Conference hydra::dejavu

    Re .0
    
    I've always considered the Ten Commandments to apply when dealing
    with the physical plane, since they generally don't have counterparts
    higher on up.  As you pointed out, spirits don't have non-existance
    as an available option.
    
    However, the admonition to avoid killing can have some interesting
    ramifications, if the commandment has roots in one (or some) of
    the laws from the higher planes.  For example, let's say that the
    Commandment 'You shall not kill' derives from some universal law
    that states that a folk shouldn't be messed with against their will
    (note: I don't recall the verbage, but this vaguely reflects the
    idea).  In that case, the law would apply to all spirits, including
    those incarnate into creatures that are in the food chains.  The
    problem there becomes rather vividly and problematically apparent.
    
    However, if the Ten Commandments are, instead, templates for the basis
    of human laws, given to to keep humans from rampantly interfering with
    each other and our sessions on the physical plane, then it means I can
    rest a little easier while munching on a Bacon-Cheeseburger.  :-) 
    
    To address the thought about just what does 'You shall not kill'
    encompass, I'd have to say that I don't authoritatively and consciously
    know.
    
    I think that death resulting from an action where the possibility of
    death could be reasonably forseen, would qualify as coming under that
    commandment.  Perhaps the exception to this would be when the death
    is initiated to prevent the death of oneself or another.
    
    Dave

    Reply to .1, Callaghan,
    
    I've heard the verse translated "you may not murder". Which seems
    to make more sense. 
    
    Killing is associated with dying. If killing were not part of the
    natural process of life, life would be cancerous. Life must be
    destroyed to make room for other life. We kill weeds in our gardens. We
    kill criminals who kill without cause. We effectively kill ourselves
    with poor health and ecological practices (soil and water posionings
    and poor conservation). 
    
    If the race is going to make the turn around the next evolutionary
    corner we will have to first learn how to conserve resources, human
    and otherwise. There is only so much room. There is only so much
    energy to be used. Political and religious superstitions will have
    to be place aside. The focus will have to be placed upon the importance
    of life existing for it's own purposes. We may even have to redefine
    our understanding of nature.
    
    For instance, in controlling population are we not denying others the
    possiblility to be born? Is a conscious attempt to deny birth
    equivilent to murder? The issue of abortion is snarled in this
    question.
    
    I think we will have to redefine wo/man's place in nature before we can
    effectively deal with killing and murder. Sadly, religion stands
    directly in the way of our understanding and redefiniting of nature. If
    we can escape superstitious and limiting beliefs about ourselves, our
    race, we can take one step further toward the next corner. 
    
    I leave it up to the reader to decide what is superstitious and
    what is limiting. B^) 

    
    The previous notes contain sound "explainations," or "definitions."
    
    Keep in mind too, that The commandments were written by 'man' for
    'man.'  There is an excellent chance that the "writer" did not believe
    in reincarnation either.

    
    Hi Carla,
    
    	If our journey through life and how we choose to live determines
    our personal chances of getting off the "Karmic wheel" or to true death,
    I think that the commandment is saying "dont interfere"...
    	Each living entity is in a life_stage that she/he/it needs to
    "complete" before proceding on the the next, hopefully higher level.
    Perhaps in killing something before it's lived it's intended life,
    you ensure the likelyhood of it having to return to the living hell
    of it's same form again - because the proper amount of positive
    Karma never had the chance to be generated to, er, "advance".
    	I've heard it said that our form, that of Human, is the highest,
    from which we can either return as Human or be *allowed* to assimilate
    somehow into the great oneness or whatever. Perhaps when all that
    lives has worked it's way through all the life_levels with positive
    Karma, it will then be time for the great rebirth, or, everything
    to start over. BANG! But not for quite a while...
    
    	Joe                                                 

    I speak neither Aramaic nor Hebrew but I once asked someone who
    did about this.  I was told that the passage would be more accurately
    translated as "Do not commit murder."  One does not have to read
    much of the Old Testament to realize that the people to whom the
    commandments were addressed felt that there were many circumstances
    in which killing was justified -- war, execution of criminals and
    self defence among others.  One can argue whether or not they were
    correct in their interpretation, but what has come down to us
    apparently uses a term which distinguishes unlawful from lawful
    killing (keeping in mind that the law of the Jews was considered
    to come from God).
    
    					Topher

    I take issue with the statement that Religion stands directly in
    the way of understanding and re-defining our place within Nature.
    I believe that God himself created Nature, so how can understanding
    God not be synonomous with understanding Nature?
    
    What man has made out of religion for his own purposes, however,
    does stand in the way of us advancing in just about any way you
    could imagine.  And certainly, people have been manipulated to believe
    in some situations that killing makes one a martyr with an express
    elevator up to heavan...
    
    Why hold God responsible for what Men have done with His word? 
    
    Doug

    
    Joe, in .6 made a good point.  I, too, have the belief that we live
    our lives based on a time table.
    
    Some people ask christians why God would punish a little kid by
    giving him cancer and the kid dying.... And the christian usually
    comes back and says something like, "Have faith," or "God works
    in strange ways," or "It's God's will," but, I believe that it isn't
    God picking on a child, but rather, that person must not have finished
    his/her time table in the past life, and needed only a few years
    perhap, to finish it up.
    
    -Scorpio Dwight

    
    I believe,as far as humans are concerned,that taking a life is against
    the commandment unless it is in certain circumstances,where your
    own life would be taken,like a direct attack ,or similar situations.
    
    I believe God gave us the commandment as a moral standard,and,that
    it is up to us to uphold it to the greatest degree possible.It is
    also in our hands to manage the Earth well,and take care of it and
    the life on it.We must also manage growth,by natural means,as well
    as new techniques to prevent conception,but not by abortion,since
    this is violating the commandment.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    Reply to .8; Wetherington,
    
    I say that because our religious belief systems place a framework over
    our thinking processes which heavily influence the experience, create
    and recreate cycle of reality engineering. 
    
    I've posted elsewhere in Dejavu that covert beliefs are the tough
    beliefs to ferret out. The hidden beliefs are the ones that overlay our
    thinking processes. 
    
    I think that wo/man creates God daily. Covert beliefs were insturmental
    in the creation of God. Find those covert beliefs and you may find why
    we create God daily. Wo/man will have to trancend the belief in God,
    finding better frameworks to work with as we create new realities to
    live in. 
    
    Please note that Goddess in not in the same class of belief as God. The
    meaning of the term Goddess is that of universal, natural process.
    Goddess is the process immanent in all things. God is trancendent,
    separate and away from Nature. And if we say that God created Nature
    then we have to ask who created God, ad infinitum, which belongs in
    Religion. 
    
    Modern science is pointing at the idea of connection and relationship
    as opposed to issolation. To kill something else will eventually lead
    to killing ourselves. That sounds strange but the cycle of life and
    death says that we eat others and others eat us. This seems to be that
    natural process. I don't know of a way to dissipate (consume) energy
    without taking it from a previous dissipater of energy. Perhaps this is
    a good example of a covert belief, something to be trancended. B^) 
    
    

    
    I believe the commandments to be basically 'sinner' commandments.
    Notice the number of 'thou shalt not's' mentioned, as opposed to
    the 'thou shalt's'.
    
    When Jesus came along, he was asked to pick out the most important
    ones.  He did so, and they are (from memory):
    
    1. Love the Lord thy God (Goddess, All-There-Is) with all thy heart
       and soul and mind.
    
    2. Love thy neighbor as thyself.
    
    For those people who didn't understand the two most important 
    commandments, God (Goddess, All-There-Is) decided that it would
    be best to spell it out in the fine print, just for those who need
    structure, laws and discipline in their lives.  (;^)  I am reminded
    of someone else who wrote in another conference "Well, I *am* for
    bombing abortion clinics, but God isn't so I won't."  Clearly the
    words "Thou shalt not kill." were written for people who think along
    these lines.
                           
    There is a good book which talks about the 10 commandments in a
    very interesting way - one which would no doubt 'speak' to many 
    people here. The title is "Beyond Moralism", by Spong (and a 
    couple of others).   It's not very lengthy at all.
    
    I will try to put in some excerpts here if/as time allows.
    
    Cindy
                                                      

    RE: .13 
    
    Actually, I believe there have been "commandments" like this -
    different wording, same idea - in many (most? all?) religions and
    er..."moral systems"...for the last n *thousands* of years. It wasn't
    new with Jesus.
    
    Sorry if this is a nit, rathole, or whatever...
    
    Dawn
    

Reply .13 was deleted
We now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion already in
progress.

    I think all the commandments, including not to murder stem from
    the Golden Rule. You couod call it a Bill of Rules like the Bill
    of Rights.

    I think it means exactly what it says.... that we should not kill.
    Mary

    re: -.1
      
         If it does, then it is real sad.  Even worse, everyone who
    has ever lived to be an adult has committed a sin by breaking at
    least one of the "Ten COMMANDments."  How awful it must be to face
    death and "Judgement" knowing that it is a losing situation.
      
         Phew!!!  Am I glad I don't believe in that stuff anymore!!!
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .18
    
    You are welcome to your opinion about what it means.  However, that
    is not, apparently, what it says.  That is what a translation to
    English says.
    
    You are also welcome to believe that even if "Thou shalt not commit
    murder" is what it actually says and means, that there is still
    a moral imperative to not kill (what may one kill then?  The most
    orthodox Jains will not boil water for fear of killing "insects
    to small to see.")
    
    					Topher

    re: .20
    
    Excuse me, Topher, but what is a "Jain"? 
    
    Thanks,
    -Amy.

    Frederick, what is so sad about not killing? 
    Mary

    Topher, you ask the question "what may one kill then?"   Well, that
    is a very good question.  Most of us agree that we humans should
    not kill each other, (I do not include abortion in this because
    I do not believe that a fetus is a person).  Our friend John Mitchell
    feels that we (humans) do not have the right to kill animals at
    all.  Our attempts at regulating our food producing environment by 
    killing insects has backfired on us in many cases, producing insects
    that are immune to our pesticides.  I throw the question out to
    the Dejavu community.  What may we kill?  What do we or should we
    want to kill?
    Mary

    Re .23 (Mary):
    
    For starters ....
    
    If something threatens you mortally, you should be able to kill
    it.  [I personally extend that to something mortally threatening
    my wife or family members.] 
    
    Bacteria and other forms that live on us are fair game.
                               
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  A story.  Before my wife and I got married, I was helping
    her install an air conditioner at her apartment.  A wasp had gotten
    in and I accidentally laid my forearm down on it.  Naturally, it
    stung me.  I went to the kitchen, got a glass, captured it, and
    took it outside and released it.
    
    "Why didn't you just swat it?" my wife-to-be asked.  "It _stung_
    you."
    
    I responded that it wouldn't have if I hadn't laid my arm on it.
    
    To me, life is precious.  Kill as little as possible.
    

You've raised a question I've been curious about for some time.
If one accepts the commandment (thou shalt not kill) for whatever
reason, then wouldn't it be wrong to eat meat ?
Are hidden qualifiers built into this to allow man to kill for food ?
I realize this could get carried away and one could say that eating plants
is form of killing too. However, I would think that if one accepts this
commandment, then s/he must also accept the parts of the bible that speak
of the fruits of the earth supplied for sustenance.

a curious matter...

peter

    Re .25 (Peter):
    
    I think at the very least, the commandment applied only to people.
    In Exodus 29:11, for instance, _after_ the Ten Commandments were
    given, it says:
    
    And thou shalt kill the bullock before the Lord, by the door of
    the tabernacle of the congregation.
    
    Throughout that chapter are instructions involved with killing.
    
    The book of Leviticus also has instructions on sacrificial killings
    of animals, and laws on what animals could be eaten (one assumes
    they were not eaten alive; even if they were, that would kill them)
    as well as which it was forbidden to eat.
    
    Therefore, even if you interopret "kill" to mean "take a life" rather
    than "murder," the life involved was human rather than just anything
    that isn't dead.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .21
    
    Jainism is an (East) Indian religion founded (by external account)
    around the same time as Buddhism.  It combines a complex natural
    philosophy with a religious practice.  Matter is divided into two
    categories: living and non-living, and the basic principle of the
    religion is respect for life.  Jainist religious strictures make
    farming very difficult so most Jains are merchants, bankers or
    monks.  One of their most interesting natural philosophical tenents
    is the rejection of the concept of a Creator God and therefore of
    a creation -- the Universe was never created it simply always existed.
    
    I no far less about Jainism than I would like.  Jain philosophers
    and mathemeticians have apparently made significant contributions
    to Indian traditional science, and although Jains have always been
    a tiny minority Jainism has apparently had a great deal of influence
    on both Hinduism and Buddhism.
    
    					Topher

    Jainism sound facinating.  I'd love to hear more about it.  

    I have another question based on a previous comment.  
    Can one recognize and accept as truth a part of something (such 
    as a commandment for example, or a phrase of the Oracle at Delphi,
    or an ancient Indian phrophesy) without accepting the entire belief
    system as omnipotent and without handing over one's will to an 
    organization? 

    Reply to Mary,
    
    I think what Fredrick was saying is that if one buys into part of
    the Ten Commandments they buy into all of it. My recommendation is
    to forget the Ten Commandments and go by the Golden Rule. That avoids
    tons of baggage.
    
    I think we need to remember that we have working sets of information
    in our belief systems. Sometimes it's hard to adopt part of a working
    set without adopting much if not all of the hidden part of the working
    set. The part we don't think about that affects us too. 

