Mind Wanderings

A Crisis of Our Own Making

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

We face a multi-pronged existential crisis in this country.

A perfect storm of anti-science dumbing down of critical thinking, a growing intolerance for those who may be different than the majority, and an increasingly dangerous march toward an imbalance of power in government.

These phenomena are further inflamed by co-opting normally benign religious faith by Christian Nationalists which is merely a mask worn by those seeking to oppress any other belief system to further their own agenda and is most unchristian in practice.

It is nationalist in the worst sense of seeking domination over all others, is intolerant of any dissension, and is Christian for convenience not doctrinal integrity.

Whatever your faith may be, no true religion seeks to turn their god into a bullet and shoot it into another human’s heart. Claiming that any God has chosen one people over all others is a manmade fallacy whose only purpose is to justify dominance over and oppression of others.

The fact that in the 21st century, the most powerful nation in the world would seek to justify their policies based on primitive beliefs from an age dominated by illiteracy is frightening. That it even enters into the discussion is inexplicable.

The danger of such a course for government policy should be self-evident.

A significant number of Americans firmly believe that God can suspend the immutable laws of physics to perform miracles absent one iota of evidence. They then interpret their success in light of this faith as proof of the dominance of the Christian god.

This religious façade then fuels the most unchristian treatment of their fellow humans, reckless disregard for the sanctity of life of those of different cultures and faiths, and justifies their embracing a philosophy more characteristic of the bloody religious crusades then a pursuit of justice and peace.

“…no true religion seeks to turn their god into a bullet
and shoot it into another human’s heart.”
Joe Broadmeadow

We are engulfed in a battle for the soul of this country. The hobgoblins representing the worst of what humans can do to their fellow humans are guiding many of our actions. They have attacked the very foundation of this nation. Laws are tools wielded by those in power and ignored when they are inconvenient.

When a sitting President can exhibit callous disregard for the Constitution, and Americans who should know better remain silent because it feeds their prejudice, it is a sign of dangerous times.

There are indications of a growing resistance to this corruption of country. There is still the framework for the balance of government to reassert itself. But we are in a tenuous position.

The dangerous mix of twisting sincere religious beliefs into something that supports intolerance and ignores the Constitution underscores the danger and reinforces the brilliance of the founding fathers in explicitly separating church and state.

If we don’t resist this march into anarchy, we may find ourselves at the point of a gun loaded with bullets under the patina of religious commandments and aimed at our hearts. And they will squeeze the trigger with a smile on their face, certain they are acting as God wants them to.

All Is Right with the World

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

(It says so right in the Bible, some of it in the red words!)

All is well. We’ve nothing to fear for the lord is with us in our righteousness! We are guided by the lord in all our works, to glorify him by seizing the oil from the dark forces. The Lord compelled us to defeat his enemies wherever they may be. We will find them.

As the Bible so clearly says,

“Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil.” – Exodus 30:25

“The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps.” – Matthew 25:4

Now, knowing the Bible is absolute truth where it best suits us and allegory where it gets a bit awkward, these words bring joy to our hearts for our President must be the one sent to deliver us from evil.

Venezuela was fallen to Satan, and we have redeemed them at $60.00 per barrel and a nice profit for our efforts.

And the Lord tells us where next we will find the devil…

The tempest comes out from its chamber,
    the cold from the driving winds.
10 The breath of God produces ice,
    and the broad waters become frozen.
11 He loads the clouds with moisture;
    he scatters his lightning through them.
Job 37:9-11 (NIV)

Our crusades have just begun. It says so in the Bible.

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.


The Last Americans…

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

All Hail, Geezer!

It has always been the old men who send the young off to war.

They pump them full of hatred for an unfamiliar enemy, fuel their addiction to a love of country that blinds them to reality, and arm them with a cause they perceive as a holy crusade in the pursuit of justice.

And, although this may be a bit of a generalization, it is the young ones who managed to avoid going to war that grow old and repeat the process with a different enemy, a new generation of young people, but using the same methods.

 As so we find our commander in chief, the quintessential poster boy for avoiding combat, crafting a policy that is the antithesis of what millions in the country fought for in World War II.

We lost more than 400,000 American lives in a cause to prevent countries from using force to subvert, subject, or subdue other countries absent a world-wide consensus of the need.

We wrote, promoted, and signed the United Nations charter so that one country or group of countries cannot use power against others without facing the rest of the world standing in their way.

The system is not perfect, it is fraught with problems, but it is better than unilateral actions taken by would-be dictators or those with delusions of some perceived grievance against sovereignty.

We always tried to act in a manner that supported the spirit of that agreement. We made mistakes but corrected them and learned from them. We did not use force unless force was used against us.

How things have changed.

We are led by a Nero-like megalomaniac whose self-delusions and warped concept of American greatness has infected the minds of his followers.

They suffer blindness when it comes to his actions and the cost to this nation.

