The Confederacy and the Cross

Living in Florida, I see Confederate flags all the time; in places where they offer to take “Old Time” photographs, in novelty stores along any major highway, faux battle sites, on beach towels, bikinis, race cars, and goofy license plates. I have no idea if those places are run or operated by racists. Maybe its because I considered the South the losers that I considered the Confederate-promoting items as simply something to sell at a profit, like a pair of shoes, so it is kept on hand for commercial, not bigoted, reasons. But that is derived from my ignorant white-centric view of the flag.

Still, I always wondered why they wanted to actually fly the Confederate Battle flag, like the huge one near Tampa at the intersection of I-4 and I-75. The war is over, the South lost, Lee surrendered, the Confederacy no longer exists, so what is it supposed to represent? No one flies a South Vietnamese flag anymore. We don’t fly the British flag from the colonial period, and you don’t see the flag of Mussolini’s Italy on flagpoles anywhere. So why fly the flag of the defeated side from a distant war? I suspect the recent attraction to flying the flag of the Lost Cause has to do with our current president, or rather, his skin color. Nothing satisfies some people like jabbing Obama and other like-minded people in the eye with the symbol of the slavery issue in a war that split the Union for four years. The flag's supporters always say "...but the Confederate Battle flag is not about hate, it’s about heritage". Really?

 Look at all that heritage on display.                    

Neo-Nazis, skinheads, the KKK, and other White Supremacist groups also fly the United States flag because you have to broaden your appeal to the people who live in states other than former Confederate ones. But the most frequent flag used for the past half century, with virtually no complaints from white Southerners, is the Confederate Battle flag, not the actual flag of the Confederate States of America; the Battle Flag. With whom are they in a shooting match? Defenders claim that just because somebody misuses the Battle Flag doesn't mean it represents anything bad. Alright, then what part did the bigots and racists get wrong?
       I understand why there was the call to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from in front of the capitol building in Columbia, South Carolina, and from the Mississippi flag. Walmart stopped carrying anything with the flag on it and many other stores have followed suit. Naturally, this will create quite a black market for sale of the flag. But those who have demanded its removal, or fought any display of it, seem to imagine the flag’s disappearance will signal the end of racism. As the band Aerosmith sings…“Dream On”. It won’t happen because the attitude is not based on the flag. The flag is a symptom, not the cause

                    Not much has changed in the state of Texas either

Ignorant, under-educated, narrow-minded bigots will not let go of their hate, and they hate a lot. For starters: liberals, moderates, gays, democrats, Yankees, carpet-baggers, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, long hairs, Prius owners, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Mexican’s, Native Americans (who were here before the bigot's ancestors arrived) and, of course, blacks. You see, blacks were freed by damned Yankees after the war and the people of the former Confederacy were forced, FORCED, to live in equality, side by side with them rather than owning them like animals and keeping them penned up in shacks and barns like…well, like cows, pigs and chickens. This ain’t right. Blacks used to be property and now they’re free…To live next to us…And use the same roads, buildings, water, and food, even breathe the same air! Hell, it’s like we now have to live in harmony with free-range farm animals. Damn them fuckin’ Yankees!

      When idiots lack understanding, comprehension is often found in firepower.

 The Battle flag’s presence across the south has been a simmering issue for over 50 years but the recent impetus to remove it stems from Dylann Roof killing nine people in cold blood this past June at a Charleston, SC church. Some people claim that since Roof was shown holding the Confederate Battle flag, it had a hand in inciting his hostility toward blacks, and that makes it's all the more reason to banish it. But he is also shown in shorts, t-shirt, and sunglasses. Are these any more indicative of a racist? No. Racism is a learned response from reading racist material, and from hearing about how and why one group is superior to another. Where might that have happened?

                                  One thing leads to another

 Many won’t like this aspect of the racism rampant in this country, but it is because of the Bible…a book that, at its core, is an explanation about why one group of people is exalted over all others. The Biblical god claims the “Jews are his chosen people”. When only a select few are glorified as “God’s favorites”, a two-tiered system is automatically generated where one is considered superior while the others are inferior. This is exactly what this biblical standard has fostered.
       The bible also shames blacks because Ham (the father of Canaan and the original ‘black’ according to many bible interpreters) saw his drunken father Noah sleeping naked in a tent. How stupid is it to condemn an entire race because of a fable? The bible specifically endorses slavery in Exodus 21. Jesus never condemns the practice either, and even describes how and when slaves are to be beaten. The bible was the justification for slavery being established and maintained in the U.S. and other “Christian” countries. It was the Southerners' justification for the preservation of slavery when Northerners had abandoned the practice as the North became more industrialized. Frequently, the bible is held up as the reason for the abolitionist movement, but it was really in spite of the bible. Quakers led much of the charge and did not use scripture for their reasoning. It was because they believed human beings should not own other human beings...to hell with what the bible stated.

