Deliver Me: I attach a link below which is a fabulously interesting Newsweek article entitled "War and Deliverance by Christopher Dickey (the son of the novelist and screenwriter for the film Deliverance) ." I think Mr. Dickey's "Deliverance" film metaphor is utterly correct. That film was, as I remember it, chilling. Contemporaneous historical events with our muddled president making reference to World War III, a public which just goes along and a vice president without conscience calling the shots behind the scenes are as blood curdling as the images of the "Deliverance" film were. It is a film like that and Mr. Dickey's appropriate analogy which bring other prescient novels to mind such as William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" and Orwell's "Animal Farm." These novelists bring to our culture words of great wisdom. One would think with Washington filled with degrees from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the like, that those in power would finally get it. Unfortunately it seems time and again they do not.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/53461/page/1

A clearer view of New Testament Belief: I disagree emphatically with Matt Peirce's letter to the editor criticism of James Carroll's excellent op ed October 15 article "Religion and Nation". First, the Gospels are not evidence of historical veracity as they were written two decades and more after the death of Jesus. One cannot use as evidence items which clearly have an agenda to promote. The Gospels are not a neutral collection of documents and they differ in text. Second, it is interesting how certain fundamentalist Christians love to pick and choose which New Testament articulations they use for proof of their correctness on contemporary political stances. According to Mr. Pierce the Gospel of Mark referring to Genesis 2:24 concerning the creation is proof of Jesus'opposition to homosexuality. I doubt it was specifically said to indict homosexuality. That is conjecture. Most importantly, why doesn't Mr. Peirce quote Mark 10:9 which says what "God has joined together let no man put asunder" as a more authentic and clear indictment of heterosexual divorce?

Certainly, Jesus was not in favor of divorce but when it became politically expedient the articulation of Christianity changed and amended his words to accommodate history.