WAR -- good gawd, y'all -- what is it GOOD for?

[DrSmellThis]

Bloom\'s 1995 book, The Lucifer Principle has a lot of interesting history on Muhammad, who was himself no man of peace, to say the least.

One of the first things he did after gaining influence was to assasinate his opponents, and order an entire town of 900 Jewish men killed, and their wives/children taken into slavery. That was not all.

WTF??!

Though anyone who thinks this history did not inform and color the Muslim religion per se is nuts, I\'m not picking on Muslims. I\'m a recovering Catholic myself. One of the best things all humans can do right now is to look at every scrap of their own religious histories with a critical, objective eye. Blind dogma is literally killing us.

What the heck is it supposed to mean to say the Bible is the \"Word of God?\" It was written and rewritten by countless, imperfect men, all of whom had their own agendas and cultural knowledge base particular to specific times, places and battles in our brutal history as humans. God is painted as nasty, vengeful, bigoted, aggessive, insecure, intolerant of superficialities, and power-addicted, just like the people who would have had the authority over additions and subtractions to those Holy Texts. I dare somebody to read Leviticus! Raping, pillaging and plundering are all condoned -- all in the name of God! Then read Numbers. There\'s some real pretty stuff in there, too.

Regarding Christianity, there were originally at least 40 Gospels in the early Church, which was composed of various sects; each of which had different approaches to spiritual life, and somewhat different accounts of the words of the Nazarean.

There were brutal political struggles, and soon a few sects joined forces and gained power. Shortly thereafter, all but the four Canonical Gospels were virtually destroyed or hidden. Those four, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were then rewritten and polished into the grand works of literary style they now are. About sixteen or so of the remaining Gospels remain, but most of these are only very partially intact, with the exception of the Thomas Gospel. Virtually all of the scholars agree Thomas is authentic, came from the Gnostic sects, and may have been written earlier than MML&J.

Were we to base Christianinty on the Thomas Gospel, and its emphasis on the Divinity within each of us, we would have to discard much of Christian theology.

No Dogma is sacred.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Blind dogma\'s definitely a bad thing. You mention books of the old testament. My understanding of what Jesus was about was putting and end to that kind of stuff you read in Leviticus and Numbers. The old testament is included in the bible more to show what Jesus was up against, I believe, than to hold old testament standards up as models. Jesus was their antithesis, which was why he was crucified, if my understanding is correct. The establishment wanted rid of him because he would have made them superfluous, offering, as he did, a direct pipeline to God through himself and promising that in this way, the believer would receive the truth.Anyway. Yeah, blind dogma\'s killing us. At the same time, people appear to need their religion. And the folks, Christian or otherwise, who think their idea of god is the only true idea of god, or their sacred text is the only truly sacred text, I\'m not sure will improve upon reflection. They\'ve been educated to have blinders on. And that they\'ll lose their souls if they stray from \"the word of god.\" It\'s a powerful inducement to stay within a community of like-minded people and not examine other ways of believing, including atheism. When you actually read the new testament and focus on the supposed words of Jesus, you see how perverted the ideas we\'re left of his have become by the churches over the years. Look at his advice to the apostles in Acts - that if they came to a city that wouldn\'t receive them and didn\'t want to hear their message, to shake the dust from that city from their shoes and move on -- go somewhere where people want to hear, are receptive. How did we get from that to the inquisition?? Believe in the Catholic church or we\'ll torture you until you do. The only hope I see for blind dogma is to promote literacy and lack of censorship. Many of the people in the muslim world are undereducated and if they can read, have nothing available to read but what their government or religious leaders want them to have. The Lucifer Principle is recommended reading. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[DrSmellThis]

Well I hope people can change. I do know I did.

The thing Jesus said the most of anything he said is not to judge! Second, third and fourth places probably went to issues about hypocrisy, changing one\'s way of living, and loving. He also said God judges no one, but that only people put judgement on themselves and others! (This is stated most clearly in Thomas).

