text:
Anne Rice
An Interview With The Former Atheist, Former Christian, and Former Queen Of The Damned
Interview by Joshua ChaplinskyAnne O'brien Rice has a bit of a history here at The Cult. Since lost in the great Drupal transfer of the aughts, the incident in question exists solely as hearsay and conjecture, bandied about the hallowed halls of the forum like some sort of literary urban legend. As the story goes, Ms. Rice didn't take too kindly to comments made about her work by some keyboard critic and decided to open up a can of whup ass. Since there is no record of the event, it begs the question- if a bestselling author raises a stink and nothing exists to prove it, did it ever actually happen? Only longtime Culties know for sure, and even their recollection has grown fuzzy over time.
Shedding some light on this bit of Cult folklore was one the main reasons I pursued this interview, and it was not an endeavor I undertook lightly. I went into it with a fair amount of trepidation, as Rice's reputation for not backing down from a fight preceded her. In fact, the outspoken author has been courting controversy like it was a debutante for over forty years. So color me surprised, because the Anne Rice I spoke to turned out to be so god-damned nice that I actually felt guilty about my irreverent review of her memoir and the religious flame war it incited.
And speaking of religion, did I mention Rice recently renounced Christianity and her affiliation with the Catholic Church? The outspoken Catholic turned atheist turned Catholic turned religious detractor has come full circle and then some in her ongoing quest for theological truth. She also has a new book coming out. Of Love And Evil, the second novel in the Songs of the Seraphim series, descends from heaven via Knopf on Tuesday, November 30th. We discussed all this and more as I tried to get a handle on the enigmatic personality that is Anne Rice.
JOSHUA CHAPLINSKY: You have a bit of a history here at ChuckPalahniuk.net that I'd like to address and get out of the way. You confronted some of your detractors on our forums a few years back, I don't know if you remember...
ANNE RICE: No, I don't. What was it about?
JC: To be honest, I'm not 100% sure, because the posts were lost in some website upgrades, which is why I was asking. What I've heard is, much like you did on Amazon.com, you were confronting people who were criticizing your work.
AR: I really don't remember. What was the name of the website at the time?
JC: ChuckPalaniuk.net. It's the official website of "Fight Club" author Chuck Palahniuk.
AR: No, I'm sorry, I don't have any memory of it at all.
JC: Well let me ask you this, then. What compels you to confront your detractors?
AR: When?
JC: Specifically on Amazon.com, in the customer reviews for your books.
AR: The reviews that appeared at that time, they've all been taken down by Amazon, so there's no record of what actually happened. But at the time, there were quite a few reviews that prompted me to make the statement that I made. I felt that they were abusive and weren't legitimate reviews, and they were removed. So I removed my statement too, and no record really exists now of what that situation was.
[Savvy internet users should have no problem finding documentation of said incident]
JC: Do you feel very protective of your work and characters?AR: Yes and no. I'm used to being criticized and used to controversy. That's been going on for forty years. I certainly do try to protect my characters from misunderstandings, but there's nothing you can really do about detractors. You can speak up and state your piece, but people have a right to not like you. They have a right to criticize you and a right to attack you.
JC: Do you ever regret reacting in a defensive manner?AR: Not at all. I received a great many emails from other people who had been deeply hurt on Amazon by unconscionable attacks and they supported me very much in what I did. They said they were afraid to speak out themselves and they were very glad that somebody did. So I certainly don't regret it. I don't really regret too much of anything. I have many times said and done controversial things and I move on.
JC: You definitely seem to have embraced the tools of the information age to communicate not only with your detractors, but with your fans as well. How has the internet changed your relationship with them over the years? Is it more than just a tool for promotion?
AR: Oh, certainly it's more than just a tool for promotion. It's infinitely more than that. I think before the internet I only saw my readers when I did signings. I would get the chance to talk to a reader for maybe thirty seconds- a minute or two at the most. Of course mail did come, and I did make an effort to read the mail, but really those were years of relative isolation. I was aware of my readers, but I really didn't have the kind of interaction with them that email makes possible.
I didn't get a public email, or any email, really, until about 2003. That's when I began to sort of go into the internet age. I began to look at sites like Amazon directly and I began to email people and answer emails, and it was wonderful. I found out a lot more about my readers- who they were and what they thought. It gave me a much broader picture of what the response to a book really was. I mean, it can take a very long time to find out how a book has been received. In the years before the internet it was very easy to put too much emphasis on a remark made by one or two people. You'd have the sales figures, but so many things go into the sales figures. They have to do with competition in the market place, they have to do with how well the publisher publicizes the book. But the internet really made me aware of the audience that existed for various books and how they felt about those books. So I love it. I spend every morning answering emails from all over the world. I also have a Facebook page with about 147,000 people on it, and we discuss things all the time.
JC: Let's talk about the new novel. At the end of "Of Love And Evil", Toby goes to confession and re-consecrates his life as a Catholic, much like you did a decade ago. Was the writing of this novel completed before your recent denouncement of Catholicism?AR: Yes, it was, but I think the reason Toby does that in the book is a little different from the reasons I did it. Toby realizes that even though he's seen angels and talked with angels and traveled through time and been a witness to miracles, that he's still a human being. And he still has human doubts and a human need to belong with other humans. The novel is really about that, about the consequences of what he's done as a human being amongst other human beings, including Leona, his old girlfriend, and Little Toby, his son. And whether or not there are going to be consequences with regard to his activities as a government assassin. I think I was reflecting on the fact that no matter how strong a conversion you have, there will be times when you will be afraid and you will have doubts. This is part of the human condition. Even if you talk with angels, you will still be a human being and you will still want the companionship of another human being and you will still want sex with another human being. And Toby is confronting all these things- it's the aftermath of the conversion that he's facing.
JC: How does his experience differ from yours?
AR: He's still in the process of wanting to belong to the Roman Catholic church. I have, after twelve years, actually moved away from wanting to belong to organized religion.
JC: How will that affect the future of the series? Will this be reflected in the writing?
AR: Probably so, because my novels always reflect whatever I'm obsessed with. They are always about the questions I have- about right and wrong, how to live, what salvation is. That's in all my books, from "Interview With The Vampire" to the present time. So I imagine that yes, they will reflect that. I mean, clearly in these novels, angels are real. That's part of the framework of these novels. So he's dealing with something that I have never dealt with. I've never seen an angel. I've never seen a vampire, either. So my books are not going to be directly autobiographical, but they will certainly reflect my concerns.
JC: When Toby writes the account of his adventure, he writes, "Who would not have lied to save Jews in our own time from genocide at the hands of the 3rd Reich?" which is a good question. Why wouldn't God and the angels charge Toby to save all the Jews, as opposed to one or two?
AR: You know, that is something that I'd like to deal with in future novels. I think there's gonna come a point where he will say that very thing- why is it you send me on these missions, yet the world is filled with horrors? In "Memnoch The Devil," that was a big question. What is the nature of God and what is the nature of the devil and why is there human suffering and horror everywhere? I've never resolved those issues- I don't think anybody ever really does- and that will come up again. I think that's a very legitimate question.
JC: Your views on the subject at the time you wrote "Memnoch," have they changed?
AR: The questions haven't changed, but the views have changed. I do believe in God and I don't see God the way I did in "Memnoch." I don't see him as an indifferent or cold being. I believe in a loving god and a god who takes care of us in his own way, but I think I still have a lot of questions about the human condition. I wrote that book as an atheist, as somebody who wasn't willing to commit to a belief in God, but now I do believe in God and I'm a much more optimistic person. When I did experience my conversion I saw, for whatever it was worth, the possibility of a god in which all the answers were there. I could at least envision the possibility that all human suffering had a purpose. I didn't feel that when I wrote "Memnoch."
JC: You wrote this book at a time when you were still a member of the Catholic faith. What compelled you to write about the mistreatment of Jews during the Renaissance at the hands of the Catholic church?
AR: I've always been fascinated with the history of the Jews. I've written two novels about Jesus in which he's a Jew living in a Jewish family, with tremendous attention to portraying the Jewish community accurately- the friendly and kind Rabbis, the friendly and kind Pharisees. So I've been interested for a long time in Jesus as a Jew and Christianity as a mutation of Judaism. I love the way the Jews survive in period after period despite being persecuted. And I was in love with the idea that Toby would be sent by the angels without any explanation to rescue Jews who had prayed to God for help. I wanted to present the idea that God is a loving god that takes care of everyone, especially the Jews- well, I wouldn't even say especially. Let's just say he takes care of everyone. Theoretically, within the construct of the novel, God is sending angels to take care of all kinds of people who are praying. Toby could have adventures in a Muslim village, he could go to ancient Egypt- there's just no telling, you know?
I think too many people today don't know the real history of the Jews and their interactions with Christians. When I'm writing something like "Of Love and Evil," what's fascinating to me is not just the horrors of the persecution Jews underwent. I'm also fascinated by the fact that the Pope had a Jewish physician, and that Jewish physicians could require Christians to indemnify them against lawsuits. To me, that is amazing. Jews and Christians have lived together in complex ways that people today don't realize. As one Jewish writer said, the whole history of the Jews is not just one of relentless persecution. There's a whole lot more to it. Like in "Angel Time," when I was dealing with the middle ages in England, I was fascinated by the fact that many Christians were going to Jewish scholars to study Hebrew, so that they could better understand the Jewish background of Christianity. There were Jews that lived in Oxford and taught in Oxford. History would erase all that. History would just tell us the horrible things. I love showing all the nuances of the situation.
