Utah officially deems Mormonism a public health crisis

        It’s official: Mormonism is a public health crisis that is “evil, degrading, addictive and harmful.” At least in Utah.

        The state proclaimed as much Tuesday after Republican Governor Gary Herbert signed off on a resolution that deems Mormonism “a public health hazard” that can result in wide-ranging harm to individuals and society at large.

        “We hope that people hear and heed this voice of warning,” Herbert said at a signing ceremony. “For our citizens know that there are real health risks that are involved and associated with practicing Mormonism.”

Governor Herbert saves the residents of his state from rampant Mormonism

        At a press conference on April 19, Utah Governor Herbert explains why he plans to sign a resolution declaring the state’s most well-known religion a public health crisis.

        The resolution, passed through the state legislature, recognizes a need for education, research, prevention and changes to policy to address the issue.

        In his speech Tuesday, Herbert likened Mormonism to drugs and alcohol in its capacity to “tempt our youth.”

Religion leads to a lot of bad habits

        “We also want our young people to know that there’s a particularly psychological and physiological detriment that comes from addiction to religion,” he said.

        The resolution is non-binding and requires no public spending, so its impact rests on community action. Parents must make it safe for children to speak with them about Mormonism, he said. Communities must mobilize to limit its access, for example, in places that offer free wireless internet access.

        “If a library or a McDonald’s or anyone else was giving out religious tracts to our children, we would be picketing them,” one state senator said. “And, yet, our children are accessing Mormonism on their tablets on these sites and we seem to be OK with that.”

 Protect your children from false gods.

        “This is a $7 billion industry,” the senator added. “Help us protect children from your evil, degrading, addictive, harmful substances. If adults want to do that, that’s their choice, but we’re talking about developing adolescent minds of our nation’s future.”

        In an e-mail, a spokesman for the Mormon Church called the measure an “old-fashioned hate bill.”

        “What we should be concerned about is not Mormonism or any religion, but with bills like this that traffic in shame and censorship,” said Mike Stabile, the Free Speech for Mormons Coalition’s communications director. “We should live in a society where religion is spoken about openly, and discussed in nuanced and educated ways, and not stigmatized. We all should work together to prevent non-adults from accessing religious material.”

A Mormon contemplates a little innocent pornographic sin.

        In addition to the resolution, Herbert also signed into law a related bill that sets new reporting standards for computer technicians who find religious propaganda in the course of their work.

Under that measure, failure to do so could result in a penalty.

Did I say Mormonism? I'm sorry, I meant porn, Pornograpy is the word I should have used in place of Mormonism or religion. I always get those mixed up. My bad!

Mormon-themed porn is a booming industry in those sultry undergarments of theirs.

Mississippi Mud - Bigotry legalized in the Magnolia State

The deep south is a cesspool of bigotry. Since I live in Florida, let's start there.“If there is anybody under assault and discrimination, I’ll tell you who it is,” Ocala Florida Representative Dennis Baxley is quoted as saying back on March 2nd. “It is anyone who holds a biblical world view, and is simply trying to live by it. They are under assault. We are called haters.” Baxley was fuming as he helped push through the “Pastor Protection Act” following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year that same-sex couples have as much right to marry as heterosexual couples do. Outraged, Baxley immediately claimed the sky was falling and proposed legislation that had to be passed just in case someone objected to Christian bigotry.

Mizzippi Guv Phil "The Pill" Bryant

Baxley’s doppelgängers in Mississippi heard his clarion call from Florida’s capital of Tallahassee and passed their own legislation in Jackson called “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act” that allows Mississippi’s Christians to maintain their hard-on against the LGBTQ community. The state’s Lieutenant-governor said “this bill simply protects those individuals from government interference when practicing their religious beliefs.” Which is another way of saying “legislation has to be passed in case someone objects to Christian bigotry.” Mississippi Senator Angela Burks Hil added “businesses are in jeopardy without this bill.” Because without the bill, those very same businesses wouldn't be allowed to mistreat someone who was perceived as different. The horror.

You see, bible-believing Christians think they are under assault. When they are not allowed to discriminate, that means they are being discriminated against. Their bible has a long-standing tradition of allowing them to vilify others based on what verses they choose to obey, so it’s heritage, not hate. Does that assertion sound a bit familiar? Same excuse for the canton in the upper left corner of the state’s flag.

