What’s Going on in the Israel

There are a multitude of positions and reasonings on the recent Israeli attacks on military and military support structures in the Gaza Strip. The attacks, in short, are the result of internal Israeli and Palestinian governmental conflicts as well as the long-shared enmity and claims of the two peoples. Ultimately, though, it should be understood that Hamas has ignored a long-running ceasefire, taking potshots with missiles targeting Israeli civilians over the last several months, and the Israeli’s have decided to end that.

 

Israel has recently launched extensive and effective airstrikes on the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip. These airstrikes are directed at Hama targets in what is claimed to be retaliation for Hamas’ launching of rockets and mortars into civilian areas on the Israeli side of the border, despite a cease-fire agreement between the governments of Palestine and Israel. All of this had roots in recent Palestinian elections that brought Hamas into power. Over the past summer, these elections brought defeat to the old party of the Palestinian Authority, with which most Americans associate Yasser Arafat, the late leader of the original PLO terrorist organization. While the PLO evolved itself into the political entity that became the foundation for the Palestinian National Authority, Hamas, like Hezbollah, has shown little political inclination towards Israel and has preferred a policy of violent confrontation over diplomatic conversation.

 

Hamas is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organization, and, like Hezbollah, has formed political structures in order to advance their agenda through political means where possible. Hamas came to power in the Palestinian National Authority in a campaign to eliminate widespread corruption and incompetence of the then ruling Fatah party which had internally crippled the Palestinian government. Hezbollah concentrates on Lebanese issues, but is a known and regular supporter of anti-Israeli Palestinian efforts including those by Hamas. Like Hezbollah, Hamas has stated one overriding goal; the destruction of Israel through jihad. While Hezbollah is an essentially Shi’a organization, Hamas is Sunni; but they share many objectives, most of them Socialist, bordering on communist, and always anti-Israel. Both parties have retained high regard among the Palestinian people for their conservative, fundamentalist political and moral platforms, and they have succeeded in generally avoiding the pitfalls of corruption in their governmental incursions in Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine. These parties are seen as protectors of the interests of “true” Palestinians and resisters of corrupt Western and Israeli influence.

 

Hamas has used its ascension to Palestinian governance as a cover and conduit for advancing its jihadist agenda, consistently provoking the Israeli’s into confrontation. Most frequently, they use mortars and rockets to strike fear over the border in the Israeli population. The latest counterstrikes by Israel and the apparent Israeli intention to send in ground troops seem to be part of the Hamas plan. It seems that Hamas thinks that it can win against an Israeli ground offensive, because such a move would enrage the Palestinian people into a general revolt against Israel and lead, perhaps, to a successful insurgency. It would also appear that Hamas has this part of its strategy wrong; the Palestinian people are almost certainly too weary of war and conflict to en masse take a significant role in the current Israeli-Hamas hostilities. Hamas also believes that they can win a ground war in Gaza against Israeli infantry and armor. Two things tell Hamas this: The mud and urban landscape of Gaza disfavor tanks and infantry formations, and Hamas has, as they have in the past, the civilian population of Gaza to use as shields. With a terrain-slowed offensive and mounting civilian casualties, Israel will be pressured to end the operations quickly.

 

The Israeli offensive has shown great restraint towards and concern for civilian casualties among the Gazan population and is mindful of the need to minimize collateral damage, Hamas, on the other hand has targeted Israeli civilian populations exclusively, virtually ignoring viable and legal military targets. Israel has already disavowed any intention of using the conflict with Hamas as a rationale for re-occupying the Gaza Strip, and seems intent only on breaking Hamas control over the Palestinian National Authority. Much of the recent violence has been fomented by Hamas in its internal struggle with Fatah for control of the Palestinian government.

 

Also telling is the generally muted reaction of the Arab/Muslim world. The only country showing real support for Hamas at this time is Iran. Yesterday Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki issued a statement condemning the attacks for the toll on civilians. Egypt has, in fact, closed its Gaza border and fired upon Palestinians and Hamas members attempting to flee the Israeli onslaught. It appears that Hamas has, through its programme of violence isolated itself from the international community and the Arab world.

 

George Bush has not even bothered to shorten or interrupt his vacation, so, it would seem that the American government knew that this was going to happen. Whether the President knew from direct communications or had known because this Israeli incursion was forecasted by the intelligence community and State Department is unclear.

