The ‘Religion of Peace’, Darwin and Jesus Fish
Jonah Goldberg, a conservative Jewish writer, posted an interesting article today, commenting on the release of the Dutch film, ‘Fitna‘, an expose on Muslim immigration to Europe.
Released on the Internet on Thursday, “Fitna” juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images and speeches from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as “apes and pigs,” imams calling for global domination, protesters holding up signs reading “God Bless Hitler” and “Freedom go to Hell” — these are just some of the powerful images from “Fitna,” an Arabic word that means “ordeal.”
Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt’s grand imam threatened “severe” consequences if the Dutch government didn’t ban the film.
Where the article gets interesting, though, is when Goldberg relays a story of a man he met in Turkey several years ago:
one of the men came up to me and gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he’d scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.
It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).
He goes on to compare this to the recent fad of “Darwin Fish” in America:
But the most annoying aspect of the Darwin fish is the false bravado it represents. It’s a courageous pose without consequence. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap.
Whatever the faults of “Fitna,” it ain’t no Darwin fish.
Geert Wilders’ film could very, very easily get him killed. (He’s already guarded around the clock.) It essentially picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.
He then finishes up with a comparison of criticizing Christianity and Islam, and the cowardice of taking easy pot-shots in the former, while strenuously avoiding the latter:
It’s not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.
The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.
All in all, a good read, and (I’m sure) fodder for calm, reasonable discussion…
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
143 Comments(+Add)
Jonah Goldberg?
next, presumably, Ann Coulter?
awwww, he finds Darwin fishies offensive.
we’re losing our sense of humor fast, folks.
(or maybe just Jonah Goldberg, but he lost his years ago)
just like those meaningless “Support Our Troops” ribbons.
and those meaningless “This Christian Supports Israel” stickers.
and those meaningless “It’s a child, not a choice!” stickers.
actually?
it would seem to me that they’re all meaningless things that we stick on our cars.
why is Jonah Goldberg taking personal offense that the corruption of a Christian symbol again? oh that’s right. to make money…
the last two paragraphs sum up the “what on earth is Jonah Goldberg talking about?” angle quite nicely.
yes, please, Jonah, let’s all fall for the lie that Christians (which he is not) are sooooooooo haaaaaaaaated in this country that they really should qualify for protected minority status.
as usual, Jonah Goldberg as absolutely nothing to say, though he will never match Bill Kristol’s record of never having been right, even once.
okay, anonymous Jane, i have a blog now. yer fault.
and i decided to expound on this post in said blog.
http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
it’ll get more fancy schmancy in the coming days…
christians aren’t inclined to violence?
rrriiiggtttt
we are a christian nation, with a christian president who are waging war in iraq.
it matters not about separation of church and state. it is how we are perceived and the muslim world views this as a religious war.
when we begin to walk, talk, and act like jesus we will then be known as people of peace.
we are a warring, bloody people. history is clear. from the Revolutionary war forward our nation has been involved in one war/conflict/police action after another. we proudly wear on our sleeve our christian heritage………….so it should not surprise us when the world sees us as a warring christian nation (among other things)
Evan,
I’ve quoted Maureen Dowd, Kos and others, as well – I tend to pull most of my articles from RealClearPolitics – which is fairly non-partisan…
As noted on numerous other articles here, just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean that something they’ve said/written doesn’t contain truth…
Last time I checked, America didn’t have a state religion… Rick will be sure to tell you that.
Have numerous acts of violence been committed in Jesus’ name? Certainly. Most recently, I would include violence against abortion clinics in such totals.
However, you won’t find many CURRENT examples of Christian organizations organizing terrorist operations…
Chris,
in the mind of the world (all about perception) our state religion is christianity. facts don’t matter. state sponsored christianity is pervasive throughout our government. george bush has, at times ,appealed to the christian god for guidance. he has made statements over the years that seem to indicate that he believes god is on our side. is there any question that when we mentions the name of god he is referring to the christian god?
i am of the opinion that the whole war in iraq is being waged in jesus name. god is on our side. america=good. terrorists(also known as muslims)=evil.
the military is hardly god neutral. which god do they support? the christian god. why are there state sponsored chaplains in the military? this isn’t anything new. nor do i think it is necessarily bad.
my point is we can’t drop our state religion when convenient and then pick it up again later. the world sees through that. does anyone doubt that the world thinks that we think we have god on our side in this titanic battle of good vs. evil?
i for one………..do not think god is on our side, nor is he on the side of the terrorists.
chris l,
you may quote, but your ship definitely leans far to the right
no complaint, just reporting, you decide.
i make no claim to neutrality. i am hostile to much of what i see in conservative, right wing, republican politics and religion.
I want to recommend a good book on this subject….
The Dominion of War-Empire and Liberty in North America 1500-2000 by Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton
This is an excellent book (about 500 pages) on how war has been part of our national dna from day 1.
Evan,
This is what I meant in the other thread when I said are arguing against a caricature of a person rather than the substance. Jonah Goldberg is a bit more more reasonable than Ann Coulter, even if he does share some views in common with her. He’s also a Jew, so he’s certainly not a Christian apologist.
I think there is some qualitative difference between Christianity and Islam. There have been a relative handful of violent acts carried out by people professing to be Christians in recent history, but nothing to the scale of what we see in the Islamic world. I’m not saying it justifies Christianity’s past, but at least more and more Christians seem more willing to own up to it.
This among other reasons is why I can’t support the religious (or political) left. Real social justice has to call evil out for what it is. Yet they are willing to turn a blind eye to those who are their side, and expect a powerless and corrupt organization like the UN to somehow convince everyone to just play nice.
Brutus,
Is there ever, or has there ever been, a “just war”, in your opinion?
Brutus,
I actually started reading that book but put it down about a month ago. It was interesting, and I’ll probably start it again soon.
About the chaplains, Brutus…
We have all kinds of chaplains, many Christian, but many muslim, buddhist, wiccan, etc as well.
Also, no matter what religion the chaplain is ordained in, he has to be able to provide non-evangelizing guidance to someone of another religion when their chaplain is not available. Yes there are Christian chaplains, and many of them, but that’s only because the majorty of the military consider themselves Christian. Supply and demand. It’s not a “state religion” thing Brutus.