       But the men who wrote the Confederate constitution did not see it that way. They explicitly wrote in the document that they recognized the Christian God (since 99% of Southerners were Christian) with the phrase “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God”. Article IV, Section 3(3) specifies holding blacks against their will in perpetuity with “the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress.” Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens made it crystal clear that the Confederates considered the white race superior when on March 21, 1861 in a speech in Savannah, Georgia, he said “With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.” Notice the mention of Canaan from the bible as justification. 
       The roots of Western slavery stem from the bible, the roots of the Confederacy stem from the bible, and the roots of racism are found in the very same book. Is it any wonder the Confederates chose a cross to be on their battle flag?

Education no good - me fix with Jesus

I had high hopes that the educational standards in the U.S. were improving. Our students have ranked in the low 20s and 30s compared to many other civilized countries, and efforts had recently been introduced to expand and upgrade our science and math skills across the country.

Then I read in the newspaper, and found it confirmed on the state’s official websites, that we’re not improving our student’s skills, we’re allowing more classrooms to promote proselytizing.

The next time you go to the doctor’s office or schedule surgery, you might want to check the diploma on the wall. If it indicates the doctor obtained his medical degree in the state of Louisiana or Idaho, you’d best look for another provider or you’re putting your life in the hands of a quack.

Do you want your doctor or surgeon trained to treat leprosy by combining cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet and a living bird, dipped in the blood of a dead bird, and then sprinkled over the victim seven times? In 2,500 years, there has never been a single verifiable case of this method ever working. Yet it is precisely what the Bible prescribes for “cleansing” (which in the biblical sense means healing) in Leviticus 14:40-57.

                         On the left is a cure, on the right is illiteracy.

If a snake bites you, would you go to a health care professional who simply pointed to a brass snake up on a pole and told you if you gaze on it, you’ll live; nothing else is required as it says in Numbers 21:9? What does it say about any physician who believes serpents and donkeys talk, polar bears and penguins walked all the way from either pole to the Middle East to get into an ark, or that a rapist should marry his victim? What if the doctor claims arthritis is caused by jealousy, fear, shame, confusion or sadness per passages in Proverbs or Psalms, that eating shellfish is an abomination worthy of death, that demons cause mental illness and the plague, or that witches and wizards actually exist and use magic and sorcery to cast spells as it states in Leviticus 19:31 or Deuteronomy 18:10? This is what the bible teaches, and it is this that the students will learn from those ‘science’ classes…sorry, pseudo-science classes.

                                    The mysterious ways of biblical medicine

The Louisiana House Education Committee voted to keep a 1981 creationism law on the books despite a Supreme Court ruling that found it to be unconstitutional…so Louisiana public schools can and do use the Book of Genesis in high school science classes. Yes, science classes. The creationism law, officially known as the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), was actually a cynical and clever attempt to introduce religious beliefs as scientific theory, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause. The state’s Republican governor Bobby Jindal says that public school students should be taught creationism and intelligent design in addition to evolution, as long as it’s “the best science.” In an interview on NBC, Jindal said: “Bottom line, we want our kids to be exposed to the best facts. Let’s teach them about the big bang theory…and about evolution – I’ve got no problem if a school board says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that some people have these beliefs as well. Let’s teach them about ‘intelligent design.’” He doesn’t mention if the kids should also learn what the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita, and Native American cultures say about the beginning of the universe and life. Their theories are just as valid as the Bible's.

                  Republicans have proven to be elephant’s asses for a long time

On June 11, 2015, from the Idaho Republican party came this: Therefore be it resolved, that the Idaho County Central Committee encourages the Idaho legislature to draft and support a bill stating that the Bible is expressly permitted to be used in Idaho public schools for reference purposes to further the study of…government, law, philosophy, ethics, astronomy, biology, geology, world geography, archaeology, sociology, and other topics of study where an understanding of the Bible may be useful or relevant. Republican Governor ‘Butch’ Otter has no problem with the passage of such a bill.