  RE: .23 (Mary)
    
    >  Our friend John Mitchell feels that we (humans) do not have the
    right to kill animals at all.  < 
                
    
    Uh..well, that's not quite true.  I am against *unnecessary* killing.
    Some killing is unavoidable and is just part of life.  I might kill
    hundreds of insects by walking down the street, but that is no excuse
    to purposefully step on a bug (like Steve, I prefer to *relocate*
    insects where possible... I'll convert that guy yet! ;-)  ).  By
    the same token, it is acceptable, though regrettable, to kill an
    animal *in an emergency.*  That goes for humans too.
                                             
    
    RE: .25 (Peter)
    
    > You've raised a question I've been curious about for some time. If
    one accepts the commandment (thou shalt not kill) for whatever reason,
    then wouldn't it be wrong to eat meat ?  < 
    
    Yes, it would if the scripture said "kill," but the correct translation
    is "murder," as several people have noted.  The original Hebrew
    word is *rasah* which specifically means murder.  The commandment
    does not apply to war, genocide, animal sacrifice, capital punishment,
    or any of the dozens of other orders to kill god supposedly gave.
    In fact, the very next chapter says, "He that smiteth a man, so
    that he die, shall be surely put to death." [Exodus 21:12 NASB]
    In Genesis 9:6, god allegedly institutes the practice of capital
    punishment: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall
    be shed, for in the image of God He made man."
    
    For once, I agree with Frederick: I don't buy this stuff anymore
    either.
                                             
    
    RE: .21 (Topher)
    
    Jainism is claimed to be older than Hindu.  Strict Jains sweep the
    sidewalk before them with a broom to avoid stepping on insects (of
    course, they probably kill more this way than they save, but a lot
    of things about that religion don't make much sense).  
    
    One thing you did not mention is that Jainism is one of the most
    sexist religions ever conceived: women are by their very existence
    unclean and are not even to be touched, if possible.
    
    John M.

    Why Mikie?  Why must one buy into all of the Ten Commandments if
    one buys into any part of it.  Are we allowing our prejudices to
    guide us if we do this?  To have an open mind (and yes Steve,...
    not so open our brains fall out_:-), means that we objectively
    evaluate any information that 'hits home', even if it has been used 
    as a weapon against our dignity and freedom for thousands of years.
    If we close our minds, will we not become like them?

    Re .30 (John):
    
    > ..................... (like Steve, I prefer to *relocate*
    >insects where possible...
    
    I also relocate spiders and occasional mice (when I can rescue them
    from my cats).  However, if something becomes a health hazard, then,
    not without some regrets, I get rid of it.
    
    >One thing you did not mention is that Jainism is one of the most
    >sexist religions ever conceived: women are by their very existence
    >unclean and are not even to be touched, if possible.
    
    Hmm.  I'm surprised it lasted longer than one generation. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Note 669.30                   
                
>>    Yes, it would if the scripture said "kill," but the correct translation
>>    is "murder," as several people have noted.  The original Hebrew
>>    word is *rasah* which specifically means murder.  The commandment
>>    does not apply to war, genocide, animal sacrifice, capital punishment,
>>    or any of the dozens of other orders to kill god supposedly gave.
>>    In fact, the very next chapter says, "He that smiteth a man, so
>>    that he die, shall be surely put to death." [Exodus 21:12 NASB]
>>    In Genesis 9:6, god allegedly institutes the practice of capital
>>    punishment: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall
>>    be shed, for in the image of God He made man."
    
This seems like a real cop-out to me.  If we (humanity) are not to kill, then
why should war, genocide, animal sacrifice, and capital punishment be 
excluded?  I can see the logic in not killing but I cannot see the logic in
making exceptions.  Granted, if one were in a position where one was forced to
kill, instinct would take over.  But any God worth It's salt would (I would 
assume) not make exceptions to such an important concept.

It occurs to me that perhaps the commandment is correct but the bible is
wrong.  That man added his own interpretation to the commandment in order to
'wash it down' so to speak, to change its meaning to suit himself.  I can't
find too many direct quotations of Jesus (the person) that corroborate the
vast amount of biblical silliness.  Perhaps Jesus the Channeller would not
approve of the bible.

    
>>    One thing you did not mention is that Jainism is one of the most
>>    sexist religions ever conceived: women are by their very existence
>>    unclean and are not even to be touched, if possible.
    
I guess I've heard enough about this religion after all_:-).  Why do they all
have such stupid prejudices as a basis for so many of their beliefs?
Mary

       I have a hard time with trying to think about Killing anything.
    It really hasn't entered my mind at all about thinking about things
    in which I feel justified in Killing physically. There seems to be
    just one thing off the top of my head that I can see.
    
    That is Killing Off the Mind Road that leads one's consciousness in
    endless journies away from living fully in the present moment.
    
    -Arthur

    Re .33 (Mary):
    
>>    Yes, it would if the scripture said "kill," but the correct translation
>>    is "murder," as several people have noted.  The original Hebrew
>>    word is *rasah* which specifically means murder.  The commandment
>>    does not apply to war, genocide, animal sacrifice, capital punishment,
>>    or any of the dozens of other orders to kill god supposedly gave.
    ...
>This seems like a real cop-out to me.  If we (humanity) are not to kill, then
>why should war, genocide, animal sacrifice, and capital punishment be 
>excluded? 
 
    Because, as John pointed out, there's a strong difference between
    "kill," and its subset, "murder."  Murder, aming other things, involves
    premeditation on killing an innocent [in Biblical perspective] human. 
    War is generally fought, at least on one side, defensively.  Capital
    punishment is "execution," by temporal authority, rather than murder
    (the one being executed has been adjudged guilty, and so,
    philosophically, is not in the same category as an innocent victim
    [One might make the point of wrongful executions, where an innocent
    is killed because of a miscarriage of justice; that's a nucleus
    for another note, perhaps in another conference]).  
    
>It occurs to me that perhaps the commandment is correct but the bible is
>wrong.   
    
    If the commandment translates out "You shall not murder," how is
    this in conflict with the Bible?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    "Whoever strikes another man and kills him shall be put to death.  But
    if he did not act with intent, but they met by act of God, the slayer
    may flee to a place which I will appoint for you.  But if a man has the
    presumption to kill another by treachery, you shall take him even from
    my altar to be put to death." [Exodus 21:12-14] 

    "When a man strikes his slave or his slave-girl with a stick and the
    slave dies on the spot, he must be punished.  But he shall not be
    punished if the slave survives for one day or two, because he is worth
    money to his master." (!) [Exodus 20:21] 

    "If a burglar is caught in the act and is fatally injured, it is not
    murder; but if he breaks in after sunrise and is fatally injured, then
    it is murder." [Exodus 22:4] 

    "When, in the course of a brawl, a man knocks against a pregnant woman
    so that she has a miscarriage but suffers no further hurt, then the
    offender must pay whatever fine the woman's husband demands after
    assessment." [Exodus 20:22]. 

Note that in the last instance a fetus in not considered a human being (or
the punishment would have been death).  Then again, a hare was considered
a cud-chewing animal and a bat was considered a bird.

John M.
                                

    re:  Mary (.22)
      
          There is nothing sad about not killing.  Perhaps I was somewhat
    vague.  Several other respondants expressed similar feelings to
    mine, however.
      
          What is sad for me is having always to feel the fear of a
    wrathful "God" according to the tenets of what I am going to coin
    as "voodoo Christianity" based on skewed and skewered writings
    called the "Bible."  I have my own set of fears but they aren't
    based on the dictums of others or the books that others have written.
    What I attempted to express was my relief at no longer being a part
    of that (and by the way, John, we *have* agreed on a few other things
    before) repression.  
          This is called control, manipulation, domination by fear.
    At least that is how I see religion (in general.)
          Steve has pointed out before (and has been quoted and
    paraphrased throughout the notesfiles) that we shouldn't throw
    the baby out with the bathwater.  Well, I agree with that in theory.
    As an example at an actual effort, I have been given a copy of 
    "Starseed Transmissions" by a read-only DEJAVUer, and have attempted
    to read it.  There is a lot within that book that rings a positive
    chord in me.  At the same time, there is a whole bunch that for
    me is hokie or muddled somehow.  I am left with the choice to either
    continue to read and find the things I can agree with or not read
    at all.  Since it isn't terribly long, I will probably read it although
    it has taken me three months to get through half of it (50 pages.)
    If that were the ONLY source of information for me I would probably
    spend more time reading and digesting it.  Similarly, if the Bible
    were the ONLY source of information I might possibly be more interested
    in reading and digesting that, too.  BUT, since there are for me
    better sources of information that I am interested in available
    to me, then I prefer to spend my time with those sources.  There
    are just too many holes in both these mentioned sources for me to
    warrant my giving them much effort.  My initial reasons for finally
    leaving Catholicism were similarly based (too many "holes.")
          In "summary", as I pointed out in another note yesterday and
    last week in yet another,  I don't believe "anyone" is judging me.
    I believe in following my own criteria for life.  My formative years
    were useful in providing "history" and guidelines, but the 
    umbilical has been severed.  Now it is my responsibility.  That
    means that I do whatever *I* feel is appropriate.
     
     
    Frederick
    

RE: .30 (John)

    As I said there I wish I knew more about Jainism.  What little I
    know comes from three or four articles I've read over the years,
    only one of which could be called scholarly (though another was
    a popular article from an authoritative source; i.e., an expert
    rather than a journalist).  Given that caveat (i.e., that I would
    not be the least bit surprised to discover that I am wrong in anything
    I say here) I'll comment on John's statements.

    > Jainism is claimed to be older than Hindu.

    You'll note that when I said that Jainism dates to about the same
    time is Buddhism that I put the qualifier "(by external account)"
    in.  That is because there is a Jainist religious tradition which
    gives much greater age (to say the least) to the religion than
    non-Jainist historians are willing to grant.

    The Jains believe that the universe was never created and never ends.
    It is, however, cyclic with each cycle being, as I remember it,
    many billions of years.  In each such cycle there are 24 teachers
    (called "Conquerors", I presume of ignorance or some such).  The 24th
    of whom in this cycle was roughly contemporary to the Buddha.  I
    forget when the first teacher was supposed to have lived in this
    cycle but I think it predated what Western scientists would date
    as the appearance of Homo Sapiens.  Presumably he might be considered
    the founder of Jainism (by Jains) and this would indeed predate
    Hinduism.  Moreover, since there are teachers in every cycle, one
    could argue that Jainism is actually infinitely old.

    The external view is that Jainism was founded by the person identified
    as the 24th Conqueror, whose historic existence is uncontested.  The
    person identified as the 23rd Conqueror is thought to have been
    an historic figure, but little is known of him, and his teachings do
    not (directly) survive.  Perhaps his, presumably then still extant,
    teachings influenced the founder of Jainism.  The belief in the
    24 Conquerors did not appear in the early Jainist literature (and
    there is no tradition of secret or necessarily oral knowledge in
    Jainism).  Furthermore much of the teachings and structure of early
    Jainism is pretty much what you would expect (or so what I read
    said) of a religion formed at that time in protest to the practices
    and beliefs of Vedic Hinduism as it then existed (the same can be
    said of Buddhism).

    > Strict Jains sweep the sidewalk before them with a broom to avoid
    > stepping on insects

    I could be wrong but I have only heard of this practice in connection
    with the less strict of the two orders of Jainist monks (the stricter
    order cannot follow this practice since the feather broom used would
    be a possession and the stricter order are sworn to *no* property
    at all, even clothing.  The less strict order are allowed, I believe,
    a small piece of cloth as a garment, a cloth mask to prevent the
    breathing in of insects, the broom and an alms bowl).

    The "no boiling of water" stricture, however, is, as I understand it
    one of a number of optional practices which lay people can adopt in
    the effort to purify themselves sufficiently to become a monk (which
    is, in theory at least, the goal of all Jains).

    > Jainism is one of the most sexist religions ever conceived: women
    > are by their very existence unclean and are not even to be touched
    > if possible.

    This is not only something which I have not heard of, there are things
    which I thought I knew about the Jains which contradict it (and others
    which might be confused with it).

    Although a limited caste structure has grown up in Jainism, the Jain
    principle of the essential equality of life, means that there are
    *no* untouchables in Jainism.  This was one of the things which
    Jainism was a reaction against.  Any Jain can eat with, touch, etc.
    any other living thing without fear of moral pollution (exception
    noted below).

    There is a strongly sexist element (though not as strong as women
    being untouchable) in Jainism, but it applies to only one of the
    two extant sects (indeed, it is one of the principle differences
    between them).  That sect does not believe that women are capable
    of perfection and therefore cannot become monks (presumably, they may
    become men in their next lives and will then have the opportunity to
    clean themselves of the vestiges of Karma).  However, the other sect
    makes no such claim -- indeed one of the earlier Conquerors is supposed
    to have been a woman.

    However, monks take a vow of celibacy, and I believe that this includes
    any physical contact with members of the opposite sex.  In the
    sect which allows female monks ("nuns"), there is no gender bias involved
    at all -- the nuns are not allowed contact with men, just as the male
    monks are not allowed contact with women.  The stricture is not because
    one sex or the other is "polluted" but that physical contact might
    encourage "earthly" thoughts and feelings (the Jains hold that improper
    (e.g., violent) thoughts are in a sense more improper than improper
    actions).

					    Topher

          
    Mary P. - DEJAVU-time!  I believe that this discussion on Jainism
    took place over in RELIGION and based on their view of women, you
    decided to pass on it at that time too.  (;^) 
    
    As for everything else - did manage to find my copy of "Beyond
    Moralism" and will try to enter some of it as it is quite interesting
    and will fit in with the discussion quite well.
    
    There is also a very good book entitled "Beyond God the Father",
    by Mary Daly.  In the book, the unholy trinity of rape, war and
    genocide are discussed.  Not sure if it is in this book, however
    I did read a discussion recently on how it was possible for some
    religious types to reconcile their support for the war in Vietnam
    (and send thousands of young men/women to their deaths), but that
    they campaigned against abortion at the very same time with all
    the support that they could muster.  A bit of a paradox, wouldn't
    you say?
    
