What would be an "Advanced Civilization?" I seem to recall a definition of civilization that includes domesticated plants and animals-our presend day machines are also important. I would guess that the future will include organization based on networking, both of institutions and individuals. The economy may be organized largely aroundautomation, which will have social implications. Biotechnology in general may have significant impact.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2001-12-01 15:51 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2001-12-01 15:54 ]</font>

I read in the paper that Ashcroft wants to allow the FBI to spy on groups again. And on TV, Bush's military tribunals have a 68% popularity, IIRC.
BTW, any bets when this topic will pass up the old forum record of 2819 (sex-scandels-politics-turnins)? If the authors had started this thread at once instead of waiting a couple days, we might be almost there (if you put in the posts in the Is the 4T Coming? thread).

On 2001-12-01 10:19, madscientist wrote:
Hydrogen if safe as long as it is stored a liquid form in a container to keep it from interacting with oxygen.

Did some design work on hydrogen storage units. Hydrogen can be stored as a 'liquid' only by supercooling and/or pressurizing it. Even then, one of the biggest problems storing it is that it tends to leak through whatever tank you put it in. Leaking hydrogen into the atmosphere is pretty unsafe. In fact, one of the major (current) advantages of petrochemical fuels is that they can be stored in an airtight container pretty much indefinitely. That makes them very safe to transport.

That said, some very impressive things are being done with microscale silica spheres and graphite matrices. I believe DaimlerChrysler is working on a catalytic membrane for releasing the hydrogen from methane, butane, or propane. This would let you store and transport the hydrogen fuel in a somewhat more secure form, and still burn only pure hydrogen (I'm guessing you'd need to clean the carbon out of the cells from time to time as well.


Just my technical addition ... now back to the topic!

The author believes that 911 was the catalyst for WW III: the "war against religious totalitarianism."

(For info and discussion purposes only)

http://www.iht.com/articles/40194.html

World War III Is Against Religious Totalitarianism

Thomas L. Friedman The New York Times

Wednesday, November 28, 2001

WASHINGTON If Sept. 11 was indeed the onset of World War III, the anti-terror coalition has to understand what this war is about. It is not fighting to eradicate "terrorism." Terrorism is just a tool. It is fighting to defeat an ideology: religious totalitarianism. World War II and the Cold War were fought to defeat secular totalitarianism - Nazism and communism - and World War III is a battle against religious totalitarianism, a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated. That's bin Ladenism.
.
But unlike Nazism, religious totalitarianism can't be fought by armies alone. It has to be fought in schools, mosques, churches and synagogues, and can be defeated only with the help of imams, rabbis and priests.
.
The generals needed to fight this war are people like Rabbi David Hartman, from the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.
.
What first attracted me to Rabbi Hartman when I reported from Jerusalem was his contention that unless Jews reinterpreted their faith in a way that embraced modernity, without weakening religious passion, and in a way that affirmed that God speaks multiple languages and is not exhausted by just one faith, they would have no future in the land of Israel.
.
And what also impressed me was that he knew where the battlefield was. He set up his own schools in Israel to compete with fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians, who used their schools to preach exclusivist religious visions.
.
After recently visiting the Islamic madrasa in Pakistan where many Taliban leaders were educated, and seeing the fundamentalist religious education the young boys there were being given, I telephoned Rabbi Hartman and asked: How do we battle religious totalitarianism?
.
He answered: "All faiths that come out of the biblical tradition - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - have the tendency to believe that they have the exclusive truth. When the Taliban wiped out the Buddhist statues, that's what they were saying. But others have said it, too.
.
"The opposite of religious totalitarianism is an ideology of pluralism - an ideology that embraces religious diversity and the idea that my faith can be nurtured without claiming exclusive truth. America is the Mecca of that ideology, and that is what bin Laden hates and that is why America had to be destroyed."
.
The future of the world may well be decided by how we fight this war. Can Islam, Christianity and Judaism know that God speaks Arabic on Fridays, Hebrew on Saturdays and Latin on Sundays, and that he welcomes different human beings approaching him through their own history, out of their language and cultural heritage? .
.
Many Jews and Christians have gone back to their sacred texts to reinterpret their traditions to embrace modernity and pluralism, and to create space for secularism and alternative faiths. Others - Christian and Jewish fundamentalists - have rejected this notion, and that is what the battle is about within their faiths.
.
What is different about Islam is that while there have been a few attempts at such a reformation, none have flowered or found the support of a Muslim state.
.
Non-Muslims patronize Islam, and mislead themselves, by repeating the mantra that Islam is a faith with no serious problems accepting the secular West, modernity and pluralism, and the only problem is a few bin Ladens.
.
Although there is a deep moral impulse in Islam for justice, charity and compassion, Islam has not developed a dominant religious philosophy that allows equal recognition of alternative faiths. Bin Laden reflects the most extreme version of that exclusivity.
.
Christianity and Judaism struggled with this issue for centuries, but a similar struggle within Islam to re-examine its texts and articulate a path for how one can accept pluralism and modernity - and still be a passionate, devout Muslim - has not surfaced in a serious way. One hopes that now that the world spotlight has been put on this issue, mainstream Muslims, too, will realize that their future in this integrated, globalized world depends on their ability to reinterpret their past.