So it appears the U.S. will fall further and further behind the industrialized world in every area of science, especially given how many students are now home-schooled using the fundamentalist Christian-based Advanced Training Institute curriculum. That’s the program Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of TLC's discredited "19 Kids and Counting" use. It’s worth noting that none of the Duggar’s children have been accepted at any full-time university or college. The dumbing down of America, about like you see in the movie Idiocracy, is unfortunately coming true.

On the plus side, my kids and grand-kids won't have to worry about competition for jobs or university spots from anyone growing up in Louisiana or Idaho, or has a Christian home-school education. However, when employers start routinely rejecting graduates of those state's public schools or the home schooled, do you think Governor Jindal, Governor Otter, or right-wing fundamentalist parents will take any blame because evangelical jerks hijacked the education these kids need to operate in the 21st Century? The Chinese aren't going to wait for us to catch up with them. 

Quetzalcoatl worked in mysterious ways - The Fall of the Duggars

Quetzalcoatl helped me because of a failure on my part. I couldn't. I just couldn't, no matter how hard I tried….produce even a single tear for Josh Duggar…or Jim Bob, Michelle and most of the ‘19 Kids and Counting’ siblings who seemingly were bred just to see how often Jim Bob and Michelle could have procreative sex. What sorrow I can spare is for the (at least) five girls who were molested by Josh over the course of two years and got the bum’s rush on justice. The Duggar parents have little to say about them, and apparently offered them virtually no solace after what their son did to them. It’s all about how “hurt” Jim Bob and Michelle are over the public’s reaction to Josh violating the girls twelve years ago. Since over a decade has passed (only because the Duggars did jack shit about it) we should let it go, and let them get on with their lives. Who cares what the girls experienced or how it affected their lives? According to Jim Bob’s interpretation of the Bible, the little girls should just keep their mouths shut, suck it up, accept blame for their immodesty (even while asleep), and continue working toward the ultimate goal of being an under-educated sperm repository capable of producing as many babies as one man, time and fate allow…education, career and equality be damned. Whatever you do girls, don’t aim high.

Bubble-headed bleach blond Megyn Kelly of Fox News will ‘interview’ them this Wednesday night and ask hard-hitting questions like “How do you cope with the meanies who make fun of your beliefs”?

And remember these Josh-endorsing clowns when it comes time to vote

It’s amazing how many people rushed to Josh’s, Jim Bob and Michelle’s defense. "Leave them alone, they say...he was just a kid...it happened 12 years ago...the family handled it in the best way...the Lord has forgiven him...there was never any need to involve law enforcement." They claim the attack on Josh is because he’s a Christian. One female writer white-washed the whole episode with “Josh was a creepy 14 year old boy. What he did was gross but it was taken care of by the people involved and everyone has moved on....12 years ago no less. I don't understand why we are calling him a child molester when he was a kid at the time, and he confessed and apologized!! There is a huge difference between what Josh Duggar did and what molesters and rapists do. Everyone here would probably be mortified if they had a light shining on their own nasty little secrets. People need to get a life.” I wonder what secrets that writer is still hiding. She thinks that what Josh did to his sisters was simply ‘gross’ and is different from what other molesters do. How does she know? What’s the criterion for determining real, (as opposed to juvenile) exploratory molestation? But according to her, it’s our fault. We didn't choose the right kind of life. We don’t have the high profile morality of the Duggars; therefore, we don’t have the right to comment on Josh avoiding justice for sexually molesting the girls. Besides, he apologized and God has forgiven him, although no one explains how they are certain of that. (I have to come clean about my own brushes with law enforcement at this point. Three times since 1970; I have been stopped for speeding violations, one for going 14 miles an hour over the posted speed limit.) If I confess to god that I am an imperfect human being, will god just forgive me too, without any belief in Jesus or a holy spirit, absolving me of all sin and making me whole in the process?

            You know things for the Duggars are completely messed up when even June Shannon of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo fame sounds like the voice of reason when she weighs in with "I read that the Duggar family said this happening with their son brought them closer to God and each other. So they're saying it's OK to have family touch time? Hell no."

I'm beginning to think that when the Duggars say they got closer to God, what they meant was G.O.D...Good Old Denial.