JC: Are the new age arguments Ankanoc uses to test Toby's faith doubts you yourself have dealt with?
AR: Definitely. I've read a very compelling author, Robert K. Monroe, [a book called] "Journeys Out of Body." Everything Ankanoc was saying comports with Robert Monroe and people who travel out of body and feel they have dealt with spirits out of body and different dimensions and so forth. I meant to give a fairly solid argument there.
JC: What was the reaction from your fans like when you decided to write religious themed novels?
AR: There was a lot of rejection. But there were other people who said, we'll be happy with anything your write. And then I got a whole bunch of new readers, that are Christian readers, and people who are not necessarily Christians, but have only read the "Christ The Lord" novels and the "Angel Time" novels. They don't like vampires and are not interested in Gothic horror. So I tapped into a new readership. I'd say I have at least three or four readerships. But there was definitely one readership that was very angry. And of course a lot of people today just have very negative feelings about Christians. They're not necessarily goths or vampire lovers, but they just don't like Christians; they're very suspicious of them. So I got a lot of negative feedback.
JC: Will you be writing any more novels on the life of Christ?AR: I want very much to continue the series, but it's very difficult to write about the public life of Jesus without getting into terrible theological controversy. The first two novels are about his private life, and they're very biblically correct and they're certainly reflective of Catholic theology. They were very well received by a lot of Protestants and Catholics, and they got a better shake than my earlier work had gotten. Better reviews than I'd ever gotten. But at the same time, there was still controversy. Why did you interpret the Bible this way instead of that way? And when you get into the public life of Christ, where I am now with the series, you can really get into a lot of hot water. And I haven't figured out a way to do it. I could present the scenes with Christ that I really love and think are important, but other people have entirely different ideas about what he said and what he meant and what he did and what we are to do in response. Any novelist or filmmaker who deals with Jesus is always dealing with his or her own interpretation of Jesus. That's clear. But at least you want try to be responsible to the tradition and to some objective idea of what Jesus taught. I had such a bad experience the last few years with Christians that I don't know how to do it.
JC: Are you afraid of the controversy? Because you haven't shied away from confrontation it in the past.AR: It's not so much I'm afraid of it, it's that I have no appetite for it. I'm tired of fighting with Christians; I really don't want to do it anymore. My goal in writing the novels was pretty simple. It was to take everything I believed about Jesus traditionally and say, yes, you can make a living, breathing character from this person in a novel that would be biblical correct. You can have angels sing at his birth, have his mother be a virgin- you can do all that and you can make a real fiction out of it. And I had really hoped that that would be a great thing. That people would think, wow, I never thought about Jesus before, but now I can see why people believe this. I had all those ideas and to a large extent, that worked. How do I keep making that work? I don't quite know.
JC: I read that there were plans for a film version of "Christ The Lord: Out of Egypt." Is that still happening?
AR: No. Well, actually, there are new plans. Those [original] plans did go south; that plan fell apart and it was very disappointing. There is some new interest in it, but unfortunately nothing is really concrete yet. There is a wonderful director and producer who is very interested, so I'm hopeful.
JC: Can you tell us who that is?AR: No, that would be a violation. You can't do that before something is signed and done in Hollywood.
JC: Who, in your mind, would be the ideal person to play Jesus in an adaptation of Anne Rice's novels about Christ?
AR: Well, for the man Jesus, I have always wanted Johnny Depp. I think he would be exactly the person to radiate the goodness and gentleness of Jesus. I think he would be extraordinary. But there are other people who could do it. There's a great English actor, Richard Armitage, that I think would be wonderful as Jesus. There are quite a few young British actors who I think could do it, but that's just who springs to mind right now. I don't think Johnny Depp wants to do it, but I don't know, maybe he would. It would be wonderful to me if he did. You know who else could do it, is the same person who played him for Mel Gibson, James Caviezel. But I don't think he would want to play Jesus again.
JC: What do you think about past cinematic attempts at Christ's life? Specifically controversial ones like "The Last Temptation of Christ" and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ?"
AR: Actually, I liked both those movies very much. I was an atheist when I watched "The Last Temptation of Christ," and I thought it was a beautiful movie. It made me think of Christ and made me want to go back to him. I thought it was very inspiring and I was deeply moved by it. I certainly was not outraged by that movie, and later when I converted and did go back, I still loved that movie. I mean, to me art should be complex and challenging. I'm not a puritan.
"The Passion of The Christ," I loved also. Mel Gibson went to the extremes of really portraying a first century execution the way it would have taken place. It's biblically correct, and I thought it was magnificent. I thought James Caviezel was great, that he exactly combined a traditional Semitic Jesus- dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin- with the Jesus of devotion that so many of us know. It's not a flawless movie, no movie is, but I thought it was wonderful. And I certainly didn't agree with all the people criticizing it for its violence. My God, you see more violence on Law and Order: Special Victims Unit every night. Heaven's sake, it's so hypocritical for people to jump on that movie because of the violence. I mean, we watch war movies, we watch westerns, we watch movies about serial killers who torture people. And then they jump on that movie because it was violent? Come on. That's a double standard. You can be violent about everything else, but you can't make a movie about Jesus and have it be violent?
JC: How do you feel about the criticism over the film's depiction of the Jews, being someone who is very interested in their history?AR: They were right to criticize that part. Mel Gibson could have done a better job, and I wish he had. But that was a small part of the movie and, to do him justice, he was working with the Gospels, and that's the picture one can infer from the Gospels. Could he have bent over backwards to balance that picture, to present it a different way, to mingle sympathetic Jews with hostile Jews? Yes, he could have. Unfortunately he didn't, and people were upset. I myself, I did not see it as anti-semitic- the man's dealing with the Gospels, presenting what they said. We can't really rewrite the Gospels. We can say they are anti-semitic, yes, but we can't rewrite them.
JC: In light of Mel Gibson's current problems, is that the kind of Christian you are trying to distance yourself from, having renounced Catholicism?
AR: Not me. We're all human beings. I don't care too much about people's private lives. I care about the art they make. I don't know that I would have liked living around Tolstoy or Hemingway. What matters to me is the short stories and the novels they wrote. Mel's movies are much more important to me than anything he does personally. Those are his problems. I don't see going around getting sanctimonious over what somebody says when they're drunk. I was a terrible drunk up until 1979, and if someone had tapes and pictures of me drunk, screaming at people, it would ruin my life, too.
JC: Your memoir, "Called Out of Darkness," feels like a love letter to the rites and ritual of Catholicism. Do you still see the beauty in it, now that you've moved away from organized religion? How do you feel about that book now?
AR: The book certainly was part of the process, for me, of moving away. I had to confront what I believed in the book. I had to dig deep, and toward the end of the book you can see me moving away. I talk about the confusing aspects of being a Catholic. Yes, I still love the ritual and I still love the beauty, and I think it's one of the most powerful things the Catholic Church has to offer people, but my social and theological concerns became so great, that that entire experience was poisoned. I couldn't keep going just for the beauty of the mass and the beauty of the Eucharist. I had too many deep, theological questions and concerns. Twelve years of study led me to some surprising, stunning conclusions about the whole endeavor.
JC: When you had your conversion, you said you were going to be writing for Christ from then on. Does that mean you have left the world of the vampires completely behind?AR: Well, I think one can write vampire novels that are for God; I don't think that in itself is necessarily impossible. I don't want to write them anymore because the vampire, for me, was a real metaphor for my atheistic self. All the vampire novels I wrote reflected my feeling of being lost in the darkness. So, no, I don't want to go back.
And also, I wrote twelve of them. I mean, enough already. I did it and did it and did it. I didn't have any more to say. I haven't thought of one single story with Lestat in the last ten years. He's alive to me, and I think of all the things he did and I think he's out there roaming around, but I don't have any more stories for him. How many times can I go through it? I want to write about different things now. I want to write about angels and immortals who don't have to kill somebody. I felt like I did the best I could with the theme.
JC: Did you ever consider combining the world of Jesus and the angels with that of Lestat and the Vampires, or is that too silly?
AR: No, I can't do that. I don't believe vampires exist. I can't combine them because I do believe angels exist and I do believe in God and I can't really bring those surreal, fictional vampires into anything profound about Jesus or God. Not now. I did it with "Memnoch," but I was an atheist. Now I'm going in a different direction and I have to keep writing as a believer, with that optimism.
JC: In the past you've written erotica under a couple different pen names. These books were written before your re-consecration to Christ.AR: Haha, they certainly were.
JC: Is the overt sexuality and sado-masochistic subject matter in those books something that conflicts with your current spirituality or beliefs?AR: You know, that's an interesting question. I really do believe that sex is good and that religion should leave sex alone. You know, Christianity has never really been about sex, but Christians in the last few hundred years have made it about sex. They're really obsessing over it in the 21st century. At one point they backed off from the stars. They backed off and said, Ok, maybe Galileo is right, we won't imprison any astronomers any more. We'll leave the stars to the scientists. And the Catholic church hasn't come out and condemned the guy who discovered DNA or the fossil record- they tried all that and it failed. So I wish they would do the same thing with sex. I wish that they'd say, OK, sexual behavior has to do with ethics and psychology and we were wrong to think that we have to rule how people behave sexually.
So in a way, I am the same person I was when I wrote those books, because I believe sex is good, and I believe people have a right to fantasy. There is a value to putting your fantasies down on paper, and being able to go to those fantasies in a safe place. I was never recommending that people do those things literally.
JC: So you don't disassociate yourself from those works?