It is very possible that we can run into World War III. However, if this is WWIII, then there will be many issues. Of course, there is the war against religious extremism. This will be one moral aspect of the war. Another moral aspect is terrorism.

However, I think that such a war will do to the United States, Russia, and China what World War II did to Japan and Western Europe, which is to abolish the empires. These three powers have become large enough that they begin to eat themselves from within.

While some people think that World War III will be one of religions, I think that World War III will be a war based upon economics. There is no way an oil-based economy could survive such a war, especially with shortages. The issue of the previous 4T was the one of socialism. There was pyramidal dictatorial state socialism in the form of communism, and there was nationalistic corporatate socialism which was known as fascism. FDR did the smart thing by using segments of both to form a new order. In doing so, he prevented a fascist or communist revolution. Laissez-faire socialism started in the 1890s, and the previous 4T finished this trend. The 1T of this saeculum saw corporate and state socialism. The 2T tried to break down this institutional socialism. The 3T tried to build a market, but it quickly turned into corporate socialism. The 4T could eradicate many of these types of socialism. If so, then a new grass-roots inverted form of socialism could appear, where the socialism is not at top-down, but bottom-up. This could mean a community based economics. In many ways, this is the vision of the Green Party. It could eradicate socialism in all forms, and form a truly libertarian society, but this is also unlikely. Whatever it will be, it surely will be interesting.

Stonewall Patton,

Those article by Thomas L. Friedman sums the essence of the conflict that has started with the 911 attack. It is a war against all religious fundamentalists who attack the ideal secular pluralism. We must crush these people, who come from all faiths.

In a way all those people who preach that judeo-chirstian morality in laws regarding things like Abortion, homosexual rights etc. Should be regarded as the enemy in a way, because most of them deny the ideal of a society based on secular pluralism. Basically in a far more milder way they share the same totalising world view as Osama Bin Laden of their faith and it's ideals are the right way to follow and all others are the work of the devil.

The cultural conflict of the unravelling has been between religious fundamentalists and pluralists. Maybe it is no surprise that the 'war on terrorism' is part of that greater struggle, I have described above.

For a left-winger, even a moderate one to express such views to hesrey, because my fellow comrades bevelie that my views on the subject are nuts. That other left winger Christopher Hitchens got himself into a lot of criticism, by his comrades when he expressed the same viewpoint, maybe I am logical and rational after all. Like fellow left wingers, I criticise the religious fundamentalists who oppose secular pluralism at home and at aboard.

Tristan:

What you write has merit. This really is a troubling dispute because it does not cut cleanly across political lines: it divides people who are otherwise on the same card. There is a lot of emotion on both sides which is entirely justified. But the dispute will not begin to be settled until people allow reason to supplant emotion -- and I do think this is happening more and more. Let's take a quick look at the course of this dispute in the US through this cycle:

1T: Stable, forced conformity with adherence to Judeo-Christian morality.

2T: Justified emotional response to forced conformity, stifling morality, and intellectual sterility of 1T. But this response was emotional nonetheless and constituted an unsatisfactory response to the 1T. Instead of righting any perceived wrongs of the 1T, rebels of the 2T committed the same wrongs themselves. Instead of pushing for a true, fair and impartial pluralism, they advocated toleration for all non-Christians while subduing Christians. Again, it was an emotional response, not a reasoned response. And Christians, instead of being included in pluralism, were targeted for exclusion out of a desire for revenge.

3T: This one I am not settled on. But my sense off the cuff is that the improper emotionalism of the pluralists began giving way to a proper reasoned response, and simultaneously a more reasoned and proper fundamentalist response became increasingly emotional and improper. At the end of the 3T, we see the pluralists largely overcoming their earlier emotionalism and increasingly advocating toleration for all, including Christians. Simultaneously, we see fundamentalists abandoning the moral high ground they earlier held in calling for toleration, and now emotionally seeking rigid control in making all conform to whatever arbitrary interpretation of Scripture they wish to impose. The sides have reversed. At the end of the 3T, pluralists hold the moral high ground which fundamentalists held at the beginning of the 3T. This is overly general but I believe it reflects the real trends.


There is much more which can be said about this. For one thing, we now have an Attorney General who is proudly Christian (which is a good and noble thing) who is willfully playing a key role in implementing a Gestapo on American soil, seemingly blind to the inherent conflict between the evil he is perpetrating and Christ's teachings. But the silver lining is that he is in fact a Christian and may suddenly wake up, lose sight of the trees, and take note of the forest before it is too late. Because he is a Christian, there is hope that he may wake up and speak out forcefully against the evil this administration is committing.

But the point is that this is our lot if we reject the pluralism and religious toleration which the founding fathers desired. One interpretation will be imposed from the top -- just as with the Taliban -- and any one rule which is not subject to challenge is fertile ground for corruption as the Catholic Church was in the Middle Ages. Thankfully, those like Martin Luther stuck their necks out -- literally -- and spoke out, and the pluralism which ensued encouraged the Catholic Church to right its wrongs.