Here’s the problem…if you or I had done what Josh admitted to, and it was discovered, a lot worse would have happened to us…like immediate retribution, juvenile home if not prison time, severe fines, sexual predator identification, DCS case worker visits on a weekly basis until we reached 18, social stigmatization, and more. But because the Duggars have a popular TV show, and are under the protective umbrella of “terribly-persecuted and misunderstood” fundamentalist Christianity, what they allowed to go unchecked and virtually unpunished in their household is seen as nobody’s business. The innocent girls involved got no sympathy or counseling for Josh violating them. It has been reported that they were given a one sheet sexual abuse counseling exercise to complete, basically blaming them, and that’s it. That’s the limit of what Jim Bob and Michelle did for their daughters.

                         Would you trust your kid to his care?

For Josh…ooooh, the severity of the punishment! He was sent to an acquaintance to do some home remodeling work for a summer, and then given a stern ‘talking to’ by a family friend in law enforcement who knew a thing or two about sexual exploitation…because he is currently serving 56 years on child pornography charges. And yet, Christian defenders think that was enough. Josh learned his lesson and we who disagree should get a life, get off Josh’s back, and allow him to resume using his TV fame to bash LGBTs because they are a threat to children, push for the elimination of birth control, stop all abortions no matter the circumstances, promote abstinence only sex education, and cramming his brand of Christian values down everyone’s throat. When a Christian says they get their morals from the bible or from God…what they mean is that God encourages this stuff, like the Genesis account of Lot and his daughters after they fled Sodom and Gomorrah. The nut never falls far from the tree. The Duggars are just being true Christians.

                      Sometimes sacrifices must be made

            Now comes the confession…I couldn't resist. I really couldn't. See, when I recently saw Josh promote his toxic strain of Christianity, and read about how Michelle Duggar had lent her voice for a robo-call across Arkansas to defeat a transgender proposal…I prayed and I got my wish. What I did was offer a supplication to the ancient Mesoamerican god Quetzalcoatl that he would exact revenge on the Duggars, starting with that smug piece of human trash Josh…and darned if the ol’ feathered serpent-god didn't come through. Normally Quetzalcoatl requires a fresh, bloody heart as a token of faith, but he was appeased by tearing the heart out of the Duggars instead, Sweet justice that finally brought a tear to my eye, and proved that prayer does work…well, sometimes.

Jeb is as Dumb as Dubya - Why we don't need ANOTHER Bush!

            To paraphrase the old “pants/fat” joke…does the last name make him look like an idiot?

“I am asked sometimes whether I would ever allow my decisions in government to be influenced by my Christian faith. The simple and safe reply is no, never, of course not.”

The words of presidential hopeful Jeb Bush while giving the commencement address Saturday, May 9, 2015 at Liberty University, you know, the center of higher (that means Christian) learning started by Jerry Falwell. (Everyone remembers how tolerant, open-minded, and non-prejudicial Rev. Falwell was.) I am sure every student there breathed a sigh of relief that for once a candidate of Jeb’s stature wouldn’t be using the office of the presidency to expand his religious convictions, like, say, his brother George W. did. But when you read further, it’s obvious that’s exactly what Jeb would do.

                     The Senator made this statement in 1964. It has come to pass.

           

               The Bush article appeared in May 10^th newspapers across the nation and was entitled “Religious Freedom Defended at Liberty”. The problem is the title is incorrect, unless the word “freedom” has been flipped to mean the right to practice bigotry and intolerance.

              Expounding on what he views as an absolute religious right, he said “…as usual, the present [Obama] administration is supporting the use of coercive federal power. What should be easy calls, in favor of religious freedom, have instead become an aggressive stance against it. Somebody here is being small-minded and intolerant, and it sure isn’t the nuns, ministers, and laymen and women who ask only to live and practice their faith. Federal authorities are demanding obedience, in complete disregard of religious conscience – and in a free society, the answer [to obedience] is, ‘No.’”

                                Jeb looking confused, a typical Bush trait.

              Let me distill his gobbledygook so it’s clear what he meant. Business owners of faith want to discriminate against consumers based on a narrow-minded religious belief; and those who oppose that discrimination are being the “small-minded and intolerant” ones. The nuns, ministers, laymen and women living and practicing their faith should be allowed to use the power of law to continue their bigotry…because that’s what their holy book demands of them. We cannot allow that discrimination to be curtailed because without it, they cease to be true christians.”