They are like the cheering Nazis applauding Hitler’s restoration of their standing in the world unable to see the coming disaster soon to befall them.

Today Venezuela, tomorrow Greenland. Where next we should ask? Where does it end?

If we would fight to the death to protect our own rights of sovereignty from foreign aggression, why should we expect others to surrender to ours?

By what right is our country’s security more important than the people of Greenland or any other targets of this President?

If Greenland is critical to our security, then wouldn’t we strive to be good allies, not potential invaders?

We formed NATO as a bulwark against the Communist dominated Eastern Europe. The core element is an agreement that an attack on one nation was an attack on all of us.

Now, we may find ourselves engaging in aggression against a NATO ally (Denmark) and pitting ourselves against the other NATO members’ obligations to come to their defense.

How does this make America great again? It doesn’t.

It does make us just another country that finds itself in a seemingly unchallengeable position of power being led by a delusional Caesar. What he, and all those other despots who came before him, fails to see is that not one of those empires survived.

But we truly have an opportunity to alter the seemingly inalterable path of history. But that window is closing quickly. These next three years will determine if we right the course of our errant national policy or turn out to be the last Americans.

Hail, Geezer, destroyer of Pax Americae!

(Author’s note: I must acknowledge and thank my friend, Jane Auger, for the “Hail, Geezer” line. Well crafted and on the money.)

What’s the Difference?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Russia claims Volodymyr Zelensky is not the legitimate elected President of Ukraine.

The United States claims Nicolas Maduro is not the legitimate elected President of Venezuela. (They had a practice run in 2020 about claiming election fraud and learned from that.)

Russia initiates unilateral actions against the Ukraine.

The United States initiates unilateral actions against Venezuela.

Russia takes territory and citizens of a sovereign nation without cause.

The United States seizes the President of Venezuela and his wife by military force.

Russia unilaterally demands the Ukraine surrender territory and the Ukrainian people within those territories to Russia.

The United States unilaterally claims the authority to “run” Venezuela and bring in American companies to run the oil industry to the benefit of the Unites States.

Expediency should never be a rationale for circumventing our Constitution and our commitment to international law.

Joe Broadmeadow

Can somebody explain the difference other than we have a more effective military capability?

Can somebody explain on what basis they think the Venezuelan people will welcome the imposition of a government run by the United States on their sovereignty?

Can somebody explain why we choose not to commit similar actions in other countries controlled by dictators, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Vietnam (oh wait, we tried that one), Sudan, Nigeria…

Here’s the list of the current 59 dictatorships in the world, https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/

That anyone in this country supports the actions by President Trump in Venezuela is terrifying.

Whether Maduro is a narco-terrorist or not is irrelevant. We are a country of laws living in a tenuous post-World War II world that is based on international law.

Whether or not we have the ability and resources to execute such actions is irrelevant. Expediency should never be a rationale for circumventing our Constitution and our commitment to international law.

Rallying around successful but questionable military operations ostensibly seeking to right a wrong is fraught with risk.

We need to keep in mind the people of Venezuela have the right and the obligation to find their own solutions to their internal problems.  Inasmuch as the narcotics business affects us, we need to look inside ourselves for the fundamental reason for the existence of this business, the demand for narcotics by Americans.

If we accept the rationale that narcotics trafficking is an act of terror, then we are a country where millions of our citizens support terrorists and some reap financial benefits from their actions.

Perhaps dealing with the problem should begin at home.

We offer a market for the business and do little, if anything, to reduce that demand. Rest assured the flow of narcotics will not diminish substantially until this demand is reduced. And our using extrajudicial means to combat it is a slippery slope.

We could try to jail them all in keeping with our worldwide lead in the number of citizens we incarcerate.

Or, go right to the summary executions to avoid those pesty technicalities under the law. Perhaps pay-per-view executions in the Presidential Ballroom.

These operations make for glitzy press conferences, flag waving hysteria, and testosterone-fueled fist bumping, cue the patriotic music, but do little to address the problem.

The moronic comparisons to our imposing caretaker governments in Japan and Germany after the war are laughable. We did not do that without the consent of most of the nations united against Axis fascism. This is an unjustifiable and extrajudicial use of military force to seize a citizen of another country, taking unprovoked military action against that country, and rationalizing it by claiming we are helping the Venezuelans, righting a historical wrong, and combatting narco-terrorists.

There will be a great deal of ranting about how Venezuela nationalized the oil industry and unlawfully seized American assets. This is not the place for a history lesson, but one might want to try to at least have a fundamental understanding of this complex issue.

Nationalization, which took place over several years and presidential administrations, beginning in 1971, did not happen overnight. It was a progressive process meant to address the imbalance of the profits taken by the American companies as compared to the profits shared with Venezuela. American companies were given concessions to drill for oil, they were not given possession of the land, and they took billions in profits.