A man does not need a Bible to know right from wrong. In contemplating any selfish act affecting others, he is instantly conscious of the fact that he would not want another to commit the same on him -- and this awareness of our own hypocrisy is the root of all morality. The Bible merely codifies the truth which is already within us, arguably placed there by God. The trouble comes when interpretation of Scripture which has been filtered through four different languages conflicts with, and is allowed to trump, the truth we feel within us. For example, should homosexuals who violate no one's rights be burned at the stake? Or seeing as they violate no one's rights, should they be answerable only to God? Which one of these is truly more consistent with the general theme of Christian teaching?

For our own good, we best continue the fight for religious toleration and pluralism which the founding fathers began. No flawed mortal man is competent to speak for God. If all are forced to accept his personal interpretation, and if he unwittingly errs in his judgment and commits his soul to hell, then he takes a whole lot of innocents with him when he goes. This must not stand. And why this truth is lost on so many is beyond me.

Below is an example of the unfortunate dispute which I referenced. Joseph Farah is strongly libertarian all the way around. But as you can see in the column, he instantly grabs hold of Scripture as the basis for all morality as if an individual in a Stone Age tribe somewhere who has never heard of the Bible is helpless to be moral without it. This conflict is a serious problem between like-minded people. And I sincerely hope it can be resolved. BTW, the article is specifically a response to the Friedman's article above:


(For info and discussion purposes only)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=25532

The unreal war

? 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

I seldom respond in this column to what other commentators write. In fact, truth be told, I seldom read other columnists. But, occasionally, I see something that cries out for response.

Such is the case of a New York Times column called "The real war," by Thomas L. Friedman.

It's worth a response for several reasons: Like it or not, the New York Times still has influence ? at least in Washington, where, like it or not, public policy decisions for this great country are still made. What Friedman writes is so dangerous and so wrong-headed that someone with common sense needs to take it on. And, lastly, the New York Times will never allow anyone equal space to answer Friedman.

Friedman begins his column by explaining that the war we are fighting is not really against "terrorism" but an ideology ? a point I have made repeatedly here since Sept. 11. But just as quickly as he states the obvious, he goes astray ? wildly astray.

The ideology we are fighting, according to Friedman, is not Islamism; instead it is "religious totalitarianism."

What is "religious totalitarianism"?

It is, Friedman writes, "a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated."

He continues by explaining that the opposite of religious totalitarianism is pluralism. America, he and those he quotes, say America is the Mecca of that ideology ? and that is why Osama bin Laden hates us so.

Of course, Friedman is dead wrong.

The ideology Friedman calls "pluralism" is actually a religious view more accurately called "secular humanism." It doesn't, as he suggests, "embrace religious diversity," but instead attempts to impose its own religious ideology on the world in the name of "pluralism."

It is every bit as intolerant as bin Ladenism. Humanism does tend to embrace religious diversity unless it comes in the form of biblical Christianity or biblical Judaism. This "pluralism" Friedman and the New York Times worship is one of the reasons America was blindsided Sept. 11. It couldn't see the threat coming despite repeated warnings, despite declarations of holy war by bin Laden and others. This "pluralism," of which Friedman writes, will be the death of America ? faster, swifter and more sure than anything bin Laden could ever deliver.

That's not to say it isn't great that America protects the right of every citizen to worship as he or she sees fit. That is true pluralism, not the official religion Friedman would impose on Americans. The true pluralism is a hand-me-down from American history. We are a nation founded by people seeking freedom of worship. They were fleeing state churches in Europe. They were true Christians following the Bible, not the "religious totalitarianism" of the state churches. That legacy provided the freedoms we have enjoyed for more than 200 years in this country.

Whether he realizes it or not, what Friedman actually did in his essay is declare war on Christianity ? including the very biblical Christianity responsible for the true pluralistic society America established under the authorship of the founders. More specifically, he declared his own humanistic jihad on Jesus Christ Himself.

By Friedman's definition, Christ would have to be characterized as a "religious totalitarian," because it was Christ who said in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Jesus didn't say there were other ways to heaven ? just one.

Friedman is also indicting Orthodox Judaism ? and, this time, he does know it. He refers condescendingly to "fundamentalist Jews" who use their schools "to preach exclusivist religious visions." How dreadful! You see, for Friedman, the war we are fighting is not against terrorism, nor is it against Islamism. It is, rather, against all religious dogma that preaches an "exclusivist vision" ? which is, of course, all of the major monotheistic faiths and a few others for good measure.

What he doesn't see so clearly, of course, is that his own phony pluralism is, in effect, as totalitarian, as exclusivist and as dangerous as bin Ladenism.

It is, after all, the same humanist ideology responsible for the biggest holocausts of the 20th century ? those brought on by the atheistic totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union, China and Nazi Germany.

I know that's not what Friedman has in mind when he talks about his phony "pluralism" based on nothing but good vibes. But that's where it leads ? inevitably, inexorably, inescapably.

