It's become en vogue for conservatives to quote the founding fathers to support basically anything that is anti-liberal. The most popular quote seems to be Jefferson's tree of liberty quote. The write up below gives context to the quote, something most of the people using the quote probably don't have the first clue about but the background gives context to my question. Revolution and rebellion have been the answers in history so when in this country do things rise to a level at which violence becomes the answer? I suppose in a modern context there's a fine line between Tim McVeigh crackpot terrorism and armed rebellion in reponse to government abuse. The Bill Moyers piece on the history of continued victories of narrow financial interests in government and the HuffPo piece on Congressional corruption paint a really ugly picture of our government that I don't think a lot of us really face up to. It's really time to face the reality that we have a corrupt, corporate controlled government in this country that just doesn't work anymore and no election or series of elections is going to change that. At what point is rebellion a legitimate answer? Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" Quote in Context http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/jeffersons-tree-of-liberty-quote-in.html Over the past few weeks we have witness how the debate over healthcare has ignited the fires of political partisanship on both sides of the conservative/liberal spectrum. Whether taking the form of intense town hall meetings or fervent public protests -- in which some even chose to carry automatic weapons in public -- the debate over healthcare has caused scores of Americans to yet again invoke the founding principles of America to support their respective take on the issue. In the wake of this public discourse one infamous and stirring quote has made its way onto the public stage: enter none other than Thomas Jefferson. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson -- who was then living in France -- wrote a letter to his friend William Smith. In the letter Jefferson wrote the following words, which have, from time-to-time, been quoted to affirm the right of the people to rebel against one's government: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Simple enough, right? Well, not quite. And while Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote has become a favorite of many who oppose the current direction being taken by the Obama Administration, the quote has an important and often forgotten context. As mentioned before, Jefferson was still living and working in France in 1787. At the time, Jefferson was deeply concerned about some of the proposals for the new United States Constitution -- particularly the role of the executive branch, which he saw as being far too powerful. In addition, Jefferson believed that the recent rebellion in Massachusetts -- which became known as Shays' Rebellion -- had heightened the fears of the American elite, causing them to throw their weight behind a stronger executive government. Shays' Rebellion was essentially an armed rebellion against taxes being levied at Massachusetts farmers. It's leader, Daniel Shays -- who had served as a soldier during the American Revolution -- used the legacy of the American Revolution to garner support for his cause. As a result, scores of patriotic Massachusetts men, most of whom were farmers themselves, resurrected the legacy of the "liberty tree" to fight the perceived injustices of the newly created government. As a result, America's governing class -- and yes, it was a class -- believed that a strong centralized government was the only surefire way to ensure America's future security. For Jefferson, this was a textbook example of how passions could cloud judgement, creating an atmosphere of panic and fear. As Jefferson states in his letter to William Smith: Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms Simply put, Jefferson understood Shays' Rebellion to be a common and important component of republican government. Without it, the people could not be effectively represented and the communal "lethargy" would eventually destroy the nation. On the flip side, however, Jefferson also notes that the people are rarely if ever well informed on all issues. It is this communal ignorance -- Jefferson emphasises ignorance and not wickedness -- that Jefferson believes the government must endeavor to remedy. He continues: The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. The remedy is not suppression or rejection of public discontent, rather persuasion and public discourse. So would Jefferson support the current public dialogue on healthcare? There's a good chance that he would. We can debate whether or not he would like the current rhetoric of the conservatives/liberals but I think it's hard to deny that Jefferson would be pleased to see the outpouring of public interest. With that said, I doubt Jefferson would support actual blood being shed on the proverbial "Tree of Liberty." After all, enough blood has been lost thanks in part to this often misunderstood quote. It was Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber, who was so very misguided by his poor understanding of Jefferson's words. On the day he chose to murder 168 of his fellow Americans, McVeigh was wearing a shirt that carried Jefferson's infamous words: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. May we ALWAYS remember to be cautious with the history we fail to understand!