Any attempt to justify this as righting the wrong of this nationalization is a white-washing of history to paint the United States as a victim, it was not.

What we are doing is helping ourselves to the Venezuelans oil and there is no doubt Mr. Trump will get his cut of the profits.

And we will be left with an indelible stain on the history of our country and irrefutable evidence of our hypocrisy.

What’s the difference? There is none.

Author’s note.

(Now, I’ll sit back and wait for the vitriol pointing out how I am unpatriotic, support dictators (I have my voting record to refute that one), and my sympathizing with narco-terrorists to come pouring in.
In preparation for the barrage, I’ll put on the coffee. I hope you enjoy the show as much as I will. I particularly enjoy the ones in CAPITAL LETTERS!)

The Honesty of Childhood: Lessons from a Four-Year-Old

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

It’s so simple, just ask a four-year-old.

The innocence of children, a common theme, is a misnomer. The innocence implies they had some capability to surrender it. They do not until we teach them how.

What children are is honest, uninhibited by the artificial constraints of a “polite” society. We tell them, do not lie. But when we ask them if they like the food offered, we expect them to be polite and say “yes, thank you,” and eat every morsel. Even things as abominable, unpalatable, and disgusting as Brussels sprouts (sometimes incorrectly known as Brussel Sprouts).

An honest person would recoil at the sight of these things and say “no, I do not.” But we train away their natural honesty and replace it with a false politeness.

Kids have a way of looking at life that time often erodes. And that is unfortunate.

The other day, my grandson, Levi, asked to go to a local playground, despite the temperature hovering in the low 20s and a windchill factor making it feel like Siberia.

Since I often encourage any activity that avoids the use of digital apparatus, and not to appear hypocritical, I agreed to a brief visit.

It is during these often-unplanned events that some of the most profound and deep philosophical thoughts arise from these uninhibited beings.

Placing him on the only swing not coated with ice, he began swinging away. I would push him hard to get him moving, then jam my hands back in the pocket of the outer vest, which was over an inner vest and two sweatshirts. I would silently curse the invisible force of gravity requiring me to remove my hand from the warmth of the pocket and repower the momentum.

He seemed impervious to the cold as children often are. I was not, but I was committed to my principles.

And, of course, the conversation was non-stop. His face sometimes clouded with the warm-breath mist accompanying his words.

This is a small but memorable part of that conversation.

Levi: “I remember the first time I tried a swing.”
JB: “You do?”
“Levi: “Yup, I remember all my memories.”

“I remember all my memories.”

The words stuck with me the whole rest of the day and were waiting to replay in my mind first thing this morning.

I thought, wouldn’t it be nice to retain that ability to hold fast to all your memories. It would remind us to learn from the memories of our mistakes, appreciate the memories of all those who have influenced our lives, and embrace the simple memories of a conversation with a wise four-year-old philosopher whose turn of phrase can enlighten a world.

Remember all your memories!

An American Crossroad

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

“When you come to the fork in the road, take it.”
Yogi Berra (sort of)

Ozymandius

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
-Percy Bysshe Shelley

America faces the most challenging crisis since the Civil War. Our government of checks and balances is now woefully unbalanced, controlled by those with checks and deep pockets.

The distortion of power between the uber-wealthy and the majority of Americans teeters on the brink of totalitarianism and total loss of our constitutional rights. And the most frightening thing about it is the willful blindness or stunning indifference of a significant number of American citizens.

We have a President who lacks even the slightest element of empathy or commitment to the greater good. His callous pronouncements about others, be they those recently deceased or the weakest and most vulnerable among us, are a sad commentary on his lack of humanity.

Like Ozymandius, he struts to engrave his name all over the country as if he deserves such honor, failing to learn from history the emptiness of such efforts by other maniacal egos. First, it was the unlawful and shameful renaming of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (it’s only a matter of time before the only events they can book there will be UFC and some failed country-western acts who mourn the loss of the Old South).

Then it was the unilateral decision to tear down the East Wing of the White House to build another testament to ego and self-aggrandizement. It is only a matter of time before he decides to dynamite Mount Rushmore, rename national parks (Trump-Yellowstone, Trump-Grand Tetons) after they pump out all the oil and decimate the environment, and imprint his picture on the one-hundred-dollar bill.

‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

We have a neutered majority in Congress who sit silent in the face of these outrages, using the cowardly argument that they hold their tongue to prevent Trump from seeking vengeance on the states they represent.

Is there any worse example of cowardice than that?

These Senators and Congresspeople have forgotten the lessons of the great women and men who came before them and, while working for their particular districts, kept in mind the greater responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the American people.

We may be a nation of Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, Catholic-American, Muslim-American, African-American, and a host of other hyphenated Americans. Yet, we need to keep in mind that the word before the hyphen is but an adjective. The essence of all people in the country is American, and we deserve a President and a Congress that keeps that in the forefront of all their considerations.