On 2001-12-04 12:58, Stonewall Patton wrote:

There is much more which can be said about this. For one thing, we now have an Attorney General who is proudly Christian (which is a good and noble thing) who is willfully playing a key role in implementing a Gestapo on American soil, seemingly blind to the inherent conflict between the evil he is perpetrating and Christ's teachings. But the silver lining is that he is in fact a Christian and may suddenly wake up, lose sight of the trees, and take note of the forest before it is too late. Because he is a Christian, there is hope that he may wake up and speak out forcefully against the evil this administration is committing.

I would not hold my breath, Mr. Patton.

Below is an example of the unfortunate dispute which I referenced. Joseph Farah is strongly libertarian all the way around. But as you can see in the column, he instantly grabs hold of Scripture as the basis for all morality as if an individual in a Stone Age tribe somewhere who has never heard of the Bible is helpless to be moral without it. This conflict is a serious problem between like-minded people. And I sincerely hope it can be resolved. BTW, the article is specifically a response to the Friedman's article above:


(For info and discussion purposes only)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=25532

The unreal war

? 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

I seldom respond in this column to what other commentators write. In fact, truth be told, I seldom read other columnists. But, occasionally, I see something that cries out for response.

Such is the case of a New York Times column called "The real war," by Thomas L. Friedman.

It's worth a response for several reasons: Like it or not, the New York Times still has influence ? at least in Washington, where, like it or not, public policy decisions for this great country are still made. What Friedman writes is so dangerous and so wrong-headed that someone with common sense needs to take it on. And, lastly, the New York Times will never allow anyone equal space to answer Friedman.

Paranoid, right off the bat.

Friedman begins his column by explaining that the war we are fighting is not really against "terrorism" but an ideology ? a point I have made repeatedly here since Sept. 11. But just as quickly as he states the obvious, he goes astray ? wildly astray.

The ideology we are fighting, according to Friedman, is not Islamism; instead it is "religious totalitarianism."

What is "religious totalitarianism"?

It is, Friedman writes, "a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated."

Seems clear enough to me.

He continues by explaining that the opposite of religious totalitarianism is pluralism. America, he and those he quotes, say America is the Mecca of that ideology ? and that is why Osama bin Laden hates us so.

Of course, Friedman is dead wrong.

The ideology Friedman calls "pluralism" is actually a religious view more accurately called "secular humanism." It doesn't, as he suggests, "embrace religious diversity," but instead attempts to impose its own religious ideology on the world in the name of "pluralism."

Incorrect, Mr. Farah. "Pluralism" allows all views to be held and expressed, including those of fundamentalists. If "religious totalitarians" were in charge, I have no doubt that they would move quickly to squash other religious practices. You need look no further than the Taliban.

I'm always amused when these guys throw out the "secular humanist" label so freely. So if I'm tolerant of other faiths, that makes me a secular humanist? That's laughable.

It is every bit as intolerant as bin Ladenism. Humanism does tend to embrace religious diversity unless it comes in the form of biblical Christianity or biblical Judaism.

No, only when you guys try to force it down the throats of the rest of us.

This "pluralism" Friedman and the New York Times worship is one of the reasons America was blindsided Sept. 11. It couldn't see the threat coming despite repeated warnings, despite declarations of holy war by bin Laden and others.

I fail to see this connection at all. Sure, we may have been dim about bin Laden, but what the hell does it have to do with religion? I chalk it up to plain old American naivete about the world, plus the fact that we were all busy chasing OJ, Monica, and Gary for so long.

This "pluralism," of which Friedman writes, will be the death of America ? faster, swifter and more sure than anything bin Laden could ever deliver.

Maybe in the sense that the 4T is a death and rebirth, I'll agree with him. :wink:

That's not to say it isn't great that America protects the right of every citizen to worship as he or she sees fit. That is true pluralism, not the official religion Friedman would impose on Americans. The true pluralism is a hand-me-down from American history. We are a nation founded by people seeking freedom of worship. They were fleeing state churches in Europe. They were true Christians following the Bible, not the "religious totalitarianism" of the state churches. That legacy provided the freedoms we have enjoyed for more than 200 years in this country.

Whether he realizes it or not, what Friedman actually did in his essay is declare war on Christianity ? including the very biblical Christianity responsible for the true pluralistic society America established under the authorship of the founders. More specifically, he declared his own humanistic jihad on Jesus Christ Himself.

Mr Farah, meet Mr. Osama bin Laden.

Kiff '61

On 2001-12-04 14:34, Kiff '61 wrote:
Incorrect, Mr. Farah. "Pluralism" allows all views to be held and expressed, including those of fundamentalists. If "religious totalitarians" were in charge, I have no doubt that they would move quickly to squash other religious practices.

True Christianity is not what the media makes it to be. It is beyond both Pluralism and Totalitarianism.

Luke 22:50-51 When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

But Jesus answerd, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

I personally do not find everybody with "extremist" beliefs to be offensive. I am comfortable enough in my own certainties and uncertanties to not feel threatened.