             As usual, the clergy are allowed to select which parts of their holy books they’ll wield against the people they don’t like. Leviticus 11:9-12 states shellfish are an abomination but no church I know of demands government action against Red Lobster. And even though Leviticus 11:6-8 says don’t touch the skin of a dead pig, I have yet to hear, read, or see any person of faith ordering an end to American football games. But Jeb Bush wants to safeguard the religious bigotry of those who can’t abide gay marriage or the use of birth control. And he's considered the moderate GOP candidate.

             What is it about projection that is so appealing to politicians? Jeb wants to use the power of government so that people practicing their faith can continue to discriminate; not to use that power to grant all people the same rights. When it comes to religious bigotry, they deny there is any discrimination and instead claim it is those who are being discriminated against that are being small-minded and intolerant. Jeb drools over the ready-to-use accessibility of projecting religious discrimination. It’s the political version of "I know you are but what am I?".            

           Why should the government allow any loopholes for religious intolerance? Bigotry is bigotry whether it’s dressed up in the language of faith or not.

Bigots request the Supreme Court grant them continued discriminatory rights against gays

The fundamentalists just won’t give it up.

In a landmark 2003 decision, the US Supreme Court declared gay sex was not a crime. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Court’s opinion that “moral disapproval is not a valid justification for discriminatory laws that demean gay couples."

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, predicted that eliminating moral disapproval as a rightful basis for a law would allow same-sex marriage. He only had to wait a few months when in May 2004; Massachusetts became the first state to declare gay couples had a right to marry. That set in motion state-by-state challenges to laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Many members of state legislatures still believed gay sex was a crime, therefore, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and legitimize it, but they couldn't come right out and say that.

This created a legal black hole as lawyers defending anti-gay marriage laws scrambled to find a rational basis to continue discrimination that did not rely on “tradition”, or on the religious view that homosexuality was a sin. Initial efforts led them to suggest it was a procreation issue: Opposite-sex couples should marry because they could have children, even accidentally, and the state wanted them to wed. Ergo, it could legally limit marriage to heterosexual couples only...for the sake of the children, of course.

By 2015, Michigan had twisted Justice Kennedy's 2003 opinion about discriminatory laws by saying that they don't want to let gay people marry because getting married would demean gay people. Demeaning heterosexual couples via marriage, though, was not a problem.

 In Kentucky, they felt that their marriage ban wasn't discriminatory, since LGBTs are free to get married, as long as it’s straight-married. No, not a whiff of discrimination in that. What if we reversed it? Straights could wed anyone so long as it was only someone of the same sex.

Ohio wants to maintain its marriage ban out of concern for the people who voted for it...sort of like “Sorry folks, our ignorant voters were told by their preachers that this has to stay on the books or God’ll do really awful things to them, and they’re just filled with fear.”

Tennessee is fixated on sex….i.e. penises and vaginas. They are meant for each other and no other orifices are to be considered, except as gateways to hell. See, they use the bible to claim anything else is unnatural…as if a talking serpent is.

    A naturally occurring talking serpent charms Adam and Eve who seem equipped with something un-natural given their supposed 'origin'.

In the current case before the Supreme Court, the state of Michigan has denied a marriage license to two women who are raising four foster kids abandoned by their natural mothers. The women, who are both nurses, were allowed to adopt the children, but only as individuals, not as a couple. When asked why these women should be barred from marrying, Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch insisted the decision had nothing to do with disapproval of their lifestyle; that being gay was not the problem."Oh, gosh, no,” he said, “the state doesn't care about sexual orientation. We're not drawing distinctions based on the identity, the orientation or the choices of anyone. It's not meant to exclude." Clarifying the state’s position, Bursch said “The state's concern is that allowing the women to marry would have an effect on the rest of society. It would "de-link the idea that we're binding children with their biological mom and dad."

