Religious Freedom in America


Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!


Full disclosure. I am not only not Italian(well, partially,) neither am I Catholic nor Christian as well. You'd think with my pre-occupation with religious themes that I was at least a Lutheran Evangelical. Sorry if I've misled.


I am a devout non-aligned agnostic theist. I believe in a God, my Creator, that I am not permitted to define. He defined me, not the other way around. That is my place in existence, in Creation in this Universe.


My only beliefs in regards to either church or corporate religion is the certain knowledge that they are both man made constructs, but logic prohibits me from extending that certain knowledge to God, my Creator.


I'm here. I once wasn't. My 'creation' is no more at question than my existence. Logic demands that I acknowledge not just the possibility, but the absolute certainty of the existence of at least one form of God/Creator, and that example is 'the Universe as it is.' So, on the scoreboard being kept 'evidence of God/Creator', I see it as 1-0, God's favor.


There may be other examples, but as a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, "I don't know." I only know that I can't set conditionals for my own existence/creation, I can only acknowledge both. The topic of defining God is way above my pay grade as a member of the merely Created.


I am not antagonistic towards man made religion and church. I am, however curious as to how much of that activity is based on the jarring(to me, if nobody else) phenomenon of "Rules for God." I am amazed that members of the merely Created can allow themselves to start off on an intellectual journey that begins with "God is..." or "God wants...." or "God isn't..." or "God must be ..." and so on, as if it was logically possible for the merely Created to establish "Rules for God/Creator", or better, "Conditionals for my own Existence." I am equally as stunned when non-agnostic atheists assert those rules for their own existence as I am non-agnostic theists, i.e., together, not 'believers' but 'knowers' on the topic of God/Creator.


So that leaves "illogically possible," and history is nothing but endlessly creative "Rules for God" asserted by the merely Created, both by theists and atheists, both of who exist, as they are, in the Universe as it is, and once did not.


"In order to have Created us, God performed per the Book of Genesis(written by who?)and no other way. God was not permitted to employ Evolution, so say we, the merely Created."


Stunning in its illogic(I know, it is a matter of faith --in ancient mankind--, not logic...), but matched equally by the stunning illogic of "Here is evidence of Evolution, therefore, The Book of Genesis is art, therefore there is no God."


As a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, I cannot permit myself to entertain any concept that starts off with "Rules for God" established by the merely Created. I can't tell God/Creator of the Universe, as it is, with me newly in it, how to bring about that which already happened, as if a violation of any such Rule for God would void my actual existence. That is nonsense.


God, between you and me, you do not require my permission or blessing or agreement to have employed Evolution to bring me about. The truth of that impacts only petty man made political struggles, the political supremacy of some man made constructs down here in the stink and grime, which we have formulated for our own purposes.

A strange co-traveller to 'Rules for God" is "Rules for Intelligence." It goes like this. "Intelligence spontaneously appeared in the Universe, as it is, about 4 billion years after The Big Bang. It appeared spontaneously in a far arm of the spinning Milky Way galaxy on the 3rd planet circling a minor star. The only intelligent acts of creation appeared after that moment, and all acts before that moment in time were cold process. So, mankind represents creative intelligence, but that which created mankind is not intelligence, it is cold process."

To which I say, nonsense. It is nothing but parochial "Rules for Intelligence." I say, it is 'turtles all the way down.' Those turtles are either all 'cold process' or 'intelligence' , unless we apply a totally arbitrary 'Rule for Intelligence.' That which created us has also inescapably created all that we create, good or bad. We can make up all the parochial stories we want, does not change the Universe, as it is, nor our place in it.

There is no existential comfort to be found in the 'First Creator' Paradox, you know, "If there was a first Creator, then who created the first Creator, therefore, there was no first Creator." That is pretty slick until it is reflected back: "If there was a first Cold Process, then what Cold Process created the first Cold Process, therefore, there was no first Cold Process."