After all, there are people who love their god extremely passionately and intensely. More power to 'em I say. I hope they see they light.

Can they enforce their morality on me? Sure they can, as long they do so morally. :wink: The basis of law is to (1) do good and (2) prevent harm. These are just and moral ends. How or why someone is motivated to be moral (ie., by their free practice of religion) should be of no concern to us.

On 2001-12-04 12:58, Stonewall Patton wrote:
...
(written by Joseph Farah)It is, after all, the same humanist ideology responsible for the biggest holocausts of the 20th century ? those brought on by the atheistic totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union, China and Nazi Germany.

It looks like Mr. Farah can't make a few simple distinctions between ideologies.

First of all, Stalinism, and Maoism, Leninism, Nazism, and these other ideologies are not based upon humanism. One of the few universal principles of humanism is free inquiry. That means that no matter what form of humanism you live by (secular humanism, Christian humanism, transhumanism, progressive humanism, etc.), that basic principle is at the very root of being a humanist. You cannot be a humanist without free inquiry. Removing free inquiry from humanism is like removing Jesus from Christianity (and I am not overstating this either). Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Nazism all lacked this basic principle.

Farah's response, IMHO, was a direct insult to America. Sure, the Puritans were not humanists, and this is true. But what Farah somehow forgets to say is that the Puritans were also very intolerant. They were intolerant of anyone who didn't adhere to their strict Puritan beliefs. Believers of other denominations were persecuted in Puritan America. I don't see any "plurality" in this.

Remember that humanism does not equal atheism, as there are many Christian, Muslim, Jewist, Buddhists, etc. humanists. The founding fathers WERE humanists, whether or not they were deists or Christians.

Farah is trying to make this into a religious debate, but the issue is not religion. The issue is totalitarianism. Yes, the Soviet Union was an atheist regime, but was as humanist as the Taliban (which, is to say, zero).

Totalitarianism and intolerance comes when you are not free to think for yourself, or express yourself. That is what religious extremism, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union have in common.

On 2001-12-04 15:18, Dave'71 wrote:

On 2001-12-04 14:34, Kiff '61 wrote:
Incorrect, Mr. Farah. "Pluralism" allows all views to be held and expressed, including those of fundamentalists. If "religious totalitarians" were in charge, I have no doubt that they would move quickly to squash other religious practices.

True Christianity is not what the media makes it to be. It is beyond both Pluralism and Totalitarianism.

Luke 22:50-51 When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

But Jesus answerd, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

Agreed, Dave. It is sad that so many people who claim to follow Christ have strayed so far from his message.

Kiff '61

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are
extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their
cause, but what they say about their opponents." Robert Kennedy

I think what Friedman wrote is quite laudable. What he was referring to has nothing to do with either humanism or athiesm. As Friedman writes

He answered: "All faiths that come out of the biblical tradition - Judaism, Christianity and Islam -
have the tendency to believe that they have the exclusive truth. When the Taliban wiped out the
Buddhist statues, that's what they were saying. But others have said it, too.

"The opposite of religious totalitarianism is an ideology of pluralism - an ideology that embraces
religious diversity and the idea that my faith can be nurtured without claiming exclusive truth.
America is the Mecca of that ideology, and that is what bin Laden hates and that is why America
had to be destroyed."

I think what Friedman is saying embraces the idea of religion, even devout observance and devout faith, but without the claim of exclusive empirical or scientific truth. Part of the problem that gets lost in the debates between differing religions or between religion and science, such as the evolution debate, is that religion is neither provable or disprovable. Thus it is really a form of speculation that may or may not be true. If there are a series of possible guesses to a question but none have been strongly proven then, as the old saying goes, "my guess is as good as yours." So you can believe that your religion is the only true religion and that all others are false- that's not what Friedman is aguing with. What he is arguing with is the concept that God only hears people of one faith. THAT is a dangerous concept. And it is a concept that traditional religion repudiates, nothwithstanding the skewed interpretation of texts by some religio-totalitarians. In the Old Testament there is the story of Jonah who is urged to bring news of the need for repentance to the evil people of Nineveh. Indeed, God heard their prayers before that of the Israelites and he later used Nineveh to punish Israel and Judea. In the New Testament, there is the story of the Good Samaritan who was regarded as a heretic by Jesus's Jewish contemporaries including even his disciples. In the Quran there are numerous quotes praising many upright Jews and Christians. I think Friedman's ideas might be summed up another way by General Dwight Eisenhower:
"Our government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith- and
I don't care what it is."
This is not meant to exclude athiests or humanists. It is meant for people of religious faith to find the language from within faith to communicate tolerance with one another. Another way of putting it might be summed up from the Quran itself:
"There shall be no compulsion in religion". Sura 2:256

To clarify a little further what I am saying is that theologically one's religion or lack of may be the only correct choice but scientifically it can go one way or the other (eg. How to explain the Big Bang, Multiple Universes, Expanding Galaxies, etc.).