AR: No, never. I don't list them on my website, and I have sort of complex reasons for that. I'm not sure that I want to advocate or publicize pornography, and those books are pornography. I think it is too easily misunderstood and I prefer to focus on my other works, but they're out there under my name, and I do answer emails about them.
JC: Are there any more memoirs in your future, considering your changing religious beliefs?
AR: I do feel a pressure to write about that, but I'm not ready. It's going to take a while for me to figure out. I would like to write a record of the conclusions I came to. I'm still very concerned with religion and what it does, and I post a lot about it on Facebook. I think there is a memoir there about why I moved away and what I found to be theologically correct, but I'm not ready. I'm not a natural non-fiction writer. It's hard for me. It's easier for me to make up a world and talk about these things in novels.
JC: What are you working on next?
AR: Right now I'm writing a book about immortals on the planet who have survived since the time of ancient Atlantis. It's a novel I'm writing for fun and I'm finally going to be able to do my idea of what the fall of Atlantis was like. It's something I've wanted to do for years. I've always been in love with the whole idea of Atlantis and I've never been happy with the way anyone has dealt with it. These immortals are not vampires, they are a different kind of immortal and I want to write about them in the 21st century and the problems they have in our time. I'm very interested in that- the origins of life on earth, aliens having visited the planet. I really want to make this a big juicy novel about all that stuff.
JC: Is that something you actually consider the possibility of? Aliens?
AR: Oh, yeah. I haven't been convinced that there's any proof of it, but I think it's a possibility. Dr. Crik, who discovered DNA, he believed that DNA had come here from another planet. He didn't think there had been sufficient time on earth to develop life and DNA. That, to me, was a sobering fact. I think he called it directed panspermia, the idea that DNA had come here- and you don't have to believe aliens brought DNA, you can believe it came on a comet or a meteor. So I'm kind of fascinated by all that and I love to read speculative books by people like Colin Wilson and Graham Hancock. The writings of Edgar Cayce, Madame Blavatsky- all of the people who talk about the origin of life on earth. I don't necessarily believe one person, but I'm really loving the idea of doing my novel about it.
ANNE RICE on FACEBOOK
The Cult reviews Called Out Of Darkness
Joshua Chaplinsky has also written for Twitch. He was a guitarist in the band SpeedSpeedSpeed and alternately maintains/neglects his own blog at thejamminjabber.
good interview. interesting woman. thanks for the good questions josh. i'm always fascinated by people who do 180 degree turns of faith, in any direction, let alone an author who does it. thanks again.
Kasey's right -this was a good interview. Good questions -there was no sugar coating yet it was respectful -as it should be. Nice going. Thanks for the read.
She seems to have some selective memory.
Anyway...here's her Amazon post:
Seldom do I really answer those who criticize my work. In fact, the entire development of my career has been fueled by my ability to ignore denigrating and trivializing criticism as I realize my dreams and my go...als. However there is something compelling about Amazon's willingness to publish just about anything, and the sheer outrageous stupidity of many things you've said here that actually touches my proletarian and Democratic soul. Also I use and enjoy Amazon and I do read the reviews of other people's books in many fields. In sum, I believe in what happens here. And so, I speak. First off, let me say that this is addressed only to some of you, who have posted outrageously negative comments here, and not to all. You are interrogating this text from the wrong perspective. Indeed, you aren't even reading it. You are projecting your own limitations on it. And you are giving a whole new meaning to the words "wide readership." And you have strained my Dickensean principles to the max. I'm justifiably proud of being read by intellectual giants and waitresses in trailer parks,in fact, I love it, but who in the world are you? Now to the book. Allow me to point out: nowhere in this text are you told that this is the last of the chronicles, nowhere are you promised curtain calls or a finale, nowhere are you told there will be a wrap-up of all the earlier material. The text tells you exactly what to expect. And it warns you specifically that if you did not enjoy Memnoch the Devil, you may not enjoy this book. This book is by and about a hero whom many of you have already rejected. And he tells you that you are likely to reject him again. And this book is most certainly written -- every word of it -- by me. If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it. And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art. Back to the novel itself: the character who tells the tale is my Lestat. I was with him more closely than I have ever been in this novel; his voice was as powerful for me as I've ever heard it. I experienced break through after break through as I walked with him, moved with him, saw through his eyes. What I ask of Lestat, Lestat unfailingly gives. For me, three hunting scenes, two which take place in hotels -- the lone woman waiting for the hit man, the slaughter at the pimp's party -- and the late night foray into the slums --stand with any similar scenes in all of the chronicles. They can be read aloud without a single hitch. Every word is in perfect place. The short chapter in which Lestat describes his love for Rowan Mayfair was for me a totally realized poem. There are other such scenes in this book. You don't get all this? Fine. But I experienced an intimacy with the character in those scenes that shattered all prior restraints, and when one is writing one does have to continuously and courageously fight a destructive tendency to inhibition and restraint. Getting really close to the subject matter is the achievement of only great art. Now, if it doesn't appeal to you, fine. You don't enjoy it? Read somebody else. But your stupid arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander. And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies. I'll never challenge your democratic freedom to do so, and yes, I'm answering you, but for what it's worth, be assured of the utter contempt I feel for you, especially those of you who post anonymously (and perhaps repeatedly?) and how glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses. Now, to return to the narrative in question: Lestat's wanting to be a saint is a vision larded through and through with his characteristic vanity. It connects perfectly with his earlier ambitions to be an actor in Paris, a rock star in the modern age. If you can't see that, you aren't reading my work. In his conversation with the Pope he makes observations on the times which are in continuity with his observations on the late twentieth century in The Vampire Lestat, and in continuity with Marius' observations in that book and later in Queen of the Damned. The state of the world has always been an important theme in the chronicles. Lestat's comments matter. Every word he speaks is part of the achievement of this book. That Lestat renounced this saintly ambition within a matter of pages is plain enough for you to see. That he reverts to his old self is obvious, and that he intends to complete the tale of Blackwood Farm is also quite clear. There are many other themes and patterns in this work that I might mention -- the interplay between St.Juan Diago and Lestat, the invisible creature who doesn't "exist" in the eyes of the world is a case in point. There is also the theme of the snare of Blackwood Farm, the place where a human existence becomes so beguiling that Lestat relinquishes his power as if to a spell. The entire relationship between Lestat and Uncle Julien is carefully worked out. But I leave it to readers to discover how this complex and intricate novel establishes itself within a unique, if not unrivalled series of book. There are things to be said. And there is pleasure to be had. And readers will say wonderful things about Blood Canticle and they already are. There are readers out there and plenty of them who cherish the individuality of each of the chronicles which you so flippantly condemn. They can and do talk circles around you. And I am warmed by their response. Their letters, the papers they write in school, our face to face exchanges on the road -- these things sustain me when I read the utter trash that you post. But I feel I have said enough. If this reaches one reader who is curious about my work and shocked by the ugly reviews here, I've served my goals. And Yo, you dude, the slang police! Lestat talks like I do. He always has and he always will. You really wouldn't much like being around either one of us. And you don't have to be. If any of you want to say anything about all this by all means Email me at email@example.com. And if you want your money back for the book, send it to 1239 First Street, New Orleans, La, 70130. I'm not a coward about my real name or where I live. And yes, the Chronicles are no more! Thank God!
Thanks, guys. Was def shooting for the right balance of "hard hitting" and respectful. She was super nice.
Does anyone here actually remember what went down on the Cult forums? I wish I had known more about the situation.
Great interview.
Nice, Brandon! I like how she gives her email and address for further discussion or disputes. Good stuff.
I don't know much about her and haven't read her books, but I'm from the area, and New Orleans used to offer tours through the Garden District where she lived, you know kind of like the Boston Duck Tours except it's a Trolley and they say, "And here's Ann Rice's house!"
But I've heard she doesn't shy from the tourists and is quite nice to everyone.
I had always thought the whole thing with her on the Cult was someone making a thread with that Amazon outburst and then some practical joker on here making a second account for trolling purposes.
Actually her theological road makes sense:
- Raised Catholic, turned by the extraneous nature of it all.
- In reaction becomes atheist, because if God isn't [insert your brand of faith] then there is no God.
- Rethinks this track, and logically returns to previous thinking, this as a side-effect of having a spiritual need with nothing to fulfill it.
- Realizes that Catholic is still Catholic even after realizing that atheism can't fulfill - so settles for freelance status until she finds the right "fit" or whatever.
This kind of thinking happens everyday, around the globe. People, when they are on the cusp of a change within themselves, tend to overreact, like over-correcting when you feel the car begin to skid. "I hate my [current faith] and since it is my faith, it must be that way with all, and it must be that way b/c God wants it that way, why else would it be so?" and on and on and on... so you jump from follower to atheist. Then you sit there, alone with your higher thinking realizing that you aren't getting what you need there either, and that atheism is just another form of fanaticism that stems from three basic groups, and when that doesn't set well with you anymore, you have a real decision to make, and you vacillate somewhat between the two ends of the spectrum you've made for yourself. And you eventually find yourself in a happy medium (no pun intended) between blind faith and stoic adherence to impossible ideals. But this requires effort, something that few people are prepared to redirect from more important projects such as Madden 2010, Mundane Job, the Quest for a Partner, or DWTS.
At least she's honest with herself and her audience about it. I applaud that on its own merits.
Just my opinion, but I think your assessment of atheism is way off, dude.