 

All of this indicates that the Israeli’s, much as they experienced initially during the Second Lebanon War with Hezbollah, has been granted at least tacit consent from the world at large to eliminate the terrorists of Hamas in favor of those who would prefer negotiation over confrontation. However, the pressure is beginning to initiate a new cease-fire and to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Israeli’s must act fast, be decisive and, as always, be very selective with their targets. The tension here is to reduce the threat posed by Hamas while minimizing civilian casualties, and as chaos reigns in Gaza, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish friend from foe from innocent.

Letter to Georgetown Mayor

Dear Mayor,

Not only did your minister friends deceive the city council on 1 December, but they have, in all likelihood, been deceiving you for all of your life. The alcohol is evil mentality espoused by the Southern Baptist Convention is the result of an appeasement to pro-temperance forces of the late 19th Century, coupled with private interests in keeping taxes and legitimate competition away from bootleg liquor and justified with an heretical, or false, teaching based on a deliberate misinterpretation of scripture.

I’ll work this backwards, because it is explained easier that way. The heresy is in teaching that the wine mentioned in the Bible is non-alcoholic. In the Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldean languages, the words used in scripture then are the same words used today. Today, as in times past, those words for wine meant a fermented, alcoholic beverage. There is no difference; if one goes to Greece or Israel and finds a product with any of the scriptural words, one will find an alcoholic beverage. The “new” wine argument is equally heretical, as “new” means now, as it did then, only that the wine has not aged, not that it is unfermented. The semantic play that biblical wine was grape juice doesn’t hold up to any reasoned analysis; there were ancient words for grape juice, and those words are not in the scriptures used to justify the anti-alcohol heresy. One last comment on this; It may be said that the “wine” isn’t the same, because yeast wasn’t added. This is partly true, but only in a misdirected manner. The grapes of the Mediterranean area are naturally coated with an external growth of yeast, so it is not necessary to add any for fermentation. Grapes for direct consumption (from the bunch), such as the Concord varieties, have been selected and bred so as not to produce this otherwise naturally occurring yeast.

Post Civil War, temperance societies sprung up across the US and the world, though internationally they were less prevalent. Many ministries joined in the movement under pressure from more conservative members of their congregations. There was also, in the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction South an impetus, not just from conservative church members, but from those profiting off illegal liquor trade. By joining the temperance call, these groups were able to claim non-alcoholic communities, some very few of which were so in fact, relieving bootleggers from two sources of concern: competition and taxation.

The issue of non-alcoholism first came before the Southern Baptist Convention around 1870, but did not become an Article of Faith until 1896. This means that the current Southern Baptist mentality and teaching on alcohol has only existed for 112 years of the nearly four hundred years of the Baptist faith. Remember, Elijah Craig, the famed developer of Bourbon was more famous in his time as a Baptist minister. The hypocrisy of the teaching is evident in the general informal ministers’ guidelines of the “two hour” and “no one sees” rules.

So, in short, the anti-alcohol Southern Baptist teaching is itself heresy and forms a cover for criminal activity. It is also being abandoned by many member churches of the Southern Baptist Community.

As for the obvious attempt by those ministers who spoke at the city council meeting on 1 December to influence government, the Southern Baptist Convention Position Statement on Church and State reads thus:  “We stand for a free church in a free state. Neither one should control the affairs of the other. We support the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with its "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses.”

You once claimed ethical high ground in talking with me; in allowing and, quite possibly, sponsoring these ministers to posit a denominationally-specific religious view supported by bogus “facts” in an attempt to stifle a measure beneficial to the community as a whole, I must question your ethics.

Caroline Kennedy should not go to the Senate

Word in the news and on the back alleys of politics has it that Caroline Kennedy is going to be the choice to replace New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who, as all should know now, has been selected to be the Obama administration’s Secretary of State. This is probably, in this writer’s opinion, not a good move for America. Caroline Kennedy will bring to the US Senate all of the values and positions of her predecessor, with a few new twists. While the people and state of New York may accept these values and positions, there are a couple that should give all of America pause; they do me.

 

Caroline Kennedy would bring not only the liberal values of her predecessor, but also the interesting marks of Massachusetts liberalism. Also, Caroline might be more willing to espouse and fight for her views than Senator Clinton has proven. Caroline Kennedy would likely join forces with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in pushing a more liberalized agenda upon what seems to be turning out to be a pragmatic Obama administration.