    And in the words of one of my favorite feminist-type writers, Nellie
    McClung - a Canadian delegate to the League Of Nations among other
    things....wrote in 1915 the book entitled "In Times Like These":
    
    	Chapter 3 - What do women think of war? (not that it matters)
                                               
    		'Bands in the street, and resounding cheers,
         	 And honor to him whom the army led!
         	 But his mother moans thro' her blinding tears -
         	 "My boy is dead - is dead!"'
    
    From yet another source (sorry - forget where):
    
    	"Which is true obscenity - a couple making love or
         a general proudly displaying a chestful of medals
         earned at the expense of human lives?"
    
    Cindy

    
    
    	do what thou wilt,
    	Love is the Law,
    	Lets watch our dogma,
    	Lest we should fall.

    Gee Cindy,  I may not have a good memory but at least I'm
    consistent_:-)
    
    re -1
    Bravo!!  

    a few good quotes here (or, semi-good??)
    
    "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world."  Merlin the
    Magician
    
    "God is in our hearts, and religion is in the bushes."  George Carlin
    
    "But Donald, he wanted to drink my blood!!"...
    "Which is what we do to anyone when we insist that they live our
    way."  Richard Bach

Getting back to the Ten Commandments:
 	I think that they are a mundane description of the Karmic laws, put in
the context of that period in order that the people of that time might best 
under stand at a "beginner's level" how the laws operate, in order to get at 
least a minimum of cooperation among the people of the Hebrew Tribes, as little 
children are given instructions on behaving, but yet don't have the capability
of complete understanding of the reasons behind the request for appropriate 
behavior.  "Thou shall not kill (murder, etc)" but whose to be the judge of 
when it's ok or necessary to kill?  Jesus attempted to teach the people at a 
higher level of conciousness, trying to instill more of a metaphysical 
understanding of the Karmic Laws. It is my understanding that the physical 
realm has been provided to furnish an environment for "accelerated" spiritual 
learning. There are certain aspects of spiritual learning that needs access to 
the physical body to more easily accomplish spiritual understanding, than would 
not be available on non-physical planes.  To deny any entity the right to this 
special means of spiritual learning by murdering could be hindering that 
entities growth and potential union with the God-Force.  the "sin"  is in the 
concept that it hinders another soul's spiritual growth and thus the growth of 
the one doing the killing. Jesus had opportunities to save his own physical 
life, so why didn't he?  Because he understood that there was NO reason to kill 
another human being and a metaphysical reason not to.

    Ernie W.
    

    
    
    I've been pondering on the whole question of the commandment "Thou
    shalt not kill".  Let's proceed with the assumption that God gave
    us this commandment.  Many years later, Jesus was born and began
    his mission.  Based on how his life and death story has been
    presented to us, and based on the beliefs of certain religions,
    his major purpose was dying for us.  So, wasn't his murder part
    of the grand plan?  How else could this purpose have been
    fulfilled?  Would God give us a commandment not to do "something"
    and then incorporate the doing of the "something" into a plan for
    our salvation?  Any insights?
    
    Carole
    P.S.  I am not trying to justify killing here; just wanted to
          share the thoughts and questions I've been having on this
          issue.
    

    Re .44 (Carole):
    
    "Thou shalt not kill" uses "kill" in the sense of "murder"; that
    is, taking an innocent life, rather than "just" taking a life. 
    An execution, for example, or ending the life of one who is
    aggressively threatening yours (as in a wartime situation) is not
    the same as "murder" in this context.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I have a problem with this in that war seems like little more than
    institutional murder to me.  I mean, governments act on (in SOME
    cases) their own selfish (often) monetary interests and send innocent
    boys into a situation where they are killing other innocent boys.
    I don't think that war is much different than murder personally.
    Why does it have to be this way?  Why can't we have been simply
    told not to kill each other at all?
    Mary

    Re .46 (Mary):
    
    >I don't think that war is much different than murder personally.
    >Why does it have to be this way?  Why can't we have been simply
    >told not to kill each other at all?
     
    Well, suppose someone was aggressing at you _and if you did nothing_
    that person would kill you?  If your only recourse was to kill the
    opther person first, what would you do?
    
    In _any_ war, there are the aggressors and the aggressed against.
    
    set mode/personal_recollection:
    
    As perhaps some people here are aware, I am a survivor of the attack
    on Pearl Harbor.  I was all of four years old at the time of the
    attack.  Things were hectic then, and a lot of people got killed
    in the process (I saw war before I saw my first movie cartoon).
    Did I [or do I] _like_ war?   
    
    Don't make me laugh.   I've _seen_ war, and it's dirts, brutal,
    ugly, and with no redeeming features.
    
    Now who starts wars is often (though not always) tough to pin down.
    Nobody sane just wakes up one morning and says the equivalent of,
    "I'm bored.  Things are pretty slow.  I guess I'll start a war."
    The slogan of the 1960s, "Suppose they had a war and nobody came?"
    is nice, idealistic, and idiotic.  "They" don't schedule wars like
    plays, shows, or games.  Sometimes an odd incident may result in
    a war (e.g., The war of Jenkins' Ear), sometimes a war is created
    for territorial gain.  Somertimes a war is used to solidify a people
    who are having internal problems.  Sometimes a war is the result
    of fervor (e.g., the Crusades).
    
    I wish we could all live in peace and familyhood.  I would be extatic
    if there never were another war in thhis cosmos.
    
    But the limits of "Thou shalt not kill" are murder.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    RE: 47 
    
    > But the limits of "Thou shalt not kill" are murder.
    
    Steve,
    
    How do you know this?
    
    C.
    

    Re .47 (Carole):
    
    If we're accepting this as a Biblical discussion, that's clear:
    certain offenses listed in the Bible could be dealt with by execution
    (e.g., adulterous behavior, bestiality), which would be at variance
    with the Commandment, if execution were included.  Through divine
    instruction, war was waged on peoples of other lands by the tribes
    of Israel; if war was okay, then killing during the prosecution
    of that war could not be proscribed.
    
    If we're discussing this outside the Biblical context, then one
    can even question the validity of the Ten Commandments themselves.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Mary, I agree-
    	I think that was what "Thou shalt not kill" meant. it didn't
    say "except under the conditions specified in section xx, clause
    yy, paragraph zz" of the law handed down to Moses.  It says that
    Killing other entities is not condoned under any conditions (at 
    least to me) EVEN if our own life is at stake.  I earlier tried to 
    indicate that Jesus was trying to elaborate on this during the period of
    his teaching. Jesus refused to defend his own life.  When Jesus was
    betrayed, his followers wanted to defend Jesus' life, but Jesus told
    them to put away the sword, not just because he had a prophecy to fulfill,
    but because it was part of the "grand plan"; His destiny to show the
    people of that time that there was metaphysical purpose, and great
    things could be accomplished when one "tuned into" that purpose-God's 
    purpose if I may say. 
    	I am not a Christian by the traditional sense of the word, but
    I do believe that Jesus whas one of the greatest metaphysical teachers
    that ever existed.  I believe that with great enough spiritual
    awareness that we will not allow ourself to be put into a position
    that would require us to kill or be killed.    Or with full spiritual
    awareness, it would enable us to realize that the decision to kill
    or be killed would be our own concious decision as it was with Jesus.
    	Again I think that The Ten Commandments were a starting point
    in the "Grand Plan" of providing us (spirit and soul) with a means
    of returning to the God-Force (Heaven in other terms), Jesus fulfilling
    his prophecy, was the next step of showing us the way- and giving
    us the first glimpses of a metaphysical world to those who were 
    intellectually and spiritually prepared. although few were ready
    to hear and accept his message.  And I think if the time comes for
    another messiah, whether it be Jesus or some one else, I wonder
    what great things we will be showed, and how many will not understand
    the possibly great metaphysical teachings that might be given us?
                                                       
    Ernie
    

    
    
    Re: 49
    
    Steve,
    
    What I'm getting from this is that the wording of the commandment
    should be "Thou shalt not *murder*", right?  And also, that it
    has to be considered in the context of the times, right?  If that's
    the case, than all the arguments I have heard against the idea 
    that portions of the bible are more relevant to the society and times
    it was written in are invalidated (at least to me :-)).
    
    Also, I can imagine a war being declared today based on instructions
    from God.  It wouldn't go over too big!  What concerns me is that
    there are probably some people who are just waiting for the oppor-
    tunity!
    
    To me, dead is dead.  I don't see much of a difference between the
    words kill and murder.  In fact, my American Heritage Dictionary
    uses each to define the other.  
    
    Does anyone want to discuss the metaphysical ramifications of my
    original question a few replies back?
    
    Carole
    

    re: .43,.50
        (Ernie)
        I agree with you almost 100%.  Very nice!
    
    re:  Carole
        Nice insights and questioning, I think.  
    re: Carole and Mary
        Those questions are similar to questions I have had in the past
        and they are part of the reason why I decided to chuck the whole
        thing (the Bible, that is.)  What good is something you have
        to spend so much time trying to decipher?  As I pointed out
        before, Lazaris says that there are researchers among us who
        have found 150,000 inconsistencies in the New Testament alone.
        Come on, why waste the time?
    
    Frederick
    

    Re .50 (Ernie):
    
    This part of it boils down to a matter of interpretation through
    religious perspective.
    
    >	I think that was what "Thou shalt not kill" meant. it didn't
    >say "except under the conditions specified in section xx, clause
    >yy, paragraph zz" of the law handed down to Moses.  It says that
    >Killing other entities is not condoned under any conditions (at 
    >least to me) EVEN if our own life is at stake.
     
    If so, then why, thereafter, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy
    are there precise discussions of what crimes are capital crimes
    and how those guilty are to be executed?  
    
    >................................. His destiny to show the
    >people of that time that there was metaphysical purpose, and great
    >things could be accomplished when one "tuned into" that purpose-God's 
    >purpose if I may say.                        
     
    Well, Jesus' purpose was to wash away the sins of mankind with His
    blood; that's the standard Christian perspective.  Jesus said, "Greater
    love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
    friends." [John 15:13] -- if we're keeping this in the Christian
    context.  But there's a difference between that and just lessing
    oneself be killed: the difference is _sacrifice_.  If it were a
    choice between me dying or my wife, I'd sacrifice myself for her.
    But if it were just letting someone kill me, that's another story.
    A hypothetical: suppose you saw a sniper who was taking aim on one
    of your loved ones, and you had a rifle.  You are put in the spot
    of either letting the sniper kill your loved one or killing the
    sniper.  I don't know about others, but I'd opt for taking care
    of the sniper before he or she killed my loved ones.   Regrettably,
    in this imperfect world, this leads to value judgements that end
    in deaths.
    
    We have a slight (not insurmountable) problem, anyway: the Ten
    Commandments is part and parcel of the Jewish, Christian, and Moslem
    faiths.  They can be discussed within or outside those boundaries.
    However, if we do discuss it within the faith(s), then it's better
    to say, "Well, I disagree with the restrictions," or "I think `kill'
    should be interpreted more broadly," than merely to say that it
    measns something else than how it was written.
    
    Re .51 (Carole):
    
    >What I'm getting from this is that the wording of the commandment
    >should be "Thou shalt not *murder*", right?  And also, that it
    >has to be considered in the context of the times, right?  If that's
    >the case, than all the arguments I have heard against the idea 
    >that portions of the bible are more relevant to the society and times
    >it was written in are invalidated (at least to me :-)).
     
    That "thou shalt not murder" is a commandment makes it not one whit
    less relevant then when written.  The Bible is, after all, a series
    of interlocking items, including moral teacher, history, geneaology,
    etc., some of it (as in Revelations) clearly symbolic.  That something
    may have greater applicability in the age of, say, the Caesars,
    doesent mean it doesn't have relevance today; one just has to
    understand the context to get the full message.
    
    >To me, dead is dead.  I don't see much of a difference between the
    >words kill and murder.  ...
                                
    But there is a difference, and it's very important.  "Murder" is
    destruction of life with malicious intent; kill isn't.  I suggest
    that the _American Heritage Dictionary_ isn't differentiating between
    a set and a subset.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re -1
    
    The ten commandments were written by God.
    Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy were written by men.

    re -.1
    
    well, now....    Moses _said_  the commandments were written by
    God...

    Reply to .54, Pare,
    
    You're sure that Moses didn't extrapolate that from some other system
    of belief and claim that God wrote them?

    
    In the TV movie about the "subject" ...... It showed lightening
    coming from the sky and into the slabs of stone, and I assume it
    was God.
    
    Of course, it was a movie.

    Reply to .57, Berry
    
    I've given that scene some thought myself. Couldn't have been Jehovah.
    Musta' been Zeus, whose name come from 'dues', and one translation
    gives then meaning 'the *shining* of lightning upon the mountain.'
    Emphasis is upon shining.
    
    So I guess Old Zeus made it to Hollywood. Maybe he and Johny Carson
    can get together and remember the old times. B^) 

    Re .57 (Dwight):
    
    >Of course, it was a movie.
    
    Re .58 (Mikie?):
    
    >I've given that scene some thought myself. Couldn't have been Jehovah.
    
    I never cease to be amazed at how a film like _The Ten Commandments_
    (which I presume is the "TV movie" being mentioned) is embraced
    wildly by those who are fundamentalist Christian, even though it
    has serious devbiations from Scriptural text.  For instance, in
    the film, Moses spoke to Pharaoh; in the Bible, Aaron spoke for
    Moses because Moses had something of a speech impediment.  In the
    film, Moses used a staff ironically given to him by the Pharaoh-
    to-be; in the Bible, the staff in question belonged to Aaron.  In
    the film, Moses lamented that he'd misused God's power by turning
    said staff into a snake as a cheap magician's trick; in the Bible,
    he had the Aaron's staff turn into a serpent because God told him
    to do it.  And so on.
    