Months and months ago, I noticed that Boomers were in mood for your classic
4T, while the other generations who would be active in a 4T weren't. Boomers
had the patriotic and civic kind of views that would flourish in a 4T, plus they had
great admiration for the GI's and longing for a belief in civic achievement and
deals and all that. They were already BY FAR the most culturally conservative
generation to have come of age since World War II, and their duties-over-rights
ethos and willingness to put away the fun would already make them perfectly
weathered for a Crisis. They would be ready to stand in line by the government
and Establishment as people did in the War years because they WERE the
Establishment, more than any other generation. Those younger than the Baby
Boomers, however, were too alternative to fall into Crisis mode and saw nothing
of value in the United States. Not only did I doubt that the angstridden X'ers
would ever want to go and change their style, become strict parents and serve
their country, but looking at the first Millennial waves identified by Strauss and
Howe, they didn't look tempted to do it either. I looked at the position of high
school kids and college frosh today and it was clear they would need a few
more years if they were to develop into civic-minded patriots and strip off
anything X, as Strauss and Howe predicted was the sign of their role. It wasn't
just the music and clothes that were X, but the whole attitudes and belief
system was unpatriotic; most of these young adults would never fight for their
country. Either they need some more time in the oven or they just aren't coming
out as Strauss and Howe predicted; every time I speak to a Millennial-age teen
he or she sounds nothing like the lockstep soldier Strauss and Howe describe.
And then of course the Silent Generation loved the personal freedom of a 3T
way too deeply to ever give it up again, after all they'd gone through.

And now, several months later, after The Events Of September Eleventh, my
prediction looks remarkably true. Boomers are responding to this in a largely 4T
way. Boomers appear to be in a 4T mindset, while the other generations Silent
and on are in a 3T mindset. I heard countless Boomers since the attacks
rescind everything bad they ever said about the government, as they now speak
about how glorious America is instead of talking about all its evils and vices as
they did four months ago. Boomers are really the changeover generation. Most
of them are willing to give up their rights, with talk about security and safety
being more important than freedom. The Boomer talk is that we need to stand
behind our country in these times, and we need to annihilate the enemy; the
support for war and total war shows a firm 4T mindset in today's Boomers.
Some would say that it would be incomprehensible four months ago, but the
seed was already there inside the Boomers; they believed in security and duties
over rights (though they did not see their security and danger at the time).
Boomers, then already safely aged out of the youth phase, no longer cared for
the cultural freedoms the 3T gave. Some were even repenting their opposition to
Vietnam. Not Grey Champion material yet, but one could already see the
willingness to submit to a mood of urgency and civic focus. While Boomers
became the flag-wavers of the wake of TEOSE, other generations are in 3T
mode. The Silent Generation is disturbed by Boomers' warhawk brashness and
urge to push on violent war, not to mention the attacks on civil liberties
govrenment is suggesting. They don't like the Boomers' patriotic,
serve-your-country mood at all. Even their actions in government are saying,
"Let's not change the good things the 3T is known for". As a matter of fact, I
don't think Silents will EVER be ready for a 4T mode. As for Generation X and
everyone younger, their personality isn't being CHANGED by the events. Absent
are the flags that mark the Boomer mood. But the biggest marker in youth is
living as you did before. X'ers tell me they spend most of their time by now
without even remembering that something happened on September 11.
Youth-oriented radio stations are thriving with listener rates as high as ever.
Youth show a kind of material lifestyle. X'ers just aren't ready for a 3T final
answer; what I think it is is that X'ers are always living outside the world; they
sit out and watch it happen. They are not participators in society, in the civic
order and their world on the fringe is mostly unchanged. As for the 1977-1986
set, they fail to be set up for stability and duty. They range from war protestors
to mostly people, as with the X'ers, whose life is the same as before. They
haven't let TEOSE affect them and make a change in the way they live their life.
Sep. 10, 2001: Go to a rave; Oct. 10, 2001: Go to a rave. They aren't thinking
about it at every waking moment like some Boomers. The kids in sixth grade
may be more patriotic, but they're not going to have an effect on the national
mores the way high school sophomores are.

With all but one of the generations supposed to be active in the 4T being in the
3T and the Boomers being in 4T, it's clear that things are not going to move
smoothly. The Boomers may push through 4T changes without other
generations participating, but much more likely is that the other generations will
keep the Boomers back, keeping them in a 3T for at least a couple more years.

Concerning religious totaltarianism-Samuel Hunting wrote in his Clash of Civilizations... book that Islam is even more of an absoluting faith than Christianity. So does that mean that Boomers will seek confrontation with a billion Muslims? That could create a disaster-and a backlash from younger generations. Perhaps Xers will end up with a Gilded type life cycle.

Mr. Thomas Friedman is that rare creature, a very clever silly man. He is a fundamentalist of sorts when one listens to him upon the matter of "free trade" and globalism. Motes & beams, motes & beams...even in the case of Mr. Friedman.


