"I am Larry..."I'm from curly...Well, I'm from Moe "-How My Way or the rare time road works"

Religion is probably the most divisive thing that has ever happen to a more personal and true spirituality. It is religion that divides, not unites people, unless of course, it is ours against yours. Religion THRIVES on division or it would not thrive at all. In the Bible belt, new churches, which are spin offs of older churches , which themselves spun off of older churches , are the order of the day. Every month, it seems, there are new buildings popping up as offshoots of the true church, but these of course are more true than the reprobates they left. The reason most ministers or minister want to be's start new congregations is because they have had a falling out with the previous congregation and so he moves on to start his own church. Very often a new church is driven by a man who simply cannot work with others if he is not in charge. Since he can't be where he was, he will be where he is going. If he can stock the new church with some of the previous tithers, well he's got it made pretty darn quickly. The point is that the church multiplies by division and adds to itself by subtraction of members from other established churches, all too often. Convincing your people that those people are not THE people is an mind virus that leads to much heartache and violence in our worlds of religion and politics.

In many ways, it's not that the new church down the street is growing new converts, but rather enters the fray to siphon off those who already have a church they attend, with a snazzier building, better programs for the kids, easier parking or no rules on having to dress up. Some offer dinner Wednesday nights so you can have little if any excuse to not attend prayer meetings, bible studies or seminars. Some are personality driven and the members will tell you that you "simply must" hear Pastor so and so. I asked one woman who could not tell me enough reasons why I had to come hear their guru minister and see for myself why they are growing beyond their wildest dreams. I asked one woman who used that on me as a reason I simply needed to come to her church and I asked if the Church had a plan "B". She looked rather puzzled and asked what I meant by that. "Plan "B" is what you need to have in place when the guru is found to be living a double standard, wearing masks, possessing another side or runs off with the car, house and offering", I said. Well, that went over like a lead balloon and she assured me that nothing like that could ever happen with Pastor My Way or the Highway. This church is the first in town to spend member donations, or tithes on a massive fireworks show each year on the Fourth of July. Is that showmanship or what. I wonder if anyone questions sending thousands of dollars in money given as part of a spiritual practice, up in smoke over the course of 30 minutes. I guess the guru feels it draws an appropriate attention to his true church, which of course is more true and now more fun than the other but less true, true churches in the community.

Take the divisive, my religion is right and yours is wrong, events out of the news and what you would have left are just the ads from Wal-Mart and the funnies. Of course you'd also have a few hundred or thousand people a day that might get to live as well if the world of me vs. you, us vs. them and ours vs. yours was not up and running in human minds. "God Save Me From Your Followers" is pretty darn true in this time of line drawing and fundamentalism gone amuck. Take Islam, Christian and Jewish Fundamentalists out of the equation and you'd swear the real Jesus had returned and peace had finally come once we got rid of the damn peacemakers of religion. You have to know the code in fundamentalism. Peace means war. Love means we hate you. Conversion means or you die. Freedom means slavery to my beliefs. Compassion means I'll murder you quickly if you don't agree. Freedom of speech means if I approve of the message. And of freedom of religion means only specific ones. I wish the founding fathers had made a point that it was freedom from religion. But alas, someone at least needs to inform the fundies that freedom of religion means all religions and get off people's backs.

The Apostle Paul chides the Corinthians for sqwalling about "For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brothers, by those who are from Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now I mean this, that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos," "I follow Cephas," and, "I follow Christ."

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius,

15 so that no one should say that I had baptized you into my own name.

16 (I also baptized the household of Stephanas; besides them, I don't know whether I baptized any other.) I Cor 12.

The words always sounded great to me. I read them often and used them when needed to try to quell dissent in the congregation who were of this or that person. But alas, even Paul ended up cursing and damning those that didn't not do or think as he did. He cursed, right after he said he didn't and for others not to, those that believed other gospels and sometimes he was talking about James the brother of the Jewish Jesus who was messing up his own plans to win converts. Peter bashed Paul. Paul bashed Peter. James called out Paul to show one's grace by showing works, and Paul bashed James back by saying that works were just crap and it was faith alone. Of course Paul modified this from time to time, depending on the audience which was his custom of being all things to all men. Problem with that is he is a jew to a jew, a gentile to a gentile, a slave to a slave etc...what the heck does the guy really believe! Whatever it was at the time, if you didn't follow him, you were accursed, which sounds like something you might now want on your permanent record, to me.

When Shia's murder Sunni's and Sunni's murder Shia's and when Jews murder Palestianians as Palestinians do unto them, this is truly religion at it's worst. It is "I'm of Larry, I'm of Curly, I'm of Moe" at it's worst. I believe the mind would go numb and count it as a mere sanitation problem to know the number of people that have been killed in the name of the various "us vs them" factions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Christianity has, at times, made the world awash in the blood of the Lamb. I am personally growing tired of a world where atonement for some comes by execution of others.