Get over it. We exist. We once did not. The existential paradox is unsolvable. It makes no difference if we are intelligence all the way down, or cold process all the way down. Either way, it is nothing but turtles all the way down. If existence is just 'the Universe, as it is,' by what set of 'Rules for God' do we declare "Not God Enough? Not Creator enough? Not Miracle enough?" Existence is a miracle. The un-scratchable existential itch of this miracle, this singularity, this paradox, has led mankind to congregate around the singularity and ponder religion.

Well, 'stuff' sure enough happens around singularities, especially when naked sweaty apes attempt to formulate legislation around same.


Since the prohibition in our 1st Amendment does not address a specific 'R'eligion per se, such as Christianity, but the meta-concept 'religion', a definition of the meta-concept 'religion' is required to understand the Amendment. Yet, not only is a suitable government "definition of religion" lacking, it appears to me to be prohibited.


My search for a meta-definition of 'religion' fortunately occurred in the context of a free America. As I looked for a meta-definition, I formulated my own, as follows.


Religion, to me, as a meta-definition, is the man made existential search for answers to the following two questions: Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?


Every human being ever created, theists and atheists alike, actually answers those questions by living his life, even if never asked, by expending the finite mote of heat and light granted to each of us in this miracle of existence. We answer those questions whether we consciously search for the answers or not, and yet when we consciously search, to me, we are engaged in religion. In that light, the brilliance of our first Amendment is glaring, positioned as it is at the very beginning of an Individual Bill of Rights.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of why you are here, or what you are supposed to be doing now as a result of that. You are free to live your life and answer those questions yourself.


Has a very nice "One skin, one driver" feel to it. I am blown away by the brilliance of our Founding Fathers for so carefully attempting to define Freedom from Oppression, and I am equally blown away by the persistence of the mob to bring oppression back.


How does the mob do that? Through political means. Watch how carefully any one of us can turn religion into politics, just by rephrasing the questions:


Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?


Excuse me. Doesn't that presuppose that there is just one answer to the original question? Doesn't the OneSizeFitsAll nature of posing the question like that define statism/oppression? Isn't that exactly the kind of question that a free people should be wary of?


This is the basic global political struggle, the individual vs. the tribe. How much of your life belongs to the tribe/state, how much belongs to you? The American experiment is an attempt to codify an Individual Bill of Rights, a suggestion to the mob that the most fundamental right of each of us is to be free from the unfettered overwhelming force of all of us, and that is a concept worth mobbing up to defend. This interpretation of the American experiment is an impediment to the political goals of the herdists/statists among us, who would prefer to emphasize singular answers to the fundamental question of religion, and who require unfettered application of the overwhleming force of all of us against any of us in order to achieve that.


As you listen to modern American politics in 2008, listen closely to the tone of the debate, both from the GOP and the Democratic party, or as a wise man[1] refers to them collectively, "The National Party." See if you can detect anything but a 'free fall' to the concept that OneSizeFitsAll. There is no longer even lip service being paid to anything but.


Reguarda,
Frediano



[1] Nessus

Defining 'religion' for the purpose of not establishing 'religion'.

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How does Congress/SCOTUS define 'religion', for the purpose of insuring that Congress is not making a law respecting an establishment of religion?

If you search the US Code, you find surprisingly many references to the term 'religion,' as in 'minister of religion.' You even see definitions such as "The term "duly ordained minister of religion" means ...

But curiously, you never see the following: "The term "religion" means ..."

I call this 'the not with a ten foot pole' paradox. Imagine some Congressional staffer starting off a line like that. You would hope it would at least give him pause.

There are a ton of anecdotal quotes of the founding fathers, former SCOTUS Justices, and so on, none of which answers the question; how does Congress/SCOTUS define 'religion' for the purposes of making sure that Congress is not defining religion?