A case in point Nationalism and its Discontents by Mr. Michael Lind in the December 2001 number of the Washington Monthly. HTH

On 2001-12-04 20:22, RFN wrote:
Months and months ago, I noticed that Boomers were in mood for your classic
4T, while the other generations who would be active in a 4T weren't......
Those younger than the Baby
Boomers, however, were too alternative to fall into Crisis mode and saw nothing
of value in the United States. .....
looking at the first Millennial waves identified by Strauss and Howe, they didn't look tempted to do it either........
they just aren't coming out as Strauss and Howe predicted; every time I speak to a Millennial-age teen he or she sounds nothing like the lockstep soldier Strauss and Howe describe. And then of course the Silent Generation loved the personal freedom of a 3T
way too deeply to ever give it up again, after all they'd gone through.

And now, several months later, after The Events Of September Eleventh, my
prediction looks remarkably true. Boomers are responding to this in a largely 4T
way. ....The Silent Generation is disturbed by Boomers' warhawk brashness and
urge to push on violent war, not to mention the attacks on civil liberties
govrenment is suggesting. They don't like the Boomers' patriotic,
serve-your-country mood at all...... As a matter of fact, I don't think Silents will EVER be ready for a 4T mode. As for Generation X and everyone younger, their personality isn't being CHANGED by the events. ....X'ers just aren't ready for a 3T final answer; what I think it is is that X'ers are always living outside the world; they sit out and watch it happen. They are not participators in society, in the civic
order and their world on the fringe is mostly unchanged. As for the 1977-1986
set, they fail to be set up for stability and duty. They haven't let TEOSE affect them and make a change in the way they live their life. Sep. 10, 2001: Go to a rave; Oct. 10, 2001: Go to a rave. They aren't thinking
about it at every waking moment like some Boomers. The kids in sixth grade
may be more patriotic, but they're not going to have an effect on the national
mores the way high school sophomores are.

With all but one of the generations supposed to be active in the 4T being in the
3T and the Boomers being in 4T, it's clear that things are not going to move
smoothly. The Boomers may push through 4T changes without other
generations participating, but much more likely is that the other generations will
keep the Boomers back, keeping them in a 3T for at least a couple more years.

Well said-- particularly about the Silent. I'm not sure that the obvious Silent resistance to the war has to do with losing hard-won personal freedoms though (which one's might those be?), so much as a revisiting of childhood trauma during World War 2-- and a strong desire not to see history repeat itself. I remember visiting my Silent mom, who is in a nursing home after a major stroke, the week after Sept. 11. After I asked her if she'd heard what happened in New York, she replied "Yes, I know....the 'Japs' did it! I don't know if I can do this...live through another war".

About the Xers, yes I do think that they sort of see themselves living outside the world, like in one of those dreams where you are an observer to everything and everyone around you -- including yourself. But what is most telling about the Xers is how, when swept up in events that are utterly beyond their control, they step up to the plate with little question and do the tough jobs that absolutely have to be done. The two examples that come to mind are the brave Gen X passengers on Flight 93 who thwarted a second attack on D.C. by rushing their hijackers, even though their deaths were all-but-certain either way; and the firefighters, police officers and (especially) volunteers in the search, rescue and support efforts at Ground Zero, in the days following Sept. 11-- who were overwhelmingly Xer.

It is true that the current Fourth Turning will be Boomer initiated and led; that is what Prophets DO. But we can count on the Xers to rise to the occasion time and time again, whenever they are required to deal directly with the events of the coming Crisis. As for the Millennials, my fifteen-year-old nephew -- an early-wave Millie born in 1986-- is now pondering the U.S. Naval Academy; before Sept. 11, he was leaning toward a career in architecture. Not that teens don't change their future plans every few months in any era-- my point is that in the aftermath of Sept. 11, he is most anything BUT unpatriotic. It would appear that the early Millies are stepping into their roles as well.

I've held my tongue for awhile now when people rant on about how all the Boomers have suddenly mutated into super-patriotic warmongers who are eager to nullify the Bill of Rights, declare war on anybody who annoys us today, and especially eager to draft all the Millenials into the military so that they can be thrown into meatgrinder battles as a sacrifice to boomer extremist ideals.
I know, I know, you were generalizing, but it still becomes annoying. Please...once in a while, try to remember that at least a large percentage of us are just trying to get through this mess and that we are just as disturbed by these daily attacks on little things like civil rights, judicial process, dissent, and whatever it is tomorrow as many younger people are.
If anybody thinks that very many people of my generation are happily looking forward to seeing their children in uniform as we possibly enter a long period of warfare, then you're nuts. I do not have children. Many of my friends have Millies of high school age, and they are very worried that they may lose their kids if there is a major war. I know a lot of great kids and it makes me ill when the thought comes to me that they might not get to live very far into adulthood.
"Well, why don't you other boomers just change the way things are?" you probably reply to people like me. Well, we vote, we write letters to officials, we go to boring meetings in hopes of getting a word in to someone's ear that might have an effect.
I will say, however, that members of my generation have a bad tendency towards taking extreme positions. I believe that this is what Strauss and Howe warned about in T4T, when the prophets may wish to lead the country off into the equivalent of a holy war.
Many of us, myself included, had our experience of extreme, judgmental passion in the late sixties. It has made me cautious now when I feel that pull over to the far edge of emotion on political issues. That surge of passion feels so good, but oh, it can be so destructive.
I love my country, more than I have in quite awhile, but I just can't get into plastering my subaru with flags and hanging a forty foot flag from my porch. Its just too much.
Third turning or Fourth Turning? Two months ago I was certain that it was the Fourth turn here at last, we'd hunker down for the Saeculer (?) winter and everything would be clear as we all faced a common adversary and acted as one.
Now....I could be persuaded that we're in some last, messy phase of an unraveling.