Our commonality as Americans is our most cherished characteristic, and we should resist with all our will any effort to segregate us into the haves and have-nots.

2026 is America’s crossroads. Unless we send a clear message that we will resist this march toward an authoritarian President with unrestrained power, we may not survive as the country our founding fathers created.

When a President can order the military to kill wounded individuals, even if we accept they are enemies of the United States and wish us harm, how can we object the next time an American pilot is shot down, captured, then executed by others?

Combat, despite the horrors and fog it engenders, has rules of engagement. We cannot hold ourselves up as people to be admired and emulated if we descend into the behavior of those we most criticize.

Mr. Trump has denigrated, diminished, and demeaned the Office of the President of the United States and this country in the eyes of the world. That most people outside this country are shocked by the sudden decline in our standing is telling. That many people within the United States are blind or indifferent to it is horrifying.

The list of acts that confirm this contention is long and dismaying, but there is hope. There are positive signs of resistance within the once-admirable Republican Party and encouraging signs of a revitalized and refocused Democratic Party.

Let’s strive to put people in office who will re-establish the balance of power among the three branches, remember their oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not partisan political parties, and seek a consensus among differing perspectives to preserve and protect this country.  

Now is the real moment to make America great again. If these last few months have not demonstrated the danger of the alternative, nothing will.

A Happy “New” Year

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

“For in that sleep of death what dreams may come?”
Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1

Once again, we face the changing of the numbers, assigning an artificial appellation to the passage of time.

2026. Two thousand and twenty-six years marking the passage of time, for the US-European centric world at least, since an event that may or may not have occurred in an obscure town, in a distant area of the Roman Empire, in a time before mass communication or widespread literacy.

Yet here we are adjusting all our calendars to show the change to this new 365-day cycle.

Depending on the number you use, some 80-90 generations have been born since the start of the Common Era (C.E., formerly known as Anno Domini, Year of our Lord, when the church ruled the world), with most, but the last 4 or 5, long since deceased.

Now my generation, born in the 1950s, passes into another stage of life. Since our arrival, three more generations have arrived, and we are hurtling towards what will likely be the last arrival of a generation in our lifetime.

And that is the way of the universe.

We are made of the atoms forged in the nuclear fires of the first stars and will, in our time, return to that form. We, all of us and the things we are made of, have existed for billions of years and will continue to exist long after this current form disintegrates.

This is nothing to fear, nothing to dread. Not that one should look forward to it. There are so many things to experience in this life before it returns us to our original form. But it is an inevitability we all share.

These numbers are meaningless when seen against the timelessness of the universe. Most of us live to about 80 to 100 years, and that should be enough if one remembers to “always look on the bright side of life,” as Monty Python put it.

Shakespeare, of course, found a way to define the human lifespan. A bitter-sweet telling of the seven stages of man.

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything
— William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII

Since much of my time is (joyfully) occupied by entertaining two energetic members of the latest generation, I’ve morphed into the childishness of the last stage but still hold fast to my teeth, my eyes, my taste, and everything else this life offers.

I came into this world amazed at the wonder of it all and will leave, in my time (decades from now, I hope), with the same sense of wonder. If you think about it, getting to journey among the stars and galaxies of this universe has an attraction to it. To return to be among everything that came before us and all that will follow seems fitting.

A reward for a life well lived.

Happy New Year, and however many years you get to number, may they all be filled with a sense of wonder.

See you in the stars.

Joe Broadmeadow
July 25, 1956-TBD

…For Goodness Sake

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”
James Madison, Letter to William Bradford 1774

One of the most troubling aspects of religion, in particular Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam, is their insistence that everything that exists, everything that is good, everything humans need to lead a fulfilling life arise from God. They also claim the Bible or the Quran are the inerrant word of God and questioning such doctrine is an evil act.

That both cannot be true simultaneously, and the more likely scenario is that neither are, is lost in the fog of blind devotion.

Religion contends there is no morality, decency, or altruism unless one is committed to faith in God to the exclusion of all others.

In reading the book, The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I am struck by the theme that actions such as his—beyond heroic by any measure in the face of the Nazi terror he opposed to the moment of his execution—were, in his own view, insufficient.

From the introduction to the book by the late Bishop of Chichester, G.K.A. Bell,

“But it was not enough for him to seek justice, truth, honesty and goodness for their own sake and patiently to suffer for them. No, according to Bonhoeffer, we have to do so in loyal obedience to Him who is the source and spring of all goodness, justice and truth and on whom he felt absolutely dependent.”

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship, Kindle Edition. (From the section Memoir by G. Leibholz, quoting G. K. A. Bell, late Bishop of Chichester)

In more pedestrian terms, being good, or opposing evil, because it is the right thing to do, is not enough in Bonhoeffer’s view; good must be done because it shows our devotion to and dependency on God for all things.