    Yes, Zeus made it to Hollywood; but it's rather pointless to worry
    about Hollywood's transformation of _any_ book to film.
    
    >Emphasis is upon shining.                             
    
    No, that book/film was from Stephen King. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Note 669.56                   

>>    You're sure that Moses didn't extrapolate that from some other system
>>    of belief and claim that God wrote them?

Of course I'm not sure, silly boy_:-)

However, working within the confines of Christianity's own belief system...
(for the sake of argument), their own tradition holds that the ten 
commandments came from God, while the bible was written by certain men 
who were 'inspired by God'.  

Mary

    Reply to .60, Pare,
    
    
    Ok, Ok, I give. I was being a hardnose. We all know where this part
    of the topic will go... B^)

         
    Wish I had time to type in that chapter from "Beyond Moralism"
    (*sigh*).          
    
    In any case, I recall reading there that the commandments weren't 
    actually written down until at least 300 years after the event 
    (supposedly) took place.  And even then there was much confusion 
    over what was really written on the rocks.
    
    Hm....God and highway rock ledge graffiti!  That does have a certain
    ring to it, doesn't it?  Hey, if God can talk to Oral Roberts, then
    anything's possible.
             
    Cindy

    Good grief, I come back here and you guys are still arguing over
    the interpretation of the word "kill?"  I thought I answered that
    in reply .30.
    
    
    John "Killer" M.
    

Note 669.64                   
    
>>	As to WAR, its the nature of this species, (Yes we can change,
>>    	 but we've been warring for known history) and we do it for
>>    	the purpose of 'survival' (as conceived by those in control)
>>	whether its  territorial (land, finance, tribal) or some
>>    	moral (religion, gang, ideology, opinion) variation.
    
I submit that we know very little about the true nature of our species.  

I also respectfully submit that it is an insult to humanity to equate
the survival of our species to the conception of what "those in control"
consider to be in their own best interests, whether it is their *own* need for
power, or their *own* need for money, or their *own* desire for additional 
land and resources, or their *own* drive to control.

Furthermore, it is this very aberration of the ego of the ruling classes 
(forgive the phrase) the power trippers, that threatens to distroy our entire 
species.  At this very point in time, all over the world, the human race is
under seige.  Under attack by the ambitions, the soulessness, and the 
Machiavellian machinations of the proportionally small group of men running
the World Bank and Super Power governments.  

These men are not interested in the survival of the human species.  
These men are interested in maintaining the status quo of their own personal 
base of power and influence.  They do not reflect the nature of the average
human.  Nor are they concerned with the continued survival of the humans of
the planet earth, except in those areas that benefit themselves.

Mary

    re: -.1
      
         Mary, are you allright?  
       
         Phew!!!!
      
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    How about we try talking another commandment?
                        
    Or better yet, let's make one up for ourselves.
    
    I propose:
    
    	Brand new DEJAVU Commandment - Make love, not war.
    
    Whadda y'all think?  (;^)
    
    Cindy
    
    ps. Jay J. - you were at the Eastern DEJAVU party and I MISSED YOU?!?!?   
        That's it - next time we must wear nametags, even if they're
        the 'Hello, My name is......' variety.        
    

    re: 67 (Cindy)
    
    >>	Brand new DEJAVU Commandment - Make love, not war.
    
    	C'est bon!  I'm game!
    
    						Carla
    

.66 Frederick

My reaction too!

.67 Cindy
In old times that would be two commandments ...
'Thou shalt not make war'  'Thou shalt make love'
I like your's better.

Ya know, the day after the party I had the same thought. When's the next
one????? ;')

Jay

    
    Proposed Official DEJAVU Commandment - "Thou shalt make love." 
    
    Thanks, Jay! (;^)
                                  
    Cindy

    Re: war-like nature
    
    It is NOT human nature (implied genetic evolution) that humans are
    war like beings.  In fact there are societies that do not understand
    the word "kill" as applied to other human beings.  Read Ashly Montagu's
    work titled "On Being Human."  He does a great job (in my mind at
    least) in arguing that any violent nature in human society is nurtured
    by that society, covertly at the least.  he had a general idea of
    what needed to be done to reduce the"war-like nature" of our society,
    but sad part was that he admitted that he could offer no workable solution
    to  this problem.  egoism and self-centeredness is a societal problem
    that needs to be attacked on an individual basis (in our selfs)
    first.  Once this is accomplished, then perhaps we can move on to
    teach society--of course at this point then we might not have to
    do any teaching.
                     
    
    ********  BE love, not war  ******
    
    
    
    Ernie
        

    Re .72 (Ernie):
    
    >................................... Read Ashly Montagu's
    >work titled "On Being Human."  He does a great job (in my mind at
    >least) in arguing that any violent nature in human society is nurtured
    >by that society, covertly at the least. 
     
    Regrettably, Ashley Montague is hardly a person I'd use as an "expert."
    I've thumbed through his _Cat Watching_ and have found his explanations
    on some (randomly selected) p[henomena at variance with my observations
    on those same phenomena.  He was adamantly opposed to Dart because
    Dart's findings suggested that early hominids were predatory, and
    some of his "opposition arguments" amounted to little more than
    tricks of rhetoric (much like Aristotle's naturalism where he comes
    to a conclusion as the result of a law he formulated [made up] in
    the first place).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Note 669.71                   

>>    Historically we select tribal leaders, 

Historically, those who have been the most vicious, agressive, and 
bloodthirsty have controlled the rest of us by force because there is 
little we can do about it without becoming just like them.  

>>It is our responsibility to master the emotions (Anger, Greed, Uncontrolled 
>>Passion) that drive these beings, and steer ourselves to a better life. 

One can only master one's own emotions.

>>Then the wisdom will be to help these twisted leaders, choose others, and 
>>choose the ways of peace and love, not empowering the evil.

The black people of South Africa would love to choose other leaders, so would
the people of Gaza, so would the people of Northern Ireland, so would so many
oppressed people all over the earth.  We live in a time when Evil empowers 
itself.  

>>TRUE, they are not interested in 'humanity' they care only for
>>selfish gain, and where else but from the average man do they come,
>>and draw from the 'base' needs of humanity with no compassion or
>>care, essentially 'animal' needs but in a 'souless' human body.

The average man doesn't have the sickness of soul that compells him to 
always win, to always control, to always own.  The average man doesn't 
add to his fortune at the expense of others.  The average man doesn't need
to torture to maintain control.  
    
    Everyday the destruction continues.  One species after another becomes
    extinct.  More and more damage is done to the planet.  One society
    after another disregards it's poor and needy.  Oppressed people
    all over the world are finding themselves without hope, without
    a future.  Nuclear weapons proliferate, plutonium has been stolen
    and traced to the mid-east.   
    
    Things cannot continue on like this.    
    
                                          
Mary

                              TO WAR, TO WAR
                                By Sun Bear

It's the same cry of fifty centuries or more -
the cry of re-arm; to war, to war.
Captains shout and bugles blare,
while muskets blast and rockets flare.

First, it was the Egyptian Pharaoh's host,
Then, mighty Sennacherib with an army of which he boasts.
But, down tumbled their kingdom, and Babylon rose high over all,
Then, the steel-bowed Mede and Persians brought about its fall.
Greece, the cradle of Democracy rose to fame,
Then, war between Athens and Sparta came.

Now, Roman warlords brought bloody history on at a pace,
For, with their legions, they sought to establish a super race.
When out of the North rode barbarian hordes,
As the Huns and Turks cut the Roman cords.
Now, came mighty Charlemagne upon the scene, 
And, all Europe was conquered to fulfill his dream.

Yes, those were the days when history's heroes fought and died;
The days when truces were signed but men lied.

Then, a cross marched on Crusade battlefield
As Christian army met pagan foe.
A century rolls by and Catholic cuts Protestant low.
The said "Peace at last!" when treaties of Westphalia were signed.
But, peace comes not to heart or mind.
Trouble by day and sorrow by night,
When will men learn that swords seldom bring right?

To the west now shifts historical scene.
Taxation without representation, "Revolt! We'll fight the scheme!"
Then, armies are marching, as a great Nation is broken in two,
Two different flags waving and uniforms are one of Gray, the other Blue.

Peace for a time again although small wars are waged every day,
And always, it's sorrow with which the people pay.
But Mars, God of War, looks down on it all
And says, "I'll stir them to battle, make the mighty ones fall."
Great ones prepare proudly, the small ones in fright.

By the millions they mass, their banners are many fold.
It seems all hell's broke loose and death untold.
For mortar fire, airplanes, and poison gas
Bring death and destruction to every class.

"This is a war to end all wars," the politicians now cry.
"After this will be peace, Men will not kill or die.
We'll league the nations together,
Keep peace by disarmament, the world will be better!"

But scarce had the din of battle died,
When Dictator Hitler was marching with Mussolini by his side.
Blood ran in Spain as Franco overthrew governmental power;
Maps changed from day to day as leaders fled their guiding tower.
Then, into our darkness shrouded world
New means of complete chaos is now hurled!

But the war was fought and won.
And, the dove of peace saw a new rising sun.
Then, in old friends, new enemies are found.
And, the post-war plan of peace is declared "Out-of-bound!"
How will it stop? Where will it end?
Who knows? For these are but plans of mortal men.

For is it war or is it peace,
As small nations fight to keep their fleece?
War in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iran and the Philippines,
War in Lebanon, Palestine, El Salvador and elsewhere behind the scenes.

But Oh!! We have the United Nations now,
And, man will bring peace through it somehow.
But, can selfish man bring peace to this world of unrest?
Or will he have just smaller wars at best?

For, while the devil fiddles, the Nations dance.
Prepare for battle, let each soldier sharpen his lance.
And, it's the same cry, that went forth for fifity centuries or more - 
The cry to re-arm: TO WAR, TO WAR!

    Re .71 (Mary):
    
    Whoosh!  Let's first talk about this _pre_historically.  There is
    substantive evidence that our hominid ancestors were predators.
    They were in large part responsible in Europe for the decimation
    of the mammoths.
    
    Given that, the _species_ is inherently aggressive.  This can be
    modified culturally, but it's there.  [Many pioneers tuirned their
    aggressive behavior into exploration.]
    
>Historically, those who have been the most vicious, agressive, and 
>bloodthirsty have controlled the rest of us by force because there is 
>little we can do about it without becoming just like them.  
 
    Oversimplified.  There were many periods and cultures that were
    quite peaceful. Much of the ancient Egyptian culture was thus. 
    The Greek city-states (with the exception of Sparta) tended to revere
    thought and philosophy over armed might (which is why Rome conquered
    them).
    
    However, the warrior has always been glorified.  Knights in armor
    are still a stirring concept to most.  In "Sword and Sorcery"
    fantasies, who's the sympathetic hero?  The sorcerer?  [Perhaps
    the seminal of such stories was Howard's _Conan the Conqueror_ where
    a semi-barbarian swordsman took on and conquered a sorcerer who
    could (and did!) lay waste to thousands and destroyed an army with
    a single spell.]
    
>One can only master one's own emotions.

    True.  But that's an acquired thing through philosophy.
    
>The black people of South Africa would love to choose other leaders, so would
>the people of Gaza, so would the people of Northern Ireland, so would so many
>oppressed people all over the earth.  We live in a time when Evil empowers 
>itself.  
 
    But some of these are very complex issues.  One of the problems
    with Northern Ireland, for example, is that "the people" (read:
    the majority of the inhabitants) are satisfied with the status quo.
    The _minority_ Catholic population is dissatisfied.  There are some
    centuries of disagreement on this point.  By contrast,  the black
    people of South Africa are a clear majority.  I do not approve of
    the conditions in either place (as if the leaders in either place
    give a hoot what I approve of), but the conditions are not the same.
    
>The average man doesn't have the sickness of soul that compells him to 
>always win, to always control, to always own.  The average man doesn't 
>add to his fortune at the expense of others. ...
 
    But, alas, "the average man" often would, if he of she thought she
    or he could get away with it.
    
    Dr. S. I. Hayakawa once pointed out that we're only a generation
    away from barbarianism.  Only by education (bringing up our children
    until they _become_ responsible citizens) will we hold back the
    night.  Look what Hitler managed with words alone.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                 

	These kinds of issues are very difficult ones to sort out.  
	The events in the world seem to be happening separate from
	us and our daily lives, and therefore out of our control.
	After all, there are people who are in charge and are making
	all the decisions that are carrying us to, what seems, the
	brink of annihilation, right?  

	I agree that there are power hungry people in the world who
	are calling most of the shots, and that there are places in
	the world where genocide is still happening, and where people 
	are starving, and living with no shelter.  The list of 
	atrocities goes on and on.  And then we haven't even touched
	upon the poisoning of our mother Earth.

	The point I want to make is:  Each of us has to take action
	to begin the process of change.  Change will not happen by
	becoming angry at those in charge and placing all the
	responsibility for every problem in their laps.  Yes, we
	do have to influence them, but if we haven't cleaned up
	our own *inner houses*, or at least have made the choice
	to begin this *housecleaning* process, then we would be
	coming from a place within ourselves where there is stuff
	that we may be totally unaware of and therefore haven't
	taken ownership of.

	We have to start dealing with the world at the level of
	self if we want to make any kind of permanent mark of
	contribution towards world transformation.

	Just for consideration - we can have a person who, to
	the people in his/her world, seems to be conscious of
	what's happening and concerned and wants things to 
	change for the better, but feels like he/she has no
	control over it.  But when he/she is at home, can
	be into controlling their environment to the point where
	others a limited in their expression and growth and
	feelings of having some control, too.

	We have to start being honest with ourselves and really
	take a look at our own worlds and how we operate in them
	and then consciously make a choice to begin to change it.
	I feel that the only way to start this process is through
	self-examination and start to own our own *crap*, because
	all of us have some and believe me its all being put out
	there into the world and stirred all around until we have
	the mess we see today.  We have to stop pointing fingers at
	others and start taking responsibility for our world and
	then take action, both internally and externally.
	  	