Americans are free to define religion any way they wish, as in, the worship of Tuna fish. Silly, but not prohibited. The question is, is Congress permitted to ever declare "The worship of Tuna fish is/is not a religion?' Is Congress permitted to ever declare, "For the purpose of declaring the worship of Tuna fish as a religion/ not a religion, the definition of "Tuna worship" is defined as ...?" Not even the IRS Code gets out that 10 foot pole.

Then, is Congress permitted to establish any kind of a list of religions, for any purpose? As in, "List of Allowable Religions in America" and an implicit "List of Not Allowable Religions in America?"

Well, instead of lists, can Congress simply define a meta-definition, some list of hurdles that 'R'eligions must jump over before they are considered examples of 'r'eligion? If so, then why haven't they?

Perhaps 'belief in a supernatural being." Would that be limited to 'real' supernatural beings, or could it include 'unreal' supernatural beings as well, like 'The Gods of Football" or "The Gods of the Theatre" or even, Durkheim's "'S'ociety?" (You know, the unseen yet all seeing entity above and beyond all mere local contingencies, that alone can see all and furnish the ...Durkheim's substitute totem for 'God', "Society?")

If limited to 'real' supernatural beings, then how does Congress determine the reality of supernatural beings? Is a God-O-Meter of some kind involved?

There are those who selectively defer to former Justice Joseph Story's admiring reference to the Virginia Bill of Rights, as if it was federal statute, which it is not, and yet when seen in its entirety, it is not much of a secular help at all:

16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

"Forbearance" as in, a failure to enforce.

If it is as simple as looking up the term in Black's Law or any other Dictionary, then it should be a simple matter to simply state that in the US Code: "The term 'religion' shall mean..." Alas, not.

We have set all kinds of precedents so far when it comes to the abuse of the 1st Amendment. For example, if I want to claim protection from what I claim is religion, is it necessary that I actually believe in that religion, or believe that the supernatural being associated with that religion is 'real', before curiously seeking 'protection' from it? (Let me check...atheists, 'No').

Is it necessary that I hold a majority view of religion when I seek protection? (Let me check...atheists, 'No').

Well then, I don't really believe in Thespianism(like atheists don't believe in say Christianity), and I don't really believe the "Gods of the Theatre" are real supernatural beings(like atheists don't believe in God), but just to be safe, let's get that "sacred space" of the theatre crap out of our public schools before someone gets hurt.

I know that makes me sound like a crank fringe crackpot with a minority view of religion(like atheists), but too late, we've established the precedent, and I do not see where Congress is able to rule, for the curious task of prohibiting undefinable religion anywhere in America, that "Thespianism is/is not a religion."

Gods of Football, with its endless Hail Mary's and uniformed acolytes, halls of fame, and regular Sunday services?

Gaien Environmentalism? Why even, and especially, "Social Scientology?" If "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," then where are the prescribed Lists of "These are real religions that those with a minority view of religion may seek 'protection' from, and these 'unreal' religions that only a crank would seek 'protection' from?

The best anyone has ever explained this paradox to me is as follows. "It is not a paradox. Congress may not establish religion, so it must be able to define religion, to make sure that is not defining religion. It can't, so it must, because it can't, otherwise it could."

I have a much better explanation for this paradox. The paradox of having to 'define religion' only comes about when Congress/SCOTUS finds itself in the curious position of prohibiting the free exercise of religion anywhere in America. The paradox goes away when there is no ability to petition the federal government for the curious task of prohibiting the free exercise of religion anywhere in America. If our political bias was towards religious tolerance, not intolerance, then there would be no paradox.

So, from where the present paradox?

It is what we should expect to see in America if its public institutions had somehow been overrun by a particular religion, and that particular religion was actively slamming the successfully pierced 1st Amendment door shut behind itself by turning it on its ear. Is there any hint of such a theocracy in America?

"Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, inherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them"

So said Emil Durkheim, the 'still seminal' founding father of modern Social Scientology. It is one of the most honest definitions of "Society" ever disclosed by the Social Scientologists. If you can read that definition and not smell 'religion' about, then I must put you in touch with my brother-in-law, who is an excellent chiropractor, and will be able to help you with all of that bending over backwards. (I always love when sociology texts, aka PolitSci Bibles, refer to Durkheim as 'still seminal' -- as if it was possible to ever lose ones 'seminality.' It is revealing; the Social Scientologists will indeed throw Durkheim under the bus the second it becomes politically advantageous to do so, just like they did Marx.)

An example of a 's'ociety is a group of people who meet once a month to discuss bird migration. That is not what the Social Scientologists mean when they lift their eyes to the skies above and leg lift their clearly a religion political agenda by speaking(in tongues)for "S"ociety.

A century ago, did they succeed in piercing the 1st Amendment, when all this Social Scientology Society=God slight of hand was sweeping the face of the planet? Check your wallet. Were you issued a "Biblical Security" number, and are you carrying a card? Does your kid come home from public school with his "Biblical Studies" books, from his 'Biblical Studies" classes?

Think about it; why would our very own government ever succumb to the sweet siren of a religion that was selling "the state is God?"

Pick up a sociology textbook, aka, a soft science textbook, aka, not a science at all. It is filled with nothing but "Sociologists believe..." from beginning to end. Well, so did the Apostles.

A hundred years ago, they called their religion 'science', and the Social Scientologists succeeded in over-running our 1st Amendment. They have slammed the door shut behind themselves, and have turned religious tolerance into religious intolerance, precisely by 'defining religion.'

Reguarda,
Frediano

Remarkably anisentropic separation of emigrating European Jews

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

An amazing thing happened in Europe in the last century. Persecuted European Jews fled the local fomenting insanity. Some emigrated to British Mandate Palestine, some to the United States. The colonies rimming the Med, once in thrall to the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years were left in a vacuum when the Turks picked the wrong ally, lost a global war, then saw the handwriting on the wall and 'modern-ed up' behind Ataturk. A war weary West half heartedly redrew the maps, and the unfinished world war has been festering ever since. You should expect that kind of mess when you lose a major world war, but you should also expect residual mess when a conflict is ended early without pacifying all the players, especially those not regarded with enough respect to take seriously. Some of these brand new nations cast off their colonial chains and modern-ed up, some didn't, but the war weary West was in no mood to pacify every last local tribal crapfight over the dusty bones of the local prophet. The West had a party to throw called 'modernity', or so it thought, and wanted to get on with it.

In that context, the Jews who fled to the United States took their places in our nation as doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, entertainers, artists, neighbors, citizens. They built their temples, they built their community centers, they raised their children, they flew to Israel and took their kids on bus trips to see the HolyLand, then flew back. They bought land, they built homes, they participated in our economies. They lived alongside of Arab Americans who were doing the same, and continued their 6,000 year tradition of values that have served them well..

The Jews who fled to Palestine tried to do the same. Wealthy by local standards, they arrived and bought land from the locals at prices that not even those selling the land could afford, and for this grave sin, they were hated. Arafat's 'uncle nazi' was a member of the 3 member Arab High Council in Jerusalem whose original complaint, long before the Hebron massacre in the early part of the 20th Century is summed up stunningly as follows: "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood."

There it is, the nexus that led to the current intractable crap fight, and the sentiment we are supposed to get behind when we are asked to condemn the defensive response now known as the State of Israel. What are we asked to believe? That in Europe, a kind of Maxwell's Demon stood guard at the docks, and separated out all of the reasonable, peace loving Jews from the Arab baby eating monsters, and sent the former exclusively to America to live in peace and raise their families, and the latter to Palestine, to prey on the poor innocent Jew haters. I mean, local version of the KKK, with their "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood' sensibilities.

It comes down to the same old class warfare and jealousy. The same Jews who arrived in Palestine were wealthy by local standards, and this was resented even by those selling land to them. The local KKK, after having its attacks on Israel thwarted not once but several times--and by thwarted, I mean, deservedly had the living crap kicked out of them--, now resorts to selective portrayals of history, who did what to whom when, in order to sign up support for the "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood'" campaign.

