Dear Rayelan,
I am honored (I guess) by your wonder. As for pinning me down, I am no martyr. As for innocence, not sure about that one either. As for a flaming Liberal, the only fire in me was lit the day I was conceived, and it is called LIFE!

I like the New York Times, generally speaking, though I don't read it everyday, only some days, like today. I don't know anything about their political slant, or IQ, or even their readership numbers. I liked the article I read, it seemed to be saying the same thing I was. Who knows where she got the idea. What I wrote was a genuine thought, inspired by the Jeffords discussion here, authentic and original. It was not something I dug up and flung into the pot. When I post articles by themselves, without comment, it is because I find it a key event to watch, like China. What happens there over the next year will be very interesting, and very important, I believe. Or if I borrow a concept or idea, I tell whose it is and use it to make a point, usually because they said it so well in the first place.

I didn't pick up any recent propaganda to arrive at the tolerance stance. I got that from living in a multicultural family with multi-cultures going on in every minute. I write from intuition and what my heart believes. I watch stars. I don't watch television, I don't get any newspapers or magazines, I only read something when it comes screaming out from a corner. I write for you because you have an uncanny way of collecting authentic individuals, that is, people who, regardless of what they expect in this world, have a voice and know how to use it. It's unique, you know, to be able to collect this many individual minds from a world full of "programming".

And, being the new kid on the block, I don't really know how everybody stands on different issues. Even if it doesn't matter, I still CARE about the ideas maintained by these human natures. It wouldn't change my VOICE, only my under STANDING. And I still like the New York Times, even if it gets me branded here.

PRINCIPLED COMPROMISE to me, would be something akin to the old (very old) method of Democracy used among the Iroquois (to whom our U.S. "constitution" owes a great deal - the "forefathers" only borrowed part of the process, not all.) You see, originally, decisions of import were made when consensus could be achieved, no sooner. Otherwise they were put back into the well. To arrive at consensus, every single point would have to be heard and discussed. Everyone would have to both TOLERATE and UNDERSTAND even the most difficult issues. Is that appeasement? I don't believe it is. Appeasement assumes one side (say a majority) has power and jurisprudence over another. "Appeasement: To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle." [American Heritage] Tolerance is an active attempt at understanding, establishing boundaries for behavior on PRINCIPLE, and learning how to LIVE WITH DIFFERENCES. Can I understand Hitler? Not at all. Should I tolerate any genocide? No way. Let me explain.

My ancestors were "discovered" along with this beautiful land. Over the years we have sustained: forced sterilization, biological weapons, mutilation, rape, torture, child stealing, brainwashing and massacre. Genetically, I guess I'm not even supposed to be here. Call it genetic wisdom, call it INSIGHT, call it innocence, call it flaming liberal, call it any thing that fits the moment, but guess what, I am still here.

I AM STILL HERE!

NOW, isn't that a wonder. Nothing surprises me, really, about how people hurt each other. Do you think the devil crucified Jesus? If evil has such a big role in the world, then why didn't it get the blame for the death of the Son of God? Wouldn't that MAKE SENSE? But, NO! People killed Jesus, his peers, those who KNEW who he was, and that he was REAL, they killed Jesus. The Indians think: "those people killed Jesus, how foolish. Why?"

What does it matter? You write:

"... sometimes there are things on which you CANNOT compromise and there are people who you DARE NOT appease!! AND... there are people with whom you should NEVER compromise your principles. Would you do as Chamberlain did and compromise with Hitler? Would you have Jesus appease the Devil? Or maybe we could compromise with Caligula and tell him he could rape and kill blondes on Tuesdays if he left dark haired people alone!"

Jesus did not compromise with the devil in the desert. He held out over evil. There is no way he would have lost that contest, you know why? Because it WASN'T part of his way of life. He wasn't afraid. He LOVED the world for what it is. Evil didn't matter, to him it did not exist. Who can walk down a dark street at night and feel love without fear?

Did Jesus compromise with the people, or did he appease them by allowing himself to die on the cross? Or was he a victim? Or was it simply THE WORD OF GOD? Or was his death carried out by Pilate to appease the people? Or were the high priests full of fear? Or was it a political move? What were the people AFRAID of? Love? Are all of the above answers right, or none? What is left of the TOLERANCE he taught? He was trying to help us get along.

The very basis of this U.S. Democracy, or Republic, is that a majority rules, meaning simply, that there is always a minority. It is no way to develop the social skills of tolerance.

You write:

"The communist leaders of China brutally slaughtered at least 80 MILLION innocent Chinese when they brought communism to power! 80 Million humans!! The figure could be and probably is higher!"

And so did the Russian Communists, and so did Hitler in the name of Communism, and so did England and France and Spain in the conquest for gold in their "new lands." How come nobody counts the dead Indians? Because the only good one is a dead one? I think the numbers in North America alone are close to 20 million. You write:

"And you say it can’t happen here!!"

Well, I never said THAT! It DID HAPPEN HERE! I already know about that, but it didn't erase my human nature, nor did it eradicate my LOVE for life on this earth.

I wrote: "You see, the progress we make as a governed body of human beings is ever moving toward a Global sense of place...”

You replied: "Terra, this sounds like New Age thinking. 'New Age thinking' was created in New World Order 'think tanks.'"

Most New Age Material is created to MAKE MONEY. The Indian belief is simple:

Money + Medicine = Madness

I don't know where the concept of New Age comes from, much of it simply doesn't ring true for me. I get invited to stuff, and I tell the two-canoe story. Check the message on the two canoe wampum belt some time. [They are parallel lines.] It pretty much sums it up for me. I hear what some New Age thinkers say, the authentic ones. It takes a while to tell which seeds fall on rock and which fall on fallow ground. Some of them are talking about old information, only giving it fancy names like "shaman" or "atonement" when, these ideas are OLD AGE, to me. It is just that now some people want to make a buck, seeking gold once again in their newly found 'spirit' world. Creator sorts all of that out, anyway. Watch. No New World Order is orderly enough to fool the original world order, one that is inherent ON EARTH.

You write:
"While their words – 'Principled Compromise' – SOUND good and the words 'mesmerize' people into believing that everything is wonderful, in my humble opinion, 'principled compromise' with the devil will only get all of us slowly roasted and eaten by our enemies!"

Rayelan, the devil didn't kill Jesus so why would he want to eat us? We are small potatoes, roasted or otherwise. People killed the Son of God, and now some want to do in the potential of all of us Made in His Image, meaning those with faith and love and full of life. I submit to you that they can not. Like the serpent with a tail in his mouth, they will only swallow their own creations of fear and hatred. Tolerance is a way to LEARN how to get away from those things in life. It doesn't mean you throw yourself into hell's fire or give away principles (like appeasement does). It means you listen to your gut more, judge less, and when you get angry, don't assail the guy with rocks or bullets or nukes.

Maybe Mr. Chamberlain had a good idea, he just didn't know how to apply it properly. The world wasn't ready to accept it. Maybe some one else spun it wrong. I don't really know how that guy thought, but wasn't he the one that said: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" ?

My tolerance is genetic. It is a different kind of "knowing." It doesn't need a news paper, or a liberal label, or a famous politician for redemption. It is what it is. I am that I am. And the joy of it all is, guess what!

I AM STILL HERE! It is a major accomplishment, truly.

Fondly, and with tremendous respect,

Terra (firma)