	If we are tired of seeing and hearing about all the aggression,
	anger, and violence in the world, then we have to own that part
	of us.  If we want the peoples of the world to love and trust
	one another, then we have to love and trust in our piece of
	the world, and if we don't - find out the reasons why.  If we want 
	a world where all are tolerant of one another, then that has to begin 
	within us.  It takes courage to do this self-examination and really 
	see all the parts of you, both beautiful and ugly (for some it's much 
	easier to see the ugly :-)!) and embrace them all.  To me, this is
	the start of true transformation.

	The phrase I like to use for this process is 

	"Putting your Spirit where you mouth is"!

	This touches upon the discussion now going on in another
	DEJAVU note regarding creating your own reality - I'm not sure
	of the number.    

	Anyway, having rambled on much more than I usually do, I just want
	to say that we are all in this together; I have begun my own
	self-examination process and also have had the privilege of sharing
	this with others and therefore supported them and have been supported
	by them; I have seen people face parts of themselves that they didn't
	know existed and would rather not have known about, I have seen them
	face their fear, and I have seen them face their true beauty and joy.
	It truly is a Sacred Journey.

	Love to you all,

	Carole

                 

================================================================================
Note 669.77                   The Ten Commandments                      77 of 82
MARKER::KALLIS "Why is everyone getting uptight?"    60 lines  30-MAR-1988 17:18
            -< I wish things were as nice as they ought to be ... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re .71 (Mary):
    
>>    Whoosh!  Let's first talk about this _pre_historically.  There is
>>    substantive evidence that our hominid ancestors were predators.
>>    They were in large part responsible in Europe for the decimation
>>    of the mammoths.
>>    Given that, the _species_ is inherently aggressive.  This can be
>>    modified culturally, but it's there.  [Many pioneers turned their
>>    aggressive behavior into exploration.]

>>    There were many periods and cultures that were
>>    quite peaceful. Much of the ancient Egyptian culture was thus. 
>>    The Greek city-states (with the exception of Sparta) tended to revere
>>    thought and philosophy over armed might (which is why Rome conquered
>>    them).

You are contradicting yourself Steve.  If the SPECIES is inherently aggressive
then there would not be periods and cultures that were peaceful.  The 
characteristics of the *species* would remain constant.  

>>    However, the warrior has always been glorified.  

So what?  There have been books written about Charles Mansion too.  
    
>>    But some of these are very complex issues.  One of the problems
>>    with Northern Ireland, for example, is that "the people" (read:
>>    the majority of the inhabitants) are satisfied with the status quo.
>>    The _minority_ Catholic population is dissatisfied.  

My aunt was born in Ireland.  In her lifetime she remembers when it took 10 
Catholic votes to equal 1 Protestant vote.   Catholics were not allowed to own 
property, businesses, or to attend school past a certain level.  I think its 
facinating that you find the wishes of the majority a basis for continuing the 
status quo.  I don't think that most black Americans would agree with you 
though.

>The average man doesn't have the sickness of soul that compells him to 
>always win, to always control, to always own.  The average man doesn't 
>add to his fortune at the expense of others. ...
 
>>    But, alas, "the average man" often would, if he of she thought she
>>    or he could get away with it.

This is a typical Christian viewpoint.... original sin and all that stuff
about mankind being evil having adhere to the church to be saved.  
This is one of many areas where Christian brainwashing has contributed to the 
misery of mankind by convincing us that we are inherently evil.
    
>>    Dr. S. I. Hayakawa once pointed out that we're only a generation
>>    away from barbarianism.  Only by education (bringing up our children
>>    until they _become_ responsible citizens) will we hold back the
>>    night.  Look what Hitler managed with words alone.
    
Steve, the night is upon us and our children cannot fight us for their souls.



Note 669.81                   
SNOMAS::CALLAGHAN

>>Steves point in .77 was exactly where I at.  Also let me
>>add that hundreds of known peaceful cultures (can't even
>>speak for 1000s of others) selected 'tribal leaders' and
>>it was the society, its example and its peace that guided
>>the leader as he directed the group.

Steve's point in .77 isn't necessarily correct.
Your statement about thousands of peaceful tribes "selecting leaders" that
the society guided by example and peace is charming.  Can you name a few
of those tribes and societies?  Did they survive the viciousness of other
more agressive people?  Where are they today?  

>> Yes this is to oversimplified. I don't believe EVIL empowers itself
>>in this time! I believe the apathetic 'me'-centered, be-successful culture 
>>that is getting a hold the world simply allows the evironment to weaken
>>and fail because they are not actively carrying out the most primary
>>duty "TENDING, WITH LOVE AND COMPASSION, OUR FELLOW HUMANS AND OUR WORLD."

Can you explain to me how this theory explains the problems occuring in 
Northern Ireland, South Africa, Honduras, San Salvador, Palestine, Panama,
and in the slums of every major country?

>>  I feel your ascribing to much idyllic 'good' to this thing
>>  called the 'average man'. If anything the basic human excludes so
>>  much of what is 'good' in us, what your describing seems more to 
>>  me to be a 'centered' person, one who has stretched, dreamed, and
>>  tried to find his place in the 'whole', I doubt if the 'average man'
>>  even understands or cares about that.

And I feel that the Christian viewpoint of the basic evil nature of mankind
is destructive to us all.  I believe that it is not the cause of, but certainly
a contributor to, the expectations we set for ourselves and the attitudes we
have towards ourselves.

>>I believe through knowledge
>>of our 'basic/base' self as Homo Sapiens, as well as knowledge/belief
>>in our potential we can grow to be the 'good' we can see.  For me
>>to argue that the 'basic/base' self doesn't exist means to not fully 
>>understand what we are about, and as a result to build a less then stable
>>understanding of the whole self. A person can't pass successfully
>>through painful growth experiences, 'tests' if you will, without the 
>>this knowledge. I.E. In learning our skills as well as our weakeness
>>we become more able to cope with the world, and strengthen our selves.

People find what they look for.  The success of our growth experiences 
are not predicated on the "base" self.  Knowing our weaknesses is knowing
ourselves, not the way we are *told* that we are but the way we *choose* 
to be.

Note 669.82                   

Beautifully said, ... as usual Carole _:-)

Mary                 

    Re .83 (Mary):
    
>You are contradicting yourself Steve.  If the SPECIES is inherently aggressive
>then there would not be periods and cultures that were peaceful.  The 
>characteristics of the *species* would remain constant.  
 
    No; the aggression often can be channeled into nonlethal forms.  My
    citation of pioneering was an example of that.  Also, some "aggressive"
    energies are absorbed just "fighting" against the environment.
    
>So what?  There have been books written about Charles Mansion too.  

    Well, I suppose the most noticable is _This Old House_. :-D
    
    Seriously, the relatively few stories about bizarrities like Charles
    Manson are nothing _close_ , by many orders of magnitude, to the
    stories glorifying warriors.  _The Iliad_, for instance, an utter
    classic, was about the Trojan War, as is _The Aneid_ .  Want to
    trace literature from Babylonia through the current period?  The
    stories about Roland, King Arthur, the Three Musketeers, etc., are
    _all_ glorifying the warrior.  Shakespeare's play histories do, too.
    There's a long cultural heritage that one cannot hjust wish away.
    
>My aunt was born in Ireland.  In her lifetime she remembers when it took 10 
>Catholic votes to equal 1 Protestant vote.   Catholics were not allowed to own 
>property, businesses, or to attend school past a certain level.  I think its 
>facinating that you find the wishes of the majority a basis for continuing the 
>status quo.  I don't think that most black Americans would agree with you 
>though.
 
    Should I suggest you check what I wrote?  I merely said that the
    situation in the Union of South Africa was not analogous to that
    in Northern Ireland (I presume your aunt was born in Northern Ireland;
    I don't think the Protestants are that effective in Eire).  That
    is, _if_ you use the argument that the wishes of the majority in
    South Africa are being suppressed is the criterion to mandate change,
    then by parallel logic, the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland
    (where the Protestants are the clear majority) would mandate no
    change.  I was pointing out the logical parallelism, not the moral
    judgement, of each case.  If you'll recall, I pointed out that neither
    situation was one I endorsed.
    
>This is a typical Christian viewpoint.... original sin and all that stuff
>about mankind being evil having adhere to the church to be saved.  
 
    No, it's a matter of human psychology and can be found in many
    nonChristian cultures.  Note the "alas."  It was not entered lightly.
    
>This is one of many areas where Christian brainwashing has contributed to the 
>misery of mankind by convincing us that we are inherently evil.
 
    "I got mine," and "the `Me' Generation" are not inherently Christian
    formulations.
    
>Steve, the night is upon us and our children cannot fight us for their souls.

    The night might be upon _some_ of us; the rest of us will fight
    to prevent it from falling.  As has been said in previous responses,
    to teach children ethics, cooperation, and unselfishness advances
    them from the darkness to the light.  This does not have to be done
    in a religious context ("A philosopher is one who would behave as
    he [or she] does now, even if laws didn't exist."), but a religious
    context doesn't preclude it, as Mother Theresa amply demonstrates.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.    
    

    RE: .76
    
    "Sun Bear" should steer clear of writing poetry.  I have never seen
    worse meter.
    
    
    John M.

    RE: .77  (Steve)
    
    Geologically speaking, you are talking recent history.  
    
    Your second paragraph does not follow from the first.  Those who
    hunted mammoth were *forced* to do so, due to Ice Age conditions.
    Because they hunted is no reason to assume that they were inherently
    aggressive.
    
    John M.

    Re .87 (John):
    
    Well, whether they were "forced" or not is a moot observation. 
    If they weren't aggressive, they wouldn't have been _successful_
    hunters, and instead of English, we'd probably all be sitting here
    at our terminals typing in demotic or cuniform.  If there _were_
    terminals, that is. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

                
    Re.a couple back
    
    > Why is there war?  Why is there oppression?
    
    Because not everyone in the world truly understands the most important
    commandments which are:
    
    'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy
    soul and with all thy mind.  And the second is like unto it, thou
    shalt love thy neighbor as *thyself*.'
    
    What the world needs now is love, sweet love......no not just for
    some, but for EVERYONE.
    
    Cindy

re: .86   John M.

I agree, he ain't no poet. It was probably translated from the old
language and lost something in the translation...;')

Jay

    
    Well, not *every* Christian believes in the dogma.  I figure that
    the 2 commandments on Love will do fine just about anywhere here
    on Earth, and so that's what I go with.
    
    There is a way to accomodate both the majority and minority opinions.
    Holland has been doing it fairly successfully for many years now.
    From the little I know about their government (explained to me many
    years ago by a citizen of that country), every effort is made to
    see that everyone's views, beliefs, etc. are accomodated.
    
    There is also a good book out entitled "After Apartheid, The Solution
    For South Africa", by Loew (hope this is right....it's from memory).
    This book has been accepted by most all parties as being the best
    workable solution for avoiding a civil war in that country.
    
    There are ways to accomodate all views,beliefs,etc. however the first
    prerequisite is to give up your belief that they way you are living
    and believing is the *one true way* and then attempt to force this
    upon the population at large via strongarm tactics or worse. (This
    is, of course, taking into account that a particular way of life
    does not violate the 'love thy neighbor' commandment - even if you
    think it is for his/her own good).
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.-2 - Mistake on the author of 'After Apartheid' - the last name
    should be Louw (and it was co-authored by someone else).
    
    Though I haven't read the entire book, the gist of it is a proposed
    solution along the lines of the Swiss canton system (and the US
    States system).  I seem to recall reading also that this model could
    be used to create a 'United States Of Earth' (as opposed to a
    totalitarian system which is feared by some who are opposed to world
    government on these grounds).
    
    Cindy

I believe the issue is not whether or not humankind has aggressive
tendencies, but rather what we do with that knowledge...

One reaction seems to be to say that because of humankind's
inherent traits, that war is inevitable.  Some of us are
denying this inevitability.  It takes two to make war.  Ghandi and
Martin Luther King Jr (among others) have shown that it is possible to 
fight evil and violence without resorting to it oneself.

Our country uses the excuse of the others' evil to condone and perpetrate
and excuse all sorts of evil...  the end justifies the means....
well, some of us believe that evil is not relative, and can never 
be justified.   Some of us think that taking a life is _always evil_
even if some so-called "holy book" gives us rules for when it is ok.

Taking personal responsibility for the definition of evil
is another aspect of the "new age."


bruce
    

    Re .96 (Bruce):
    
    >One reaction seems to be to say that because of humankind's
    >inherent traits, that war is inevitable.  Some of us are
    >denying this inevitability.  It takes two to make war.  Ghandi and
    >Martin Luther King Jr (among others) have shown that it is possible to 
    >fight evil and violence without resorting to it oneself.
     
    Well, a few points:  I don't think war has come up too much in the
    overall discussion; rather, it's been more about how one differentiates
    between murder and other forms of killing.  That's definitional.
                                                           
    On war: 
    
    >It takes two to make war.
    
    Very true.  If country A is invaded by country B and everybody in
    country B refuses to fight, there will be no "war."  People might
    be enslaved, raped, mutilated, killed, degraded, or whatever, but
    there will be no war.  The treatment of Jews in pre-World_War_II
    Germany is one model for such a scenario.  A question: is fighting
    in one's defense evil if in the process some life is lost on the
    part of the aggressor?  If the answer is "yes," than the respondent
    is saying that his or her life is worth less than those of the
    aggressor's people; if the answer is, "no," then the respondent
    values her or his life _as much_ (not necessarily more) as that
    of the aggressor's people.
    
>Our country uses the excuse of the others' evil to condone and perpetrate
>and excuse all sorts of evil...  the end justifies the means....
 
