It's not the steps of Freedom that falter, they are immutable, it's us that fail to ascend... RBE

How can one not give this five stars - Archer did you get my retort?

I wonder what he would say about PTSD - though I'll still give him five stars even though he already has them.

BS61 yes, I will be leaving, like most who are intelligent, though there was a moment when I thought I would stay and fight but then I thought of people like you and decided it wasn't worth. I have pride in people and countries that deserve it and America has lost its integrity and its moral and ethical standing.

Vedapushpa, good comment!

Karl Marx was a saint in comparison...

So, you have all been here since 1861 AND done WHAT? What hypocrites you are - I suppose I can say that Christianity and Compassion go together like Hitler and Gandhi. And Capitalism and Liberty go together like Murdoch and the Dalai Lama. Oh, and by the way, when you did land here in America you killed off the Indians and stole all their land - what a nice bunch of people you are. What a history for a so called Christian nation. Mass extermination, slavery for 250 years, the overthrow of 50 democratically elected governments (and that since the end of WWll). O yes, what a wonderful country we have.

Unfortunately those with the thumbs down have not read Karl Marx "Das Kapital" and Friedrich Engels to appreciate this quote. If they had things may be different both here and in the rest of the country.

and nationalism!!!!!!!

Brilliant!!!

Yes, and there is quite a few others

Archer, at last I found my desk - please do not take my words to heart because I know you are a good fellow and have done much for your fellow beings - any personal statements take with a pinch of salt.

You too have made some very good points - so we continue. First, let me say that much of our respective comments are over semantics, so for the sake of brevity I have take points where I feel there is direct conflict, or not so harshly, where there is a difference of opinion.

Point 1. The separation of church and state (not philosophical thought): Though this was first mention by Thomas Jefferson the Supreme Court, since 1947, interpreted this to mean "religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it." Please tell me where they use the word 'Philosophical'. Not once have I mentioned the state to enforce any religion or philosophical doctrine. By the way, Buddhism is not a religion or a doctrine. Your remark that philosophy and its expression are often at odds with each other is a non-sequitur as philosophy is just a love of knowledge and a seeker for truth, it has nothing to do with the how individuals, including Spinoza, express their opinions.

Point 2. In your same paragraph you mention SELF, please let me enlighten you on the Buddhist interpretation of (great) SELF; though this topic is one of the hardest to understand it is central to the Buddhist way. First, it is not a physical or spiritual state - It is the way to enlightenment. The five Skandhas, let's call them buckets; form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, with regard to SELF are all empty. This SELF, the Atman, has nothing to do with the buckets with regard to self-improvement, self-esteem, and all the other individual "self's", etc. etc. those are all ego and actions. The SELF as taught by Buddhism is absolute, meaning it is empty of all thought and action and nothing can effect it. SELF is the most inner and ultimate state - it is the Universe, where there is no ego, no conflict, no me, and no suffering; conflict is what keeps us from enlightenment. Once you have reached Nirvana you are one with SELF (the Dhammakaya movement). The key here is that the state of SELF is difficult to understand and therefore even more difficult to explain. Even in the East there are two primary schools of thought on the subject of SELF. I believe the major difference between the Abrahamic religions and Buddhism is very simple; Abrahamic religions are judgmental, fearful, and need an intermediary where as Buddhist tradition is non-judgmental and all about self-attainment. Zen-Buddhism has a similar teaching with regard to the true SELF - a self without limits, invisible. The wonderful thing about Buddhism is that it doesn't tell you how to behave, it enlightens you, and the decision as to what path you take is yours. Ok, that's enough about Buddha, let's move on.

Point 3. Detachment - non-clinging: This is really very simple; first Detachment is NOT a philosophy it is the same as saying truth, love, honesty, attachment, they are all components within a particular philosophy but not a philosophy in itself. Detachment in this sense and this use is meant physically and mentally from materialism, ego, conflict, avarice, and so on. And, the last thing it could be associated with is a monastery with regard to it being an instrument for renunciation and a means to a world after death. Detachment is very much an action of the 'Now' of the 'Is'; in that sense it has power, otherwise, it is as dead as a door nail. Buddha was not a wondering sage, far from it, and he most definitely didn't want for anything. As far as producing nothing, it couldn't be further from the truth; the enlightenment and knowledge past onto his disciples was worth mountains of gold, if that's what you mean by producing. Buddha didn't need to live of the compassion and charity of others - he is compassion, he is charity. You summed it up perfectly when you said "metaphysical powers, thus not needing anything anyway." Buddha had no need to surrender to himself - when you are One you are One with everything.