One is confused, for about 20 milliseconds, when one wonders why so much of the West's radical Left signs up for the "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood" campaign on the side of the local KKK. The confusion disappears when the class warfare aspect is brought into focus. First the Jews, and now the State of Israel represent "The Rich" in this local class war, and the local KKK represents "The Poor." The radical left understands only one calculus, and that calculus is forever based on "The Rich vs The Poor". "Poor" trumps "KKK" in that calculus, to the point where the "KKK" must be whitewashed away with incredible stories of unbelievably anisentropic spontaneous separation of peaceful European Jews and Arab baby eating Jews at those European docks.

That calculus, if enough once free people fall for it, will take us all to its inevitable conclusion, which is the sad spectacle of two miserable beings clad in rags, fighting in a hovel, arguing over whose sores are runnier as claim upon the not so maggoty piece of rotted meat.

Reguarda,
Frediano

Does Muslim World hate the West?


Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

A few years ago, I was doing some business in Bangladesh as a Westerner. Dhaka, Chittagong. I was dealing with educated Muslim naval officers. My hosts treated me warmly, kindly, and took excellent care of me during my visits. Although Bangladesh is not technically an Islamic Peoples Republic and has a nominal secular civil government, it is in fact a defacto Islamic Peoples Republic; there is no mistaking who is running that nation, as is regularly declared via the throwing of Hartals--national religious strikes--for any reason whatsoever, and whose primary reason for being is to declare the political supremacy of the local theocracy. During one of these visits, I had the opportunity to hide out during one of these Hartals so as not to be seen in the streets as a Westerner doing business during a Hartal and possibly killed. You see, during a Hartal, everything is shut down, from power to taxis to rickshaw pullers. Sadly, because during a Hartal is the best time for struggling rickshaw pullers to compete with taxis, some try, and the local papers carry the tally the next day of how many of them and their passengers were murdered on the streets by religious gangs/thugs who enforce the Hartal, despite the many pleas from civil authorities to 'modern up' already. My hosts, the Bangladesh Navy and their normally bayoneted Enfield wielding escorts, knew to take a 'bye' during a Hartal, and so, advised me to hide out in the 'Westerner hotel' (who could find me there?) until the craziness was over. And so, on this occasion, I did, in the dark and the damp and the heat and the stink, for the prescribed 24 hours. The cause of this particular Hartal was a poster that had been published by an Israeli artist that was critical of one of the Mullahs. Boy, did Bangladesh ever show her with this display of national masochism. That will teach her to be critical of Mullahs and their teachings, and by teach her, I mean, if she even knew this occurred. But, as I said, not the point. The point of these Hartals is to occasionally show the civil authorities who is actually running the nation.

The passing of this event and the subsequent discussions gave me the opportunity to ask of my hosts, so I did: "Why does the Muslim world hate the West?"

I was corrected by my hosts. "The Muslim world does not hate the West. The Muslim world fears and loathes the West. We are taught from an early age that the West is lead by America, and the American government is officially, in writing, a Godless thing. The most powerful nation on earth is thus led by no morality, and is a thing to be feared and loathed."

I asked if they thought I was a Godless soul, unguided by morality, and they laughed politely and said, "No, we understand the difference between the American people and the government they elect. It is your government that is Godless thing, it is your government that wields power unguided by the morality of God."

Their only concern with me personally, as 'president' of a western firm that they were doing business with was that I had only one wife, but I somewhat made up for that deficit in their eyes by having two sons.

I was, and still am, somewhat taken aback by their observation, which is based in fact. They are not telling lies about us, but like all bloody complicated messes, the truth is a little twisted. I could not tell them they were wrong, because in fact, we put it in writing, proudly, as our very 1st Amendment.