A "fine line." Really? The iconic Buddhist monk who set himself on fire was protesting the barbarity of the Vietnamese regime. An act of violence, even to himself, was perhaps judicious, to bring about attention to his noble cause. The jack--- who sets himself on fire at Starbucks because the barista forgot to make his latte non-fat, or conversely shoots up the place because they ran out of straws, is simply that: a jack---. There is little going on in the United States that warrants revolution, or talk of secession (thanks, governor). A tax rate that may modulate a few percentage points. An effort to expand healthcare to those in need. Fever dreams of the president's purported birthplace. Rebellion over an improper debt ratio. This is the stuff of revolution? Hardly. On the other hand, I have no doubt that the threat of rebellion is a prime motivator to keep those in power in check. The fear of another Nat Turner's Punchout (from Brad Neely's "American Moments of Maybe," on Youtube but its language is far from work-safe), or another Watts/King/Stonewall riot, was I'm sure a deciding factor in police forces opening themselves up to constituent communities and attempting to reduce instances of abuse. If, in the same way, second amendment devotees are convinced that their individual AR-15s will prevent the onset of tyranny, then fine. (Ignoring all the despotic countries with high gun ownership rates, but still, fine.) Print up as many "Liberty or Death" t-shirts as your CafePress account can handle. But when you weigh for legitimacy the gripes of a McVeigh, a Kaczynski, a Booth, an Oswald, heck, even a Hinckley or Squeaky Fromme, the revolutionaries who actually did use violence, you usually come back with gibberish. I don't think the secession movement today has any more legitimate a gripe than the militia movement of the nineties. You can make an argument about encroaches on civil rights, but worthy of the musket ball? A corporate-bought government is the justification for taking up arms? Why not vote in a modern day Bull Moose, and bust up the corporate interests instead? (Or, if that's the worst complaint you have against our government, maybe, I dunno, accept it?) I don't see why the gripes of today cannot be settled as they traditionally have, either as part of representative debate or in courts of law. I don't know: all hail "New Freeland?" <object width="480" height="400" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" id="ordie_player_b5108dcd4a"><param name="movie" value="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=b5108dcd4a" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed width="480" height="400" flashvars="key=b5108dcd4a" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" quality="high" src="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" name="ordie_player_b5108dcd4a" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;width:480px;"><a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b5108dcd4a/new-freeland-from-mrshow_fan" title="from mrshow_fan">New Freeland</a> - watch more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/" title="on Funny or Die">funny videos</a></div>
How about we all stop worshipping the Founding Fathers as deities, huh? Every time any problem or issue is discussed someone throws out Rocky Marciano, Rocky Marciano. I mean Founding Fathers. They hold up their words, on virtually any subject, as absolute truth and interpret them like a religious man does his holy text. It's tired.
I don't know about that. Our elected officials are bought and paid for by special interests both foreign and domestic. In many respects they no longer work towards the public good. Someone could say it again borders on taxation without representation. In the last decade we've had a Presidential election not decided by the voters, trillions spent on an illegal war that we were lied into, curbs on Constitutional rights, energy policy created by Ken Lay, some of the biggest corporate bankruptcies on record due to lax regulation, and hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts to companies who spent millions on lobbying. Exxon practically owns US environmental policy. It's out of control. You mention some people in the past who commited violent acts but the group I had in mind was the Weather Underground. They railed against the Vietnam War which Americans overwhelmingly, certainly now, feel was a stupid war to be involved with. The US government was basically responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese in our name without a declaration of war. The Underground blew up buildings, I think accidentally killed more of their own group than innocent bystanders. No excuse for killing innocent people of course but I understand why they would go violent. When you protest to the level that happened during the Vietnam War for a righteous cause and you still get ignored, what other option do you have? Heck today we have "free speech zones". Do you think Dick Cheney gave a rats ass about the protests of the Iraq War?
"I have learned to be less confident in the conclusions of human reason, and give more credit to the honesty of contrary opinions." --Thomas Jefferson
...contemplating an upcoming speech on the inherent rights of man, he once more thrust into the house slave he considered private property.