What heresy!! Who dares attempt to escape the judgement of God??! Although there are exceptions, Christianity as practiced by Christians today is virtually all about judgement -- what we\'ll face at judgement day, how God will judge our sins, how we\'re going to hell, how we\'re inherently evil, how we need to take a stand against evil, and how world leaders X, Y and Z are evil, how there are good people and bad people, how we need to learn the difference between plain ol\' right and plain ol\' wrong, how behaviors Q through Z are plain ol\' wrong.

It\'s all Bullshit, and it is emotional abuse to teach children this stuff. How can anyone who believes any of these things grow up with any self esteem? For we know, at least unconsciously, that we\'re all chock full of both pretty and butt-ugly stuff! (The butt-ugly stuff smells the best, though.)

Moreover, self-esteem is self love, and if you can\'t love yourself, you can\'t really love any one. (the book One Way Relationships thoroughly addresses this). If Jesus was about love, then the vast majority of Christians are died in the wool anti-Christs!

Incidentally, Jesus never once preached specifically against any kind of sexual behavior.

But I don\'t mean to change the topic. Back to killing those \"Damned Camel Jockeys\"! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Jesus preached a lot of stuff that humans can\'t live up to, much as they would like to. His not preaching against any form of sexual behavior is part of his heritage as a Jew -- Hebrews says \"the marriage bed is undefiled,\" meaning whatever two married adults do is ok, and Jesus as a Jew continued in that tradition. But you can extrapolate some of his ideas about right and wrong, for example, his not wanting the woman caught in adultery to be stoned -- he didn\'t want her punished by stoning and he preached at the people who had stones in their hands (the famous \"he who is without sin cast the first stone\" passage), but he did tell her to \"go and sin no more.\" So it\'s not that her sexual behavior was ok. He definitely wanted her to quit that. It was that he didn\'t feel she should be stoned for it. He went on to say that even thinking about adultery was adultery. If you\'ve done it in your heart, it\'s the same thing as having done it in the flesh. So on that basis, no one had the right to cast the first stone; that made them all equally guilty. Personally I think he was just being chivalrous. He knew for fact every last person had had a sexual thought or two, and putting it to them that way made them have to put their stones down. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] He preached pretty heavy in the sermon on the mount (very beautiful passages if for nothing but their value as literature), answering a question about divorce, basically said there isn\'t any - you\'re married. For any reason other than adultery of either party, you\'re stuck with it. You can divorce and marry someone else, but that marriage is not a true marriage. So I think it\'s true to say that Jesus had some pretty clear ideas about right and wrong as applies to sexual relations. Whether anyone wants to follow them or not is their own business in my book. The only hope I have is that they would try not to gratify their own needs at the expense of someone else\'s well being. It\'s emotional abuse to teach children blind dogma, but on the other hand, one could say that it\'s also emotional abuse to give them no moral compass whatsoever. Children crave and need structure. Do you think it could be true that at least a background in some kind of religion is useful as a pace to start, with the idea that as their reading and knowledge increases as they mature, their ideas might change, and that\'s ok, too. I\'ve often thought that comparative religion courses would be good for children. One week read the Vedas, one week read the Koran, one week read the bible, for example. Do you think that might be a good idea? DrSmellThis, where does Jesus say God judges no one? If you have the site handy, may I have it so I can read it. I don\'t remember ever reading that before.Regarding judging - In Matthew Chapter 7, Jesus does say \"judge not, that ye not be judged\" and goes on about how easy it is to see the speck in your brother\'s eye (i.e., someone else\'s imperfections) while you don\'t even realize you\'ve got a 2x4 (loose translation [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] ) in your own eye-- in other words, try not be sure you\'re not blinded by your own prejudices while trying to correct another\'s - he does not say don\'t make a judgement, nor does he say not to try to correct something you feel is wrong - because if you read to the end of that sermon that begins withs with \"Judge not that ye not be judged,\" you see that he winds it up with \"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother\'s eye.\" Rid yourself of your own prejudices before you try to correct someone else, I believe is the message. Not that you should not try to correct what you believe is wrong -- which action involves making a judgement. He meant, I believe, don\'t condemn.Read Matthew chapter 23 and tell me if Jesus is not judging. He hated the scribes and Pharisees with a purple passion and went on a rant the whole chapter against them. Another beautiful example of parallel construction, the multiple \"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!\" ... in verse 15, he says to them, \"you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.\" ... child of hell? a little judgmental, y\'think? There were definitely some people Jesus had no use for and he said so, and called down bad things to happen to them, even. Did you read this thread before you wrote the thing about \"killing camel jockeys\"? I am surprised you wrote that. I don\'t see it here, or that attitude.

