Beyond Glen's discussion of a dualistic view of the world, I find his dissertaion on risk and freedom most compelling

Consider the words ending our national anthem, ".....land of the free, home of the brave." These are two interconnected ideas. Only the brave accept the risk of offering dignity to all, even to their enemy, and only the brave are therefore truly free.

As usual, as the lone voice of dissent ... Bush undeniably has his faults (public speaking being one ... not a good personality trait for a world leader), and that shiteating smirk that drives liberals wild; however, the man has conviction. You gotta give him that if nothing else. He believes in what he's doing, perhaps to the point of fault. He simply doesn't care what you think, and thats another thing that peeves the secular progressive crowd to no end. He knows he's the man & is gonna do what he can in his remaining time on board to seal his legacy - either good or bad, depending on what side of the plate you swing from. Personally, I don't like him - I think he's gotten us into a mess of epic proportions. He should have gone in hard, cleaned house & made a statement, rather than fiddlef*cking around with ground troops in a no-win urban war. The whole concept is utterly rediculous. Anyways, bide your time, he'll be out soon. The country as a whole has had more than enough of the current way of thinking ... but comon, is Hillary and Obama all the Demo's can come up with - you're making it too easy for us.

I agree lots of older people are afraid of things. There are those elsers who are obstinate in having their own way, who by character have used fear all their lives as a power tool.

And then there are those who retain a sense of reality and growth throughout their lives: who have been adventurous And open to change.

There are many of us (I am 77) who do not buy into the manufactured climate of fear. However we reserve our "fears" for the fate of our delicate democracy.

Let's all avoid across-the-board generalities (if possible). I truly wonder if the public IS as afraid as is reported. These are the days of enormous spin-frauds.

What would happen if a "finding" by a believed organization said that Americans are only

23% afraid?

UTTERLY UTTERLY BRILLIANT!! Unfortunately I'm very afraid too many Americans don't remember what this country is about. I especially find this to be true of older Americans. They seem all too willing to foresake everything this country IS for safety which can't be assured in any case - only our loss of rights and freedoms is certain!

You seem to believe my terminal degree was a BA in religious studies. It was not, but what it is -- or if I even have one -- ought not matter; it was not in religious studies, but the field continues to fascinate me and I have somewhat kept up. YOU are the one that saw fit to introduce insults to Greenwald for using "big words" like Manicheanism instead of "dualism" (a term he also heavily employs) and suggesting I might barely be a college sophomore -- and then to disparage my knowledge if I "merely" held a BA in religious studies! The credentialism issue -- and your need to introduce your involvement at Harvard Commencements -- is of your own making. I don't usually try to pass on my credentials, but to you they are apparently of ultimate import.

Whether Elaine Pagels or some other religious studies scholar wrote a definitive discussion of Manicheanism or not is of no import to the issue at hand, which is that Greenwald's use of the term is appropriate outside of convoluted, internecine academic disputes. I am confident I know enough to affirm the essential accuracy of the dictionary definition I cited.

You must know that an undergraduate degree in religious studies does not make you a religious scholar... As is pointed out at the Harvard University Commencement each year that I've sat on the platform, a Bachelor's degree admits you only to the first stage of the ranks of educated persons. There is much, much more for you to learn beyond what you picked up in college. If you depend on dictionaries for the source of your wisdom and understanding, you will be merely a pedant (you can look that up in the freedictionary.com...)

Perhaps if you'd studied more of Philosophy than Wm. James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, say some Logic, you would understand that just because a definition of "Manichaeanism" includes the words "dualistic" and "Christian", it does not follow that "Dualistic Christians" are "Manichaeans"...and that just because a dictionary says that Manichaeanism is "A dualistic philosophy dividing the world between good and evil principles", it isn't the case that there aren't any other similar and yet different dualistic "philosophies". Dualistic Christianty and Manachaen Dualism are similar, yes...and related... But they are separate and different enough that it is a mistake to equate and confuse one with the other.

You know, by specifically using my name and quoting the dictionary at me you started this off personally... You continue to defend your mistaken criticism of my and others' criticisms of Mr. Greenwald's use of "Manichaean"... You pull up your academic credentials rather than making cogent arguments, when for all you know I have 4-times as many years of academic study of religion and theology, not to mention my professional work for the past thirty years.

My point to Mr. Greenwald was (and still is in spite of your dictionaring and academic posturing) that to call President Bush's powerful, yet repulsive "Good vs. Evil" rhetoric "Manichaean", is distracting and counter-productive. That's why I called it a "Red Herring"... It confuses the matter and sends folks of in odd directions thus allowing the prey, i.e. Bush & Co., to escape. By not speaking plainly, Mr. Greenwald allows his pointed criticisms to be dodged by those who should most be poked and pinned by them -- "What? I'm not a Manichaean, I'm a Christian! So I don't have to listen to anything he says..."

This brings us to your other, better laid-out point: Bush IS a Christian. He believes that his sort of Christianity worked for him - and that it should work for all of us. That's a real problem. We've got to go in and show the inadequacies of his immature teenage dualistic Christian world-view, not only for us and our own sakes, but for him and his as well. We can't do that if we use hifalutin' language that is too easy to dismiss.

You might take a look at Mr. Greenwald's subsequent blogpost about his piece and see if he is continuing with the use of "Manichaen" as a descriptive adjective in anything other than the quotes from his book. It may be that he understood and took our criticisms to heart, no? He seems to be that kind of intelligent, humane sort of guy. It makes me trust him and listen to what he has to say.

But back to you and our exchange: I'd much rather have hashed this out with you privately, one on one - but that's not an option here at Salon.com as far as I know. It could be a useful enhancement to the community, or not...I don't know. But please, in the future address the issue and not the person. You could have raised your questions regarding the dictionary definitions of "Manichaeanism" in a not-personally-pointed manner and I would not have felt the need to snap back. Yes, I could have swallowed my pride and just kept quiet. But no...Sorry, I'm just coming to terms with new levels of irritation and in response I'm actively cultivating an attitude of compassionate snarkiness. It's not a contradition, just a paradox...

Let's let this rest.

All the best,