 

Caroline Kennedy professes two anathematic positions that should make every sane and rational person in the US think twice about her. For one, she is an ardent and strident supporter of gun control along the lines of Sarah Brady; this pretty much automatically makes her susceptible to the influence of billionaire financier/shipping magnate George Soros. Her second offensive position is favoring abortion- not so bad, in my opinion, except that she supports the idea of minors being able to obtain one without parental consent or even knowledge!

 

On gun control, the unenlightened Kennedy has said that she would support a return to the so-called assault weapons ban of the Clinton years. This is unfortunate in that all of the evidence suggests that the ban did nothing to reduce crime, as such weapons are the least likely (as in 1% involvement in crimes of violence before, during, and after the Clinton ban)to be used in an act of violence. I think that some of these people see the spree killings which have occurred since 1985 as a source of concern over these weapons. Unfortunately, thanks to intensive cover-up work by the American Medical Association and pharmaceutical companies, few people realize that spree killings and Prozac use, unlike assault weapons, have a 100% statistical correlation. Yes, gun grabbers, a specific drug is more likely, so far every time, than a specific sort of firearm, to be involved in the spree killings we all fear. Every single spree killing, of which there were very few before the introduction of Prozac, since the introduction of Prozac has had at its helm a Prozac patient. Even the foreign ones in Europe. Better regulation of Prozac and its similar pharmaceuticals would do more to prevent the massacres feared than more regulation of weapons.

 

There is no rational reason for the expansion of abortion rights. The first trimester should be plenty of time for over 90% of women to detect and decide about her pregnancy. Except for recent Bush administrative decisions that will be shortly overturned, the rules already generally allow for exceptions in the event of potential risk to the mother’s life. And to suggest that a minor female should be able to opt for abortion without parental consent or knowledge is just foolishly permissive. A child cannot legally drop out of school or seek out other forms of elective surgery without parental consent; how can one legally justify allowing them to have an abortion?

 

Caroline Kennedy is already admittedly in possession of at least two of the least reasonable positions of the far left. Yet, when it comes to issues of wealth and taxation, she appears to lean back to the right in opposing a more equitable graduated income tax-distribution scheme. It seems that perhaps Caroline Kennedy’s liberalism may be reserved for only those who can afford it. In recent interviews, she has primarily leaned to the more extreme end of the Democratic Party on social issues while backing the Republicans on economic and wealth issues. Her positions have not been explained fully enough to analyze her reasoning, but then again, she may be looking to popularity socially while protecting her own economically. This combination of discordant views tends to indicate an unfocused, and perhaps less than informed, worldview. In any event, she draws the concern of this writer.

A Humbling Experience

Georgetown City Council Meeting 15 December 2008

 

I have to admit that my appearance during the “community concerns” segment of the city council was not my best outing in public speaking. For some unknown reason, I got a bad case of the “butterflies”; this is a rare occurrence for me. Perhaps it was the realization that not only was I challenging the mayor and a couple of city council members, but also a significant, if waning, and influential faction of Georgetown; to wit, the leadership of the Baptist churches of Georgetown. As I’ve written previously, when Georgetown’s City Council held its first reading of the proposal to permit Sunday alcohol sales, the principal opposition came from First, Gano, and Faith Baptist churches. Leaders of these churches presented many misleading and even false statements to the city council. I have written and been published in the Georgetown News-Graphic on my views of the issue and the falsity of the opposition’s claims. I have written the members of the city council, as well as the mayor, pointing out the deliberate deception presented by opponents to Sunday alcohol sales at the Georgetown City Council meeting that took place on the 1^st of December. At the city council meeting of the fifteenth of December, I spoke on those issues for my allotted three minutes, and, in my opinion, did miserably; but, I did manage to get the rebuttal of the previously referred “facts” in. I stuttered and sputtered and did the “chained-elephant” dance, and generally suffered a humbling experience at my own hands. For this, I must apologize to those who are hoping I am able to get the city council to revisit Sunday alcohol sales. Still, the council seemed to hear and believe what I had to say. Some appeared shocked as I went down, item-by-item the list of deceptions foisted on them at the previous council meeting. The mayor appeared uncomfortable with her mouth pinched as I explained the truth to council. As I left after my three minutes were up, I realized that a prior thought of mine was probably true. I have thought for the last week and a half that the Mayor set up the opposition appearance during the first reading and stacked the deck against passage of the Sunday alcohol sales proposal.