Your third paragraph is full of enlightened truths and none more so than "it is already so." Empathy is rooted in compassion and is most pure through a total state of detachment. The greatest freedom of all is through detachment. Once mastered the chattels that tie you to Materialism vanish as if they were never there. Ego, conflict, avarice, and anger have gone. Suddenly, there is no need for compromise or Flexibility, they are no longer a decision.

As Socrates said "He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature." And in Zen it is the center of your being. Unfortunately, when reading the writings and thoughts of Buddha they can easily be taken out of context; for instance, when mentioning the word detachment it can so easily be mistaken for selfishness or a lack of concern for others, aloofness, and physically withdrawing, and compassion, on the other hand, for passiveness and inwardness. When reading Buddha Detachment and Compassion must be read in full context of the subject matter, otherwise, the reader may misinterpret the message. A layman sense was put well by Joseph Goldstein "This (compassion) isn't self-pity or pity for others. It's really feeling one's own pain and recognizing the pain of others. Seeing the web of suffering we're all entangled in, we become kind and compassionate to one another." And, this from Global Oneness, "According to Sri Aurobindo , when one withdraws from the turmoil of outer life, the evolving consciousness becomes centered and observant like a detached witness or sakshi . The witness state, sakshi bhav , is a continual disassociation from worldly desires and sense-identification. It is a state of neutrality that goes beyond body and mind to communicate with the spirit."

Point 4. Detachment is not renunciation, it is a state of self realization for another way. No, no, no, the world is not the illusion to escape from, it is our concept of the world which we need to be liberated from. Yes, we need to be liberated from the chattels of materialism and the swirling thoughts that keep us imprisoned. Each can attain this state, and each has the ability to experienced the power that liberates you from this world. The primary vehicle for this is meditation, through mediation you are more able to reach a state of freeing the conscience which is essential when communing with the SELF- It's the search for the supreme consciousness. The Tao Te Ching was written about the same time as Buddha and provides the basis for Taoism. It's primary message is that there is one individual truth at the root of all things.

Point 5. "Opiate of the masses," yes, perfect, we agree on that which is good. Wow! "and it is the truth that sets one free" we may be the only two that know that (lol). Yes, indeed they preach empathy and compassion and yet do not practice what they preach, just look at what recently occurred with Paladino who basically said that children must be kept away from gays and that they are dysfunctional - what a hypocrite watching pawn of the most debauched nature, has two families, and fathered a kid out of wedlock. This is only one example of hundreds that these zealots are responsible for. There are over a million children abused every year in America and 99.9% from a family setting. It has been documented that Gays who adopt children are the most cared for and well looked after than traditional adoptions.

As for the religious zealots, as you said, who preach "compassion and empathy" from the liturgical corridors of the faux news media and Sunday get-togethers, who then institutionalize their corrupt rhetoric in the halls of the America political machine. Archer, yes, very much less apparent (re; Buddhism) to the point of non-existence. Please inform me if you know of a source I could check if you feel I am mistaken.

Point 6. Meditation: I am very impressed that you spend 15-30 minutes twice a day in mediation, excellent. Even some of my most ardent Buddhist friends don't spend that much time mediation - well done.