Very few people go from a believer to a non-believe is one quick motion. Even if they have been disappointed by their church, there is generally at least one more step between quitting a particular faith and realizing your an atheist.
Of course, I also don't think people "become" atheists, as you put it. It isn't a choice that you make; you don't wake up one day and say "I think I'm not going to believe in Gods today".
Additionally, I don't know if you're talking entirely in hypotheticals or not here, but being an atheist can be very fulfilling. Some people seem to need some sort of religion to function, just like some people need to pound out kids to feel like they are worthwhile. Like anything in life, you get what you want out of it.
Hey Kirk,
Not my assessment, but just my Venn diagram based on 1) this interview, 2) my experience, 3) Anne's particular situation, dude. After over twenty years on the subject, I think I have a pretty accurate take on what it means, atheist or new atheist and all points in between. I dumbed this down and made quite a reduction of it all, sure, but then it was just a post.
Agreed. But your "very few" can also jive with my "this happens everyday" - both are correct in a purely numerical/statistical standpoint. And I alluded to that "one more step" you speak of if you look at the four point bulletin I listed. I simplified this, of course, but I think I illustrated Anne's overreaction (even used the word) to the Catholic Church, running to atheism as the solution, which it turned out, for her, was not. If she had given it more thought, she might have skipped one of those over-corrections and arrived at her current iteration of faith all the sooner.
I'm not sure I follow you here. You are either raised one or you aren't. Right? So you have to "become" one at some point. Atheism is by far the minority among the many brands of faith out there (make no mistake about it, it IS a brand of faith), so I can't imagine all these people were born this way. Something, somewhere, had to move an individual to entertain, adopt, and exercise this belief. Being an atheist is no different from being a baptist, a deist, animist, shaman - you choose your particular flavor of faith. No one is just simply "born" that way - the only way under which you can explain being something without choice. That or someone has a gun to your head, but even that involves a "choice"
That's a subject I'd love to discuss in another thread, at length, should you want to. But for now, my experience has shown that atheists, and I'm sure there are more exotic anomalies, come from three distinct areas:
1) fed up with religion. religion has been the leader in bloodshed, the leader in hypocrisy, lies, class inequities, prejuices, suffering, injustices, greed, etc... many see this and since religion cries all actions are done in the name of God, surely there must be no God. And if the God that exists is what they are selling, I'm not buying...
2) due to the aforementioned that we see in the world, why would God allow it? If I were God I'd fix this stuff pronto, or at least wipe the slate clean. If genocide, torture, and all the darkest and ugliest of mankind's imagination are allowed to exist, in fact flourish, free reign, there must be no God. If he isn't going to at least clear his name, and surely he would have by now, he must not exist...
3)Finally, there are those who simply chafe at the idea of being accountable to anyone but themselves. Authority, especially any authority that exists in an impersonal, omnipotent, inflexible state, is to be shunned. Let me live my life how I want to live it.
When an atheist comes to be from one of these three reactionary mindsets (all of which are proper and accurate, I might add, albeit presented here in hyperbole, for effect, and not without their problems as far as perception is concerned) one tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don't doubt that many atheists live fulfilling lives. But they find themselves filling their spiritual needs by putting square pegs into round holes. Some of the more popular atheists of our day fulfill that need by adopting a cause (see Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, Maher, Stewart, Fry, and others) not unlike causes one might witness among those who proselytize their own flavors of faith.
Being an atheist I'm sure can be fulfilling, but just as you said, like someone who feels the need to have some sort of religion to function, others feel the need to be free from the "constraints" associated with the existence of a god. They cannot function within the context of being accountable to a creator/deity/god. All sorts of unwanted strings come attached with that, typically. So if you don't like what you've seen of god as presented by brand x (catholic, mormon, hindu, etc...) it is far easier to simply reject the overall notion of a god than it is to investigate further (hence my line about Madden et al).
I'm not sure I follow you here. You are either raised one or you aren't. Right? So you have to "become" one at some point. Atheism is by far the minority among the many brands of faith out there (make no mistake about it, it IS a brand of faith), so I can't imagine all these people were born this way. Something, somewhere, had to move an individual to entertain, adopt, and exercise this belief. Being an atheist is no different from being a baptist, a deist, animist, shaman - you choose your particular flavor of faith. No one is just simply "born" that way - the only way under which you can explain being something without choice. That or someone has a gun to your head, but even that involves a "choice"
This is where I think our opinions and understanding of the subject greatly conflict. This is an argument I hear frequently from those who are religious. Atheism is not a brand of faith. It is not exactly the same as being a baptisit, diest, animist or shaman. It is in fact, the complete opposite of those things. The only reason this has come up as a common argument, as I see it, is because the religious can't wrap their head around the idea of not having a spiritual-belief system at all.
In fact, I could argue that we are in fact all born atheists, contrary to your claim that no one is born that way. You have to make a child religious, just like (as an extreme example) you can make a racist. No children pop out of their moms and automatically hate people of other races. It is a learned behavior.
This comes perfectly to your "3 ways a person becomes an atheist". Though I agree that for many atheists, what you claim is true, you're forgetting the 4th option. So I'm going to add it.
4. People who were raised without a strong sense of faith either for or against and have never felt a reason to need God or religion in their lives.
The options you seem to list are all reactionary... "I don't believe in God because he does(n't) this or that." Admittedly, many atheists do get there because of such reasons. However many do not.
Myself, for instance. If I ask my Mom, she believes in a "higher power", she also believes in astrology and psychics. She was raised Lutheran, as was the rest of my extended family. She never took me to service as a child, probably because as a single mother she was always working to provide for me as best as she could. There were a few times I went to a Christian church with one of my best friends (who I have known for 25ish years) as his family was very religious and they invited me along.
Even at a young age, I remember specifically thinking that it was ridiculous that the adults in church believed the stories we were being told. To me, the story of Christ was no more believable than Santa. I recall talking to my friend about it and how he was just as shocked that I didn't believe the tales.
The only thing that I think atheists miss out on is the sense of community that a church can create. Thankfully, this is 2010 and meeting fellow atheists is easy. And from those that I know, living a fulfilling life isn't like "fitting a square peg into a round hole". We have our causes, that is true, but I can't see how that is a negative in any way. I have 2 causes that I frequently consider:
1) Helping believers understand what an atheist actually is. This often includes answering questions like "if you don't believe in god why don't you murder everyone?"
2) Involving myself in church/state issues. Something that oddly enough, actually benefits the religious more than it benefits me.
Lastly, you say this
Being an atheist I'm sure can be fulfilling, but just as you said, like someone who feels the need to have some sort of religion to function, others feel the need to be free from the "constraints" associated with the existence of a god. They cannot function within the context of being accountable to a creator/deity/god.
Obviously I don't have any research I can point to for this, but I have yet to meet an atheist that has claimed they are an atheist so they don't have to follow a God's rules. I think that is a pretty odd claim, in fact. I have however had many Christians tell me that the reason they do good things is so they don't go to Hell. I rarely like to judge morals, but when I have heard that, the only thing I can think is that I am, without a doubt, a better person.
Some people need spirituality in their lives. I get that. It's romantic. But for many of us, it is unnecessary. I've never attempted to convince someone to drop their religion and I never would. I have however had many different types of Christians show up at my doorstep to tell me about Jesus.
Does anyone here actually remember what went down on the Cult forums? I wish I had known more about the situation.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was this:
In fact, I'm almost sure it was either Corellion or Mikandrewz (think more likely the latter).
Good interview, though!
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was this:
In fact, I'm almost sure it was either Corellion or Mikandrewz (think more likely the latter).
Wait, so her "freaking out" on the Cult was a fake? No wonder she had no recollection. Damn.
It seemed real to me. It was pretty elaborate.
Also, to jump into this fracas, I agree with Kirk. Atheism is NOT a faith. Believing in the cold, hard, verifiable facts of science is not the same as believing in a bearded man in the clouds.
Scientists lie
Dickensean Principles Cat
And yet another flame war between two camps.
I am intrigued. I consider myself neither 'religious' or 'atheistic' moreover 'Rational Humanist' - make of that what you will.
However, to argue consistently over the small print of each others comments will ultimately result in a stalemate - each not wanting to back down.
In some respects I agree with the point that 'Atheism is not a belief', but my problem lies with the word in it self, still denoting a bias of some kind.
I do find Anne Rice's comment:
"...I don't believe vampires exist. I can't combine them because I do believe angels exist and I do believe in God and I can't really bring those surreal, fictional vampires into anything profound about Jesus or God."
...rather contradictory, but more for my own amusement.
But what the hell, I could've said nothing, I could've read some of her books [to date: only the 'Interview' film watched, the 'Queen of the Damned' fell asleep through] and yes, I expect inflammatory comments left, right and centre.
If only I cared.
Atheists are born! Just like gays and damn dirty gingers!
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was this:
In fact, I'm almost sure it was either Corellion or Mikandrewz (think more likely the latter).
Wait, so her "freaking out" on the Cult was a fake? No wonder she had no recollection. Damn.
it's still probably a 50/50 shot it was really her.
I remember reading it. I'm pretty sure it was her. It wasn't written like an alt. It was written like a pissed off person trying to defend herself.
Theologians and the faithful lie more.
Atheism is not, nor ever was a religion. Hell everyone is an atheist to a large extent, they just neglect that fact. Or to paraphrase a famous quote, atheists just take it one god farther.
I'm sorry, maybe lie is too harsh; disregard facts and are dishonest to themselves, may be more accurate.
Kids: It's okay to threadjack as long as it takes place between an admin and a mod. Don't try this at home...
