Ever since discussions began about having a cease-fire in the Israel/hezbollah situation, I've felt a little nostaligic for a quieter more peaceful time.  A time perhaps more like the days preceeding the second World War, when people like Neville Chamberlain ran things.  Thanks to his diplomacy, he saved the world from having to fight WWII at all.  It might have been aweful, I don't know, maybe something like 250,000 US soldiers might have died in a conflict like that if it would have happened, but with Mr. Chamberlain's brilliant diplomacy with Adolf Hitler, the war was averted and we had "peace in our time".

Ok enough of the sarcasm.  I remember during my history classes many times hearing a phrase about learning history so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past.  Yet why does it always seem no one really ever does learn and we continuously repeat the same stupid thing over and over.  Especially, the lessons of WWII, the deadliest and most destructive war EVER!  Well, I for one choose to keep an eye on the past and attempt to learn from it.  To me, the current Mid-East B.S. is just such an example.  We can all sit around and pretend we have Mr. Chamberlain's "peace", or we can start solving real, actual problems. 

Lets start calling terrorists terrorists, lets start blaming THEM for the damage they cause and for the retribution that is brought to their enablers.  Specifically, lets call hezbollah (they don't deserve to be capitalized, so I won't) a terrorist group.  Lets say there are at least 3 UN Council resolutions requiring that they be disarmed and that they leave Southern Lebanon.  Lets say these same resolutions have declared it Lebanon's responsibility to do the disarming.  Lebanon has failed in their responsibilities.  The "innocent" Lebanese "civilians" have allowed an armed terrorist group whose only goal is to wipe out Israel to take over their neighborhoods and their country.  These people are just as guilty as hezbollah themselves.  If you willingly and knowingly enable terrorists, you are as good as a terrorist yourself and have no right to be called an "innocent civilian".

So, who is going to enforce these "resolutions" which apparently don't mean the paper they are written on, which I'm sure at the UN is very expensive.  In this case, it is Israel that has volunteered to take on this task.  And what do they get for their efforts to do what the lebanese and the rest of the world have been too weak-spined to do, THEY are blamed for causing the situation in the first place.  They are blamed for going too far.  They are blamed for defending themselves from a threat that was supposed to have been removed by everyone else.  This is re-goddamn-diculous. 

Iran, Syria and hezbollah have won this round and I believe they will be enboldened.  When will the world decide to finally stand up to these people and defeat them before they bring the war to us just as Hitler did.  We can bury our heads in pieces of paper for as long as we want, but this will not solve the problem.  Iran along with the other Islamic terror groups want an end to the world as we all know it and I'm convinced they don't really care how they bring that result about.  If it means millions of deaths on their side, they don't care.  That's how much they want this.  How do you negotiate with people whose only demand is that you and anyone like you die?  You can't.  There is no negotiating with these people.  There must be war and we must win.

For a little bit more info on Neville Chamberlain check out this site.  It is a fantasic article about the peace crowd and the Iraq War.  His perspective on the war is exactly like mine and it is well written and logical.

Newdow II - Pledge of Allegiance Case

     The Pledge of Allegiance debate is beginning once again.  After the Supreme Court refused to step up and answer the question once and for all last year, Michael Newdow has filed a new lawsuit and won in District Court yet again.  This time if the Supreme Court chooses to hear the lawsuit, they will not be able to take the easy way out and refuse to decide the case.

     I've heard commentary today that this decision will simply prove to Conservatives that the courts are out of control.  However, the fact that most Americans (who are Christians) don't understand why atheists in particular are upset with the "under God" part of the pledge, or more to the point, don't see the merit in their anger, simply proves to atheists that Christians are out to spread their religious message and are completely intolerant of those who find their beliefs illogical.

     It boggles my mind that nearly everyone I've ever talked to about this issue can't see why my side should prevail.  First of all, I'm not sure whether the pledge should be found unconstitutional or not.  It may not be a constitutional decision but an "ought" decision.  By that I mean it may well be constitutional to have "under God" in the pledge, but what ought to be the case?  I propose that the government should not uphold forcing people to make religious affirmations as a good idea or policy.  I have heard arguments about some students taking an alternate pledge or something along those lines.  It seems to me that these types of solutions only make more of a spectacle out of the situation than necessary.  I believe in what I call the Newdow doctrine which is essentially, the government should stay out of the religion business altogether and not take a stand on the issue either way.

     I am at a loss to understand why taking the words "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance is such a controversial issue with fair minded people.  Perhaps it is not, and it is simply the religious majority in this country that is holding everyone else hostage to their religious views.  I'm sure that I am being very naieve in saying this, but I expect more from the elected leaders in this country.  They should be looking out for everyone and deciding not what's best for the majority at the expense of those in the minority, and making sure that no one is being unfairly treated in the process. 

     The big thing here is that NO ONE LOSES!!!!  There is nothing to this debate that will adversely affect anyone on the Christian side if they lose and the words are removed.  Yes, they will feel that the government is being hostile to their religion, however, they feel that way because of the cozy relationship they've had with the government since the beginning of the country.  Times are changing.  People's attitudes are changing.  Not in vast numbers, but slowly over time individuals are finding the value in knowing the truth about the world and not relying on old myths to get them by.

     I also heard someone today say something about whether discussing historical documents of our country could be unconstitutional as well if the pledge is because of references to God in them.  Is anyone into logic these days!!!!??  Honestly, I don't think their is a proper reaction to this sort of thing.  You can't make a distinction between forcing some kid to pledge that their is a God when there's not and talking about some documents written by people who were religious?  Are you kidding??  Unfortunately, they weren't.  I don't have a problem with schools talking about God in the historical documents of our country.  I do have a problem being coerced by the government into saying I believe in a deity when I don't, especially in a Pledge that is supposed to unite people together into a single country.

     I know their are plenty more arguments for the pledge, but I can't think of them right now.  Feel free to tell me any intellectual objections to the pledge you can think of.  You can either explain why you think they are poor arguments or I am willing to discuss them further.  But from a purely logical standpoint I don't understand why people who agree with me don't win this debate.  I'm getting really fired up over this this time around, hopefully I'll find the fortitude to fight for this cause.