[DrSmellThis]

I like the Hebrews quote.

I wholeheartedly agree children need structure and a moral compass. It is abuse to deny them this.

I have lots of disagreement with \"Christians\" about what a moral compass is. I have written a manuscript on ethics that I hope to publish. I think stories of peoples\' lives are the most effective teaching method overall, because it gives kids a holistic context they can digest on many levels; rather than sets of abstract, black & white pronouncements. The guy from Nazareth used stories, too, but had specific reasons for using parables to encapsulate multiple layers of meaning for different ears over time. I also believe in elimenating punishment, in favor of consequences. These approaches ideally remove the whole good/bad dimension, while preserving the morality and structure.

Regarding religion, there\'s nothing wrong with exposing kids to one or more religions. Usually it\'s helpful. But parents have to be very careful, as there is lots of psychologically destructive stuff out there. I like the idea of holding, as the first priority, staying true to, and building on spontaneous expressions of a child\'s natural spirituality (Check out the \"What is love?\" thread for examples!!); being careful to NEVER invalidate anything \"organic\" (visions, etc.). My first stance is always \"What is this child teaching ME right now about spirit?\" Then we can just give it back and add wisdom.

Jesus said we\'re very capable of not judging, that we are in fact capable of things much greater than he. Why give up and say we can\'t do it? We can enjoy growth our whole lives.

He said nothing about \"clear right and wrong\" in the Sermon on the Mount. We put that \"black and white\" meaning onto it, because we are all programmed to judge: me, you; everybody. I do remember there is lots of legitimate debate about what the \"what God has joined...\" stuff means. It would be good to go back to the passage in its different versions. (I still need to unpack my bible from my last move, or else I\'d open it.) I know what you said is indeed the conventional Christian viewpoint of marriage. You do seem also to know well that we cannot be sure how accurate any specific passage is.

[DrSmellThis]

FTR -- Grab the Thomas Gospel for the passage. It\'s fairly short, as it is ONLY the words of Jesus, with no narrative. Fast, enjoyable, interesting reading. All my books are still in boxes, or I\'d help more. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

I can\'t address all that now, but in a word -- Jesus absolutely said DON\'T judge! I take him further to mean there, \"for in doing so you must of necessity simultaneously judge yourself\". Then you can love no one, as I said above.

He had a temper that was passionate and physical. He was not perfect in that sense, and never claimed to be, as physical humans are not perfect in their physical expression. Matter is flawed. Spirit is more what we mean as perfect.

He never wished bad things on people, but emphasized the things people bring on themselves.

Hell\'s children: This refers to the hell the children lived trying to extract themselves from the hypocrisy they were indoctrinated into. Think of the therapy bills! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Sorry, I don\'t know what the Thomas Gospel is.

When you unpack your books, check out the sermon on the mount. I had forgotten some of it too, and had to go back and read it again after a friend kept saying he said those things about divorce. I couldn\'t believe it until I read it again.

I know more than I could ever write here about scripture from many cultures. It\'s been part of my reading all my life. I see value and beauty in most spiritual writing, whether wiccan or christian or what have you - personally, I don\'t discriminate, I\'ll read anybody\'s ideas about nonmaterial things in the hope of finding something that speaks to me.

I think as much as a person is able, the important thing is to use your mind. Read and evaluate. Make judgments! (I\'m pulling your chain, doc.) Decide what\'s worthwhile to you and what you disagree with. But above all, read and think. Feed and exercise your mind.

[DrSmellThis]

I like that kind of judgement, which is just discernment. Different concept.

If you are into spiritual texts, I\'d be shocked if you wouldn\'t want to check out the Thomas Gospel. It\'s absolutely authentic, found in a desert cave in the 50\'s, and most probably written originally by Thomas of \"doubting Thomas\" fame. I found it intensely exciting, but I too have a passion for learning.

