In war, the USA acts not to defend itself; but instead, the USA acts in war to defend its own selfishness - its own fundamentally violent and exploitative economic policies.

Maybe Jesus was killed because of opposition to the abuses, tyrannies, oppression and violence of the Roman Empire.

I was raised Roman Catholic. And although I don't consider myself to be a practicing Christian, I do celebrate the story of Jesus resisting the wrongs of the world.

I think that Jesus would not have bombed anyone - because of a realization that violence, even when justified and righteous - even when in self-defense - may have the tendency to perpetuate even more violence.

This is not to say that Jesus would not have acted in self-defense - I just think that bombing would not have been the tactic of choice.

There are other ways of defense that do not involve violence.

The polarized choice between fight and flight is a false dichotomy. There is a middle road, although it may not be the easiest. I believe it is the most worthwhile. That middle path is the path of peace - the way of nonviolence. Nonviolent resistance need not be passive. But it will also not fall for the notion that evil can be purged from the world by eliminating evil doers. Nonviolence realizes that evil is less of a personal problem, than a cultural problem - so that there is a need for overall cultural transformation - rather than the removal of a few problem individuals. Individuals can be restored. And the cultural can be changed.

Another world is possible. A better world. A world of peace and justice, light and love, truth and sustainability!

Dear Drew and a.future.with.no.future, I am sorry that you don't like what I am doing here.

I don't want to be "mean" or rude or what have you. I know my post was critical, so perhaps I should add some construction to my criticism.

 How about this Rob, as a constructive idea. Don't stop doing "what you are doing". Consider getting a blogspot account dedicated to antiwar and peace activism. Hell, you might even get good co-contributers. Periodically update Olyblog about what's new on your blog, every few weeks or so. That way the Olyblog community has access to your ideas, you have an open forum to supply them and this blog can refocus on hyper local journalism.

Sometimes posts of this nature are important, critical in fact to a larger community dialogue. I think back to the up-to-the-minute port threads, or the post Mayday threads as examples. Those are times when your angle is really needed.

As a near daily torrent though, well, I think you're hearing that it gets to be a bit much.

You also have a tendency to hold your feelings up as a shield. None of us are robots, we all have feelings too, but when a person puts ideas up for debate then a certain amount of personal emotional connection needs to be left at the door. You especially have a habit of using rhetoric as an argumentative tactic and any dissenting view point you seem to take as a personal slight.

If you had your own blog to post on, you could guide the comments and discussion and there could be a lot less flexibility about what kind of response is appropriate, which it seems might make you more comfortable.

Is that a good alternative? I think you should continue to contribute to Olyblog, but in the same manner as everyone else. That is to say by posting about local content and contributing to the discussion surrounding it in a personal and non-rhetorical way. Do you think that might work? 

Hahaha - every time I think about how to respond to the comments in this post I feel like laughing.

Really I don't know what to say. I am trying to understand peoples' problems with my blogging. I can understand if it seems profuse, or if I come off as preachy. And I genuinely apologize if that's the case, as it seems to be.

All I intend to do is to raise awareness of the systemic injustices that exist in our society - and show how the mainstream media is not fulfilling its obligation to represent the whole story. All I intend to do is to share my thoughts. That was what this post was supposed to be about.

It was supposed to be about my thoughts about war and imperialism. And it was. And it was about more than that - something that I think is important - it's the fact that our stories, our mainstream and patriarchal stories, about the past - are in need of revision. I don't know much about Christianity, which may seem weird for someone who was raised Catholic (the truth is that I hated Sunday School, even at the progressive Church [St. Joan of Arc] that we attended, and my wonderful mother was sympathetic, for better or for worse, and didn't force me to go.)

Anyway - I think it is a valid point to critique modern day Christianity based on the fact that it is in a lot of ways out of tune with the basic message that Jesus brought - which was for social justice (which includes being against empire.)

When did people start saying that Jesus died for their sins? Does that even make sense? And how did people get to that point?

It makes more sense to me that Jesus died because he was a rebel - a rebel against a system that was corrupt and harmful, violent and cruel (a system which was not too different from our own - and a system which, interestingly, self-destructed upon its own violence, exploitation and profligacy.)

I think these are valid thoughts, and questions, and I don't understand why people would be particularly angry by my raising them.

Everyone has their own blog at OlyBlog, and everyone is welcome to share their thoughts about any issue.

I promoted this post to the front page because it relates to thoughts that I had during my regular participation in the weekly Olympia Fellowship of Reconciliation Friday Evening Peace Vigil at Percival Landing.

Yet, I can accept if people are aggravated, annoyed, bothered, or feeling pestered by my frequent ruminations about war and peace, justice and oppression, violence and satyagraha, nonviolence, compassion - etc.

It may be a little profuse, and I certainly wouldn't want to come off as a caricature, since I am a living breathing, warm-blooded mammal of the sentient and cognitive human persuasion, who is 100% totally and completely worthy of being (as are we all.)

hahaha, so I also don't want to come off as preachy, and sincerely apologize for whenever that's the case. I will work to make it clear in the future when I am sharing my thoughts. Because that's all I ever really intend to do. Sure I want to change minds. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe I am not going about it in the best way possible. Food for thought. ...Although, if anyone wants to hear me preach about the ways of the world - the serious ills and the tremendous potentials that exist - then I just might so be willing to oblige. I do like to talk, but I also like to listen and understand.

So while I don't appreciate the criticism - especially that which comes across as harsh, mean-spirited, demeaning, invalidating or in anyway belittling of my creative spark, my thoughtful imagination, and/or who I am - I do appreciate meaningful and productive feedback, in terms of how my blogging affects people personally. If it's too much for some, then that's good to know. Because I do really want to be effective in communicating what I understand to be the truth about the ways of our society, as well as my related thoughts and beliefs. It would probably do me well to know, and consider, my audience better.

So... I guess I'll leave it there.

My Best,
Berd