    Why restrict it to "our country" (recall, also, this is an
    international network, and members of this conference demonstrably
    are from more than one country)?  Currently, most major countries
    seem to operate under this sort of rule (nor do I buy this unleavened;
    if you're speaking of the United States, as a nation and as people
    within it, our report card is mixed, not pure evil,. as the statement
    implies).
    
    > ............. Some of us think that taking a life is _always evil_
    >even if some so-called "holy book" gives us rules for when it is ok.
     
    Well, as I noted earlier, if I saw a sniper take a bead on my wife,
    and I had a choice of shooting the sniper or letting the sniper
    kill my wife, I wouldn't hesitate in shooting the sniper.  Is that
    evil?  If so, tough.  And if anyone would rather let the sniper
    live than her or his spouse, I pity that spouse.  [I'm assuming
    in the discussion that there is insufficient time to simply yell,
    "Duck!" to my wife.  My point is that there may come an occasion
    that no matter what choices one has, they all are distasteful;
    but a choice will _have_ to be made, even if it's doing nothing.]
                                         
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

RE: .97 (Steve)
    
    > ... The treatment of Jew in pre-World-War-II Germany is one model
    > for such a scenario.
    
    A side comment which I consider important --
    
    Many of the German Jews did not fight the Germans -- out of ignorance,
    principle, fear or confusion.  But many of them *did*.  It was
    important for the Nazi "right-of-power" mythology that the Jews
    were seen as complacent to what was happening and therefore that
    the actions against them were justified (according to the Nazi credo).
    The German propoganda machine therefore emphasized complacency and
    strongly suppressed any news, rumors or reports of resistence. 
    So effective was this effort that it was accepted outside Germany
    (where its skewed moral logic was tacitly accepted -- "if "they" aren't
    willing to fight for themselves why should we fight for them, even
    `diplomatically'?")
    
    The odious Nazi myth of universal Jewish complacency in the holocaust
    persists even to this day.  I am quite sure that Steve is aware of this
    and that it was not his intention to perpetuate it, but his statement
    could too easily be misinterpreted to just such an effect; and so I felt
    that this rebuttal was needed.            
    
    STRONGLY RECOMMENDED --
    
    There are very few works that I can say this of -- particularly
    recent ones -- but I cannot feel that anyone can be considered fully
    educated who has not seen the documentary "Shoah" (sp?) which deals
    in large part with this issue.  Do not let its length (10 hours
    I believe) daunt you (though I wouldn't recommend seeing it in a
    single sitting).  It is unabashed about presenting a point of view,
    but it does so very powerfully and yet objectively convincingly.
    This film happens to be specifically about the Jews in WWII, but
    it is really about people -- the best and the worst in them.
    
    					Topher 

    Re .98 (Topher):
    
    >Many of the German Jews did not fight the Germans -- out of ignorance,
    >principle, fear or confusion.  But many of them *did*.  ..
     
    True.  Perhaps I was being a little too Aristotelian (although I didn't
    say "all Jews") to make the point.  Passive resistance is certainly
    _a_ weapon against an agressor or oppressor; however, if that oppressor
    or aggressor does not act in a civilized manner, it might ensure
    the complete destruction of the resistor.
    
    > ........................ I am quite sure that Steve is aware of this
    >and that it was not his intention to perpetuate it, but his statement
    >could too easily be misinterpreted to just such an effect; and so I felt
    >that this rebuttal was needed.
     
    Yes, you're correct, and thanks for reminding me of that possible
    interpretation, which I wasn't even considering.  
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Note 669.95                   

Jack,

The concepts of duality, the nature of mankind, and good and evil, have 
been discussed by humanity for hundreds of years and probably will continue
to be discussed for hundreds more.  

I do not dispute that man is neither all good nor all bad.  The concept I
do dispute is that man is inherently evil and so war must be inevitable.

It is perhaps true that I am direct and somewhat aggressive,.... unseemly
qualities for a woman no doubt.  But my personality characteristics do not
really reflect on the topic at hand one way or another.

Mankind can argue, conflict, and skirmish without ultimately distroying each 
other in warfare.  The extreme physical conflict, the torture, the warfare,
that pervades the earth today seems (to me) more like an aberration of the 
nature of man than a reflection of the nature of man.  

Mary    

    
    
	In my opion...
    
    	There is but one commandment and that is the First Commandment
    given ... To LOVE....  All others are derivations off that first
    commandment.  To kill in any form implies the lack of that LOVE.
    I believe we were all put here to discover that LOVE and any deviation
    from that goal is simply cheating yourself from the understanding
    thereof...and the joy achieved when the understanding of that LOVE
    start to occur.

    
Re .97
    
>    A question: is fighting
>    in one's defense evil if in the process some life is lost on the
>    part of the aggressor?  If the answer is "yes," than the respondent
>    is saying that his or her life is worth less than those of the
>    aggressor's people; if the answer is, "no," then the respondent
>    values her or his life _as much_ (not necessarily more) as that
>    of the aggressor's people.
    
	My Lord answered that question "YES" and I sure He wasn't
    saying his life was worth less than those of His aggressor's.  As
    a matter of fact He was attempting in that one act of LOVE for us to
    show that His Father's LOVE will conquer even death.
    	So far His words/acts have lived on for about 2000 years...
    I'd say He got His point across.
    
    Just a believer,
    Ed
    
    
    

    Re .100 (Mary):
    
> ..........................................................  The concept I
>do dispute is that man is inherently evil and so war must be inevitable.
 
    I think you might be confusing concepts here.  An "inherently evil"
    person may not want war; the fruits of war without the fighting
    may be the goal.  True, if you can get the other side to fight among
    itself ... so much the better.
    
    War being "inevitable" does not follow any particular set of conditions
    up to _and including_ an armed attack by one side against another.
    
    Re .101 (Ed):
    
    >	My Lord answered that question "YES" and I sure He wasn't
    >saying his life was worth less than those of His aggressor's.  As
    >a matter of fact He was attempting in that one act of LOVE for us to
    >show that His Father's LOVE will conquer even death.
     
    I think you're perhaps misunderstanding my intent.  If my country
    is invaded by another, any defense I put up is not a "self"ish
    one, but is also the defense of my family, my friends, my country
    [not "my country right or wrong," by the way].  It's one thing to
    sacrifice my life for the aggressor; quite another to sacrifice
    my life (if necessary) for someone I love.  Indeed, Jesus Himself
    said, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
    his life for his friends." [John 15:13]  Our Savior's sacrifice
    was for all of us, yet He did that us so that _we_ could live; can
    I do less to protect those I love?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

The statement that triggered my comments Steve was the following one in 
which "war" was identified as the nature of mankind.

Note 669.64                   
BARAKA::CALLAGHAN 

>>    	As to WAR, its the nature of this species, 

re: .102
    
>>    I think you might be confusing concepts here.  An "inherently evil"
>>    person may not want war; the fruits of war without the fighting
>>    may be the goal.  True, if you can get the other side to fight among
>>    itself ... so much the better.
>>    War being "inevitable" does not follow any particular set of conditions
>>    up to _and including_ an armed attack by one side against another.

I don't really understand what you are saying Steve.  

Its true that war may be a means to an end (the "fruits" of war) but that 
neither justifies nor negates the horror of war.  What "fruits" are worth
such a cost to humanity?  Is man "inherently evil" and (as such) naturally
attracted to the worst of human conditions?  Do you believe that war is
inevitable?  If so, in an age of total nuclear destruction, where lies the 
hope of mankind if not within ourselves?

Mary

    re .102 (steve)
    
    The issue is not the morality of laying down one's own life
    to save others', but rather the taking of a life in order to
    save one's own (or others')...

    Re .103 (Mary):
    
>I don't really understand what you are saying Steve.  
>
>Its true that war may be a means to an end (the "fruits" of war) but that 
>neither justifies nor negates the horror of war.  What "fruits" are worth
>such a cost to humanity? 
 
    The "fruits of war" are generally conquest, domination, control,
    and often dehumanization of the conquered.  If this can be done
    without war, so much "the better" for the side that would otherwise
    be the aggressor.  "The fruits of war without war," to use Winston
    Churchill's phrase in full form, mean that the potential aggressor
    achieves the goals without having to fire a shot.
    
>                       Is man "inherently evil" and (as such) naturally
>attracted to the worst of human conditions?  Do you believe that war is
>inevitable?  If so, in an age of total nuclear destruction, where lies the 
>hope of mankind if not within ourselves?
 
    Man _may_ be inherently aggressive, buit that's not the same thing.
    Further, Man seems to be inherently vulnerable to the siren call
    of some kinds of evil: a lynch mob will do collectively that which
    nearly each member would be thoroughly ashamed of or disgusted with
    him- or herself if done individually.   It's worth observing that
    the German culture, which was one of the highest in Europe at the
    time, easily embraced the horrors of Nazism.
    
    One is not suggesting for one moment that we should not try to improve
    either ourselves or our world (really, both).  It's also worth pointing
    out that the age of "total nuclear destruction" has lasted more
    than a generation, and the very fact that since World War II, not
    one single nuclear weapon has been launched in war (not even
    tactically) speaks something about the survival instincts of the
    species.
    
    Re .104:
    
    > ................. but rather the taking of a life in order to
    >save one's own (or others')...
     
    Let me do a reverse gainer on that one.  Suppose one sees one's
    loved one being aggressed against and does _not_ try to defend that
    one.  Then one has sacrificed (laid down the life of) _the victim_
    to the aggressor!  Now, unless that person wants to be a sacrifice,
    and makes that abundantly clear to me, what right do I have to stand
    by and see that person killed?  If I cannot do anything to defend
    the victim, then the question is dead; if I do, then the question
    is a vital one.
    
    Let's take this out of the "war" area for a moment and place it
    in a situation within our own society.  Suppose we're talking about
    a Charles Manson (a name brought up earlier).  Suppose we come upon
    him just before he started savaging Sharon Tate.  And suppose we
    have a gun.  If the only way to stop him from killing her hideously
    is to shoot him, are we to say, "Well, killing him would be wrong;
    the Lord's will be done," and leave him alone?  Steping forward
    and saying, "Here!  I've no weapons!  Take me instead of her," would
    be laudable, but would just give him _additional_ victims.  If there
    were time to call the authorities and they had a SWAT team gun him
    down, we'd be just as responsible as if we pulled the trigger
    ourselves.  So, in such a circumstance, it would come down to doing
    something that probably would result in the death of the Charles
    Manson or doing nothing, which would result in the derath of the
    Sharon Tate.  Given that choice (and situations like that do come
    up, though, thankfully, they are so rare that most of us will not
    have to face them), what would _you_ do?  I am using the Manson-Tate
    scenario as an example since you'd doubtless know neither principal.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Note 669.105                  

We need not look backwards to Nazism.  Our present world is full of horror.

>>It's also worth pointing out that the age of "total nuclear destruction" 
>>has lasted more than a generation, and the very fact that since World War 
>>II, not one single nuclear weapon has been launched in war (not even
>>tactically) speaks something about the survival instincts of the
>>species.

One generation is but a blink in the lifetime of the human species though.  
Somehow this isn't very reassuring.

>>Let me do a reverse gainer on that one.  Suppose one sees one's
>>loved one being aggressed against and does _not_ try to defend that
>>one.  Then one has sacrificed (laid down the life of) _the victim_
>>to the aggressor!  

No Steve.  The aggressor is not relieved of responsibility for his aggression
because a potential defender is present.  One is responsible for one's own 
actions.  The bystander has not sacrificed the life of the victim to the 
aggressor.  The bystander did not present the victim to the aggressor for
sacrifice.  

>>Now, unless that person wants to be a sacrifice, and makes that abundantly 
>>clear to me, what right do I have to stand by and see that person killed?  
>>If I cannot do anything to defend the victim, then the question is dead; 
>>if I do, then the question is a vital one.

Can one not defend the helpless without killing the aggressor?  One can defend 
and resist without attacking.  There are many choices between "doing nothing" 
and killing.

>>    So, in such a circumstance, it would come down to doing
>>    something that probably would result in the death of the Charles
>>    Manson or doing nothing, which would result in the derath of the
>>    Sharon Tate.  Given that choice (and situations like that do come
>>    up, though, thankfully, they are so rare that most of us will not
>>    have to face them), what would _you_ do?  I am using the Manson-Tate
>>    scenario as an example since you'd doubtless know neither principal.

If you had that gun and were in that situation, why couldn't you wound him
in the leg to stop him until he could be incarcerated?   

Mary

    re .106 (Mary):
    
>We need not look backwards to Nazism.  Our present world is full of horror.

    But looking back at Nazism gives us historical perspective we would
    be hard-pressed to find today.  Example:  in the occupied West Bank,
    a young Jewish girl was killed.  Initially, it was thought she died
    of rocks being thrown by Arabs; subsequently, the Israeli army did
    an autopsy and reported that she was killed by a bullet that came
    from the settlers' side.  During the time the autopsy was being
    performed, Arab homes were being systematically blown up.  After
    the report, some refused to believe it, and the blowing-up of homes
    was stopped only by directive from afar.  Now: we may never know
    fior sure what the cause of death was; under any circyumstances,
    passions are so high on both sides that even if something definitive
    _was_ determined, it's doubtful we'd know about it for years.
    
>One generation is but a blink in the lifetime of the human species though.  
>Somehow this isn't very reassuring.
 
    It's more reassurring than _convincing oneself_ that nothing can
    be done.  Further, if you would, in World War I, gas warfare was
    developed to the point where it would have been a terrible form
    of mass destruction.  _Everybody_ was scared of it.  After the Pearl
    Harbor attack, we children were given "bunny masks," -- that is,
    kid-sized gas masks with elongated ears so that when worn it made
    the children look vaguely like little rabbits.  This was done to
    minimize fear in the children, and it's sad to think that such masks
    were necessary -- => however <== throughout that war, the use of
    gas was virtually nonexistent.
    
