[thechat] What can WE do?

[Bill Haenel]

> > Which acts of violence against a civilian population do you mean? Those
> > of whoever was behind last Tuesday's attacks, or the urge to carpet
> > bomb Afghanistan..?
> >
>
> ~~~
> |Ah si, señor - we are never far from the opportunity to turn the blame
> |around, are we?
> ~~~
>
> That's not the point I was making. The point I was making is that
> you can't
> condemn killing of civilians by 'them', and then condone it by 'us'. The
> definition works in both directions.


Understood. I have clearly caught your meaning from the start. I am
frequently misunderstood due to my lack of focus.

There will always be an 'us' and a 'them'. Pick your side, but know that
you'll be on one or the other. If you try to straddle the line, both sides
will eventually hate you, and you'll have your very own 'side'.

The next question is when two sides disagree, how do you get them to reslove
their differences peacefully? Especially when you're talking about subjects
that we hold not even in our minds or hearts, but in our souls, our nature?
Things like God, country, life and death are not even ideas, but more like
instincts or feelings. People are WILLING and even LIKELY to die for these
causes. With this kind of intensity of purpose, how can we get anyone to
calm down and think rationally?

I personally wonder if this is even possible. Should I just accept that
humans will kill each other and die for each other forever and ever? Maybe I
should just pick a side and be ready to fight. Maybe I should just stand
back and watch, hoping that someone eventually gives up or disappears. Maybe
I should make my own 'side' and fight them all by protesting what they do to
each other.

Thank God I have the freedom to make up my own mind and then live to see the
consequences of my decision.

BH