See the difference?                                                  

If not, let me re-interpret Mr. Bursch’s bloviating: “Oh gosh no, allowing the women to marry would have a detrimental effect on society because it would hamper our narrow-minded religious bigotry and discrimination because our holy book, written about 2 thousand years ago, before anyone had an understanding of human desire and human biology, made a claim that homosexuality was bad, (but never says why it’s bad) and therefore a sin, punishable by death. Moral disapproval is valid justification to maintain prejudiced and intolerant laws aimed solely at gay couples because the state of Michigan doesn’t want the children “de-linked” from the biological father and mother (the only ones who should be granted marriage rights), and have them “linked-up” with non-biological parents who are of the same sex.” Does Mr. Bursch actually think the four kids should be bound to the mothers and fathers that abandoned them, and not instead be linked with the two women who have loved them and raised them since? How would the women getting married "de-link" the kids from their biological parents? How does that work?
When two people of consenting age love each other, even if they are the same sex, why should it matter to anyone other than the two people involved if they get married?

I personally think the state's position should be bending over and touching their toes...while every LGBT boot in the state is screaming up from behind to land a well-aimed kick.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision before its term ends in June. So, if you’re in a committed gay relationship now, plan on a June wedding.

Criminal Christian goes Free

Hey vandals, lawbreakers and other scofflaws, come on down to Florida. Not only can you hone and perfect your craft, the state will actively support it.

Let’s say you discover you don’t like the color of your neighbor’s house, or any house for that matter…splash it with your choice of paint. Or use spray cans to create artistic graffiti to give it a ‘pop’ feel. You’ll get off the hook by claiming religious freedom. Maybe a store has something you want, but you can’t afford it. No problem. Pick it up and walk out with it. As long as you tell law enforcement ahead of time, there will be little difficulty. And the best part again is you can say it is your religious right. Or, let’s say you don’t like someone else’s belief or spiritual presentation. Here in the Sunshine State you have carte blanche to trash it and pay no penalty.

What's the difference between the thug on the left and the thug on the right? The thug on the right only trashed himself.

On December 24, 2014, Susan Hemeryck, wearing a t-shirt with ‘Catholic Warrior’ on it, entered the capitol building in Tallahassee, pre-apologized to the two Florida Capitol Police officers near the door, walked to the Christmas exhibition area and vandalized the display erected by the Satanic Temple (which featured an angel figure falling into hell-fire, per the bible), then attempted to walk out of the building with what was left of the display. 

It seems that, like many bigoted conservative Christians, Ms. Hemeryck couldn't tolerate the biblically-correct scene so she took it upon herself to destroy it. Amazingly, even though she was filmed by capitol surveillance cameras, was caught red-handed by law enforcement officers as she tried to remove it from the building, and freely admitted to the press that she “yanked that little devil off the fishing line” and “should have just done a better job and finished it off for good,” state prosecutors decided not to pursue the case.

Why?

Hemeryck’s attorney said doing so is “basically putting an attack on Christians.” (Note: An attack on something non-Christian is okay though.) State prosecutors agreed and dropped charges because of a lack of evidence. In a statement issued by state prosecutors, they claimed “The defendant is simply carrying the display. No damages are apparent. It is simply disassembled.” There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Hmmm, must have fallen off the table and gotten torn up by itself.

See, you aren't held accountable for criminal activity in Florida. Desecrating some other religious display is a perpetual “Get Out of Jail Free” card. If an atheist had vandalized a Christian display, prosecutors would have sought the maximum punishment, but because Hemeryck is a “Christian” who destroyed a non-Christian display, she gets to walk without facing any consequences at all.

Strange as it seems, Susan Hemeryck’s religion wouldn’t have any reason to exist were it not for Satan, Lucifer, the devil, or whatever you want to call the ’Prince of Darkness’ in their holy book. Her religion NEEDS Satan to justify its existence. But vandalizing the Satanic display is like destroying water fountains wherever found because water was used to drown everyone in Noah’s flood...even though water was necessary to the story.

Remember, the almighty is impotent and can’t do anything in this world, so it is up to you to do the interpreting for it. But whatever you choose to do, do it with the confidence that it is what god wants. Besides, why would it come here to do anything anymore? That's what all the believers are for. All religions claim that at some point in the past, god left a book of instructions behind and that’s what we have to guide us. Yes, for some reason, one group calls the book the Qur’an, others say it is the Bhagavad Gita, another group claims it is the Book of Mormon, others assert that it is the Sutras, while millions of others say it’s the Bible…and on and on and on. But take heart that god certainly works in mysterious ways, and in mysterious guises, allows people to do whatever they like and then claim they did it for god.

The mystery is, why do people still believe it?  

Who is more backward?