    >No Steve.  The aggressor is not relieved of responsibility for his aggression
>because a potential defender is present.  One is responsible for one's own 
>actions.  The bystander has not sacrificed the life of the victim to the 
>aggressor.  The bystander did not present the victim to the aggressor for
>sacrifice.
 
    I'll try again.  ==>I am  N O T  suggesting that the aggressor is
    "relieved" of "his" responsibilities. <==  I am saying that if a
    potential defender does not defend, then that defender is indeed
    sacrificing the victim to the aggressor because there was an
    alternative that he or she chose not to take.  "Not to act is to
    act."
    
>Can one not defend the helpless without killing the aggressor?  One can defend 
>and resist without attacking.  There are many choices between "doing nothing" 
>and killing.
 
    That is precisely why I was using an example of an alternitave where
    there were only two choices -- and those do come up from time to
    time.  In the ideal world, you'd have many choices.  But in the
    ideal world, there wouldn't be Charles Mansons, eiother.
    
>If you had that gun and were in that situation, why couldn't you wound him
>in the leg to stop him until he could be incarcerated?   
 
    If I could.  But if I couldn't (e.g., the only part of his anatomy
    I could get a shot at would be the upper torso), then I wouldn't
    say, "Well, I can't shoot him without killing him, so I guess I'll
    stand by while he slaughters Sharon Tate."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.         

    I agree with Bruce,.... we've been watching too much television_:-).
    
    Seriously, I do agree with Bruce.  As long as we continue to justify
    our use of violence, we will be violent.  The case of the Israeli
    girl is a perfect example.  Bruce is right in my opinion and he
    said (far more clearly) exactly what I've been trying to say (in
    my muddled way).  Thanks Bruce.
    
    Mary

Note 669.110                  
DUNE::CALLAGHAN 


>    	I second that.
>    
>    	Could an accepted interpretation be made for KILL and MURDER
>    	(I like Steves definition of murder, I put in the dictionary
>    	 variety of KILL)
>    
>    	As to WAR, its the nature of this species, (Yes we can change,
>    	 but we've been warring for known history) and we do it for
>    	the purpose of 'survival' (as conceived by those in control)
>	whether its  territorial (land, finance, tribal) or some
>    	moral (religion, gang, ideology, opinion) variation.
 
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you Jack but I read that to mean that "yes we
can change but war is the nature of our species, we have been doing it for
known history and we do it for the purpose of survival, ... hence it is 
the "nature of the species".  The full context of the paragraph does'nt
    appear to alter my original interpretation of the concept, which
    was that we CAN change but we will be going against the nature of
    our species in so doing.

I cannot interpret your meaning from other people's entries.... I can only
interpret your meaning from what you have written.  

I apologize for taking your quote out of context.  In the future I shall
reference the whole reply as opposed to taking out only the selected part
I found issue with (although that makes for much longer notes, albeit).

Mary

Found in VNS, 
Einstein on war and killing.
========================================================================
"He who  joyfully  marches  to music in rank and file has already earned
my contempt.   He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him
the spinal cord would fully suffice.  
This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once.  
Heroism at  command,  senseless  brutality,  deplorable  love-of-country
stance, how  violently  I  hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war
is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action!
It is my conviction that  killing  under  the  cloak  of  war  is nothing
but an act of murder."
               -- Albert Einstein (translated from German)
=========================================================================
Has anyone seen this particular quote before?
Jay

re; 112...

Jay, my love, do you really want to open this up again? ;-)

Love,
Meredith

.113

Meredith, my dear, why not? ;') .and. ~\~ (or is it ~/~ ??)

I thought it was an interesting quote, and was surprised to not find it
here already. ..course, it's only one man's opinion...

Love, 
Jay

    I saw it in VNS the other day too, and thought it was a fanastic quote.
    
    It is also the opinion of many, many people, although the spirit
    that seemed to take this country in the latter half of the 1960s
    (which Einstein would have felt a kindred spirit to) seems to have
    disappeared somewhere...
    
    I can assure you that Ann Arbor, Michigan, which was known as the
    Berkeley of the Midwest in the 60s, is *still* alive and kicking
    with this spirit.  Even though John Sinclair became a yuppie when
    he got out of prison...
    
    DW

    Ah yes.  The same Einstein who suggested that an atomic bomb could
    be developed.
    
    
    JOhn M.
    

    	But Einstein did not build it, nor did he want it built.  In
    fact, he once commented that if he had his life to do over again,
    in light of how some of his concepts were used, he would have become
    an obscure janitor.
    
    	It's like Nobel, who invented dynamite in the hopes that it
    would *end* war; but the military just picked it up as a new weapon.
    This is what caused Nobel to create the Nobel Peace Prize to award
    those who work towards peace, as a way of "redeeming" himself for
    inadvertently giving humanity yet another way to kill itself.
    
    	Larry
                  

    
    Just like Star Wars (SDI) will end war.....
    
    Right.  Uh huh.
    
    Cindy

    
    Tesla also believed his inventions could be used to end war, but
    was wrong.    He had demonstrated the first guided (remote control)
    torpedo, at a public lecture at Madison Square Garden.    He believed
    that in the future, wars would be fought by robots, and that people
    would therefore not die.
    
    	He was sort of an impractical dreamer...
    
    	Alan.

    	Well, military technology hardware is starting to edge out the
    human element, so maybe Tesla's prophecy will come true?
    
    	There was a cute SF story written by the great Stanislaw Lem
    where a warlord had his engineers build a massive army of war robots,
    then planned to combine them into one unti to become an invincible
    force; but when they were all plugged in together, they instantly
    analyzed the logic of war and declared it was impractical, leaving
    the warlord with a huge pacifist computer! :^)
    
    	Larry
    

re .117 (Einstein..)

I thought Einstein DID recommend building the bomb.

In the early forties, Niels Bohr and a couple other famous dead guys
went to Princton to convince Albert that a bomb COULD be possible.
Their point was that since the Germans would almost certainly TRY
developing one, we MUST begin research.  A letter was drafted, and
sent to Roosevelt over Albert's signature.

That letter started the political initiative for the Manhattan Project.

Enjoy,
Dave

    	Yes, you are right, he did, but it was only because - as you
    said - the Nazis would have surely wrecked the world as badly (or
    worse) than any atomic bomb.  
    
    	After the war, Einstein regretted having given his approval
    of the bomb's construction, as he saw how it played such a major
    role in the Cold War.
    
    	Larry
     

.116  JOhn M.

>   Ah yes.  The same Einstein who suggested that an atomic bomb could
>   be developed.

Yes, the same Einstein. He also had this to say ... "The splitting of the
atom has changed everything save man's way of thinking,  thus we drift
towards unparalled disaster."

Jay

    And in today's VNS, we find someone calling Einstein "an idiot"
    for his passive attitude, and "ungrateful" to the people who fought
    wars which enabled him to live in his peaceful environment.
    
    Yep, I've about given up on the people of this world.  The
    ease with which many of you are manipulated into hating the "enemy"
    is astonishingly pathetic, considering your intelligence and that the 
    "enemy" is being manipulated the same way into hating us.  Someone, 
    somewhere, is having a big laugh over all this, and it's not God.
    
    In the sci-fi TV series "V" (which came after the miniseries) there is
    a line that Diana has, as peace is being made between the Visitors
    and Earth, where she says something like "this peace is ridiculous.
    If we hadn't arrived when we did they would surely have destroyed
    themselves in a nuclear holocaust. Better that they be of some use
    to somebody than a total waste.".  (If you remember, the Visitors
    were shipping the human population back to their planet as food).
    
    I'd be hard pressed to argue with her.  Since so many people here
    seem so hell-bent on blowing each other's brains out, I'd much prefer
    to see humanity cleared off this planet and put out on some desolate
    desert world somewhere where they can throttle and beat each other to their
    heart's content.  Give the earth to someone who knows how to take
    care of it and respect it, and who has grown beyond the infantile
    stage of wanting to kill people who believe in an economic system
    different than theirs.  Surely it would have been better for planet
    earth, if humanity had never even appeared. At least the animals
    and plants would survive; as it is, we're looking at the possibility
    of total annalhilation of all life; how dare humanity! give itself
    the right to destroy an entire planet and all life on it.  
    
    If we go on with this discussion I feel perhaps a new topic is in
    order. I hope I stir some people up with what I've said; I meant
    to.
    
    Doug Wetherington                                       

    Good point, however...
    
    I don't consider all of us to be in the same boat on this one. 
    I don't see all of "us" out marching in protest against nuclear
    war.  I see some of "us" marching and actively trying to spread
    the idea of peace in the world, and I see others of "us" calling
    these people deluded, naive fools.
    
    I do in fact see it as an "us vs. them" scenario, much as it was
    during the Viet Nam war, when much of the counterculture was saying
    things like "what if they gave a war and nobody came", while Lyndon
    Johnson sat in the oval office plotting to drop an atom bomb on
    Hanoi.  I'm afraid I cannot see where these two groups of people
    are not totally separate, and should be treated as two separate
    groups.  
    
    Some of us are willing to destroy the planet rather than peacefully
    co-exist with the Soviet Union. Others of us see this type of mass
    destruction as totally unacceptable.  Both sides feel the other
    is crazy.
    
    I still feel that the two groups are not compatible and should not
    be thought of in the same group as each other, other than that they
    both belong to the same race.  Getting back to the Bible, and the
    Ten Commandments, God apparently felt there was a difference between
    those who followed his Laws and those who didn't, enough to open
    up the earth to swallow up one group and leave the other alone.
    
    I'm trying very hard not to give up on everything, Bruce, as you
    might see from my entry 545.40 in this conference.  But I'm not getting
    much encouragement from my counterparts here.  People as a whole
    seem to have accepted the possibility that we're all going to be
    destroyed; thus, the battle has already been lost. Once people have
    stopped fighting this, stopped standing up in the middle of the
    street and saying, "Hey! this is madness! Everyone leave your desk,
    leave your homes, and dismantle every one of these missles, *then*
    go on with your lives as normal after this threat is gone", then
    we have *all* given up.  Look around you; the complacency is evidence
    that the battle is already lost.  That's why I think it's too bad
    that we have to take the Earth down with us; surely another more
    worthy race in the galaxy has a right to this planet.
    
    Doug                                                 

The only way to get out of the cycle of war and killing is to stop putting
energy into it.  We who talk about it and 'prepare/defend' ourselves against
it are (I feel) just as responsible for it as the one who shoots the first 
shot.  

Da Vinci, who gave us so much in the way of art and beauty also gave us
drawings of the first war machines.  What did he mean by it?  Did he know
that one day his thought's would manifest into so many horrible devices?

Let's try to get it out of our consciousness.

Terry

    Re .126 (Doug):
    
    >Some of us are willing to destroy the planet rather than peacefully
    >co-exist with the Soviet Union. Others of us see this type of mass
    >destruction as totally unacceptable.  Both sides feel the other
    >is crazy.                           
     
    I'm afraid that the sentiments you've expressed show what I believe
    to be an oversimplified view of the United States' culture.  There
    are a lot of hidden assumptions in what's just been said; not the
    least of these being the idea that "some" (meaning, I assume, a
    sizable portion if not a majority of the) people in the U.S. are
    against peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union.  I believe you'll
    find it more of a case that some people see other alternatives than
    a true peaceful coexistence; ask any Afghani.
    
    The problem, in my mind, is that if you set up an artificial category
    or two, pigeonhole people into the two camps, and then say, "they're
    incompatible," you can never make any  significant progress.
    
    > ................................ Getting back to the Bible, and the
    >Ten Commandments, God apparently felt there was a difference between
    >those who followed his Laws and those who didn't, enough to open
    >up the earth to swallow up one group and leave the other alone.
     
    Methinks you recall the Demille movie.  Exodus 32:26-28, Moses (in
    God's name) ordered the sinners executed by the sword.  Not as
    spectacular, to be sure, though the sinners were just as dead.
    
    > ...............................................People as a whole
    >seem to have accepted the possibility that we're all going to be
    >destroyed; thus, the battle has already been lost. ...
     
    I don't know what people you've been associating with, but if it
    gives you any consolation, I, for one, do not anticipate that we're
    all going to be destroyed.  There is always a minuscule possibility
    that we'll be destroyed; the Sun could go nova, for instance, or
    a hitherto unknown cosmic body could collide with the Earth.  However,
    either possibility is so remote as not to weigh on my mind from
    a day-to-day basis.
    
    I'm sorry to see that you've apparently equated the entirety of
    the human condition to unilateral disarmament on the part of the
    United States.  Really, humanity's pretty resilient, and I, for
    one, have faith in its inherent survival instinct.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    Re .128
     
    Agree.
    
    Re. Pacifists
    
    Pacifism is a nice concept with one flaw. For Pacifism to work,
    everyone has to be pacifist. Since human beings tend to have minds
    of their owns and disagree on most everything, pacifism is not
    practical.
    
    Don't get me wrong. I hate wars as much as anyone, but what do you
    do when an Adolf Hitler comes along and starts putting people into
    ovens? Do you try to negotiate with him?
                  
    
    Pat

.124 Doug

I don't think Einstein was an idiot any more than I think men who fought
in past wars were.

Don't give up on humanity. We're changing. Change is sometimes slow, on
the order of generations.

Personally, I don't believe the world will ever be destroyed by nuclear
annihilation. 

I think there are more of us who think alike than you realize, but this
isn't the 60's. Same goal, different method.

Jay

Didn't this note start with the question, "What does 'Thou shalt not kill'
mean?"  We're now into instantaneous planetary destruction.  Whew!

I'm not sure what the commandment might mean in the metaphysical sense, but
I did read a line by Kahil Gilbran (sp) that says something like; Neither the 
murdered nor the murderer is completly innocent (karmically, I suppose).

