The propriety of negotiating with terrorists has been debated over the years. Its proponents argue that not negotiating would result in dire and needless tragedy. It’s opponents, on the other hand, argue that negotiations legitimize terrorists’ grievances, not to mention their demands and methods. It’s opponents also argue that giving in to such terrorist demands almost certainly ensures the likelihood of further terrorist activities. While some would have us believe that the argument regarding whether to engage in terrorist negotiations is complicated, the question over whether to negotiate with Satan is simple. The answer is a resounding, “No!” Why, then, do people act in ways that suggest they feel they can negotiate with Satan? Is it because: “But I would never negotiate with Satan,” you say. Ah, but it’s so easy to, and many times we don’t even realize we’ve done it until we’re faced with the consequences. The negotiation isn’t focused so much on the activity itself (we already want to participate in the activity, so the only roadblock is in justifying it) as it is the degree, or the frequency, or the setting of the activity. Do you see a pattern here? All of these conditions include the word “just,” as if that makes the proposed deed more acceptable and less offensive. On these occasions, the word “just” should have been added to that infamous list of other four-letter vulgarities. I’m not a fan of the phrase, “What would Jesus do?” It calls for speculation, and there’s not a person alive with enough wisdom to know the mind