A Son of God? Edit 1.0003 erthona, billy,leah,71deg

[tectak]

A call, a cry, a father’s name; a million heads turn round.
No John, or David, Pete or Mat will bring Mohammed down.
Though saints infest the West, the East protects the sneaking thief
that steals her sons from thoughtful life,
named in good faith to limit strife...
all synonyms for grief.

A century, millennium; time all but bombed by history.
The curse of being son of man eats hearts and souls; a mystery
made secret by your place of birth, unsure of what life means,
the young treat death as blessed demise
to trade for early paradise;
and everlasting dreams.

Love when you can for gods are strange, and do not love you back.
Why else do mortals fight their fights, in holy lands, in black Iraq,
in sunlit places, made for peace? They kill us with commands
to maim, to glorify a Lord.
Oh, how we play on things absurd
right into hell’s hands.

Tectak being politically incorrect. Should I be bothered?
2014 and onwards

Thanks  for this...it needed analysis from somebody. I am not sure I fully appreciate your points because the subject matter of the poem is deliberately low-key and hopefully uncontroversial...it is interesting that religion is the only subject in which one can hold no views at all and offend everyone. Onwards.

Coming in here quite late (and haven't read all comments thoroughly) but would question use of "gods" plural.  East or West? Do you see a different deity? No, if you  believe Allah is also Jehovah God, yes if you don't. Me? I go with the flow...sometimes yes, sometimes no. You see, I just don't know. Do you? That is my point  Also, why the limitation of "century" singular?  Even "millennium" isn't the correct time span when one is writing about "religion" as a concept. Nope. Not the religion. The bombing Also, you take the Western thought way out and refer, geographically to "Holy Land" No. I didn't. I said holy land. Never mentioned Holy. Again, this is point making. Sorry, I am being a pratt....but holy is just a word to me. when what you are saying is the place is not "Holy" (nothing wrong w/this, but it only enslaves the poem in traditional Western thought. Third stanza:  Have a problem with "they"…do you really think that these gods think in humanistic terms? I don't believe gods think...I don't believe in gods. It would be pointed to capitalise one believer's fantasy god and not the others....so I don't. Capitalising Lord may be a mistake, but a Lord does not need deifying...just respecting. It is a mankind-thing.To push off these reasons as to why Man kills and maims on the gods (there's that plural word again) conveniently lets Man off the hook for any of the historical damage, doesn't it? Circle squared. I rest my case. Only if you believe in gods

The elimination of any capitals on Son of Man or God(s) but still having one on Lord (see the problem with plural vs singular?) is confusing also. They / He / It either "are" or "aren't" deserving of capitals.  

Just a side note: not sure you need the additional editorial (…"politically incorrect"…) at the end either. To any atheistic thinker, this isn't politically incorrect at all.  It's only purpose served would be to influence how a reader would grasp the poem "before" reading. Let the poem stand for itself without the sidebar.

Last point taken and accepted. It has gone.
Best,
tectak