golfrewind.com

danmcmartin has raised some interesting points about John Lennon's social ideals with his presentation of the lyrics to "Imagine," a song that I have always liked, despite its "naive idealism," as wazmankg put it, or its possibly atheistic, anti-nationalistic, subversive, pro-communist positions, as danmcmartin more or less put it.

Idealism is always going to be in conflict with pragmatism, and the ideal will always fall short of the real--no matter how hard we strive. And we must be willing to acknowledge that sometimes following the ideal can be harmful in the real world. For instance, peace is certainly the ideal, but following the path of pacifism in the face of violent aggression will only get the pacifists killed and the aggressors whatever they desire. I suppose the problem arises when we can't figure out--or agree on--when to stop being idealistic for our own good.

My favorite literary quotation is Percy Shelley's assertion in his "Defence of Poetry": "Imagination is the great instrument of moral good...." Now, the fact that Shelley was an atheist and that I'm a Christian doesn't negate the truth of this observation or my belief that he was really on to something. I suspect that Lennon was "imagining" what an ideal world might look like--and nothing more.

Excellent analysis, valeogut! Although I am no big fan of Lennon (or Lenin, for that matter!), I can see the wishful thinking behind his lyrics. Although they are not realistic in this world, by and large I believe it is what all Christians are looking forward to in the end, when this earth gives way to a new heaven and earth. Of his own volition, Man will never achieve such idyllic conditions. It will not be possible until God's ultimate plan comes to fruition.

Look, these guys (Bono, Lennon, etc.) have good intentions, but socialism and passivism isn't the answer.

Simple charity is a short term fix. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. That's all I'm saying. Just taking my hard earned money and giving people food and a roof isn't enough. They need to be empowered, educated and allowed to develop a sense of pride, not just encouraged to become a ward of the state.

Just giving in to our enemies for the sake of peace sounds nice, but it is short sighted. Just ponder my examples above. Lennon was a passivist. So is Bono. Sometimes it works becuase our enemies are reasonable and will negotiate. If a solution to our problems can be worked out without giving up everything we believe in and we get something we want in return, great! But something tells me that those like Hitler or UBL aren't going to negotiate in good faith. I would love to live in a world without zealots, dictators and madmen, but it isn't going to happen.

Bottomline, 95% of us have the same basic desires. Peace, security, food, shelter, education for everyone. The aurgument isn't so much about what we want, its about how to get there. Maybe Lennon had no agenda, but I doubt it.

at least they're making an effort. maybe their course of action is misguided, but it's still better than not making any effort at all. apathy is a plague on mankind and they're doing something to counteract its negative effects. you talk about education and empowerment but sometimes it's not that easy. we haven't even been able to achieve that in America for those marginalized in our own society. what good is the hard work and perseverance you preach if inherent social and global barriers nullify such qualities? and when have they ever asked you to give your own money and food away? their music simply reaches those who have a willingness to follow the message of goodwill in their songs and make contributions in whatever way they see fit. if you don't like the music and feel their messages are short sighted, don't listen to it. their music hasn't influenced our nation's political agenda in any way, but it has increased our awareness of global poverty.

Why is there not room for both?

Remembering Pearl Harbour does not mean you have to forget John Lennon , or vice versa?

Pearl Harbour was a tragic day when many people lost their lives.

John Lennon was a relatively young man gunned down in the street,having provided many people with much pleasure.

Get a life !

Of course, I meant that "the real will always fall short of the ideal."

The fact that no one caught that mistake shows just how closely people read my posts. Or how kind our members are to those of us whose minds are slipping a bit. Imagine that!

I liked the beatles...but when they separated ways, I went more of the Macartney , ringo sound, never cared much for Lennon after the split...but we are a diverse group and we will like and dislike many things, but i most enjoyed reading this one. you all bring out points that suit your views. ain't the ability to be in a free society grand............

I understand both sides of the issue... and all I'll say is that, as a veteran, anyone who blasphemys' the uniform worn by the proud(and some now deceased) is a disgrace. I grew up w/Beatles' music... and know what they stood for..... Anti-establishment. Sorry, but John Lennon didn't care one way or another about ANY American servicemen..(or he'd at least played the USO circuit,like other "recording artists" did.)
For those here who cry Peace... great.. it's a noble, but feable cause...why?..'cuz the Man upstairs said there'd be NO PEACE... so far He's been right.I didn't write it, either.....

I knew what you meant valeogut. Far be it from me to take a swipe at "The Professor" for a minor context error when he's on a roll.

He also said quite a bit about "loving one another"... and charity and treating "the least of you" as we would Him. It was pretty significant part of His message as I recall. That's also the basic theme of "Imagine", as far as I can tell.

I caught it. Sadly I just read it a minute ago and couldn't respond before you corrected yourself. It's a good analysis anyway Val.

Misguided effort is counter productive. Ask all the folks in Canada or Britain about their Government's misguided effort to effect a kind of peace by banning guns. Now the crime rate is soaring.

And "We" don't achieve empowerment. That is an individual choice. Government and culture can either help or hinder, but it is still up to the individual. Whether we want to believe it or not, ignorance, hunger, poverty, etc. comes down to a choice that person made and probably continues to make every day. If someone wants to learn, eat, get rich, all they have to do is start working towards it. Our country is founded on that principle - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The government doesn't give us those things, they are our birthright. All one needs to do is decide to grab them.

I don't listen to Lennon. I prefer McCartney. But to say music hasn't influenced policy is naive. Music, and all media for that matter, influences people. People influence politicians one way or another and those politicians make policy. Do you really believe the hippy movement would have taken off if it weren't for the Beatles and the music of the day. Pop culture is driven by music, tv, movies, etc. Its not like everyone woke up one day, bought a VW bus, painted it psychedelic, stopped taking showers and began dropping acid.

Put it another way, do you really believe the American people would feel the way they do about Iraq if the media was trumpeting our accomplishments and reporting like they did during WWII (like how I just came full circle)?

There is room for both stories, PH and Lennon, but the media should put each in its proper context. But that's another thread.

Most of them will say that they are happy about guns being banned , and that the crime rate would soar even higher , possibly to USA levels , if guns were not banned.

There's so much that I'd like to rebut here but maybe another time and another forum. I would like to address this notion of the American public as some sort of stupid, liberal-media puppets. We have a two-term Republican President and Republican majority in Congress. The only Democrat elected President in the past 40 years has been Clinton, who can not be considered a liberal by any objective standard (Carter was a special case, due to the Ford pardon of Nixon). Most Democrats certainly did not consider him a liberal, that's for sure. In fact the thing that used to frustrate Republicans about him is that he would take their most popular positions, give them a little tweak and make them his own. How have all of these Republican managed to get elected, sometimes by vast margins, if the public is so easily duped by the liberal media ? Dan, the American public is not any dumber than you or I. There are a plenty of conservative media outlets (newspapers, radio & TV shows) pushing the administration's positions. Folks are generally smart enough to make up their own minds.

The administration was even paying some conservative journalists to push their agenda and then having them call it news or op/ed. It was actually neither, just paid advertisement. I find it a bit disturbing that this administration has broken both international law and law here at home and practically no one seems to mind.

Long live the spin doctors!

On topic, I think charity is very important. Putting food in someone's mouth is nice but teaching them life skills is better. That's what they do here in NJ. My niece is enrolled in a school that offers living space and the chance at getting a career. She would never have this chance to make something more of her life if it weren't for the social assistance she's getting.