But, clevely I thought, to understand what the Bible says, I need to read it in the original. So I studied ancient languages - got the Navy to pay for it in fact! [In those days, if you went to college on active duty, the Navy essentially paid for it. Nominally they paid 75%, but you could work it so the rest was waived.] Imagine my surprise to learn that just what the Bible says is not entirely clear? What books do you include, what not? [And why?] What lines are part of each letter, poem or book? [And why?] And, if you don't live thousands of years ago, how can you understand what was said in a cultural context? While I came to terms with all these questions, I have to admit that it is not possible to say my own understanding is perfect, or that there are not other reasonable possibilities. In many ways, I am impressed with ancient Holy writ - and I think it is indeed true in several useful senses. But that does not mean we should ignore new archeological evidence that might improve our understanding, etc. It is not written, like the ten commandments were, in stone.

If you want to talk about Jesus seriously, we need to find another forum. There is indeed something extraordinary. I once believed that God only speaks to people in an abstract sense - that people who literally "hear voices" were self-deluded and listening to another part of their own minds. But I was wrong to believe that. While I was not in China at the time my Child was concieved - and while I could not for biological reasons father a child had I been around at the right time - I have a daughter because Jesus still speaks to men of good will. While one INS official told me "it takes three or four years, a lawyer in both countries, and lots of luck" to get a visa out of China - I got one without any lawyers and only a few fees in two months. And understand this - I didn't want to raise a baby as an old man - given my own lights. But I was wrong - it was the most rewarding thing I ever did - much more meaningful than winning medals or having any rank or title. IF you listen to what God wants you to do you are not doing God a favor - you are doing yourself a favor.

The priest is right. It is both legal and moral to kill a person in some circumstances. If you don't agree with that, you cannot defend anyone, nor your country, no matter the circumstances. This is clearly immoral and utterly impractical. If you really say no, you expose your thoughts as neither practical nor ethical.

We live in age of miracles after all! I have seen resucitation many times - and this impresses Hellfire. Wow. I didn't realize something like this would impress you so much - but there is ample evidence it happens.

Uchiita - under her real name - has joined an Asian studies discussion group - populated mainly by professionals - academics and analysts and military officers concerned with Asia. She has shown herself to be exactly the opposite of what On Watch describes her as being. Which does not mean OW is wrong - from his peculiar point of view probably every resaonable person is an enemy propagandist - including even President Bush when he says repeatedly "Islam is not the enemy." He has no clue how to be civil, or open minded, or respectful. His "facts" are usually assumptions of convenience from a particularly hostile point of view. One can usefully disagree with Uchiita - and have a chance of changing her mind. Not so with OW. He assumes anyone not as hostile as he is belongs to the enemy camp. Thank goodness none of our leaders have his attitudes.

In detail. I happen to be a Just War Theorist and a big fan of the Geneva Protocols - in practice as well as in theory. I completely affirm and concur with SWB interpretation, and with the conventions that, as he says, deliberately put this provision in the law. I am a fanatic about protecting "protected persons" and I will even use deadly force to protect them. But it is utterly impractical and ineffective to permit these rules to be used to cover military or terrorist attacks. It is also wrong to allow those who play games like this to get political justification from so doing. This is a big problem on the left - they use the rules to condemn the wrong side - not the side that is breaking them.

True - but I think you miss the meaning. Proportionality is related to political objectives. It DOES allow for "reasonable" levels of civilian casualties IF there is a political objective "proportionate" to the loss. Further, I have the impression you are not at all impressed with how well coalition forces are behaving in this regard (treatment of prisoners in some cases excepted). But you should be impressed. The measures in place are elaborate and far more effective than was ever imagined by the people who wrote the rules. And coalition forces really do seem to care and take many risks because they care about what might be civilian casualties. Finally, I have the impression you don't grasp how confusing a conflict situation can be? You sometimes have to decide in seconds what lawyers and historians can debate for years. Your conscience may haunt you - "did I guess right?" German soliders trying to surrender on D Day emerged from a bunker shouting "bitte bitte." A US soldier shot them and turned to his friend, saying "I wonder what "bitte bitte" means?" [For non German speakers, it means "please please"]. But the law is clear: at the moment an assault breaks the enemy line, it is not required to accept even a clear surrender. If they did not elect to withdraw before the assault went home, and they shot from cover during all the time you crossed the killing ground in front of the position, they cannot suddenly say "we didn't mean it and are not in the fight any more" - it is up to you, not them. The GI was not wrong - he could shoot even if he understood German. But his confusion is my point - you often do not know what the person's intentions are and you must decide RIGHT NOW what to do. It is not easy to do that lots of times and be right 100% of the time. That is the nature of war. One should only go to war when there is a complelling reason. I happen to regard radical Islamic attacks on US embassies, US warships, US skyscrapers and the Pentagon as a compelling reason. This war is not going to end if we are "wet" and don't take the war to enemy territory.