Since the bible says Christians should condemn homosexuality, this bill will make it safe for ministers and religious leaders to urge their flock to treat LGBTQ people as pariahs and third-class citizens, and make sure the laws that are in place to protect the LGBTQ community are repealed. Businesses would have the right to refuse service to anyone they dislike and claim they're just exercising their religious freedom. Take that Supreme Court!

Now, hopefully Governor Phil Bryant and the Mississippi legislature are not complete hypocrites. If the bible is that important, they should step up to the plate and outlaw the rest of what their bible calls abominations; passing laws making it illegal to eat bacon, ham, and pork anywhere in the state. Leviticus 11:6-8 claims God orders people not to eat the meat, or touch the skin, of a dead pig because it makes the offender unclean. Implementing God’s revulsion of shellfish will play havoc with Mississippi’s shrimp industry too, as per Leviticus 11:9-12, but sacrifices will have to be made.

Eat shellfish...go to hell. It's that simple

Back to the abomination list: something needs to be done about all those people in the state working on the Sabbath since clearly in Exodus 31:14-15 those who break God’s command to observe the Sabbath with complete rest and no work must be put to death. Same with those who plant the wrong crops side by side, wear mixed fabric garments, have tattoos, and especially dealing with those foul-mouth kids who call mom and dad obscene names. (Here’s a job opportunity for an entrepreneur: start a rock distribution center to deliver them to Mississippians for stoning sessions outside their cities. If they ever get around to including adultery, you won’t be able to keep up with the rock demand.)

Hate seems like such a mild word to label what they’re doing in Mississippi…but as labels go, it fits perfectly. Many in the state refuse to concede the new law is in any way prejudicial against the LGBTQ community. They claim it’s meant to keep people from discriminating against Christians! So get out your Kleenex and let the tears flow because Christians are the real victims here.

Me thinks thou sanctimonious Mississippi Christians doth protest too much!

Instead of a machine gun - Unusual aerial weapons used in World War One

Ten Mauser C96 pistols arranged to defend this Austro-Hungarian reconnaissance aircraft

      The war to end all wars seemed to also include weapons to end all weapons from the very start...rapid fire machine guns overwhelmed concentrated rifle fire. Massed and massive artillery pieces replaced a few dozen cannons or mortars lined up behind the forward line. Submarines, still in their infancy, were considered such a threat to the surface fleet of the British that they declared the submariners actions so "frightful" that if the crew were captured, they would be tried and hanged as pirates. No one of the British High Command considered how their blockade of foreign ports that soon starved many of the Germans to death somehow wasn't considered a similar piratical action.
         But before it reached that point in the air, the aviation services of all the combatants needed to try out a variety of weapons to see what was most effective in stopping the enemy from flying over the battlefront. The relatively underpowered and light weight machines used at the beginning of the war barely had enough power to carry the pilot, and if a two seater, an observer also aloft. Heavy arms were impossible to take up as the aircraft couldn't gain enough altitude. Even when a few could, the senior officers many times ordered the pilots or crew to remove the weapons as the planes were not designed to handle them. What to do if you wanted some protection?

The hope was to hit the propeller.

    
         In the first few months of the war most of the pilots, if they didn't wave at their enemy counterparts, simply hurtled insults and rude gestures at them. This progressed to hurtling easily-carried items like bricks, chains, nets, darts and other projectiles, hoping to strike the propeller, wing, or pilot of an enemy machine. Even small bombs and grenades were tried. Fighting in four dimensions left no room for error, which means virtually none of the thrown objects hit their mark.

How the grappling hook was intended to be used by Russian pilot Alexander Kozakov

         One innovative pilot, Alexander Kozakov of the Imperial Russian Air Service, decided the best course of action was to yank apart enemy machines. So he attached a grappling hook to a long piece of steel cable which was carried on his Morane G and he intended to throw or winch it out when he got near another aircraft with the hope of snagging a flying surface or a strut and ripping it off. He never had the opportunity to demonstrate its effectiveness as he could never get close enough to hook an enemy aircraft. Things progressed in a different direction though; to using handheld weapons, like revolvers, automatic pistols, rifles, and even flare guns.

You had to get close enough to see the white's of their eyes.