Even though I find it unfortunate, Chaplains are required to pray fairly neutrally when it comes to squadron or wing events. Unless they say “I’ll be praying in my Christian faith, join with me if you wish, or say your own prayer, or not”, sometimes instead of saying that they just leave out Jesus’ Name. I find that upsetting, but understand why they have to do it. So I wouldn’t say the military supports the Christian God…far from it. Most people I work with mock the Christian faith.
I’m speaking from experience here and I don’t mean to get in to another “I’m in the military so I know first hand” fight with you, but this time I have first hand experience, and I volunteer at the base chapel as well. So I’m just not sure if the information you’re getting is entirely accurate. Thank you sir.
V/R
Joe
Phil,
thanks for the definition of a caricature:
This among other reasons is why I can’t support the religious (or political) left. Real social justice has to call evil out for what it is. Yet they are willing to turn a blind eye to those who are their side, and expect a powerless and corrupt organization like the UN to somehow convince everyone to just play nice.
good job of taking one liberal and making him into all liberals
I wouldn’t say FAR, but yes, to the right.
At the same time, an argument is an ad homenim one, regardless of whether it is:
or
As it happened, I found the article more interesting because it was written by a member of neither religion in question, a Jew. Taking a glance at history, Christianity has been much less kind to Jews than Muslims, in general…
Additionally, I find it interesting that your (and Evan’s) tenor is basically – “we can’t condemn Islamist violence because Christians are historically guilty, too”, a common logical fallacy, as well, utilized across political persuasions.
So, really, to sum it up:
1) Christians who put a fish on the bumper of their car do so as an identifier, of sorts (and in some cases, but unfortunately not enough, as a reminder that the way they drive will reflect well or poorly on their professed faith). In doing so, they have little chance, whatsoever of persecution.
2) Non-Christians who put Darwin fish on their bumpers, do so as a thumb-in-the-eye to Christians, and to display their 733T sk1llz of science over religion (a false dichotomy, at best).
3) Christians in places like Turkey, like the gentleman in the article, are in danger when they identify themselves as such.
4) Non-Christians in the world today generally live with no fear of bodily harm if they make fun (or worse) of Christians and Christianity, or criticize it.
5) Non-Muslims in the world today, even in secular Europe, take their lives into their own hands if they make fun of Islam or criticize it.
Maureen Dowd is pathetic, as well.
Also, Jonah Goldberg rarely writes anything of any import, this article included.
yes, you will, but they’re doing it under cover of “advising the American government” through their hacks in the neo-con establishment.
then they give carte blanche to Israel, wage endless illegal wars…
unless we’re using the George W. Bush definition of “terrorism,” which is “violence from folks who’re agin’ us.”
Well, Brutus, I was talking to Evan, and I’ve yet to see him say anything that goes against a typical leftist talking point.
Come on, Evan… prove me wrong, prove me wrong…
my brother could tell you endless stories about how the military is trying to unofficially establish Evangelical Christianity as its official religion.
it’s verrrrry gross.
thank you for the education. i’ve been following Jonah Goldberg for years, and he and Coulter are about on par with each other in terms of idiocy.
nobody said we can’t condemn Islamic violence – that’s a caricature of the left’s positions by hacks like Jonah Goldberg, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.
some of us just kinda find it amazing that those on the Christian right are so quick to define Muslims as evil when Christians have their fair share of religious violence, whether official or not, in their bloody bloody history.
i’m of the camp that people need to stop waging wars based on their religious beliefs, period.
I always love how personally Maureen Dowd takes it that daily newspapers are losing influence and generally are on the …. wait for it…. wait for it… DOWNGRADEâ„¢. Its always a joy to see a sacred cow made into a delicious medium rare steak.
i would include Dowd as the (sort of) left, but really more sensationalistic equivalent of the right-wing talking heads.
joe c,
I hope you aren’t going to pull the “I’m in the military card” every time I comment. I could do the same………I have been in the ministry for 30 years so unless you have been in the ministry ………. It is silly.
For the record. I attended a Military Church in Sierra Vista, Az. (Fort Huachuca) I lived near, and attended church with people from David Monthan Air Force Base. I have pastored military people over the years.
I have read about evangelical evangelizing scandals at the military academies. I read and follow the news. I listen to the speeches given on aircraft carriers that invoke the name of the Christian God.
Remember reality doesn’t matter. Perception does and the the world perceives we are a Christian nation warring in the name of the Christian God.
Joe, I hope you will stop challenging my manhood
No I am not in the Military but that does not mean I can not speak on these matters. Maybe, just maybe I have a perspective or knowledge you may not have? That is unless your superiors tell you everything ? 
well, and i think the former exchange between Joe and Adam on here shows that, even within the military, there are all different positions and situations depending on which branch, where you’re stationed, who your commanders are, etc…
a short film has been made about the encroaching evangelism at the Air Force Academy, and the resulting debasement of those with different beliefs.
i also know that many within the military feel they have a need/right to evangelize through mass e-mails…
i’ll find my brother. he can speak about this, but i know he takes a proactive role in stopping those e-mails.
“Evangelizing” through e-mail is like helping the homeless by sending a check. Both are better done one-on-one.
Chris so very, very, very (did I say very) wrongly said:
Additionally, I find it interesting that your (and Evan’s) tenor is basically – “we can’t condemn Islamist violence because Christians are historically guilty, tooâ€, a common logical fallacy, as well, utilized across political persuasions.
Evan is gay and I am heterosexual
Besides that………….I only comment on what is written. Or what I think way written, anyway
For the record:
1. I oppose all violence
2. I condemn the violence of Muslims and Christians.
3. I condemn the violence of Israel and Palestinians
4. Christians are not only historically guilty of violence they are currently guilty of violence and we as Christians are complicit in the violence that is being waged in our name in Iraq.
5. Yes, I am a liberal but I am not as liberal as Evan. He is a real liberal.
Ray asked if I believed there was a “just” war? Good question. On principle I oppose all war. (I am really a believer in non-violent resistance rather than a pacifism)
But, I am also a realist. We live in a fallen world. In general, I believe WW1 and WW2 were just wars. That’s it. I also want to say that we did some atrocious,immoral, evil things during those wars. (boming of Dreden, the nuclear bombing of Japan)
Hope this helps.