Point 7. Liberation: This is a continued discussion with regard to classical liberalism and modern liberalism, my stand has always been Liberalism has never changed its primary goals - I think I provided evidence of this in on an earlier post. So, for want of repeating my self here it is again from the May blog: "First, let's do away with your immediate mistake of trying to classify Liberalism into any category your agenda desires - liberalism is not to be confused with socialism, conservatism, or progressivism - if anyone co-opted liberalism it was libertarians. From the early references to Liberalism, and Mises attempt to reinvent the wheel (laissez-faire liberalism), to today's understanding (by intellectuals), the core definition of liberalism remains the same. Many of the liberal ideals are similar to libertarians but for one major difference; social and welfare programs. Liberals believe in limited government; the people's right for freedom and happiness; freedom without recourse to believe in anything you wish, whether it be an almighty being, a God, or none at all; to have the right of assembly and the free representation of workers through unions (though a number of union organizations have been corrupted through greed and power at the beginning of the century). Many of the libertarian ideals have gotten us into this present mess such as free-trade, the deregulation of industry and the banking system (laissez-faire economics). In actual fact the republicans and the conservatives (on the right) have done as much for the liberal causes as the democratic party - the liberals won the twentieth century and yet only had a total of 19 years in power. Lastly on this point here are two definitions one from the start of Liberalsim and the other from today's Webster Dictionary: first; Half way into the 19th century Liberalism was defined (Webster's dictionary): One who advocates greater freedom from restraint; as a free heart; open and candid; munificent; not selfish, narrow or contracted; someone who embraces other interests than his own; embracing literature and science; depended more on the exertions of the mind rather than the playing fields. A liberal education is generally arts and science based - a long way from the present system of providing cannon fodder. And at the end of the 19th century liberalism was define (Webster's 1898 addition): One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters, an opponent of the establish systems; a reformer. Someone that considers all arguments without being either dogmatic or rigid of opinion (flexibility is the key here). And I love this one: A spirit that goes out of self, and finds its enjoyment in consulting the feelings and happiness of others. In other words a liberal is someone who believes in free opinion, equality, liberty, freedom, and someone who is generous and believes in the positive rewards of the arts and science. Lastly; Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1996 (Random House edition) defines liberalism as based on the ideals of the individual; free, generous and open handed, and of fair mind; one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms of ways. Archer, you call this classical liberalism, well, to a point you are correct, but what you sadly leave out of the equation is that these classical liberal traits are still the main core of what liberalism is today. As I have said before, I am Liberal and proud of it - there are a number of topics within the Liberal ideology that I disagree with, but not with its core principles. By the way, the English Oxford Dictionary is very much of the same definitions as above. For the last 150 years Liberalism has not change its definition. In actual fact the 1996 definition is closer to the 1893 definition than the later definitions. The key for you to understand this is to go back even further to how the word Liberal came about. Liberal late 14th c., from old French meaning 'benefitting free men from the Latin word liber meaning "free." So, even from its very birth the definition of Liberalism has not change one bit.

To say that the goals of a progressive liberal are the same as a prison warden is preposterous - where do you come up with such analogies? There is no connection whatsoever. I'm sorry Archer but that is not you. An agrarian way of life: yes, but the farmer needs roads, needs hospitals, needs, a market and million others things - is he responsible for providing those things of course not he shares those responsibilities. By the way an agrarian way is equal distributing land and I doubt very much if that's what you were referring to. Honestly, Archer your litany of things which a progressive liberal person would agree are ludicrous because they lack individual compassion and charity, instead you lump everyone together in some massive organization where there is no room for individualism - how wrong you are. You can still have many of the things you described under a progressive liberal without the need to have a totalitarian gamekeeper. Progressive liberalism stands for unalienable rights of the individual not their lack thereof. As our friend so well pointed out the word Liberal has its primary root in 'FREE' and a separation of church and state. I think equally rights for all Americans, the protection of the environment, a fair wage for a fair days work, Education for all children, health care for anyone who is in the confines of our sovereign state, a transportation infrastructure, shelter and food for those who have fallen on hard times, This is where criticism is unfounded with regard to classical and modern liberalism being different - the meaning of honesty, freedom, truth, trust, loyalty and so on are the same today as they were in the objective form a thousand years ago and same principle applies to Liberalism. It's politician's and those wishing to criticize and demean the historical meaning of liberalism by using their own interpretation that changes the meaning. Progressive means forward thinking, it also has a connotation of the word action which is an important aspect of progressivism, and actually getting off your ass and doing something about a situation which benefits those who are unable to voice their opinions or discontent. Classical means historically and the last thing Liberalism is is historic it means NOW today. I disagree with many academics on this issue and my comment here is only a very small version of my argument. To wrap this up, I think the primary problem with the definition of Liberalism is that the US and Europe have different views and interpretation on the meaning. It may be more correct to say American Liberalism and European liberalism and make the distinction there.