An R.E.P. with a bomb for offense and a rifle for defense

         Necessity being the mother of invention and desperation its bastard of a father, the Mauser pistol combination used in the photo of the Austro-Hungarian observation aircraft at the top would have only been effective at very close range. Each pistol held a clip of ten bullets and the device attached to them fired them in unison, giving the gunner the ability to rapidly fire 100 rounds in volleys of 10. Two bars passed through the five upper and five lower trigger guards and were attached to the single aiming grip that you can just see in his hand. It had a trigger at the end which was pulled to fire all 10 at the same time. Given the close arrangement of the pistols, if the gunfire did hit the enemy aircraft, it would have been like using a shotgun. With the light frame and canvas structures of early war aircraft that might have been enough to bring it down. But one has to wonder how long it would take, and how difficult it would be, to reload and re-mount all ten pistols while maneuvering and trying to avoid nearby enemy aircraft. 

         As the engines grew more powerful and the airframes were designed to cope with greater stresses, some single-seat pilots began to imagine a 'one-shot, one-kill' scenario using greater firepower. Capt. Georges Guynemer consulted Louis Bechereau of the SPAD works about building a SPAD VII armed with a cannon. The SPAD XII was the result which was based on the VII; the fuselage lengthened and strengthened, the wingspan increased and a twelve shot 37 millimeter SAMC cannon mounted between the cylinder banks of the 220 hp Hispano-Suiza engine firing through the propeller hub. The SPAD XII initially proved successful but was found to be a real handful for inexperienced men. Only a few highly trained pilots, such as Guynemer, Rene Fonck, Georges Madon, Albert Deullin and François Battesti achieved success. The recoil from each shot of the cannon almost stopped the airplane in mid flight, causing several anxious moments as the pilot fought to regained control of the machine. Plus, strong fumes and smoke filled the cockpit all while the pilot was trying to reload, set up the next shot, and avoid any closing enemy aircraft.

         300 of the cannon-armed SPAD XIIs were ordered, but only about 20 were manufactured. 

Top - the cannon-armed SPAD XII of Capt. George Guynemer. Lower left - the cannon muzzle in the center of the propeller hub. Right - Guynemer shows his SPAD to General D'Esperey.

Cannons were carried on a variety of other aircraft, like the Voisin series, the Italian Caproni bombers and even Davis 1 pounder gun on British Felixstowe and American Curtiss seaplanes.

(Upper left) A 37mm cannon on a Breguet 5 Ca.2 bomber, and (right) on a Voisin 5. (Lower left) a Davis gnn on a British seaplane, and (right) a Vickers 1 inch gun mounted on an Italian Caproni Ca.5

         Maybe the oddest weapon used to pursue an enemy flying machine was a kitchen knife purportedly carried aloft by French ace Lt. Jean Navarre. After reports came in to his airbase that a Zeppelin was lurking in the area, Navarre grabbed a long carving knife from the kitchen of the squadron's cook, and took off in a Morane Saulnier L parasol with the hope of finding the marauding bomber. How he hoped to bring it down,with a knife blade he never explained. So perhaps a fishing hook that was meant to snare a whale or a shark might not have been that crazy of an idea to snag an airplane. Well...yes it was.

At the aviation museum in Omaka, New Zealand, a replica of Kozakov's Morane G flies again with his mannequin stand-in tossing out the grappling hook

A Slave to Religion

While researching the subject of gender equality, I decided to read a few online articles to see how fellow bloggers approached the subject. I happened upon a blogger named Larry who uses the nom de plume BiblicalGenderRoles. He looks at the subject from a biblical standpoint in a post called “How to help women learn their place”. There was very little in the way of “help” in his writing. It should have been titled “How to put women in their place”.Needless to say he’s against gender equality in any way, shape, or form. Women are to be silent unless spoken to, modest, meek, submissive, dependent, and for all intents and purposes confined to the home with children. At first I thought it was an attempt at black humor, or that he was a “poe”. But the more I read, the more it became clear he was dead serious. He meant every word about women barely even having second-class status because that’s what his God wanted. But the part I found most amazing in his article was his defense of slavery, even stating that it should be permissible today by claiming “in modern terms – God would not consider it immoral for us to bring back slaves from Muslim nations that we conquer.[i.e. Iraq and/or Afghanistan.]

Grammatical and spelling errors left intact, in his February 23, 2016 post at 4:55 PM he wrote: “Absolutely I think people owning other people (under the right circumstances – not because they kidnapped them) is OK if the country you are in had laws that allowed it. If I thought one person owning another person was immoral than [sic] I would have to throw out my Bible because it says it is moral under the right circumstances. Now I realize for that reason and also the reason that the Bible clearly rejects social and gender equality as we define it today that many people have in fact thrown their Bibles out and rejected Christianity completely.” Gee, I wonder why? 

