I am working on an essay that I have to finish and ran into writer's block. I am going to throw my first paragraph out here and see what you think. Maybe it will stir debate, and maybe help me beat this writer's block. Suggestions would be appreciated too.

A shocked eighth grader sat in his social studies classroom and looked up puzzled, wondering where the smoking building went. In a world where people commit heinous acts in the name of an omnipresent being, who is right? How can one group claim to be the sole steward of that being’s message? These questions were ricocheting around in my thirteen year old mind while I tried to comprehend what was going on in the world and how something like September eleventh could happen. People all over the world absolutely arrogant and confident in their beliefs were willing to kill or be killed for them. Regardless of ideology, how could I wholeheartedly associate myself with any religious belief when the horrors of the world were being fueled by them? The logical conclusion I came to was the lesser of the evils, agnosticism.

If you do not mind a bit of criticism, your restatement of the narrator’s age -- “eighth grader”, “thirteen year old boy” -- to produce a transition from third person to first person that creates a connection of identicalness between the eight grader and the narrator comes off as a little bit forced, and as a result, it makes the text look slightly amateurish and clumsy. I would perhaps stick to one grammatical form or another throughout the essay, or find some other means of transition.

If you do not mind a bit of criticism, your restatement of the narrator’s age -- “eighth grader”, “thirteen year old boy” -- to produce a transition from third person to first person that creates a connection of identicalness between the eight grader and the narrator comes off as a little bit forced, and as a result, it makes the text look slightly amateurish and clumsy. I would perhaps stick to one grammatical form or another throughout the essay, or find some other means of transition.

I was kind of winging it. It is in no way polished. It is more of a general framework of what I am wanting to say in my opening paragraph.

I don't want to get too political as this is a forum for religion, although what is politics other than an extension of philosophy. But I find it quite ironic that you say:

...and how something like September eleventh could happen. People all over the world absolutely arrogant and confident in their beliefs were willing to kill or be killed for them.

Didn't 9/11 happen because the U.S. felt it could 'stick its nose' in any world affair that it damn well pleased and come away still smelling of flowers? At least thats what the ARROGANT few in government thought. I was watching tv a while back and I saw a John McCain ad where an excerpt of one of his speeches was played. "We're Americans, We're Americans and we'll never surrender" was what McCain shouted. It is this type of attitude, the idea that somehow one group of human beings are better than the rest, that is the greatest threat to peace. That and the notion that sitting and resolving problems with an enemy means conceding defeat. Because we all know that killing everyone we disagree with has helped us achieve the state of peace we live in today.

Treat everyone as you would treat your highest self.

What if we have the heart of a God-slayer?

there is no 8th grader

and no such thing as free thought