Your last point with regard to 'socialism is a means to communism' is misleading as suffice to say many intellectuals disagree with this statement, including me. So, I will not bore you with my argument. I suppose you are calling the state of Israel communists as they believe in the system of the Kibbutz where sharing is very much their philosophy - a form of collective community like socialism. I think before people who banter words about, like socialism, liberalism, communism, conservatism, libertarianism, should have a true understanding of their history before applying their own definitions. Unfortunately the medium of misinformation is rampant in the US, and understanding these primary socialistic meanings is misinterpreted, misrepresented, and often skewed by corporate propaganda who owns most of the news channels. Again you really make me laugh when you use progress and servitude in the same sentence, THEY ARE TOTALLY IN OPPOSITION TO EACH OTHER - where do you get this stuff from - you are far more intelligent than that - you must do it just to get me going. Now you are the one to say "I am not an animal to be domesticated like a beast of burden" - what a terrible implication you make. "I'm not to be controlled. I am not to be secured" - of course you are controlled and secured, just try stepping out of line in the US (and its getting worse under the teabaggers, the christofascists and right-wing fanatics) and you will either be tasered, put in prison, your house taken away, your car and stuff confiscated, and the list goes on. If you are destitute and have fallen on bad times of course I want a system to take care of you - hopefully that will never happen. Your friend, Robert

P.S. I don't see the people of America rioting in the streets because the government is not servant to the people where are their $%(*. In France they did and are doing so this very day. I'm sorry Sir, your interpretation of socialism has been totally skewed by your reading matter. Again, your friend, Robert

Love It!!!!!!!!!! So evident in today's political arena. Any threat from the non-establishment is quickly squashed by their paid whores and we all know who they are...

Again, its rhetorical...

Guy's, where do you come from? Of course absolute power is not the only form of corruption - Lord Acton could write a book on the rest - he did actually. Archer, please have patience, I have been away and just getting over the damn flu. I really do promise to have a response by tomorrow. Your friend,

Archer, please have patience, I have been away and just getting over the damn flu. I really do promise to have a response by tomorrow. Your friend,

Bedtime (and a book or two) - continue tomorrow

Archer, thank you. It's nearly 9pm. I was at a luncheon with Charlie Christ today and then onto a fund raiser for Equality Florida so would you mind terribly if I got your your thread in the morning. Thanks for you patience.

Obviously he didn't know about Diebold - when you have whores in the corridors of power and voting machines that are manipulated, one's vote no longer counts except to approve of the corrupt system we presently have in America. It's amazing, we call Chavez a dictator and yet he was elected by the people many times (on paper ballets) and American's think the good old USA is a democracy - what a joke. Now our covert operation in Ecuador and Bolivia is trying to overthrow Chavez - WHEN WILL AMERICANS WAKE UP to it's own third world status of corruption and demagoguery. Archer, I continued the thread... Jim, you are funny, don't you realize they all work for the same boss...