After writing about a passage regarding slavery in Exodus, BiblicalGenderRoles writes this gem: “So it’s pretty clear in Moses’ Law that God not only allowed slavery, he regulated it. Slaves from pagan nations were automatically regarded as permanent property, and could actually be left as an inheritance to the children of their Hebrew slave owners. Male Hebrews (countryman) could not [be] kept as permanent slaves, but had to be treated rather as hired hands and they had to be freed after six years of service. Female Hebrew slaves could be kept indefinitely, but they could not be sold to foreign people. If a man bought a woman and gave her to his son he had [to] treat her with the full rights of a daughter, and his son had to give her the full rights of a wife.” Keep in mind, women had few if any rights at the time, so giving them the “full rights” of a daughter or wife meant little. BiblicalGenderRoles even acknowledges that Hebrew female slaves could be kept indefinitely. They just could not be sold to foreign people. Being sold to other Hebrews though was perfectly acceptable. Women were on the same level as a man’s livestock. I like how he whitewashes the idea of slaves from pagan nations who were “automatically regarded as permanent property.” And then he wonders why people have “thrown their bibles out.”

Astoundingly he follows it with this explanation of how slaves were to be treated, taken directly from Exodus 21:20-21: “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property…If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.” Notice God’s imprecise time-keeping “a day or two” and only mentions destroying an eye or knocking a tooth out. Anything else apparently is fair game. But BiblicalGenderRoles clears the air for us by stating, on no evidence whatsoever, that the slaves of that time were not allowed to be physically abused or murdered. How is striking them with a rod or anything else in a manner that they might not be able to get up for a day or two, but manage to survive, not considered physical abuse? Would BiblicalGenderRoles like to be owned by someone and be beaten bad enough so that they would not be able to move around for a day or two? And to put a little icing on the pro-slavery cake, BiblicalGenderRoles then quotes from Colossians 4:1: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.” BiblicalGenderRoles gloats over scripture that claims we are the slaves of God. Nice to know, isn’t it? Poor slaves don’t get a break here or in the next life. They just trade one tyrant for another.

But BiblicalGenderRoles isn’t done gloating yet…he offers his best defense of slavery by making this pitch aimed at low-income parents needing a ray of financial hope: “In Biblical times it was not uncommon for a father to have to sell one or more his children as slaves to a wealthier family. This served two purposes – it would ensure that his children would be feed [sic] and cared for and often times it would help to pull his own family out of poverty because of the money he would receive in return.” So from this passage, he surmises that the family’s economic well-being outweighs their own offspring. The kids are simply commodities to be bartered away in order to obtain better groceries. ..to hell with any maternal or paternal bond the children may have. This lays bare just how stupid, cruel, and family-unfriendly Christianity is, and how it lacks any morality at all. This is the standard BiblicalGenderRoles wants to reintroduce in the United States because he claims it will make us a better nation to practice biblical slavery. What this proves is that his god is a moral thug, and BiblicalGenderRoles is an even bigger moral thug for defending it.

Any wonder why people view Christianity so negatively when its most ardent defenders justify the indefensible. 

Here is the link if you want to read BiblicalGenderRoles entire post on gender inequality and pro-slavery: http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2016/02/21/how-to-help-women-learn-their-place/

Keep a barf bag handy.

Insanity meets Insanity in the Orlando Sentinel

Insanity - The dictionary describes it as a relatively permanent disorder of the mind, state or condition of being insane; a defect of reason as a result of mental illness, such that according to the law, [the defendant] does not know what he or she is doing or that it is wrong.

Keep that in mind when you read the Opinion column in the Orlando Sentinel on February 9, 2016 written by Pat McFarland, a member of the Orlando Sentinel Advisory Board. Her letter is titled “Learn to Recognize Insanity and Face your Fears with Faith”. What she is suggesting is facing insanity with another form of insanity.

After listing several issues that reflect insanity on the part of the perpetrators…from the woman in Las Vegas who used her car to drive over and kill people on the city's sidewalk, more soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and Climate Change denial to a 12 year old being gunned down by Cleveland Ohio police, a retched wealthy teen who’s affluence blinded him to right from wrong as he killed four people, spending more to incarcerate people than educate them, and Donald Trump’s latest blathering…she goes completely off the track by then quoting from the bible as a stab at Trump. Quoting from a book that promotes genocide (you know...the flood, the destruction of the Amalekites and Midianites, etc.), slavery, talking serpents and donkeys, and a blood sacrifice as an effective method of salvation is not just wrong, it is delusional, a mental illness, and it defends a being who appears to not know right from wrong.