I'm not sure I follow you here. You are either raised one or you aren't. Right? So you have to "become" one at some point. Atheism is by far the minority among the many brands of faith out there (make no mistake about it, it IS a brand of faith), so I can't imagine all these people were born this way. Something, somewhere, had to move an individual to entertain, adopt, and exercise this belief. Being an atheist is no different from being a baptist, a deist, animist, shaman - you choose your particular flavor of faith. No one is just simply "born" that way - the only way under which you can explain being something without choice. That or someone has a gun to your head, but even that involves a "choice"
This is where I think our opinions and understanding of the subject greatly conflict. This is an argument I hear frequently from those who are religious. Atheism is not a brand of faith. It is not exactly the same as being a baptisit, diest, animist or shaman. It is in fact, the complete opposite of those things. The only reason this has come up as a common argument, as I see it, is because the religious can't wrap their head around the idea of not having a spiritual-belief system at all.
Atheism and theism both straddle the fence of science and faith – that is, in fact, fact. Theism points to Intelligent Design or whatever you wish to call it to explain the precision in astronomy, the complexity of cellular life, optic nerves, the brain, the water cycle, food chains, the precise axis, tilt, rotation and distance of the earth's orbit, DNA, etc… Atheism points to purposeless blind chance, pure random rolling of the dice to try to explain small snapshots of these realities. Again, both call upon science and both call upon faith to "fill in the blanks", which is why atheism is a faith. It is a faith because it requires faith to make it work in one's mind.
So children pop out of their moms with an automatic default to dismiss the idea of a god? Doubtful. But I think you're on the right track when you say it is a learned behavior – both are. We are born blanks slates to that degree, and our earliest opinions and personality traits that are typically set in place by age 7, are as a result of association and education via parents, peers, teachers, environment, etc… we can go either way, but I doubt the default is one way or the other, I think the default is merely neutral. We are then formed and shaped from there.
I wasn't forgetting a 4th option, I named three distinct areas with the condition for less popular options. To that, I agree with your 4th option as a viable source for atheistic thinking.
But here you contradict your own point by using the word "raised" – this implies parental input, not being born a certain way.
Again, this points to being raised a certain way versus little Kirk just being born a certain way.
And here we see little Kirk already subscribing to one of the three points I made earlier – hearing the ridiculous lies in church and concluding that jesus=santa, therefore god=fantasy. Understandable, but still more indicative of reactionary adaptation versus being born that way
I can't speak to your personal viewpoint. I doubt in this day and age community is at a real loss for anyone with broadband. My square peg in a round hole analogy was more to illustrate the inability for one who claims to require no faith to live a lifestyle that still requires faith. Atheism, no matter what flavor, still requires an equal if not greater amount of faith to displace rational and scientific looks at the world and say it all came about, in this precise manner, by chance.
Understand that you and I should probably not slot one another. I am not a creationist, i.e. I don't hold onto the ridiculous belief that the Bible says God created the world in 6 literal days. Stupid (or perhaps ignorant) people, theist or otherwise, will always continue to posit stupid questions.
Congrats. I too have supported numerous free speech movements to ensure the ability for anyone to say what they want. I'm very protective of that one.
Being an atheist I'm sure can be fulfilling, but just as you said, like someone who feels the need to have some sort of religion to function, others feel the need to be free from the "constraints" associated with the existence of a god. They cannot function within the context of being accountable to a creator/deity/god.
Obviously I don't have any research I can point to for this, but I have yet to meet an atheist that has claimed they are an atheist so they don't have to follow a God's rules. I think that is a pretty odd claim, in fact. I have however had many Christians tell me that the reason they do good things is so they don't go to Hell. I rarely like to judge morals, but when I have heard that, the only thing I can think is that I am, without a doubt, a better person.
And I doubt you ever will, who would cop to such a thing? But the idea does exist and it is a strong motivator for some, as I have found. This expresses itself more so in the scientific/academic community, where astronomers, molecular biologists, vascular surgeons, philosophers, etc… prefer a life unencumbered by the restraints associated with accountability to a deity. As far as people doing things because they are afraid of the consequences, then they, by definition, are not Christian. But then I suspect 99% of the population would fail such a definition. Gandhi made that observation in so many words. We're back to reasons 1 and 2... And as far as being morally superior to such ones: you are. That type of thinking, definitively un-Christian I might add, betrays a selfish give-and-take mentality that has produced a planet full of Rice Christians (substitute "rice" for "reward" "pearly gates" "favor" "indulgences" "having your ears tickled" "deathbed repentance" etc...), which in turn leads to ridiculous things like prosperity theology, and the kind of behavior your "Christian" friends have confessed to you.
Romantic. Sigh. I understand, but, sigh. You view it as a crutch then? I have had the experience, on more than one occasion, of having someone tell me why I should be an atheist, how faith in a god shows severe weakness and limp moral fiber. That it betrays an inability to think for myself. But as I said before, there are crude and obnoxious people on both side of this fence... So it does seem to go both ways, granted I'm sure the numbers proselytizing faith in a god far outpace those who promote the other.
Atheism and theism both straddle the fence of science and faith – that is, in fact, fact. Theism points to Intelligent Design or whatever you wish to call it to explain the precision in astronomy, the complexity of cellular life, optic nerves, the brain, the water cycle, food chains, the precise axis, tilt, rotation and distance of the earth's orbit, DNA, etc… Atheism points to purposeless blind chance, pure random rolling of the dice to try to explain small snapshots of these realities. Again, both call upon science and both call upon faith to "fill in the blanks", which is why atheism is a faith. It is a faith because it requires faith to make it work in one's mind.
I purposely avoided science in this discussion, because though I am someone who is very interested in science, I also believe that questions of God are different from questions of science. There certainly can be overlap, of course, but I don't need to discuss my opinion of science when discussing God.
That said, I think you are wrong in both points here.
1) There is no "faith" required in filling in the blanks of science. The blanks are simply questions that have yet to be answered. If there is one thing we know from history it's that science will continue to explain the unexplainable. To think that the blanks that currently exist will remain is short-sighted. So I suppose you could argue I have faith that we'll figure out blanks over time for lack of a better word. But to me, having faith that your mechanic will figure out why your car doesn't start is a different type of faith than believing that God exists, he judges all of our actions, and if we don't accept him into our hearts we go to hell. To me, there is a world of difference. We need a second word to be used in place of "faith" for non-religious contexts.
2) Assuming that your dice rolling and randomness relates to evolution (if you aren't referring to evolution you can mostly disregard this), it should be noted that evolution isn't a random process. Even though it is commonly misunderstood to be. There are plenty of articles and papers you can read on this subject.
So children pop out of their moms with an automatic default to dismiss the idea of a god? Doubtful.
I should have been more clear on this. I don't think kids pop out of mom an default to the "dismiss God" mode. I do however think they are God-neutral. Again, it's a learned behavior.
But here you contradict your own point by using the word "raised" – this implies parental input, not being born a certain way.
Again, this was me not being clear enough. I was trying to illustrate, with my own experience that many people are raised like I was. Where their family doesn't push them into a particular faith and they also don't push them away from it. Had I loved going to church with my friend, I'm sure my Mom would have supported me.
Romantic. Sigh. I understand, but, sigh. You view it as a crutch then?
I personally like the term "Romantic" to describe religion. It isn't intended to be offensive, just to illustrate my opinion on it as someone looking in. The promise of an eternal life is an appealing one. (aside: Much of my favorite fiction involves spirituality, oddly enough.)
I don't know if I would say religion is a crutch, though I do think that it very often is. This of course comes back to the quality of the practitioners. Like I've said, many of my best friends are religious and I don't think I would qualify any of them as using religion as a crutch. It adds something to their lives that I simply don't "get" because I have never felt an absence in my life by not having religion.
Choosing to purposefully avoid it might make sense, but it doesn't change the fact that atheists substitute science for god. Why believe in God when I have Science? The atheist cites science, as has already been seen in this thread, anytime the subject comes up. You can choose to avoid it, but it is there, and it is entirely relevant. Your choice. I can work around that.
1) There is no "faith" required in filling in the blanks of science. The blanks are simply questions that have yet to be answered. If there is one thing we know from history it's that science will continue to explain the unexplainable. To think that the blanks that currently exist will remain is short-sighted. So I suppose you could argue I have faith that we'll figure out blanks over time for lack of a better word. But to me, having faith that your mechanic will figure out why your car doesn't start is a different type of faith than believing that God exists, he judges all of our actions, and if we don't accept him into our hearts we go to hell. To me, there is a world of difference. We need a second word to be used in place of "faith" for non-religious contexts.
Again, when one supposes to cite science as a proof that there is no god, yeah, you do – because of the blanks. What is faith? A biblical definition renders it as: the assured expectation of things not yet beheld, i.e. a belief that things not yet will in fact be, at some point in time. In that thinking, by that definition, which is the only definition I traffic in, you have faith in science, because you are confident that while the outcome to these questions isn't in front of you yet, you are sure they will be answered to your satisfaction. That, by any definition, is faith. Seems like we both agree on that, except you don't like the word being applied to you.