Actually, not to define Muslims as “evil” – but rather that a significant portion of the current state of their religion embraces murder of non-adherents (doubly so against those who renounce Islam and convert to another religion, be it Christianity, Hindu, etc.).
This cannot be reasonably said of the current state of Christianity – or even its recent history.
Most of the Xtian criticism of Islamic terror has been reasonable (note the key use of the word “most”). I would hope that the same type of crtiicism would/will be leveled at Xtians who would engage in the same activities.
While Fred Phelps hasn’t killed anyone yet (at least that we know of), I’m not seeing many Christians outside of the WBC lining up to defend him. Even the ODM’s (rightly) repudiate him…
Tim,
I agree, but here is the fundamental problem.
Most people view the actions of the warring Muslims as evil but they do not view our warring actions in the same light. Somehow our killing is moral, just, or necessary. When Muslims torture it is evil. When Americans torture is just and necessary.
Some of us believe we are fighting an unjust, immoral war in Iraq. We do not have a high moral ground above the Muslim terrorists. War is war. Killing is killing. Men, women and children dying are men, women and children dying. All the blood is red.
I , in no way justify any deed done by the terrorist or Muslims. They are evil. But, I see no qualitative difference in the actions of America.
basically, Christians in the West have a higher socioeconomic standing, and so can carry out their violence without getting their hands dirty.
i would also suggest that to state that a “significant portion” of Muslims support terrorism is to over-generalize the issue beyond recognition. i would suggest that most Muslims who wink at terrorism do so not out of religious belief, but out of their own hopeless situation in the world. it’s too bad most Americans seem to consider the Muslim world as a whole, rather than as many specific nations with many specific sets of circumstances.
we can thank the idiot president, partially, for that, but some of it is Americans’ own fault for sucking up the “fer us er agin’ us” method of foreign policy.
that’s not the real Christian terrorism. it’s the quiet little groups which put James Dobson, Paul Wolfowitz, and other strange-birds-of-a-bedfellow in the same room and unduly influence foreign policy through the revolving door of American government.
yep. let’s count…4,011 Americans dead, thousands more maimed for life, and fully ONE-FIFTH of the Iraqi population either dead or displaced (that’s a nice way of saying they’re refugees). nobody listens to the Iraqis’ perspectives on this…oh, except for the perspectives of the fraudulent government, propped up by Bush, which has an approval rate among the Iraqi people strikingly similar to Bush’s own approval rating at home.
card-carryin’.
Wow. Just, wow.
case in point.
progressives love America enough to point out when she’s doing terrible things that are unbefitting of her founding legacy.
Ray,
Sorry to wow you
Let me see if I can explain. We went to Iraq based on a lie. We went to Iraq to fulfill the political ambitions of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. We went to Iraq for Oil. We went to Iraq to nation-build. We went to Iraq so a son could finish what his father wouldn’t. We went to Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and tortured people (remember Saddam torture bad, Bush torture good)
So, we had no ________ reason to go to Iraq. None.
Notice, I didn’t add Afghanistan to the discussion. I see a limited, specific, short term need for going after the terrorists responsible for 9-11. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11.
Hope you are really wowed now
B,
Sorry, didn’t know you were referring to Iraq specifically.
What legacy would that be? Warring with native Americans? Rebelling against the British for having to pay taxes that are miniscule compared to our current taxation rate?
My point is that all nations are founded on bloodshed, and to a big extent I think they all are under Satanic control to a big degree. I don’t think that should cripple us from pointing out and acting against evil when we see it though.
I do think on a whole, the American military has acted a bit more honorably than others, but the army’s job to kill people and break stuff.
As far as Iraq, I do wonder why we have such short memories. Wasn’t Clinton worried about Saddam’s attempts at amassing weapons back in like ‘98 or so. Didn’t the UN issue several resolutions that Saddam basically ignored? I would say that there was plenty of reason to be there, but it seems that early on a lot of things were mishandled.
To try and blame it all on Bush seems to be giving Bush a lot more power than he has. To me it’s like a family that get’s lost driving somewhere. Of course everyone blames the person driving, but no one said anything on the way for the most part.
I’m too lazy to go search for it, but I’m pretty sure that I once made a comment that the “Emergent Church” is to ODM’s what GWB is to the political left – the McGuffin source of all that is evil.
I’d say it works both ways. Just as stupid when it comes from the left as it is from the right…
except that the intelligence and repeated weapons inspections began to show that the sanctions were working, at least from the perspective of the safety of the rest of the world. regular Iraqi people had been crippled by them.
i’m just going to expect over-simplifications and misstatements from now on.
take some time to read the real perspective of the progressive left. not Dowd. not Kos. i’m talking alternet, The Nation…
oh, i agree the founding of America and her legacy is bloody, bloody, but the nation was also founded with certain ideals in mind that, supposedly, we aspire to.
but the white man’s genocide of the Native Americans had been going on long before 1776.
to this i would ask everyone: remember before the Iraq adventure started when the Bush administration kicked the weapons inspectors out before they had finished their jobs?
if so, do you remember why?
Brutus, you can answer this one.
Ray,
Yes, Iraq.
No such thing as a pure war but the Iraq war was totally unnecessary. Thousands have died, hundreds of thousands maimed and a once proud,progressive country bombed back to the 19th century. Yes, Iraq had Saddam. He was pure evil. But they also were a secular state and had schools, modern infrastructure, etc. They were NOT Afghanistan.
I firmly believe George Bush intended to invade Iraq long before 9-11. 9-11 gave him the golden opportunity to do it.
On the home front, we live in fear. Our civil liberties are being eroded, all in the name of the war on terrorism. We are lied to. We are manipulated and quite frankly it is hard for any of us to really know the truth. I know Fox News…….we report……..you decide. CNN………same way.
There is a great divide in America between conservatives and liberals. Polarization is choking the life out of our country. But, I see no way to repair the breach. We simply disagree on foundational issues. We call each other names, label one another, and burn down each other’s straw men.
