If "religion" is the "sneaking thief" as I think you explained earlier on, please do a careful check, because as I read it, that meaning is nowhere evident in the poem. I read your snide reply, but I think you missed that I was speaking literally in terms of your sentence construction. It is abundantly clear that the POEM is about religion, but there is still no other reference to this "sneaking thief" anywhere else in the poem, and since that was one of your more vivid images, I immediately wanted to know more about this stealthy ideological bandit.

(12-25-2014, 03:25 AM)Leah S. Wrote:  If "religion" is the "sneaking thief" as I think you explained earlier on, please do a careful check, because as I read it, that meaning is nowhere evident in the poem. I read your snide reply, but I think you missed that I was speaking literally in terms of your sentence construction. It is abundantly clear that the POEM is about religion, but there is still no other reference to this "sneaking thief" anywhere else in the poem, and since that was one of your more vivid images, I immediately wanted to know more about this stealthy ideological bandit.

Snide? Snide...me?  Never! That my sneakin' thief is "vivid" I will take kudos and give thanks...but it is NOT pivotal in the piece...well, not to me anyway...but there again , I am only the bloody author  
The meaning is in the meaning. The thief of minds is a sneak thief. I can only quote from higher powers..Hang on,I need to google it  because no one believes anything I say anymore,unless google agrees. Back in a mo.
I'm back:
sneak thief
Also found in: Encyclopedia.
sneak thief
n.
One who steals without breaking into buildings or using violence.

As you would say...yeah!
Best,
tectak

(12-25-2014, 05:33 AM)tectak Wrote:  

(12-25-2014, 03:25 AM)Leah S. Wrote:  If "religion" is the "sneaking thief" as I think you explained earlier on, please do a careful check, because as I read it, that meaning is nowhere evident in the poem. I read your snide reply, but I think you missed that I was speaking literally in terms of your sentence construction. It is abundantly clear that the POEM is about religion, but there is still no other reference to this "sneaking thief" anywhere else in the poem, and since that was one of your more vivid images, I immediately wanted to know more about this stealthy ideological bandit.

Snide? Snide...me?  Never! That my sneakin' thief is "vivid" I will take kudos and give thanks...but it is NOT pivotal in the piece...well, not to me anyway...but there again , I am only the bloody author  
The meaning is in the meaning. The thief of minds is a sneak thief. I can only quote from higher powers..Hang on,I need to google it  because no one believes anything I say anymore,unless google agrees. Back in a mo.
I'm back:
sneak thief
Also found in: Encyclopedia.
sneak thief
n.
One who steals without breaking into buildings or using violence.

As you would say...yeah!
Best,
tectak

Sorry, I already got spanked for using personal language in comments. I never mean anything unkindly. I'm having trouble communicating here I think. Anyway, yes, "sneaking thief" really arrested my attention on the first read. So I naturally wanted more info. I think it's potentially "pivotal" too. Could I suggest "the east protects the sneaking thief who steals...." ? That construction would let me read on with the flow without getting snagged.

(12-26-2014, 04:02 AM)Leah S. Wrote:  

(12-25-2014, 05:33 AM)tectak Wrote:  

(12-25-2014, 03:25 AM)Leah S. Wrote:  If "religion" is the "sneaking thief" as I think you explained earlier on, please do a careful check, because as I read it, that meaning is nowhere evident in the poem. I read your snide reply, but I think you missed that I was speaking literally in terms of your sentence construction. It is abundantly clear that the POEM is about religion, but there is still no other reference to this "sneaking thief" anywhere else in the poem, and since that was one of your more vivid images, I immediately wanted to know more about this stealthy ideological bandit.

Snide? Snide...me?  Never! That my sneakin' thief is "vivid" I will take kudos and give thanks...but it is NOT pivotal in the piece...well, not to me anyway...but there again , I am only the bloody author  
The meaning is in the meaning. The thief of minds is a sneak thief. I can only quote from higher powers..Hang on,I need to google it  because no one believes anything I say anymore,unless google agrees. Back in a mo.
I'm back:
sneak thief
Also found in: Encyclopedia.
sneak thief
n.
One who steals without breaking into buildings or using violence.