This is my wish list of concepts I wish fundamentalists and those in government who feel there is only one way to be and it is theirs.

1. Leave people alone! If they don't agree with you or you with them, suck it up and go about your own business and don't feel obligated to mind their business for them.

2. Leave people alone! If your world view is not theirs, it's ok. You might be dead wrong anyway.

3. Leave people alone! If the laws they believe work for them or don't work for them or the ones you agree with are not the ones they agree with, butt out. We need general laws of common sense to run a civilized society. But some topics are better left as suggestions or choices. I know the word "choices" makes most fundamentalists go crazy, but life is also choices.

4. Leave people alone! If they don't like the way you define God, Christ, Allah, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Apollos, Larry, Curly, Moe or Shemp, live with it. He convinced against his will, which is what you guys are good at, is of the same opinion still. In other words, what looks like compliance to you is merely sitting on the outside but standing up on the inside. You might be intimidating and threatening, but you won't win with that. People are more resilient and truth wins over stupidity every time, eventually. The day will come when when Americans look back on this time and wonder how it was let so much go unchallenged and could have avoided the mess we soon will have to clean up when the causes move on proud, no doubt, of what they imagine they have accomplished.

5. Leave people alone! If their beliefs are not yours and their culture is not yours, so what. If they don't want your Wal-Mart mentality or a McDonalds next to their sacred shrine, go fly a kite. If they get provoked and come after you for your disrespect, you deserve what you get.

6. Leave people alone!

7. Once you have learned to leave people alone, then help them recover from your plans and intentions and then leave them alone again.

No one is going to find much peace until political and religious leadership, sometimes falsely so called, can break the craving and addiction they have to exercise their phoney power over others. It's not really us vs. them, me vs. you, our true way vs. your false way, our accurate worldview vs. your bogus one or our true God vs. your false one. We are all one and the same each having or not having their opportunities, religion, politic and mindset they have almost by the luck of the draw. Every individual human had NO say in where they were born or into what. We only have a say, or not depending on if we outgrow it or allow it to keep us bound tightly in tribal beliefs and group think. We're all here to learn and what a scary world it would truly be if there was only one way to be and think...only one teacher to believe. So how bout we try and get over that idea and give Larry, Curly, Moe and Shemp credit for being who they individually are. Oh...and did I say, leave people alone?

The works of the Bush doctrine

The Bush Doctrine works - when it is applied properly. It follows in the same path laid out by past US hegemonic aspirations at new world orders. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy [all Democrats]; and Reagan had their own doctrines. Past calls to reform the world or combat evil in various forms always involved moral clarity; military power; financial resources; and ultimately patience and intelligence. The Bush Doctrine, aimed at fascistic Islam, and 'draining the swamps' of the Middle East is no different.

The Bush Doctrine is of course much maligned. Criticism of the doctrine comes from all over the ideological map and most of the criticism is invalid. The media and educational establishments of course rejoice and report every dissenting view - but offer nothing in the place of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is the right way forward - but only if military might is used properly, which for 3.5 years in Iraq [as many of us knuckle dragging 'neo-cons' screamed], it was not.

What is the Bush Doctrine and why doesn't the media report what the doctrine is, in its entirety?

The Bush Doctrine is based on a realistic assessment of the challenge posed by radical Islam. It can best be summarised by a speech Bush gave on September 20th 2001: 'We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the twentieth century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value execpt the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends - in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.'

This is brilliant. In one paragraph Bush summarizes what is at hand with the radical elements of Islam. First, Islam is an ideology of 'will to power' [male Muslims must rule, Islam must dominate etc]; and is inherently fascist [no free will]. Second, Islam follows Nazism and Communism in its commitment to eradicate civilisation, justice, morality and the juridical personality. Third, Islam for all its murderous pagan energy, is doomed to failure - as long as we can recognise the ideology for what it is.

This one paragraph is the best short summation of what is at stake.

Now flowing from this rationale comes the Bush Doctrine. The doctrine itself rejects all previously inept and failed attempts to address, appease, rationalise or reason with Islam. For over 50 years, various US policies have tried and failed, to either modernise Islam, contain it, or seek an accommodation with it.

Various 'isms' - realism, liberalism, and internationalism primary among them - were tried and they failed. The Bush Doctrine broke with all past frameworks and adopted a new, and singularly logical plan to deal with Islam - use exogenous force to change radical, terror sponsoring Muslim regimes, their society, and ultimately their culture.

By definition the Bush Doctrine is ineluctably a military-based option. Military power, combined with economics, new pluralist democratic structures, and at some level, a new culture, must or at least has the potential to, refashion the states of the Middle East. It does not require a military occupation of every state, but only the key states which will form the basis for regional-wide change.