Very nice post, Alan.

It's still far from clear whether this is a 3T or 4T, and whether 911 will someday be confirmed as the catalyst. Every day, you can point to signs suggesting that we're late 3T, and other signs suggesting early 4T. The official, popular, and media reactions to the next major news events (including, perhaps, a possible quick victory over the Taliban) will bear watching.

i think in an earlier post i actually made the prediction that this "war" in afghanistan would likely be short and swift based on where i thought we were in the long term cycle. i suggested that it was very likely to have a similar effect as the cuban missile crisis did back in 1962 and would be the same sort of defining event for the younger generations that the cuban crisis was then. i think there is little doubt that subsequent events have confirmed those thoughts.

the more significant war is due in the 2009-2013 time frame, possibly as early as 2006, and if past patterns are any guide, it will not go well. it is this upcoming conflict that will precipitate a truly deep and serious recession, followed by a period of greater inflation than we have seen since the 70s leading up into the final "great devaluation" about 20-30 or years from now.

Eni=jolras, I'm inclined to agree with you. Could you site some sources to support your hypothessis? I would be interested in researching this myself. The funny thing is that if you parallel the oh-ohs with the sixties and the teens with the seventies ou can see something like a Vietnam-type loss, only with the Islamic world. Then you see the loss of oil, the inflation, the collapse of prices, just like the seventies. Would the peak of the Crisis in the early 2020's parallel our eighties Cold War arms race...what about a complete and total hot war with a nuclear armed Islamic Middle Eastern superstate. What could be the candidate to precipitate this? Well, who knows. Our economy is so totally notted with our recession. But the truth is that the two real ticking time bombs are oil and old people (no I'm not bashing seniors; just their numbers). Oil resources may be cut off just when the Boomers start retiring and our economy is already strained by the shrinking
ratio of workers to retirees. Watch out.

Sorry about mispelling your name. I blame these f*&@ing typos.

On 2001-12-04 12:58, Stonewall Patton wrote:
2T: Justified emotional response to forced conformity, stifling morality, and intellectual sterility of 1T. But this response was emotional nonetheless and constituted an unsatisfactory response to the 1T. Instead of righting any perceived wrongs of the 1T, rebels of the 2T committed the same wrongs themselves. Instead of pushing for a true, fair and impartial pluralism, they advocated toleration for all non-Christians while subduing Christians. Again, it was an emotional response, not a reasoned response. And Christians, instead of being included in pluralism, were targeted for exclusion out of a desire for revenge.

This whole post is very insightful, well reasoned, and, I think, accurate. I?m bewildered by what you said about the 2T. I have no idea how old you are, but my experience of the ?Consciousness Revolution? was quite different. Christian traditions were regarded by many with some suspicion because of the claim to excusive Truth, and somewhat, just because it was our own mainstream tradition. But just as many considered our ?movement? to be very similar to that of the 1st Century Christians. Having grown up in Christian schools all the way through college, I heard the word ?liberation? applied to every area of life, including theology. In Christianity, this generally meant looking at the Gospel emphasis on concern for the poor and oppressed. It also stressed reclaiming the ?pluralism? in Christian tradition, which had been stifled since Constantine made it a state religion. (One professor of theology declared ?Christianity established is Christianity no longer.?)
Christian teaching provides a wonderful foundation for living a good life. The most vocal Christians seem to add the ego-stroking reward of membership in the ultimate in-group. They can?t seem to acknowledge that other religious traditions can provide the same, and that by this time, so much atrocity has been committed in the name of Christ, that some of the best people reject Christianity out of hand. An honest reading of the Gospel reveals an emphasis on love, and concern for those less fortunate ? much different from the common Christian focus on sexual morality and doctrinal conformity. In fact, what I?ve found to be the definitive passage on who is ?saved? is Jesus? description of the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?pas...ff&showxref=on

34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
44 Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
45 Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'

What really significant about this is that there is no mention of the specific belief professed by the judged (or the sexual morality and ?lifestyle choices? so many vocal Christians like to obsess over). This will become more important as the world comes together because of technology and the increase in population.

I must take exception to one thing Enjolras.
You compared 911 in its impact on younger generations to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I would argue it resembles the Kennedy assasination more. The assasination really impacted the group of young people (especially Gen X, just like the Silent were impacted by Kennedy)..the Kennedy assasination was the point of no return into Vietnam just like 911 is our point of no return with terrorism. Even the hearings that are being promised into why the nation was unprepared or the impact of military tribulnals remind me of nothing other than the Warren Commision. It will of course reach some conclusion that is "officially acceptable" but many will dissent. It just seems to make so much sense.