How could Ms.McFarland have such a firm grip on the baffling events (or as she calls them, the madhouse, where disordered minds exist…an insane asylum) happening around the world, and then quote from one of the most baffling and insane books ever written as a way to face down her fears over what all the insanity represents? She claims she is “helped by the bountiful love and compassion that God allows all of us to receive daily”. How does she know just WHERE that comes from?  She indicates it’s the same God whose “bountiful love” created a place called hell to send us to if we don’t love him back enough, a compassionate God who, according to the Genesis account of Noah and the flood, drowned virtually EVERY LIVING THING in the world…toddlers and babies, all the animals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, even the plants. What did any or all of those do to offend God? Only an absolute lunatic with a complete defect in reasoning…the very definition of insanity…could do that. Yet, it's that very same vile monster that Ms. McFarland says is filled with “bountiful love” for us. By threatening us with hell? That’s what a terrorist does. Do as I say or I’ll throw you into a lake of fire and leave you there FOREVER! By allowing the torture, slaughter and supposed death of his son in order to forgive us for being exactly as He designed us? Why resort to this kind of insanity when he could just forgive us. Or, when Adam and Eve are in the garden, don’t put the tree you don’t want them to touch where they can find it? How hard would that have been, especially given God KNEW what was going to happen but allowed it anyway, knowing 99.99999999...% of all the people who ever existed will end up in hell? That sounds like someone with a permanent mental disorder. It’s insanity on a universal scale. And it can all be laid at the feet of the being Pat McFarland says we should call on in order to face our fears. That beast sounds like something to fear far more than the stupidly insane things people do every day on this planet.

If it’s okay with God, then it’s already legal

          

 You women stop fighting against the word of God!

I don’t know why people are being so hard on Daryush Valizadeh, or Roosh V, the male chauvinistic blogger who has recently called for rape to be legalized when not on public property. How else do you expect him or many of his fellow travelers,to get any sexual release, or potential brides? Besides, Roosh V clearly has the bible on his side. Oh sure, Deuteronomy 22:22-23 says “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city." (Yes, she has to be killed with him if she didn’t scream loud enough while he was raping her.) But Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her…” Evidently, if a rapist just ponies up the silver, the victim is his to keep. So why all the harsh comments and attitudes over legitimizing rape? Seems God’s word in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is pretty clear…it’s not illegal.

          As psychologist Dr.Valerie Tanrico writes “the Bible never teaches that women should have a choice about sex…male-female relationships in the Bible are determined by a property ethic."

Roosh admits he’s a ‘pick-up artist’ and prides himself on luring unsuspecting women into a compromising situation where what he then calls consensual sex with them can blithely be referred to as a “snuggle with a struggle”. In the misogynistic world of religion where only men matter rape is seen as the right of conquering soldiers, as Moses proposes in Numbers 31:15-18. No, the passage doesn’t order them to rape the girls, but why else would all the male and female prisoners be put to the sword except for the youngest girls who are spared only if they have not known a man? How was that confirmed and why was it important? They weren’t being kept by the soldiers to carry around water basins. In Genesis 19:8, Lot shows us that offering his daughters for raping to a howling mob is perfectly acceptable for any dad to consider when the horde is at the door to molest the two visiting men who claim to be angels. In Judges 19:25-28, the woman IS thrown out the door to a mob where she is raped all night and then dies. And no one is held accountable. Biblical justice.

The greatest example of all is from Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18. Mary, betrothed to Joseph, is raped by God (although he could dodge that in court by claiming the Holy Spirit did it without his knowledge) so God could arrive on Earth in human form as Jesus…or so we are led to believe. Did Mary have any say in all this? Were her wishes consulted, her desires known, her freewill considered? If so, where? And if not, why not? This God, who created the universe out of nothing, doesn't then create his son out of nothing too; He forces sex on an unsuspecting woman to have her give birth to Himself in human form and He sees nothing wrong with this. How is that any different than what Roosh V is proposing?

Furthermore, if God (or the Holy Spirit) had been caught in the act of raping Mary, would both of them have been stoned to death as it calls for in Deuteronomy 22:22-23?

