism out there, not all of which ignore the stuff that you learn in Physics 202.

I don't necessarily agree with Fnarf: for starters, I do believe that there is such a thing as 20th century philosophy, and that there's something important in it, along with the expected landfill of text, that noxious intellectual pollution generated by the manufacture of any useful set of philosophical ideas.

Physics, of course, is itself a branch of philosophy; we all learn this in high school and then promptly forget it, because it's just old Greek crap and how uncool is that. In my experience, the people who cherry-pick Science and then use whatever they've grabbed hold of to bludgeon Philosophy (or Religion) tend to be much more familiar with one of those subjects than the other.

@74: I'm not trying to overturn the scientific method; Matter of fact I'm a big fan. And if Fnarf weren't being such a dick about it, I wouldn't derive any joy from pointing out that the philosophy he's holding up as the end-all-be-all hasn't enjoyed any currency among philosophers for nearly half a century, or that his "if it can't be measured, it's not there" axiom, strictly applied, would discount some of the most important scientific discoveries of the last hundred years. But he is being a dick about it, so all's fair; The antiquated deterministic materialism that gives comfort to so many knee-jerk atheist pedants of the modern world belongs in the nineteenth-century parlors that spawned it. Human knowledge left behind the realm of things that can be intuitively understood by an ordinary smart person thinking about it very hard at least a century ago, and it shows no sign of returning. Nature cares no more for the desire of certain individuals to occupy an orderly, knowable universe than it does for the desire of others to believe in a benevolent creator deity. In fact I suspect both belief systems arise from a similar impulse towards squaring the corners and tidying the narrative.

As to the bizarre antagonism towards spirituality, I just don't understand the level of anger. Look, I don't have to share a belief in the same deity as J.S. Bach to see that the music he composed is sublime. And to claim that Bach's own idiosyncratic spirituality played no part in that is, I think, wholly disingenuous. I don't need to know exactly what sequence of neurons firing took place in Bach's brain to see inspiration for what it is (subsitute Etta James or someone else here if you wish. It works the same) So when I hear people talk about the spiritual impulse that gives rise to inspiration, my first response isn't to angrily shake my cane at them and tell them to get off my lawn. Maybe some of them are idiots, maybe some of them are Bachs. The human mind is capable of many things.

John and his wife so live the life they preach about, they and their congregation will never turn away those who need help. Those who are poor, oppressed, ill, disenfranchised, mentally ill, abandoned at hurt should seek help from their ministry in Columbia city. They have helped hundreds, given out of their own pockets and committing to raise the Children whose parents can't support them. I have never hear of anyone being turned away. They're the reAl thing. Just go and see

phone: 206-799-8428
email: jhelmiere@gmail.com

address: 5028 45th Ave. S., Seattle, WA 98118

facebook: find Valley & Mountain Fellowship on facebook by clicking here!

stay connected: Please email “jhelmiere@gmail.com” if you’d like to be on our email list.  Alternatively, the events calendar can be accessed by clicking the “Subscribe in reader” on the right hand column of this website (it’s just there on your right hand side, next to that orange square icon, you can see it right now).

Proteus:

Quantum effects have been experimentally demonstrated at a macro scale.

Name one.
I'm not being facetious; if such exists, I'd be interested in hearing about it. But I'm afraid I'll want something significant; I googled up something about diamonds vibrating at a distance, which isn't something that really makes a lot of difference in my world or yours.

But even if you're right, and I'm more than happy to say you are, it doesn't change anything. I never denied quantum physics, or any kind of physics, and I'm rather upset that you think I have. But if you think that the system of thought I have described doesn't extend to modern physics, you're wrong. It is the basis of modern physics. I repeat: the folks looking for the Higgs boson are "measuring things". They are making no appeals to internally-revealed spiritual awareness. Surely you have to agree?

Human knowledge left behind the realm of things that can be intuitively understood by an ordinary smart person thinking about it very hard at least a century ago, and it shows no sign of returning.

Spoken like a physicist. I agree, PHYSICS has left behind the realm etc. But human knowledge? Who's the narrow one now? I know physicists think that biology, anthropology, etc. are a fat load of rubbish, but few other people do. I may well be a dick, as you say, but I'm not an idiot, and I'm struggling to grasp the mechanics of son clave and rumba clave in Cuban music, something that loads of people who can't even read understand deeply.

Saying "human knowledge has left behind humans" cuts both ways: the irrelevance of physics beyond the gee-whiz factor is pretty interesting, too, although there's always some guy who's going to figure out how to use it to make a smaller chip or something. There's a quantum effect that's visible at a macro scale, if you can make quantum computing happen. Doesn't negate the truth of what I'm saying at all. I never said anything about "determinism".

