Mr. Shah, I asked where you came from 32 years ago.

DWalker: Gosh, I wonder who would kill all the Christians and Muslims.
Could it be Muslims. Why do they just feel the need to kill everyone? Where does this behavior come from?

I do agree with Mr. Shah, however, we had no business trying to help these people out that know nothing but hate.

I am not defending with this remark.

To lie is not against the law except under oath. In the ten commandments we are only called to not bear false witness against another.

In this way, the responsibility for a lie is in the listening. This removes judgement and blame as a way.

Each of us is responsible for truth.

How ironic are your last points regarding no WMD and no Al Qaeda links; the first two reasons stated by the past administration for invading Iraq. And yet it was the past president who evidently believed he was doing God’s will by invading Iraq after speaking to him directly.

I agree, we should never let this happen again. And we should remain resolute even when those who disagree with us also count God on their side.

I have another thought about the use of righteousness in government.

Governments create a moral code within the context of agreements inspired by the collective acceptance of inividuals as a community. They operate with that authority in the world, and are held to account by the community.

Religions, as a community, create the same inspired by God, and assign that authority to God.

Some religions or governments use God’s authority in this world as their own. Who then are they held accountable to? God or the community? The integrity is lost. As people, they are destined to choose that which serves them best.

For those who believe, we accept that we are fallibile. God and moral behavior is what we aspire to. We may accept it, be inspired by it, and abide it. We choose not to have authority over it. Within this we may govern ourselves.

In this world, we are responsibile to each other, and to God. It is not one through the other. I do not believe we are given a choice between, but of.

To attempt to govern with the moral authority of God requires the pretense that as a community we are not resposible for our relationships and acceptance of each other, God is.

When we fail, which we will, we will invoke a demand to obedience because it is God’s will. This does not please God. It is blasphemy. We are not agents of God. God is present and capable.

We have a relationship with God, we have a relationship with ourselves, and with each other. One does not take precedence over the other. They are not exclusive. We only make them so.

We choose what we choose, we declare what we declare, we act as we act. We are responsible to each other and to God. For a believer, an act of integrity will honor both. God does not demand we choose between or over the other. Only that we choose God.

We may be this way, and God will judge us in it. Only God may be this way, and declare it right.

For our leaders, share what you have to share, speak what it is that inspires you. Do not say what is right or wrong.

We will listen, and what God accepts in us we will accept, agree and commit to. In this way, we will know the way of God.

Iran is the only present day theocracy and recently a poll showed that over 2/3rds of its population would like to position of Grand Ayatollah to be an elected one (it is not). Governments are imperfect instruments and history shows that they are easily taken over by a small cadre and made to act against what the collective will would be. Invoking of God by one in authority is even more prone to problems as it usually means that the person in power will not answer to any criticism.

Given the imperfection of governments there are three categories of issues we face. Some issues are where the facts are known and not disputed and there may be a honest difference of opinion. Gun control, abortion, death penalty etc. come to mind. In each case there is very little dispute about the facts and a lot of energy is being expended because, in the face of disagreement, one side or the other wants to prevail through blustering. What you have written ‘another’ could apply to such issues. There are also issues where there there is general agreement (wether we know the facts or not) and so in such cases governments (generally) do act in accordance with the general consensus. Global warming and other environmental issues I would think come under this category. Everybody wants clean air and water.

It is the third category where there is most problems. It is where there is not a general agreement and the facts are also not agreed upon. The decision to go to war in Iraq would be such a situation. There was a large part of the population that did not think that Iraq posed any immediate threat to USA, that the evidence for WMDs or the missile capability to deliver them was very tenous. There were others who said, I don’t know everything but I am willing to accept the word of our elected officials. Well that proved to be very erroneous. Also, there was no link between the tragedy of 9/11/2001 and Iraq. To attack a people without any provocation is a gross error and I don’t think anyone would disagree with that statement. What perpetrated this error was our lack of agreement on what the facts were. It is about this third category of situations that I am suggesting we be much more vigilant in the future and work to get more of the facts known so that it changes into one of the other category of decisions.

The hypothetical question would be, if we had known with much more confidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs would anyone still support attacking it? And if there is general agreement with the last statement then, shouldn’t we have tried much harder to learn more ahead of time? I remember during the Clinton years when the ‘Monica Lewinsky’ scandal was playing out, there was on part of a group of people a voracious frenzy to get to expose the truth. Shouldn’t we have had a much greater voracious frenzy in the face of a decision to start a pre-emptive war in which our collective moral culpability would be much greater?

I agree.

I want to acknowledge you for sharing what you have shared and never making the judgment of right or wrong in it. Your view is very clear and powerful.

I accept a poor decision, a choice that does not align with who we say we are, a clear insight that we said one thing and did another, a lack of integrity, an error!

If you had jumped to say we had done wrong, or another way was more right, as in a mistake, what was important to say would have been left unsaid or not heard in the rush to defend. Thank you.

Khalid: to your observation that we might have decided differently had there been more and better information is a good one. However (and go look at a posting in the “letters” section about FDR that led to a long discussion of the big What-If questions from WWII.

There are always What-If questions. We DO have to answer as many of them as possible, and we DO have to look at independent information sources as much as possible. However, to make the statement this way: “Data that does not fit the hypothesis is to be discarded” fits. This is the human condition, we look for answers that fit our predispositions, and then act on that. Doing the other thing is HARD.

Unfortunately, in our day, the political world (and this space, from time to time) is so poisoned that serious question raising is discouraged and assumed to be either partisan posturing or disloyalty (depending on the affiliations of the questioner and the person questioned). I’m not sure how to resolve that one.

It is not hard, only hidden from view.

Taking a position and then acting and defending with knowledge to be right is the automatic way of people. It is not how we are born.

Dealing with what is or isn’t and acting in alignment with what inspires us is how we are created.

Give up being right, and what is, peace, power, and freedom will show up.