In Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" everyone watches oversized televisions and no one thinks independently.   For Michael Moore, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is "the temperature at which democracy burns."

Several months ago we were debating religious "passion, " now it's time for some unfettered political passion.   Just as Christians encouraged non-Christians to see "The Passion," Bush supporters should see "Fahrenheit 9/11."  

Moore's film is no more propaganda than "The Passion" and is certainly less harmful to children.   And the blood is that of American soldiers, not the thin, fake blood of Hollywood.

A recent critic called Moore's work "outraged patriotism."   Many readers of this column may be outraged at him.   All the more reason to find out what the mutual outrage is about.

If all you know about Michael Moore is his infamous Academy Award speech, then you might consider his fine work in Roger and Me.   How many people do you know who would stand up for the working people of their hometown in such a bold fashion? And this against one of the most powerful corporations in the world?  

Some are claiming that Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary, assuming documentaries are "factual" and "objective."   The thing is, there is no objectivity in film and facts are always clothed in agendas.  

Documentaries have taken the place of political art, and they are always perspectival.   There is no such thing as a "neutral" stance.

Moore's work is in the tradition of political art.   It brings the topic to the fore and challenges conventional notions.   And just like in Bradbury's book, it exposes some for the censors they are.

Many would say that wartime films should always be patriotic, like those from the World War II era.   These films offer self-affirming entertainment, but they rarely question the assumptions of war or explore its morally ambivalent aspects.

A philosopher once said you should hold ideas in suspension, unaccepted, until you really understand the situation.   Similarly, I think until you've seen the film, those voices that normally generate popular viewpoints should be shelved until personal opinions can be formed independently.

It's important that we get beyond the dangerous notion that criticizing the president during a time of war is unpatriotic, or even treasonous, as some have suggested.

Criticizing the president is not the same thing as not "supporting the troops."   Though many seem confused on this issue, both are possible and indeed required for a healthy democracy.

And it's not as if Bush has not created the conditions for a stringent critique.   The 9/11 Commission has confirmed Iraq had no involvement in 9/11.   And we all know there are no WMD's.  

We attacked the wrong country for ideological reasons.  The war in Iraq is not part of the "War on Terror."

A film that brings these and other issues to the front in an election year seems to be just the right prescription for vigorous debate.

Those who would call Moore or any critic of power a "domestic enemy" or a "traitor" are themselves the ones to be feared. They are the modern book burners.   Let's shame these voices of fear and make sure that we're not burning ideas before they are heard.

There may be no one big Truth about this war, but there are a lot of little truths.   Let's listen to them all.