I guess I didn't answer the question, but it's a good commandment to follow.

Terry

    Against my better judgement, I decided to make a contribution here.
    I am a confessed developer of war machinery.  I have worked on Naval
    and Air Force projects (only *DE*fensive ones, of course ;-).  I
    have asked myself "why" on occasion.  I haven't come up with totally
    satifactory answers.  I think it comes down to "it has to be done".
    The politics of Nuclear Armaments are probably the most complex
    problem we have to face.  It will not suffice for any side to say
    "I quit!  Let me off this merry-go-round!"  That is a very simplistic
    view.
    
    Let me say, I think both sides having 25000 warheads is totally
    assine.  I think both sides have to back off slowly, together.  The
    past year has actually given me some hope.  As little as I like
    Ronnie, he has actually shown that it may be possible to start backing
    off.  Fortunately, a new guard is coming of age in Russia, Gorby
    is the first Russia leader that seems to realize that maybe we can
    work something out.  Both sides will have to negotiate down to a
    level where deterrent is still assured and both sides feel comfortable.
    Even then this minimum (hopefully) arsenal will have to be modernized
    to perpetrate this deterrent ad infinitum.  You are not going to get 
    zero nuclear arms in the world.  We are just going to have to live
    with this "sword of Damacles" hanging over our heads.  The very
    best we will be able to do is negotiate down to a "safer" (notice
    I didn't say "safe") level.  Sorry if this concept bothers you but
    it is better than what we have now.
    
    For those of you who are the nervous type, let me pose a question:
    
    	Some day smaller countries (Iran, Libya, Cuba, etc.) will have
    	atomic weapons.  Today may be a cake walk compared to the inherent
    	problems of trying to negotiate with dozens of nuclear powers,
    	some much more militaristic than Russia.  What will we do???
   
    I would like the world to be a better and safer place.  Unfortunately,
    reality rears its ugly head.  We have to take what we have today
    and make it a little better each day.  If we can do that we will
    have succeeded as a race.  There is not likely to be a massive 
    "missile burning" party wherein all the missiles are destroyed and
    all is "peace and goodness" in the future.  We have not advanced
    that far from the animals and all the term "animal" connotes and
    denotes.  The best we can do is take the same intelligence that
    put us in our present corner and use it to back ourselves out of
    the corner.
    
    re: .124
    
    As far as destroying all life on the planet, I don't think that
    would happen.  (at least there would still be cockroaches)  Life
    would be set back a few million years but evolution would continue
    its course.  Who knows a "better" lifeform may evolve out of man's
    ashes.  It is not an experiment I would like to see started in my
    lifetime. :-)
    
    My personal opinion is we will not die from a nuclear holocaust
    but we will poison ourselves in our own effluvium.
    
    By now there are probably a number of you out there who have said
    "Boy, I glad I'm not like that.  I don't work on war machines. 
    I just work at a *commercial* computer company."  Well, I have got 
    a flash for you.  Whose computers do you think I have used for much
    of the development work I have done?  You got it.  DEC.  Almost
    everybody makes their little contribution.  Mine has just been a
    little more direct (no defense here, just a statement).
    
    If anybody wants to comment, I will respond the next time I read
    this file (about 20 years from now :-), just kidding)
    
    Stan

It comes down to trust.

We don't know for certain how many warheads the Russkies have, and they don't 
know for certain about us.  Face it; *we* don't even know for certain about 
*ourselves*!  We could shake hands with the Russians, and each time we shake 
hands, we could, each side, disarm a missile.  Each side could disarm the 
number of *reported* missiles, and we could go about our lives, feeling safe, 
until (gasp) it's revealed that Someone was holding out a missile, or two, 
or...You get the picture.

We may think we know how many missiles we have, and where they are all located, 
but we're basing our information on what our government has revealed.  Maybe we 
can't trust them; maybe they can't trust us!  That's just *our* side...

Each side, peering suspiciously at the other, feels a need to defend their 
belief system against the possible secret destructive weapons harbored by the 
other...

How did this all start?

One guy wanted control over another guy.  He used force to gain it.  He took 
control without consent.  He was greedy.  He wanted the other guy's resources 
for himself.  Which brings up that other commandment...you know, the one about 
coveting.

>    Whose computers do you think I have used for much
>    of the development work I have done?  You got it.  DEC.  Almost
>    everybody makes their little contribution.  Mine has just been a
>    little more direct (no defense here, just a statement).

Sounds like a rationalization to me!  But, like was stated in the movie, _The 
Big Chill_, rationalizations are more important (to us) than sex...

Does this sound like a strange arrangement of priorities?     

    
    re: last couple
    	context - supporting the war machine
    
    I am not well informed on the workings of the federal budget, however,
    don't some of our tax dollars get funneled into the defense budget?
    If the above is true then we who pay taxes do contribute to the
    war machine.
    
    alison
    

    Well! Six replies in one afternoon.  
    
    My intent with some rather extreme opinions was to get some thought
    going, which I have apparently done.  I do have some comments:
    
    Re: .128 (Steve)
    
    >Some of us are willing to destroy the planet rather than peacefully
    >co-exist with the Soviet Union. Others of us see this type of mass
    >destruction as totally unacceptable. Both sides feel the other
    >is crazy.      
    
    >>Im afraid that the sentiments you've expressed show what I believe
    >> to be an oversimplified view of the United State's culture...
    
    Perhaps. But regardless of any reason, justification, or
    rationalization, I have a nuclear bomb pointed at my city, with
    the potential to be launched at any given moment of my life. Everything
    I have worked for all my life, everyone I love, and everything my
    ancestors have fought and struggled for for the last 2000+ years
    could be obliterated in an instant. That's pretty darn simple if
    you ask me.  Let's dismantle the missles (yes, there's that bothersome
    word "trust" again), and *then* let's deal with the unsimple political and
    social issues. The issues may be complex; the current nuclear situation
    is frighteningly simple.
    
    >>Methinks you recall the Demille movie. Exodus 32:26-28, Moses
    >> (in God's name) ordered the sinners executed by the sword.
    
    Methinks you are correct, and I stand corrected.  However, the idea
    is the same. One group was less guilty in God's eyes than the other.
    Remembering, for those of you who are thinking what great evidence
    this is that God is not a loving God, that this was long, long ago
    when mankind was more honestly violent than they are now (i.e.,
    they were destructive, but they were honest about it...they didn't
    prostitute the safety of the whole world for a transitory peace
    as we are now)...I believe God has dealt with people differently
    throughout time depending on the mean average level of advancement
    of the human race at the time, and who He was dealing with. 
    
    >>There are a lot of hidden assumptions in what's just been said;
    >>not the least of these being the idea that "some" (meaning, I
    >>assume, a sizable portion if not a majority of the) people in
    >>the U.S. are against peaceful coexistance with the Soviet Union.
    >>I believe you'll find it more of a case that some people see
    >>other alternatives than a true peaceful coexistence; ask any Afghani.
    
    America has this wonderful gift of "holier-than-thou" rationalization
    that enables us to say, "Look at how terrible
    (insert foreign country) is, they do this and this and that...
    
    I could, off the top of my head, rattle off a long list of things
    America has done that could make us appear just as horrible as
    any other country in the world, and just as impossible to get along
    with (i.e., overthrow of foreign governments, political assasinations,
    violently driving the Native Americans off their own land so that
    we could replace their respect and reverence for the land with our
    utterly cavalier disregard for it, and intent to *use* it for our
    own purposes rather than *co-existing* with it, keeping fascist
    dictators in power (Pinocet, the late Shah, Batista, Duarte, Somoza,
    Marcos) who abuse their people's human rights, while hypocritically
    critisizing them for it when we're the ones that put them in power
    in the first place...etc, etc. I don't buy this line that the Soviet
    people are more difficult to get along with than we are...
    
    
    >>I'm sorry to see that you've apparently equated the entirety of
    >>the human condition to unilateral disarmament on the part of the
    >>United States. Really, humanity's pretty resilient, and I, for one,
    >>have faith in its inherent survival instinct.   
    
    I wish I shared it, Steve. I wish the Pentagon shared it, as they
    have already drawn up plans to survive a first strike and carry
    on WWIII.  Apparently they feel that a certain amount of us are
    expendable in a nuclear war.  I disagree.  Unfortunately, it is
    this mentality that is currently in power in this country, supposedly
    (but not actually) with the consent of most of our people.   This
    leads me to have less faith than you, in our survival instinct...in
    fact, you could have easily been a victim of said holocaust before
    you finished that sentence.
    
    Now that we've totally digressed from the original note and the
    whole focus of DEJAVU, what say we either start another note with
    more focus for this conference, or go to another (Dave, is GOVERNMENT
    still out there?) conference. Yes, I know I'm the main guilty party...let's
    carry on elsewhere, shall we?
    
    Doug                          

    Doug:
    
    As strange as it may sound, those few thousand atomic bombs are
    not the problem.  They are symptoms to an even larger problem that
    we have to address before we start disarming.  Someone already said
    what the problem is:
    
    Trust, or lack thereof.
    
    We need to build cooperation and trust between the countries of the
    world.  One of the Soviet leaders summed it up pretty good when he said
    we must learn to be adversaries without being enemies. I'm not only
    talking about the U.S. or U.S.S.R., but also countries like Iran (ugh!)
    and Nicagraua (yuck!) and Libya (HAHA).  While this may sound
    pie-in-the-sky, peacenik dreaming, I am stating this as a requirement
    for long term peace and prosperity of mankind.  Today's global
    situations can't last. We are heading towards a point in mankind's
    future where a single unstable government could bring down civilization
    (at least!).
    
    A unilateral disarmament won't make the world a safer place.  The
    fact is it would make it more unstable.  We need to find a solution
    that would lead towards global disarmament of all countries to a point
    where all countries can safely protect their borders but not enough
    to handle an offensive campaign.
    
    I've always advocated a limit on defense spending.  It would be
    up to the governments to figure out how they want to spend it.
    The advantage of this limit is that new weapons would already be
    restricted.  If we put limits on Nuclear weapons we'll find that
    the Military (of whatever country) will find another weapon not
    covered under the restrictions.  Control them where it counts, the
    pursestrings!
    
    There is an organization called "Beyond War" that advocates we can
    move away from war the same way that mankind has moved away from
    human sacrifices and slavery.  It think this is probably the best
    way to look at this issue, and I feel that our generation will be
    pivotal in this moral dilemma.  It's not going to be easy and it's
    not going to happen over night, but it will happen if we start to
    work towards that goal.
    
    I haven't been able to get into VADER::Government for a few months
    now.
    
    Dave
    

    re: -1
    
    >While this may sound pie-in-the-sky, peacenik dreaming,
    
    No, no more than the summation of everything Christ said and taught.
    
    Jesus Christ...the ultimate "bleeding heart liberal".
                          
    "Holy Moses, let us live in peace.
     Let us strive to find a way to make our hatred cease".
    
    Elton John, "Border Song"
    
    

    re: 136
 
    Obviously disarmement won't work with the current world mentality
    (I'll drop my gun when you drop yours then be ready to reach for
    it in a hurry if you make a quick move.   We have to change our
    mind set - and we means 'I', each one of us, one at a time.   When
    this happens the rest will take care of itself.

    Isn't this supposed to be the threshold of the 'New Age, Age of
    Aquarius'?  If so, how do you think it will come?  *We* have to make
    it happen!  This is what these times are all about, our chance to
    do it right!  Supposedly, we have had our chances in the past and
    really mucked things up and all this 'you first' talk seems to be coming
    from the same kind of menatility that contributed to it.

    It's simple, not easy, but simple.  

    We just can't let go of our old, warm and fussy ideas.  The ones that 
    have been with us for soooo long.  But we have to - and this is the time.

    This might (and does to me) sound quite lofty and idealistic, but just
    think about.

          "Imagine there's no country..."

                   Imagine, John Lennon

    Terry

    re: last few
    
    The Nuclear issue is far from simple. We cannot just disarm
    unilaterally or even bilaterally. Have we not learned anything from
    history? Did we provoke Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor? Did the
    Soviets (or the Poles, Czecks, Hungarians, etc.) provoke Germany
    into attacking them? NO! Much as some folks may not like it (myself
    included) there are people in the world who are not very nice. As
    long as those people exist, deterrents are needed.
    
    Granted we have way too much deterrent and need desperately to cut
    back, but nuclear weapons will never be eliminated. I agree with
    .-2 that elimination of all nuclear weapons, as long as nuclear
    TECHNOLOGY exists, would be extremely destabilizing, since the ability
    to recreate those weapons will always be upon us.
    
    I don't really feel threatened by the fact that a nuclear warhead
    is pointed at me at this point (maybe because I have grown up with
    that threat). I think that the Soviets are civilized people who
    understand the power they possess and want to avoid using it at
    all costs. I am much more threatened by Iran and Libya, who are
    (in my opinion) not civilized. Though they may know the power of
    nuclear weapons, they do not fear it.
    
    Like I mentioned in an earlier reply, Pacifism is not the answer,
    cultural exchange, understanding, trade, and tolerance are the answers.
    Let's not disarm and wait for the next Hitler to take advantage
    of it.

    
    
    As I suggested in my reply # .7?, if trust is the issue here,
    then we have to *first* look within ourselves and honestly ask -
    "Where do I trust myself and where don't I trust myself?".  Then
    you can ask "where do I and don't I trust others?".  It's got to
    start within yourself.
    
    In the words of Michael Jackson's latest  - "Man in the Mirror"
    
    "If you want to make the world a better place, you've got to look
    at yourself and make the change".

    

    Carole

        "The world we have made as a result of the level of thinking we
    have done thus far creates problems we cannot solve at the same level
    at which we created them." - Albert Einstein 
 

    "Stupidity got us into this.  How come it can't get us out?"
    
    						- Author Unknown
    
    							Ann B.