 

Now that I have chosen to engage the city on this matter, I realize that I cannot just drop it, despite initial apparent failure. While I may be dealing with a lame-duck council and a do little positive mayor, the issue of Sunday sales must be kept in front of the council, even if that means keeping it there until the new city council members take their seats.

Georgetown Council Deceived

I have been reviewing the video of Georgetown's last City Council meeting, and checking the facts, and was thereby compelled to write what follows. On the 1st of December, Georgetown’s City Council was deceived by many of the opponents to Sunday alcohol sales at the first reading of the proposed ordinance to permit Sunday alcohol sales. Dr. Hambrick made a multitude of false causality statements. His references to child, domestic, and sexual abuse, along with his mention of fetal alcohol syndrome, are about ten times more likely to be associated with in-home drinking enabled by package sales rather than liquor-by-the-drink. Liquor by the drink tends to reduce these trends, as the necessary social atmosphere reduces the opportunity for abusive behavior. In citing fetal alcohol syndrome, Dr. Hambrick is entirely misleading as it is next to impossible that any responsible restaurant, bar, or server would serve alcohol to a known or obviously pregnant individual. Dr. Hambrick referred to alcohol as a gateway drug; in this, he is relatively alone in the medical and scientific community, as both the American Medical Association and the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse both declaim alcohol and cannabis, both, as gateway drugs. Sunday sales will not contribute to underage drinking, because we are talking about public consumption, whereas underage drinking requires some degree of privacy, which is facilitated, again, by package sales. Dr. Hambrick also mentions and praises Ed Tedder’s letter to the editor in the News-Graphic. Ed Tedder’s letter, as can be expected from this dry group, is as misleading as anything else presented by the opponents of Sunday sales. Seems Mr. Tedder sought to make finding the article he mentioned from the American Journal of Public Health difficult by not including its title. This may be because the referenced article and study refer to Sunday package sales in New Mexico only, and sheds no light on by the drink sales, which is the issue at hand. Dr. Hambrick conveniently neglected to mention that he is a minister at Faith Baptist Church. Wayne Lipscomb of Gano Baptist Church claimed that as a police chaplain in Boone County he was thankful that he knew that, because of that county’s dry Sundays, that Sunday was one day he would never have to notify a family of a loss of life due to alcohol. Lipscomb’s statement is misleading, because, during the twenty year period ending 2006, Boone County averaged one alcohol-related traffic fatality per year. So, of the 365 days available during the typical year, Lipscomb was relieved that that one day never fell on one of the 52 Sundays.  

The opponents brought no legitimate evidence to the harm caused by Sunday sales because they couldn’t find any. All reliable scientific studies available on by the drink sales on Sunday indicate two consequences: increased local revenues with no corresponding increase in alcohol-related tragedy.

City of Georgetown or City of Georgetown’s Baptist Churches?

In a time of economic crisis any government has a responsibility to look to its income as much as possible without hurting its constituency. The City of Georgetown City Council has refused to do both and has, as it has so often, caved to the demands of a minority special interest while again refusing to look to the expansion of local business and the positive impact upon the business owners, their employees, the consumers, and the revenues of the City of Georgetown. The opposition expressed from the community, later cited as a rationale for pulling the proposal, came almost entirely from a single source, the Baptists of Georgetown. The Council claimed that opposition to the measure from the community was their reason for suspending the second reading due on the 15^th of December.

 

Last Monday’s City Council meeting explored the first reading of a proposed ordinance to permit the Sunday sale of alcohol in restaurants. The majority of opposition to the measure came from Baptist ministers and Baptist laity speaking on the evils of alcohol and respect for the Sabbath. One speaker of the opposition, a pediatrician with membership in Faith Baptist Church, spoke of fetal alcohol syndrome, an affliction which will not be impacted by the sale of alcohol in restaurants on Sunday. The remainder spoke almost entirely on the sins of alcohol and the need to preserve the Sabbath. Not one person opposing the Sunday sale of alcohol spoke on any matter truly relevant to the City of Georgetown and its governance. Neither were the opposition speakers able to cite any empirical data to back up claims of potential damage to the community. Across the nation, Sunday alcohol sales have increased local revenues and expanded local economies while having no impact on DUI’s or underage drinking.