It should be different among Christians but it is not. The Evangelical Church is decidedly conservative and liberals are not welcome (well we are if we don’t say anything) So we are forced out of the Church into mainline Churches, that quite frankly, are a disaster.
Hopes this helps.
Brutus,
You know I didn’t mean it that way and I specifically stated that. I was just questioning where you got your info from, and you provided that. I thought I was clear that in my personal experience, I know the rules for chaplains, and my chaplains are very good about following them. I don’t think the military proclaims the Christian God, on the contrary, most people I work with are very anti-christian.
Enough said. I’m not questioning your manhood. lol come on. And I understand you have unique perspectives and wisdom and I respect that. I just happen to disagree with you about the chaplancy as a whole.
I suppose you’re right in that perception is what really counts.
A few things…
1) Suddam Hussein was an evil man propped up by the U.S. government to fight Iran 1980. The Shaz of Iran was ousted in 1979 by Shiite Muslims. The Imams then took over power. Because they were upset with the Shaz getting to comfy with the West. So the U.S. government backed Iraq to fight Iran.
2) The U.S. government then gave weapons to Iran to fight Iraq. Iran Contra circa 1983-87.
3) We invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. circa 2002.
4) Bush declares the Axis of Evil January, 2002
5) Iraq is invaded because of violating U.N. sanctions guidelines??????. March 2003.
Tell me again why we should be loved as liberators?
Scrub line 3
Oh yeah just to really strengthen my case.
I’m a veteran who is married to Iranian women who’s parents are still Muslim and my mother in law is visiting Iran as I type this. I’m also a minister. So nanner, nanner, nanner!
also, before that we installed the Shah for our own purposes.
that’s why the world’s opinion of the US is currently lower than that of CHINA…
that should elicit an “oh my good Lord…” from everyone.
bwahahahaha
loves it. but did you really mean to say you’re married to “Iranian women”?
*giggle*
Joe C,
No problem. Since I am a liberal (progressive) that still likes to swim in Evangelical waters I “may” be a little over-sensitive to have my “manhood” challenged (think sports commercial)
As has been mentioned by a few people, on several different posts, it is not helpful when we characterize those we differ with (or outright oppose) as ignorant, naive, not informed, brainwashed, stupid, idiot, retarded, or a NY Yankee’s fan.
When I dialog with others, I assume, they are genuine and informed. They may have knowledge I don’t have. They may have experienced things I never have.
I will never know what it is to serve in a war where people are trying to kill me. I DO have three draft age sons and the worry and fear I face is legitimate and real. Every time I hear Congress talking about a “draft” I worry. Years ago, I turned 18 a fews months after they stopped the draft. I was glad. Relieved. I watched what Vietnam did to my friends, uncles, and neighbors. I wanted no part of it.
At the end of the day I respect “most” of the people who write and comment here. Good people. Thoughtful. I suspect we could all pony up to the bar and be friends. I have a profound respect for those I disagree with (well, most of the time)
Enough. Back to trying to scrape paint off the house……..gotta paint it this year. I have MS so I can only work in small spurts. Very frustrating.
chris,
messed up , buddy
Evan – America never was, is not, and never will be a Christian nation. The only Christian nation exists with the hearts of every born again believer, ivisible, and it is a Monarchy with no democratic system and better still, NO POLITICS!!
Christin fish – some don’t like it – who cares either way. I refuse to defend a symbol, let us live Christ and with that epistle Christ defends Himself.
oh, Rick i know the US is not a Christian nation and never was intended to be.
and thank goodness…
I’m still trying to figure out – going back to the OP – how Muslim death threats against a secular Dutch filmmaker in the Netherlands is directly related to who did what in Iraq…
…or could there be an axe to grind, which is sort of its own Rorschach inkblot test…
Shoot I think Darwin Fish goes way overboard and I don’t even agree with JM teachings.
iggy
Tongue firmly in check so don’t get those panties in a wad!
Of course only those we differ have an axe to grind.
All of us have an axe to grind. I always assume that in any discussion. As long as they don’t bludgeon me with their axe……..
it has to do with hacks like Jonah Goldberg writing stupid articles that demonize the entire Muslim world vis a vis the stunning hypocrisy of many Christian and Zionist Jewish Americans when confronted with their complacency and complicity in fomenting much of the same religious violence in the world.
Since our fish has now been discovered I present another symbol to communicate in a clandestine manner. A chicken.
C – Christ is the way to
H – heaven and
I – is the only
C – Christian Lord whose
K – knowledge
E – enlightens and changes the sinner into something
N – new
I want someone to provide the prototype chicken drawing that will be the universal symbol.
Jesus Chicken
Jesus Chicken on Steroids
Chris – too overt.
Iggy! LOL!
Darwin Fish’s site is GLORIOUS, what are you talking about! It’s like CRN 5 years from now. I read through the whole site last year, it was just too fascinating.
All praise the Holy 7 Spirits!!! =)~
PS, thanks for the clarification Brutus.
Joe
Brutus: ” we did some atrocious,immoral, evil things during those wars. (boming of Dreden, the nuclear bombing of Japan)”
Why do you see these as immoral?
not to speak for Brutus, but, um…killing of thousands of innocents in typical American over-reaction fashion?
not justifying what any other side did, but someday we have pull our heads out of our war-mongering ___es and realize that “collateral damage” actually means “dead civilians.”
Alternatives Evan?
Can’t just criticize…that’s no fun…
Were there better choices in dealing with Imperial Japan? What would you have done in the leadership’s position? Serious question, I’m not being snarky.
Joe
oh, i’m not attempting to give alternatives…
mine is more a comment on the entire state of things.
those, arguably, were justified acts, at least from a war perspective, and i’m not going to pretend to be an expert on those events.
but my contention is more that blowing up civilians, even from a “wartime perspective” is still immoral, and no American should take pleasure or national pride in such acts of retribution.
John,
The direct and deliberate targeting of civilians. Every war starts with high ideals. (what we will and will not do, abide by Geneva convention, etc)
The fire bombing of Dresden targeted civilians. It was unnecessary.