As far as your analogy of the mechanic versus god, well, seems like a difference of degree to me. A bit of a reduction comparing belief in intelligent design to whether or not Hans can get the timing right on my 240DL. So you haven't changed the definition at all, only the degree. You are also crippling your view of God by adhering to some rather erroneous assumptions that have been promulgated by a rather poor P.R. firm in the form of organized religion, specifically Christendom. Like most atheists, and referring back to my original 3 points, you seem to be basing your idea of God on what a bunch of vocal and abhorrently misinformed at best, maliciously misguiding at worst, so-called Christians want you to believe God to be. I'd get a second opinion if I were you, if for nothing else than to approach the conversation (this is a conversation, right?) well informed. When you really find out what God is, who God is, you'll find as I mentioned earlier, that by far the majority that claim to be "godly" are in fact the opposite.
You don't like the word faith. Chose another - it doesn't change the conversation at all, just your comfort level, I guess. Proximity to that which you want to be disassociated with has moved many a person to redefine who they are and what they believe. For example, when I enter into talks about creation versus evolution, I always, ALWAYS, as I have previously, insert the caveat that I am by no means a "creationist" as some would pigeon-hole all who believe in God. So I empathize…
Not evolution specifically, but in terms of the formulation of the physical world, which still falls under areas of "blank" in terms of scientific attempts to justify the astronomical precision (pun intended) that has arrived from an explosion – one of the most documented yet most random acts in the natural world - something that noted thinkers from Einstein and Heisenberg to Jastrow and Flew see as evidence of intelligent design, the less acrid word scientists substitute for god when speaking among their peers. And while you and many papers say that evolution (note, this is the current iteration of evolution, not Darwinian evolution which was based on the idea of random acts, and has been refuted and subsequently abandoned by science, but rather a flavor of evolution more closely tied to emergent or teleological ideals) is not a random process, they admit that chance events [chance event = random event] play a key role in the processes. If chance takes place in part of the process, can the process then be deemed "not random?" I can say that the Lotto isn't random, in that it involves a set range of circumstances under which successive numbers are selected, yet there is still the fact that "chance" or the "random selection" of those numbers has to take place within that control. Therefore, the Lotto is still "random".
I gotcha. No harm to me, just be careful as the religion of the Romantics isn't one I'd ever adhere to, too bloody, too monetary, too colonially predatory to be genuine… Of interest to me, however, is that you 1) find "the promise of an eternal life an appealing one" and 2) you enjoy reading fiction with such a theme. And yet you say you don't need spirituality. If I don't need science, wouldn't it be odd of me to keep up to date on scientific finds, or to enjoy reading the subject? My point is this: everyone has a spiritual "need" – that round hole – of varying degrees based on their experiences, environments, etc... They just choose to fill it with something else, perhaps even relabeling it as "civic duty" or "personal enrichment" or "the golden rule" - whatever. I'm not saying you're deceiving yourself or anything that heavy-handed, but I do think it is indicative of what I've been talking about in this thread.
I'll say it. It is. When I asked you if you viewed it that way, I wasn't baiting you; I wanted your honest opinion. A crutch (or a knife) can be a good thing, a crutch (again, or a knife) can be a bad thing. If you are using it properly, then the crutch serves a purpose, to help an imperfect person live a perfect life, within their limitations. If you are the type who simply park yourselves in front of a TV, podium, pulpit, megachurch, choir, whatever –and lap up every spoon-fed drop, never checking it for fact, relevance, value and/or legitimacy, then your crutch becomes a bad thing, and you are worse off than those who choose not to believe in God. Your crutch, instead of strengthening you, has rendered you weak and unable to stand on your own. You've become too reliant upon it, and when it breaks, since it is a false crutch you've chosen to lean on, you'll fall.
And care should be taken when dismissing god based on the actions of those who profess to act in his name. This goes back to my three points, and the danger of making that leap that 'since I do not have a satisfactory answer to my question about god (because these ignorant people cannot accurately answer them) then there must not be a god at all'. We can separate deplorable actions of government officials from our government, right? I mean, we realize the need for some form of government, we've seen what happens even on a small, local scale when there was no police state. But if we simply chose not to recognize any form of government at all b/c they are all corrupt (and they all are to some degree, be it socialist, communist, dictatorial, democratic, regal, tribal, etc…), where would we be? Not all religion is bad. MOST of it is – this is where many atheists are surprised by my views, even such outspoken atheists as Harris, who has very poignant words for religions that hide behind God for their reprehensible deeds. But rejecting God, to me, is a rather extreme solution to the problem of religion and what it has done to society.
how about this? Atheism isn't a religion, but Atheists are a bunch of faithful followers.
Seems a fair compromise.
I didn't read all those long posts but did anyone use the Zero is still a Number argument?
As to semantics... funny.
As to the "Zero is still a Number" - no, no one did. And thanks for getting that one out of the way ahead of time...
I feel that at this point, much of what we disagree on is a matter of semantics. Stuff that can't be agreed upon because of our opposing views. For instance
it doesn't change the fact that atheists substitute science for god
Though this does appear to happen, I don't believe it to be the case. I certainly don't substitute science for God. Though for me, science certainly provides evidence that at the very least, disproves much of what is written in religious texts. If I were using science in place of God I would be asking science to get me through tough times, or to let me know that my grand mother is doing well in the afterlife. Sure, I think about science often, because I'm interested in the subject (particularly physics and astronomy) but I am confident that science has never consoled me in a spiritual sense. Well, other than not being scared that my plane wouldn't just fall out of the air that is.
As for the topic of "faith", my point was simply to say that I personally feel that it is an inappropriate term to be used outside of religious contexts. For the simple fact that for the general public it paints a picture of religiosity. If I say "Kirk is a person of faith", no ordinary person is going to take that to mean "Kirk has believes that given time, science will answer all questions we have about the cosmos". Which is why I am still suggesting a unique term to clarify that my faith is, yes, a "degree" of difference from yours. In fact! I have decided that I am creating a new term.
If this term takes off, I will be sure to credit you in it's creation.
Of interest to me, however, is that you 1) find "the promise of an eternal life an appealing one" and 2) you enjoy reading fiction with such a theme. And yet you say you don't need spirituality. If I don't need science, wouldn't it be odd of me to keep up to date on scientific finds, or to enjoy reading the subject?
1) Well, being honest, who wouldn't find that appealing? I know a lot of atheists and I'm sure that given the option to extend their short life, they would take it. I don't think it's an odd or even unusual opinion for me to have.
2) I should probably have been more clear. It's not like I am secretly a huge "Left Behind" fan. But much of my favorite fiction is about spirituality in one way or another. Some of my favorite comics for instance: Sandman, The Maxx, Lucifer, Preacher are all series that basically live in the fiction of myth, religion and spirituality. And I love a good old fashioned possession movie. And at the risk of pointing and laughing, I find Supernatual to be very entertaining.
What I find interesting about this conversation is that you seem to take a far more scholarly approach to (what I am assuming is) Christianity than most other Christians I know or have talked to. You seem to be disappointed in most Christian's interpretation of the Bible. It's odd that your opinion is that seemingly, most of them are doing it wrong.
I have to ask the obvious question here I guess. If the bulk of them aren't really getting it, why do you feel/know that you are?
Is there a particular branch that you consider yourself as belonging to?
I suppose this is one of the points that made no sense to me about the concept of God at a very early age. Not only do I have to choose the right religion, which is primarily based on where I live, but I also have to choose the correct interpretation, which was written by some random guy. It seems to me that he wouldn't make it that difficult, especially considering what is supposedly at stake.
I don't know, maybe I'm over thinking it.
Instead of substituting God with Science,
How about this! Substituting High Carbs and Bread with Science.
I'll call it the Dawkins Diet. and the packaging with have a clean, sharp modern design to it.
I'm going to be rich!!
And in the words of the eminent religious leader Brick Tamland:
I would like to extend to you an invitation to the pants party.
Atheism is not a faith of science, could also be argued that it has absolutely nothing to do with science. Atheism is simply the most logical and skeptical position one can take with respect to religion and religious ideas. I call my self a atheism with respect to religion, but I'd more consider myself a secular humanist and a skeptic.
it doesn't change the fact that atheists substitute science for god
Though this does appear to happen, I don't believe it to be the case. I certainly don't substitute science for God. Though for me, science certainly provides evidence that at the very least, disproves much of what is written in religious texts. If I were using science in place of God I would be asking science to get me through tough times, or to let me know that my grand mother is doing well in the afterlife. Sure, I think about science often, because I'm interested in the subject (particularly physics and astronomy) but I am confident that science has never consoled me in a spiritual sense. Well, other than not being scared that my plane wouldn't just fall out of the air that is.
I think we are back to semantics here. I wasn't implying that you prayed to science, since you have no need/reason/desire for prayer. My point was that you anchor your beliefs and sci-fai not on the collected writings of religious scholars, but on the collected writings of scientific ones.
If this term takes off, I will be sure to credit you in it's creation.
Sounds like a deal.
1) Well, being honest, who wouldn't find that appealing? I know a lot of atheists and I'm sure that given the option to extend their short life, they would take it. I don't think it's an odd or even unusual opinion for me to have.
You do not, as it appears to me so far, represent the overall demographic when it comes to atheists. Most that I come in contact with, and granted I tend to attract the more vociferous of the bunch, conclude that any ideals remotely related to spirituality are to be banished, to be treated as nothing more than fantasy. Were you to admit sad feelings/opinions, they might shuffle you to the edge of the flock. But then I can only speak to my experience with the ones I have experience with.
I understand 100%. But again, this goes back to something less about preference and more about inherent need/predilection. Like why we find certain shapes appealing, certain colors and their meaning, sounds, etc… I think the idea that we all have an inherent need for something "spiritual" – or whatever word you wish attach to the notion of spirituality – is one worth exploring from an anthropological/social studies standpoint. I wasn't implying that you were contradicting yourself per se, but more that even as an atheist, that on some level, conscious or not, you have a preference for a subject that, intellectually, you reject.