 

Chad Wallace and the City Council cited pressure from the community and the desires of the community in pulling support for the measure. Once again, the City Council has spoken and acted in accordance with the pressures exerted by a vocal minority of the community, rather than the greater good of the City of Georgetown as a whole. The City Council frequently cites community pressures in its decisions, but never have they conducted a poll or survey. It seems that their “community pressure” comes from a few people with whom they converse on regular basis and those who manage to create access to advance the cause of their special interests.

 

The Baptist Churches have no legal or constitutional right to present a religious argument favoring or opposing measures before city government. While they may be heard out of courtesy, their arguments reflecting religious beliefs must be disregarded. This nation, with all of its constituent lower level governments, is based upon the idea of representative democracy, not theocracy. That is the thrust, and the parry, of the separation of church and State. The Constitution is clear on this issue, as are the various writings available from the Framers of the Constitution, men like John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, to name a few. All of these men evinced suspicion of church influence on government as well as government adoption of religion. Apparently, the Georgetown City Council believes itself wiser than the Framers of the Constitution. The Separation protects not only religion from the interference of government, but also the government from the interference of religious interests. Georgetown’s City Council has abdicated its responsibility to represent the interests of the bodies civic and politic while heeding the call of a religious body. They have quashed a responsible measure that would definitely increase revenues and possibly stimulate economic growth at a time when both are desperately needed.

The American Christian Nation in the Words of the Founders

A Prelude to: City of Georgetown, or City of Georgetown's Baptist Churches?

 

 

The United States of America is a Christian nation only in the same sense that it is a Caucasian nation; the argument cannot be supported by legal documentation except as census data denoting a demographic domination. This simply means that Christians, like Caucasians, comprise a majority of the population. And, as is the case with Caucasian demographic dominance, Christians are not legally entitled to any particular preference in matters of law or governance.

 

The Founding Fathers deliberately set up a government absolutely separated from the religion(s) of its constituents. These men were products of Enlightenment thought and sought to put an end to the constant internal and external petty bickering and often warring predicated or justified over religious issues that had dominated European politics for centuries. They modeled their new government not on the ostensibly Christian Holy Roman Empire, but upon its pagan predecessor, the Roman Republic, with additional influence drawn from the lessons of the equally non-Christian Iroquois Confederacy. There was never an intention, evinced or concealed, to form a United States based upon any religious model or even morality. The only confluence there was that all religions, even humanism, teach a nearly identical code of moral behavior. The Founders wrote little in official documents regarding issues of Christianity or religion because they had no cause for reflection upon what, for them, was an unspoken given. Where they did write on the issue of religious influence of government, as in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, the Founding Fathers and their government always disparaged and disavowed the idea.

 

Though there are vocal minorities who falsely claim that the United States is a “Christian” nation, theirs are arguments that run counter to the many statements and acts of those who created this country. In the words of the Founding Fathers themselves is found the absolute denial of the concept of America as a Christian nation in law. Those who wish to frame the US as a Christian nation need a Constitutional Amendment undoing the First Amendment if they wish their statements to be true in fact. Otherwise, their claim is unconstitutional, un-American, and unchristian. A Constitutional Amendment alone will not be sufficient to overcome that final obstacle to claiming the US as a Christian nation.

 

 

George Washington:

 

Washington said to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789 that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson:

 

In the many letters of Thomas Jefferson, he revealed his lack of belief in angels, spirits and other superstitious trappings of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

 

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

 

While Jefferson admired the morality of Jesus, as one might today regard Gandhi, Jefferson did not think Jesus divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

 

 

John Adams:

 

John Adams, widely regarded as among the most pious of the Founders, still found it necessary to say, "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

And, “. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

 

 

James Madison:

 

Often referred to as the father of the Constitution, James Madison voiced very strong views favoring the separation of church and State which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

 

 James Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. Madison wrote in his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

 

He went on to say, “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

 

 

Ben Franklin:

 

In an essay, “Toleration”, Ben Franklin writes of his disdain for Christianity:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

 

 

Thomas Paine:

 

Thomas Paine of Revolutionary and Constitutional thought literary fame, wrote in his The Age of Reason, "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

 

Paine, author of many respected pieces now considered US historical documents, also wrote, "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

 

 

Early US government documents:

 

The Constitution of the United States reflects the views of our founders on their establishment of a secular, non-religious government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "The idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety." The reason there was little mention of any god, or calls upon Christ was that the Founders themselves showed little of any of the Christian faith and preferred to allow each man’s conscience to dictate his choices in faith as personal matters, keeping them entirely out of the realm of government.