The Bush Doctrine is bold and risky - but ultimately right. As Bush said numerous times between 2001 and 2004 - usually on deaf media ears - you cannot wait until threats are imminent. By this he meant that terrorists and fascists usually don't write love letters to their victims identifying the time and place of the next tragic, murderous rampage. They usually just kill and talk later. In a compressed world of lethal weapons of all sizes and shapes, and with inter-continental logistics capability available to even the poorest of states, waiting around until murder strikes is simply an abdication of responsibility and ensures carnage.

The Bush Doctrine then is premised on pre-emptive strikes, an assertion of national privilege and security, and the belief that forcing democratic change onto the fascist regimes in the Islamic world, is the best hope for long term international peace. He is right. Every other policy tried by conservatives and liberals alike in the past 50 years, regarding Islam, has failed.

Realism and balance of power politics [play Iraq off against Iran for example], failed. There are many who whine that the US created Hussein or the Taliban for instance, in the American zeal to counter Russian Communism. Liberal internationalism in the guise of the UN, or endless diplomatic talking shops, have been useless endeavours, never once stopping Islamic terror and violence [see Israel as an example]. Appeasement and isolationism, as witnessed by Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983 after hundreds of US marines were killed by Hizbollah over a 6 month period involving multiple attacks; or Clinton's cowardly conduct in Somalia and East Africa, only emboldened the enemy.

So what else is left? Not much. You can't pull up the drawbridge and hide behind porous national borders. Neither can you outsource your foreign policy [as the US State department does] to the Europeans or the UN. Neither is trustworthy. With only a few countries possessing any military with power projection capability[France, Israel and the UK are the others]; the US is forced into unilateral action.

Invading and draining the swamp of Iraq is the right policy. If the US had used proper military force and fought the Iraq war to win, Iraq today would be stable. At least after 3 years they finally got the right ideas and the right generals to do what should have been done from day one. WMD has been found [along with sales of Hussein's stock identified, going to the Russians, various Arab states and Syria]. Iraqi terror financing has been halted. Iraq now has a government that is our ally. And radical Islam has most likely lost 60.000 men killed and scores more wounded. Iraq is a colossal defeat for the Islamists.

Along with the occupation of Afghanistan some notable things have happened. Iran is now encircled making an invasion certainly easier and quicker. The 'winds of change' are slowing blowing throughout the Middle East. The Arabs and Muslims now comprehend that the US is in the region to stay - and to reform. This significant fact means that further societal, cultural and economic changes will surely follow. The fight against Islam has been taken to the heartland of the Arab cult. The pschological effects on Islamic populations, of winning in Iraq and Afghanistan and challenging Iran directly, will be enormous.

Liberal internationalism, and the cult of politically correct Marxism, is a scam. There is nothing intelligent in ignoring reality and pretending that the world is a multi-cult paradise and that Islam means peace. Preposterous. It is also morally hypocritical.

US 'allies', excluding Britain, but including the weak militaries of most of the EU, and Canada did not join the US invasion of Iraq with any degree of force or military power, for the following reasons: 1. They possess no military. 2. The EU, Russia and China had business interests, including oil rights, worth billions per annum that could not be disturbed. 3. Iraq was the UNO's largest ever revenue program and the UNO stole about $21 billion in monies from this program over 10 years; and 4. Domestic politics in the socialist and relativist nations [each with sizeable Arab and Muslim lobby groups], means anti-Americanism pays off at the polls and in election campaigns. The opposition to the Iraq invasion was not based on moral grounds.

Islamic terror necessitates a multi-level, and complicated response - but it is still, as in times past, primarily a military and financial response which will ensure victory. Diplomacy without strength is useless. Since 9-11, 60.000 people have been killed in acts of Muslim violence and 90.000 wounded. This excludes Darfur and Iraq. The Bush Doctrine of 2001-2002 was right. Islam is the natural heir to the fascist-totalitarian ideologies of Nazism and Communism.

In the Middle East and elsewhere Islam has proven itself a failure and if not reformed, Islamic doctrine will only produce more fascist tyranny, hopeless economies and hate sated youth dying for martyrdom. Smashing directly or indirectly Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia which spend each, $500 million; $ 1-2 billion; and $3-4 billion respectively per annum in sponsoring terror and fascist Islam around the world, should be the number one foreign policy mandate of the West, after stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is nothing wrong with a crusading, imperialist policy. Especially if our national security is at risk. After all the Arabs under the banner of Islam, have been waging war against 'the others' for 1400 years. Acting like children will not make the nightmare go away. The Bush Doctrine is the mature and responsible heir to policies espoused by Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan. There is no other option.

The Bush Doctrine works - when it is applied properly. It follows in the same path laid out by past US hegemonic aspirations at new world orders. Visit online resource for Western civilization and Western enlightenment.