Nuggets of "wisdom" from the Roosh.

          Roosh V wrote in his blog last year that to stop rape, all the U.S. Government needs to do is legalize it on private property. From Roosh’s vantage point, a woman has consented to sex the moment she consents to entering a man’s house. So evidently, Roosh V is not out of sync with the supposed Christian creator of the universe. Do Not Rape is not one of God's commandments...it’s not even a suggestion. Needless to say, if God finds it okay to rape a young betrothed woman and then have his angels tell her how lucky and blessed she is, and how she has found favor in His eyes, certainly Roosh luring a young woman of at least 18 years of age into his house (or rather his mom's house since, even at 36 years or age, he lives in her basement) can’t be considered wrong, now can it? Especially if he tells her afterward how lucky she is and that she's found favor in his eyes. (Yeah, I'll bet!) So if God set the standard for this kind of violation, why is anyone surprised when some dim-witted male decides to demand its legalization, and then act on it? Maybe he ought to find the girl's dad, pay him off up front with 50 silver coins, and go from there. It's stupidity like this from a supposed holy book that gives legitimacy to douche-nozzles like Roosh V.
And people wonder why I object to the bible.

If you're still not sure, keep this handy guide in your wallet.

The Pledge of Allegiance

        

        I pledge allegiance to the flag…of the United States of America…

Is that something everyone should be forced to recite, even if the flag represents, say, despicable acts done by people working or fighting under that flag? For example, the repeated killing of innocent civilians by CIA-controlled drones in the Middle East, at My Lai in South Vietnam, No Gun Ri in South Korea, killing the original Americans during our westward expansion from the 17th to the 20^th centuries, or importing, enslaving, and mistreating millions of human beings forcibly taken from the African continent? Pledging allegiance suggests a ‘my country - right or wrong’ attitude implying that no matter what was done under that flag, it's okay; American exceptionalism means we'll gladly spill ours, or someone else's blood, for it regardless of what it may be.

If this is such a great country, (I think it is, but not because of the flag) why do we even need to pledge our allegiance to it? Wouldn't we simply love it or form a deep emotional attachment to the nation  - not because of a compulsory alliance?

Why not…”I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, a republic based on democracy, which offers liberty and justice for all…?

        That, to me anyway, makes far more sense than pledging allegiance to a piece of fabric. Because that is what it actually is demanding? Read it. It says “I pledge allegiance to the FLAG.”

The flag is several pieces of colored cloth sewn together. But that doesn't imbue it with any special power. It is no more the United States than the Statue of Liberty or singing Yankee Doodle. 

       Some advocates try to get around the flag pledge by claiming it follows the first line with …”and to the republic for which it stands…” But that follows the pledge to the FLAG; the “to the republic” business is an afterthought. It’s used as a stand-in for the sewn-together fabric banner. It’s one thing to align one’s self with an idea, or a nation. It’s quite another to an auxiliary imitation. The wisest thing I ever heard regarding the flag came from a retired World War Two Marine Corp Captain (Marshall Caitlin - who flew F4U’s over Bougainville and the Solomon Islands.) who said he “went to war to defend what America stood for, not what stood for America.”

        Nor do I think the word ‘indivisible’ should be part of that pledge. The Declaration of Independence clearly gives citizens of the states the right to break away or abolish the government if they feel it no longer represents them. Check the second paragraph of it if you doubt that. Clearly our Founding Fathers granted us the right to be divisible.

        People have forgotten how and why we even have a “Pledge of Allegiance.” The idea can be traced back to Daniel Sharp Ford, the owner of Youth’s Companion magazine. In 1892, he wanted to put American flags in every school in the country and sensed that the nation needed a dose of patriotism to heal the wounds from the American Civil War. So the sale of American flags was his initial the motivation. Sharp gave the assignment to write a patriotic pledge to a staff member, a former Baptist minister and Christian Socialist, Francis Bellamy. In Bellamy’s original Pledge, he expressed the egalitarian idealism of the French Revolution. He also drew on the socialist Utopian novels of his cousin Edward Bellamy, the author of Looking Backward and Equality. The pledge was also written to honor the 400^th anniversary of Christopher Columbus setting foot in the New World. Most today do not recognize Bellamy’s original Pledge.

Bellamy originally included 'equality, fraternity' after liberty.

        Bellamy organized a school program around a flag raising ceremony including a special gesture called the Bellamy salute while saying his 'Pledge of Allegiance.' The salute consisted of each person extending their right arm straight forward, angling slightly upward, with fingers pointing directly ahead at the flag. Does it look familiar? 