@CometsWin: Here you go kthxbai. Seriously? You're a joke, and while I'm not saying things are peachy, to go and start whining for a "revolution" or whining how you're not represented is honestly pathetic, and I honestly think that to go and worship the Weather Underground is just sad and frankly disgusting. Now really, let's just take your whining and look over them: Allright, someone give me a good answer, because I honestly don't and have never understood it. What is with the massive instinctual backlash on all lobbyists and all special interests, and why is it always, always assumed that lobbyists = bad? Lobbyists, to put it quite simply, are a group of people who assemble together and attempt to get their voice heard by the government, and they use the fact that they work together to get their voices heard. They represent all interests, whether corporate interests, the labor unions, old people, etc. etc. So what's really the matter with them? Corruption and bribes? We have laws and ethic probes against those. Some useless tripe that they don't "work for the public good", whatever the heck that means (and it means no more than when a politician says they work for "freedom" or whatever - it's so much feel-good tripe.) So what is the fundamental problem with having people get together and make a sincere attempt to get their voices heard? Just........ And I think we see the fundamental difference between Comets and myself. I'm a conservative, and naturally I don't like intrusive government and I think it needs to be smaller as they're generally inefficient. But while I think government and government officials are not very competent and inefficient, I don't think they're evil. Was going into Iraq a mistake? With hindsight, yes. Has it screwed around with the US deficit and made us worse off? Yes. But I do not think it was illegal, as Bush has the authority to do what he did, and I simply do not see evidence that he intentionally and maliciously lied in order to intentionally start a conflict with Iraq. There was probably some data-fudging to get results we wanted, but that is not different in a sense that as Rockets fan, we decry Ginoblli or AK47 for flopping while ignoring Scola - it's just on a larger scale. In all honesty, when were my constitutional rights curbed over the last decade? Which goes to my earlier point on Iraq. When President Bush wants to relax regulation, it isn't because he thinks we need a freer market and more competition, it's because he's EVIL and because he was bought off by those EVIL special interests. And how did Ken Lay design the energy policy of the last decade? ...Let's just say that we massively disagree on why those corporate bankruptcies went as they did, and that I hardly think a corporation going bankrupt is a ground for rebellion. While the initial bailouts were unfortunately necessary, yeah, the ones after that were wrong. Still doesn't explain why we can't simply elect officials who won't do those sorts of things and have to resort to a revolt. To this part, really, grow up. Stinking grow up. This isn't some Athenian democracy where if the people want something, policy will magically change instantly. The Vietnam protests did change American policy in Vietnam after all, so I'm not sure what you're whining about here. And I'll just say that while I think Vietnam was also a mistake, people are completely wrong as to why it was a mistake. The Iraqi protests and the resulting electoral defeats for the GOP did change policy in Iraq. They got Rumsfield kicked out. They caused the Iraqi Study Group, which ultimately prevented a serious alternative and ultimately forced Bush to go for an all-out strategy in the surge which ended up working. So yes, the protests did do something.
Well, since you're a conservative maybe you should stop leeching off society and contribute. Then you'll have one.
You post is so over the top and silly. "Worship" the Weather Underground? Wha? It doesn't take worship to recognize a difference between Tim McVeigh and the Weathermen. The problem with lobbying is the amount of money involved. Narrow interests with a ton of money win out. The step between lobbying and direct influence, bribery/corruption is so small as to be virtually meaningless these days. What is it with conservatives already trying to rehash Iraq? It was a mistake that most of the entire world saw coming. Bush lied us into war. He intentionally linked Saddam with 9/11 to get everyone gung ho for the war, Cheney intentionally lied about nuclear weapons programs, Bush intentionally linked WMD with Saddam with knowingly old and in some cases completely false information, and he politicized the vote to go into Iraq to get his war. If he were so sure about going to war why didn't he ask for a declaration of war rather than draw up some BS legislation to circumvent the War Powers Act? I can't believe there are already people trying to give Bush a pass on Iraq. You seem to have some revisionist history already on Iraq. My goodness. Rumsfeld was ousted because of the Iraq protests and not because Bush used him as a scapegoat for the planning of the war? What? Iraq policy changed when Bush completely ignored the recomendations of the Iraq Study Group which called for a phased withdrawl? What? It was the surge and not the Awakening and the bribing of insurgents that really worked? How did Ken Lay privately meeting with Dick Cheney develop US energy policy? What in the world? Alright man. Sounds like you need to read up on some things. Anyway, I nowhere advocated violence. I asked the question when it becomes a viable answer to the absues of government because conservatives continue to push Jefferson's quote as some rallying cry.