As you would say...yeah!
Best,
tectak

Sorry, I already got spanked for using personal language in comments. I never mean anything unkindly. I'm having trouble communicating here I think. Anyway, yes, "sneaking thief" really arrested my attention on the first read. So I naturally wanted more info. I think it's potentially "pivotal" too. Could I suggest "the east protects the sneaking thief who steals...." ?  That construction would let me read on with the flow without getting snagged.

Good egg,good suggestion.
I will look at this.
Best,
tectak

(11-20-2014, 12:54 AM)tectak Wrote:  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

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? Also, why the limitation of "century" singular? Even "millennium" isn't the correct time span when one is writing about "religion" as a concept. Also, you take the Western thought way out and refer, geographically to "Holy Land" 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? 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?

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.

(01-04-2015, 12:38 AM)71degrees Wrote:  

(11-20-2014, 12:54 AM)tectak Wrote:  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

(01-04-2015, 07:42 AM)tectak Wrote:  

(01-04-2015, 12:38 AM)71degrees Wrote:  

(11-20-2014, 12:54 AM)tectak Wrote:  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

Well, you seem to have an answer for all my critiques and/or criticism, and since I have nothing else to offer you except a point that's not really "in" the poem, and you took care of that one, said poem must be complete, at least from my end.  I won't bother you again. Just one thing though…can't help it: if you don't believe in gods/God/deity/ Lord or otherwise, how can you write a poem telling me how they think (have to assume this b/c of the way they command and/or kill, both high levels of emotionality, truly a divine characteristic for anyone, let alone a god). By the way, you have offended me not in the slightest. I enjoy a respectful dialogue about lots of topics. Good luck w/the poem.

(01-04-2015, 10:02 AM)71degrees Wrote:  

(01-04-2015, 07:42 AM)tectak Wrote:  

(01-04-2015, 12:38 AM)71degrees Wrote:  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

Well, you seem to have an answer for all my critiques and/or criticism, and since I have nothing else to offer you except a point that's not really "in" the poem, and you took care of that one, said poem must be complete, at least from my end.  I won't bother you again. Just one thing though…can't help it: if you don't believe in gods/God/deity/ Lord or otherwise, how can you write a poem telling me how they think (have to assume this b/c of the way they command and/or kill, both high levels of emotionality, truly a divine characteristic for anyone, let alone a god). By the way, you have offended me not in the slightest. I enjoy a respectful dialogue about lots of topics. Good luck w/the poem.

Hi 71,
Good egg. You know that my avatar is Lingua in Maxillam. This piece is very tongue in cheek and was never otherwise. Your points were valid in every sense but the piece was on its third edit and was probably becoming passe....in other words it had become the imago....content wise. Punctuation and grammar issues have not yet been fully thrashed.
I will say again that I appreciate your input. I apologise if I offended you by suggesting you were offended when you were not, in fact ...er...offended. I know how offensive that can be
Very best,
tectak

Tom,

you are such as ass some times. Not in regards to this poem, but to your bitchy like replies (I actually I only read one, but I know how you can be), I don't think one "good egg" absolves of ten fuck you. Granted, one would think that it would be easy enough to understand that Mohammed symbolizes Islam, and that the epitaph of "sneaking thief" which could apply literally to Mohammed, applies figuratively to Islam. I should think it is clear enough that it needs no changes.

I don't know how I missed this one. You should inform me whenever you post a poem as you know how I look forward to eviscerating them   Well, into the breach, and other military cliches.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Your rhyme pattern as well as your line count is all over the place, so we'll make it simple and call it iambic free verse with incidental rhyme, that way I need not comment on what otherwise would be mistakes: no mistakes, no comments. This leaves me free to make off the top of the head comments and snide remarks about your snide poem. 

