Book of Mercy #27-28

Debate on Leonard Cohen's poetry (and novels), both published and unpublished. Song lyrics may also be discussed here.
Post Reply
DBCohen
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:31 am
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Book of Mercy #27-28

Post by DBCohen »

Well, here we go on the next – eighth – part of the ongoing discussion of BoM. This new thread was opened for several reasons. First, although the last thread was relatively short (#25-26), in recent weeks an interesting discussion on meditation has been going on there, and I thought some people may wish to continue that discussion without interruption by the next installment of BoM. Second, it’s an opportunity to commemorate the first full-year anniversary of our discussion, occurring today, and thank all the participants once again. And, finally, it seems appropriate to start a new thread as we move on from Part I to Part II of the book, which - perhaps in the spirit of Zen - is divided asymmetrically (Part I including #1-26, and Part II with one section fewer, #27-50). It seems that in essence Part II continues the themes and issues of the first part, but it might be worthwhile to examine, as we go along, whether there are any substantial differences between the two parts, and try to figure out, if we can, for what reason did LC divide the book into those two parts.
II.27
Israel, and you who call yourself Israel, the Church that calls itself Israel, and the revolt that calls itself Israel, and every nation chosen to be a nation – none of these lands is yours, all of you are thieves of holiness, all of you at war with Mercy. Who will say it? Will America say, We have stolen it, or France step down? Will Russia confess, or Poland say, We have sinned? All bloated on their scraps of destiny, all swaggering in the immunity of superstition. Ishmael, who was saved in the wilderness, and given shade in the desert, and a deadly treasure under you: has Mercy made you wise? Will Ishmael declare, We are in debt forever? Therefore the lands belong to none of you, the borders do not hold, the Law will never serve the lawless. To every people the land is given on condition. Perceived or not, there is a covenant, beyond the constitution, beyond sovereign guarantee, beyond the nation’s sweetest dreams of itself. The Covenant is broken, the condition is dishonoured, have you not noticed that the world has been taken away? You have no place, you will wander through yourselves from generation to generation without a thread. Therefore you rule over chaos, you hoist your flags with no authority, and the heart that is still alive hates you, and the remnant of Mercy is ashamed to look at you. You decompose behind your flimsy armour, your stench alarms you, your panic strikes at love. The land is not yours, the land has been taken back, your shrines fall through empty air, your tablets are quickly revised, and you bow down in hell beside your hired torturers, and still you count your battalions and crank out your marching songs. Your righteous enemy is listening. He hears your anthem full of blood and vanity, and your children singing to themselves. He has overturned the vehicle of nationhood, he has spilled the precious cargo, and every nation he has taken back. Because you are swollen with your little time. Because you do not wrestle with your angel. Because you dare to live without God. Because your cowardice has led you to believe that the victor does not limp.
The pieces in Part I were written in the spirit of the Psalms, or that of the Prayer Book; a few were written as a kind of short story, sometimes with the spirit of Zen thrown in, and always in the unique style of the author, who turned some old, familiar things into new ones. The current piece, on the other hand, was written in the spirit of the Prophets – chastening, laying blame, demanding righteousness. It is also the most political piece so far, although political themes could have been found occasionally in Part I (and one certainly recognizes here the poet who twenty years earlier wrote the “Story of Isaac”). And just like the words of the great prophets, this piece also has the quality of immediate relevancy, transcendenting time and circumstances. It’s also worthwhile to note that the narrator (or the prophet, as we may call him here) is equally skeptic about nations, revolution, and the Church, all of theme being “thieves of holiness”, distorting great ideas for their own gains.

none of these lands is yours – This notion, mentioned first here and developed more elaborately further down, seems to be based on the biblical idea that the land is the Lord’s, and he allows people to dwell on it as long as they go His way. This is usually relevant to the Promised Land and the People of Israel, such as in Leviticus 25:23: “But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me.” However the narrator here applies this notion to all nations and all lands indiscriminately (which isn’t surprising, knowing his record). Actually, this inclusiveness may also have its seeds in the Bible. For example, Deuteronomy 32:8: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” (this is the RSV translation, which includes an amendment of the text in the last phrase of the verse; the Bible in your hands may have a different version for the last words). Here too we have the idea that God allots each nation its land according to His own wishes. See also the prophecies of some of the great Hebrew prophets concerning neighboring nations, as well as Israel, such as Amos 1-2, or Ezekiel 25-36. These nations, including those who did not enter the particular covenant with the Lord, are to be punished with the loss of their land for their bloodthirstiness and lack of righteousness. This is the same spirit that we find here.