Really, what difference? Both were radical nutjobs who were convinced that the system was completely and inherently corrupt and that violent change was the only way to make a difference. There is really not a huge difference between the two. Define "narrow interests" when some of the largest and most powerful lobbies are those which represent a very large segment of the American populations, whether gun owners, old people, or evangelicals. And yes, they send money to help the politicians they support get elected, and I would argue that that is a step not very similar from sending people to help the politicians they support get elected. No evidence. And before you go nuts about the previous statement, this is what I'm saying: Bush knew with absolute certainty that there were no WMDs in Iraq (and the fact that there was evidence for there being no WMDs in Iraq is completely irrelevant here, as Bush had his admittedly weak evidence that there and believed it), and knowing with absolute certainty that there were no WMDs with Iraq, intentionally sent in US troops to go into Iraq and .............. I'm not sure why he would go into Iraq if he was lying (BLOOD FOR OIL LOL). And that's the thing. Ultimately, you can't prove that Bush maliciously and intentionally spent American blood and treasure for a completely futile quest. Am I saying Bush was incompetent? Sure. Am I saying that he probably surrounded himself with yes-men who gave him evidence that helped him convince himself of the nobility of his cause? Yes. Am I saying that he probably ignored data that would have shown otherwise? Yes, but as I said earlier, it's comparable to Rockets fans ranting at Ak47 and Ginobilli for flopping and not Scola. Am I saying that Bush deliberately led us into a war for a reason that he knew was stupid and pointless? No, so therefore Bush did not lie over Iraq. I don't know, why didn't Clinton do it when he bombed Eastern Europe? Why didn't any American President do it since World War II? Not that I'm saying what they did was wrong, but it's not that much different from what Bush did? And I'm not giving Bush a pass - I've stated that Iraq was wrong, his administration was incompetent both at figuring out the risks of going to war and at waging the war itself, and that he surrounded him with yes-men. What I'm saying is that while the actions of Bush were stupid and incompetent, they weren't criminal. That's all. It was a dumb move, but not an illegal one. Okay, let's assume that you're right and Rumsfield was a scapegoat. The question then is why? Because the American people were pissed off at the Bush administration and how they handled the war and its build-up, of which the protests were an example of. The fact that Rumsfield might have been a scapegoat doesn't change anything I'm saying - the Bush administration was forced to use him as a scapegoat because they had to listen to the American people, which is not in line with your "ELECTION DON'T MATTER SPECIAL INTERESTS CONTROL EVERYTHING OH NOEEESSSS" schpiel. The Iraqi Study Group presented a serious and developed alternative to the course of action which Bush had been running before in Iraq (which was really nothing, but whatever.) Given now that we've already established that Bush had to listen to the American people, he knew that he could no longer continue the present policy and so had to either: 1. Do what they said or 2. Try a new strategy which would gets results in Iraq (which his old policies hadn't) He went with Option 2, but if Option 1 and the irritation of the American people hadn't been there, he would probably have muddled along like he had been doing the 4 or so years beforehand and that would have been bad for everyone. Of course the Awakening was part of it (and I doubt the Awakening would have been such a big deal without a new influx of American soldiers), but that and the surge helped a lot. And I somewhat doubt bribing was too big of a factor, given I'm pretty sure that's not a new strategy at all in dealing with the Middle East? I'll freely admit that I'm not too sure what you're talking about but 1. I highly doubt that Dick Cheney needed much persuasion to change US energy policy, given his political beliefs and 2. if he did, I highly doubt one conversation with a CEO would change his plans on US energy policy. Sympathizing with the Weathermen doesn't exactly convince me that you don't advocate violence, and I would say that those conservatives who push violent junk are nuts. Can we agree on that much?