" a million heads turn round." A bit of a under estimate I would think. Just the current number of Christians is 2.4 billion persons. One would suspect it would be many times that if put within the historical timeline as you seem to do. If you mean to refer to an event like the Crucifixion, one would have to estimate at best a hundred and in reality less than half of that. So with the million mark in association with the heads turn around, either literally or figuratively it really doesn't seem to apply to much of anything without a stretch, or if one were looking at it with a lack of knowledge, that a large portion of the world lives their daily lives with, or without if you will. You could be looking at such through their eyes, but it does not seem a very effective device. Your poem, as you say.  
  
"No John, or David, Pete or Mat" This to me seems a cheap attempt at humor, I think it is beneath you. Not beneath me, but definitely beneath you. 

"Though saints infest the West, the East protects the sneaking thief"

Despite that this is seven feet of iambs, it still reads awkwardly to me. I can appreciate the internal rhyme of "infest" and "west," and the idea of a saint infestation is very humorous. 

I thought stanza dos had a lot of words for the little it actually said. I am being generous and assuming the time you are referring to is somehow related to the Abrahamic religions, or just poorly played hyperbole. Either way it seems to do little to move the poem along or for comic relief. This line "a mystery made secret by your place of birth" makes little sense as no such thing is in evidence. Whether referring to one of the big three Abraham, Jesus, or Muhammad, or any of the three religions, taken seriously, satirically, or comically, I can find no foothold in meaning.

What follows could easily apply to Islam's Jihadist, and Christian Martyrs and thus echos the first stanza line: "that steals her sons from thoughtful life"

"the young treat death as blessed demise to trade for early paradise; and everlasting dreams."   

Those are some nicely written lines.

"in black Iraq," the "in black" is purely there for the meter and nothing else, do not even try to deny it. As far as I can discern this construction of yours " black Iraq" is just that, your construction, as this fantasy exists no where outside your poem except in reference to "black Iraqis," or the "black market" in Iraq. That is to say the term appears totally without definition to the outside world. Although I like the feel and the look of it, I cannot abide that it has absolutely no meaning.

" to glorify a Lord." This seems a bit odd. That is to say, it makes one pause to consider. Considering it seems you are dealing exclusively with the Abrahamic religions and they all worship the same "God" (I'll not explain this as I know you know), I think if you must, it would probably have a sharper point to say, "to glorify a Faith," as it is the difference in religion that causes the problem as Muslims worship the same "God" as Abraham worshiped. It is the religion that has decided to name him "Allah" and accept that as the only legitimate name. So I think "Faith" (I capitalize as it means the entire religion, not the generic term "faith".) would hit closes to home and drip more satiric acid, as the first does nothing.   

The alliteration in the last line can not save you from going off meter, and what would have been a fairly strong idea to end on becomes weak.
I knew through Shakespeare that Hell had fury, or was it no fury, but I never knew Hell had hands (alliteration is not always pretty). Regardless, between the blown meter, and hell being given hands this pretty much puts the coffin nail into your ending. A pity as it is a very good idea, to bad you stabbed it in its sleep. "Good night sweet Prince" Hal now brown caul! Oh my gods you have infected my with all saints disease. I best drink a cup of all spice immediately to expel it from out my body. I write cannot. Spice, spice is nice... 


Dale

(01-11-2015, 07:32 AM)Erthona Wrote:  Tom,

you are such as ass some times. Not in regards to this poem, but to your bitchy like replies (I actually I only read one, but I know how you can be), I don't think one "good egg" absolves of ten fuck you. How many would you suggest  but who's counting? Granted, one would think that it would be easy enough to understand that Mohammed symbolizes Islam, and that the epitaph of "sneaking thief" which could apply literally to Mohammed, applies figuratively to Islam. I should think it is clear enough that it needs no changes.

I don't know how I missed this one. You should inform me whenever you post a poem as you know how I look forward to eviscerating them   Well, into the breach, and other military cliches.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Your rhyme pattern as well as your line count is all over the place, huh? Oh, yeah...over metered. Got itso we'll make it simple and call it iambic free verse with incidental rhyme, that way I need not comment on what otherwise would be mistakes: no mistakes, no comments. This leaves me free to make off the top of the head comments and snide remarks about your snide poem. 