But, we get our 1st Amendment. Our educational system does a great job of explaining to us exactly why it is key to the concept of our religious freedom which true enough includes but is not defined exclusively by freedom from religion. Of course, our education is in the context of a secular, non-theocratic nation, while their education is in the context of a defacto if not in fact theocracy. If that is too complex a description, then better said this way: the local Old Men in Robes at the top of the local heap are keen on clinging to their gig, and correctly perceive the competing idea of America as a threat to their political futures. They have read our first Amendment, they have decades ago watched us go to the moon and open up Disneyworlds and so on, and have correctly concluded long ago, "It is them or us."

When seen in that light, it is little wonder that the local Old Men in Robes are not singing the praises of our 1st Amendment, nor instructing their school children what a wonderful idea 'constitutionally limited democratic secular republics' are.

Of course, we in the West don't see it that way. We don't see this struggle as "It is them or us." And, why should we? We are perfectly happy with The Old Men in Robes running places like Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even oil rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We barely even skip a capuccino sipping beat when Saudi Arabian shieks send pocket change to tsunami ravaged Malaysia, while the West sends its billions to aid Muslims. Is the fact that places like Bangladesh are struggling in poverty and squalor, sitting there on that flood plain at the exit of India's sewage disposal system--I mean, the Ganges River delta--any threat to the endless party we are trying to throw? We don't blame our political leaders for their struggles. But, neither do we control the political/educational scene in countries like that, and guess who does? The local political leaders/Old Men in Robes who would otherwise be taking the heat for all the strife and struggle. And, guess who they are blaming? The Great Satan. And, guess who is winning that PR war? The Old Men In Robes who have correctly perceived, in their context, "It is them or us."

Do we help them with their PR campaign to blame their failures on us? Every way possible. We claim to understand all the parts of our 1st Amendment, including the bit we love to abuse like adolescents, the part guaranteeing Free Speech. In so tolerating adolescence as a cost of freedom, we know to just turn the channel when the kids get a little childishly obnoxious. But, the Old Men in Robes are given an infinite supply of "See what these fools do with their precious freedom?" to feed their propaganda war, which is again primed with not lies, but incomplete truths, when our 'freedoms' are characterized only by their worst abuses, in the name of keeping ignorant people ignorant and at bay. When we let fly into the eather and snicker, we have no idea how that is perceived and abused in other seething political contexts. That emotion serves mainly nihilistic urges to destroy that which we did not make.

A related anecdote. While in Bangladesh, I had the chance to use the services of a local business/store front. They were diversified. From a dirt floor shop with a blanket for a door, they sold rotted fruit, ancient Soviet era electronics, and access to a phone, fax, Windows95/desktop computer, complete with modem and internet access. I was concious of the opportunity, "What do folks in Bangladesh look for when they plop down their Taka and are given access to the world community's on-line library of everything?" I took a quick look at the browser cache/history, and sure enough, it was "XXX' this and 'SLUT' that as far as the eye could see. Oh, well. Folks everywhere are the same, it turns out. On average, we are average.

Are we really ready to compromise on our 1st Amendment, in the name of addressing the 'fundamental issues' that are driving the current crap fight, so as to not be seen as a threat to the gigs of the Old Men in Robes? Because, as much as we would like to ride this tiger for our own petty political agendas, the 'fundamental issues' driving this come down to the West's continuing willingness to be seen only bleeding from the a$$ on CNN in the name of Old Men in Robes clinging to their Dark Ages gig.

Speaking of the Left in America, they are playing an odd game these days. I'm not talking about the 'loyal left', but the less and less fringe radical left that is practicing 'revolution by proxy.' It's as if they think they can ride the current geopolitical struggle like a tiger to 'change' in America, and get off the nice tiger a kitchen fire short of Sharia Law. It could just be the desperate death throes of an often failed political paradigm, playing 'nothing left to lose.' Or, they truly could be idiots. Wild assertion to follow: if 99% of the soft advocates of 'change' in America could spend just 15 minutes in a place like Bangladesh, a place desperately trying to attract capitalism, by the way, I think the Big Headed Puppet Parades in America would be shut down for good. But, ain't going to happen, so we'll just let History happen.

