Our Humanity, Naturally

The song is about thinking and his version is about being a brain dead conformist..

I didn't catch the actual performance, but it sounds like Cee Lo Green sold out to the older, conservative mindset. This doesn't make Cee Lo a bad person, just a mediocre thinker still stuck in an ancient rut, and not very likely to be an emissary of world changing vision.

This situation is slightly reminiscent of The Rolling Stones being asked to change their lyrics on The Ed Sullivan Show from "Let's Spend the Night Together," to "Let's Spend Some Time Together" (an order they did NOT comply with, to Sullivan's chagrin).

Perhaps Mr. Green could more easily see the error of his ways if it were explained in the vernacular of religion.

Mr. Green: While you may not have intended to insult anyone or to marginalize members of any community, you nonetheless have. As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." When good intentions beget harmful behavior, it can be redeeming to acknowledge the error, apologize for having done the deed, make reparations (if any can be made), sincerely promise to not do it again, and then move forward without doing it again. Having put down the pavement, I’m afraid this is the least that can be done. One cannot expect that by responding to the complaint of the victim (situated, by your hand, at the curb) with, "Make sense. Obviously, I didn't mean to do push you to the curb," said victim will miraculously not have landed by your hand at the curb.

Or, maybe a good session with a linguist could help Mr. Green sort it out.

May i say : "True Story".
One important part,in my opinion: "Lennon's direct criticism of organized religion in "Imagine," a song released three years before Green was born, is an important mantra to millions of nonreligious fans, and the idea that it could be casually changed to an opposite meaning is, well, somewhat sacrilege. "

And at the end of this one,i just said : "Ouch !" : "Lennon told a generation to think, to act, and to challenge authority, whereas Green implies that all believers can simply hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya.'"

David Archuleta, a devout Mormon, also changed the lyrics to "Imagine" when performing the song on "American Idol " three years ago. He left out the entire first stanza! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Zjrcpyq2o I wonder how many other singers change lyrics to conform to their own beliefs? Hey, if you're going to sing a song, sing it the way the writer intended or don't sing it at all.

No, the Rolling Stones did not take a stand for artistic freedom - they rolled over. I've seen the video, and from the wiki:

In contrast, the Rolling Stones were instructed to change the title of their "Let's Spend the Night Together" single for the band's January 15, 1967 appearance. The band complied, with Mick Jagger ostentatiously rolling his eyes heavenward whenever he reached the song's one-night-only, clean refrain, "Let's spend some time together". In revenge, the Stones went backstage, only to return in Nazi uniforms with swastikas, which caused an angry Sullivan to tell them to change back into their performing outfits, however, the Stones left the studio, and Sullivan declared that he would never again allow the Stones to ever appear on his show.[40][Full citation needed][page needed] Nonetheless, the Stones appeared on the show one final time on November 23, 1969.[41] However, Diana Ross & the Supremes, frequent guests on Sullivan's show, debuted their then-release and eventual controversial #1 hit song "Love Child" on Sullivan's show, but nothing about its title or its content about a woman in poverty having a child out of wedlock seemed to faze Sullivan, the show's producers, or the network.[42]

They sold out and Cee Lo Green is a putz.

Why is anyone surprised when this man lacks such talent that the two main words to one of his songs are "Fuck You."

I love what John said, a world with no religion, where everyone lived for today would be awesome. That said, I also respect the point C Lo makes about perception and reality. No one religion is the one, true religion. This is a message very much in line with what John Lennon meant to convey in "Imagine". I think it is of the utmost importance that people of differing religious view points respect the validity of other belief systems. John was most concerned with ending war and creating peace on earth, and the concept that all religions are true is a huge step in that direction.

What would Christopher Hitchens say?...

Xander, I think we have to assume that Mr. Lennon meant what he said, " ... and no religion, too."

Mr. Green's hijacking of Mr. Lennon's lyrics is in no part in keeping with what Mr. Lennon said.

this is an interesting piece of writing, an interesting choice of personal expression. A world without religion would have not have been created! i support what this rapper says, although i do not understand fully the reason/game for doing so, personally it speaks to me as if it comes from a place where man 'struggles' to discover why we are here. god or no god, religion none or all, were all asking, arnt we? to support humankinds common purpose of life is commendable and people reaction further shows the commonality. the book that the author wrote will sure to be on my amazon list, or maybe not! but if i choose to read it im sure its just as another example of humans struggle to find answers, our own truth, but we'll have to wait for the real truth.

This article is the biggest, nastiest piece of evangelical propaganda for the religion of Humanism that I have ever seen.

We would label someone's reinterpreting (painting over) a tree in Mr. van Gogh's "Starry Night" in a number of ways (immoral; unconscionable; not to mention illegal; etc).

Though the wrong-doer might say that the reworked element means the same thing, or merely restates or is consistent with and supports the artist's vision, we know that one cannot change Mr. van Gogh's tree without changing Mr. van Gogh's work.

No one has the right to trounce upon the integrity of an artist's work; to interpolation of artistic expression. In our society, we do not take kindly to reworked art presented as though it were the original -- and with no disclosure, no admission, nothing.

In the case of Mr. Green's reworking of Mr. Lennon's lyrics, no exception is warranted. Indeed, as far as I know, none was requested.

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Lennon's estate steps forward to add to the general discussion.

I appreciate the intelligence of your comment, but C Lo did not record over Lennon's version, nor was it presented as the original. He simply proffered his own take on it. I don't detect any "trouncing upon", merely a re-working of the original, never pretending to be the original. As a song writer myself I do not condone the twisting of lyrics to suit an individuals preference, yet I reject the slam on C Lo for his doing so. Perhaps because it serves to stir up debate do I find C Lo's twist worthy of defending. It is at least worth thinking about, philosophically.

Strident atheism is a form of religion too. Give the man a break. He sang a song. He didn't steal it or destroy it or change it forever. Is one small deviation so threatening to your worldview that it cannot be tolerated? It's not religion that's harmful so much as the rigid insistence that "my vision" is the only truth. NO ONE on the planet has all the answers--not the televangelists and not atheist fundamentalists either. That's what Lennon's song says to me.