In Japan we deliberately targeted large population centers and we KNEW the primary target was civilians. Our objective was to break the will of the Japanese people. We succeeded but at to high of a price. (which Japan is still paying for with medical costs and early deaths)
I am aware that there is a debate over Japan. The dead Japanese numbered less than the dead Americans if we had invaded. The problem is that we can’t trust military assessments. They are hypothetical and they never seem to cover all the bases. (i.e. the litany of bad assessments in Iraq)
If we are going to fight wars then lets fight mano a mano. Soldier to soldier. Killing women, old men, and children should never be part of the conflict. They are not collateral damage. They are innocents who got in the way.
So ending the war is non-justified? And how do you define “innocents”? Women and children as young as eight were being trained to defend the Japanese homeland. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the saving of maybe as many as two million lives. It was not just the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japanese cities that caused the Japanese surrender but also the Russia were now invading Japanese territories successfully. The COULD have dragged on for several more years w/o the bomb. Our goal was to END the war and remove those responsible who started the whole thing.
I suppose you could argue that Japan had been crippled or you could even say that maybe we shouldn’t have been involved in the war at all but Brutus has already said that our being involved in WW I and II were justified. But I think to out of hand start that the dropping of the bomb was immoral is way too much of revisionist history.
Imagine a world where the US had never gone to war, ever.
What would the world be like?
Sorry John,
I don’t buy the 2 million stat. I have done a lot of reading on this and I realize there are 2 sides. I happen to believe that invading Japan was the right choice. I realize the Russians were a whole separate issue we had to deal with. (I guess we could discuss Yalta and our capitulation to the Russians)
Why is it revisionist when a view is different from yours? I tire of such claims quickly. We have what I call the “national myth” and if you dare challenge the myth you are considered revisionist or unpatriotic. I refuse to live in a world where we still think George chopped down the cherry tree and that the people at Jamestown/Plymouth Rock were godly people (who burned 400 Indians to their death)
War may bring a cessation of hostilities but no war in the history of mankind has brought peace.
inquisitor,
we will never know, will we?
I wholeheartedly reject the collective pronoun “we” when referring to any and all actions of America. The rightness and wrongness of such actions are entirely subjective and without any divine revelation with which to glean their appropriateness. In other words – one man’s early ending of a war to save lives is another man’s atrocity.
It is the church’s calling to judge our own actions and with that our plate is full!
“We have what I call the “national myth†and if you dare challenge the myth you are considered revisionist or unpatriotic.”
Brutus – I will receive you brother. Take a walk on the wild side. Patriotic = double minded.
what is that, like Bill Kristol’s version of John Lennon or something?
you can’t just take the US out of the equation…
but it also suggests that some still hold to the myth that the US only intervenes when it’s “right,” to protect people or something.
pardon me while i throw up.
Figure the death tolls for Japanese defending the islands which weren’t their actual homeland. The Japanese did not believe in surrender. The two million is not an American casualty figure but a Japanese number. Even if the number is wrong by a factor of 50% the 100,000 deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is pretty small in comparison to the death toll if both the US and Russia had continued to root out the Japanese and then ultimately have to invade the Japanese homeland.
We, as Americans, forgot that the Russians, once Germany had surrendered, turned there attentions to the east. Maybe we could have turned the prosecution of the war in the east to the Russians but that’s an entirely different discussion.
I certainly don’t believe that the US only enters conflicts when it only is to protect others. But also, I don’t believe in “my country, always wrong” either.
Revisionism is when we ignore the writings and memories of those closest to the situation, particularly those of our combatant enemies.
How can we tell which war is a good war and which one America shouldn’t have entered? It’s all subjective and most Americans see through a blurred lense called “patriotism” which the Bible calls idolatry.
John,
Are you related to others here?
This whole “unless you were there” ……………
You realize thousand of books have been written on WWII? Out of those thousands I have probably read 50 or so. I try and read varying viewpoints and then I try and come to a reasoned conclusion.
I would contend that, often, books written closest to an event are many times the least reliable. It takes years for information to leak out and be discovered. Even now, there is still information coming out about WWII.
Can you imagine someone writing a book titled “The Immoral Bombing of Japan” in 1946? Not a chance. Times allows us the opportunity to distance ourselves enough from an issue so that we can objectively look at the information.
Revisionism exists. But most often, when someone cries revisionism is it simply because they don’t like another person’s viewpoint. My view on Japan is well researched and is documented in more than a few scholarly tomes. Doesn’t make me right but it certainly doesn’t make me a naive, stupid revisionist.
Does anyone really believe the Gulf of Tonkin incident really occurred as Lyndon Johnson said it did? All this modern, revisionist history has shown us Johnson lied. Such is the value of time.
I subscribe to the theory that most often truth will be known if we give it enough time.
So we wait.
Every country should have a high degree of patriotism.
But lets be honest and, at the very least, acknowledge that we may be responsible, in some small ways, for the current state (terrorism, islamic extremism, anti-semitism, etc…) of affairs in the world.
And at the very most acknowledge that our media is as biased as Al-Jazeera.
“Every country should have a high degree of patriotism. ”
Sure, but not in the church. We have allegience to only one King and as you can see nationistic discussions divide over degrees of patriotism. Even Phelps claims patriotism. We should be good citizens but we should never give our allegience to a carnal and sometimes anti-christ government that believes all paths lead to God. It is a mockery!!
Now, come on… It’s statements like this that make me roll my eyes. I mean I think the American media is pretty much leftist, but to compare them to Al Jazeera is a bit of a stretch. Although both groups probably hate GWB just as much, so you might have a point there.
By the way, didn’t some correspondent from the BBC recently start working for Al Jazeera?
a good article thanks, Chris. I agree that displaying the Jesus fish with no threat of death (and no intention to help those who are) is a mockery of a real and dangerous situation, just as the silly darwin fish.
One thing orthodox and emergent and seeker and purpose Christians all have in common. Patriotism, the ultimate deception that may well play a part in these end times.
Just a thought folks…
We condemn homosexuals for their sin…
But
War is evil no matter what… and many people who claim a faith in God are fine with this evil and some back it and promote it.
iggy
now crucify me! LOL!