This, in a nutshell, is my argument with religion in general and the Abrahamic religions in particular. Like a virus subverting cellular processes and churning out cancerous cells, religion co-opts the innate goodness of human nature and convinces people it must be from God. It diverts resources and time to meaningless acts of worship, ceremony, and sacrifice focused on a false premise.

Even worse, religion does not just contend that good cannot exist without God; theologians like Bonhoeffer claim it is secondary to devotion to God. This disregards the clear evidence for human evolution and social development. To borrow the title Richard Dawkins gave to one of his books, it is The God Delusion.

Think about this for a moment. Acting altruistically, doing the right thing, is secondary to demonstrating devotion to God? How does one explain altruism in people who have never experienced Christianity? This doctrine’s purpose is transparent and singular: to preserve the continuity of the faith.

God created man; man devoted to God is good, so God is the only way for man to be good. If a man acts malevolently, that is the influence of evil or a lack of faith, not a failure of God.

Evolution would argue otherwise. Behaviors dominated by cooperation and mutual support are more successful at avoiding extinction (adaptation) than those dominated by competition. Inherent goodness and moral behavior—in the sense of being based on the principles of proper conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or customs—is more likely to survive “natural selection,” which undeniably drives the process of species survival or death in the world and the universe.

People who went to the memorial service in England after Bonhoffer’s execution by the S.S Black Guards believed.

“…that, on April 9th, 1945, when Dietrich Bonhoeffer met his death at the hands of the S.S. Black Guards, something had happened in Germany that could not be measured by human standards. They felt that God himself had intervened in the most terrible struggle the world has witnessed so far by sacrificing one of his most faithful and courageous sons to expiate the crimes of a diabolical regime and to revive the spirit in which the civilization of Europe has to be rebuilt.” Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. Kindle Edition.

The quote is most troubling since it illustrates how this Christian God sees innocent human sacrifice of his choosing as a valid expiation of sins committed by others against the word of this same God. This God believes that the designated human sacrifice of one of his faithful is the most expedient way to address evil.

This bears repeating.

Sacrificing one of his own faithful to expiate the sins of evil committed by others is a respectable philosophy. Worthy of praise and devotion.

Who did they commit this sin against in the first place? The same God killing one of his own as penance for the sin.

First, God sends his son, who is himself, to die a horrible death to expiate the sins of man committed against this god, beginning with the original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge, quite telling right there, then raises the dead son (again, himself, who died yet is confusingly immortal) to show his love for man.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3-16 (and you thought it was just the score of the game with all the signs on TV.)

Then, when the Nazis come along, he causes Bonhoeffer, because of his devotion and discipleship, to act in a way opposing the Nazis, knowing (he is omniscient after all) how they would react. Then this God allows the Nazis to imprison, torture, and execute Bonhoeffer to expiate the sins of the Nazis.

You will understand my confusion. And “it is a mystery” is woefully inadequate, if not morally reprehensible. I suppose the thought of a second son was never a consideration.

This begs the obvious question. Why does God intervene by directing the actions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in heroic opposition to the Nazi terror rather than preventing the rise of the Nazis in the first place?

If you would expiate the sins of the Nazis by executing someone, why not direct one of the millions of munitions we dropped on Germany to hit the Führer’s bunker and expiate him all over the walls?

Or, if it would make you feel better, crash one of the B-17s being flown by a Christian into the bunker. You get a twofer, killing evil and a devotee sacrifice. Wouldn’t that be more in sync with the doctrine?

Why let innocent Germans, especially babies and children, die for the sins of the Third Reich? Is it because they weren’t good enough to expiate the sins of their fathers? Or is that “visiting the sins of the father unto the third and fourth generation” mandatory?

The conundrum of God either being unable or unwilling to prevent evil is a stubbornly persistent flaw in the arguments for God’s existence, omniscience, and omnipotence. If God is omniscient, he knew the Nazis would rise to power and develop the Final Solution. One might argue he was just a spectator at the events. Yet, even being omnipotent, he decided to cause a Lutheran priest alone to take a moral stand against it?

Seems more inconsiderate, or impotent, than omnipotent.

But I still cannot wrap my head around the contention that Bonhoeffer himself argued his actions were meaningful only if he acted as a faithful servant and believer in God. Taking a stand, fraught with risk against the power of the Nazis because they were evil was not enough, no matter how honorable.

And, of course, there are Biblical passages offering instruction in such matters.

And as he passed by he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the place of toil, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. (Mark 2.14)

“… It is Jesus who calls, and because it is Jesus, Levi follows at once. This encounter is a testimony to the absolute, direct, and unaccountable authority of Jesus. There is no need of any preliminaries, and no other consequence but obedience to the call. Because Jesus is the Christ, he has the authority to call and to demand obedience to his word. Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ, the Son of God.” Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship (pp. 15-16). Kindle Edition.