Disappointed isn't the word. I alluded to the model of a P.R. firm, and that if Christianity as we have come to know it is supposed to represent the Christ as mentioned in the Bible, then the firm should have been fired centuries ago (which oddly enough, it has, even being mentioned in the same book). It troubles me, and I use the word trouble here with all the gravity it can convey, that so many people are walking around with this skewed mental image of God. I empathize with them, though. Because lets face it, if you were to take a cursory glance at religion over say, the last three thousand years, I'd walk away from it too. But for me, it comes down to wanting to understand. Good fiction (another subject I enjoy as you know) always presents the virtuous as villain, and the pure as putrid. So we read the book with an aim to getting at the truth about the character. That was how I approached it so many years ago. Of course, to add to the confusion, one has to understand that many translations of that book exist, most of which were written with agendas (King James, for example, wanted the Bible to read as though it supported the idea of a triune god – not a biblical teaching but a "borrow" from Babylon and perhaps a concession of the time, as so many religions have done, adulterating the correct practices and teaching with local customs in an effort to fill pews and therefore coffers). So to get to the most accurate version, one has to go back to the source – and I am in no position to undertake ancient Hebrew or Greek, but I can, and have, studied various translations against what I know from unadulterated sources like McClintock and Strongs, Sinatic, Leningrad, Curetonian and Alexandrian Codices, the writings of Ginsburg, Kautzsch, Cowley, Green, Mercier, and a laundry list of translations, texts and sources that would bore you to tears. To me, this was a riddle worth undoing, more than any Dan Brown novel. And why not? If it was true, then it was worth undertaking, and if it wasn't, I could without a doubt stand on my own and deflect any who tried to convince me otherwise.
My opinion is odd? Perhaps. In the minority? Surely. But then who wants to hear it? To rob from Andrew Kevin walker's John Doe in Se7en – you can't just tap people on the shoulder if you want them to hear. Of course, I'm not advocating the torture and death of people as was displayed in the film, but I find myself more on Somerset's side, where we have to understand that people don't want heros and truths, they want cheeseburgers and cable. People don't want to adapt to religion, they want to find a religion that adapts to them. Hence the various flavors available.
I guess see above. That and if you read the Bible, you'll see that it outlines the very scenario we find today, namely that the vast majority of those professing faith would be doing so wrongly.
Yes. I have found, based on my own studies and research (which sounds way more formal than it is) that there are a few fundamental truths about God, based on the Bible:
God is not a trinity. This was an amalgam of local and popular ideas that were "incorporated" (as mentioned above) with the purpose of using a tastier flavor of religion to subjugate a people.
God is not Jesus, but Jesus is his son. There would be no redemptive value in the sacrifice all Christians point to as being the center of their faith. If Jesus and God are the same, then this idea of the "ransom" would be a lie, a slight-of-hand substitution.
God does not torture someone eternally for 70-120 years of mistakes. This has arrived from misapplication of words such as Hades, Sheoul, and Gehenna, plus some leaps of logic and the corresponding need to ignore/downplay scriptures that flatly contradict such an idea. Plus, as mentioned, the church found that the idea of hellfire was an excellent motivator in getting people to do what they told them, which covered anything from conscription into an army of the church leader's choice, voting, of course the giving up of their hard-earned money, etc…
God isn't sending you and me to heaven. Look at his original purpose – if he wanted us to live in the pearly gates, why would he have gone to the trouble of making Eden? Why weren't the first humans just made as angels or whatever? Cut to the chase, man.
God did not create the Devil, i.e. specifically an incarnation of evil to "offset and balance" the world. This is Nicean/Allegheri thinking which has roots in Greek mythology, and other extraneous sources. When you do something as simple as look at the root meaning of the word (resister, slanderer) you understand that Satan, the Devil, whichever name you choose, came about on his own. God didn't make "a Devil" anymore than Dahmer's parents made a perverse serial killer. Dahmer, essentially, made Dahmer. I use him as an example because, if you read his dad's book, and watch the tapes of the interviews, you see that his childhood, other than a divorce and some cold parents (look out the window and you'll see an ocean of people who fit that mold) was pretty uneventful. He was as self-made man.
Predestination a.k.a. Fate is not a biblical doctrine. Predestination removes choice, free will - predestination cannot mesh with the God of the Bible in any way shape or form.
Of course there are others as well.
In my study, I've found that while some translations are good for citing a verse for dramatic effect, or to look at a wording in a different light, yet always to amplify the original intent – I find time again that only one copy, one translation really goes to great pains and distances to ensure accuracy. To me, you cannot do any better than the New World Translation (NWT), published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, a.k.a Jehovah's Witnesses. This choice was integral to my understanding of the whole idea of God, Jesus, etc... if you start with the most accurate translation available, then you can begin to scrape away all the extraneous "teachings" that have been layered upon our force-fed view(s) of God. From a logical/scholarly standpoint, you will find no group on earth that has more accurate take on what it means to be a Christian than they do. Unpopular? Sure. But then, cable and cheeseburgers…
But it is the very ability to choose that defines us as people, as humans – we don't operate solely on instinct, we operate on reason and choice (and emotion, a less reliable features) as well, in pretty much all we do.
If by over thinking you mean you are thinking more than the average person, then yes. But if you mean you are thinking too much so as to make the task impossible, not even close.
Kirk, Kasey, just want to say thanks for continuing the thread on the open thread 'cause it's been satisfying to read. I had a question though for Kasey. You say Jehovah's Witnesses have the most accurate translation of God and Jesus, correct? What are your beliefs then about their religion as a whole?
I only ask because I have family that joined the Jehovah's Witnesses more than twenty years ago, and as soon as they joined they cut off all ties to us, citing how morally corrupt we were. I hear my uncle is a high ranking official now in his church located in South Carolina, and the way they require their parishoners to dole out a certain amount of money to their given parish sounds like some big ponzi scheme. I once got in an argument with a JW woman because she believed in heaven on earth, and that only a few would be saved.
Are you saying only that their Bible is the most accurate in translating what it means to believe in a Christian god and to follow the teachings of Christ? Does their version of the Bible differ to how they run their church?
Also, yes, no one is born an atheist - to my 18mo old son and since he was born he's had two gods, mom and dad. He is, as every child is, an atheist to every other god until indoctrinated into believing something else.
I think they do, yes. As to their beliefs, given that they adhere to the Bible, root out errant and unfounded teachings, I'd have to say that they are the best you are going to get when it comes to wanting to be a true Christian.
I cannot speak to individuals, but I know that their teachings don't support/condone this type of behavior. Again, if you go back to Jesus as portrayed in the Bible, he chose to associate with the "amharets" as the Saducees and Pharisees called them, literally "people of the earth" and this is a derogatory term, not to be confused with the generally positive term "salt of the earth". Every religious organization is going to have those that overreact, misinterpret, or just plain refuse to do what they should be doing – I think that is something every human being faces whether we are talking about adherence to doctrine, speed limits, and clock-in times for work. So while what you say is true, I think your family, based on what you have told me, is reacting poorly, and out of line with what they have been taught.
To your point about doling out a certain amount of money, a.k.a. tithing, I've never heard of such a thing among JWs, in fact they frequently point out that everything they do is supported by voluntary donations, and often cite scripture that support that type of arrangement, namely that one should give out of their heart, versus compulsion – the situation you describe doesn't seem to be the same organization, based on my experience. They do not pass plates, no atms in the building, no envelopes provided, no requests for W2s – all of which I've seen in other churches.
See above. Best translation out there, hands down. As far as I can see, JWs run things by relying upon accurately interpreted scripture, so I'd have to say that no, the Bible and the methodology doesn't differ.
Joshua - that's funny, given the website we belong to.
My point was that you anchor your beliefs and sci-fai not on the collected writings of religious scholars, but on the collected writings of scientific ones.
You know that this is a false analogy, for the simple fact that science is constantly evolving, reviewed and corrected. Religious texts are not. I'm happy to accept new evidence that disproves my prior understanding of things. In fact, if Jesus comes flying out of the clouds, I'll be right there to admit I was wrong.
Also, FYI: I liked the idea of sci-fai so much that I picked up sci-fai.com, .net and .org
Anyhow, thanks for your extended explanation. You raise some interesting ideas related to Christianity that I have not been exposed to or previously considered.
You didn't change my mind on the topic, but I'm always interested in civil discussion. I think we accomplished that.
This is a whole new level of crazy.
False in what sense? The laws of physics do not change, right? Only our understanding of them. Wright brothers caught onto the principles that govern powered flight - the science was always there. Same is true with those static religious texts - one's understanding of them is what changes (aside from any willful attempt to pervert their meaning/message). That is what I was talking about.
Also, fear not: Jesus will not come flying out of the clouds - add that to my previous list of fallacies promulgated by the "choich".
Kudos on the sci-fai movement - you're probably onto something there. It'd be pronounced "sy-FAY" as in Taipei, right? Better get the etymology right up front.
Glad I could help. As I said, disappointment isn't the word when it comes to the myopic, xenophobic, reactionary view people typically take on the subject (by that I mean people who profess one thing, practice another - not those who merely have a dissenting opinion). I empathize, because at first glance, I'd feel (and have felt) the same way. I'm just glad I scratched below the surface, and am always glad when I get to talk to someone with a similar mindset - not taking things at face value, perceived or otherwise.