I often wonder if true persecution came to America how many of those “fish” would disappear…
iggy
“I often wonder if true persecution came to America how many of those “fish†would disappear…”
Iggy – I wonder if true persecution came to America how many bumper sticker American flags on believer’s cars would disappear?
nobody does.
right wing myth.
about the left.
duh.
Iggy,
“War is evil no matter what”
So you’d be fine sitting under the rule of Hitler?
What if you saw a woman being murdered would you save her by killing the murderer, or would you let her die in the name of “peace”?
Phil I would encourage you to go to youtube and watch Al Jazeera’s English channel. I think you would find them to be less biased then, say, Fox News.
I am not Iggy but……..
Ah yes, the Hitler straw man.
Hitler is kinda like the how many steps to Kevin Bacon game. How many steps til someone brings up Hitler.
We are called to peace. It is up to you to show we are not. The Bible doesn’t say “peace is a good idea.” It does say we are to be peacemakers, those who actively promote and work towards peace.
Of course we would kill the murderer. Did you you think we wouldn’t? Such silly thinking about us peace lovers.
Of course……………people are being killed all over the world today Our tax money supports the killing so we are complicit in the killing. Maybe I should ask you what you are doing to stop it?
“So you’d be fine sitting under the rule of Hitler?”
If that was God’s will, sure. God used the Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, and many other heathens to correct his people. We as the church should trust the sovereignty of God, and this is from an Arminian!
I would shout “you’re not one of the elect!”
of course, but different people view “patriotism” differently.
some think that outward acts like bumper stickers and putting one’s hand over their heart while reciting the pledge of allegiance, coupled with giving the president the benefit of the doubt at each and every turn constitutes true patriotism.
others believe that true patriotism involves knowing what’s going on, taking the good with the bad (as we learned in the theme song from “The Facts of Life”), and not being timid about yelling it to the rafters when the country IS wrong, wrong, wrong.
as to our media, of course it’s as biased as al Jazeera. Fox News is basically state-run television, and the other major networks parrot Fox. at least al Jazeera attempts to report on the ENTIRE world (like most media outside the United States).
statistical analysis (by numerous groups) proves that the American mainstream media is not leftist at all.
*sigh*
repeating something over and over again doesn’t make it true…
i mean, please. if the media were “leftist,” then why do most ALL informed progressives despise the mainstream media? if the media were “leftist,” why are they giving John McCain a constant pass for his pathetic ____-ups for the past three weeks in attempting to describe the situation in the Middle East? the same “gaffe” FIVE days in a row about Iranians arming al Qaeda…i mean, give me a break!
meanwhile we’re subjected to constant crap about Obama’s pastor?
the truth of the matter is that pundits like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly can sensationalize and lie all they want about the “liberal media,” but the fact is that the American media is pathetic for far more real, far more insidious reasons. they’re all corporate, so more and more, they’re focused on the bottom line only. they do not care about informing the American public.
case in point: the media STILL hasn’t attempted to actually explain what happened in southern Iraq last week! i can tell you what happened, but that’s because i actively seek out information on these kinds of things, and the few investigative journalists left in this country (having been killed off by the corporate media) do still report on them, but one has to find them.
haha. seriously.
maybe. there are Americans who work for al Jazeera. it’s an international news organization with bureaus all over the place, just like the BBC…
haha, one other person on this board has actually WATCHED al Jazeera. thank you.
everybody, go to YouTube.
beat me to it.
Inq,
I am not saying there is an easy answer but do you believe that war is ever “good”?
Also, in Romans 13 we are told to “Submit to the governing authorities” as God has instituted them.
Now, I would be very dualistic as Bonhoeffer was… I do see we need to stand up against injustice… yet, that does not mean we HAVE to do war.
I acknowledge war is a ‘necessary’ evil… in this age.. yet again whether necessary or not, evil is still evil.
iggy
You guys are discussing how hypocritical the different views are in the disgusting arena called politics and nationalistic perspectives. I love it, and I’ll save you the trouble, all nations are unrighteous.
There…settled. Let us speak of things that we can work on the more effectively reflect Christ.
more and more, i believe that the smartest way to pursue foreign policy in the future is through humanitarian interventionism, in concert with other free international bodies.
if the US had spent ten percent of the resources we’ve squandered in Iraq intervening in Darfur, most of the world would have quite a different opinion of us, and i daresay we’d actually have an ounce of credibility left when addressing international bodies.
as it is, nations around the world are perfecting the art of rolling their eyes at the United States.
My wifes Iranian. The world became a much bigger place after we got married.
For those that are interested this video speaks somewhat to the point of the post. Sorry I found it on Al Jazeera’s youtube channel. Hope you’re able to look past the agenda driven Al Jazeera.
just over 10 minutes long
Can you imagine if we used our military to go to countries that are starving their people and have the military give the food to the people there directly? I mean that that would cause a lot of issues in national sovereignty… but many of the people in these countries are physically too weak to do anyting to bring change themselves as they are seeking food and water.
I am not sure it doing it by force would be right, but to expose and press and push and denounce and work toward a solution would be better than blowing people up.
I think though that the opinion of America would swing tothe very possitive if we refocused on doing good and righting injustice instead of protecting oil and our “national interest”… whatever those may be at the time.
iggy
My Bad…
Part 1 10 minutes
Part 2 10 minutes
Please clear my last comment from Spam thanks
BINGO!
where’s the video?
(i might’ve seen it…)
Brutus,
Sorry, I simply find that only Iggy says things like that, I guess I wasn’t paying attention.
Also, I think that you misunderstood my point, or perhaps you were just choosing not to address it.
I am simply saying that Hitler was like a murderer and he attacked and killed innocent bystanders (other countries)
Is it wrong to use deadly force to stop a murderer? NO! Therefore war is not wrong in ALL instances.
If war is used as a way of force to save the life of an innocent nation then we can’t be so quick to say that a war is unjust or wrong.
(I’m not supporting any particular war, just saying that you can’t make a blanket statement that “all war is wrong”)
They’re trapped in moderation land.
Okay so hopefully this works…
Here is Part 1 and you can get Part 2 when you get to the first video.
Rick
If a murderer came into your house would you not defend yourself? or would you just claim that it was God’s will for this tyrant to take over your household based on the idea that
“God used the Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, and many other heathens to correct his people.”