This quote illustrates my point. Levi, according to Scripture, follows Jesus without question or hesitation, not because he tries to do good, but because “Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ.”

And he said unto another. Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But he said unto him. Leave the dead to bury their dead, but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship (p. 17). Kindle Edition.

The point is to follow him not to do good in the world—righting wrongs, challenging evil—but because Jesus is calling. Nothing else matters.

Blind faith. Great name for a rock band, poor life philosophy. Blind faith gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, Indian Schools (our own final solution), slavery, and Nazi Germany. It continues to plague us today.

Why? What makes this calling more consequential than the altruistic acts themselves? Simple. The propagation of faith for faith itself.

Evolution postulates that natural selection—not, as it is often misinterpreted, the survival of the fittest but the survival of those who can best reproduce and adapt—promotes beneficial mutations and practices. Thus, there may have been an “evolutionary” benefit to religion.

Community, sharing of resources, commonality against enemies (there is a great deal of smiting of enemies and seizure of the spoils of war, in particular the ever so desirable virgins, with no limit of seventy-two thus trumping the Muslims, in the Old Testament) which may foster high rates of survivability and by passing on the “faith” gene, insuring continuity and spreading of the faith.

While evolution is clearest over geological time scales, there are examples of rapid change within several rather than hundreds of generations. Religion may have offered a better chance of survival in prehistoric humans until the Enlightenment.

One sign of this could be lifespan. From the time of the first homo sapiens until the Enlightenment, humans lived a precarious existence, surviving, on average, 30-35 years. Over fifty percent of humans never made it past their early thirties.

As a side note, remember they ate only organic meat, fish, and pesticide-free vegetables, yet died at thirty years of age.

With the advent of the Enlightenment—the rise of science—human lifespan began to expand worldwide, with people living well into their eighties.

Religion may have had an initial, beneficial effect on survival, but science has improved on it exponentially. And yet, a significant majority (although declining worldwide, correlating to rising educational levels) still embrace some form of religion.

Perhaps evolution is mutating the religion gene to the science gene.

 Evolution might even explain how religiosity declines as educational level increases.

Yet we still lack an explanation for Bonhoeffer’s contention that being good is not enough absent a “discipleship” committed to God. This is troubling because articulate and intelligent theologians like Bonhoeffer influence modern religions, which try to impose their doctrines in secular matters.

“Any belief system that explains the suffering of children instead of rejecting it has already abandoned morality” Betrand Russell

Bonhoeffer himself sees this as not only desirable but necessary. His opposition to Nazi Germany and their corruption of the Church was a sign that a government not molded by Christianity was threatening, ineffective, and contrary to the supremacy of the faith.

I see this as dangerous. Bonhoeffer’s heroic actions opposing the Nazis aside, understanding his motivations—acting because it is an elemental part of his discipleship with Christ—is essential to prevent this philosophy from gaining control of secular government.

This event would threaten freedom and democracy and challenge the continuity of a moral and ethical society based on rationality not fear of the afterlife promulgated by an invisible being.

The evidence of this goal of trying to impose religion on secular government is everywhere. The rallying cry of the false contention that we are a Judeo-Christian nation is no less frightening than black-booted brown shirts ( we have those, too) screaming about racial supremacy of the white man.

When politicians embrace this philosophy for political advantage, even those who may hold sincere Christian beliefs, they betray the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

When some within this country clamor and cry that we are a Christian nation, yet act opposite to the words and actions of the man the seek to hoist on others, they reveal the danger of such a political, rather than a genuine, act of faith.

They pose the greatest threat to this country since our founding, bar none.

Go back

Your message has been sent

Rating(Please take a moment to rate this article)

Rating: 1 out of 5.

Faith-Based Disruptions in Academia: A Challenging Trend

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

“It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere,” is one of those sayings that, on its face, seems harmless but carries a hidden danger, as many recent incidents have demonstrated.

Belief alone, no matter how sincere, can be dangerous without context, or evidence. If faith can convince you to believe in absurdities, it can convince you to commit atrocities.

I came upon a recent story that illustrates a troubling trend. The evangelical Christians among us would force a different version of this saying on all aspects of life, most concerning being in academia.

These Christians would have the motto changed to, “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as it comes from the Bible.” This is now their desired philosophy for educational standards in the United States.

And they would add the demand, “…and cannot be challenged or questioned but must be respected by everyone.”

The story concerns Samantha Fulnecky (see link here),  a junior at Oklahoma State University who was assigned an essay on gender stereotypes for a psychology class.

Here’s the background on the story with links to the original assignment and the article upon which the essay was to be based.

The assignment called for students to write a clear and thoughtful 650-word response to a scholarly article about gender expectations in society. According to screenshots shared by Turning Point USA’s local chapter, Fulnecky wrote in her essay that the article irritated her and described how God created men and women differently. “Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth,” she wrote.