Ishmael, who was saved in the wilderness – Ishmael was the focus of #14, as we’ve seen, and there he was treated somewhat more favorably. Here he is being rebuked along with all the rest of them.

Perceived or not, there is a covenant – Here, again, the Covenant is not only between God and the Jews, but with every nation, whether they are aware of it or not. From a biblical point of view this also can be expected, since the first covenant was with all human beings after the Flood (Genesis 9:8-17). Going against the grain of this text one may argue: But did God indeed keep his side of the covenant? Well, that’s an argument for another occasion.

the remnant of Mercy – Several times in this text “Mercy” is capitalized and personified. We have discussed several times before the nature and meaning of this figure in this book by the same name, but I still don’t feel it can be given an unambiguous definition.

Because you do not wrestle with your angel… the victor does not limp – this is an obvious reference to the story of Jacob in Genesis 32:24-32. In the biblical text Jacob actually wrestles with “a man”, but that figure turned into an angel in popular memory (already in Hosea 12:5) (just as the “fruit” of Eden turned into an apple). The original story seems to say that Jacob wrestled with God himself. Some say that the reference to Jacob’s thigh is actually a euphemism, and that in fact he was castrated. In Rembrandt’s depiction of the story it looks more like a love-scene. The interpretations and possibilities are endless, but, as the message here too seems to be, the important thing is the fearless struggle, and the continuous asking of questions, even at the risk, or even the certainty, of harming yourself during the process.
Attachments
Rembrandt_Harmensz__van_Rijn_063.jpg
Rembrandt_Harmensz__van_Rijn_063.jpg (39.85 KiB) Viewed 17575 times
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25531
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by lizzytysh »

Compassion, understanding, tolerance, mercy, and love exude from the angel's face, hands, and body... it seems a worthwhile wrestle for a woman or man to have.

Even though it's all I have time left to say, I was too struck by the painting and your comments, Doron, not to say it.

Perfect timing for a new thread. It's wonderful to see the discussion being revitalized.


~ Lizzy
"Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken."
~ Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Joe Way
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 5:50 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by Joe Way »

The language does seem to change into the more prophetic style. I don't have access to a copy of BoM right now so I can't look ahead.

Johnny7moon's discussion of the apparent dichotomy between the notion of "longing" and its opposition in zen have made me consider some things that I was going to post there, but may be more appropriate here. One of my favorite Psalms is Psalm 42:
To the leader. A Maskil of the Korahites.

1 As a deer longs for flowing streams,
so my soul longs for you, O God.
2 My soul thirsts for God,
for the living God.
When shall I come and behold
the face of God?
3 My tears have been my food
day and night,
while people say to me continually,
"Where is your God?"

4 These things I remember,
as I pour out my soul:
how I went with the throng,
and led them in procession to the house of God,
with glad shouts and songs of thanksgiving,
a multitude keeping festival.
5 Why are you cast down, O my soul,
and why are you disquieted within me?
Hope in God; for I shall again praise him,
my help
6and my God.

My soul is cast down within me;
therefore I remember you
from the land of Jordan and of Hermon,
from Mount Mizar.
7 Deep calls to deep
at the thunder of your cataracts;
all your waves and your billows
have gone over me.
8 By day the LORD commands his steadfast love,
and at night his song is with me,
a prayer to the God of my life.

9 I say to God, my rock,
"Why have you forgotten me?
Why must I walk about mournfully
because the enemy oppresses me?"
10 As with a deadly wound in my body,
my adversaries taunt me,
while they say to me continually,
"Where is your God?"

11 Why are you cast down, O my soul,
and why are you disquieted within me?
Hope in God; for I shall again praise him,
my help and my God.
It seems to me that much of the "longing" in this Psalm and the Psalms in general is mixed in with the notion of exile. That longing to be restored to a former or promised state through which when restored we become whole again. This was, of course, most intensely felt in the Babylonian exile. If though, as is argued in #27 that there is no placein which one rightly belongs since it belongs to God not man, then there can be no true exile. Or man is continually exiled since there is no proper place for him. But this longing exists and as so beautifully expressed as a part of nature, "As the deer longs for flowing streams" mankind must come to grips with it. Wouldn't it then make sense, that a satisfaction with the immediate, present reality would be the proper zen-like state that the individual should strive to attain?
Because you do not wrestle with your angel. Because you dare to live without God. Because your cowardice has led you to believe that the victor does not limp.
Could the intense zen meditation sessions be compared to wrestling with your angel?