Better not let you live then. International law is domestic US law, which is ironic, because historically domestic US law came first, and only became international because other countries were impressed. It was certainly not imposed on us. The codified sense of rules of war was invented right here, as The Rules for the Governing of the Armies in the Field. Signed by Abraham Lincoln, somewhat surprisingly they also were signed by Jefferson Davis. This in the largest war (in terms of troop numbers) in modern history (to that time). Thus was born the idea both sides could agree on rules, and other nations asked if they could formalize that, so we agreed. But these are our rules, for our own good reasons, reasons of troop morale, political support, minimizing incentives to resist in occupied territories, etc. All these are valid, and anyway all of them are our ideas. A condition of being a US leader, especially troop leader, is grasping these ideas.

Resucitation (CPR, heart defib, etc) is one thing, but raising a man "from the dead" after three days is another. There is the possibility that Lazarus was deeply comatose, almost at the point of resembling death,..and being holed up in that cave for 3 days certainly would cause a considerable stink. I can believe someone being brought out of a coma by certain stimulae, but being medically (biologically) dead for three days means too much brain damage has occured for the body to sustain life effectively (without sufficient oxygen flow, too much of the brain dies.).

Despite wherever this argument has gone, and who is getting too defensive, it all still goes back to this thread's original idea: "Americans must respect Islam." Americans, or ANYONE, don't have to respect ANY religion just because someone else has strong beliefs about it. EVERY religion has just as much filth among its ranks as it does the "sweet smelling" individuals. EVERY religion, unfortunately, seems to let too many of the filthy bullsh*t artists float to the surface and stink up the world, and NOT ENOUGH of the followers who claim to be righteous and just are out and about in the world trying to clean up the messes of the world that may well have been created by their own followers. It all goes back to my argument of patrolling your own ranks. Clean up your own house, and don't throw your garbage into other people's yards, before you go criticizing everyone else in the world for having a dirty house also. Respect (except in the military and in a job, according to rank structure) must be EARNED. When more people of said religions take it upon themselves to EARN respect for their respective religions, only then will Americans, and anyone else, fully respect Islam or Christianity or any other religion. But too many people want to play bigshot diplomat and not yield to the other side's arguments. And that only adds to the confusion and ignorance with which everyone in the world looks at each other: "You don't know what I know, and you don't see things how I see them, so I'm better than you, and you are beneath me." That's the basic underlying attitude we find EVERYWHERE. People look down on Islam because nobody is getting rid of the fanatics and butchers who come forth claiming it is OK to slaughter the non-believing infidels, because it is done "for Allah!" Christianity has done no less over the centuries, but "in the name of God" instead. And in EVERY religion, bad folk certainly seem to think it is THEIR voice that must be heard above others. So until we make the very religions who claim the world is in filth clean up their own acts first, no one is going to fully respect anyone else's belief structure. Ignorance has always been the greatest ally to Evil. ".When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke The problem is not my views on the world, nor the argument I'm trying make (no matter how poorly.) The problem is, too many religions are vying for the title of "Who's Right the Most", yet among their own congregations, no one patrols the corrupt and the selfish to correct them and keep the truth flowing unhindered. It has been my observation (no matter how flawed in someone else's eyes) that too many people think "it's not my job" to clean up the ranks. The system that cannot correct its own ranks is not fit to correct the world, no matter how "right" its followers believe they are. Fix your own house first..