Archer, sorry for the delay getting back to you. As Annais Nin remarked: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Your last response was quite revealing and an insight more into your thinking than I have seen before. I'll try and cover all your points, but they were many. First, here is a Buddha quote which should precede all my comments: "Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world." Yes, you are correct, I do consider myself 'progressive liberal' (a belief in progress not the status quo and the freedom of all people and both having their origins in Rationalism); this begs the question, what is a Progressive Liberal? There are a number of definitions dating back to the Reformation period of the 16th century, and a plethora of great achievements such as women having the right to vote, and stopping child labor. But, this is my favorite and hones in of what I believe is meant by the term: Favoring proposals for reform and open to new ideas for progress, tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others, broad-minded, favors an arts and science education (a holistic education), and the political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society. Progressivism basically came about during the age of enlightenment (throughout the 18th cen.) which supported reform that provided the people with a more active role in their own well being and the administration of the government. What happened in America at the beginning of the century was the progressive movement that allowed workers a voice (brought about by the industrial revolution), after a number of years this initiative was severely damaged and subsequently squashed by conservatives and the wealthy corporations who did not want collective bargaining -- this didn't happen in most of Europe where the trade unions still exist -- an example of this is the way the unions where able to shut down France when the government tried to increase the age of social security. Progressivism believes in progress for the people first, in reforming government to rid it of unnecessary bureaucracy and corruption, a fair voting system, and to improve the quality of our society that benefits all People. Now onto socialism and fascism; I'm not going to dwell long on these two subjects but suffice to say I will provide an abridged version. By the way, I commented on this back in mid-August -- it was a lengthy discourse we had. Socialism had its roots in the working class movement (late 19th cen.) that was being abused by its corporate masters (both by a fair wage and their working conditions). Isn't the means for production (Karl Marx) owned collectively even more so today -- the military, the banks, the housing industry, social security, Medicare and Medicaid, the infrastructure, the educational system, farming hand-outs, our city, county, state, and federal governments, and the list goes on. Nearly 70% of each tax dollar is spent on (socialism) collective resources. And Americans have the nerve to denounce a system they support, either directly or indirectly through their government, there is something terribly wrong here. We even have a stronger socialist program for the wealthy with very small taxes. I believe on average corporations only pay five percent in taxes and many none at all, because they have offshore companies -- the system stinks. Socialism is not new to the 19th century, Plato's Republic and Thomas Moore's Utopia both discussed the subject. Robert Owen was one of the founders of modern socialism and father of the cooperative movement in the early 1800's. John Ball one of the leaders of the peasant's revolt (1381) could be given the title of the first true socialist. But of course we all know that anyone who wanted to free the people from the chains of slavery could be called a socialist -- during the mid 1800's socialism and communism were in conflict and up to today remain so. I am proud to be called a socialist -- I am in GREAT company. Capitalism can only work under a socialist state. Much of the rest of your comment concerned a more atheistic nature; what is good behavior, what is faith, what is freedom, what is liberty, what is suffering, most can be answered by Buddha "The whole secret of existence is to have no fear." Archer, indeed you are nearly there on the road to remove suffering -- here is where we stop because words like suffering are abused and wrongly placed, instead we will revert to the true essence Dukka. To understand Buddha you must first understand the meaning of Dukka, and then all other words become dust to the wind. You use words like "'this isn't it' syndrome" forget these isms and travel into the Self. You come close when talking about self discipline, for self discipline is the staring point of freedom and joy -- there is no desire, desire only takes you away from the truth, away from happiness, and away from freedom. DON'T have faith, you are faith, and it's not something you pull off a shelf or wake up one day and say I have faith. This is why compassion and empathy are the essence of Buddhism: "Believe nothing, merely because you have been told it . . . or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide." What Buddha is saying here is what really matters is your understanding of the situation, the NOW, through your heart, through your goodness; and, if you believe it cling to it and take it as your guide. Lastly, the way to the 'One' is through detachment and meditation -- the first component of Dukka is to live according to universal law (Dharma) that governs both the physical and the moral order of the universe. The second is meditation; this provides an understanding of the true nature of existence. And lastly, WISDOM, this is the realization that everything is transient -- everything is silenced; the ego has gone so as the noise, desires, and clutter of the mind. There is a lasting peace, a lasting feeling of contentment -- no more reward, no more gratification. Your last point about forcing others is as far from my culture than the moon is from the sun. I have always taken the Buddha philosophy where that is concerned (see the above quote). What indeed does the word Upanishad means -- sitting down near -- (the guru) in this respect those incredible Upanishads opened doors to let in the light -- only through enlightenment can there be peace in the mind and body. You mention Zen (good). There is a good book of a collection of talks given in Europe and America called 'The Essence of Zen' by the Zen master Sekkei Harada -- you can buy it for less than $10 on Amazon. I would rather you read this than me telling you second-hand my views with regard to Zen -- move from the small-self to the true SELF. I will look up the Zen tales and the audio files from Alan Watts. Respectfully, RBE

Archer, I have just finished dinner with friends and I am tired but thought such a beautiful response deserves a reply regardless of the time. Please bear with me and await my retort until tomorrow.

Archer, you keep replying without answering my questions and until you can be honest in your rhetoric is very difficult to have a sensible and intelligent conversation - you continually go off into your condemnation of what you think I am saying and stand for which is based on your own thoughts and not mine. My comments will support ANY regime, government, religion, that I believe (not the collective) to be honest and fair. You may call me a socialist and that's fine too, but the point I am making is that is where your problem lies - my views at this moment may support certain socialistic philosophies but that doesn't give you the right to label willy-nilly anyone with a socialist view point. Yes, I am very much into the Buddhist way as they believe in the moment and not a baggage of thoughts and ideas that clutter the mind - the very essence of Buddhism is compassion and empathy, as is mine. The end of suffering through enlightenment. The essence is shown through the four noble truths which basically are the cessation of suffering. And by the way, you were the one to say you are whole and complete not me, even though I may think I am (there is still a long way/road to go on that front). For your edification I have linked a free copy of the Essence of Buddhism: http://www.blpusa.com/download/bies03.pdf Yes, you are spot on with your tree analogy: Holistic is exactly that, WHOLE - a oneness. That's why when we hurt one person it effects the whole of humanity. I hope this helps.