How would you know if it was God’s will that this man be allowed to get into your house or not?
Would you just sit back and say, “well, I guess this is God’s will”?
Come on Rick, I expect better arguments from you.
Actually Part 2 and Part 1 are the same.
… and don’t give me the argument that Hitler was invading somone else’s house therefore my argument doesn’t apply.
Would you not defend your neighbor (with force if necessary) if you saw a crazy ax murderer break into his house?
it seems to me that there are levels of “wrong” at play here. as i suggested, if we had intervened in Darfur, there would be a justification for that. genocide going on and all.
and when we intervened in WWII, (part of) it was due to the genocide Hitler was inflicting on the Jews (and others).
but that’s not always the case. one of the “follow the bouncing ball” justifications for going into Iraq was to “liberate the people,” except that that never was the motivation, and most Iraqis polled say they’re worse off now than they were under Saddam.
so.
gutter ball, George, gutter ball.
big fat lying gutter ball.
Inq,
I am becoming more and more pacifistic as I get older…
I realize and addressed the issue, yet again, if murder is a sin, then when we murder we sin… to “kill” our enemy makes in impossible to “love” our enemy…
I hope you can see that.
iggy
Not Rick but I’ll play.
Absolutely I would defend myself or my neighbor. But I would not incinerate the whole frickin’ neighborhood to stop one axe wielding maniac.
Timothy McViegh bombs Oklahoma and claims collateral damage and we all think he’s a lunatic.
The U.S. Air Force has a stray missile that hits a school and we all dismiss it as collateral damage.
?????
Just in case you’re thinking I’m making stuff up.
Here it is…
i’ll play too.
i would defend [our country] or [Canada]. But i would not incinerate [a country that didn't attack us, didn't have anything to do with the people who attacked us, didn't threaten to attack us, and was actually also an enemy of the people who attacked us] to stop [the country/group that actually attacked us].
because that would make me a moron…
Iggy,
Back to my analogy. Would you “love” a man that broke into your home? Would you make him a cup of tea? Offer him a snack perhaps?
Would you allow him to do as he wished so that you can claim that you are “pacifistic” and “loving”
Chris,
That’s a bit of a straw man you set up there.
Timothy McViegh was not considered a lunatic because he caused “collateral damage”
He was a lunatic because he killed innocent people.
However, here’s an interesting question for you.
Would you have stopped McVeigh if the only way that you could have stopped him was by killing him and suffering the collateral damage of 15 other people, or would you refuse to act in order to save the 15 whom you would have killed while stopping McVeigh and suffer the loss of those who died in the bombing of the Fed. building?
(thanks for playing, I think you’ll do as a substitute for Rick)
And I don’t know why I keep addressing these things to Iggy. SORRY!
I never responded to the ax murderer scenarion. I would kill him. I do not say with authority that it is totally Biblical, but that is far different than aligning myself with America’s wars while professing Biblical and dispassionate wisdom. I do not say America’s wars were all wrong “horizontally”, I am saying the church should have no opinion.
We must stop thinking as Americans and start thinking and acting like followers of Jesus Christ.
As did the U.S. Air Force in Afghanistan (among other places)
hypothetical situations do little to prove anything.
Back to the post.
(He whispers while looking around suspiciously)
“chicken”
Rick,
I agree. But as thinking like followers of Jesus Christ we must remember that at times our country will have to use force in certain situations. For this would be the Christ like thing to do.
Some people on this site would argue that using force is NEVER the right thing to do. This is simply not true, as I have already proven by the “ax murderer” argument.
But now that we have come to a consensus by agreeing that sometimes force is necessary, let’s get back to talking about Jesus Christ.
Chris,
Way to dodge the bullet.
I am still looking for someone to provide a chicken outline like the fish one.
Inq,
As far as I can see we are addressing each other…
I go back an forth… if I had to in self defense I would defend myself. But, that is not what most “American” wars are really about. Often we are proved then become the aggressor.
IF someone came in and attacked my family I would try to do what I could to defend without killing.
Yet, I think that most theft is due to things like drug addiction and such so I think more should be done to help people and prevent them from doing such things.
Now I agree, i am a bit “Lennonistic” but I heard one person state, “What if we actually lived out the Sermon on the Mount?” or the other version, “WHat if we really believed and did what Jesus taught?”
Jesus stated to love our enemies… again, I ask you, how loving is it to kill our enemies? You have not answered that.
iggy
Chris.
I agree the hypothetical questions really prove nothing.
I mean could we have stopped McVeigh? What does that mean… that if I saw what he was doing and could shoot him?
Maybe also I am a great marksman and could shoot his leg enough to stop him… maybe I am a bad shot and shoot someone next to him…
What does it all prove?
iggy
No pun intended!
Wasn’t dodging…What do you think my answer would’ve been?
How do prove that scenario? It’s easy to say “Yes” I would stop him but all the variables are known in your hypothetical. That is not possible in the real world. So all we have is guesses.
In the case of the Iraq war; our guess was wrong!
My history prof in college said one of my favorite lines when we referring to war. “It’s history is immediately written by the winners but only time will tell who was truly victorious”.
My father-in-law as my second favorite line “The U.S. is 230 years old. Iran is over 2500 years old. Let’s see who outlasts who”
Inq,
I might add also, (and I mean this in all kindness… and for sake of conversation) I gave a biblical based reason.
You just stated that we need to stop someone like Hitler…
I think God can raise up Hitler and put down Hitler… and yes, even use war in doing that. But realize what stopped the war was not us winning, but an assassination, meanwhile millions died in war… besides the Jews… millions of Europeans and Russians and so on…
Oh, then we created an issue with japan by stopping oil from getting to them and they took the offensive and attacked Pearl Harbor..
How many wars are started of lack of or the need of fossil fuels? Can we not work harder at remedying that?
iggy
inquisitor,
Let me see if I can explain how I look at things.
1.I believe war is evil.
2.I believe killing other human beings is evil.
3. I believe Christians are to not kill and are to be peacemakers. If drafted I would be a CO or I would go to jail.
4. I also recognize a limited right to self-defense (and this somewhat is inconsistent with my non-violent view)
Let me unfold point 4 a bit. When I say self-defense, I mean true self-defense. That’s why I understand the war in Afghanistan. Terrorists attacked us and we responded. I understand our response to Pearl Harbor in the same light.