Mel Curth, a graduate teaching assistant, wrote as part of the grading process that she had deducted points because Fulnecky submitted a “paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive,” according to the screenshots of her messages.

Megan Waldron, a second graduate student who teaches the course alongside Curth, agreed with the grade. “Everyone has different ways in which they see the world, but in an academic course such as this, you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning,” she wrote to Fulnecky, according to the screenshots.

(see link here)

Those of you who read the assignment understand that this wasn’t an endorsement of any particular agenda. It was a discussion about gender stereotypes in society. It was not a rallying cry for societal endorsement for transgenderism.

It would seem, in the conservative Christian view, boys play with trains and planes, girls play with dolls and have tea parties. Men are rugged and virile; women are caring and docile. Men go to work, women care for children. To quote Ms. Fulnecky, God created women with “womanly desires in our hearts…to be helpers.” She offers her faith that the way God intended it to be as stated in the Bible is evidence and settled. No discussion necessary. (Satire alert!, I have to post this because you’d be amazed at the number of people who miss it.)

Now, had this been a Bible Study or a comparative religion class challenging these secular contentions, perhaps Ms. Fulnecky’s (or should I say Miss, in keeping with the dark ages philosophy) essay would have been acceptable.

This was a research assignment in an educational environment, with an expectation of academic standards, i.e., citations of sources, presenting evidence, and applicable documentation to support the position. The Bible does not meet the criteria of a peer-reviewed study.

Ms. (Miss) Fulnecky was free to argue her point of the sole existence of two genders and challenging, or concurring with, societal expectations as long as she submitted supporting evidence. She did not. She submitted biblical beliefs absent any proof. She wrote an op-ed when the assignment called for something entirely different.

The problem arose when she was challenged on her material. She did what all religious do and immediately complained she was being persecuted for her beliefs.

Nonsense.

None of the remarks on her paper suggested she abandon her faith; they simply pointed out that she had misunderstood, or more likely ignored, the simple instructions because she saw it as challenging her faith. FYI, that is what education is all about, challenging concepts and beliefs in pursuit of truth.

I would hope that, since she was in a Pre-med program, she would realize that, once she got to medical school, if she suggested prayer as a form of therapy or treatment in a medical school class on infectious diseases or fractured bones, she would be expected to present clinical evidence of its efficacy.

If she didn’t, and was given a poor grade because of this, it wouldn’t be persecution of her faith; it would be saving the lives of patients from ineffectual treatment. Emergency rooms may be the site of many prayers, but they are not part of any treatment protocols.

Want to know the best proof that prayer is an ineffectual form of treatment? If there were even the slightest clinical evidence of the efficacy of prayer, insurance companies would be telling their clients to pray rather seeking payment for medical care.

They might even consent to offer priest, minister, or rabbi services if needed depending on what plan you had. They’d have clever marketing slogans, We Pray so you Don’t Pay. Prayer it’s not just for Sports Teams Anymore. A Prayer a Day Keeps the Doctor Away. Pray and the Pain goes away.

Ms. Fulnecky is free to hold any belief she likes, but her belief is not evidence. However, if she argued her point, contending that it is, she must expect this contention to be challenged.

This story, which began as just a local disagreement between a student and a teacher, took on national prominence with the entrance of Ryan Walters, former Superintendent of the Oklahoma School System, famous for insisting on posting the Ten Commandments in schools and imposing other Christian doctrines on the academic environment.

He thankfully resigned and now works for the Teacher Freedom Alliance (https://www.teacherfreedomalliance.com/). This group opposes teachers’ unions and touts itself as dedicated to developing “Free, Moral, and Upright Americans.”

He also sought the assistance of Turning Point America, which published a post on X (racking up, according to them, 47 million views) claiming one of the instructors was transgender, as if that in and of itself were sufficient grounds to remove this individual from teaching.

Free, moral, and upright indeed. Let’s hope Mr. Ryan never becomes a CEO of a major medical insurance company or, in light of some of the other unusual Cabinet appointments, the Director of the CDC or HHS.

The case also led to two instructors being placed on leave and one being removed from teaching when the conservative-majority legislature threatened to cut funding for the school.

All because a student, so mesmerized by religious faith, chose to ignore the plain language of the assignment, offered her religious doctrine as evidence, then was surprised and “persecuted” when the instructor pointed out the lack of evidence, the failure to follow the instructions, and graded the paper appropriately.

No one demanded the student renounce her beliefs. No one burned her at the stake. No one excommunicated her from the school. No one made her wear a scarlet letter.

She got a poor grade because she deserved it.

She was certainly free to submit evidence to support her contention. She had access to the library’s academic literature on gender and to online sources. She chose to argue on religious grounds in an educational environment where challenging the validity of any contention is integral to the process.

It was never about seeking the truth when Walters and Turning Point got involved; it was about demanding their faith be accepted on face value and threatening those who would challenge it.