Just some thoughts from someone with no expertise in either Judaism or Zen so I might be completely off my nut.

Joe
"Say a prayer for the cowboy..."
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by Manna »

Doron,
I've never heard of anyone else who went by your name.

Reading your ideas at the end about how the concept of Man-Angel-God and a fight-wrestling-love scene-castration set off a bomb of sorts in my head. It made me think of evolution, and how the truth may be capable of evolution. My first thought was that the original text will have the clearest idea of what the truth is. But then I thought that if I met a Neanderthal, I would like to think that I would treat him as I would a man. Maybe Jacob wrestled with his own personal demons. Maybe he was a sexual deviant, and ended up castrating himself. Or jerking off copiously. Please forgive my vulagrity.

Of course, I should admit to having drunk a beer this evening, which means that I am close to drunk.

Anyway, I also thought:
All bloated on their scraps of destiny, all swaggering in the immunity of superstition.
was an interesting description.

finally, I wanted to double check with you because I don't have my own copy - is "constitution" not capitalized?
User avatar
mat james
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Australia

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by mat james »

Please forgive my vulagrity.

Of course, I should admit to having drunk a beer this evening, which means that I am close to drunk.
Excuses, excuses.
No Regrets!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_QABS88 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Oi8WnV ... re=related

and this one's for you. :lol: 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08sBeT1m ... re=related
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by Manna »

vulagrity! ha ha ha. Almost sounds like a word.
thanks mat. I never took an interest in Edith Piaf, but I am glad to have seen these videos. I love how she sings. Maybe I'll get a record or two.
User avatar
mat james
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Australia

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by mat james »

She can sing !
I also love her delivery, the way she looks into the audience/camera almost without blinking: and holds our attention with so little movement.
There is power in that subtlety.
I noticed that Isablle Boulay did exactly the opposite in the duet. She may have done it this way on purpose?
I prefer that "stare" of Edith's. She knows who she is. Isabelle's eyes do not have that committment that bark out "No Regrets!"
It is a worthy duet though.

Matj
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
DBCohen
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:31 am
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by DBCohen »

Joe,

It’s good to have you back with us. Exile as the basic situation of human beings is an idea we have discussed, I believe, earlier on (it was a strong theme in #7), but here we find it once again, as it is probably one of the major themes of this book. It goes back to the idea of Eden, and also to Plato and, as you say, mankind must come to grips with it. Often in our life we feel longing that we cannot put clearly into words, and this must be one side of the experience of exile. Zen meditation as a form of wrestling with one’s angel is an intriguing idea, and I’d love to hear the opinion of those more experienced in meditation. And apropos angels, in #4 we’ve encountered the “angel of song”, and a few other angles came up now and then in our discussion (see on p. 8 of the #1-5 thread; this was continued on p. 6 of the #6-7 thread, and also on p. 1 of the #8-10 thread. Now I’m beginning to wish we hadn’t cut the discussion into smaller pieces!).

By the way, since you’ve quoted Psalm 42, I’d like to recommend a new English translation of the Psalms: The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter, a great Hebrew scholar based in California. While the King James translation is quite majestic, it also departs too often from the poetry and even the meaning of the Hebrew Psalms. Alter translates as closely as possible to the rhythm of the biblical poetry, and does a very good job in staying close to the original meaning, as far as we can understand it today.

*

Manna,

To your question: no, “constitution” is not capitalized in the original text.

About my name: I usually don’t like getting into personal matters, but in this case I can give a scholarly explanation. “Doron” is originally a Greek word meaning “gift”. You can also find it in the name Theodor (“God’s gift”), and the many Christian names derived from it, such as Theodora, Dorothea (an interesting inversion), Dora, Doreen etc. There was also a more pagan version, Isidore (aparently, “the gift of Isis”), and hence Isidora, Isadora etc. The Eastern European and Jewish version of this name is Izidor. This Greek word, along with many others, was absorbed into the Hebrew language during the Hellenistic period, and preserved in the Talmud and other sources. During the twentieth century, when Hebrew was revived as a spoken language (it was always alive as a written language), people started to use as given names many words or names not used before. “Doron” became a very popular name in Israel since the 1950’s. Recently I’ve realized that in America the name “Doran” is being used; I don’t know yet whether it is also a derivative of one of the earlier-mentioned names, or just an accident, as it seems to be the trend in America recently to give children new, never before used names, often by putting together a few meaningless syllables, just for the sound of it.

How about your name?

And as for vulgarity, well, I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder.