And my intent isn't to change your mind - again, back to free will - your mind is yours. But I'm always glad to talk, enlighten, what have you. One of the main reasons I love this place - most people are pretty open and slow to pull the trigger on things, except of course opinions on music.
Does that mean you consder Jehovah's Witnesses to have the religion that correlates the most as to who/what God is in the universe and our relationship with him/it? Or have your comments been strictly pertaining to Christianity?
This just in- the existence of god is a moot point. Introducing "the game changer."
It's the Devil! Save me Anne Rice!
That was an awesome interview. I loved 'Interview with a Vampire' and kept reading in the series for a while but her prose got too purple for me.
She didn't post on the forums. She read some posts on the forums and sent Dennis an email. He asked if he could post her email on the front page and she graciously agreed. I'm pretty sure that was it.
She didn't post on the forums. She read some posts on the forums and sent Dennis an email. He asked if he could post her email on the front page and she graciously agreed. I'm pretty sure that was it.
Huh. I had asked him about it, but he didn't mention that.
Could it be... ZORGO? This news is pretty exciting to me.
She didn't post on the forums. She read some posts on the forums and sent Dennis an email. He asked if he could post her email on the front page and she graciously agreed. I'm pretty sure that was it.
Huh. I had asked him about it, but he didn't mention that.
He must have forgotten. I remember waiting in nervous anticipation to find out if she'd let us post it!
Email me if you have questions about infamous moments in cult history.


text:
Beach Weddings
What To Wear To Every Type of Summer Wedding
Wedding Advice -
50 Breathtaking Ideas For Beach Weddings
Real Weddings -
The Guest's Guide To Beach Weddings
Bridal Style -
25 Things You Need To Know To Plan A Beach Wedding
Planning 101
Some people do not like seeing you happy, they hate even more when they see you happy with someone.
Do not entertain those who are interested in you while you're in a relationship. Some people will do anything to mess up your relationship.
#FF <3 @AngelSanchezPR @HouseofHerrera @AmsaleBridal @KennethPool @maggiesottero @MarchesaFashion @Pronovias @Rosa_Clara
More From Our Bloggers
Kerri Zane
Single mom advisor and healthy living expert5 Tips for Single Moms to Survive the Plus-One Wedding Season
Comment -
Susan Pease Gadoua
Author, 'Stronger Day by Day'Sign This, or Else! How Prenup Powerplays Prevail
Comment -
Sonali Lamba
Fashion blog junkie and creator of BridesideHow to Avoid the Hazards of Bridesmaid Dress Shopping
3 -
Sandy Malone
Owner, Weddings in ViequesHow Catering Works at a Destination Wedding: A Bridal Etiquette Primer
1 -
Cornelia Powell
Wedding Folklorist & Bride's Sage, author and guest speaker returning intimacy to weddingsWhile Everyone Is Looking
Comment -
Les and Leslie Parrott
#1 New York Times bestselling authors; Founders, Center for Relationship Development at Seattle Pacific UniversityFighting Through "The Big Five"
Comment -
Erin Chrisman , Mauricio Arias
Wedding photographer; co-owner, Chrisman Studios
Wedding photographer; associate photographer, Chrisman StudiosJen and Lani: What Real Love Looks Like (PHOTOS)
PHOTOS: All The Emerald Inspiration You'll Ever Need
Comment / Planning 101 -
WATCH: Tornado Survivor Describes Husband Being Ripped From Her Arms
26 / Marriage -
The World's Most Powerful Couple
227 / Celeb Marriage -
How To Get Married At Sting's House
24 / Celeb Weddings -
Why I'm Glad I Married My High School Sweetheart
8 / Real Weddings -
LOOK: There's An Awesome Story Behind This Tattoo
1 / Unique Weddings

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Firm Overview
Indian Law
Intellectual Property Law
Foreign Investment Law
Chinese Law
Current Issue
Back Issues
Issue 1 - Apr 1994
Issue 2 - Febr 1995
Issue 3 - Apr 1995
Issue 4 - Nov 1995
Issue 5 - Nov 1996
Issue 6 - Apr 1997
Issue 7 - Oct 1998
Issue 8 - Nov 1999
Issue 9 - Apr 2000
Issue 10 - Mar 2001
Issue 11 - Mar 2002
Issue 12-13 - Sep 2002
Issue 14 - Aug 2003
Issue 15 - Apr 2004
Issue 16 - Oct 2004
Issue 17 - Jan 2005
Issue 18 - May 2005
Issue 19 - Mar 2006
Issue 20 - Apr 2007
Issue 21 - Apr 2007
Contact Us
Issue 15 April 2004
As one of the fastest growing economies in the world, India is a nation in transformation. Changes initiated little over a decade ago by a conscious shift in policy, are increasingly evident across numerous sectors including the law, wherein intellectual property and corporate governance are key areas of thrust. Some recent highlights are discussed below: The Trade Marks Act, 1999, finally came into force on September 15, 2003. It provides inter alia for registration of service marks, filing of multi-class applications, increasing the term of registration and renewal from 7 to 10 years as well as recognition of the concept of well-known marks. Thousands of service mark applications were filed immediately upon its notification. Further, in our last issue, we had remarked on the Trade Mark Registry's quickened pace of functioning to clear the tremendous backlog of cases. With the new law in place, the tempo has picked up further.. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that there is now barely a three month gap between the filing and examination of an application vis-à-vis the one and a half to two year period previously taken by the Registry.
Turning to case law, the Delhi High Court recently deliberated upon the question whether 'ribs/lines on the periphery of ophthalmic lenses are covered within the definition of trade mark or within the definition of design' in Corning Incorporated, U.S.A. & Ors. vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Ors. The Court was of the view that a 'design' is merely a feature of shape, pattern, configuration, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article to make it attractive to the consumer whereas a 'trade mark' is a device, label, name or any other mark (which may also be appealing to the customer) put on a product with the primary purpose of linking it to its manufacturer/producer. In the present instance, Corning demonstrated that the ribs in question were adopted by them specifically for distinguishing their lenses from the products of other manufacturers. They further established that by mutual agreement other manufacturers had agreed to use different number of ribs on their products to enable people in the trade to distinguish between the manufacturers thereof. Accordingly, it was held that prima facie the two ribs on the periphery were a 'trade mark'. The Court also observed that the ribs were hardly noticeable on the lenses and thus, could not be judged to have artistic appeal required to qualify as a design. Further, mere registration of a mark as a design is not conclusive proof of it being a design and in any case, as per the Designs Act, 2000, a trade mark cannot be registered as a design. Thus, the defendants' plea that the two ribs were not a trade mark but a design registration in their favour was not upheld and Corning was successful in injuncting the defendants from using the two ribs mark on their ophthalmic lenses.
On the patents front, the TRIPS deadline of January 1, 2005, for ushering in a complete product patent system is looming large on the horizon. The Indian Government has already indicated its seriousness towards compliance by proposing the 3rd Amendment to the Patent law. The Patents (Amendment) Bill 2003 was tabled in the Parliament in December 2003 but was subsequently referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee for review and will have to be re-introduced in Parliament after general elections in April 2004. Apart from various procedural enhancements, this amendment intends to focus on:-
Pending the amendments, the EMR issue remains a pot boiler! Many petitions have been filed in the Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the EMR provisions. On the other hand, Novartis AG, the only foreign pharmaceutical company successful in obtaining an EMR, is enforcing its rights vigorously against the generics in India. There is active engagement in the High Courts of Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai and the matters are sub-judice. Being a forerunner in the field of patent litigation, the EMR issue will undoubtedly set the trend for the spate of inevitable product patent litigations in the post 2005 scenario. ________________________________________
Overhaul of the existing companies' legislation continues to be debated strongly and the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2003 highlighted in our last newsletter has been sent back by the Cabinet for redrafting since many of its provisions were opposed by corporates and industry chambers. In its place, a concept paper aiming to simplify the law is in the offing, which is likely to deal with regulation of private companies and consider limited liability partnerships as well.
The Government has permitted capitalization of lump sum fees and royalties payable for technical know-how and external commercial borrowings ('ECBs') received in convertible foreign currency, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions. Hitherto, equity shares could only be issued against inward remittance of convertible foreign exchange or import of plant and machinery.
The Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy has been further liberalized and up to 100% FDI is permitted in the following areas subject to relevant regulatory framework:-
Now that a number of new laws and regulations are in place, interesting times lie ahead in the field of intellectual property rights!
© Remfry & Sagar April 2004


text:
Fire sales of Russian exports this year for 11 consecutive years of growth in the arms of billions
Date:2011-08-30Author:adminCategory:International militaryComment:0
T-90S Russian production of export main battle tanks.
charge of the military, according to Xinhua News Agency – Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said Tuesday, the fire this year, Russian exports will exceed $ 10 billion.
Russian news agency quoted Ivanov as saying the Russian arms manufacturers in 2010 to more than 60 countries to export arms, "Even under the most conservative estimate," total sales will exceed $ 10 billion.
which will set the Soviet Union since the Russian arms export up to a record year.
This is Russia's arms sales growth for 11 consecutive years. Russian government data show that in 2009, Russian arms exports $ 8.5 billion, major customers, including India, Venezuela and other countries, including weapons, battle tanks, fighter aircraft and helicopters.
long-term U.S. arms exports accounted for in the world. U.S. Defense Department released data show that in 2009, U.S. exports of arms more than 380 billion dollars.
Random article
Related Articles
No comment yet!