The faithful opposes the disease of curiosity and resist the squandering of ignorance. They do not seek acceptance, they seek unquestioning surrender to their form of faith and seek to eliminate others.

Any resistance is seen as persecution.

Nothing could be more dangerous to education than blind acceptance of any statement or contention. That is not teaching; it is indoctrination. Religions indoctrinate the young and try to suppress any questioning of the faith, usually by instilling fear of everlasting punishment in the afterlife.

Education teaches people to challenge and question everything. It encourages curiosity, provides skills to examine the factual basis of things, and teaches people to see the value of evidence and proof.

This is an anathema to religions.

I bet the language the organizations supporting Ms. Fulnecky find most offensive (or recognize as most problematic) was the “expectation of empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning,” knowing full well that it is an impossibility concerning religious doctrines.

One can be admired for holding sincere beliefs in their faith. The truly sincere realize some aspects of faith are not subject to academic inquiry. They accept this and do not demand this doctrine be accepted as anything else but a belief absent evidence. This country offers protection for engaging in such practices and protection from these practices being imposed on others.

“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” – Matthew 6:6

Satire is an Underappreciated Art

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

I published a tongue-in-cheek piece about the December 25th celebration of the birthday of a great human with an enormous impact on society (Sir Isaac Newton) and was met by the exact response I expected. https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2025/12/24/for-unto-you-is-born-a-savior/

Many were quick to point out the Newton was a Christian or that his birthday is more commonly recognized as January 6, 1643. The discrepancy stems from the use (at the time) of the Julian Calendar which had the birthdate as December 25, 1642.

Which, of course, is a key element of the satirical nature. I’d never mentioned anyone else, but Christians seem to be fixated on a perception of persecution. This contention, in a majority Christian country like the United States, is a bit of a stretch.

The hyper-religious responded with the usual avalanche of biblical tracts and outrage. Why, you might ask? I have no idea. Because, even if we agree to the calendar change, on December 25, 0000, I am certain Jesus was not the only birth worldwide nor the only consequential one. Nor is there any consensus on that date except it conveniently co-opted a much older Pagan celebration. And we know how the church does not like competition.

When this was all shouted at me with the vigorous use of all capital letters and the usual accusation of my being a disciple of Satan, mixed in, I will admit, with the good intentions of praying for my soul that I may see the light and come to Jesus, I said I would stick with Newton and Galileo.

This caused another round of claims that Newton AND Galileo were Christian. When I pointed out the rather threatening treatment of Galileo by the Church, i.e., house arrest and forced recantation at the threat of immolation, I was sent a slew of “authoritative” postings about the “myth” of Galileo’s treatment by the Church.

This consisted of claims that; it wasn’t so bad, his house arrest was benign, many in the church agreed with him but the bureaucracy was responsible, as if that would have somehow cooled the flames. Then, I pointed out, there is Giordano Bruno who was not afforded the “luxury” of house arrest but was put to the flame.

This is a fine example of history being interpreted by those with an agenda. And these differences arise regarding events from just a few hundred years ago for which we have fairly substantial records. Yet, they express no concern about the accuracy of their claims regarding events two thousand years ago for which we have few contemporaneous records.

What these sincere but misled individuals fail to see is their argument supports my contention. The Bible is not the inerrant word of God, but the sometimes inspirational and beautiful, sometimes banal and pedestrian, yet more often horrific words of men trying to understand a complex world, give meaning to their short, violent, and plague-filled lives, and, more troubling, exert control over the lives of others masked by the claim of doing God’s work.

The Church first resists with deadly vigor any challenges to doctrine, be it heliocentrism, genetics, or evolution. Then, after the evidence becomes overwhelming, it attempts to rewrite history with claims that Galileo was punished for his attitude toward the church and his house arrest was evidence of the church’s true goal and good intention.

Then, back to the parables and passages to reinterpret them as supporting the science all along.

Galileo, Newton, and many of the most influential pioneers of science were Christian at a time when not to be was fraught with both economic and physical challenges. It is also true that many within the Church understood the Biblical explanations were merely placeholders until discoveries based on evidence came along.

Before we understood geology and plate tectonics, a 6,000 year old earth sounded ancient.

Before we understood planetary mechanics, we believed our eyes and the sun rose in the east and set in the west.

Before we understood the symptoms and pathways of epilepsy, demonic possession made sense.

Before we turned the first telescopes on the “heavens,” we believed our planet to be unique in the universe.

Whether or not Newton was born on December 25, 1642 or January 6, 1643 is irrelevant. Whether he proclaimed himself a Christian at the time is also irrelevant. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica changed the world in ways even more startling than the legend of a savior born centuries beforehand whose story was manipulated by those with an agenda to make it fit prophecies affirming their particular faith.

Next year, let’s celebrate the Dec. 25th birthday of Carlos Castenada, a writer of extraordinary mystical literature. Surely that won’t offend anyone.