I watched a TV show on YouTube Saturday night which had on ‘Aql al-Bahili, who is listed as a Saudi Arabian scholar on several sites, but I have not been able to ascertain that he is. He is a spokesperson for some faction in Saudi Arabia and seems to have the Saudi royal family’s blessing. In the video he makes a very passionate and articulate speech regarding one of the major weaknesses of Islam. Yet it is difficult to believe the royal family would have approved of his views, given their support of one of Islam’s most extreme factions, Wahhabism. ‘Aql al-Bahili was one of three men on the show, but I only heard the other two men shout as he spoke and their words were not translated. So I don’t know if they were agreeing with him or cursing him.

Here is what the TV show claims he said as shown in subtitles at the bottom: “I know and I acknowledge that there is freedom in the Koran. Many Koranic texts state that people are free. But when the political implementation of a certain ideology has failed to accomplish justice for over fourteen hundred years, whereas others [i.e. in the West] have managed to instate justice by means of a [different] political ideology, I believe that even though [Islamic justice] preceded them, this does not detract from the credit due to those who have reformed the path of human society, infusing it with freedom through an ideological platform other than Islam. Today, all the Islamists acknowledge that the freedom enjoyed in the West is a hundred times better than in the Islamic countries.”

He goes on to say that he “knows Islam is all-encompassing, our problem is that sacred texts are being cited by tyrants, by honorable people and by Islamists alike. Today we must adopt general principles by which human society abides: People must obtain their rights, public funds must not be plundered, a doorman may become a minister and a minister may become a doorman, people must have the right to be safe from attack, as well as the right to establish companies and political parties These are the principles of human societies on planet Earth.

Hearing him say that on a TV show that airs in the Middle East made me wonder if he wasn't a provocateur, a charlatan, or a disinformation agent put in front of the cameras to stir up trouble. I couldn't tell if he really meant it.

I sent the link to a family member who follows events in the Middle East, asked them to watch the video and then give me their thoughts via email. I didn't mention any of my doubts. After she watched it, she sent an email which stated, “The speakers point is true….in many key respects.

“Which ones?” I typed back.

“He admits the Muslim culture is years if not centuries behind the west. Nor do they have Western-style freedom.”

“Does that mean they have trouble functioning in a modern world?”

She thought that they contribute nothing to world dialogue, since all their wisdom was tied up in the false teachings of a book that dated back to the 7^th century.

Without pointing to the obvious similarities of Christians basing their lives on a 4^th century book, I typed back “That may be true but their most ardent believers, even thinking as seventh century men, can still fly 21^st century technology into the 20^th century high rise buildings and destroy them. Or strap 21^st century explosives to themselves and blow up dozens of people. Their backwardness is only because their mind is not free; it has been forced into the Muslim shoe box.”

She typed back, “One could also reasonably argue that enslavement to lusts, sins, obsessions, addictions etc. is not real freedom either.”

I typed back “?”

Her response, “The West has fostered the addictions and hedonism that are destroying us. It is the perversion and deliberate trashing of our Judeo-Christian value system which has resulted in such excesses and enslavements.”

“So Islam is right, even if stuck in the 7^th century, and many in the West are wrong and are just as enslaved…but it’s not due to what’s read in some book. It’s due to secular obsessions???”

I don’t think she understood my sarcasm, as she replied “God has a few surprises for them, when they try to build a world on the ashes of Judeo-Christianity. Jesus will see to that.”

I thought “This is how the Crusades started.” The discussion about a backward Middle Eastern religion had suddenly become confirmation about another backward Middle Eastern religion that had to be absolutely true, because my relative simply wanted it to be true. A dozen times I was tempted to put her email address on the screen and hit the delete button. She is still waiting to hear back from me.

American Sniper

I was at a salon recently having my hair trimmed when the stylist, in the midst of discussing how the cut would look, asked if I had seen the movie “American Sniper”. She was a white, middle-class, middle aged woman who didn’t appear to be the type who would like ‘war’ movies. Before I had a chance to answer, she said she had just seen it and thoroughly enjoyed it. The movie made her so proud to be an American, that the main character (Chris Kyle) was a real hero, and that we needed more like him. She added that she thought those who spoke out against the movie were un-American and were people who hated the U.S. in general and the American military in particular. I was waiting for her to call them communists or Muslim sympathizers, but she changed the subject when I responded that I hadn't seen it.