Yes, Archer, we need to get back to local governance, etc, etc, Archer, I did reply to your comment.

Archer, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Wow! to be whole and complete, that's quite an achievement. To be whole and complete is a holistic characteristic not found in too many people. The ability and abundance you mention is not necessarily one of subsistence but more importantly one of Self, one of love for all sentient beings, and one of pure compassion and empathy. There are many tales of those who have given the shirt off their backs and it is this sentiment that I was referring to in my earlier comment. Archer, I must correct you, I never said that you must give to my causes I would be that naive or foolish - it was a rhetorical statement not one of fact. Secondly, I did not say your causes are selfish I said that your comments may be seen as selfish. I know your heart goes out to those less fortunate. The tripartite theory of knowledge is certainly taxed at this point. You are also incorrect when you say I wish my causes to be compelled by government (just fro the record, where did I say that?). I too live in NYC for a short time and know well the circumstance you refer too. Where there is injustice there is no amount of defense that one's own conscience can condone - the smallest act of kindness can sometimes be your greatest reward. Archer, I do not believe you meant what you said "Should I take from my table and give to them who live sufficiently off the refuse in the streets?" YES, if you are so inclined, but NO, if you are not. Why make this personal comment - one's inference is not directed at you but to the understanding you have of my words. "People who have given us their complete confidence believe that they have a right to ours. The inference is false, a gift confers no rights" Nietzsche. This is not about me and you, we are so insignificant compared to the bigger picture, so, don't feel substandard. It looks like we both have the same heartfelt compassion no one is greater than the other. Your comments with regard to taking away from those who have to those who don't needs working on. There are many factors in this scenario like the French Revolution like the taxes in England during its period of great wealth when the gentry actually wanted to be taxed at 70% because of the disparity in the distribution of wealth. Wealth is a subject for another occasion as it's contours reach into every crevice. Lastly, on that point, they are not my objects of benevolence but the object of all those who wish to breach this gap of disparity and depravity. What do you consider to be your pearls, your wealth, your materialism; really, Archer that is not you. It's not the Swine we need to worry about but those who keep them. Your view regarding "the rest of us" is very simplistic (now, I'm not saying you are simplistic but your view on this subject is). Why the hell do you think we have agencies to help those less fortunate? we give to those agencies like my friends and I did last week to help Gay teenagers on the verge of committing suicide - the list is endless but we have to pick and choose which ones we can afford to help. I too do not give a dime to either Bush or Obama with regards to humanitarian aid. I am a Rotarian and we give our hearts before we give money, we give our labor, we give our experience and if we have money over we give that too. And, in some case we give money we don't have over. I do not have the wealth to travel to Africa and give money personally to a village so they can dig a well for clean drinking water but instead I give to Rotary who can pool our resources and achieve our collective goals. My reason for mentioning this is not for any gratitude but to explain that there are agencies that can do a much better job with my donation than I can by myself. My friends and I raised $57k for Katrina and gave the money to the Red Cross - so there are needs for these 501c3 agencies that are equipped to handle situation better than individuals. Lastly, I don't condemn Christianity I condemn most Christians who Christ would throw out of the temple. Like Gandhi said "I like your Christ but not your Christians". Loving everybody is not the question, what is the question is that your heart has love. Though I do not possess the wisdom and fortitude to love everyone one, I make the effort, and it is the effort that is the most important factor in this equation. Carlton and Archer, you both mention about dying for your family - I think that goes without saying. An interesting observation is this (until death do us part) was the very reason for the Phalanx, and why the Celts allowed their women to fight by their side.

Good point Carlton. Though it begs a retort, re; an example of putting your own safety above your own "see first to your own well being" if a ship sinks my own well being would be to grab the first piece of wood and hang on for dear life, but, as we know you and I wouldn't do that, we would rescue those who floundering and need assistance and then and only then when we are totally exhausted and on the verge of drowning we would think of ourselves.