Cee Lo Green changes John Lennon's "Imagine"

I wouldn't mind seeing Imagine given a whole new musical treatment. A fresh face for the new millenium. If you have any links, oldboy, I'd like to see them.

If any of them have messed with the message as Cee Lo has done, I'd be interested in seeing that too.

 

Hey in that first picture Paul's not wearing any shoes. Wonder if anyone else noticed that.

 

There's absolutely no way that all religion is true, anyway. There are several mutually exclusive ones, I mean.

 

Huh, wonder if anyone else noticed that too?

 

All religions so far as I know are exclusive. Take the next step and ask yourself if atheism qualifies in that regard. The strident fundamentalism of the "new atheism" is one of the reasons why I had to cut myself loose from all belief / non-belief systems that demand axiomatic acceptance.
No argument that "all religion is true" could not be true in a strictly literal sense.

 

Each true to itself within its own doctrine, perhaps? All deserving of respect?
or
Islam, Christianity, Hinduism - all equally true? Would the message here be that individual religious doctrine and belief are of little concern, the main point being that any religion is preferable to "no religion"?

For a cop-out line, it's rather thought-provoking.

 

What nature of beast this be? Fundamentalist atheists? Cut yourself loose? From what? Did you belong to an atheist organization of some sort? If so, why did you feel it necessary to affiliate yourself with other non-believers in the first place? Was it not enough to simply not believe on your own? Most atheists I know are not actively doing anything with their non-belief. They are quietly going about their lives without the ever present influence of a deity in it. It's a fairly simple and uncomplicated sort of existence. They don't band together or live by an agreed to set of rules, rituals or doctrines of behavior. They simply don't believe. They didn't choose not to believe, the choice, I think, works the other way around. Personally, I reserve the right to not believe until I find adequate reason or evidence to believe. I don't espouse to the particulars of non-belief of others or care why they don't believe. I've never been asked to accept another's atheistic ideals never mind been demanded to do so.

How can the absence of belief in a deity be deemed a religion? A cause, maybe, in the sense that atheists (in the US, anyway) often find themselves barred or discriminated against by certain aspects of society dominated by the religious. Some become activists against this discrimination. I wouldn't call their activism, collectively or individually, a religion, though. Is this what you are calling "new atheism"? If it is then I'd have to ask myself if every cause could/should be deemed a religion.

Are you sure you're not confusing atheism with humanism, which is a philosophy rather than a religion, but which has set up something of code of common thinking whereby one humanist may recognize another?

http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism

Sorry, but I got lost in all the negatives of this statement. I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

Why can't it just mean what Cee Lo said it meant.

I don't think of atheism as a religion, but I do object to the attitudes of some atheists (that of an intellectual superiority to religious folks in general) the same way I object to the attitudes of some christians (that of a spiritual superiority to non-christians in general). I have people very close to me in my family who are atheists and their lack of restraint when it comes to judging people based solely on their religious status is embarrassing sometimes. I mean, these are smart people, but they react with a shocking amount of prejudice at the very mention of someone's *gasp* christianity. Me, I am areligious, in that I don't give a fuck one way or the other. I reject all of it and prefer to make my judgments on a case by case basis.

I will argue against the claim that the substitution of these three little words in the song 'Imagine' is 'messing with its message.' The greater message in the song is not about an absence of religion. It is about all of the things that Cee Lo Green espoused above. It is about eliminating from society all of the things that make us, to put it bluntly, kill each other. 'All religions are true,' while in literal terms does not make much sense, if thought about in a more free form way, could express simply a desire to eliminate human conflict over religion. Which is, in fact, a more realistic 'dream' than that of eliminating religion altogether, when you think about it.

 

You're confused by my negatives? How about atheism claiming to be a "non-belief" - non modifies the word belief, a belief that has been "non"ed isn't anything. If atheism is a non-belief then atheists can't believe anything (there is no god) as atheists.
You seem to be confused about a lot of the non-claims that atheism makes. I intend to expand on this at a later time, for now I think the strident over emotionalism of some of the responses is answering my original question by way of example.

 

I always thought that 'Imagine there's no countries,' to be the most compelling and likeable idea in the song Imagine.

irrelevant, but I just wanted to put that out there

 

there was a white piano in the clip. i liked yoko's hat.

 

is it just me, or is the idea of a bunch of fans of a man who died promoting the idea of peace love and understanding getting massively pissed off about one line in a song being change amusingly ironic and hypocritical?

 

*shrug* I don't know. "Imagine" is one of my favorite songs, and, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful things that's ever been written. Even if some of the lyrics are a little clunky. I didn't see Cee Lo's performance, so I don't care as much as I might have if I did. It does sort of irk me that he seems to have missed the point of the song, but.... as MM brought up...it's a song about love, and acceptance. That's the important thing, really.

 

Umm, I meant negatives as in your use of the "no" and "not" in the statement. I found the wording overly convoluted and confusing and couldn't grasp your point. Others may have no problem. I have no idea if the content of your statement is negative until I can understand what you're trying to say.

"Non-belief" in an almighty deity in this instance means "the absence of belief" in an almighty deity. as in non-aggressive means the lack or absence of aggression. Do you have a term you prefer? I'll be sure to use it next time.

How do you come up with such an outrageous claim that because atheists don't believe in God they can't possibly believe in anything?

How can I be confused about the non-claims atheism makes if I have no knowledge of the claims you're referring to?

I find this reply of yours to be the most strident I've seen on this thread. Not that I have a problem with it, mind you. I prefer it to the passive-aggressive posture you've taken up until now. I'm just hoping you won't string us all along only to reveal that you've been a Christian apologist all along.
--- merged: Jan 12, 2012 4:25 AM ---

Massively pissed off? Not here. I think most of us are just trying to have some fun with a good debate while we can. Though I suppose some in the wider world are good bit peeved. Oh well. Life goes on.
--- merged: Jan 12, 2012 4:30 AM ---

Not at all irrelevant.

 

Um.. cuz he liked Imagine?

I didn't mean Imagine didn't fit his ideas, I meant maybe 'no religion too' may have made him uncomfortable.

 

If the lyric reflected all the things that Cee Lo espouses to, why did he feel the need to change it at all? Granted eliminating human conflict over religion would be preferable to eliminating religion but I fail to see how his change to the lyric gets that specific interpretation across. You have managed to grasp that from "All religions are true" but I'm doubtful that most would.

I don't think he managed to get this intent across either:

"It’s all about love. It was all about love and peace and unity and tolerance and acceptance. All of these wonderful things that sound cliché and a little bit cheesy, you may say I’m a dreamer but I’m not the only one.”


If he really felt the need to change the phrase to convey this other message (which is nice, don't get me wrong) he should have been less obtuse about it. He exchanged one poorly written phrase for another poorly written phrase. He messed with the original message and didn't manage to pull off conveying his own adequately. If a lyricist needs to explain what a phrase or line or lyric means, it means it's not working.

 

I am a hardcore Lennonite priest and I resemble.... ummmm errrrrrr....... I mean...... I ummmm uhhhhhh..... resent, that's it... I resent your remark.

 

"Everything is True"
"Even false things?"
"Even false things."
"But how can that be?"
"Don't ask me man, I didn't do it."

 

I know what you meant. But it would be like John Lennon changing a line in "Amazing Grace" because it made him uncomfortable. I tend to think that, as much as he might have liked most of the song, he'd steer clear of it if it bothered him that much rather than change the wording to eliminate the suggestion of God.