I reject all preemptive actions. Self-defense requires an offense. In Korea and Vietnam we were actually fighting China and Russia. We had no business fighting those wars at all. I don’t buy the “saving the world from communism.” argument. Now someone needs to protect the world from us.
The World Wars are difficult and fraught with complexities and nuances. Purity can not be found in any position. WWI is what gave us WWII. We failed to deal with German nationalism and the world paid the price. (and this should be a warning to us with our own rabid form of nationalism)
There were other ways Hitler could have been dealt with. Unfortunately, we will never know if they would have worked because we didn’t try. In both World Wars the US sat on the sidelines until forced into the conflict. If we had involved ourselves in the process sooner who knows what the result might have been.
So, I believe in a narrow self-defense. Unfortunately, few are the times where we have acted in self defense. Imperialism. Fascism. Colonialism. All words that can often describe the actions of our country throughout its history.
Note………the world supported us after 9-11. What happened to that support? The blame rests with us. The world understands going to Afghanistan. It does not understand Iraq.
Part of the problem is President Bush. He is a proponent of manifest destiny. He is arrogant and never wrong. He really believes that the best (dare I say only) government style is democratic, free-market capitalism. For some reason he can not fathom that others may not see it his way.
There are days that I fear that the best days of America are behind her.
bingo again…
as it is, we have a set of policies in place, especially re: people darker than us, which incarcerate them at higher levels than the general population, treat them as generally suspect, and then we act all surprised when crime goes up.
then some Republican politican swaggers in with this crap promise to get tough on crime by enacting 3-strike laws, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…
and it still gets worse!
just like with most issues, you have to work to address the root causes.
it’s kind of like when the US tries to justify torture (i still can’t believe we’re actually having the conversation) by asking the completely unrealistic, baseless question (paraphrased), “what if Chicago was going to explode in 15 minutes and you had the guy who knew the answers, you wouldn’t torture him??????”
lost in the conversation is the fact that every credible intelligence expert calls that an extremely implausible hypothetical, which is their nice way of saying “it doesn’t work that way, Captain Numbnuts.”
1. lots. more if you include the genocides we DON’T intervene in because of fossil fuels (DARFUR!)
2. not until we stop letting Exxon-Mobil dictate our foreign policy, while their paid “scientists” run around Fox News and tell everybody there’s no energy crisis at hand, and global warming isn’t real.
“There are days that I fear that the best days of America are behind her.”
Not for the blacks who were slaves, those were not the good old days. Please include the Irish, the Asians, the Italians, and many others who would not look to go back. And by “best” what do you mean, Brutus? Economically? Militarily? Hedonistically? Spiritually? We are not concerned with America’s “best” days, we are consumed with pleasing our Heavenly Father who is decidedly not American.
it’s important to note here that most polling indicates that the greater world’s citizens view George as a threat on par with Ahmedinejad, Putin, etc.
ALL the blame.
more than “not understanding” Iraq, they roundly denounce it.
This is why the “librul media” is so silent on what’s really going on in Latin America right now, and why George is so hellbent on signing free trade agreements with Colombia, demonizing Chavez, etc.
The greatest threat to George and his band of merry capitalists is that Americans may take the blinders off and see part of the world beginning to thrive in a system that isn’t purely capitalistic.
*cough cough* Communist China. The fastest growing economy on the planet. Now there is a whole new conversation.
” Communist China. The fastest growing economy on the planet. Now there is a whole new conversation.”
And the fastest growing evangelical community as well. Gee, and they aren’t even capitalist Americans. I guess God can move without George Washington!
Rick of the most Holy Gnostic faith said:
We are not concerned with America’s “best†days, we are consumed with pleasing our Heavenly Father who is decidedly not American.
Speak for yourself. I AM concerned because I have to live here. I can’t concern myself too much with heaven because I have a family to feed and clothe and a mortgage to pay.
God is not American but He is concerned with our temporal well-being. He wants me to live, work, and be involved in the affairs of this world.
Until Jesus comes, or I croak, I intend to b***h, complain, moan, groan, write, discuss, and argue about and work for a better America. I owe it to my kids and grandkids.
And when you do croak, Brutus, I will be happy to drape your sorry carcass with the American flag!!
FYI – my “axe to grind” comment was directed at the proclivity of turning most any conversation into the topic of Iraq…
…which still has nada to do with a DUTCH filmmaker being in jeopardy because he dared to criticize Islam. It has nothing to do with GWB, Christianity, the Crusades, etc.
In its original context (Caesar’s Rome), sporting the fish would be a dangerous thing.
In the context of certain Muslim countries, it is still not a safe thing to do.
In America, it’s an empty gesture…
Chris,
“In the case of the Iraq war; our guess was wrong!”
How do you know this? Suppose 5 years from now we find evidence that Saddam was working on a plan to wipe us of the face of the earth? It’s possible. It’s too early for anyone to start saying whether the Iraq war was/is right or wrong.
the Dutch filmmaker had NADA to do with Jonah Goldberg’s panties getting into a twitter about Darwin fishies, either.
Suppose cherries start falling out of my underwear and Voltron decides to eat them with whipped cream!
actually, the comprehensive 230 page report released by the military recently (which i have) reveals that Saddam had no connections with al Qaeda whatsoever.
also, a perfunctory look at weapons inspections and the general history of Iraq shows that it was a declining state with no resources to THINK about wiping us off the face of the earth, much less CARRY IT OUT oh my goodness i’m slamming up against a brick wall here, aren’t i?
the war in Iraq and Calvinism. Pretty well covers it all
And on that note, I’m going to close off comments, since we’re no longer (nor have we really ever been) OT with the OP…
From here on out, if you want to discuss the Iraq war, unless the OP, itself, is on the war, please refrain from doing so…
[NOTE: We've receive criticism in the past, most likely fair, that we were too lax with allowing dominance of OT flooding, so I'm trying to nip it in the bud... I'm sure there will be threads on this topic and other "run it into the ground" topics, as well, in the future - but there's no need to send them all into the dustbin...]