Surely you know the camel thing was irony.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yes, good, that\'s what I meant.

I will check it out. I love \"Doubting Thomas.\"

I didn\'t know. I\'m glad I asked; I missed it.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I just saw your edits.

You and I will never agree on the \"judging\" issue, even if Jesus is on your side. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] I also have issues about the promotion of self-love. Shame and guilt are useful emotions, and appropriate sometimes -- and believe it or not, I\'m my own harshest critic. You and I could debate for hours on these topics and probably never convince one another.

It\'s interesting to hear your ideas, though, and I\'m so glad you wrote.

[DrSmellThis]

Grab the book by the monk John Traub, \"Who Told You You Were Naked?\" Great discussion of Shame. For a Jewish viewpoint, \"How Good do we Have to Be?\", by Rabbi Harold Kushner.

Shame = always harmful = I am bad. Therefore useless to try to change. Self-judgement. Guilt = depends on situation = I made mistake, need to change something.

Just \'cause some lame new agers abuse the self love concept, don\'t mean it bad. Fer cryin out loud, it is central to Jesus\' message.

From a psychological point of view, love of others is impossible without love of self. (It\'s a matter of degree.)

What does it accomplish to yell \"I\'ll never change!\" to ourselves? I give you more credit than that.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Finally found the passage in Matthew. The Pharisees were messing with him and trying to trip him up, and they asked him a tricky question, what do you think about divorce for any reason (\"Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?\") and he said if you\'re married, you\'re married (\"...a man shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.\") so the Pharisees came back with, then \"Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?\" (Then how come Moses said divorce was all right? Yeah! Answer that if you can!) and he basically says, well, that\'s because Moses was wrong. (I\'d love to have heard the Pharisees gasp. It\'s this kind of talk that got him crucified.) \"I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.\" This is Matthew chapter 19, verses 3-9. He was pretty clear about sexual behaviors, I think.P.S. Please don\'t anybody think that because I can find Scripture quick and quote it, I\'m a bible thumper or I believe everything I\'ve typed out. I can quote a lot of stuff. This is just for purposes of clearing up a matter of fact about what Jesus did or didn\'t say. Whether I believe it all or not is another issue. I believe in a whole lot of stuff that\'s not biblical in the slightest. (if anyone cares)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Doc, it\'s not at all that I think I\'m incapable or that I refuse changes. I do appreciate that you\'re offering me something you have found useful. It\'s a kind gesture. It\'s that I reserve the right to change those things about me that *I* feel are in need of change. You and I disagree about some fundamental issues and I bet both of us could quote scholars and wise men, as I said, late into the night and well into the next day, for that matter - for weeks and years - and still never agree. I believe in absolute values, for example. I do think there is such a thing as right and wrong. My ideas are somewhat unconventional along those lines, but I have them and I hold to them. I think shame is a useful emotion, despite the fact it means that I\'m bad. Sometimes I AM bad and sometimes I don\'t love myself even a little bit, nor should I. At those points I have still been able to love other people. But it\'s all mine to deal with, because it\'s my conscience at stake. If there is a god, I\'m the one who has to account for what I\'ve done, and only me. So these are matters I don\'t acceed to anyone else\'s authority. I know you would like for me to change in certain ways, but until I feel it myself or see the need, I have to be who I am according to my own standards, which are different from yours. But again, I do appreciate that you want to give me something. It\'s very kind. P.S. If you\'ve never read any astrology, you might find it interesting. It is classic Virgo behavior to show love by wanting the other person to improve, to be better. Virgo and Sagittarius (that would be me, Sag) are square to one another - the aspect of the highest stress, the greatest possible differences. To press one\'s ideas on a Sag is to meet with increasing resistance -- we just dig our heels in deeper and deeper -- if we stick around to listen at all -- typical Sag behavior is to get up and walk out. Virgo and Sagittarius are The Odd Couple, Felix and Oscar, respectively. They\'ve just got to love one another despite their differences, because they\'ll never be alike. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Write me off as invincibly ignorant on the judging thing; we\'ll get along better. Affectionately, FTR

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks. That is clearer than I remembered it too. It says what it says. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] I shall revise my thinking somewhat. I do want to clear up my own confusion on this passage and its history. I personally do feel intuitively that we keep a tie and reponsibility to people, at least on a spiritual level. I\'m no fan of divorce, per se, which is why I\'m staying single till the cows come home...Ooops, that didn\'t sound right.