" a million heads turn round." A bit of a under estimate I would think. Just the current number of Christians is 2.4 billion persons. Eureka! You give me two points for one. One cannot call to 1 million, even less to 2.4 billion. I was going for the local but ended up global. My slip. Further, by emphasising the multiplicity of choice in the christian name selection, the infestation of saints, I get a neat contrast between that choice and that of the limited muslim. Thanks. Alliteration better, too.  One would suspect it would be many times that if put within the historical timeline as you seem to do. If you mean to refer to an event like the Crucifixion, I didn't  one would have to estimate at best a hundred and in reality less than half of that. So with the million mark in association with the heads turn around, either literally or figuratively it really doesn't seem to apply to much of anything without a stretch, or if one were looking at it with a lack of knowledge, that a large portion of the world lives their daily lives with, or without if you will. You could be looking at such through their eyes, but it does not seem a very effective device. Your poem, as you say.   I hope that the "million" reference is out of ignorance..Peanuts cartoon. Lynus  "I bet there's a million, gillion, zillion grains of sand on all the  beaches  in all the world.".  Charlie Brown, after a pensive delay, "  I bet there isn't".
  
"No John, or David, Pete or Mat" This to me seems a cheap attempt at humor, I think it is beneath you. Not beneath me, but definitely beneath you.  Kind of funny sandwich filling, then. Yes, it is cheap. I struggled here

"Though saints infest the West, the East protects the sneaking thief"

Despite that this is seven feet of iambs, it still reads awkwardly to me. I can appreciate the internal rhyme of "infest" and "west," and the idea of a saint infestation is very humorous.  Good catch. It is the pause caused by that bloody righteous comma. Read it shorter. I have to.

I thought stanza dos had a lot of words for the little it actually said. I am being generous and assuming the time you are referring to is somehow related to the Abrahamic religions, or just poorly played hyperbole. Either way it seems to do little to move the poem along or for comic relief. This line "a mystery made secret by your place of birth" makes little sense as no such thing is in evidence. Whether referring to one of the big three Abraham, Jesus, or Muhammad, or any of the three religions, taken seriously, satirically, or comically, I can find no foothold in meaning. ...and with one bound he was free...Nor can I find any sense in it. It is a senseless subject, open to ignorant questions (mine et al), written senselessly as is moot, and even titled with a question. There was, however, some thought in the womb-pop line. The Israel/Palestine issue has become hopelessly transferred polemically in to a border dispute...it is a mystery often used as the basis for low grade war crimes...kill your enemy who was not born in your country. If you want to survive in a hostile place, deny your place of birth. That is all

What follows could easily apply to Islam's Jihadist, and Christian Martyrs and thus echos the first stanza line: "that steals her sons from thoughtful life"

"the young treat death as blessed demise to trade for early paradise; and everlasting dreams."   

Those are some nicely written lines. Thanks. They are probably encapsulates. The rest, as they say, is history

"in black Iraq," the "in black" is purely there for the meter and nothing else, do not even try to deny it. I deny it thus:
It alliterates, it represents the black appareil of the ISIS(L) phenomena, it contras the "sunny places" (do not even go there...sunnY I said), and it is an expression of sadness that a country is going through a "black" phase in its evolution. Yes, I really did think like this as I wrote the words...As far as I can discern this construction of yours " black Iraq" is just that, your construction, as this fantasy exists no where outside your poem except in reference to "black Iraqis," or the "black market" in Iraq. That is to say the term appears totally without definition to the outside world. Although I like the feel and the look of it, I cannot abide that it has absolutely no meaning.