 

The Declaration of Independence makes no comment about rights secured by Christianity or the Christian god and eschews entirely the modern Christian foundation implications thrust upon it.

The god mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is not that one of Christianity. The Declaration mentions “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This “God of Nature” is an enlightenment phrase generally describing the natural order of things and how legal considerations should respect that above any particular religious ideology. It allows the humanist and rationalist to possess a faith while denying that faith a say in legal/governmental issues.

 

 

“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” -Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

 

 

In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States decision, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." While this might be interpreted as a legal endorsement of the concept, Justice Brewer wrote this in dicta; it was personal opinion only and cannot serve as a legal pronouncement.  Justice Brewer later felt it necessary to provide an explanation, lest others misuse his statement, as they have: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."

 

 

Jesus:

 

As for the unchristian element of the claim to a Christian nation, Jesus himself said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s.” This teaching is a commandment that very directly points to the separation of religious and political interests. Much of Jesus’ ministry was pointed at breaking the people free from intertwinement of religion and politics that had occurred with the Roman occupation of Judea (or Palestine, if one prefers). The Jewish religious leaders had become heavily involved in the Roman administration and begun acting in manners unfit for priests because of their political relations with the Roman governors. Jesus sought to teach that one should not become overly concerned or involved in such matters, as they tended to corrupt one another, to the detriment of all.

 

 

The United States of America is not now, nor ever has been, nor was ever intended to be, a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers reflected easily upon centuries of various Christian nations and knew that the concept would always produce inequality and strife, internally and externally. They desired to create a nation that would at least rise above that particular pettiness so that true equality and freedom in matters of religion would be protected by the government’s guarantee of disinvolvement. This has largely worked to the advantage of the American people. However, there have been groups that have sought to dissolve that wall of separation and involve politics in religion. Those who seek to do so defy the wisdom of those who have gone before and whose words and example on the matter are expounded upon herein. These groups, in unwisely seeking to meddle in politics through the pulpit prove themselves in defiance of the Constitution, the United States of America, and the teachings of the Christ.

Updates on things I’m considering writing about

I have on file copies of a news article and my sentencing/plea deal statements which show that in my current felony case, the State was willing to accept a dismissal of charges, but that the judge chose to assert himself as prosecutor. From a January 3^rd article in the Batesville Guard paper titled “Tragedies, education, crime among news from Sharp County” written by Larry Stroud: “ 40-yr-old James Snyder Jr., was sentenced to 20 years in prison with 15 years suspended on reduced charges of manslaughter. The state contended that Snyder was an unwilling participant.”

 

On 1 December, Georgetown City Council shows that the Baptist Church runs Georgetown. At a time of great economic distress, Georgetown shelved a measure that would have allowed Sunday sales of alcohol in restaurants, with the prospects of improving Sunday tax revenues on both food and drink sales. The measure was shelved because of opposition primarily from ministers with the Georgetown Baptist Church and members of same. The opposition brought no empirical data, because there is none that supports a rational disagreement for Sunday sales. Instead, they brought up respect for the Sabbath, which, as an argument in a government forum, is unconstitutional. There were other anecdotal references to the horrors of alcohol, but these had no relevance to the discussion, as alcohol sales are already permitted.

 

Terror in Mumbai. The terrorist assault in Mumbai, India, targeting mostly westerners and Jews was a well thought out and planned assault against which the apparently undisciplined, untrained Indian Police had no effective initial response. The attacks are not the act sought to be portrayed as one of Kashmir separatists struggling against Indian rule in the on-going dispute between India and Pakistan. The attacks are a diversionary measure designed to put Indian and Pakistani troops facing off against one another so that Pakistan’s military attention diverts from the tribal areas in which al-Qaeda and the Taliban seek refuge from their conflict in Afghanistan. The intended effect was to focus the attention of Pakistan and India, as well as that of the nations whose people were targeted, mostly American and European, as well as Israel, on the ongoing dispute over Kashmir, which both Pakistan and India claim. This would have diverted intelligence and military resources toward Kashmir and given the operatives of al-Qaeda and the Taliban some relief in the tribal areas bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.