Part of it was talking about a definition of \"adultery\", which was \"Moses\' and the Pharisees concept\", not Jesus\'. Fornication in fact makes a marriage committment take on quite a different meaning, at least. He is perhaps calling a spade a spade.

The whole ethic about abandoning one\'s family, such as Jesus being rude to Mary after a long absence, has a political history to it. Jesus family members, and relations to them have been controversial subjects. Church officials may have made Mary to be a virgin, for example. Other Gospels disagree.

This passage is of course controversial. Another issue, for example, is what the Pharisees meant by \"lawful.\" It is still required by law in at least parts of Pakistan to execute a raped woman for unlawful fornication unless the rapist and three others say she was raped. Adultery was a crime there too, punishable by very bad things. Profound poverty was often the least. The kinds of things they put wives into the street to beg, starve and get stoned for were pretty ridiculous. What a powder keg! I\'d want marriage to have a strict meaning too. Why would Jesus even comment on that one? In that context the fornication exception scares me! Then it\'s OK for her to be stoned! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

I am just speculating about this part, but \"man putting asunder\" a marriage may even have referred in part to man made laws declaring a marriage void despite the couple\'s wishes.

At the very least, there is a political history and context to this passage. Regarding our present situation, what of physical abuse? Child abuse? Certain things I cannot accept in literal form on first glance, I have to admit, as I trust my own spiritual information more than an account which is but one representation of Jesus\' words.

[DrSmellThis]

OK. May your chosen beliefs always serve you well.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Actually, if you do, you\'re doing exactly what Jesus said he wanted you to do. Christianity in its pure form is essentially mystical. The promise is that if you accept Christ as your savior and are baptized, you will receive the holy ghost, which will then inform your decisions. At which point you don\'t need \"the law\" anymore. Scripture is a point of reference, a guide for the believer, not a law to be adhered to on pain of death. You don\'t need another human, a priest or a pope or a rabbi or anybody. You carry god inside you, which will tell you when you\'re right or wrong, because the holy ghost quickens your conscience. Your understanding of scripture will improve and deepen as you listen to the holy ghost in yourself. And it doesn\'t matter what you do, if you make mistakes, as long as your heart is pure and you\'ve honestly done what you thought was the right thing to do according to your wisdom at the time. Romans is a hard book to understand, but that\'s essentially the message there. You don\'t live or die by what you do after you\'re baptized, because you\'re not judged by your works anymore. After all, you\'re only human. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] He says the only sin after baptism is to sin against the holy ghost, which essentially means to go against your conscience.The whole deal about being able to be in direct contact with god is the reason Jesus was crucified. Before that, the only people who were said to have direct contact with Judeo-Christian god were Jews. If you weren\'t Jewish, you couldn\'t know god. Jesus opened the whole thing up to everybody and said you don\'t need race or churches. Through me, you can know god. See how that puts the churches out of business? They strung him up real quick and hid and confused as much as they could everything he wrote. The only thing is, he was definite about it being only through him.Which leaves the rest of the populace to ... burn in hell? Wander in limbo? I don\'t know.Again - I\'m reporting what\'s written, not necessarily what I personally believe.If you want sites, I\'ll look them up for you, give me a day or two.

[upsidedown]

>>What a powder keg! I\'d want marriage to have a strict meaning too. Why would Jesus even comment on that one? In that context the fornication exception scares me! Then it\'s OK for her to be stoned!<<

What are you saying here? Jesus doesn\'t say anything about stoning here in Matthew. Is that what you\'re thinking with your comments here?

In the sermon on the mount, the adultery/fornication exception is saying that this is the only thing that breaks the marrige bond, and allows for remarriage by the innocent party without it being an adulterous situation. That\'s the thought in this passage.