" to glorify a Lord." This seems a bit odd. That is to say, it makes one pause to consider. Considering it seems you are dealing exclusively with the Abrahamic religions and they all worship the same "God" (I'll not explain this as I know you know), I think if you must, it would probably have a sharper point to say, "to glorify a Faith," Excellent, excellent, excellent catch and solution...I cannot see how I missed it. Credited change as it is the difference in religion that causes the problem as Muslims worship the same "God" as Abraham worshiped. It is the religion that has decided to name him "Allah" and accept that as the only legitimate name. Precisely so So I think "Faith" (I capitalize as it means the entire religion, not the generic term "faith".) would hit closes to home and drip more satiric acid, as the first does nothing.    Done. Thanks

The alliteration in the last line can not save you from going off meter, and what would have been a fairly strong idea to end on becomes weak.
I knew through Shakespeare that Hell had fury, or was it no fury, but I never knew Hell had hands (alliteration is not always pretty). Honest excuse? I didn't want to bring in another fictional character. It was the devil's hands originally. Thoughts? Regardless, between the blown meter, and hell being given hands this pretty much puts the coffin nail into your ending. A pity as it is a very good idea, to bad you stabbed it in its sleep. "Good night sweet Prince" Hal now brown caul! Oh my gods you have infected my with all saints disease. I best drink a cup of all spice immediately to expel it from out my body. I write cannot. Spice, spice is nice...  So you liked it when it stopped...?

all in text responses written later and soberly
Dale

Hey,Dale, you should read more  Strictly AABCCB is an old favourite. That was my sniper shot to the ankle.  I see  your PM  but can barely see the fuckin' screen right  now. I will get back.
Anyway ,events have rather overtaken this piece...accepting that the sun never sets on the french  because god doesn't trust them in the dark there may be another verse to follow.
Evisceration is good for the soul...lingua in maxillam.
Best,
tectak[/b]

"How many would you suggest"

Well I suppose it depends on the individual. As I am obdurate the "fuck you" gesture would not effect me one way or another, the same with the "good egg". However, other people are not me (which I would think would be obvious, yet I felt compelled to state it just in case there was a misunderstanding on the subject), and for that they should count themselves lucky no doubt. However those people who are not me tend to be effected in varying degrees by such negative comments. I would suppose one would need to take into consideration the personality of the person so abused, if this is not known then consider them to be in the most thinned skinned category. Failing this, one might consider the ratio between a sin and how many prayer beads one has to pray on to be absolved and let that number guide him. It is so unfortunate you have no moral compass, as they say, and we have to construct these artificial rules to guide you through these disturbed social waters, but one never mined gold complaining about the lack of rain in the Gobi.  

I bundled rhyme and meter together as there were exceptions to both. Although I recognized the rhyme pattern you were in, it broke in the 3rd stanza, Did it?plus there was the addition of interior rhyme. To make things easier (for me) I decided to see it as incidental rhyme and not address it as the error in the 3rd, as seemed not to effect the poem and so I was attempting to bypass it so I would not have to talk about something that did not really impact the poem in a negative way. Lord-Absurd I believe would be the CC part of your rhyme scheme, yet it does not rhyme. In terms of meter, you start out as per usual for you in seven foot lines, either whole or broken. However this pattern is not maintained so the most one can call it is iambic free verse. Although not entirely accurate (I was practicing a little hyperbole of my own, it seemed appropriate considering the tone of the poem), by labeling it as such allowed me not to have to examine it; except where otherwise noted it had no negative effect on the poem.  
________________________________________________________________________________________
So now that we have the frivolous queries accounted for, on to the less frivolous queries: to whit...  

Oops, maybe not:
"I hope that the "million" reference is out of ignorance..Peanuts cartoon. Lynus  "I bet there's a million, gillion, zillion grains of sand on all the  beaches  in all the world.".  Charlie Brown, after a pensive delay, "  I bet there isn't"."

" a father’s name; a million heads turn round."