A little insight into what life is like in the Dark Ages. There is only one traffic law in Bangladesh, and it is followed religiously: biggest vehicle wins. The primary traffic law is governed by 'physics.' This means, deuce-and-a-halves drive where they will, turn when and where they want, and all smaller vehicles must avoid them. This means, light trucks only need to look out for deuce-and-a-halves. This means, autos only need to look out for light trucks and deuce-and-a-halves. And, so on, to Cushman three wheelers and finally to rickshaw drivers, who must avoid everything except possibly other rickshaws. It is a regular occurrence when driving through the streets to see rickshaws flying end over end through space. When this happens, the crowd descends upon the heap and drags the bodies to the side of the road, berating them for creating a traffic disturbance. As you drive through the streets of Dhaka or Chittagong, you can't help but notice the large number of single and double amputees along the side of the road. When I first saw them, I asked my host if they were victims of some conflict, and he said, "No, they are former rickshaw drivers." In this and many other ways, the message that life is cheap is found on the streets of Bangladesh, and The Great Satan is not to blame for that. But, that is an insight into the nature of those ruled by Old Men in Robes who have concluded, when regarding the West, "It is them or us."

And yet, it was educated, wealthy Muslims who sent their children off to Western Universities to be radicalized. They returned to the local dusty land of the local prophets with their western radicalization, mixed it with some dark ages fundamentalism, and came up with a new formula for 'global change.' An odd confluence of ultimately incompatible left wing radical interests smell blood in the water, and actually believe the West is teetering on the brink of 'doable,' and the Old Men in Robes are using them all to their political advantage. Meanwhile, the West with few but glaring exceptions barely takes any of this seriously, and is still averting the eyes, even after the Bhutto assasination.

The Old Men in Robes have correctly concluded, "It is them or us." Will the West respond appropriately and defend its right to organize under a 1st Amendment without bleeding from the a$$ for the CNN cameras? Or will be slow to respond? Are we infested with enough nihilistic self-loathing that we are indefensible? The radicals hope so.

Reguarda,
Frediano

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

Imagine a thought experiment in this Season of Peace. The USA decides to give up "Yellowstone National Park"in the name of Peace in the Middle East. It becomes our latest monument, this time to 'world peace.' We make a deal with the Israelis or Palestinians, and tell them we will not only hand it over to one of them, but provide the heavy lifting for 'Exodus II' and transport an entire nation of folks over to their new digs. We will even pay to pack up whatever dusty bones of the prophets are required, what ancient stones and relics as may be required, and carefully move them to the wilderness formerly known as YNP. Whoever takes the deal gets access to a secure new land, as well as favored access to the US Economies. We don't care who takes the deal, they just need to decide between themselves, and stop blowing up children in buses and so on. The USA, instead of spending billions on military aid/proxy intervention in the region, proposes this radical 'land for peace' solution to the current two dog/one bone problem.

Most people I describe this thought experiment to, as well as all of the sane among them, know immediately that this would never work. Even if the USA found the will to do this, even if it would result in children growing up free from war and strife and hostility in one new country and one old country, we all know, as naked sweaty apes, that not even this would solve this conflict, because God and/or a prophet overbooked the region and promised it to at least two peoples, possibly three peoples. This is a two dog, one bone problem, and no Solomon in sight to threaten to split the prize in two.

It is, at most, a thought experiment, but it is revealing, I think. On the current trajectory, this land and the dusty bones of the prophets belong to whichever tribe is left standing after the last battle.

If this was the Middle East of America, we'd have turned it into a religious theme park already. Jewish kids and Arab kids would be visiting "HolyLand" and gleefully riding animatronic re-enactments of past events. Of course, that crass commercialism would desecrate the holy land... whereas bombs in school buses apparently does not. Oh yeah, this is much better.

Reguarda,
Frediano