[DrSmellThis]

No. You\'re right. In that account Jesus said nothing about stoning. I\'m talking about using the historical context to help us interpret what he said (or might have said) more accurately and meaningfully. I\'m no Bible scholar, but that\'s what they do. I agree that the isolated and literal meaning of the words in the passage is exactly as you say.

The Pharisees, being ruthless politicians as well as clerics, surely had the political, legal and social implications in mind when they asked Jesus those types of things. And Jesus would have been no idiot, so he surely was well aware of their intentions at such times.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I\'m sure he knew the consequences. The consequences didn\'t faze him. He was out to get the truth across and die for it if he had to. I\'m sure he knew very well the Pharisees listened and recorded every single word he said. He didn\'t mince a single word when talking against them, either, and, at least in Matthew, they were standing right there. Woe to them. They\'re all full of crap, bunch of hypocrites. Blind fools, he said. He railed on them unmercifully to their faces.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Anyone have ideas about who the best candidates are for the next presidential election? Do you think Bush will win?

[EXIT63]

Well, 2 things could happen. Either Bush/Cheney or Bush/Guiliani will win a landslide victory picking up Senate and House seats in the process or some weenie democrat appeaser who couldn\'t fight his way out of a paper bag ie; Gore, Liberman, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt etal will win by a superslim margin (2000 all over again). If the latter comes to pass. You\'d better be practicing your Yoga so you can stick your head between your legs and Kiss your Ass GOODBYE!!!

[tounge]

Way to early to tell. Much can happen in two years. Maybe the Anti-Christ will be center stage by then.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hopefully we\'ll make it another 2 years. At the rate we\'re going we (Human beings) may have destroyed the better part of our civilizations. With luck things will calm down instead of escalate. Aparently Al-Quaida has renewed threats of terrorism against the <west> although, since we are being held captive in a state of fear by our own government (what\'s the color of the day? red, orange, or yellow?) it\'s hard to tell what is real and what is propaganda...

[proteus]

<<<<<<<<FTR wrote: Anyone have ideas about who the best candidates are for the next presidential election? Do you think Bush will win >>>>>>>>>

We need a General in there, someone like Colin Powell who understands the real nature of war, not all these \"chickenhawks\" who are so ready to spill the blood of others. I have a brother in the armed services who has been notified that he is on standby to go to the Middle East so this is something I\'m following very keenly and frankly I see this whole issue as a complete charade. I can understand the war on terrorism vis-a-vis destroying Al Qaeda, but this thing with Iraq is the biggest farce I\'ve seen in a long time. As for whether Dubya will win, sure he will - the Democrats are not exactly the most popular folk in town today as evidenced by the results of the recent mid-term elections, but then that\'s to be expected as lately it seems the Dems are simply the slightly left-wing of the Republican Party.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Funny how it changes your perspective when it\'s not \"troops\" who are being deployed, it\'s your brother. I know what you mean.

[a.k.a.]

I nominate Michael Moore for president (writer/director or “Roger and Me”, “The Big One” and “Bowling for Columbine”). He’s got enough crazy bravado to run for the post, a good handle on the American mindset for winning votes, lots of political insight for making the right choices, and a good sense of humor so that the job doesn’t get to his head.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will appoint Bush for a second term.

Just kidding. (I hope.)

With regards to when is it appropriate to wave the flag...
I’ve never been a boy scout, but I believe the Army Code states that it is to be flown at daytime, taken down at night and burnt when the colors fade.

On the night of 9/11 I went to my neighborhood bar to drink all the images out of my head. It was jam packed! So I shared a table with a tele-psychic, a graphic design student from NYC and a gay Starbucks manager that we soon learned was of Syrian descent.

The tele-psychic was tripping out over some e-mails she received about how Nostradamus had predicted this as the first sign of the end of the world. The graphic design student was tripping out because his mother worked near the twin towers (and, off course, nobody could get any calls through). The Starbucks manager was off on some rant about how he served in the Army and how he loved this country and it was so beautiful when the US congress broke into song. I was going paranoid over what if Bush imposes martial law because my passport had recently expired and my new one still hadn’t arrived and what if the INS digs back and finds out about the time I organized a speaking tour for member of the African National Congress.