An interesting rejoinder, however as this is linked to a specific event and even though that event is undefined the number would be specific and hyperbole would not be proper. So in this instances the safe harbor of hyperbole turns into a shear face. Frivolously sheer. So I agree but still argue numbers. Is it of any  more consequence if higher or lower? Poetry rules OK?
_______________________________________________________________

"it is a mystery often used as the basis for low grade war crimes...kill your enemy who was not born in your country. If you want to survive in a hostile place, deny your place of birth. That is all"

"it is a mystery often used as the basis for low grade war crimes" I see, I was unaware of that. Sadly, fast atrocities rarely, if ever, involve excusatory (and if that ain't a word it should be) questions, in spite of the cock crowing thrice fable. Unless YOU KNOW otherwise, your nationality is often the condensate that kills. Borders breached oftimes result in murderous forays...perhaps territorial disputes are lower key than attrition or religion...but they are the easiest to justify; and after all, if you want to eliminate your enemy, you occupy his land. Tell me I'm wrong...to the victor, the spoils.  Could you refer me to the article or wiki page with footnotage that demonstrates this is a correct assertion as I have never heard about it before, and as that is true I would never be able to make the connection, however, were I aware of such I seriously doubt I would have made the connection. If you want proof, I'll write a wiki article Possibly, maybe this is a little joke at the readers expense; that when you trot out this gomerel goat after the fact your followers will say oh how deep- and mysterious Tom is, when in truth you are only obtuse? In Truth Obtuse...my new epitaphRegardless, you can count on me to keep your secret: taïaut and onward through the bog.
___________________________________________________________

"It alliterates, it represents the black appareil of the ISIS phenomena, it contras the "sunny places" (do not even go there...sunnY I said), and it is an expression of sadness that a country is going through a "black" phase in its evolution. Yes, I really did think like this as I wrote the words"

Of course we should never question your thinking: from God's mouth to our ears, oh worshipful Lord! BTW what is appareil? "appareil" is a typo masquerading as a franco-american meaningful word. Bon innit? Do they have them in other colors? Wellaway, I guess we may never know, or should we know it matters not.

Well that's nice, all that stuff you say up there, except what are the chances of anyone figuring it out. I usually read a minimum of at least one story a day dealing with the Da’ash from three different sources, to keep from getting a slanted view of what is going on. So if one were going to make that connection it would seem like I would. Evidently I must be more dense than I thought. I promise in the future I will become better at reading your mind.
___________________________________________________________________
" Honest excuse? I didn't want to bring in another fictional character. It was the devil's hands originally. Thoughts?"

Yes, I sensed that also, and "devil's hands" did come to mind, and I rejected it for probably the same reason you did. One thing you might consider is changing this line, "They kill us with commands," so it has a different ending allowing you more flexibility. I didn't say anything, but I didn't particularly care for that line as it hung out there. It made sense when it was connected with the rest of the sentence, but I think that line in itself should at least imply some meaning. How does one kill someone with commands? Go fuck yourself with a rusty bayonet, for example Usually when one uses enjambment it is because the short line implies something either by itself or in connection with what came before it, so that it is being used by both the line before and after, or split between the two if you will. This seem to do neither. Of course I am not a fan of enjambment, so I generally try to remain mum on the matter, but as you are looking for a solution to your last line, maybe you could upgrade both. If for no other reason than to give you greater flexibility to find a solution for your last line. No. I mean yes. I do not embrace
enjambment.
I sometimes do it because the devil has me...I sometimes do it because it will bring out the devil in others...I sometimes do it deliberately.
___________________________________________________________________________
In general I like this poem, it reminds me of that line from Yeats "Second Coming,"

"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

It also has that "Book of Revelations" end time vibe to it, and I have always found that "apocalyptic" idea intriguing. I'm not implying this is about apocalypse or an apocalypse, just that for me it has that tone. I guess in modern parlance it would be call dystopian, however that is much more shallow in scope.   
 
lingua in maxillam ( are you sure you know what that means   ) Of course I am not sure. Wikipedia translated it

Your disobedient servant,

dale

Although not drunk, my allergies are so bad I can scarce type five words before having to stop to sneeze, plus my eyes are all but swollen shut. So forgive me if some of my writing is a bit off. I would hate to think that you did not understand all of my insults Delighted you are back on form. Good egg
Best,
tectak