More Evidence of Republican Malfeasance and the Crumbling Economy

More Evidence of Republican Malfeasance and the Crumbling Economy

 

In its AP Impact series, the Associated Press illustrates that the Bush administration, against the advice of reputable economists and regulators, relaxed regulations and rules on mortgage loans in 2005, allowing the current economic crisis to start. The article can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_ignored_warnings;_ylt=Ao01gt3K.7mp.j9OJOOqBuSs0NUE

The article correctly points out the warnings from regulators and economists as well as the pressure brought to bear by lobbyists for the mortgage industry and the Bush administration’s compliance with the interests of the mortgage lenders.

 

This did not happen in a vacuum; the administration of George W. Bush was helped along in its decision making by Party pundits and members of Congress who shared the now proven foolish belief in absolute free markets and deregulation. The article by the Associated Press makes the attempt to place all of the blame on lobbyists first and the administration second, thereby relegating all responsibility to now fading from the scene actors. This is misleading, and consistent with the demonstrated Associated Press bias towards the current administration and “centrist” Republican/conservative policy supporters, including a former Presidential candidate and a current Kentucky Senator. The article skirts the issues of responsibility and refuses to point to the true “smoking gun” of Republican economic theory.

 

However, the article by the Associated Press is more than gentle on our Republican legislators who all but unanimously backed the easing of restrictions on high risk loans. Republican Senators and Congressmen, in lockstep at the end of their control of both Houses of Congress, equally lobbied the administration to show favoritism for their mortgage industry “friends”, in a push for the fruits of the Republican economic policies of deregulation and “free” markets. AZ Senator John McCain and KY Senator Mitch McConnell were at the early head of the list for supporting these deregulation measures which ultimately proved fatal for an already troubled economy.

 

It is important to remember that “free” markets and deregulation always lead to domination by the greedy who have no interest other than short term profiteering. Monopolies and workplace hazards, as well as ultimate crushing of the thing sought to invigorate are the end result of Wilsonian Economics, the driving market ideology of the Republican Party and the cause of the Great Depression. It is regrettable that the Republican party has, twice in a century, proven itself short-sighted on economic matters. The Republican Party sells its economic theory to the masses talking about how their ideology is good for business, especially small business. This, while curiously believed by many who are the policies’ victims, is simply not true. Republican business favoritism is not beneficial for the greatest number of business owners, just as Republican tax policy is not beneficial for the greatest number of tax payers. Republican business, economic, and tax policy is beneficial only for the greatest amount of money in these areas, which, still remains in the hands of a very few. Whether on Wall Street or Main Street, regulation helps to ameliorate the abuses of power that seem to naturally coincide with the accumulation of wealth.

 

While no one should begrudge the wealthy the entitlement to the fruits of their labors, it is reprehensible to suggest, as the Republican Party usually does, that the fruits of those labors should entitle pre-emptive right to the fruits of the labor of others. Wilsonian Economics, again, the economic theory of the Republican Party, through its trickle down mechanism does exactly that: the poor and middle class are taxed at effectively higher rates than the rich, and the money is then re-distributed to the rich. The costs associated with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare pale in comparison to the amount of federal (our) money put into the hands of the already wealthy. This is in part explanation for why so many small businesses and farms fail during normaleconomic times while it requires a fiscal catastrophe to fell the industrial-economic behemoths.

 

What has really been at the root of our current economic meltdown has been the steady, Republican policy-fueled, decline of the middle class. In Wilsonian Economic theory, trickle down predicts that money fed into the upper branches will “trickle down” to the roots. Unfortunately, the theory doesn’t work in practice and the roots wither. The money and profits enjoyed by those at the top of the economic stratum has not “trickled down” to the bottom or even the middle. This money has mostly remained at the top, where there is, in truth, a very limited consumer base. These policies have steadily eroded the ability of the consumer base, where most of the goods purchasing takes place, to participate in the market. In a consumer-driven economy, any policy which reduces the consumers’ ability to consume is pure foolishness. With no one in the lower economic strata able to purchase goods because of the concentration of wealth at the top, eventually the supply of money for the top will also slow and eventually fail. Unregulated greed has its own reward, and that reward is failure, as current events have shown. The economic crisis at the top has been predicated by the long ignored economic crisis at the bottom, which in turn, was caused by the Republican/conservative economic policies which favored the top.