There are practical differences from motivation to tactics to their goals. Oh it's quite a step. We've gone from one man one vote to how much do you have to offer for my time. There is nothing less than a sinister revolving door between government and lobbyists, former lobbyists hired for government positions and former government officials hired as lobbyists. Dick Cheney is an excellent example of that. Our government is designed to provide appropriate representation. Apportionment and redistricting handle this on a voting basis but money and lobbying destroys this concept of representation in Congress. You're wrong on several counts. I can't believe how people try to re-write history, it's just amazing. Here's the war authorization act, you should read it and then tell me it's not proof that Bush tried to link 9/11 with Iraq. BTW, claiming the threshhold for not invading Iraq being an absolutle certainty that they DIDN'T have WMD is ridiculous. By that threshhold we could justify the invasion of every country on Earth because we cannot know with an absolute certainty that any country doesn't have WMD hidden somewhere. I mean that's just crazy, seriously. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm Here are the stated reasons for the resolution in summary. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. There's a big difference in military action ie Lybia, Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, and a full out seven year long invasion and occupation. Most of the world would say that attacking another nation without an imminent threat or evidence of a planned attack is illegal. You don't just go running around invading other countries because you can't figure out who the real bad guys are. Rumsfeld was a scapegoat because the war was going poorly. What do you mean why? The protests were against the war not against Rumsfeld per se. The Iraq study group recommended a phased withdrawl and immediate dialogue with Syria and Iran. Bush totally blew it off and had his own study groups. The American people voted to end the war not to change the tactics in the war. Bush didn't withdraw, didn't engage Syria or Iran, and didn't end the war. What part of what Bush did was in line with the Iraq study group and the will of the American people? Just because Bush recognized failure and tried something different doesn't equate to him listening to anyone. Then Colonel Sean MacFarland disagrees with you. He was actually in Anbar in 2006 before the surge ever happened and he witnessed the Awakening first hand. The impact of the surge is a complete bill of goods sold to you by McCain and the Bush admin. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3738 Q This is Pam Hess with United Press International. You said that violence is down 25 percent. Could you put numbers on that? I don't know that we know specifically what you all are doing out there. And also, I've heard recently from someone who visited Ramadi and Anbar in general is that there is a lot of Sunni insurgent and al Qaeda violence between the two groups, but that the al Qaeda side seems to be exacting a heavy toll. They're killing a lot of the Sunnis that are opposing them now. COL MACFARLAND: Okay. Thanks, Pam. Well, first of all, attacks have dropped from about 20 a day to more like 15 a day. It was actually a little bit lower than that before Ramadan. We had a little bit of a surge, an uptick since Ramadan began, and we'll wait to see how that levels out here in the next few days. But it has been on an overall downward trend. With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda -- actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda. This is a different phenomena that's going on right now. I think that it's not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it's the -- well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they're finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other. It was Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. He meets in secret with big oil and other energy company leaders then develops legislation with their input. Sort of like meeting with Jimmy Hoffa when you're creating laws on racketeering. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701987.html Getting way off topic here, anyway.
Me, too. The Founding fathrs did a remarkably good job 200 plu years ago. Get over it. Same with the Constitution. It needs amending every so often and it should probably be easier to do so or at least get over the purile concept of "strict constructionism" of the conservatives, although in practice this is just a device to avoid changes they don't like and is not mentioned when they want to change things.
Such as? Well yes, lobbyists have experience dealing with government, so it stands to reason that the government could use them and vice versa. I'll admit I really don't see anything wrong with this. I'm not saying Bush didn't link 9/11 with Iraq, that'd be stupid. I'm saying Bush tried to link 9/11 with Iraq, knowing the whole time that there wasn't one. That's what you have to disprove, and you can't do that. First off, I'm arguing on legal terms here, not ethical ones or even geopolitical ones. And legally, yes, the United States can invade any country it wants (maybe not its allies, I'm not too sure there) if it wanted to destroy all WMD's. It would be ethically wrong, and of course massively dumb on a geopolitical scale (like the invasion of Iraq), but anyone over the age of 10 knows that what is ethically wrong is not the same thing as legally wrong. Well, did Bush know that it would take seven years? He was the one spouting out after all the "welcome us with flowers" junk, and we'd create a democracy overnight blah blah blah. Further signs of incompetence yes, but not illegality. Besides, how would declaring war make this war any more or less legal? Really? Most of the world would say that that would be stupid and ethically wrong, just not illegal, and invading a country isn't illegal at all. Yes exactly. So Bush dumped Rumsfield as a sign that the war's direction would change, and it did. Like I'm saying, it forced his hand and forced him to implement the strategy of the surge. And yes, the American people demanded an end to the war, so the surge was a political risk, and Bush knew it. If the surge had failed, the GOP would have suffered even more from the Iraqi war than they already were, and so Bush gambled with it. After all, this is not an Athenian democracy in the end where if the people demand something, the politicians have to drop whatever they're doing and do as the mob demands- if the people demand something, the elected officials are not under any obligation to carry it out and can try something that may be at odds with what the people want. But they have to face the consequences if the policy they try fails. That's all there is to it. Bush gambled with the political success of the surge, and as his policy was successful, he managed to somewhat recover Republican reputation on Iraq. This really isn't that hard to understand.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MadMax again. I completely agree, I really do not understand how some people really see them as some sort of gods. They founded a country on the ideas at those times. Things have changed so their ideas might also have changed. I personally do not understand how someone can look at a person who lived that long ago and just accept everything they say without questions (ok I do understand it when the guy is supposed to be the prophet of your god).
