when we can’t begin
unless it’s with an argument
we’re losing out on
love for the sake of it

I was thinking we can go and live
in a monastery
throw away the imperatives
make our pockets empty

‘cuz I’m feeling bankrupt
and I’m losing speed
and I don’t wanna hold on
to anything

when I misbehaved
to get what I wanted
was that wrong when what I wanted was
love and affection

let’s get out
let’s get out
let’s get out
let’s get out

I was thinking we can go and live
in a monastery

Where do we go nobody knows?
I’ve gotta say I’m on my way down
God give me style and give me grace
God put a smile upon my face

Where do we go to draw the line?
I’ve gotta say…
I wasted all your time, honey honey
Where do I go to fall from grace?
God put a smile upon your face
Yeah

Now when you work it out I’m worse than you
Yeah when you work it out I wanted to
Now when you work out where to draw the line
Your guess is as good as mine

Where do we go nobody knows?
Don’t ever say you’re on your way down… when
God gave you style and gave you grace
And put a smile upon your face
Ah yeah

Now when you work it out I’m worse than you
Yeah when you work it out I wanted to
Now when you work out where to draw the line
Your guess is as good as mine

It’s as good as mine
It’s as good as mine
It’s as good as mine
As good as mine
As good as mine
As good as mine
As good as mine

Where do we go nobody knows?
Don’t ever say you’re on your way down… when
God gave you style and gave you grace
And put a smile upon your face

Death-Squad Democracy
By Christopher Dickey

Jan. 11 – Among the many tools used to build and defend pro-American democracies, murder is among the trickiest. But murder—yes, let’s insist on that word—is also quite common in the annals of nation-building, at least in my experience, and sometimes it’s been very effective. Now we hear that some of the Bush administration’s strategists are talking about what they call “The Salvador Option”, which seems to imply “death squads” (as the murderers were called in El Salvador and Guatemala) or “hit teams” (as they’ve been called in Israel).

Yes, Christopher, let’s. Let’s insist on that word.

There’s a stack of papers at my right hand, and indiana jones on the t.v. to keep me at them, not to mention that the house is a mess — but I’m diligently making snowflakes with the online snowflake maker that Margaret and Pippa discovered. I should be grading papers or cleaning up, but instead I’m tackling another urgent, absorbing, fascinating task.

Blah.. I’m sick and I need to sleep … instead …

If texts are virtual bodies, and communities of interpretation social bodies, and audiences different kinds of social bodies then the question of ethical interpretation of a text is one of fittedness or appropriateness more than morality. It is about this body making sense in the context of this other body. Or about this body not making sense in the right way.

So when Mennonites interpret the bible nonviolently they bring an outside criteria to bear on the text … just like other ethical interpreters. But since it is a criteria that was found inside the text in the first place it is more a case of Mennonites saying that this body makes sense in the context of our body in that it is not violent. We have consumed the text in this way; we don’t understand this text as violent. Our decision to ignore, disregard or deemphasize violent aspects of the text is not about poor interpretation but rather about how we have eaten the bible. When society doesn’t accept our nonviolent interpretation then we recognize that that is more about society’s violence then it is about the text being wrong or about our interpertation being wrong. We don’t know that we are right and we don’t force people to believe that we are right. But we have become what we have eaten.