Nor do I intend to.

I had read Chris Kyle’s book and knew, based on what he said in his autobiography, that he was anything but heroic. He thought shooting people was fun and it was why he served four tours of duty in Iraq. The hair stylist talked about how brave Kyle was, how it showed what a family man he was because he missed his wife and children while serving overseas, and how the movie was an honest portrayal of a real American. Hogwash! That may have been in the movie, but that isn't what he wrote in his book.

Maybe he just ‘misremembered’ things, like NBC’s Brian Williams, but there were a lot of things Kyle lied about, not just in his book but also when he was interviewed on TV; his claim that he shot looters in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, his gunning down two men who attempted to car-jack him at a gas station outside Dallas, his made-up story about punching out former Governor Jesse Ventura in a San Diego bar, his phony dedication to his family as he related to why he wanted to go back to Iraq…(it wasn't because he wanted to serve his country. It was because killing savages was fun!) All were investigated, some even went to court, and found to be untrue. Based on what was in his book, I wondered what this woman found heroic about him. I didn't ask her though because it was clear any response that questioned the authenticity of the movie would upset her…and she had scissors in her hands.

But I was curious; would she consider the people who executed death row inmates heroic? They were killing people who seemingly deserved it, just like Kyle claimed he did, and they at least had the bravery to face those they killed. How about the Japanese soldiers who hid in caves or trees and shot American soldiers and marines wading ashore during the invasions of Japanese islands such as Okinawa or Iwo Jima, or Japanese-controlled islands like Peleliu or Tarawa, knowing they would be blasted out of their sniper’s hideout? What about the 19 men aboard the airliners hijacked on 9/11? Were their actions heroic, especially in light of the fact that they knew ahead of time they would die? What constitutes a hero? It certainly isn’t shooting people from a rooftop a half a mile away.

I went online and found several websites that reviewed movies. I chose eight of them that had watched American Sniper and had video reviews longer than five minutes. I also read six reviews of the movie. Those fourteen covered the spectrum; from a one star rating, or didn't like it, to five stars and loved it. Every one of them said the movie only follows the book in the broadest sense of the term; it leaves out key elements that were essential to the story line, and that the movie made Kyle look far more sympathetic and conflicted than he actually wrote in the book.

Warfare has been a lifelong interest of mine, because it is a human-caused disaster. Human beings make a choice to go to war and kill other human beings. Unlike a hurricane, earthquake or volcanic eruption, it’s something that could have been avoided. I study the reasons it was not, the methods used to kill the enemy, the campaigns, and the people who are drawn in and changed by it. Heroic things can happen in wartime, but killing people is not heroic. It is barbaric and, frankly, little more than government-sanctioned murder. One of my main areas of study is aerial combat and the pilots who served, especially in World War One. I am deeply interested in why they chose such an unusual, novel, and in many ways terrifying way to fight. But none of them are my heroes. Nothing they did was heroic. It was their job. The concept of the ace simply meant they were very, very good at their job of killing. Some men did show noble characteristics, such as French ace Georges Guynemer, who refused to shoot down German ace Ernst Udet when he saw his guns were jammed. Or Captain James McCudden of the RFC, who would not ambush an opponent. In hindsight, those traits were probably court-martialable because the point was to prevent the enemy from achieving any future success. But these men decided they would not let war turn them into cold-blooded killers just because it could.

Some of the savages Chris Kyle wanted to kill

Chris Kyle showed no such inclination. He reveled in killing, calling any Iraqi a ‘savage’, whether they were ones he was about to shoot or not. He relished the competition with other snipers and found it motivated him to kill even more. Not because the enemy was a threat, but because someone was getting close to his number of kills. It’s eerily similar to the two Japanese officers whose competition during the Rape of Nanking China in 1937-38 was covered by Japanese newspapers like it was a sports match. The two officers had a ‘friendly’ rivalry to be the first to behead 100 captured Chinese.

Is this the kind of soldier we are turning out anymore? This is the legacy that the hair stylist found so fantastically American and worthy of her adulation. But the ‘American Sniper’ is how we are now viewed around the world. Some may think that it’s good, for others to fear us because we might show up in their country and shoot their citizens from distant rooftops. I think what it is doing is making the old notion of the ‘ugly’ American even uglier, more dangerous, and an evil influence in the world. That’s not a nation or a legacy to be proud of.