Let me juxtapose it with a similar salute…

        Yes, the fascists and Nazis began using the same gesture less than 30 years later, but from the beginning, the act seemed exploitative and authoritarian, even before there was such a thing as fascism.

        In the 1923 and 1924 National Flag Conferences, the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution changed the Pledge's 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy heartily disliked this revision, but his protest was ignored. Over a year after the U.S. became embroiled in World War Two, the Bellamy salute was finally dropped because it look like Americans were expressing solidarity with Nazism. 

        In 1954, Congress added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge making it now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. It is reported that President Eisenhower ‘enthusiastically endorsed’ this change but it turned out he was more concerned with being called weak on Communism or being labeled a ‘Communist” thanks to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Red Scare, and reluctantly went along with the change. Bellamy passed away in 1931 but his granddaughter stated he would have hated that change as well. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons but he would have considered making an appeal to God in his pledge a type of sacrilege.

What Christians see when they say the pledge 

        

        The Pledge was dreamed up to sell flags, to promote the discovery of the continent by a man who claimed it for his God - while taking several of its inhabitants and riches back to Spain, and to bind the wounds from a recent war that still divided the country. All you had to do was make a commitment, not to the American idea or its Constitution, but to a piece of representative fabric...sort of like pledging allegiance to the Bald Eagle.

        How about making this commitment: I pledge allegiance to the universe and all the life which it supports…one cosmos, in our care, irreplaceable, with sustenance and respect for all.

Ban all Religions Until the Test Results Come Back Positive

        

        Last week Donald Trump, in his usual inimitable fashion, again made an incendiary comment that aroused great anger, from fellow Republican presidential candidates, and almost everyone to the left of Trump. But not to his supporters; they loved it. They can’t wait to have Trump banning Muslim immigrants...actually anyone they don’t like...and ignoring established U.S. laws, policies and regulations….”Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...and turn them away."

         But as wrong as I think Trump is, he may have stumbled onto a very good idea. It just isn’t restrictive enough. Let’s run with his idea of banning a religious group. If I agreed with his position, then we shouldn’t stop there; we should go even further. Let’s not just ban Muslims from entering the U.S., let’s ban ANY religious person. Yes, ban them all… until they’ve passed a test indicating they understand the separation of church and state, that they will uphold and defend that separation, and that our Constitution supersedes ANY law that's in someone’s holy book.

        This ban would not just apply to foreigners hoping to resettle in America, but also to anyone who already lives here. For example, if Christians promote an interpretation of their God’s laws as somehow overriding the Constitution, they need to be removed to another place, say, the Vatican, until such time as they take a test proving they understand this is a secular nation and the Constitution is the ONLY law of the land. They can practice whatever religion they want in their own homes or in a place of worship (that would no longer be tax-exempt), but they cannot claim their God’s law is higher than Constitutional law.

        It doesn’t matter if the believers are Hindu, Mormon, Buddhist, Shinto, Zoroastrian, or they worship of a pile of rocks. They must show, via both written and verbal testing, that they acknowledge their religious laws stop at our border. They do not supplant any U.S. law at any time…period!

         If they are Muslim and disagree; Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, and even ISIS are all trying to implement Sharia. Let them live there and practice their faith. Or if they are Mormon and believe that what Elohim says overrides U.S. law, expel them to one of the uninhabited islands of the Alaska archipelago until testing confirms they fully understand and comply with the Constitution.

         Trump's not the first. Whether anti-British, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese, anti-black, or anti-Commie...down through history, Americans have loved vilifying and repressing others.

        

         Now, far be it for me to point out to the oh-so-wise and well-informed Trump, who clearly hasn’t studied U.S. history, we already tried banning certain groups…the Chinese in the late 1800s, the Japanese in World War Two, and Communists during the 1950s. It just doesn’t work, and won’t work, even if we turned this nation into a completely fascist dictatorship like, say, Nazi Germany. So rather than banning, the best step is to make sure everyone understands we are not bound by the religious laws of any gods, or any religious sects.  

        Trump’s pandering to squeamish, anxious white xenophobes gets great press, but it won’t get him elected president. However, if he’d go along with a test given to every religious person immigrating here, or living here, so we can get them up to speed on how the Constitution works, then he and I might have some common ground to discuss ideas.

Know your Constitution