I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying, as I quite possibly am to you. But think about your Higgs boson, which seems to be the cutting edge; how are they going to know they've found it? Are they going to be sitting home contemplating "personal growth"? I don't think so. They're going to find evidence -- evidence that I am too dim to discern but physical evidence nonetheless.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I believe in an "orderly, knowable universe". Quite the opposite is true. I think we can approximate that knowledge as far as our light reaches, and approximate further than that with some fancy math, but that's about it. In fact, math is all there is in that direction. But closer by, where the light is pretty good, we haven't even begun to exhaust the richness of the expression of this world (the only world there is).

As for our friend Bach, the fact that he believed he was channeling a spiritual source doesn't make it true. I think it's EXTREMELY INTERESTING to study his own beliefs, just as it is the complicated religions of the Australian aboriginal tribes, as they pertain to their artistic products, but I don't have to -- indeed, cannot -- share them. They are both folkways, and are wonderful when understood in that way. The cathedrals erected by Bach are just as fabulous as those erected by the stonemasons I mentioned earlier. Religion is terrific for that. It's just the spiritual component I don't dig. "Spiritual" impulses in today's world do not create the works of Bach, that's for damn sure. Maybe the more tiresome works of Lennon and Bono.

Anyways, it's a pleasure to read your criticism. You can call me a dick if you back it up. I fear I have been misunderstood, though; I am certainly not an opponent of modern physics, which is what you appear to have gathered. I'm also hopped up on dope for a monster head cold; maybe that's why I wasn't clear. I fear that you may be lumping me in with some other folks, for whom you have a readymade argument.

@76

I'd be real careful if I were you with that "being a dick about it" measure of argumentative merit.

You seem to have completely ignored Fnarf's definitions of "spiritualism" and "religion"; he appears to be using the former in the sense of self-generated explanations in the service of Freud's Ego, as opposed to the latter's societally-generated explanations, imposed by the Superego.

The most obvious difference, if you use these definitions, is that if you are "spiritual," you can do whatever the hell you want and then justify it later using whatever fantasy of external agency you like, but if you are "religious", you can only justify doing stuff that your community approves of beforehand (which may be rooted in fantastical external agency, but is nonetheless shared across your society).

This is a nontrivial distinction. It's also got fuck-all to do with Science or Quantum Mechanics or Materialism.

@79: Obviously you're a smart person, and normally I enjoy your remarks even when they're pointed. But for some reason your scathing condemnation against everyone and everything even remotely Occupy-related really grates on me. And I've long had a beef with strident atheism, so you hit my magic number. As someone who is deeply troubled and, let's face it, annoyed, with some of the more virulent strains of religious idiocy abroad in the world, I still blanch when I hear the smug refrain of "You're all a bunch of fucking idiots!" echoing from the ranks of people who fancy themselves to be especially rational and clever in the atheist camp. Not only is it not constructive (given that most of the population holds some sort of spiritual beliefs), but painting with such a broad brush just seems lazy.

Not everything that falls under the heading of "spirituality" is based on supernatural claims. If a yogi claims that meditating places him in a calm state that changes his perception of reality, and an MRI shows his brain doing something interesting while he's meditating, and I'm incapable of reproducing the subjective component of that state, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that he's on to something. If J.S. Bach says he hears the voice of God and turns it into music, and I can't make music that even approaches that level of inspiration (i.e. I'm again incapable of reproducing the subjective component) I'm willing to cut him a little slack. Obviously, that doesn't mean that I have to believe that Kirlian photography shows people's auras or that crystals can heal my spirit.

Where falsifiable assertions are being made, they should be subject to confirmation. But much of what people refer to as spirituality explicitly concerns subjective experience, and as such it often falls outside of that realm. And since I consider the attempts to relate one's own subjective experiences to others to be the cornerstone of most is what is interesting and beautiful about human experience, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My point about "measuring" is related to a few things, including Schroedinger's Cat-type experiments where it is clearly demonstrated that the limitation is not simply the lack of sophisticated enough measuring apparatus, but some feature of the act of making an observation that can't be logically reconciled. In such instances science is left to make logical inferences and test those -- meaning that strictly speaking, there most certainly are things that are real that cannot be directly measured, the key word being directly.

The metaphorical intersection of these things, in my mind, lies in this conflict between objective and subjective truths. I tend to see materialism as a product of this urge to believe that there is a single objective reality that can be known and described by an observer; and based on my own (admittedly extremely limited) understanding of the post-Newtonian world, we cannot even take comfort in that.