*

Mat,

Thanks for those videos!
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by Manna »

Oh, you know, the Jews were hungry in the desert, and God snowed food on them like bread crumbs, and it was tasty tasty Manna. But that's not where my name came from. Because that's not really my name for one thing.

My name is Amanda Manfredo. And if you look closely, you will find 2 mans in my name, I'm a man, duh. Everyone knows that the singular of man is Mannum, so since I have 2, I need the plural, Manna. But that's also not from whence cometh my name.

Manfredo means cold hand in Italian (sort of - mana freda). But that's not really my husband's last name. When his family came to the US from Naples, their last name was Mambre. But immigration officials changed it not to Smith or Jones, but to Manfredo which sounded much more American I guess. I have very little of my own Italian blood, so I am Italian by injection. And I am not really a man, nor a hand, but I might be a law.

Amanda means "worthy of love." And if you look in a religious baby name book, it means "worthy of God's love." And because of his love for me, my oldest nephew (now 12), when he was learning to talk, tried to say my name. For a long time he called me "Aunt Manna," and the rest of the family picked it up and called me Manna for a while too. I like it.

If you and I got together, we'd be a gift worthy of God's love.
lazariuk
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by lazariuk »

HI Manna

I remember you saying that your nephew's name is Gabriel. I take it that he is the one who gave you your name. Gabriel is the name of an angel.
In Islam, he is called the chief of the four favoured angels and the spirit of truth, and in some views Gabriel is the same as the Holy Spirit
Everything being said to you is true; Imagine of what it is true.
lazariuk
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by lazariuk »

II.27
Israel, and you who call yourself Israel, the Church that calls itself Israel, and the revolt that calls itself Israel, and every nation chosen to be a nation – none of these lands is yours, all of you are thieves of holiness, all of you at war with Mercy.
The section has the title Israel, and though it may rightfully be dealing with all the world and all people the focus is on a very specific piece of land and a specific people. Scripture and the commentary on Scripture place God as being the source of the name Israel, that it was a name given by God to a person and then to a people. The same Scripture also states that God has said that there would be those who gave themselves the name Israel. Who the true Israel is; Leonard is seeming to say here is not the point. All are being addressed.

I came across this section a long time ago and it caught my attention because at the same time I was studying the history of Palestine and saw that the term "thieves of holiness" was being used by some very specific people. It was being used by some Jews who were opposed to the formation of a Jewish State in Palestine and were begging the world and their fellow Jews not to make Jews "thieves of holiness"

They were not alone in their opposition to a Jewish State, and you might even say that it was a Jewish tradition. Because I am not sure if it is commonly known that some of the most intelligent and sincere Jews were wanting something different than the State of Israel I will give some quotes from some. What they thought of as preferable was for Palestine to become a bi-national country.

Isreal based it's political claim to statehood on The Balfour Declaration, sometimes spoken of as the original sin. It was formulated by the British government. many prominent Jewish Britons opposed it. One was Edwin Montague, the only Jewish member of the British Cabinet, who was unalterably opposed to any recognition of Zionism on a political basis. He objected to "recognition of Jews as a homeless nationality" and to the investment of "Jewish settlers with certain special rights in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of the population." In a memorandum entitled "The Anti-Semitism of the Present Government" (UK Public Records Office, Cab. No. 24/24 8/23/17), he states in the first paragraph:
"I wish to place on record my view that the policy of His Majesty's Government is anti-Semitic in result and will prove a rallying ground for Anti-Semites in every country in the world."

He objected to the draft wording which called for "a national home of the Jewish people" with prescient insight into the Zionist organization's plans:

"I assume that it means that Mohammedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews, and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English."
He added that: "You will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country."
Ahad Ha'am (the pen name of Asher Ginsberg) known as a "spiritual or cultural Zionist" believed in the establishment of "a Jewish home in Palestine" not so much as a refuge but as a place to fulfill the needs of Judaism, a center for Jewish learning and study. He visited Palestine in 1891. At that time there were less than 25,000 Jewish settlers there and close to 300,000 Arabs. As to the treatment received at the hands of these new pioneers, he wrote
"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." He concluded that it was "a grave error to believe that the Arabs are all savages who live like animals and do not understand what is happening" and that it was evident that "one day the Arabs would stand up against us."
Hannah Arendt
In ‘Zionism Reconsidered’, she calls ‘absurd’ the idea of setting up a Jewish state in a ‘sphere of interest’ of the superpowers.
Such a state would suffer under the ‘delusion of nationhood’: ‘Only folly could dictate a policy which trusts a distant imperial power for protection, while alienating the goodwill of neighbours.’
In 1948, after the UN had sanctioned the state of Israel, Arendt predicted that
‘even if the Jews were to win the war [of independence], its end would find the . . . achievements of Zionism in Palestine destroyed . . . The “victorious” Jews would live surrounded by an entirely hostile Arab population, secluded inside ever threatened borders, absorbed with physical self-defence to a degree that would submerge all other interests and activities.’ She stated once again that partition could not work, and that the best solution would be a ‘federated state’. Such a federation, in her view, ‘would have the advantage of preventing the establishment of sovereignty whose only sovereign right would be to commit suicide.’
Albert Einstein
In 1930, Einstein wrote,
“Oppressive nationalism must be conquered...I can see a future for Palestine only on the basis of peaceful cooperation between the two peoples who are at home in the country...come together they must in spite of all.”
He went on to support a binational Jewish and Palestinian state both before and after the war.
Einstein appeared before an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine, calling for a “Jewish homeland.” When many seemed to have intentionally misread this as a call for Jewish sovereignty, with help from his friend Rabbi Stephen Wise, he went to lenghts to clarified his position.
Jews should be able to migrate freely within the limits of the economic absorptive possibilities of Palestine, which in turn should have a government that made sure there was no “‘Majorisation’ of one group by the other.” A rigid demand for a Jewish State will have only undesirable results for us.
It is usually thought that the goal of Zionism was a Jewish state but for many devout Zionists that was not so.
Addressing the Zionist Congress in Vienna in August 1925, Berit Shalom member, Arthur Ruppin declared: “Palestine will be a state of two nations.” (1). And another member, Robert Weltsch, wrote in an editorial of his journal, Judische Rundschau on August 14th (2):
There may be a people without a country but there is no country without a people. Palestine was not given us as a national home but we are to build a national home in Palestine… The future of Palestine, its peaceful development and welfare can only be maintained by giving it a political system in which both peoples, may with equal rights, live side by side, bound through the natural ties of communication, economic and cultural relations. We do not want a Jewish state, but a bi-national Palestinian community.
University of Montreal history professor Yakov Rabkin claims that Zionism-as-Jewish-statehood
“was a minority movement shunned by most Jews.”
But it was not any of the above that I know of who used the term "thieves of holiness" It was the group Ichud (or Ihud) who were the one group of Jews who broke ranks with the Jewish Agency prior to the formation of the state of Israel and pleaded for a bi-national Palestine. Two prominent people in that group Judah Magnes and Martin Buber will be the focus of my next post.
Everything being said to you is true; Imagine of what it is true.
User avatar
mat james
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Australia

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by mat james »

The Road Not Taken
by: Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the tother, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by
And that has made all the difference.

You and Hannah Arendt have given me a different slant to this poem Jack.

Of course it has nothing to do with the subject ( The state of Israel ); but that is the strange thing about Poetry, good poetry hits home often in a universal way.
Perhaps the Israelis and the Palestinians need to re-visit that fork in their road and take the other track.
Maybe you are on the right track, and maybe that is what Leonard is suggesting in this verse.
Back-tracking is sensible practise when one (or perhaps a nation) is "lost".
none of these lands is yours
Leonard seems to be saying clearly that we kid ourselves if we think "we own" the land.
Does an ant that survives on a hill "own it"?
Or a donkey?
or a man?

He is suggesting, I think, that no one can own creation.
I'm not saying that he is right on this score/perspective. As predators, we tend to take what we need/want, until we can take no more.
It's dumb/silly,
and we are good at being silly/dumb-selfish..
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by Manna »

Oh, Mat. I thought you knew better than to say it is dumb/silly. It's just the way we are.
User avatar
Joe Way
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 5:50 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by Joe Way »

Doron,
Was there a link to the translation that you prefer?

Here is a link to a musical treatment that I really like: http://audio.cdbaby.com/c09358f6/g/gretchenh6-10.mp3

Manna,
Your presence here is much appreciated by me.

Joe
"Say a prayer for the cowboy..."
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #27-

Post by Manna »

Hi Jack,

I was thinking that the issue might be opened to include any nation that is also a religion. I don't think any nation can rule to its citizens how to behave spiritually (I mean come on! this is like major DUH! to me, even though sooooo many nations have tried it.) I also don't think any state should be set up with one of its purposes being to exclude. So far, I don't know of a nation that wasn't built to exclude. Oh wait, yes I do - John Lennon's country - Newtopia.

Hi Joe. Nice to meet you.
Post Reply

Return to “Leonard Cohen's poetry and novels”