At first we were all feeling for the design student, but the more he drank the more belligerent he got. And soon it was “I don’t care who did it, or why. I just want to kill some [censored] towel heads.”
That’s when the (equally drunk) gay guy came out of the closet and said, “You want to kill a [censored] towel-head? I’m a [censored] towel-head.”
The student disagreed, “You’re not a [censored] towel-head. You’re a [censored] gung-ho American jarhead [censored].”
“I AM a towel-head.” the gay guy said. And then he ran to the bar, snatched a bar towel and wrapped it around his head.
The student broke into hysterical laughter. “You ARE a [censored] towel-head.”
The tele-psychic started to cry. “It’s true. It’s true. It’s just like Nostradamus predicted.”

I won’t mention the obnoxious rants I went into, but it was a very dramatic situation. Yet it turned out pretty well. The design student decided to buy the Starbucks manager a drink (instead of killing him). I figured out that the American public was too unruly to be governed by a police state. The tele-psychic figured out that Nostradamus didn’t know everything. The gay guy didn’t feel so threatened. We all learned a lot about each other, and there was some sort of bonding.

For about a week after the attack I had all sorts of deep discussions with friends, family, coworkers and complete strangers. People were more open to my Left wing critiques and I was more sensitive to patriotic fervor.
“New York Times” subscriptions went up and so did english translations of the Koran.
Americans wanted to unite, understand, get a grip on what was happening...

Then along came all these patriotic celebrations, Bush was morphed from “president select”/village idiot to Commander in Chief, he encouraged us to get on with our work/travel as usual, and news commentators had the difficult task of explaining how giving up some of our rights would be necessary to save our democracy.

The flag became a symbol of national unity and people embraced it because when a foreign power attacks our territory we really do need to unite. The problem is, real national unification requires a process similar to the bar scene. We need to spew our ideological garbage at each other and go through a sort of catharsis before we can gain sensitivity to what our common bond is.
It’s an ugly, messy, often unpleasant, potentially violent process. But it’s been long overdue.
Reaching for the flag ( a SYMBOL of unity) when we should be bracing ourselves for the real work of building national unity is like when you’ve been up half the night, the alarm goes off, and — instead of waking up — you dream about going to work.

PS Don’t worry about replacing that Chomsky book. You can find the same articles, and much more, at the following site:

http://www.zmag.org/terroralpha.htm

[**DONOTDELETE**]

A great story with a great point. Thanks for the link, too.

[belgareth]

It\'s amazing how any religous writiing can be mis-construed to mean \"Kill somebody who is different from us\" No religion in the world is free from that. The two easiest to pick at are the Catholics and the Muslims but should not be singled out, it\'s fanatics that abuse the religous teachings for their own purposes.

I think we are all missing an important point here. Ben Laden, Saddam Hussien, George Bush etc. are not the people, they are the leaders. My problem is that these so-called leaders are not representative of the people they are leading. How many of you could coldly go out there and kill another average citizen from another country? How many of you are willing to step into the line of fire to do so? The vast majority in any country simply want to be left alone to live in peace. It takes anger, rage to get us to go to war. Our leaders generate rage with propoganda. We are being manipulated into allowing them to send children out to kill other children!

DrSmellThis, Isn\'t it correct that the desire to rise to that level of government requires a certain degree of megalomania? And, isn\'t megalomania a personality disorder? Are we allowing a bunch of mentally ill people to kill innocent men, women and children?

Do you really believe that the average muslim wants to kill or be killed? It\'s instinct to flee from danger, yet the leaders of these countries convince us to attack each other. Why do we continue to allow that?

Yes, Saddam Hussien and Ben Laden must be stopped from killing innocent people. After we tromp on them with our over-whelming force, do you believe we will not see a repeat with another leader arousing the masses? The cycle will repeat itself, it always has. What is the answer? I don\'t know. I do not believe that an all out war is the solution.

Belgareth

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey, Dr. Smell, I read the Thomas gospels and did some reading about them as well. I wonder if you\'d comment on the information in this link.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gthomas.html

Had you read the Bible as it presently exists before reading the Thomas Gospels? just curious

[abductor]

Two, one two three four
Ev\'rybody\'s talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m.

All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance